Supporting the UK’s Social Fabric

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak about tomorrow’s publication from the think-tank Onward entitled “The Policies of Belonging”, which is part of its “Repairing our social fabric” programme. To avoid any confusion, I am well aware that Onward seeks to develop new ideas for the next generation of centre-right thinkers and leaders. Clearly, that does not include me—at least I hope it does not—and I might therefore be expected to use my time to attack the report and suggest it is part of a right-wing plot to dismantle the social fabric and ensure there is no such thing as society. On the contrary, I am here to welcome this piece of work and to congratulate the project’s supporting partners, which include the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Power to Change and Shelter. This work could well provide the basis for a new cross-party conversation about how we rebuild the social character of the country as we emerge from the pandemic.

It is in that spirit of across-the-aisle co-operation that I have given half my time in this short debate to the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger). The paper he produced last September proposing a new social covenant and tomorrow’s report are thoughtful contributions on how we rebuild our country in the tough years that lie ahead. They both deserve a wide audience across all parties. However, the danger is that we relegate such thinking in preference to economic policy. This remains an historic tendency in both of our political traditions, despite what we know about how people wish to live and what they value, which stretches beyond questions of GDP, utility and economic calculus.

Last year, Onward introduced its UK social fabric index, which measures the relative social strength of every community in Britain, a significant new metric for politicians and public policy makers alike. Its covid-19 community report highlighted resilient local responses to the pandemic over the past 10 months, yet also detailed the limited opportunities for communities to genuinely take back control. The overall argument is quite simple but telling: the social divides that bedevil our country are just as strong as the economic divides. Talk of levelling up, therefore, needs to encompass social as well as economic policy.

A desire to level up communities is not new. It has informed, among others, the community development projects of Harold Wilson, the single regeneration budgets of John Major, and Tony Blair’s new deal for communities. Yet none of those has unlocked the way we level up communities, not least, arguably, because of an overreliance on economic issues. In truth, politicians tend to gravitate towards grant funding issues, job creation schemes and physical infrastructure to foster community. We are most comfortable with that agenda. A more sustainable proposal would be to empower communities to respond themselves and endow them with the resources to do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing the debate. I very much agree with what he says. Doe he agree that the charitable sector is a foundational partner in the make-up of the UK and that churches and community groups need help at this time to set up online and effective ways of carrying on their sterling work? While it is great to see some churches running online youth quizzes, for example, for others the technology is simply out of their reach, and they need help to purchase and use it. Does he agree that we should be encouraging churches and community groups to be more involved? Perhaps the Minister can ensure that that happens.

[Jon Cruddas]

I very much agree, and that is the tenor of much of the report being published tomorrow morning, so I urge the hon. Member to read it. The charitable sector and faith groups have been on the frontline of confronting the pandemic in my community, and I will comment on that in a minute.

All the evidence suggests that citizens want the power and responsibility to revive their communities, so how can that be achieved? The report suggests, first, giving individuals the power to repair their social fabric through civic sabbaticals, youth-serving years, character education and new permanent volunteer schemes; secondly, giving individuals the capital to do so through new tax changes to support individual activities, reform of precarious housing, funds to support new civic leadership and adapting the apprenticeship levy; thirdly, giving communities the power to repair their social fabric with community improvement districts, new community councils, business rate exemptions and the reuse of empty buildings and shops; and fourthly, giving communities the capital to do so, controlled by the community themselves, with new social infrastructure funds, higher education reforms, community land trusts and charitable enterprise zones. The 17 specific policy recommendations are well worth a read tomorrow.

This year could well shape a new cross-party dialogue about rebuilding our communities. As the MP for Dagenham, I feel that 2021 is an important year to have such a debate, as it marks our centenary. Modern Dagenham was literally built or born on 7 November 1921, when the first house on the Becontree estate was completed. Some 27,000 homes containing over 100,000 residents would follow, spread over 2,700 acres or 4 square miles, building the largest council estate in the world—a unique experiment: a state-led cottage community built from nothing. It was Lloyd George making good on his promise made immediately after the armistice to build

“habitations for the heroes who have won the war”.

The first migrants felt like pioneers, moving from east end slums into a muddy and empty wilderness, but a resilient community was created. Indeed, by the 1950s and ’60s, analysts from the Institute of Community Studies—now the Young Foundation—regularly used the estate to extol the virtues of settled extended working-class families, yet the twin effects of deindustrialisation and the right to buy dismantled a once stable community. We became, and still are, the fastest-changing community in the country, driven by the cheapest housing in London.

Today, in our centenary year, we are seeking to forge new partnerships to re-establish that sense of community, and we are having some success. Traditionally, the community sector has been weak, but the council has recently worked to change its structures and culture and to work with and support the community in new ways that are more participatory and less paternalistic. Local services have been made less siloed and more friendly and integrated through an initiative labelled “community solutions”. We have invested in London’s first youth zone. BD_Collective has been formed, which is an independent platform for local civil society that now provides the borough’s infrastructure support in terms of civic and social support. We have Participatory City, a £7 million five-year experiment launched in 2017 to foster new forms of community activity. With four shop fronts and a large warehouse, it delivers scores of new community projects among a growing network of over 5,000 local people. We also have Collaborate, supported by Lankelly Chase, which helps to guide the local community on place-based change.

When the pandemic struck, all this came together in an alliance of council, voluntary and faith organisations organised through nine local community hubs, labelled the Barking and Dagenham Citizens Alliance Network, to help the most vulnerable. Approaching 6,000 families have been helped with food, medicines, prescriptions, referrals and advice. Just days ago, it was announced that borough community organisations are set to benefit from a new endowment fund transferred by the council to a place-based charity called Barking and Dagenham Giving—the first authority in London to permanently endow such a fund in support of local community groups—with an additional investment of over £800,000, to be topped up annually.

In Dagenham’s centenary year, major new initiatives are helping to rebuild our social fabric, but the Government need to do more to help us. The social fabric of Britain frayed after years of neglect. The ties that bind us together are in urgent need of repair. The best way to honour our collective sacrifice over the past 10 months would be to endow communities with the resources to foster a more civic culture. The agenda published tomorrow by Onward to repair our social fabric is a major step in that regard. As we enter—hopefully—our final lockdown, we should resolve to repair the social fabric on which we all rely. There would be no better monument to the hardship and heartache of the past year. I now give some time for the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger).

