Media Bill (Fifth sitting)

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I was just saying that the Government’s approach to the issue is to encourage the existing good partnerships between the radio sector and car manufacturers. Radioplayer is an initiative by the BBC and commercial radio that supports the use of common standards and technology, to make it much easier for partner manufacturers to integrate radio into car entertainment systems. The BBC and commercial radio recently announced new investment to expand that work, to support and build Radioplayer in the UK and to continue the development of partnerships across Europe. Radioplayer has partnerships with manufacturers including Volkswagen Group, BMW and Renault, which together represent over 40% of all European car sales, and it recently announced a long-term extension and expansion of its partnership with VW Group’s automated software company. A range of other companies also provide integration services. That prevents car manufacturers from having to bear all the research and development costs as systems develop.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for noting all those car manufacturers. As the representative of Luton North, I would like to include van manufacturers as well, particularly Vauxhall.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I have no doubt that van drivers spend as much time listening to the radio as car drivers do, so the hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight vans.

Turning back to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, we believe that existing partnerships are the most effective way forward. However, we still have power to intervene—by, for instance, changing the definition of a radio selection service to include different ways in which radio stations are selected, if a clear need arises in the future. We will continue to support efforts by the radio industry to develop partnerships with car manufacturers, which, as I say, have produced good results. We will also keep these issues under review, as she requests. I hope that will go some way towards reassuring her, and that she is willing to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

But the podcast is not subject to the regulatory requirements. It is absolutely the case that “The News Agents” is produced by a broadcaster that holds an Ofcom license, but that does not mean that the requirements of the licence apply to the content of the podcast.

[Sarah Owen]

Does the Minister not find it slightly perverse that the top-billing podcast, “The Rest is Politics”, which is the most listened-to podcast, is not subject to the requirements, yet one that is not the most listened to is subject to the requirements?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Under the terms of the Bill, neither of them will be. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the regulatory regime to cover live radio, in whichever format it is consumed, but I do not think that podcasts—I am depressed to hear that “The Rest is Politics” is the top podcast on the charts, but there is no accounting for taste—should be subject to regulation, despite high listener numbers. As I say, we are happy to keep the matter under review, and the Bill allows for the amendment of relevant definitions. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will be willing to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 51 relates to the definition of “corresponds” in proposed new section 362BG(4). I recognise the amendment’s intention, and it is correct to say that there may sometimes be a very small difference between when an internet radio service is received by a listener and when the corresponding licensed broadcast service is received. That is why proposed new section 362BG(4) refers to when programmes are broadcast and provided by the station, rather than when they are received. It is not the Government’s intention for stations to fall out of scope of the protections because of very small discrepancies.

In any event, we consider that it is clear that very minor time-lags of up to a few seconds are not to be interpreted as not being “at the same time”, and we expect Ofcom to interpret the provision accordingly. However, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has raised an important issue as to whether minor differences in output between versions of substantially the same programming should be allowed and, if so, whether the provision could be amended in a workable way. We are happy to consider the issue further with the industry and Ofcom. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley East for tabling new clause 3, and we recognise its intention, which is to ensure that listeners can access a wide range of audio content on their connected devices. The provisions in part 6 of the Bill are being put in place to protect the public value of live, licensed UK radio. Although the options available to listeners have grown over recent years and will continue to do so, live radio remains the main way in which audio content produced by broadcasters is consumed. The provisions also reflect the fact that the regulatory framework that is in place for BBC, commercial and community radio services secures the ongoing provision of their public value content.

The new clause would extend the scope of the regime to unregulated content. At this stage, without a fuller understanding of the online audio market, it would risk significantly broadening the scope of the Bill. In particular, it would place disproportionate burdens on the platforms, without a clear means to ensure that the regime protects content that is of public value. In addition, it may risk significantly delaying the implementation of the regime. For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clause, and I hope that the hon. Lady will consider not pressing it.

Media Bill (Sixth sitting)

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

Specifically on this issue, I agree with the points made by the shadow Minister. I think that asking for a report into this issue is the most sensible way forward, rather than saying that we have got all the answers. Looking at this issue in the whole would be very important.

When my children were younger, we relied a lot on CBeebies; the kids spent a lot of time watching CBeebies rather than anything else. Now that they are a bit bigger, they have forayed into the world of YouTube; when we are considering content on these platforms, at least with CBeebies parents know for certain that there will be no swearing and nothing inappropriate on that channel. Not everything on it is necessarily educational, but it is all funny or good, whereas on YouTube there is an absolute load of nonsense at times, and there are a number of shows on Netflix or Disney+ about which I have had to say to my daughter, “No, you can’t watch that. It’s just nonsense.”

There is value in ensuring that children have access, and easy access, to appropriate content and in encouraging parents to ensure that their children are—well, having gone through the Online Safety Bill, I know that we need to ensure that parents are aware of what their children are consuming on the internet and aware of what they are watching, and that they are taking decisions to manage that content and to ensure that children have good access to it. If the public service broadcasters’ shows for children are more easily accessible, parents will have fewer issues in ensuring that those are the shows that their children see.

Lastly, I will give a wee plug for “Newsround”, which a significant number of schools show in school. It is incredibly important and a really key way in which children are able to access news content in an age-appropriate way that explains the background and the information that they are being provided with. Therefore, I agree entirely with the shadow Minister that it would be sensible to have a report on this issue, and that a watching brief definitely needs to be kept on it.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Just to add to those points and those made by the shadow Minister, I have often relied on the third parent that is CBeebies, as I imagine many other Members and many of our constituents have as well. I want to talk about the quality of such television and about its educational impact on children, ranging from young children to teenagers.

