Diabetes in Sport
Stephanie Peacock Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I am really pleased to be responding to this debate, and I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) on securing it. This has been a well attended Adjournment debate, and I put on record my thanks to Members for their attendance and the interventions. We have had interventions from across the House, including from the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan). That shows the real interest in this incredibly important topic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch made a powerful speech outlining why this is such an important issue and debate. This Government have set out a bold and ambitious agenda for change, and sport and physical activity have an important role to play in it, as my hon. Friend outlined. I will discuss that before addressing specific issues that he raised. Not only does physical activity play a vital role in tackling the health challenges facing our nation by helping to treat and manage a wide range of health conditions, but community sport can play a major role in building confidence and teamwork, supporting life skills for future generations and improving community cohesion.
Despite those benefits, over a fifth of adults—almost 12 million—are inactive, and over a third of children do less than 30 minutes of activity a day. The data shows us that this varies by geography, ethnicity and socioeconomic background. I have seen that at first hand in my constituency; people in Stairfoot live seven years fewer than people on the other side of Barnsley. That is just one example; too often, that is replicated across the country.
Put simply, too many people are inactive, and the number is disproportionately higher among certain demographics, including people with long-term health conditions, such as diabetes. Our ambition is that everyone, no matter their background, should be able to take part in sport. Being physically active is particularly important in helping to reduce the risk of chronic diseases in adults and manage long-term health conditions. Evidence shows that physical activity directly prevents 3.2 million cases of long-term health conditions per year, including 600,000 cases of diabetes, equating to over £10 billion of healthcare savings each year.
Moving more can substantially reduce the risk of diabetes. For example, moving more can reduce the adult population’s relative risk of type 2 diabetes by 40%. For people living with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes, being active helps manage the condition; in particular, it reduces the likelihood of serious complications, such as stroke and heart disease. In fact, moving more can, over time, help people with type 2 diabetes manage their blood glucose levels. Of course, being physically active is incredibly good for mental health as well as physical health.
My hon. Friend knows all this, which is why he brought forward the debate. The challenge for all of us is how we ensure that those with long-term health conditions, such as diabetes, can benefit from physical activity. While every person’s experience is unique, common barriers for people with diabetes include pain, fatigue and sometimes the necessity of regular injections. I was particularly concerned to hear that people with diabetes have also reported that stigma has held them back from doing more physical activity.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for bringing forward the debate, and for so brilliantly setting out the challenges, but also the opportunity to give people with diabetes far more benefits from sport. One of the brilliant innovations in mental healthcare in recent years has been social prescribing in general practice. So much of that revolves around encouraging people to be physically active and to socialise. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely vital that we ensure that when we signpost people to support, it is available to people with diabetes, so that they can reap the benefits, rather than feeling the stigma of rejection from spaces, which she and my hon. Friend mentioned?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, and I will come on to discuss that shortly.
We all share a responsibility to enable, support and include people who are managing health conditions such as diabetes, including in sporting environments. Increasing physical activity and reducing inactivity is part of the Government’s health agenda to shift from treatment to prevention. Our 10-year health plan published in July 2025 commits to taking a place-based approach to physical activity. We will invest £250 million in 100 places through Sport England, invest £400 million in local community sport facilities, and develop new school sport partnerships to support schools and families in establishing healthy physical activity behaviours early on. Sport England’s place-based partnerships show that where investment in physical activity is designed with local people, physical inactivity rates were nearly 4 percentage points lower.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, and over the summer, we visited the Northern general hospital in Sheffield. We met healthcare professionals who spoke about their one-stop shop for people with diabetes. They want to deliver services in communities, and in places with grassroots community sports. Does she agree that this might be a perfect opportunity that ties into what she describes?
Stephanie Peacock
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I would love to hear more about that example in Sheffield, just down the road from my constituency. He brings me neatly on to the example that I was going to share. I recently saw some of this work in action when I visited Essex. There, local council leaders are working in partnership with Active Essex, local health services and leisure providers to knit services together. They are building strong links between the health and leisure sectors, including by co-locating services, so that people have easy access to a wide range of physical activity opportunities. That means, for example, that people with long-term health conditions can access activities that not only improve their physical health, but are fun and social and, in some cases, contribute to getting them back into work.
Of course, excellent examples of the work being done are local NHS and social prescribing services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said. They can direct individuals with long-term conditions to various local physical activity opportunities, such as public leisure facilities, walking groups and nature-based exercise as part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding for green social prescribing. Parkrun is linked with over 2,000 GP practices, and offers a free option for all abilities.
Sport England funds and provides guidance and education for their system partners. It funds “Moving Medicine”, a Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine initiative that provides resources to support healthcare professionals in integrating physical activity conversations into routine clinical care. That includes specific guidance on type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Sport England’s Buddle programme provides free learning and support resources to inspire and strengthen clubs and organisations offering sport and physical activity, as well the professionals who work with them. Buddle shares the latest information, training and tools, to help clubs and organisations overcome challenges and make the most of the opportunities available to them. That includes sharing case studies and signposting further guidance to enable those with long-term health conditions to exercise safely and effectively.
The national “We Are Undefeatable” campaign, funded by Sport England, inspires and supports people to be active by showing people living with a variety of conditions—both visible and invisible—on their journeys to being active. The campaign aims to address the stigma around exercising with disabilities and long-term health conditions, to reduce exclusion from physical activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch gave incredibly powerful and moving examples of the impact that stigma can have, showing clearly that there is more to do to ensure that the sport sector provides the support needed for those with diabetes. We expect all national governing bodies to have plans in place to support those with long-term health conditions, and to make the most of the training and support on offer from the professional development body for sport and physical activity and from the NHS. Although the research that my hon. Friend referred to indicates a lack of clear, explicit policies on chronic conditions, such as diabetes, in many NGBs, the legal requirement not to discriminate and to make reasonable adjustments remains in force.
The research clearly shows that some areas of inclusion have more developed policies than others, as is the case with diabetes. That disparity suggests the need for a more co-ordinated and robust approach to supporting individuals with chronic health conditions in sport. We will therefore continue to look for further answers, including through Sport England conducting research with Diabetes UK on the barriers to and opportunities for physical activity. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch and the organisations that he mentioned.