National Trust: 125th Anniversary

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the National Trust endeavours to work with all stakeholders, who hold a variety of opinions, as we do in balancing the opinions of our constituents. I appreciate the comments that he made earlier praising the National Trust, as well as, quite fairly and reasonably, expressing concerns about its practices.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that I have allowed a lot of interventions. The Father of the House arrived one minute late for the debate, so I have given him the benefit of the doubt. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was here at the beginning of the debate. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) arrived a minute and a half late. The hon. Gentleman came in 10 minutes after the beginning of the debate, so I do not really think he should be intervening, unless it is really serious for his constituency. I think he should do the decent thing and not intervene, when he came in 10 minutes after the beginning.

Gambling and Lotteries

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Casinos form an important part of the attractions. They are why many people come into the country, and they are important for in-bound tourism. I understand exactly what she is saying. Casinos play an important part, and the whole point of the review is to ensure a legitimate gambling industry that is on a sound footing for future growth. I look forward to working with the casino sector to ensure that that happens.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement about the review of the gambling industry, and I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her leadership on the all-party group. Time is of the essence, so will the Minister assure the House that reform will happen quickly? Will reform happen outside the formal review, for example on loot boxes and the video games that others have referred to? Could such reforms be implemented with a faster time frame?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Northern Ireland regulation on gambling is separate from that of Great Britain. He raises an important point, and we will work with the devolved Administrations. Loot boxes fall under a separate review. The call for evidence has just ended, and we wish to consider the feedback from that as soon as possible. The other aspects that he raised will form part of that review. We completely understand the need for action, and as I said in my statement, we have taken action where necessary, with legislative and non-legislative measures from loot boxes to changing the rules on credit card use, as well as today’s announcement on the national lottery. We are willing and able to move quickly.

Coronation Street: 60th Anniversary

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

What an enormous pleasure it is to be able to discuss the much-loved British institution of “Coronation Street”, as it reaches the grand old age of 60 and is still going strong. Our constituents have gone through so much in these last few months, and it is nice to be in this place to discuss something upbeat and positive. Reaching its diamond anniversary is a phenomenal achievement, especially as it remains so incredibly popular, attracting an average audience of—can you believe that it is more than that of the Parliament channel?—7 million viewers for each show.

First screened on 9 December 1960, “Corrie” was part of a new realism that was sweeping through the theatre, with “Look Back in Anger”, James Dean, Brando, and kitchen-sink dramas. Hardly anyone had a colour telly—remember that?—and there was no such thing as a remote. There were certainly no streaming channels, and we turned the telly off at 11 and went to bed. Created by scriptwriter Tony Warren, “Coronation Street” did not have a straightforward beginning, and was originally rejected by Granada television before being commissioned to run for 13 episodes. It was a slow burn, with Daily Mirror columnist, Ken Irwin, saying that it would “only last three weeks.” Earlier this year its 10,000th episode was broadcast, and in 2010, it became the longest running television soap opera in the world, earning a place in the “Guinness Book of Records.”

Set in the fictional working-class Weatherfield in Salford, “Coronation Street” has never disguised its roots. It is warm and authentic, at times laugh-out-loud funny, and at other times deeply affecting. From the very beginning, the northern dialect was used. I do not know if any hon. Members are old enough to remember those early episodes, with a young man by the name of Ken Barlow achieving a university place and finding himself embarrassed about his working-class upbringing. As a proud northerner, that is not something I have ever felt, and I am proud that this show, which is as much a part of British culture as a nice cuppa, a fish ’n’ chip supper, or sitting down to the Queen’s speech on Christmas day, is played out in a working-class community in the north.

In among the love stories, the breakups, the punch-ups, and the laughs over a hotpot, “Corrie” has always been true to the everyday difficulties that life, particularly working-class life, can bring, with strong feisty women at the centre of the action. As Ena Sharples classically said, “I don’t expect life to be easy. I’d think very little of it if it was”—a good rule of thumb for the moment.

Since those early days on the street, we have witnessed one or two things happen to the people of Weatherfield over the decades—many things—and those famous cobbles have been the stage to storylines that have gripped our country. We have cried together, gasped together, laughed together, and learned together. There have been iconic storylines that caused the nation to take a breather from people’s busy lives, make a cuppa, and pop “Corrie” on the telly—the train crash, the tram crash, the whodunnits, Richard Hillman’s reign of terror, Alan Bradley being killed by a tram in Blackpool, Deirdre, Ken, and Mike’s love-triangle! A certain Tony Blair got involved in the campaign to Save the Weatherfield One, when Deidre was falsely imprisoned, and a certain Tricia Armstrong was sent to prison for not paying her TV licence, and then gave birth behind the bar in the Rovers Return. Alongside all the entertainment, “Coronation Street” has bravely challenged us and our way of thinking with groundbreaking storylines.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Shannon, you are more than welcome to intervene. You might even want to speak later, as we have a little time. Northern Ireland’s answer to Albert Tatlock, come on in.

[Jim Shannon]

I am not sure how to respond, Mr Speaker. “Coronation Street” has been going all my life, and a wee bit more; and I understand, Mr Speaker, it has been going all your life, and a wee bit more as well. My wife is a tremendous fan of “Coronation Street”. She never misses it. Last week, in self-isolation for the second time, I sat and watched “Coronation Street” on numerous occasions with my wife in control of the remote, so I was not able to turn over.

There was a poignant storyline last week about the loss of a young boy called Oliver. We watched every night it was on during the week, and a person would need a heart of stone not to be moved by that story, how they portrayed in a soap what affects people in reality. The soaps have a tremendous role to play in telling the stories of real life out there, and last week “Coronation Street” did that with real passion, understanding, carefulness and caution—

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Shannon, I said you could intervene. I will put you down to speak. You do not need to make a speech in an intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Mr Speaker, you enticed me to say a few words, so I feel that I should. I really want to, by the way. My intervention earlier was a speech on its own. What lovely and humorous recollections from to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin). “Coronation Street” always gives hard stories, but it also gives humour. I was thinking back on the 60-plus years that “Coronation Street” has been here—it might be here a wee bit longer—and I remember vividly the things that happened on the black and white TV, because they happened in our village of Ballywalter in the ‘60s and ‘70s. They were facts of life.

