Oral Answers to Questions

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

1. If she will produce an impact assessment for the proposed remote betting and gaming duty on the British horseracing industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

The Secretary of State is in Japan for the world expo conference in Osaka, strengthening UK-Japan relations. I know that she has written to you, Mr Speaker, to explain her absence.

The Government recognise the significant contribution that horseracing makes to the British economy. In that spirit, I pay tribute to Rachael Blackmore. She has had a fantastic impact on the sport and has enjoyed enormous success, and I wish her well with her retirement. His Majesty’s Treasury leads on the consultation on the tax treatment of remote gambling. The consultation is open till 21 July, and any impact assessment of any legislative changes will be a matter for that Department.

[Nick Timothy]

The racing industry is getting a bit tired of the warm words and lack of action. At the last oral questions, the Secretary of State said that

“we need to treat different forms of gambling differently”,—[Official Report, 3 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 412.]

but the Government have since proposed a flat tax on all online gambling, which fails to distinguish between betting on sports like horseracing, which is limited by the number of races and requires knowledge and thought, and online casinos and gaming. However, problem rates for bets on racing are about the same as for lottery scratchcards. Will the Minister commit here and now to making sure that betting on sports like racing is not treated the same as betting on online casinos and gaming?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am a big supporter of racing, and I appreciate how many jobs it contributes to the economy—according to the British Horseracing Authority, it is 85,000. I know that racing is really important to rural areas and towns. Of course, the consultation to which he refers is a Treasury lead. It is open till 21 July, but I will reflect his comments to the Treasury.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Doncaster racecourse is the jewel in my city’s crown, and is home to the iconic St Leger festival. Following on from the question from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), can the Minister confirm that she will continue dialogue with the Treasury on the proposed flat rate of tax, recognising that horseracing—which, as she says, brings 85,000 jobs to the country nationally, and is the second largest spectator sport in the UK—is very different from online casinos and games of chance?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I absolutely will reflect those comments to the Treasury. I have had many a fun time at the St Leger, which is just down the road from me in Barnsley, and I would be delighted to visit again, if I can.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to help incentivise film production in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to support the provision of grassroots sports facilities in Cannock Chase constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

The Government know the value of grassroots sports facilities to communities, and the role that they play in getting people active. Sport England invests over £250 million of lottery and Government funding each year in the communities that need it most.

[Josh Newbury]

I very much welcome the Minister’s response. Through the park tennis project, Cannock Chase has benefited from £215,000 of investment from the Government and the LTA Tennis Foundation to revive tennis courts in four of our parks, but the notorious British weather remains a barrier to participation, and many in my towns and villages lack access to covered tennis and padel facilities. With the park tennis project coming to an end, will the Minister consider funding the development of more covered courts to allow my constituents to enjoy tennis, whatever the weather?

[Stephanie Peacock]

This Government want to ensure that everyone from all walks of life can get active in any way that works for them, come rain or shine. I therefore welcome the Lawn Tennis Association’s strategic ambition to grow tennis and padel by making it accessible, welcoming, enjoyable and inspiring, but all future decisions on sports facilities will be considered in the spending review.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I simply do not recognise the shadow Minister’s comments, and I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives on facilities, given that they oversaw a decade of council cuts that left many of our sport and leisure facilities in desperate need of renovation.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

4. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the cultural co-operation agreement between the UK and India on economic growth in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to help increase the number of covered tennis courts in Hartlepool constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I am a huge supporter of tennis and the vital role that it plays in getting people active. I enjoyed a fantastic trip to the National Tennis Centre in November, and had the pleasure of meeting staff at the LTA. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone, regardless of background, has access to and can benefit from quality sport and physical activity opportunities.