Ultimately, this is about every part of the system—from the NHS to national governing bodies, and from leaders to local partners—playing their part in making sport and physical activity easier to access and manage alongside diabetes.
Tom Gordon
I thank the Minister for being very generous with her time. One key point is that when it comes to exercise and sport, our most formative experiences are at school. When my sister was at high school, diabetes carried a massive stigma, and she was told that she would have to inject her insulin in a toilet, which was completely inappropriate. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure that people with diabetes have positive experiences, starting as early as school?
Stephanie Peacock
I absolutely agree. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work with the all-party parliamentary group.
In summary, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch and Members across the House for their contribution to this debate. As much as anything else, public awareness is key to this agenda. I hope that my hon. Friend can take from my response that the Government are committed to getting more people active, no matter their background. I am hugely passionate about this agenda, as I know that being physically active and playing sport is genuinely life-changing, and, if anything, can be even more important for those with long-term health conditions. I will happily continue to work with him on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Indoor Cricket Domes
Stephanie Peacock Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government are deeply committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sport across the UK. High-quality, inclusive facilities provide opportunities for connection and cohesion, as well as supporting people of all ages and backgrounds to participate in sport and physical activity wherever they live, helping to drive forward this Government’s plan for change.
As part of this ongoing commitment, on 25 August, the Government announced £1.5 million investment into two indoor cricket domes in Luton and Farington in Lancashire.
Luton and Preston are currently poorly served by cricket facilities. The aim is to increase opportunities for access to cricket and wider sport opportunities for underserved communities, in line with our broader strategic objectives for grassroots facilities investment. The cricket domes will offer significant benefit to under-represented groups, and increase the overall number of opportunities for physical activity by providing a covered outdoor environment which enables all-weather, all-year-round training and match play.
As we look forward to future sporting events in the UK, including next year’s women’s T20 cricket world cup, we will continue to prioritise grassroots clubs and facilities, getting more people involved in sport and physical activity.
This £1.5 million investment is in addition to the £400 million for grassroots facilities which the Government announced in June. The longer-term investment will prioritise underserved places, and through working closely with sporting bodies—including the England and Wales Cricket Board, devolved Government, and local leaders —the Government will establish what each community needs and then set out further plans in due course.
[HCWS890]
Media Mergers: Legislation
Stephanie Peacock Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport set out in her written statement on 15 May:
“This Government are committed to a pluralistic media landscape, where citizens are able to access information from a range of sources in order to form opinions”—[Official Report, 15 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 16WS.]—
while ensuring that foreign states are not able to own, control or influence the policy of UK newspapers or news periodicals. The Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025 will permit foreign state-owned investors to hold up to 15% of shares and voting rights in a UK newspaper enterprise, as long as they are passive investors with no rights or ability to appoint directors or other company officers or to exercise direct or indirect influence over the newspaper’s policies. The changes balance the need to protect our press from foreign state influence with the need to allow newspaper groups the flexibility to attract inward investment from a broad range of sources that do not present a risk to their editorial and operational independence.
We have noted the concerns raised across Parliament that the regulations do not fully deal with the risk of multiple state-owned investors acting on behalf of different states, each being able to hold up to 15%. Although remote, this scenario is not entirely theoretical. Concern was also raised regarding the Government’s ability to review all relevant cases.
On 18 June, I gave a commitment in Parliament to address these concerns, so today we have published for consultation a further set of draft regulations to amend the Enterprise Act 2002. The consultation will launch today and will be open for eight weeks until 18 September. Following this consultation, the Government will lay, in draft, a second statutory instrument to make the necessary changes to the legislation later in the autumn.
[HCWS828]
Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary
Stephanie Peacock Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
On 15 August 2025, the United Kingdom will mark the 80th anniversary of victory over Japan, the date that brought the final end to the second world war.
While VE Day 1945 marked the end of the war in Europe, thousands of British and Commonwealth troops continued to battle against Japanese forces in Asia and the Pacific. Three months later, victory over Japan was declared on 15 August, following imperial Japan’s surrender to allied forces. The dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese cities—one in Hiroshima on 6 August and the other three days later on Nagasaki—resulted in enormous devastation, bringing the six-year global conflict to a rapid end and introduced the ever-present threat of nuclear war.
The human cost of the second world war was overwhelming, leading to death and destruction for millions of people on both sides. British and Commonwealth forces suffered heavy casualties, disease and extreme conditions. The campaign in the far east saw thousands of allied troops taken prisoner of war and forced into hard labour. The end of the war brought mixed emotions, widespread sadness, relief and renewed hope that families and soldiers long separated would soon be reunited. It would take months and much effort to bring British service personnel back home, some of whom had spent five years overseas.
Today, our world once again appears increasingly fragmented and uncertain. As we mark what may be the final anniversary with living veterans, we must take this moment to thank them and pay tribute to their service. As their living history fades, it becomes ever more important to share their stories and preserve the lessons they leave behind, so that future generations can understand the true cost of total war and the enduring value of peace.
This anniversary offers the nation an opportunity to come together and reflect on the extraordinary sacrifices made by those who served in the far east, and to pay tribute to all who contributed to the allied victory. We saw how the UK came together for VE Day, echoing the celebrations 80 years ago, with community celebrations and street parties in a nationwide act of celebration and friendship. On 15 August, we will once again come together to commemorate the second world war generation, and listen to stories directly from those who lived through the conflict and hear first hand about their experiences.
The national commemorations will commence with a Government reception to celebrate VJ Day with veterans. Government buildings and high commissions across the globe will also be lit up on 15 August to commemorate VJ Day.
On Friday 15 August, the VJ Day 80 service of remembrance will take place in partnership with the Royal British Legion and include a national two-minute silence at midday. The event will be attended by second world war veterans of the far east campaign, VJ association members, senior politicians, and military personnel. It will pay tribute to the British, Commonwealth and allied veterans who served in the far east theatres of war, the Pacific and Indian Ocean territories. The national commemoration will feature a Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force guard of honour and music provided by military bands. The event will host a spectacular tribute to veterans involving 400 members of the armed forces, the Red Arrows and historic aircraft from the battle of Britain memorial flight, featuring the historic Dakota, Hurricane and Spitfire aircrafts.