We did not have very much when we were young. That did not do us any harm, by the way. It gave us a compassion for others, I always thought. With my mum and dad in my house, while we might not have had much materially, we certainly had all the things that were important in life—the love of our parents and family. Along with the black and white TV and the storylines, one thing that resonated in my mind when the hon. Lady was speaking was the three ducks on the wall, because we had them in our house. Those might have been small things in “Corrie”, but they resonated with us. I could almost say that every one of the characters Members spoke of was so-and-so in the village. Male or female, whoever it may have been—they had the characteristics of that person. I will not say who they were, because that would not be fair, but it was people I noticed. Growing up in Ballywalter in the ‘60s and ‘70s, every one of those stories were real stories, because we could understand and relate to them.

When I got married some 33 and a half years ago, my wife loved cats and I loved dogs. I did not particularly like cats, but I realised that, if I loved my wife, I had to love her cats. That is how life is. I also realised early on that my wife was a fan of “Corrie”, and indeed of all the soaps. Such is her knowledge of all the characters and stories of “Coronation Street” and other soaps that I suspect that my good lady could become a scriptwriter for “Coronation Street”. The other great thing I have realised through all these years of marriage is that Sandra is in control of the remote whenever “Coronation Street” was on, and I have absolutely no chance of watching any other programme, be it football or whatever. That is just how life is.

I loved the mischief, the storylines and the real-life stories. When I intervened on the hon. Lady, I referred to the story of Oliver, the young boy who died on the TV programme last week. People will say that it is only a soap and not real life, but it portrays real life—I saw it in the story last week. Last week, in self-isolation with my wife, and with her in control of the remote, I really became involved in the story that they were telling. That is what the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) referred to. It was hard not to be involved, and it was hard, at the end of the week, not to be moved, emotionally, by the storyline, because I was totally gripped by what was taking place. Through all the programmes that there have been, “Coronation Street” has been able to portray heartache, pain, love and the highs and lows of life. I thank the Lord that I have never experienced what happened on “Coronation Street” last week, but some of my constituents have. That drama and that portrayal gives a feel for what is happening in the lives of others.

Of course, we have always been fortunate to have a good old Northern Ireland accent in among it all. I was just speaking to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen, trying to remember the actor’s name.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Charlie Lawson.

[Jim Shannon]

Charlie Lawson—that is exactly who it is. His character married Liz McDonald. I just loved hearing his accent, because when I come here to Parliament, my Northern Ireland accent is very different from everybody else’s. Indeed, one of my colleagues and friends from the Government Benches once said to me, “All right, Jim? I’ve really no idea what you said there—would you repeat it?” So I really do value the opportunity to be involved in this debate.

[Gavin Robinson]

The right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will understand this reference: in Northern Ireland, we cannot watch “Coronation Street” without enjoying the continuity announcement from Julian Simmons just before. Sadly, ITN has brought Julian to an end. If people do not understand who Julian is, I hope they check on YouTube for some of his introductions to “Coronation Street”. He always gave a précis in his inimitable, incredibly camp style. Perhaps I can give just one quote: I cannot even remember who he was talking about, but he said,

“once a lying, cheating, two-timing bigamist, always a lying, cheating, two-timing bigamist. A leopard never changes its spots—especially when it’s got a nose like a cooker hood.”

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Julian Simmons had that role as the person who tells us about the “Coronation Street” episode that is on the way, giving us that wee storyline, but his time at UTV and ITV has come to an end.

I thank everyone in “Corrie” for what they have done. What an opportunity this has been to speak, in a small way, about the good things that “Corrie” has brought into our lives, as well as the hard stories. It reminds us that life is not always roses for everyone—it is not always that way—but that it is also fun and laughter. “Coronation Street” does that exceptionally well.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Carry-over motion & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), with his vast knowledge, and other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. I thank them for their speeches. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this issue. I spoke about it back in March, when I stated my fear of reliance on Huawei.

Let me quote what I said at that time:

“I am only one of 650 Members of this House, and I absolutely believe in the tenets of democracy, but I will not stay silent. I do not believe that what the Government are doing is in the best security interests of this nation, and if steps can be taken to pare it back, those steps must be taken. We have been known as security giants, and I do not like the idea that we are now standing on the shoulders of Chinese giants. We have stood alone, and can do so again, but it is always best that we stand with our allies. The Chinese may hopefully be strong trading partners post Brexit”—

we will wait to see whether or not that will be the case—

“but by no stretch of the imagination can they ever be considered our allies; their human rights abuses cannot be ignored. This issue is concerning, and we must not leave it here.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 288WH.]

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) referred to the Uyghur Muslims and the human rights abuses they are going through—the fact that their right to worship has been abused and that they are subjected to violence, both physical and psychological. As others have mentioned, there is also the question as to whether they are involved in some of the slave labour in Huawei and what it does. We have heard and read the stories in the press about Volkswagen, which refused even to acknowledge the fact that perhaps some Uyghur Muslims had been being used as slave labour. I chair the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, and I feel strongly about this issue. It is close to my heart, so I wanted to speak out. I know it is not directly what this Bill is about, but we have those concerns on human rights issues for the Uyghur Muslims, the Christians and the Falun Gong. We know all about the issue of the forced organ harnessing that takes place, and all those three religious groups are part of that.

So I am thankful for the steps taken by the Prime Minister. We all knew that when these steps were taken, there would be the detrimental knock-on effect of narrowing the UK telecommunications market and possibly driving up infrastructure costs, but I still believe this to have been the right decision. I am thankful for the steps that the Minister announced today, and for the support there seems to be across this Chamber for them. This is about building supply chain resilience, with support available for supporting incumbent suppliers. The security of this nation is undoubtedly a red-line issue, and we must protect it at all costs. Everyone has said that, and we mean it, and we want to see that being delivered though this Bill.