As has been alluded to, the quality of the BBC’s programmes, particularly on CBeebies, is just a trusted fact. I know as a parent that I could quite happily leave my three-year-old in front of CBeebies. She does not love Peter Rabbit, but I know that it is a safe and secure watch for her. I know that there will be no inappropriate advertising or any inappropriate life lessons or swearing, which I cannot guarantee on other services or channels. There are brilliant CBeebies programmes and characters, such as Mr Tumble, “Bluey”, “Newsround”, which has already been mentioned, and “Dog Squad”, which is a new firm favourite.

As the shadow Minister said, most children now know their way around an iPad, a tablet, a computer or a phone like the back of their hand, and they access all this content in a way that we could not when we were younger, including through Netflix or YouTube. That is a particular concern, because the adverts on YouTube and other online streaming platforms are not always age appropriate. Particularly during the cost of living crisis and in the run-up to Christmas, that is another burden for parents to deal with. It is a huge annoyance that there is this reliance on advertising, and sometimes product placement, which is not always healthy for children, in movies and TV shows.

On the educational impact, I have concerns about how young children watch these programmes. There will need to be access to repeated viewings for the educational impact to be fully felt when it comes to things such as GCSE “Bitesize” or learning letters. One episode of “Yakka Dee!” or “Sesame Street” will not teach my child the entire alphabet. With that in mind, it is important that we have a review of the impact on young people to protect the quality and standards of children’s television.

Media Bill (Fourth sitting)

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th December 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I hope to provide my hon. Friend with further detail in my response to the amendment of the hon. Member for Barnsley East. I take my hon. Friend’s point, however; people expect to hear local news, relevant to the place where they live. In some cases, the definition of local news seems to be stretched somewhat. This is not a debate about the BBC, but I am sure that it might crop up in our discussion.

Local news and information are not defined in section 314 of the Communications Act 2003. They are mentioned as elements of local “material” that Ofcom is required to secure as part of the licensing of local commercial radio. Ofcom is also required to

“draw up guidance as to how they consider the requirements…should be satisfied; and…have regard to that guidance in carrying out their functions”.

Clause 44 amends section 314, and enables Ofcom to impose local news requirements in stations’ licences. It also enables Ofcom to ensure that this local news includes “locally-gathered” news. The hon. Lady suggested that she wanted further clarity on the definition of local news, but the provisions include a definition of local news for the first time. Under clause 44(7), to be regarded as “locally gathered-news”, news will need to be gathered

“by persons who gather news in the course of an employment of business”—

in other words, by professional journalists. We considered whether there was a case for being even more specific about how much news should be provided, or the times of day when local news should be available, but we felt that it would be most beneficial to the effective operation of the licensing system for Ofcom to continue to have responsibility for drawing up guidance on how stations should meet requirements.

Ofcom will draw up guidance that will replace the existing local news guidance. That will ensure continuity, while retaining a degree of flexibility in an approach that has been taken ever since 2003. It must have regard to the new definition of local news, and the requirement for at least some of that local news to be “locally-gathered”. We do not think it is either necessary or helpful for the Bill to require the Government to provide guidance to Ofcom on drawing up its guidance.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

On the point around Ofcom drawing up guidance, will Ofcom seek—and will the Government press it to—consultation with viewers, readers and listeners affected by these local changes, especially given that local newspapers are closing their doors across the country? It is so important that we have proper, accountable local news that is accessible to everybody.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I would love to spend time debating the importance of local newspapers with the hon. Lady; it is a point on which I completely agree. I also share her concern about the disappearance of local newspapers in so many places, but that matter of concern is slightly outside this Bill. Nevertheless, she is right that it means that the remaining sources of local news become all the more important.

As she suggests, I would expect Ofcom to consult widely in local communities before it decides precisely how the guidance should work. We differ from the Opposition, however, in not thinking that it would be helpful to have two sets of guidance, one emanating from the Bill and the other from Ofcom. I think that would simply add to the complication and confusion, and we need Ofcom to be able to apply the new provisions across a wide range of stations with flexibility. The provisions, which include a requirement for at least some local news to be gathered locally, give a degree of clarification. I hope that on that basis, that the hon. Member for Barnsley East will withdraw her amendment.

Media Bill (First sitting)

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th December 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The past decade has seen a complete transformation in the way in which people access television. Ten years ago, streaming services barely existed; now, they are ubiquitous. That is why the Bill is so important in modernising our approach and, in particular, ensuring that the public service broadcasters continue to thrive in this new landscape.

Clause 1 amends section 264 of the Communications Act to create a modernised remit for public service broadcasting against which Ofcom must report at least every five years. The new remit replaces and simplifies the purposes and objectives of the current public service broadcasting system. That is set out in proposed new subsection (4), and it will be fulfilled when the public service broadcasters provide a range of content that satisfies the interests of different audiences and is delivered in a way that meets the needs of those audiences.