Veterans will be at the heart of the service and include Burma Star recipients, British Indian Army veterans and those involved in the battles of Kohima and Imphal, as well as prisoners of war held across the region and veterans stationed in the UK or Commonwealth countries, who contributed to the war effort. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in a national two-minute silence at midday on Friday 15 August.
The Government are working with partners across the UK, including the devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to ensure commemorations are UK-wide. The Government national engagement programme runs throughout the year, forming a golden thread of remembrance that connects VE to VJ Day. In partnership with imperial war museums, a range of activities will support this effort, including the ongoing letters to loved ones project, which invites the public to explore their family history and share letters and testimonies from those who served in the far east. IWM will also deliver a paper crane-making initiative at IWM London, a screening of Es Devlin’s “I saw the world end” in Piccadilly Circus, and large-scale public screenings of a new contemporary VJ Day film, with an immersive augmented reality experience at IWM North, offering deeper reflection through personal stories, sound, and archive film.
Internationally, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s “for evermore” tour will expand to new sites including Nairobi war cemetery in Kenya, Sai Wan in Hong Kong, Kranji in Singapore, and Kanchanaburi in Thailand, honouring the global contribution and sacrifice of those who served.
We owe this to the second world war generation who, 80 years ago, fought for our freedom and paid the ultimate sacrifice. It is a chance to reaffirm our national commitment to peace and to ensure that the lessons and legacies of the second world war are never forgotten.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s interactive website, https://ve-vjday80.gov.uk , offers key information and resources, including ways to get involved in the commemorations.
[HCWS821]
Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025
Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025
Stephanie Peacock Excerpts(7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 (S.I., 2025, No. 737).
Stephanie Peacock
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for your guidance.
I am pleased to be speaking to these orders, the first of which was laid before the House in draft on 26 June and the second of which was made on 26 June and is subject to the made affirmative procedure. The Government are clear in our commitment to a free and pluralistic media whereby all citizens in all parts of the UK can access high-quality news and other information from a range of sources, enabling them to form their own opinions. The public’s continued access to diverse news, views and information is fundamental to the health of our democracy as well as our nation. That is why the Enterprise Act 2002 contains powers that allow the Secretary of State to intervene in media mergers and acquisitions that may give rise to public interest concerns —about, for example, the accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion—and to take appropriate action to remedy any such concerns that arise.
Owing to the more limited nature of the news market in 2002, when the Enterprise Act became law, only print newspapers published on a daily, Sunday or local basis and broadcasters are in scope of the core media mergers regime. The media landscape has undergone significant changes in the intervening decades, and our laws need to keep pace with technology and evolving news consumption habits. The shift to digital news was clearly evidenced in the Ofcom report “News consumption in the UK: 2024”, which showed that 71% of UK adults now consume news via online sources. We need to reflect the fact that news is increasingly accessed and consumed online. That is why we are here today; these orders are designed to address that very issue.
In its 2021 statutory review of the operation of media ownership rules, Ofcom recommended that the Secretary of State broaden the scope of the public interest considerations beyond print newspapers and broadcasters to capture a broader range of news creators. Ofcom set out its belief that that would better reflect the way in which people access news now. Between 6 November 2024 and 13 January 2025, my Department ran a technical consultation on proposals derived from Ofcom’s recommendations: to expand the scope of the media mergers regime from print newspapers and broadcasters to encompass online newspapers and periodical news magazines, and to extend the application of key media public interest considerations to this new definition of newspapers, and broadcasters carrying news programmes.
Those public interest considerations are: the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion in newspapers; the need for sufficient plurality of views in each UK market for newspapers; and the need for sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises. At the same time, the Government proposed to extend the scope of the new foreign state influence regime to online news publications.
Having taken into account the views of industry, Parliament and the public, we are confident that our changes balance the need to protect the public interest in a digital age with our responsibility to support a competitive, sustainable and plural media environment. Two related orders—the ones that we are discussing today—are required to enact the policy changes.
First, the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 will amend the definition of “newspaper” in the Enterprise Act 2002 so that it encompasses print and online newspapers and print and online periodical news magazines. Provision has been made to ensure that the scope of the regime extends only to publications that are connected with the UK.
In effect, the amendments will expand and align the scope of the media merger standard and special public interest regimes and the foreign state influence regime. All three regimes will now apply to acquisitions of print newspapers, news magazines and online newspapers. That will create a consistent and forward-looking public interest regime. Importantly, the draft order will enable the Secretary of State to intervene on public interest grounds—subject to jurisdiction—in the acquisition of an online-only newspaper. Until now, she has not had the power to do so.
The second order, the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025, will extend the application of public interest considerations in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to “news media”—a new term defined as newspapers or broadcasters of news programmes. Those public interest considerations include the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion in newspapers, and the need for sufficient plurality of views in each UK market for newspapers. Whereas the public interest considerations I have just mentioned can already be considered in the context of newspaper mergers, the changes made by the section 58 order will mean that the Secretary of State will now be able on any of the aforementioned public interest grounds to intervene in mergers involving the broadcasters of news programmes.
The order will also extend the public interest consideration on the need for sufficient plurality of control of the media in relation to every different UK audience. That public interest consideration currently applies to mergers involving broadcasters, but the Secretary of State will now also be able to consider its relevance to mergers involving print and online newspaper and news magazine enterprises. We recognise the challenging financial context for newspapers, and the importance of the balance between encouraging investment in the sector and being able to protect against market consolidation that might be detrimental to our plural and thriving news market. It is important to note in relation to the changes made by the section 58 order that the Secretary of State’s powers under the public interest regime continue to be discretionary. There is a range of possible outcomes to any investigation that she may commence, and in assessing an individual case, the Secretary of State would need to consider the facts of the case and the evidence at hand.
Returning to the orders, the foreign state influence regime introduced in May 2024 already prohibits foreign states from acquiring control or influence over the policy of print newspaper and periodical news magazine enterprises. The regime will be extended by the definition of newspaper order such that foreign powers will now also be banned from acquiring control or influence over the policy of an online newspaper or news magazine enterprise. The benefit of extending the scope of the prohibition in this way is to protect plurality of views and to prevent potential editorial interference or censorship from foreign states in online-only newspapers, which form a large part of the UK’s news consumption. That expansion will also ensure alignment across the media merger regime for both print and digital news publications, creating a consistent, forward-looking regime.