Clauses 1 to 14 introduce a stronger telecoms security framework. The Bill amends the Communications Act 2003 by placing strengthened telecoms security duties on public telecoms providers. I am thankful that the Bill purports to enable more specific security requirements to be set out in secondary legislation, underpinned by the codes of practice providing guidance on the security measures to be taken to meet those requirements. I am given to understand that the Bill gives the telecoms regulator, Ofcom, powers to monitor and enforce industry compliance with the duties and specific security requirements. placing new obligations on public telecoms providers to share information with Ofcom that is necessary to assess the security of their networks.

The UK is part of the Five Eyes, along with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. We cannot ignore that influence, and the sanctions that the US imposed on Huawei. The US first placed it on the entity list on 16 May 2019, citing national security concerns. This sanctioned the company’s access to important US technology for design and production use. While acknowledging the potential impacts this might have on the reliability of Huawei’s products, the Government, on advice of the National Cyber Security Centre, determined this to be a manageable risk. The restrictions to network access imposed on high-risk vendors in January 2020, alongside pre-existing oversight measures, were considered sufficient mitigation strategies.

So the USA clearly saw what the problems and risks were, and took a stand early on, and I am pleased that we are now doing the same. Chinese influence, across the whole of the world, always has a condition, as we see in many countries in Africa and further afield where it is trying to increase its influence. It has an insatiable demand for every country’s resources, but along with that come the conditions and the influence they have on digital and cyber-security. I am deeply concerned about that, as are others.

It is my belief that while not perfect, this Bill puts in place an emphasis on our nation’s cyber-security that is essential.

During the lockdown, our increasing reliance on the internet has been made abundantly clear. It is phenomenal that where we have been precluded from meeting to worship, our pastors and praise teams have been able to livestream church services, it has been wonderful to carry out certain MP duties online where applicable, and it has been a life-saver for some businesses to carry on their work at home. This has highlighted the reach of the internet into our lives and the absolutely essential nature of its being secure from cyber warfare and attacks. The Government have said that such an attack is highly likely and would have a high impact. I had a discussion with a gentleman from Northern Ireland who is involved in the Royal Air Force, and he said that the greatest threat that it felt was cyber warfare. This Bill will be a very strong way of addressing that.

We can all sit in this place and say that something needs greater funding. Every aspect of our budget could do with enhanced funding. My grandchildren—indeed, probably my great-grandchildren—will be paying off the coronavirus outgoings their entire lives. We need to take what we have and do the best we can with it. My belief is that on this one, the Government have taken the steps to address my grave security concerns, and while the Bill is not all I would like to see, as others have said, I find myself much more content today than I was in this place in March of this year.

Online Harms

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, but I will be careful, Mr Deputy Speaker, in what I say about age verification, because I am conscious that a judicial review case is in progress on that subject. However, I agree that that is something that we could and should do, and not necessarily in direct conjunction with an online harms Bill.

Digital platforms should also recognise that a safer internet is, in the end, good for business. Their business model requires us to spend more and more time online, and we will do that only if we feel safe there. The platforms should recognise that Governments must act in that space, and that people of every country with internet access quite properly expect them to. We have operated for some time on the principle that what is unacceptable offline is unacceptable online. How can it be right that actions and behaviours that cause real harm and would be controlled and restricted in every other environment, whether broadcast media, print media or out on the street, are not restricted at all online?

I accept that freedom of speech online is important, but I cannot accept that the online world is somehow sacred space where regulation has no place regardless of what goes on there. Given the centrality of social media to modern political debate, should we rely on the platforms alone to decide which comments are acceptable and which are unacceptable, especially during election campaigns? I think not, and for me the case for online regulation is clear. However, it must be the right kind of regulation—regulation that gives innovation and invention room to grow, that allows developing enterprises to offer us life-enhancing services and create good jobs, but that requires those enterprises to take proper responsibility for their products and services, and for the consequences of their use. I believe that that balance is to be found in the proposed duty of care for online platforms, as set out in the Government’s White Paper of April last year.

I declare an interest as one of the Ministers who brought forward that White Paper at the time, and I pay tribute to all those in government and beyond, including the talented civil servants at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who worked so hard to complete it. This duty of care is for all online companies that deal with user-generated content to keep those who use their platforms as safe as they reasonably can.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We have covered some important information. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there needs to be a new social media regulator with the power to audit and impact social media algorithms to ensure that they do not cause harm? Such a regulator would enable that to happen.

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree that we need a regulator and will come on to exactly that point. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, for reasons that I will outline in just a moment.

I recognise that what I am talking about is not the answer to every question in this area, but it would be a big step towards a safer online world if designed with sufficient ambition and implemented with sufficient determination. The duty of care should ask nothing unreasonable of the digital platforms. It would be unreasonable, for example, to suggest that every example of harmful content reaching a vulnerable user would automatically be a breach of the duty of care. Platforms should be obliged to put in place systems to protect their users that are as effective as they can be, not that achieve the impossible.

However, meeting that duty of care must mean doing more than is being done now. It should mean proactively scanning the horizon for those emerging harms that the platforms are best placed to see and designing mitigation for them, not waiting for terrible cases and news headlines to prompt action retrospectively. The duty of care should mean changing algorithms that prioritise the harmful and the hateful because they keep our attention longer and cause us to see more adverts. When a search engine asked about suicide shows a how-to guide on taking one’s own life long before it shows the number for the Samaritans, that is a design choice. The duty of care needs to require a different design choice to be made. When it comes to factual inquiries, the duty of care should expect the prioritisation of authoritative sources over scurrilous ones.

It is reasonable to expect these things of the online platforms. Doing what is reasonable to keep us safe must surely be the least we expect of those who create the world in which we now spend so much of our time. We should legislate to say so, and we should legislate to make sure that it happens. That means regulation, and as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it means a regulator—one that has the independence, the resources and the personnel to set and investigate our expectations of the online platforms. For the avoidance of doubt, our expectations should be higher than the platforms’ own terms and conditions. However, if the regulator we create is to be taken seriously by these huge multinational companies, it must also have the power to enforce our expectations. That means that it must have teeth and a range of sanctions, including individual director liability and site blocking in extreme cases.