[Mr Brash]

Hartlepool is home to a number of thriving tennis clubs, including Hartlepool lawn tennis club. Founded in 1884, it is one of the oldest active tennis clubs in the world. Despite that history, we do not have access to covered tennis courts, which means that poor weather—common in Hartlepool—often disrupts participation, particularly for those with a disability or a long-term health condition. Earlier this week, top British tennis players called on the UK Government to invest in a new national network of covered tennis courts, and I want one for Hartlepool. Will the Minister consider their request, so that every community can take part in tennis, come rain or shine?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his constituency, and it is great to see the passion of the leading players. I wish them all success in their upcoming events, and I am personally very excited to see the return of women’s tennis to Queen’s—the Queen’s Club championships—after 50 years. All future decisions on facilities will, of course, be considered in the spending review, but I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Together with the LTA, the previous Conservative Government invested £30 million in park tennis courts—2,500 of them all over the country, including in and around Hartlepool. That is to the benefit of local communities, so why are this Government not continuing that investment?

[Stephanie Peacock]

As I said, all future decisions are for the spending review. We are a very big supporter of the LTA’s work and are really pleased to see it, and would be happy to meet LTA to discuss it.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

6. What progress her Department has made on removing barriers for UK artists seeking to tour in the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

7. What discussions she has had with the Premier League on the distribution of funding to lower league football clubs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

The Government recognise the importance of distribution to the health of English football, and have engaged extensively with football authorities, including the Premier League, to encourage industry to come to an agreement that works for the football pyramid. If industry is not able to solve the issue, we, of course, have the Football Governance Bill, which gives the independent football regulator the power to ensure that such an agreement is made.

[Carolyn Harris]

English Football League clubs like my local team, Swansea City, are struggling. In fact, according to the accounts for EFL championship clubs covering the season ending May 2024, all but four clubs were making a loss, with an average loss of £17.5 million for the period. What more can we do to speed up a deal between the Premier League and lower-league clubs to ensure that funds are fairly distributed, and to help so many local teams survive?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Continued delays to a potential new distribution deal serve no one, and we understand the uncertainty and instability that they can cause many clubs, including Swansea City. We are backing the football regulator, which is what I encourage Members to do. The Government are keeping our manifesto commitment.

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

Last week, I met Nick from Cheadle and Gatley football club, a fantastic organisation that works to help youth football, in particular, in the area. The club is struggling, particularly with energy prices, which are impacting a huge amount of grassroots football across the country. What more can the Government do to get the Premier League and the larger clubs to support lower-league and grassroots clubs, in particular with energy prices?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I know from my constituency the huge benefit that grassroots club bring. Of course, the Premier League sends a huge amount of money down through the pyramid. We are introducing the football regulator, which will be able to help secure a deal if a voluntary deal cannot be reached; we also have the Football Foundation, which works with the Premier League to put money into grassroots football. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter further.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly support the Football Governance Bill, which is about to begin its Committee stage in this place. It is crucial that we support football at all levels of the football pyramid. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that an adequate number of 3G and 4G pitches are available in areas like my constituency?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend is a strong champion for her area, and I have met her to talk about grassroots facilities in Dudley. We are working with the Football Foundation to ensure that we invest up and down the country in our grassroots facilities.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Can the Minister give assurances to football fans in my constituency that with the burdens of the Employment Rights Bill, the hike in national insurance contributions and the introduction of yet another regulator, there will not be a hike in ticket prices?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I simply do not recognise the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government are committed to our manifesto commitment. The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism reminds me that it is a year since the general election; prior to that, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) and I were on the previous Football Governance Bill Committee, where we spent many hours together. This Government have strengthened that Bill, and fans will now be consulted on ticket pricing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

The nominee for the chair of the football regulator continues to raise serious questions. During the Select Committee hearing, it was revealed that the candidate had donated to both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister’s leadership campaigns, something I do not recall being declared on Second Reading. The Secretary of State has now, rightly, been forced to recuse herself from the process. Given that it is likely that there will be a prime ministerial interest in the appointee, will the Prime Minister do the same?

[Stephanie Peacock]

There is no suggestion of wrong- doing. Indeed, David Kogan was approached under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government for the role. We have full confidence in him; he was endorsed by the cross-party Select Committee.