The amendments to the definition of newspaper for the foreign state influence regime will apply with retrospective effect from the day that this change was announced: 15 May 2025. The Secretary of State will be required to intervene in any completed or anticipated mergers involving an online newspaper enterprise that completed or were in progress on or after 15 May. If she has reasonable grounds to suspect a foreign power is or will be able to control or influence the policy of the online newspaper enterprise as a result, all other changes will apply prospectively.
Both the definition of newspaper order and the amendment of section 58 considerations order will make the public interest regimes and the foreign state influence regime reflect the various ways people access and consume news today. With those changes, we are modernising protections for our world-class UK news market, by enabling or requiring the Secretary of State to intervene in a broader range of news mergers that may operate against the public interest. The orders balance the need to protect the public interest in a digital age with our responsibility to support a competitive, sustainable and plural media environment.
Stephanie Peacock
It has been an important debate, and I am grateful for the contributions—in particular, that of the official Opposition. It is a delight to see the shadow Minister in his place; I am used to calling him Minister, as I used to sit in where he is now. I appreciate his contribution, his questions and his support, as I do the always cordial approach from the Liberal Democrats.
The debate shows the wide support for protecting a thriving and plural news market that acts as the cornerstone of democracy, especially in this digital age. The debate also highlights the challenges of striking the right balance between encouraging a range of investment in the sector and safeguarding the public’s ability to access high quality news that they can trust. That balance is especially fine in the light of the continuing evolution of the digital and online space.
In answer to the point around investment, the Government have decided to take a proportionate approach that reflects the most important changes to the way in which the public consume news in the present day. The approach will balance not stifling or chilling investment and protecting the public. The Government are committed to supporting a financially sustainable press sector, recognising the financial challenges that many have faced over recent years. We acknowledge the role that consolidation can play; we are developing our local media strategy in recognition of the importance of this, and are working cross-Government with other stakeholders as the strategy develops. We agree that encouraging a range of investment in the sector is important, and the Government are committed to maintaining a thriving and pluralistic media landscape, but that obviously has to have a balance.
Moving on to the questions about the foreign state ownership regime, we of course debated that last month and it was passed by a vote of the House earlier this month. I committed to updating the House by the middle of this week, and I shall. Obviously, this issue emerged under the previous Government; it was very clear that we do not want foreign states having influence. The 15% cap balances the need to protect the sector from state influence with the reality that newspapers need to access new investment. Of course, if there is any hint that that is anything other than a passive investment, the Secretary of State is obliged to act. We have debated that. I will introduce a further SI and update the House later this week.
Question put.
Sport England: Tackling Racism
Stephanie Peacock Excerpts(7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on securing this important debate. She outlined the huge contribution that Onna Ju-Jitsu has made to her area. I join her in thanking that organisation for the contribution that it has made to Bradford and the young people that it works with. I want to say from the outset how awful, concerning and unacceptable the experience is that my hon. Friend has outlined to the House today. I will encourage Sport England to learn and develop processes as a result, and I will go into more detail in the very short time that I have. I am happy to meet her if I cannot cover it all in the time I have left.
Sport unites us all. It transcends boundaries, fosters camaraderie and instils values of fairness, respect and perseverance. It is a mirror to our society, reflecting its strengths and at times its challenges. It is one of the most pressing challenges—racism—that we are discussing today. The Government’s stance is unequivocal: racism has absolutely no place in our society and no place in sport and activity. We are committed to stamping it out, from the elite level to the grassroots, ensuring that sport is truly for everyone, regardless of their background or ethnicity.
My hon. Friend raised a number of concerns in relation to Sport England and its handling of a specific case relating to the British Ju-Jitsu Association. Given the issues raised, I have met Sport England to talk about the specifics of the case and how it addressed it. I want to start by saying that I recognise and appreciate the concerns raised by my hon. Friend on behalf of her constituent. National governing bodies are central to our sporting system, and are responsible for the management, administration and regulation of their sports. As such, they should rightly be held to high standards. In this case, it is clear that the British Ju-Jitsu Association fell short of those standards.
My hon. Friend spoke about how there has been an extensive process over a number of years, which initially led to beginning the process of derecognition of the governing body. As part of that process, and in line with the criteria, the British Ju-Jitsu Association was given a deadline to submit relevant evidence and information showing that it was capable of meeting set policy criteria in order to maintain its NGB status. Following a review in May 2024, the home country sports councils agreed to the continued recognition of the British Ju-Jitsu Association providing it complied with agreed conditions.
It is worth pausing on those conditions, as they remain extremely relevant. First, the governing body needed to publish a commitment to cultural change. Secondly, it needed to establish an equality, diversity and inclusion working group, and monitor processes. Thirdly, it needed to move to being a more inclusive organisation through a plan agreed with Sport England.
I completely appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns that the change has not been comprehensive. The approach taken by Sport England has given the best chance of delivering long-term change by trying to keep the British Ju-Jitsu Association within its scope rather than cutting it adrift. However, I strongly believe that culture change means action as well as words, so I will be paying close attention to how the British Ju-Jitsu Association rebuilds the confidence of those who take part in the sport, which it has clearly lost.
I will say at this stage that those conditions must be ongoing. It is clear that there remain concerns about the culture at the British Ju-Jitsu Association. I know that Sport England takes its role very seriously in supporting an inclusive environment where participants have confidence in the leadership of sport, so I will continue to engage with it to make sure that scrutiny is maintained, and that action is taken when the British Ju-Jitsu Association does not meet the standards required.
I also want to address the wider situation of sport governance within this context. As a Government, we want to see as many sports clubs and organisations affiliated with their recognised governing bodies as possible. For participants, that is vital information to be aware of. The recognition process ensures that the home country sports councils, including Sport England, have the ability to change behaviour and drive progress. It also allows clubs and other affiliated organisations to apply for public funding. I refer hon. Members to the Adjournment debate last night on safeguarding in combat sports, which shows precisely why we need to use recognition to improve sport and sport safety.