We need an enforceable duty of care for online platforms to begin making the internet a safer place. Here is the good news for the Minister, who I know understands this agenda well. So often, such debates are intended to persuade the Government to change direction, to follow a different policy path. I am not asking the Government to do that, but rather to continue following the policy path they are already on—I just want them to move faster along that path. I am not pretending that it is an easy path. There will be complex and difficult judgments to be made and significant controversy in what will be groundbreaking and challenging legislation, but we have shied away from this challenge for far too long.

The reason for urgency is not only that, while we delay, lives continue to be ruined by online harms, sufficient though that is. It is also because we have a real opportunity and the obligation of global leadership here. The world has looked with interest at the prospectus we have set out on online harms regulation, and it now needs to see us follow through with action so that we can leverage our country’s well-deserved reputation for respecting innovation and the rule of law to set a global standard in a balanced and effective regulatory approach. We can only do that when the Government bring forward the online harms Bill for Parliament to consider and, yes, perhaps even to improve. We owe it to every preyed-upon child, every frightened parent and everyone abused, intimidated or deliberately misled online to act, and to act now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) on his introduction and on all that he said. In my intervention I referred to the need for a social media regulator, and, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) has just said, we need a regulator with teeth. We need a regulator that actually does what it says it is going to do. That is important.

The Conservative manifesto of 2015 was very clear that it pertained not to social media platforms but to pornographic websites, and it committed to protecting children from them through the provision of statutory age verification. Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 made provision for that and it should have been implemented over a year ago. I respectfully express my dismay and concern that that has not happened.

The non-implementation of part 3 of the Act is a disaster for children as it needlessly exposes them to commercial pornographic websites, when this House has made provision for their protection from some sites. Perhaps the Minister could give us an explanation as to why the Government’s detailed defence in the judicial review for not proceeding with the implementation seems to relate to the protection under paragraph 19, which states:

“US-based browser companies were planning on implementing DNS-over-HTTPS…a new internet standard”.

I have great concerns about that.

I am also troubled by the way in which the Government have moved from the language of requiring age verification for pornographic websites, as referred to in their manifesto, to the very different language of expectation. The Government have said:

“This includes age verification tools and we expect them to continue to play a key role in protecting children online.”

They also said:

“Our proposals will introduce higher levels of protection for children. We will expect companies to use a proportionate range of tools including age assurance and age verification technologies to prevent children from accessing age-inappropriate or harmful content.”

In their initial response to the online harms White Paper consultation, the Government also said:

“we expect companies to use a proportionate range of tools, including age assurance and age verification technologies to prevent children accessing age-inappropriate content such as online pornography and to protect them from harms.”

Quite simply, that is not enough. That should not be an expectation; it should be a requirement. We have to have that in place.

The NSPCC has highlighted some worrying statistics. Instagram removed 75% fewer suicide and self-harm images between July and September 2020, industry compliance to take down child abuse images fell by 89%, and 50% of recorded online grooming cases between April and June this year took place on Facebook platforms. What conversations have the Government had to ensure that Facebook and others design and deliver platforms that put child protection services front and centre, as they should be?

Disabled Access: Leisure Facilities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered disabled access at leisure facilities.

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am delighted to have the opportunity to make the case for fairer inclusion for disabled children at leisure facilities, and particularly theme parks. We are here to talk about Sebby, a very brave little boy, who suffered a horrible experience on what should have been a happy day. Yet rather than feel defeated, he and his family have chosen to fight to stop other children going through the same thing. Our petition for fairer inclusion for disabled children at theme parks has more than 26,000 signatures. In a year dominated by the global covid pandemic, which has certainly made this place much quieter, the high number of signatures, and media interest from around the country, shows the strength of feeling about this issue.

Sebastian, or Sebby, is six years old. I have spent time with Sebby and his sister. They are warm, happy and engaging children, who brought their own toys to calm down my screaming little baby when she was crying at our meeting. Yet Sebby has been through more in his short life than most of us in this Chamber put together. He is disabled with gross motor delay, with symptoms that are shared with cerebral palsy. He has had spinal surgery and double hip replacements, and he undergoes regular intensive therapy to improve his mobility. He uses an electric wheelchair and sometimes crutches. I urge colleagues to look up his Facebook page, “Sebby’s Adventure”. It is heartwarming, but they will also see his extensive work for often painful physiotherapy, and the amount of effort that he and his family are putting in, to improve his mobility. They impress me all the time.

It is with this brave child in mind that we think about looking forward to going to a theme park—a very simple thing. Indeed, that visit to a theme park was promised to get him through a number of tough surgeries in hospital.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. Perhaps I may quickly mention the case of one of my constituents, who is totally disabled—born disabled—and needs a wheelchair to get about. He asked the council to provide wheelchair football for him and a group of people. The council was hesitant initially but then responded very positively. That did two things: it improved his physical abilities and opportunities, but it also improved his mental wellbeing. Does the hon. Lady feel that the issue is not just physical but mental wellbeing?

[Siobhan Baillie]

That is absolutely key. This is not just about physical but about mental wellbeing. Such children and families are fighting and challenging all the time, and have to make their voices heard. Small acts of kindness or small changes to policy can make all the difference for mental and physical wellbeing.

In September 2019, Sebby, who was then five years old, entered Legoland looking forward to going on the Ninjago ride. Sebby’s parents had engaged with Legoland for months before to arrange the correct pass. They let the park know about Sebby’s disabilities and provided multiple items of the proof required to show that Sebby is disabled. The Ninjago ride that he wanted to go on is for trainee Ninjas—I am sure we all want to achieve trainee Ninja standards—because it was clear that it could be accessed by a wheelchair lift.

So far, so good, I can hear Members saying, but unfortunately not. As Sebby and his family got to the ride, a member of staff awkwardly intervened to say that he needed to show that he could walk before going on a ride. Other members of staff then joined in the discussion and they decided between them that he needed to show that he could take three steps, holding on to one parent with one hand.