Proposed new subsection (5) identifies the principal types of public service content that should form part of the PSBs’ collective contribution to the remit, specifically news and current affairs, children’s content and distinctively British content, as well as original, independent and regional productions. For the first time, regional and minority language content—content in Gaelic, Welsh, Scots, Ulster Scots, Irish and Cornish—is specified as contributing to the public service remit.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

In that list of protected genres, I note the exception of music. Does the Minister agree that the BBC has an integral part to play in the UK’s cultural landscape as the biggest commissioner of music and the biggest employer of musicians in the country? It has a proud cultural record, from the discovery of new artists and the Proms to innovative, brilliant cultural BBC radio programming at home and abroad. It is vital that all that is protected under amendment 19.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

While I completely share the hon. Lady’s love of music and recognition of the importance that broadcasters play in the promotion of music, the purpose of the new remit is to remove the specific naming of individual genres and instead put a requirement for them to be a “broad range”. In my view, that would certainly include music. Ofcom will have a duty to ensure that the broad range of different aspects of public service broadcasting is delivered, and there is a backstop power. If it is felt that broadcasters are failing to deliver sufficient quantities of the specific genre, it is possible for us to pass additional regulation to include a named additional genre. While music is no longer specifically mentioned in the remit, I am confident that that will not lead to any reduction. Indeed, the broadcasters have made clear that they have no intention of reining back on specific genres just because they do not appear in the legislation.

On how content is delivered, the Bill updates the present system so that on-demand provision contributes to the fulfilment of the remit, but to count towards the remit, as has been mentioned, it has to be online for at least 30 days. The only exceptions to the requirement are news and the coverage of live sports, which are regarded as being of instantaneous value, but value that perhaps diminishes over a short space of time. We thought about including music, but I think the value of music lasts beyond 30 days—I am as keen to see a performance from Glastonbury today as I was at the time it was broadcast. It would therefore not be appropriate to include it as one of the exemptions to the requirement. The Government recognise that it is valuable for audiences to be able to access news and current affairs in a traditional format, and the Bill accounts for that by ensuring our public service broadcasters are still subject to quotas that require them to deliver news via traditional linear television. Taken together, these changes will help ensure that our regulatory regime keeps up with modern viewing methods.

Clause 2 updates section 264A of the Communications Act in the light of the new public service remit for television. Section 264A describes how Ofcom, when undertaking a review under section 264, should consider the contribution that other media services, including those provided by commercial broadcasters, make to the remit. The changes made by the clause are needed to implement the new public service remit.

Clause 7 makes changes consequential to clause 1. In particular, it amends section 271 of the Communications Act to apply the existing delegated powers in the section to the new public service remit, as opposed to the old purposes and objectives. That will ensure that, should there be a need, the Secretary of State can by regulation modify the public service remit in clause 1, as I was suggesting to the hon. Member for Luton North. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

I understand the intention behind amendment 19, which is to ensure that the range of content shown is broad. We want that too, but we feel that no longer specifying a large number of individual genres simplifies the current system of public service broadcasting. We want to set a clear and simple vision for the industry that narrows in on what it means to be a public service broadcaster, but we do not see that that need comes at the expense of breadth. We continue to want to see a wide range of genres, and we believe the clause achieves that.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Ofcom has a duty to monitor the delivery of the remit, and that includes satisfying itself that there is a sufficient range of genres and that there has not been a diminution of a particular genre that would be considered part of the public service remit. If, however, it becomes clear that broadcasters are failing in any area, there is a backstop power that allows the Secretary of State to add a specific genre to the remit. We believe that safeguard is sufficient to ensure continued delivery of the range of genres that the hon. Lady and I want to see.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous with his time. At what point would the backstop power be initiated? Is there a standard below which the Government believe the backstop should be initiated? If so, why not just lay it out on the face of the Bill?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The position is that Ofcom has a duty to monitor the delivery of genres, and it produces a report on that. If it becomes clear, and Ofcom states, that the public service broadcasters are failing to deliver aspects of the remit, section 271 of the Communications Act, which is amended by clause 7, provides a delegated power to amend the remit following the report by Ofcom. Proposed new section 278A allows for the creation of additional quotas for underserved content areas. Those powers are designed to address any underserved content areas that have been identified, and could be used to add a specific genre if that proved necessary.

ONLINE SAFETY BILL (First sitting)

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Committee stage (re-committed clauses and schedules)
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 11, page 10, line 17, at end insert

“, and—

(c) mitigate the harm to children caused by habit-forming features of the service by consideration and analysis of how processes (including algorithmic serving of content, the display of other users’ approval of posts and notifications) contribute to development of habit-forming behaviour.”

This amendment requires services to take or use proportionate measures to mitigate the harm to children caused by habit-forming features of a service.

Thank you, Sir Roger, for chairing this recommitted Bill Committee. I will not say that it is nice to be back discussing the Bill again; we had all hoped to have made more progress by now. If you will indulge me for a second, I would like to thank the Clerks, who have been massively helpful in ensuring that this quick turnaround could happen and that we could table the amendments in a sensible form.

Amendment 98 arose from comments and evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists highlighting that a number of platforms, and particularly social media platforms such as TikTok and Facebook, generally encourage habit-forming behaviour or have algorithms that encourage it. Such companies are there to make money—that is what companies do—so they want people to linger on their sites and to spend as much time there as possible.

I do not know how many hon. Members have spent time on TikTok, but if they do, and they enjoy some of the cat videos, for instance, the algorithm will know and will show them more videos of cats. They will sit there and think, “Gosh, where did the last half-hour go? I have been watching any number of 20-second videos about cats, because they constantly come up.” Social media sites work by encouraging people to linger on the site and to spend the time dawdling and looking at the advertisements, which make the company additional revenue.