In the case that my hon. Friend has raised, it is entirely right that Sport England continues to use all available levers to drive culture change within the British Ju-Jitsu Association, while maintaining its ability to take all possible actions, including derecognition should that change not be taken forward. In her speech, my hon. Friend raised concerns with how Sport England has handled the case. I recognise that it is always difficult to reach a conclusion that satisfies all parties in such cases, but I have been assured by Sport England that it takes the allegations seriously. I also recognise that, when it comes to assessing individual cases, its powers are limited.
As a result of this case, Sport England is in the process of reviewing the current recognition policy. At the moment, the criteria are very factual and based on whether a governing body has the right policies in place. That does not allow the sports councils to take into account wider factors that are clearly relevant to the confidence that individuals have in the leadership of their sport. The current review will look at those wider issues, including whether the sport has been brought into disrepute. That will allow sports councils to take a broader look at whether it is appropriate for governing bodies to continue to be recognised. A review of that nature, and the ability to consider the leadership and culture of a governing body, is something that I wholeheartedly support and strongly encourage.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns regarding the sharing of information, and I know that she has been speaking to the Information Commissioner’s Office about those concerns. As Sport England is a public body, it is for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take an independent view on what needs to happen, but I am sure that those at Sport England will have heard the issues in this debate.
I hope that my hon. Friend and her constituent can take from this debate just how important this issue is to me and the Government. I will be keeping a close eye on developments in British jiu-jitsu, but I am also taking steps to ensure that everyone who participates in sport feels included and welcome. It is a sad fact that racism continues to plague our society, and we must do more to tackle it.
Sport England is at the heart of our sporting system. It is therefore essential that it sets an example and creates the right culture in sport. I have heard at first hand Sport England’s commitment to do so, but given this debate, I will continue to discuss it with the organisation and ensure that it remains a central priority, as there is clearly more to do.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Combat Sports for Children: Safeguarding
Stephanie Peacock Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this important debate and for his moving speech. The death of his constituent, Alexander Eastwood, as a result of a kickboxing bout is devastating. I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about child safeguarding and I can reassure him and the House that it is a priority for this Government. He advocates with care and thought for his constituents, making a powerful and moving speech—one that I have heard very clearly. In the time available to me, I will set out the Government’s plans to strengthen safeguarding for children in combat sports. I will begin by outlining key safeguarding issues in those sports; then I will set out the Government’s next steps in addressing this incredibly important issue.
First, I recognise that this is a debate that everyone would have hoped we would not have to have. The tragic death of Alexander Eastwood is something we hoped would never have happened. I am sure I speak for the whole House in extending our deepest sympathies to his family, who are here this evening. As my hon. Friend has said, they have shown incredible courage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting Alexander’s family next week, and we are both committed to making sure that meaningful change happens so that no other family has to go through the pain that they have felt.
It is a priority of my Department that the safety and wellbeing of children taking part in sport are paramount. Alexander’s death is such a tragedy, and it has made it very clear that more needs to be done to protect the safety of children in combat sports. Ahead of the inquest into the death of Alexander Eastwood, the assistant coroner for Manchester West filed a regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths. The report highlighted specific areas of concern for children in martial arts. In her response, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport set out plans to work with the martial arts sector to address those concerns.
In considering our next steps, we must take account of the entire martial arts sector and its complexity. The sector is made up of many different disciplines, including judo, taekwondo, kickboxing and more. Many, though not all, of these disciplines have publicly funded national governing bodies. Many providers across the sector have robust safety measures in place. National governing bodies set minimum safeguarding standards for their affiliated clubs and competitions to comply with. These standards are in line with guidance issued by Sport England, our arm’s length body for grassroots sport.
Many clubs and competitions are not affiliated with a publicly funded governing body. However, many unaffiliated providers choose to sign up to the safeguarding code in martial arts. Organisations such as the British Martial Arts and Boxing Association support unaffiliated martial arts providers to adopt the safeguarding code. The code is funded by Sport England, and recognises clubs and associations that demonstrate strong safeguarding practices against a set of minimum standards. Providers with recognition under the code can display a logo on their promotional materials to show participants that their safety measures have been vetted.
The coroner’s report on the case of Alexander Eastwood highlighted specific issues around clubs and competitions that are not affiliated with a national governing body. We are now looking into that as a matter of urgency. The coroner identified that without set standards, clubs and competitions may not have adequate regulations around medical checks and support, the number of rounds and periods of rest, participant welfare checks and critical incident plans. Despite the programmes in place to support robust safeguarding practices in martial arts, unaffiliated providers are not required to meet any shared safety standards. I recognise that coaches and providers work hard to make martial arts available to communities across the country, and I recognise the work done by clubs and associations to comply with the safeguarding code in martial arts, but there must be strong, consistent standards for safeguarding children across all martial arts. Clearly, more must be done.
Clubs and competitions across martial arts should share consistent standards for safeguarding children. Parents and carers should be able to trust that appropriate safety measures are in place, regardless of where their children participate. Existing safety standards for martial arts set by Sport England and its partners must be robust and fit for purpose, but national standards must also translate into strong safety practices across all martial arts. The sector should look to encourage as many clubs as possible to adopt shared safety standards. The Government will consider what more can be done in this space.
Parents and carers deserve to be able to make informed decisions about where their children participate in martial arts. Information on best safety practices and which clubs and competitions meet shared standards should be readily available to participants and their guardians. Of course, the burden of finding information should not only lie with participants and their guardians; clubs and competitions with robust safety practices should be supported to promote the standards they meet. The Government are looking at all these areas to assess what more can be done to safeguard children in combat sports. As promised in her response to the coroner’s report, the Secretary of State will meet the family of Alexander Eastwood to hear about their experiences and views, and to discuss our thinking before we go into more detail publicly. I hope everyone can appreciate why that approach is being taken.
In addition, in response to the coroner’s report on this case, my Department has tasked Sport England with working with the martial arts sector on this issue. It will identify improvements and present a plan in the coming months. That work will include developing guidance for the martial arts sector and reviewing the safeguarding code for martial arts to ensure that it reflects best practice and is fit for purpose. Sport England will also work with the NSPCC to help educate parents and carers on what to look for in choosing where to participate in martial arts. That will involve the NSPCC’s Keeping Your Child Safe in Sport Week—a week of educational programming in October.