[Stuart Andrew]

May I gently point out that the gentleman in question was approached not by me or by any other Minister, but by the permanent secretary who is not a political appointee. I know that the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism has been on a long audition for the role of Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, so his comments on the rumours about the abolition of the Department are reassuring. However, I gently point out that most of these briefings seem to be coming from No.10, so will the Secretary of State speak to people in No.10 to reassure all of those sectors that this Department will remain for the years ahead?

[Stephanie Peacock]

David Kogan was appointed to the board of Channel 4 under the previous Conservative Government. He has been welcomed across this House and across the media and footballing world. My hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism has dismissed those rumours. Let us not believe everything that we read in the papers.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

8. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the provision of sporting facilities in areas of housing growth.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

Access to places and spaces to be physically active, including in high-quality sports facilities, is vital for all local communities across the country. That is why we are investing £100 million via the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme to provide access to high-quality facilities and support more players getting on to the pitch wherever they live.

[Olly Glover]

In my Oxfordshire constituency, local authorities want to support the provision of major leisure facilities for our growing population, including in the new estates in north-east Didcot, Valley Park and Wantage Kingsgrove. However, they have not found it possible to secure enough funding from developers via section 106 agreements. Will the Minister meet me to discuss a more strategic approach to leisure provision to help us create healthier and happier communities?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Leisure facilities are vital to getting people active, and I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

In my hometown of Atherstone, the leisure centre and swimming pool is beyond its useful life. That is the case for more than 50% of swimming facilities up and down this country. When we talk about building new homes, we need to make sure that we are building accessible communities with facilities for people to enjoy sports. As we look forward to a fantastic summer of tennis, I would also like to put in a plea for covered tennis facilities, because half of the time it is raining, and people cannot play tennis in the rain.

[Stephanie Peacock]

We have had some very cheery messages about tennis. The Lawn Tennis Association has done a very good job ahead of these questions.

We are committed to building 1.5 million new homes, but we want to make sure that they are communities. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, and I would be delighted to discuss it further with her.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to support the growth of creative industries in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

T8. As this Labour Government deliver a national youth strategy and open a network of Young Futures hubs, what assurances will the Minister give that the Department will learn from the best practice of charities such as the Thirst Youth Café and FUTUREhope in my constituency? Will she join me to meet them and find out more about how they deliver for young people in Hertford and Stortford?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

The Government value youth services and we know the vital role they can play in young people’s lives. I have had a number of cross-Government meetings on this issue in the last few weeks. We continue to work on our national youth strategy, and if my diary allows, I will be delighted to visit.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I will enter the great parliamentary ice cream competition and say that Cheshire, of course, does the best ice cream.

Given the huge riches in the Premier League, should there not be a greater expectation that more money flows down into grassroots football and non-league clubs such as Knutsford FC and Witton Albion in my constituency, which work unbelievably hard just to stay afloat? I say that especially as so many Premier League footballers live just up the road from the two clubs.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is not for Government to decide that, but I know from my own experience that grassroots clubs play a huge role in communities. The Premier League contributes a lot. It is up to the Premier League to decide how much money it puts down the pyramid.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The issue of copyright and creatives is big in the news because of artificial intelligence, but it has also been a long-running issue and it is good that the spotlight is on it. Will the Minister look into a levy on IT equipment, so that people who provide their creative material on that receive some effective royalties, as happens under the book lending scheme? This is an early idea, but if he starts talking about it now in government, we might get some success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

There has been rapid expansion of new homes in my constituency. However, the development of sports facilities in areas such as Ashby-de-la-Zouch are not keeping pace, and in Hugglescote we see a fight to save the rec. How will the Minister ensure that when new homes are created, we protect and develop new sports facilities in parks for local people?