That is good for capitalism and for the company’s ability to make money but the issue, particularly in relation to clause 11, is how that affects children. Children may not have the necessary filters; they may not have the ability that we have to put our phones down—not that we always manage to do so. That ability and decision-making process may not be as refined in children as in adults. Children can be sucked into the platforms by watching videos of cats or of something far more harmful.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point about TikTok, but it also applies to YouTube. The platforms’ addictive nature has to do with the content. A platform does not just show a person a video of a cat, because that will not keep them hooked for half an hour. It has to show them a cat doing something extraordinary, and then a cat doing something even more extraordinary. That is why vulnerable people, especially children, get sucked into a dark hole. They click to see not just the same video but something more exciting, and then something even more exciting. That is the addictive nature of this.

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is absolutely the case. We are talking about cats because I chose them to illustrate the situation, but people may look at content about healthy eating, and that moves on to content that encourages them to be sick. The way the algorithms step it up is insidious; they get more and more extreme, so that the linger time is increased and people do not get bored. It is important that platforms look specifically at their habit-forming features.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

Being online can be a hugely positive experience for children and young people, but we recognise the challenge of habit-forming behaviour or designed addiction to some digital services. The Bill as drafted, however, would already deliver the intent of the amendment from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. If service providers identify in their risk assessment that habit-forming or addictive-behaviour risks cause significant harm to an appreciable number of children on a service, the Bill will require them to put in place measures to mitigate and manage that risk under clause 11(2)(a).

To meet the child safety risk assessment duties under clause 10, services must assess the risk of harm to children from the different ways in which the service is used; the impact of such use; the level of risk of harm to children; how the design and operation of the service may increase the risks identified; and the functionalities that facilitate the presence or dissemination of content of harm to children. The definition of “functionality” at clause 200 already includes an expression of a view on content, such as applying a “like” or “dislike” button, as at subsection (2)(f)(i).

[Sarah Owen]

I thank the Minister for giving way so early on. He mentioned an “appreciable number”. Will he clarify what that is? Is it one, 10, 100 or 1,000?

[Paul Scully]

I do not think that a single number can be put on that, because it depends on the platform and the type of viewing. It is not easy to put a single number on that. An “appreciable number” is basically as identified by Ofcom, which will be the arbiter of all this. It comes back to what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said about the direction that we, as she rightly said, want to give Ofcom. Ofcom has a range of powers already to help it assess whether companies are fulfilling their duties, including the power to require information about the operation of their algorithms. I would set the direction that the hon. Lady is looking for, to ensure that Ofcom uses those powers to the fullest and can look at the algorithms. We should bear in mind that social media platforms face criminal liability if they do not supply the information required by Ofcom to look under the bonnet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is exactly why users should be able to block private messaging in general. Someone on Twitter can say, “I’m not going to receive a direct message from anybody I don’t follow.” Twitter users have the opportunity to do that, but there is not necessarily that opportunity on all platforms. We are asking for those things to be included, so that the provider can say, “You’re using private messaging inappropriately. Therefore, we are blocking all your access to private messaging,” or, “You are being harmed as a result of accessing private messaging. Therefore, we are blocking your access to any private messaging. You can still see pictures on Instagram, but you can no longer receive any private messages, because we are blocking your access to that part of the site.” That is very different from blocking a user’s access to certain kinds of content, for example. I agree that that should happen, but it is about the functionalities and stopping access to some of them.

We are not asking Ofcom to mandate that platforms take this measure; they could still take the slightly more nuclear option of banning somebody entirely from their service. However, if this option is included, we could say, “Your service is doing pretty well, but we know there is an issue with private messaging. Could you please take action to ensure that those people who are using private messaging to harm children no longer have access to private messaging and are no longer able to use the part of the service that enables them to do these things?” Somebody might be doing a great job of making games in Roblox, but they may be saying inappropriate things. It may be proportionate to block that person entirely, but it may be more proportionate to block their access to voice chat, so that they can no longer say those things, or direct message or contact anybody. It is about proportionality and recognising that the service is not necessarily inherently harmful but that specific parts of it could be.

[Sarah Owen]

The hon. Member is making fantastic, salient points. The damage with private messaging is around phishing, as well as seeing a really harmful message and not being able to unsee it. Would she agree that it is about protecting the victim, not putting the onus on the victim to disengage from such conversations?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I completely agree. The hon. Member put that much better than I could. I was trying to formulate that point in my head, but had not quite got there, so I appreciate her intervention. She is right: we should not put the onus on a victim to deal with a situation. Once they have seen a message from someone, they can absolutely block that person, but that person could create another account and send them messages again. People could be able to choose, and to say, “No, I don’t want anyone to be able to send me private messages,” or “I don’t want any private messages from anyone I don’t know.” We could put in those safeguards.

I am talking about adding another layer to the clause, so that companies would not necessarily have to demonstrate that it was proportionate to ban a person from using their service, as that may be too high a bar—a concern I will come to later. They could, however, demonstrate that it was proportionate to ban a person from using private messaging services, or from accessing livestreaming features. There has been a massive increase in self-generated child sexual abuse images, and huge amount has come from livestreaming. There are massive risks with livestreaming features on services.

Livestreaming is not always bad. Someone could livestream themselves showing how to make pancakes. There is no issue with that—that is grand—but livestreaming is being used by bad actors to manipulate children into sharing videos of themselves, and once they are on the internet, they are there forever. It cannot be undone. If we were able to ban vulnerable users—my preferred option would be all children—from accessing livestreaming services, they would be much safer.