My Department is also exploring ways to strengthen safety standards in clubs and competitions that are not affiliated with national governing bodies. We are having conversations with the martial arts sector to understand how we can help parents and carers to be confident that their children will be safe when they participate. Our aim will be to ensure that safeguarding practices in martial arts are consistent, effective and transparent.
Dan Carden
I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State, who has been up to see the family in the Gallery this evening and who will meet them next week. I know the family and the solicitors, Leigh Day, will be incredibly grateful for the thorough response the Minister has given tonight, putting a lot of information on the record. These sports and activities for young people are so important for our communities, and we do not want to put any young person off taking up a sport, competing or becoming a professional in that sport. This is about safety; it is about giving parents the safety and security they need, and about something good coming from Alex Eastwood’s death.
Stephanie Peacock
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for his work, his moving contribution and for putting that important point on the record. As he said, sport should be a safe and welcoming environment that participants, parents and carers can have confidence in. Many martial arts providers work hard to safeguard children who participate under their supervision, and there are strong safety practices in place across many areas of combat sport, but more must be done to ensure that safety standards are strong, consistent and transparent. Standards of practice should be robust and widely adopted across the sector, and it should be clear to parents and carers which clubs and competitions comply with shared standards and which do not.
Nothing can bring Alexander back, but as the Secretary of State said to me before the debate, we are determined to work with his family to make sure that part of his legacy is real change, so that a tragedy like this never happens again.
Question put and agreed to.
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
Stephanie Peacock ExcerptsTuesday 8th July 2025
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Act 2025 View all Football Governance Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 July 2025 - large print - (8 Jul 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I am pleased to be responding on Report as the Football Governance Bill enters its final stages in the House of Commons. I begin by sending my condolences to the family of Liverpool’s Diogo Jota, who tragically lost his life last week at just 28 years of age, alongside his brother. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to their loved ones.
English football is one of our proudest traditions. It is more than just a game. Football brings us together, providing a source of local pride and uniting us in victory and in loss. The premier league, the EFL and the national league attract some of the best players in the world. In return, we find fans of English football clubs in almost every country. However, despite the global success story of English football, there are underlying fragilities in the game, and this Labour Government are committed to tackling them, as we are the party on the side of football fans. We have seen too many instances of irresponsible owners, unsustainable financial models and inadequate regulation casting a shadow over too many clubs, as fans of Bury, Derby County and countless others know all too well. The current issues at Sheffield Wednesday and Morecambe need resolving now, and they demonstrate the urgent need for this Bill to become law.
This change has been a long time coming, dating back in this place to the cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee report of 2011. The ill-fated super league attempt led, of course, to the fan-led review, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch, who pioneered that work.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions that Conservative Minister, and Tory Members basically wrote the vast majority of this Bill, but then they decided to vote against it. I am confused about that, but could she explain to me why they think this is a socialist Bill and that football is being nationalised? I think it is absolutely ridiculous.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
“I hope that whoever wins the election on 4 July will see this as a good Bill to crack on with, because it is important for the future of football and, crucially, for the future of football fans.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 23 May 2024; c. 244.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), for whom I have huge respect and affection. That brings me on to the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and the amendments standing in his name.
Amendment 14 is on the issue of listing in primary legislation the competitions in scope of regulation. The approach in this Bill is consistent with similar sports legislation. The Opposition’s amendment would be likely to make this a hybrid Bill, which would mean years of delay, in effect killing off the Bill that they introduced and which was in their manifesto. We have been absolutely clear that the regulator will be operationally independent of Government. It will not exert any influence on the Football Association’s autonomy to govern the game.
The shadow Minister is obsessed with the publication of private communications with UEFA and FIFA. Despite his obsession and what I would say were his quite strong remarks about me at the Dispatch Box, did his Government publish private correspondence? No, of course they did not. I have been very clear throughout that UEFA and FIFA have no issue with the Bill as it is currently drafted.
Amendment 25 is simply scaremongering on the part of the Opposition. It is also curiously at odds with one of their other amendments—amendment 21. The football governance statement, which was also in the previous Government’s Bill, allows the Government of the day to set out their priorities for the regulator. This is no different from the strategic steers that the Government can and do give to other regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, without undermining their operational independence. The statement will be published and laid before Parliament. Parliamentary approval is neither appropriate nor necessary, especially given the need to avoid political interference.
Amendments 24 and 28 on levy exemptions are simply not needed. The cost of regulation should not place an undue burden on clubs and costs should be transparent, as set out in clause 54. The regulator already has the power to exempt clubs from paying the levy through its levy rules.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
We had a long discussion in Committee about assessing how much this regulator was going to cost and how big it was going to be, but all the amendments we put forward were voted down. When will the Minister know that this thing has grown too big and costs too much?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his service on the Bill Committee. He is right that we had a very good debate, and the impact assessment was of course approved by the previous Minister for Sport.
On amendment 18, the governance code on appointments is clear that political activity is not a bar to appointment. David Kogan has been found appointable for the role by a panel that included a senior independent panel member agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and has now been endorsed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, adding a further layer of robustness. We will not set a new precedent with the football regulator by going further than the governance code on appointments, as the amendment proposes. More broadly, on amendments 19 and 20 on conflicts of interest, if the interests of a board or expert panel member might prejudice their ability to carry out their functions, the Bill already captures that as a conflict of interest.
On the owners and directors test, membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that offence is included in paragraph 2A of schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. Such offences would already be considered when testing an individual’s fitness, so amendment 15 is not required.
On amendment 17 on the corporate governance code, reporting on equality, diversity and inclusion is a key part of good corporate governance. Clubs will simply have to state what they are doing on the issue.
On amendment 27 on club charities, I know from my area of Barnsley the brilliant work that the Barnsley FC Community Trust does. Through changes made in the other place, the corporate governance code gives a club the flexibility to detail what action it is taking to contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of the community. That can include the work of the club’s official charity or wider work in the community, so the amendment is not needed.