[Stephanie Peacock]

This Government are committed to grassroots sport. That is why we have invested over £100 million this year. However, I will reflect my hon. Friend’s comments in discussions with the relevant Department.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Billinghay swimming pool in my constituency is a much-cherished local facility, which has sadly fallen into disrepair and been unable to open for the community this year. A very good local group is trying to raise funds to restore it. What can the Minister do to help?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Local authorities suffered huge cuts under the previous Government, and that is why many swimming pools have fallen into disrepair. I will look into the issue for the hon. Lady. I also understand that there is a Westminster Hall debate on a similar subject the first week back after recess.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

The bands I played in never quite got to a European tour—[Interruption.] Artists tell me how much they and their teams have suffered in the disastrous post-Brexit landscape for touring artists. We have the best bands and artists in the world and they bring huge joy to us here. They want to share the love abroad and in so doing bring a lot of money to the UK economy. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he is acting with haste? As Shakespeare said,

All the world’s a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances.

Let us open more doors for them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Broadband access is essential to UK competitiveness, yet Ofcom has revealed that just 220,000 of the 8 million households struggling to pay their internet bill have signed up to a discounted broadband package. When will the Government match Labour’s commitment to ensure that there is an industry-wide, mandatory and well-advertised social tariff for low-income families?

[Paul Scully]

There has been a fourfold increase in people taking up social tariffs, but we know we have to do more to help people with the cost of living. That is why we lent in to the carriers in the first place and encouraged the introduction of social tariffs, but we will do more. We will work with the carriers to make sure that those tariffs get advertised well, so we can get better take-up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Do tell the BBC how wonderful Radio Lancashire is. I call the shadow Minister.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

The BBC’s cuts to local radio services will be a great loss to communities. I know the immense benefit that Radio Sheffield brings to my area. The BBC’s plans to redirect this resource into online local news may place the BBC in direct competition with existing local news sites. Can I press the Minister again on what she is doing to discuss the impact of these cuts with the BBC? What steps are being taken to support local journalism outlets and their employees?

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about the impact of the BBC, and the care that it needs to take in relation to the impact that it can have on commercial services. We do not want the support that the BBC gets from the licence fee to be seen as something that crowds out market competition. We will consider that in the mid-term review. I thank her for her comments

Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I would like to add my best wishes to the Minister and the Secretary of State on their imminent arrivals.

We are in the midst of a tech revolution, and right at the centre of this is data. From social media and online shopping to the digitisation of public services, the rate at which data is being collected, processed and shared is multiplying by the minute. This new wealth of data holds great potential for innovation, boosting economic growth and improving the delivery of public services. The aims of the Bill to unlock the economic and societal benefits of data while ensuring strong, future-proofed privacy rights are therefore ones that we support. We welcome, for example, provisions to modernise the ICO structure, and we support provisions for the new smart data regimes, so long as there are clear requirements for impact assessments.

However, the Bill in its current form does not go far enough in actually achieving its aims. Its narrow approach and lack of clarity render it a missed opportunity to implement a truly innovative and progressive data regime. Indeed, in its current form many clarifications will be needed to reassure the public that their rights will not be weakened by the Bill while sweeping powers are awarded to the Secretary of State. Currently, solely automated processing is defined by the Bill as one having “no meaningful human involvement” that results in a “significant decision”, with the Secretary of State trusted with powers to amend what counts within this definition. The lack of detail on the boundaries of such definitions as well as their ability to change over time have concerned the likes of the Ada Lovelace Institute and the TUC.

The Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), outlined in his powerful speech the power imbalance between big tech and the people, which is an important insight and a challenge for us in this House. Indeed, just this month Uber was found to have violated the rights of three UK-based drivers by firing them without appeal on the basis of fraudulent activity picked up by its automated decision-making system. In its judgment, the court found that the limited human intervention in Uber’s automated decision process was not

“much more than a purely symbolic act”.

This case and the justice the drivers received therefore explicitly relied on current legislation in the form of article 22 of the UK GDPR, and a clear understanding of what constitutes meaningful human involvement. Without providing clear boundaries for defining significant decisions and meaningful human involvement, this Bill therefore risks removing the exact rights that won this case and creating an environment where vital safeguards, such as the right to contest automated decisions and request human intervention, could easily become exempt from applying at the whim of the Secretary of State. This must be resolved, and the public must be reassured that they will not be denied a job, mortgage or visa by an algorithm without a method of redress.