This all took place in front of a busy queue of people. Anybody who has queued at theme parks knows that they are not the most harmonious of places, and Sebby was forced with considerable discomfort to take his three steps. He just about managed it and sat down on the ride. Despite this action, the ride manager then inexplicably required him to do the steps all over again. This drew more attention from people in the queue and Sebby was really unset. His mum described the whole episode as humiliating for him. Sebby—aged five, remember—was crestfallen and asked his mum and dad why anybody would ask someone disabled to walk. He said: “It was so hard and it upset me”.

Not wanting to ruin the day, his parents were positive, but they were both shocked and distressed. They then encountered the same problem on another ride, where Sebby was told he needed to walk again. Eventually, in order to avoid that problem, at other times Sebby left his wheelchair outside the ride and went in on his parents’ shoulders so staff could not tell he was in a wheelchair, and he was not challenged any more.

Sebby’s family were informed that he needed to walk the three steps as there was a short staircase that would be used in case of an evacuation. However, it is clear to Sebby’s mum that the evacuation could be adjusted with a ramp. The family has also seen the resort accessibility guide, which they believe shows that about 80% of rides are inaccessible. Under ride restrictions, the guide sets out the requirement to walk unaided for not just three steps but at least 10 metres,

“without the assistance of a mobility aid or a person to access the ride unit, which may include navigating stairs…In the event of an emergency, you will be required to walk down up to 80 stairs and walk sometimes over an uneven surface without assistance.”

Wheelchair users would, of course, therefore be challenged in respect of both access to rides and evacuation from them. Sebby’s family believe this is discriminatory.

What can be done? My hon. Friend the Minister may feel there is no need for Parliament to investigate this matter nor act, as legislation is already in place. He is right, but only to a point. Pursuant to section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, Sebby is disabled and his disability is a protected characteristic. Under section 29 of the Equality Act, theme parks, such as Legoland, are service providers. As a result, they are obliged to make reasonable adjustments to improve access so that disabled customers of all ages are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled customers.

The reasonable adjustment duty is an anticipatory duty. This means that there is an expectation that businesses, including theme parks, should anticipate the reasonable adjustments that customers with disabilities may require. This serious and well-established legislation, passed more than 10 years ago, did not protect Sebby or improve his experience that day, nor is it working elsewhere.

Reading through the heart-breaking stories from other families around the country made Sebby’s mum completely determined to take action. They certainly made me very determined to make some changes in this area. This is not just about Legoland. It is clear that many other leisure parks need to make improvements. Before I read out some of the stories from other families, please note that I have not spoken to any of the parents mentioned. They have sent comments on social media and in response to the petition. I am willing to get in touch with them if necessary and welcome hearing from any of the companies mentioned. I think it is important to say that upfront.

I will read a few comments, so that we can see what is happening around the country. Ellen said, “My sister Abie has cerebral palsy and I have cried at Alton Towers before, when we had a problem getting on a ride. Don’t get me wrong, some places are great, but some just make everything a challenge.”

Jessica said, “I had a similar experience with a girl I care for, who is in a wheelchair, at Blackpool pleasure beach. They turned around in a crowded line and shouted, ‘Oh, you can’t walk well. The only rides that you can go on are in Nickelodeon land.’ This made me so angry. And yes, I did cause a scene, because nobody should be treated like that. They need to make these rides more accessible for wheelchair users so they do not always have to miss out.”

Chris said, “We had a similar at Thorpe Park in the disabled parking area. They would not believe my brother-in-law was disabled until he took off his false leg and waved it at them.”

Kate said, “My son was five. We only wanted to go on the small rides. A woman said that if he couldn’t walk, he couldn’t go in—bearing in mind, someone in front of us was holding a baby under one, who couldn’t walk either. They stood in front of us and told my son that he could not walk. He was paralysed by a drink-driver and he didn’t really understand what was wrong with him at that point. She had no damn right to say that, but we sucked it up for my son’s sake, only for this to happen at every ride. I sobbed so much that day that when I phoned to complain I couldn’t even get my words out.”

Anita said, “We had a similar experience at Chessington for our son, with him being made to get off a ride. He was so humiliated that he never wants to go to a theme park again.” She added lots of angry emojis.

Claire said, “Every ride has to step up, down or both—no lifts or options for anyone in a wheelchair to get even to a ride station on many occasions. If you spend £16 million on rollercoasters, then surely you can arrange for rides to be accessible for all.” I have pages and pages of this stuff. It is just awful.

Gemma said, “My little boy, aged 10, has cerebral palsy and autism. He is a real adrenaline junky. We visited Alton Towers a few weeks ago and had the same problem. We were supposed to be going to Disney, but due to covid we obviously couldn’t. I felt heartbroken seeing him look at all of the big rides and being unable to access them. In Florida, it isn’t a problem.”

Donna said, “My son is neurodiverse. I was told by a member of staff that he didn’t look disabled and, if he was, why would I come to a place like this?”

Katie said, “A very similar thing happened to us with my daughter at Legoland in London. They let her get on rides, then humiliated her in front of everyone by telling her to get off and she only has one leg. We were not told about any of this at customer services. She was nearly nine. She loves rides and always has. We were all so angry. She was living a perfectly normal life, then got cancer and had to have an amputation. It is so unfair. In this day and age, they should be able to make more things accessible for disability.” As I said, I can provide copies of those comments if necessary.

It is worth noting that a number of the families have mentioned that Disney parks in America and around the world are incredibly inclusive and have got this stuff right, so I do think it is achievable.

Legoland wrote to me last night, saying, “We recognise the importance of issues such as these being subject to public scrutiny. That is why we welcome the Westminster Hall debate that you have secured and hope that not only will it put these issues under the spotlight but also provide the Government with an opportunity to set out how it can work with the industry to support continual improvement to provision, support and access for disabled guests.” Legoland explained that since Sebby’s family reported these matters, it has created an illustrated guide to help guests understand step-by-step ride evacuation, and it can also create bespoke plans for families. Legoland has engaged in further staff training specifically to address ride restrictions and guest communication of ride evacuation processes. It has also made other changes in the last few years. I am happy to make this letter available to anyone who is interested. I have passed a copy to the Minister.