ONLINE SAFETY BILL (Second sitting)

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Committee stage (re-committed clauses and schedules)
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I did not make a note of the specific word I was on when we adjourned, so I hope Hansard colleagues will forgive me if the flow between what I said previously and what I say now is somewhat stilted.

I will keep this brief, because I was—purposefully—testing the patience of the Minister with some of my contributions. However, I did so to hammer home the fact that the removal of clauses 12 and 13 from the Bill is a fatal error. If the recommittal of the Bill is not to fundamentally undermine what the Bill set out to do five years or so ago, their removal should urgently be reconsidered. We have spent five years debating the Bill to get it to this point.

As I said, there are forms of harm that are not illegal, but they are none the less harmful, and they should be legislated for. They should be in the Bill, as should specific protections for adults, not just children. I therefore urge the Minister to keep clauses 12 and 13 in the Bill so that we do not undermine what it set out to do and all the work that has been done up to this point. Inexplicably, the Government are trying to undo that work at this late stage before the Bill becomes law.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Angela—I wish it was a toastier room. Let me add to the points that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, made so powerfully about vulnerable people. There is no cliff edge when such a person becomes 18. What thought have the Minister and the Department given to vulnerable young adults with learning disabilities or spectrum disorders? Frankly, the idea that, as soon as a person turns 18, they are magically no longer vulnerable is for the birds—particularly when it comes to eating disorders, suicide and self-harm.

Adults do not live in isolation, and they do not just live online. We have a duty of care to people. The perfect example is disinformation, particularly when it comes to its harmful impact on public health. We saw that with the pandemic and vaccine misinformation. We saw it with the harm done to children by the anti-vaccine movement’s myths about vaccines, children and babies. It causes greater harm than just having a conversation online.

People do not stay in one lane. Once people start being sucked into conspiracy myths, much as we discussed earlier around the algorithms that are used to keep people online, it has to keep ramping up. Social media and tech companies do that very well. They know how to do it. That is why I might start looking for something to do with ramen recipes and all of a sudden I am on to a cat that has decided to make noodles. It always ramps up. That is the fun end of it, but on the serious end somebody will start to have doubts about certain public health messages the Government are sending out. That then tips into other conspiracy theories that have really harmful, damaging consequences.

I saw that personally. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North eloquently put forward some really powerful examples of what she has been subjected to. With covid, some of the anti-vaccinators and anti-mask-wearers who targeted me quickly slipped into Sinophobia and racism. I was sent videos of people eating live animals, and being blamed for a global pandemic.

The people who have been targeted do not stay in one lane. The idea that adults are not vulnerable, and susceptible, to such targeting and do not need protection from it is frankly for the birds. We see that particularly with extremism, misogyny and the incel culture. I take the point from our earlier discussion about who determines what crosses the legal threshold, but why do we have to wait until somebody is physically hurt before the Government act?

That is really regrettable. So, too, is the fact that this is such a huge U-turn in policy, with 15% of the Bill coming back to Committee. As we have heard, that is unprecedented, and yet, on the most pivotal point, we were unable to hear expert advice, particularly from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s and the Antisemitism Policy Trust. I was struggling to understand why we would not hear expert advice on such a drastic change to an important piece of legislation—until I heard the hon. Member for Don Valley talk about offence. This is not about offence; it is about harm.

The hon. Member’s comments highlighted perfectly the real reason we are all here in a freezing cold Bill Committee, rehashing work that has already been solved. The Bill was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it was better than what we have today. The real reason we are here is the fight within the Conservative party.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

No such fight has taken place. These are my personal views, and I genuinely believe that people have a right to say what they would like to say. That is free speech. There have been no fights whatever.

[Sarah Owen]

In that case, I must have been mistaken in thinking that the hon. Member—who has probably said quite a lot of things, which is why his voice is as hoarse as it is—was criticising the former Minister for measures that were agreed in previous Committee sittings.

For me, the current proposals are a really disappointing, retrograde step. They will not protect the most vulnerable people in our communities, including offline—this harm is not just online, but stretches out across all our communities. What happens online does not take place, and stay, in an isolated space; people are influenced by it and take their cues from it. They do not just take their cues from what is said in Parliament; they see misogynists online and think that they can treat people like that. They see horrific abuses of power and extreme pornography and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, take their cues from that. What happens online does not stay online.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about what happens online and its influence on the outside world. We saw that most recently with Kanye West being reinstated to Twitter and allowed to spew his bile and abhorrent views about Jews. That antisemitism had a real-world impact in terms of the rise in antisemitism on the streets, particularly in the US. The direct impact of his being allowed to talk about that online was Jews being harmed in the real world. That is exactly what is happening.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention. She is absolutely right. We have had a discussion about terms of reference and terms of service. Not only do most people not actually fully read them or understand them, but they are subject to change. The moment Elon Musk took over Twitter, everything changed. Not only have we got Donald Trump back, but Elon Musk also gave the keys to a mainstream social media platform to Kanye West. We have seen what happened then.

That is the situation the Government will now not shut the door on. That is regrettable. For all the reasons we have heard today, it is really damaging. It is really disappointing that we are not taking the opportunity to lead in this area.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela.

A lot of the discussion has replayed the debate from day two on Report about the removal of “legal but harmful” measures. Some of the discussion this morning and this afternoon has covered really important issues such as self-harm on which, as we said on the Floor of the House, we will introduce measures at a later stage. I will not talk about those measures now, but I would just say that we have already said that if we agree that the promotion of things such as self-harm is illegal, it should be illegal. Let us be very straight about how we deal with the promotion of self-harm.