New clause 1 calls for a consultation on lifting the ban on consuming alcohol in view of the pitch. That is outside the scope of the Bill, which focuses on the sustainability of clubs and the game overall. I have raised the issue with the Home Office, which is the policy lead, as I committed to doing in Committee.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) that we do need to look at alcohol sales, but that we need to do it with all stakeholders in the round—not just throw it in as a gimmick to this Bill, which is about finance and governance?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I have reflected those comments to the relevant Home Office Minister, as I said.
I will turn to the amendments in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). I thank him for his constructive approach to the scrutiny of the legislation and for his party’s support. Several of his amendments are outside the scope of the regulator, but I am sure that he will put on record some important and valid points.
On free-to-air TV in new clause 3, the Government believe that the current list of events works well and strikes an appropriate balance between giving access to sporting events and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue. In domestic football, the present arrangements under the listed events regime have protected key moments such as the FA cup final, while ensuring that the Premier League, EFL and FA are able to raise billions of pounds annually, which is invested back into the pyramid. We all want to see more matches being televised free to air, but that must be balanced against investment, and not risk it.
On new clause 4 on the golden share, we expect that the regulator will welcome clubs taking any measure to improve fan engagement and protect club heritage, including a golden share, but it will not mandate them to do so. That brings me on to the issue of fan engagement, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) in their amendments. Let me be really clear: the Government have strengthened fan engagement. The previous Government’s Bill required clubs to have a framework in place to ensure that they regularly meet and consult with a representative group of fans on key strategic matters at the club and other issues of importance to supporters. We have improved that by requiring fan engagement to continue even if a club enters into insolvency, and by introducing a requirement for consultation on ticket prices. We have not prescribed a fixed, one-size-fits-all approach to fan engagement. We of course expect the regulator to consult the Football Supporters’ Association where appropriate on fan issues, and I know the shadow regulator is already engaging with it. We do not want to place an unmanageable burden on clubs unnecessarily, which is why new clause 4 is not needed.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham has also tabled amendments on protections for home grounds, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East has also raised and we have recently discussed. Home grounds are vital assets for clubs, which is why the Bill introduces protections to prevent inappropriate stadium sales and relocations. Clauses 46 and 48 require a club to get approval from the regulator before they sell or relocate their stadium.
On the sale of a home ground, let me first clarify that the legislation uses the term “disposal” rather than “sale” for technical legal reasons. For example, a club might sell a portion of the stadium, rather than the whole stadium. That is because a club might divest a shareholding, or transfer interest, in the stadium without it amounting to a full sale. Under clause 46, the regulator’s approval is needed in all instances for the sale of a stadium by a club. A sale can be approved only if it would not undermine the sustainability of the club. If a sale might mean that the club will have nowhere to play a few years down the line, that means the club may not be sustainable and the regulator is unlikely to approve the sale.
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, absolutely, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.
I will move on to the issue of player welfare.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Minister might be just about to say the thing I was going to ask her about, as she has addressed a number of the amendments that my colleagues have tabled, which is the issue of footballers suffering from neurodegenerative conditions after their time. I am sure she was about to say something about that, in which case I apologise. As she will know, the proportion of footballers suffering from these conditions is significantly greater than the proportion of the general population. Many former footballers—many without the vast incomes that people assume footballers will have had in their careers—are left in a terrible situation, not supported by their clubs or the Premier League. What can the regulator do to get groups like Football Families for Justice the resources they need to support those who suffer having given their lives to the game?
Stephanie Peacock
I really appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention; I know that he has worked very hard on this issue. I am hugely sympathetic to the issue of player welfare. It is important to say that the safety, welfare and wellbeing of everyone taking part in sport is absolutely paramount.
Ian Lavery
Neurodegenerative disease is a real concern of many people in the sport. I am not sure whether it should be part of the governance Bill, despite the fact that it is going to be the biggest socialist nationalised Bill there has ever been in our lifetime. [Laughter.] It is a very serious issue, though. Does my hon. Friend agree that it needs to be looked at, and can she assure me that the Government will do so separately to the Bill, because of the urgency and the fact that people up and down this country at different levels of football are suffering greatly, mainly as a result of heading the ball?
Stephanie Peacock
I am really grateful for that intervention. Again, I know that my hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work on this issue.
I have heard the calls from Members across the House, and indeed from retired footballers, and the Secretary of State and I recently met a small group of affected families and ex-footballers, including individuals associated with Football Families for Justice, to discuss player safety and welfare for those suffering with dementia. The Government are committed to looking further at this issue and supporting the families and football authorities to come together to address the lifelong consequences from concussion, as well as post-career mental health and financial crises. I am afraid that these measures are not within the tight regulatory scope of the Bill, although that does not mean that the Government are not aware and sympathetic to the calls being made on this issue, both in this House and from many former players and their families.
The Bill is focused on the financial sustainability of football clubs up and down the country. Too many fans have watched as their clubs make changes on which they have no say, from selling their stadium and changing club colours to, in the worst case, collapsing under inadequate ownership. This is unacceptable. It is devastating for fans and for local communities.
It is this Bill, delivered by this Labour Government, that will help to protect one of our great sporting assets and ensure that fans can focus on what is happening on the pitch, rather than off it. Today, Members across this House can vote with football fans, or they can vote against them. Today, we can deliver an independent football regulator. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephanie Peacock Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I established the women’s football taskforce in 2024 in response to the Karen Carney review of women’s football. The taskforce aims to achieve a financially sustainable women’s football pyramid, raising minimum standards for players, fans and everyone involved in the game. As the Euros begin, I know the whole House will join me in wishing the Lionesses, and of course Wales, the very best of luck.
James MacCleary
I thank the Minister for her response; I know she is aware of some of the financial challenges that my local club in Lewes faces. With England about to start the defence of their European title in Switzerland against France on Saturday, does she share my concern that, despite the phenomenal rise in popularity of the women’s game, domestic prize money for the women’s FA cup still falls woefully short of that for the men’s? It is frankly embarrassing that in 2025 we still tolerate that glaring inequality. Will she support my call for the Football Association and the Premier League to equalise the women’s FA cup prize fund, so that women footballers are rewarded equally for the same achievement as their male counterparts?