There is also a lack of clarity around how rules allowing organisations to charge a fee or refuse subject access requests deemed “vexatious” and “excessive” will work, as the likes of Which? and the Public Law Project have argued and which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) highlighted. Indeed, if the list of circumstances where these terms might be met is non-exhaustive, what safeguards will be in place to stop controllers from abusing this, deciding that any request they dislike is vexatious? Organisations should absolutely be supported in directing resources to good faith requests, but we must be careful to ensure that any new limits are protected against abuse.

Reform of the responsibilities of the Information Commissioner’s Office is another area in need of analysis. Indeed, more than evolving its structure, the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to set the strategic priorities of the regulator and approve codes of practice. This has sparked concern across the spectrum of stakeholders, from the Open Rights Group to techUK, over what it means for the regulator’s independence. Given these new powers, particularly in cases where guidance addresses the activity of the Government, how can Ministers assure us that a Secretary of State will not be marking their own homework?

Whether it is the Secretary of State being able to amend the “recognised legitimate interests” list or the removal of the requirement for consultation on impact assessment, this same theme is echoed throughout the Bill, which was raised by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). Without additional guidance and clear examples of how definitions apply, it is hard to grasp the full extent of the consequences of these new measures, especially given the sweeping powers of the Secretary of State to make further changes. We will look to ensure that this clarity is included in the Bill, so that everyone can be assured of their rights and of a truly independent regulator. We must also ensure that children are protected by the Bill and that the age-appropriate design code is not compromised, as raised by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and others across the House.

Clarity on the new regime is also vital for reassuring businesses who still have fears around losing EU adequacy, something raised throughout this debate and which the former Secretary of State the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) outlined in his contribution. The Government have said that they recognise that losing adequacy would be disastrous, costing up to £460 million as a one-off and £410 million every year afterwards. Ministers have rightly rowed back on many of the more concerning suggestions from their consultation, but they must be absolutely clear on how they are sure that the measures in the Bill, particularly those that toy with the regulator’s independence and give Ministers power to create further change, will not threaten adequacy.

Having already made significant adjustments to comply with UK GDPR, the changes in the Bill must also be careful not to create further uncertainty for businesses. Indeed, although Ministers say that anyone who abides by the current rules will still be compliant after the passing of the Bill, organisations will still have to do their own legal due diligence to understand how, if at all, this set of amendments impacts them. It would therefore be good to hear from Ministers on how they plan to ensure that businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, are supported in understanding the requirements on them.

We understand the Government’s attempts to future-proof this legislation, and it would be great to see an end to constant cookie banners or nuisance calls, which the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) referenced, but the measures in the Bill rely on technology that does not currently operationally exist. In the case of browser-enabled cookie models, there is also the concern that this may entrench power in the hands of existing tech giants and muddy the waters on liability. We must be careful, therefore, to ensure that businesses can actually implement what the Bill requires.

Ultimately, with the exception of the section on smart data, this Bill chooses to take a very narrow view of what an innovative data regime could look like. In the context of a rapidly changing world, this Bill was a great opportunity to really consider how we can get data working in better interests, like those of the general public or small businesses. Labour would have used a Bill like this to, for example, examine how data can empower communities and collective groups such as workers in industries who have long felt that they have been on the wrong end of automated decision-making as well as the automation of jobs.

We would also have sought to improve public trust and understanding in how our data is used, particularly since the willingness to share data has been eroded after the likes of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the NHS data opt-out, and the exam algorithm scandal, which disproportionately affected my constituents in Barnsley. As it stands, however, the Bill seems only to consider data rights when they emerge as a side product of making changes to rules for processors. Data rights and data protection have wide-ranging consequences across society, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) discussed. Labour would have used this as an opportunity to look at the larger picture of data ownership. Deregulation measures such as those in the Bill might mean less work for some small businesses, but as long as a disproportionate amount of data is held by a limited number of firms, they will still be at a large competitive disadvantage. From introducing methods of collective redress to nurturing privacy-enhancing technologies, there are many positive opportunities a progressive data Bill could have explored to put our country at the forefront of innovation while genuinely strengthening rights and trust for the modern era, but the Government have missed this opportunity.