The Bill will bring huge improvements for adult safety online. In addition to their duty to tackle illegal content, companies will have to provide adult users with tools to keep themselves safer. On some of the other clauses, we will talk about the triple shield that was mentioned earlier. If the content is illegal, it will still be illegal. If content does not adhere to the companies’ terms of service—that includes many of the issues that we have been debating for the last hour—it will have to be removed. We will come to user enforcement issues in further clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

No, not about whether climate change is happening, but we are talking about a wide range. “Provides false information”—how do the companies determine what is false? I am not talking about the binary question of whether climate change is happening, but climate change is a wide-ranging debate. “Provides false information” means that someone has to determine what is false and what is not. Basically, the amendment outsources that to the social media platforms. That is not appropriate.

[Sarah Owen]

Would that not also apply to vaccine efficacy? If we are talking about everything being up for debate and nothing being a hard fact, we are entering slightly strange worlds where we undo a huge amount of progress, in particular on health.

[Paul Scully]

The amendment does not talk about vaccine efficacy; it talks about content that is harmful to health. That is a wide-ranging thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As we know, the clause makes provision in relation to the making of regulations designating primary and priority content that is harmful to children, and priority content that is harmful to adults. The Secretary of State may specify a description of content in regulations only if they consider that there is a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children or adults in the United Kingdom presented by user-generated or search content of that description, and must consult Ofcom before making such regulations.

In the last Bill Committee, Labour raised concerns that there were no duties that required the Secretary of State to consult others, including expert stakeholders, ahead of making these regulations. That decision cannot be for one person alone. When it comes to managing harmful content, unlike illegal content, we can all agree that it is about implementing systems that prevent people from encountering it, rather than removing it entirely.

[Sarah Owen]

The fact that we are here again to discuss what one Secretary of State wanted to put into law, and which another is now seeking to remove before the law has even been introduced, suggests that my hon. Friend’s point about protection and making sure that there are adequate measures within which the Secretary of State must operate is absolutely valid.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I completely agree: we are now on our third Secretary of State, our third Minister and our third Prime Minister since we began considering this iteration of the Bill. It is vital that this does not come down to one person’s ideological beliefs. We have spoken at length about this issue; the hon. Member for Don Valley has spoken about his concerns that Parliament should be sovereign, and should make these decisions. It should not be for one individual or one stakeholder to make these determinations.

We also have issues with the Government’s chosen toggle approach—we see that as problematic. We have debated it at length, but our concerns regarding clause 56 are about the lack of consultation that the Secretary of State of the day, whoever that may be and whatever political party they belong to, will be forced to make before making widespread changes to a regime. I am afraid that those concerns still exist, and are not just held by us, but by stakeholders and by Members of all political persuasions across the House. However, since our proposed amendment was voted down in the previous Bill Committee, nothing has changed. I will spare colleagues from once again hearing my pleas about the importance of consultation when it comes to determining all things related to online safety, but while Labour Members do not formally oppose the clause, we hope that the Minister will address our widespread concerns about the powers of the Secretary of State in his remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

The different platforms, approaches and conditions will necessitate different numbers; it would be hard to pin a number down. The wording is vague and wide-ranging because it is trying to capture any number of scenarios, many as yet unknown. However, the regulations designating priority harms will be made under the draft affirmative resolution procedure.

[Sarah Owen]

On that point, which we discussed earlier—my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North discussed it—I am struggling to understand what is an acceptable level of harm, and what is the acceptable number of people to be harmed, before a platform has to act.

[Paul Scully]

It totally depends on the scenario. It is very difficult for me to stand here now and give a wide number of examples, but the Secretary of State will be reacting to a given situation, rather than trying to predict them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want the Bill to work. We have always wanted the Bill to work. We want it to achieve its aim of keeping children, adults and everyone who uses the internet safe from the harms that are perpetuated there. If there is no transparency, how will we know that the platforms are breaking the rules covertly, and whether they are hiding content and getting round the rules? That is what they do; we know it, because we have heard it from whistleblowers, but we cannot rely on whistleblowers alone to highlight exactly what happens behind the closed doors of the platforms.

We need the transparency and the reports to be made public, so that we can see whether the legislation is working. If that does not happen, although we have waited five years, we will need another piece of legislation to fix it. We know that the Bill is not perfect, and the Minister knows that—he has said so himself—but, ultimately, we need to know that it works. If it does not, we have a responsibility as legislators to put something in place that does. Transparency is the only way in which we will figure that out.

[Sarah Owen]

I want to add to the brilliant points made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, in particular on the continually changing nature of market forces, which the Minister himself referenced. We want innovation. We want the tech companies to innovate—preferably ones in the UK—but we do not want to be playing catch-up as we are now, making legislation retrospectively to right wrongs that have taken place because our legislative process has been too slow to deal with the technological changes and the changes in social media, in apps, and with how we access data and communicate with one another online. The bare minimum is a biannual report.

Within six months, if a new piece of technology comes up, it does not simply stay with one app or platform; that technology will be leapfrogged by others. Such technological advances can take place at a very rapid pace. The transparency aspect is important, because people should have a right to know what they are using and whether it is safe. We as policy makers should have a right to know clearly whether the legislation that we have introduced, or the legislation that we want to amend or update, is effective.

If we look at any other approach that we take to protect the health and safety of the people in our country—the people we all represent in our constituencies —we always say that prevention is better than cure. At the moment, without transparency and without researchers being able to update the information we need to see, we will constantly be playing catch-up with digital tech.