Stephanie Peacock
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a huge supporter and champion of women’s football, and I look forward to visiting his constituency in September. I have heard the calls from the Liberal Democrat Benches and across the House on the FA cup prize money. The FA has taken steps to increase the total fund for the women’s FA cup and we are paying attention to what happens next.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government highly value the charity sector and its positive contribution. However, we have had to take a number of difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending to fix the public finances, fund public services and restore economic stability.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations puts the cost at £1.4 billion. That is right, isn’t it?
Stephanie Peacock
I reiterate that we really value the charity sector, but we have had to make some very difficult decisions.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government recently published their first ever dormant assets strategy, setting out how £440 million will be distributed in England. Some £132.5 million will increase disadvantaged young people’s access to enrichment opportunities in the arts, culture, sport and wider youth services.
Jessica Toale
The Henry Brown centre in West Howe, in my Bournemouth West constituency, runs a range of activities for the community, including the Changes Are Made boxing club, which provides positive sport activities for local young people and aims to raise awareness about the dangers of knife crime. Like many community centres and clubs, it would like to expand but struggles to find the funds to do so. Will the Minister tell me how CAM and the Henry Brown centre can access the dormant asset funds to expand the amazing work that they are doing in the local area?
Stephanie Peacock
The Government will work with the National Lottery Community Fund to decide on the specific programmes, and we will outline how that funding will be allocated shortly. I pay tribute to the organisations in my hon. Friend’s constituency for their work and activities, and I would happily meet her to discuss the issue further.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
My hon. Friend is a good champion for his constituency. The Government recognise that sports facilities, including swimming facilities, are incredibly important, and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it further.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Stephanie Peacock
I look forward to attending the cricket at Edgbaston later today, and I know it is hugely important to communities up and down the country. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member to discuss her question in more detail.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in praising all the staff past and present, the council’s chief officer for leisure and wellbeing, Tom Kittendorf, and the portfolio holder, Councillor Maggie O’Rourke, on the recent 25th anniversary of the Rugby art gallery and museum? I was glad to attend and pay tribute to staff for the huge contribution they make to the three C’s: creativity, culture and community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that municipally run institutions such as that are gems shining bright in our towns, and that this Government will do all they can to empower them?
Society Lotteries Sales Limits and Prize Draws
Stephanie Peacock Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by the Minister for Gambling and Heritage, my noble Friend Baroness Twycross:
Today I am updating the House on the Government position on the statutory limits for society lotteries and on prize draws. Alongside this, I am publishing independent research that the Government commissioned on both the lotteries and prize draw markets.
Society lotteries provide valuable funding for good causes across the country and are required to give a minimum of 20% of proceeds to good causes. The latest data showed record sales for the society lottery sector of over £1 billion in 2023-24, an increase of nearly 12% on the previous year, of which £462 million went to good causes.
In 2020, the then Government increased the annual sales limit on society lotteries from £10 million to £50 million, in response to the challenges that many society lottery operators were facing to operate within the limit. Those reforms were intended to support the society lottery sector as a whole by providing significant headroom for further growth.
In December 2023, the previous Government committed to commissioning independent research to look at the scale of the society lotteries sector, the relationship between society lotteries and the National Lottery, and the impact of any future changes to the sales limit.
The report, published here, found that five operators now have annual sales over the previous £10 million limit, with the current annual sales limit of £50 million only impacting one operator, the People’s Postcode Lottery.
The research found that the current sales and prize limits on society lotteries are not a barrier to society lottery sector growth. Overall sector sales have increased by 27% from 2019-20 to 2023-24, and PPL sales by almost 30% over a similar period. Despite this significant level of growth, there has not been a corresponding growth in returns to good causes. Since 2021, sector prizes have increased by nearly 28%, and expenses by over 25%, but returns to good causes have grown by only 15%.
The research also found that increasing the annual sales limit to £100 million could have several impacts on the National Lottery, with:
a decrease in participation, with players being displaced to society lotteries (National Lottery sales could fall by between £25 million and £148 million); and
less money for National Lottery-funded good causes, which provide a vital source of income to lottery distributor bodies.
The research also found that there was a potential for an overall increase in funding to good causes, driven by higher returns to good causes by society lotteries outweighing losses to the National Lottery.
The Government want a lotteries sector centred on one national lottery—the National Lottery—while continuing to support the hundreds of wider society lotteries that exist. This model has worked successfully for the past 30 years and created the conditions for the National Lottery to flourish and support life-changing projects, alongside a thriving society lotteries sector.
Since it started, the National Lottery has raised over £50 billion for good causes, raising over £1.8 billion in 2023-24 alone. It supports communities in every UK postcode, including local initiatives, heritage sites, iconic institutions, grassroots sport and elite sport. It is a national institution that the Government are proud of and want to protect.
As the research sets out potential negative impacts of increasing the society lotteries limits on the National Lottery, and the current transition to the fourth national lottery licence, the Government have taken the decision not to make further changes to society lottery limits at this time.
Prize draws
I am also updating the House on the Government’s position on prize draws, which is recognised as a significant and growing market. This Government have made it clear that we want people who participate in prize draws to be confident that proportionate protections are in place.
Prize draws and competitions, also known as “free draws”, are products where the outcome, and therefore the allocation of prizes, is determined by chance, and where there is both a paid and free entry route for players to choose between. These prize draws do not currently require a licence under the Gambling Act 2005 because they offer a free entry route. Prize draws are a significant and growing market. It is estimated that the UK prize draw market is worth £1.3 billion annually, with 7.4 million adult participants and over 400 operators.
I am therefore pleased to announce that we will be introducing a voluntary code for prize draw operators later this year. This code will help provide a uniform approach across the sector to strengthen player protections, increase transparency and improve accountability of prize draw operators. My Department has worked closely with the sector over the past six months to start to develop this code. The work is also underpinned by the results of independent research, which the then Government commissioned in 2023, which looked at this growing market. I am grateful to London Economics for this excellent report, which for the first time gives some firm insights into this relatively new sector.
This approach allows us to take swift action collectively with the sector. Although prize draw operators do not currently require a licence under the Gambling Act 2005, as they offer a free entry route, the success of this code will dictate whether this Government decide to take further action, including legislation.
[HCWS743]