Overall, we can all agree on unlocking innovation through data while ensuring data subjects have the rights and trust they fundamentally deserve. However, there are many areas for clarity and improvement if this Bill is to match the bold vision required to truly be at the forefront of data use and data protection. I look forward to working closely with Ministers in the coming months towards legislation that better fulfils these aims.

London Zoo Lease

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on leading and securing the debate, and it is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Opposition.

As we have heard today, London Zoo is a treasured British attraction. It plays a vital role in drawing tourists to London and contributes to both the local economy and the country more widely. It also does vital work on wildlife conservation, educates school groups and young people, and provides heavily discounted tickets for those on lower incomes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) outlined as the local MP. Given that it has been through such a difficult time with the pandemic, and now with the challenges of the cost of living crisis, we want to support London Zoo to thrive, along with the other attractions up and down the country that help make up Britain’s unique tourist offer.

London Zoo is the world’s oldest scientific zoo. It hosts 1 million visitors every year and was the UK’s seventh most popular paid-entry tourism attraction in 2021. It contributes more than £24 million a year to the local economy, and its annual visitors include over 80,000 schoolchildren, who participate in lessons and workshops. Through the zoo’s community access scheme, more than 100,000 visitors on low-income support and other benefits have been able to visit the zoo each year for just £3.

In 2021-22, London Zoo’s parent charity, the Zoological Society of London, spent £17.4 million on conservation science and field conservation programmes. It also spent £38.5 million on caring for animals in conservation zoos. More than 100 of the species cared for at London Zoo are endangered, and the zoo plays an active role in breeding programmes for those species to try to make their populations viable for the future. Between the ZSL and Whipsnade Zoo, 16 extinct-in-the-wild species are being cared for, so London Zoo carries out really important work, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) spoke about.

London Zoo is important in its own right and essential to the UK’s visitor economy. Today’s debate is on the specific matter of the zoo’s lease, which is governed by the Crown Estate Act 1961. Under the current law, London Zoo’s lease is capped at a maximum of 60 years. Although that might have been appropriate when ZSL was founded in 1826, 60 years is no longer suitable when it comes to tackling the long-term, complex challenges facing wildlife. The zoo says the lease limits its ability to fundraise, to create new partnerships to expand its support programmes for the community and to invest the funds required to retrofit and regenerate the London Zoo site. The zoo is home to many listed and historic buildings, which are no longer fit for purpose as animal houses and in need of maintenance and restoration. A longer lease will help the zoo give those buildings a new lease of life and make them environmentally sustainable, preserving its unique heritage.

The zoo seeks an amendment to the Crown Estate Act, which would extend its lease to a maximum of 150 years, in line with other lease agreements regulated under the Act and the Crown Estate’s lease for equivalent organisations, such as Kew Gardens. It is a common-sense change that would improve the zoo’s capacity to bring in investment and carry on its important work. Zoos are still recovering from periods of closure and restrictions during the pandemic, when they continued expertly caring for animals while closed to the public. They also have to deal with pressures of massive increases to energy bills, staff costs, food for the animals and other inflationary price rises through the supply chain, plus the impact of the cost of living crisis on households’ ability to afford tickets to attractions such as the zoo. It therefore makes sense to give zoos all the help we can.

The lease change would be at no extra cost to the public purse but would make a real difference to London Zoo. I understand that the hon. Member for Harrow East has tabled a private Member’s Bill aiming to make that change, which is due to have its Second Reading next week. Does the Minister intend to support it and make time for its passage through the House? If not, will they find another way to make the necessary legislative amendment to London Zoo’s lease, extending it to 150 years? We think this is a reasonable ask and look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

It is now over six weeks since it was revealed that the chairman of the BBC helped the former Prime Minister to secure an £800,000 loan before he was selected for the job. Today he remains in post. What immediate steps has the Secretary of State taken to restore trust in the independence of the BBC, in the appointment system and in the Government?

[Lucy Frazer]

As the hon. Member will know, there is an investigation by the commissioner for employment. It is ongoing and I am awaiting the outcome.