[Kirsty Blackman]

This may be the only place in the Bill where I do not necessarily agree wholeheartedly with the Labour Front Benchers. I agree with the vast majority of what was said, but I have some concerns about making mandatory the requirement for transparency reports to be public in all circumstances, because there are circumstances in which that would simply highlight loopholes, allowing people to exploit them in a way that we do not want them to do.

Specifically on the regularity of reporting and some level of transparency, given that the Minister is keen on the commercial imperative and ensuring that people are safe, we need a higher level of transparency than we currently see among the platforms. There is a very good case to be made for some of the transparency reporting to be made public, particularly for the very largest platforms to be required to make it public, or to make sections of it public.

I want to talk about the speed of change to the terms of service and about proportionality. If Ofcom could request transparency reporting only annually, imagine that it received transparency information three days before Elon Musk took over Twitter. Twitter would be a completely different place three days later, and Ofcom would be unable to ask for more transparency information for a whole year, by which point a significant amount of damage could have been done. We have seen that the terms of service can change quickly. Ofcom would not have the flexibility to ask for an updated transparency report, even if drastic changes were made to the services.

Another thing slightly concerns me about doing this annually and not allowing a bit more flexibility. Let us say that a small platform that none of us has ever heard of, such as Mastodon, shoots to prominence overnight. Let us also say that, as a small platform, Mastodon was previously regulated, and Ofcom had made a request for transparency information shortly before Elon Musk took over Twitter and people had migrated to Mastodon. Mastodon would now be suffering from very different issues than those it had when it had a small number of users, compared with the significant number that it has now. It would have changed dramatically, yet Ofcom would not have the flexibility to seek that information. We know that platforms in the online world have sudden stellar increases in popularity overnight. Some have been bubbling along for ages with nobody using them. Not all of them are brand-new platforms that suddenly shoot to prominence. The lack of flexibility is a problem.

Lastly, I agree about researchers being able to access the transparency information provided. It is really important that we recognise that Ofcom is not the only expert. Ofcom has a huge amount of expertise, and it is massively increasing its staff numbers to cope with these issues, but the reality is that those staff are not academic researchers. They are unable to look at the issues and are not necessarily the most prominent experts in the field of child protection, for example. That is not to take away from the expertise in Ofcom, but we could allow it to ask a regulated group of researchers to look at the information and point out any issues that may not have been spotted, particularly given the volume of transparency reports that there are likely to be.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ben Bradley]

Before my time, I’m afraid.

Channel 4 has also recently won the rights to a number of England games, and it is only positive to have more football on free-to-air television. All that should be celebrated, but the decision to privatise Channel 4 comes with mutual benefits. I strongly believe there is more potential for Channel 4 to compete and to make tremendous progress in the private sector. State ownership is impractical in the long run. If the channel is to find investors to find the cash to grow and expand and do more, it needs private enterprise. We have heard from Conservative Members why it is struggling to do that, which I will come on to again shortly.

Why do we continue to limit the growth and ability of a much-loved TV channel when we can easily sort it out? Questions need to be asked about why running media companies needs to be a role of Government. Government ownership has implications. Through being funded by advertising alone Channel 4 has a valuation of about 1% of that of Netflix, for example. Channel 4 clearly needs more funding if it is to compete in an ever-changing and growing market and if it is to expand. Where is that meant to come from? Its advertising funding is already falling, it cannot sell its content as other companies can, and its spending is declining. It is limited by Government ownership.

Members have pointed to good things Channel 4 does, and Opposition Members have jumped to the worst possible conclusions about the risks to all those things, but there is no reason why those good things cannot continue. Words such as “abolish” have been used, but Channel 4 is not going anywhere. I do not believe that those terms reflect what is happening.

To return to the money, if Channel 4 is to grow at scale and take full advantage of market growth and compete effectively, its only current option is to borrow, with that risk underwritten by the Government, and I do no not think that that is an option; nor should the taxpayer be asked to do that. That takes me back to my earlier point: do the Government need to do this, or could someone else do it? The answer is firmly that somebody else could.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

On money, Channel 4 has directly invested £12 billion in the independent production sector since its creation. How much do the Government estimate that a privatised Channel 4 will invest in our production sector? If they cannot say how much, why are we taking this risk?

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. She will have to ask the Government—I am not in the Government—but Channel 5 is a privately owned public sector broadcaster that invests a higher proportion of its revenue in small broadcasting companies than Channel 4, so that is a model that works. The shadow Secretary of State said that she felt that privatisation would stifle growth and innovation in British jobs. As I have said, examples exist in this country of privately owned public sector broadcasters who invest in those businesses and support our wider media sector. There are systems here that can work.

To me, this is fundamentally a much bigger debate: it is a question about the role of the state. If we want best value for taxpayers in not only financial value but freedom and choice, the state should not be in charge. If the state does not desperately need to run something and there is no practical reason why it should be the Government’s job, it should not do so. We should approach this issue and others by asking ourselves: do the Government specifically need to do this, or could the market do it? Could the private sector do it? Could the third sector do it? Could the community do it? In the case of the media, all of the above already do it.

As a council leader, I have started by questioning whether we do things as we do because that is the best way or because we have always done it that way. It is often the latter, and I have found that much more can be achieved through change. The state should be prioritising its responsibilities to deliver public services, to create the environment needed for jobs and growth and to tackle the major geopolitical challenges in the world. It should not be running and working in the TV industry.