This was never about one company. As we have heard, there are theme parks around the country that should look to their policies and to the law. Theme parks are also an excellent source of fun. I enjoy them myself, as do many people, and they are an integral part of our tourism industry. However, brave children already battling disabilities should not be made to feel different or be excluded from leisure parks and rides. Parents of disabled children should not always have to fight, challenge and complain. The majority of those parents will not have access to legal advice and will not always understand their rights and what steps to take. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister to use his experience to help us consider ways that we in this place can assist children like Sebby.

Leisure parks should not be able to set policies that effectively undermine a disabled child’s being able to use a ride that claims to be inclusive. Families should not have the surprise of a walking test on arrival, having previously been led to believe that the park is inclusive. It is unclear what training staff in the parks have had to understand policies and legislation and how they can help disabled people. The Ninjago ride is relatively new, having been built in 2017. I want to ensure that theme park providers are required to procure and commission new rides that are completely inclusive for disabled people. There should be no excuses.

I therefore respectfully request that the Minister arranges a stakeholder meeting, along with a Minister from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the disability Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions. I also request that he commits to reviewing any codes of practice. I am open to other ideas on how we can make improvements.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing the debate. She raises an important issue, following a disturbing experience of one of her constituents at a leading tourist attraction. It does not surprise me at all that she raises this issue with the compassion and professionalism that her constituents have come to expect from their excellent Member of Parliament. I will briefly respond to the issue raised before moving on to talk in more general terms about what the Government are doing in this area.

The specific case raised by my hon. Friend was a very unfortunate incident, and I sympathise with her constituents, the 26,000 people who signed the petition and the families who have written to her to articulate their concerning cases and experiences. I understand that Merlin, which owns Legoland and many other visitor attractions in the UK and around the world, has been in contact with the family. My hon. Friend will be aware that I am unable to discuss this particular incident or the specifics of the case in detail. However, my officials have also been in contact with Merlin, and I understand that it is looking into further operational changes, including staff training, which is so important to the visitor experience and the overall visitor experience for guests with disabilities. I am glad that it is also focusing on accessibility issues more broadly across its attractions, and I appreciate that it has also written to my hon. Friend directly.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, as the tourism Minister, I do not have direct responsibility for disability discrimination law. Ultimately, disability discrimination is governed by the Equality Act 2010 and is the responsibility of the Government Equalities Office, so I hope she accepts that I may not be able to give her complete chapter and verse on all the legal particulars of the case she raises, but I hope I can give a reasonably detailed response. The Equality Act requires service providers, including tourist attractions such as theme parks, to make “reasonable adjustments” to improve access for disabled customers of all ages. Fundamentally, disabled customers should not be placed at a substantial disadvantage to non-disabled customers. Ultimately, the question of whether there has been a failure to comply with the Act hinges on what does or does not constitute a “reasonable adjustment.”

The Equality Advisory and Support Service can be contacted—via its website, telephone or textphone—by anyone who believes that they or their children have been discriminated against during the provision of services, and it can contact a service provider on the customer’s behalf to discuss any particular concerns raised. It also liaises with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has powers to enforce the provisions of the Equality Act. I am happy to take this up in writing with the relevant Equalities Minister if my hon. Friend would like a more detailed response.

In the meantime, I will set out more broadly what the Government have done and are doing to make tourism and leisure more accessible. In 2019 we published the tourism sector deal, which set out an ambition to make the UK the most accessible destination in Europe by 2025. There were several reasons we wanted to pursue that goal. First, and most importantly, it is simply the right thing to do. Our amazing visitor economy—attractions, accommodation and transport—should be open to everyone. Secondly, it makes business and economic sense. According to Visit Britain, 43,000 British adults with a disability did not take a domestic holiday in 2017, when figures were last available. If they did take a domestic holiday, that would equate to a £117 million boost to the British economy. Thirdly, we have an ageing population. Projections indicate that in 50 years’ time there will be an additional 8.6 million people aged 65 and over in the UK. We must ensure that our tourism sector is fully developed to take account of the needs of those older tourists, many of whom will have access requirements, even if they do not consider themselves to be disabled.

The fact that we made that commitment does not mean that we are not already undertaking action to make the UK’s tourism offering more accessible. For example, VisitEngland has a dedicated web portal, providing tailored business advice to tourism businesses. Among other things, that includes detailed guidance on how businesses can welcome people with autism, dementia or hearing loss. I know that the tourist boards of the devolved Administrations are similarly engaging on those issues. VisitEngland has also ensured that its promotional and marketing activities are inclusive. For example, its “Escape the Everyday” campaign—it is currently on hold due to national restrictions, but we expect it to be revived shortly—has worked in partnership with Channel 4 to launch the “Mission Accessible” series, which follows comedian Rosie Jones as she participates in activities from the perspective of a disabled person with accessibility requirements.

In the Budget earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £30 million Changing Places fund to increase the provision of changing places and toilets in public buildings. Those are just a few examples. Furthermore, I know that many businesses in the private sector also provide excellent services to disabled customers. There are some standout examples, such as Eureka! The National Children’s Museum in Halifax and the Titanic exhibition in Belfast.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) mentioned Disney World and Universal Studios in Florida as two examples where they enable profoundly disabled children in wheelchairs to travel. I have seen that when I have been there. Has the Minister had the opportunity at short notice to ascertain whether we can do that? If they can do it in America, we can do it here.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Prior to becoming a Member of Parliament, I worked in the tourism, hospitality and leisure sector, working with theme parks around the world, including the major theme park operators in the US and elsewhere.

There are leading global best practices and, to be fair, we have some in the UK. We should not belittle the progress that has been made, but we see with incidents, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, that we have further progress to make. We all need to learn from the best practices and there are outstanding examples throughout the world that we should learn from. Here on our own shores, with Halifax and the Belfast Titanic exhibition, we do already have some fantastic examples, but it is not consistent and it is not everywhere.

I know that many businesses wish to make further progress. There are also many charities, social enterprises and not-for-profit organisations doing great work in the area as well, such as Nimbus Disability and the Family Holiday Association. Despite all that activity, there is more to do and I am keen to look at the issue of accessible tourism in more detail. I will raise the issue directly with Merlin, the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions and other relevant tourism bodies, which I meet regularly as part of the Tourism Industry Council. I will be happy to facilitate further meetings with those bodies with my hon. Friend directly.

As we make further arrangements to make venues, attractions and other sites, such as sports stadiums, covid-secure, it is also important to ensure that they are accessible for all. I know that the sports sector is considering how to improve accessibility in sports stadiums, which was the topic of a recent report by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee when I sat on it.

The Government’s ambition is to ensure that we all work towards an even more accessible tourism and leisure industry. As I said, the sector itself and the companies involved also realise their responsibilities in this area. Their purpose is to bring joy to people and families. We need to ensure that everybody is included in that. Although great strides have been made, there is still much more to do. I look forward to playing my part in ensuring that happens.

Question put and agreed to.

Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when I was looking at the call list, I had an inkling that this might come up. Of course, we are considering exactly that proposal and we will make further statements shortly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the encouragement that he gives us all across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in relation to the celebration. I, for one, am delighted to hear the wonderful plans for Her Majesty’s jubilee. It excites me to my core as a loyalist and as someone who supports the royal family. I am not alone in this. I represent Strangford and, as is the case across all Northern Ireland, we have a massive community of service personnel; their loyalty to the Queen and to duty saw many of us through tough times. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that as well as being a part of the national events that he has referred to, Northern Ireland will see additional funding to ensure that we are able to celebrate our Queen as we so wish to do? How will that funding be allocated in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We want to ensure that this jubilee is celebrated by all generations and people from all different backgrounds and all nations of our United Kingdom. In terms of funding, we are discussing the settlement with the Treasury as part of the spending review. The principal role of Government will be to ensure things such as the security of events, policing and so on. We will look for private contributions for individual celebrations, but we will work through the details of that and come back to the House shortly.

Covid-19: Support for Rugby League

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I know that she is a strong supporter of the role that her local club is playing and the importance of having the world cup in Warrington. It is about the impact on the economy, but it is also about the inspirational impact on generations of young people getting involved in rugby league. That is why it is so crucial that we support the sport through and are able to support the world cup as well.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing this debate. Sport is important for all of us as nations across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Rugby was my game at school—not rugby league, but rugby union. None the less, I just want to say how important it is. Northern Ireland has set aside some money for sporting clubs already, but without any fans at the matches, the £16 million loan for rugby league is not enough. Does the right hon. Lady feel that there is chance for the Minister to step up to the plate and do more?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree, and in the end that was the purpose of calling for this debate. We welcome the loans that the Government provided earlier in the year, the work that was done between the Government and the RFL, and the support for our clubs. That has been really important, but our rugby league clubs are under huge pressure now and they need more support. We need a new action plan going forward; the bills still have to be paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate. It is wonderful to hear the contributions, and I notice the gender on the Opposition Benches, which is significant.

[Jim Shannon]

There is still one man here.

[Ms Rimmer]

Yes, Jim.

Historical Discrimination in Boxing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered historical discrimination in boxing.

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I would like to take the Chamber through the story of a boxer from Merthyr Tydfil. For some people in my constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, Cuthbert Taylor is a local sporting legend. An amateur and then a professional boxer, he had over 500 bouts in a career lasting almost 20 years between 1928 and 1947, many in his native Merthyr Tydfil and across south Wales but also across the UK and Europe. He was knocked out only once in his entire career. During my research, I discovered that during his career he had bouts in the 1930s with two of my great uncles, Jack and Terrence Morgan of Trefil near Tredegar, who were from a family of boxers.

Cuthbert Taylor was once described as “the best in Europe”. In 1927, he won the flyweight championship title. He defended the title in 1928, when he also became British amateur flyweight champion. The same year, he represented Great Britain at the Amsterdam summer Olympics, reaching the quarter-final stage in the flyweight category. He was the first black boxer to represent Britain at the Olympics. Although well known by some in his home town of Merthyr Tydfil and despite a very successful and exciting career, Cuthbert Taylor never got the same recognition on a national or international scale as other boxers. That was because of one simple thing: the colour of his skin.

Cuthbert Taylor was born in 1909 in Georgetown, Merthyr Tydfil, to parents of different ethnic backgrounds: his father, also named Cuthbert and formerly a notable amateur boxer in Liverpool, was of Caribbean descent, and his mother, Margaret, was white Welsh. Cuthbert Taylor was judged at the time to be

“not white enough to be British”

by the British Boxing Board of Control, and he was prevented from ever challenging for a British title or a world title professionally by the body’s colour bar rule, which was in place between 1911 and 1948 and which stated that fighters had to have two white parents in order to compete for professional titles. Due simply to the fact that his parents were of different ethnic backgrounds, Cuthbert Taylor would never have the recognition and success at professional level that his remarkable talent deserved. That was all because of a rule that left a stain on the history of one of our country’s most popular and traditional sports, one that has otherwise been known for bringing people from many different backgrounds and communities together.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this matter. I was just talking to him outside the Chamber and I was saying that that is one of the great things about sport, and Northern Ireland is an example of it, especially in boxing. We have people of different religions, Protestant and Roman Catholic, and nationalist and Unionist, coming together and uniting in the sport. Sport should be a uniting factor. It should enable people to see one another as they are and not as some would perhaps like them to be.

[Gerald Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree entirely: sport is a unifier. It is a real shame, and it brings shame on the sport, that such a rule existed at that point in time. It is now more important than ever to right that historical wrong and ensure that Cuthbert Taylor and so many other black British athletes across a range of sports are not forgotten or cheated out of deserved recognition by a cruel past injustice.

The colour bar rule serves as an uncomfortable reminder of a very different time. Although we cannot go back and give Cuthbert Taylor the professional titles and success that his career deserved, we can ensure that he has true and just recognition for his talent and abilities and that his name is not forgotten from boxing history merely because of the colour of his skin. It is a sad fact, but there is no doubt that had Cuthbert Taylor had two white parents instead of one, he would have gone on to challenge for British and world boxing titles—and he may very well have had success in those, too. His is by no means an isolated case in British boxing, let alone in other sports. Many black or mixed race British fighters in that period were held back by the same racism of the colour bar rule.