Once upon a time, the state needed to do so to promote choice and sustain something very new—there was just a handful of channels and the industry needed that support—but now, that could not be further from the truth. Mrs Thatcher set up Channel 4 to promote competition and create content that would not otherwise exist. We now have content coming out of our ears—content galore. In fact, I have got content in my pocket right now. We have got content everywhere. We do not need to be putting the state’s energy into that—[Interruption.] Do not ask what kind of content. [Interruption.] Juicy. But there is no space any more where the Government needs to do that. It is brilliant to see a Conservative Government doing what I believe to be fundamentally Conservative things. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) disagrees, but my version of this is that the sale underpins the conservativism that I believe in of a small-state, pro-enterprise, innovation-focused Government who are handing the reins over to the creatives and innovators in the industry instead of sticking with state control because that is what we have always done. That is a good thing, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull said, more of it, please, Minister. I will take much more of it.

At a time when we want to be proud of our British institutions, let us have faith in Channel 4’s ability to compete. Let us release it from state ownership and allow it to do so.

Football Index Collapse

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. Certainly this debate is part of the ongoing campaign to ensure that justice is done, and I will touch on the issue of compensation and redress later in my speech.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on the point about fairness and justice. My constituent, Mr Murphy, lost £7,000 following the collapse of Football Index. Unbelievably, all that he has had back so far is £81, but for him and constituents like him, it is not about the money; it is justice that they want and deserve. He wanted me to say that he said this:

“I want the Directors responsible to be made accountable for their actions…I have seen nothing from the Government in terms of redress for customers or even how something like this can be prevented in the future.”

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to tell us how this will be prevented from happening again, and what justice people can expect?

[Liz Twist]

I certainly agree and will touch immediately on the issue of redress. As I was saying, the issues identified must be addressed to ensure that those affected have the answers they need and we must look again at the regulatory failing that allowed this situation to come about. Tens of thousands of customers had—and lost—more than £124 million in the system at the point of its collapse. Of course the question of redress must be revisited, as hon. Members have already said, because the clear failings of the regulations applied to BetIndex Ltd, a subsidiary of Fame Ventures Ltd, have left many people in a difficult position.

The Sheehan report, as we have heard, highlights a range of issues about the regulation of the product; it highlights several failings by both the Gambling Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority. It sets out that from early in the life of Football Index, the product was not regulated correctly and the platform’s “go to market” function was not notified to the Gambling Commission. However, it states that the Gambling Commission had reviewed the product twice and this was not noted in the reviews carried out, meaning that Football Index was given its licence and launched without any consideration of one of its two main features. At that point, it was already clear that the Gambling Commission should have done more to protect the rights of customers. Given Football Index’s likeness to an exchange or a market, the Gambling Commission should have notified the Financial Conduct Authority.

The Sheehan report also states that the Gambling Commission became “fully aware” of the issues with Football Index in 2019, but it still allowed customers to put money into the platform, meaning that customers lost even more money because of the commission’s inaction.

In 2019 the Gambling Commission referred Football Index to the Financial Conduct Authority, and in September that year stated that Football Index should be authorised by both the FCA and the GC. Despite that, again nothing was put in place. Clearly, the failings allowed customers to bet more and more into a platform that was not correctly regulated. Now, in the aftermath, people are having to deal with the fear that they may never get back the money that they put into the platform. The life-changing impact that could have on some individuals is clear.

Grassroots Arts and Culture: Luton

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a huge privilege to have my first Adjournment debate on grassroots arts and culture in Luton—my patch and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). Luton has a long history of being a creative town, particularly since the 1800s, when we had a thriving straw plaiting and hat making trade. The wonderful Wardown House Museum and Gallery in Luton South has the most complete headwear and hat industry collection in the world, showcasing industry objects and paper archives relating to the English hat industry. At this stage, it would be remiss of me not to mention and thank the fantastic Museum Makers, a wonderful bunch of volunteers committed to supporting our museum in innovative ways.

Luton is a global town, where more than 130 different languages are spoken. Our super diversity has enabled a wide range of creative opportunities to flourish, which has an amazing impact on people’s day-to-day lives, from food to fashion, from dance to design. Participation in grassroots and community arts activity has played an important role in developing community cohesion, building social capital and enabling local people to lead happy, healthy and prosperous lives.

The importance of the arts should not be understated; when we are not at work, we all, in one way or another, spend our free time consuming art in all its forms. Whether it is TV, radio, magazines, music, art, online content—all of that has been created by people working in the arts and cultural sector. A recent Creative Industries Federation report states that, before the coronavirus pandemic and the attached health restrictions, the creative sector was growing at five times the rate of the wider economy, employing more than 2 million people and contributing £111 billion to the economy—more than the aerospace, automotive, life sciences and oil and gas industries combined.

The Luton arts and culture strategy group, made up of representatives from six of Luton’s key cultural organisations—Luton Borough Council, Revoluton Arts, Tangled Feet, the Culture Trust Luton, the UK Centre for Carnival Arts and the University of Bedfordshire—informs me that the creative industries in Luton contributed £36 million to the local economy in 2018, and leveraged an additional £3.2 million in inward investment in 2019. Luton’s cultural strategy has worked hard to embed arts and the creative sector at the heart of the sustainable transformation of our town, building shared growth through an inclusive local economy, developing skills and jobs and shaping town centre regeneration.

Last year saw Luton’s pilot year of culture, “People Power Passion”, a modern and exciting cultural programme that explored a key historical moment in Luton: the 1919 Peace Day riots, when local people burnt down the town hall in protest at being excluded by the bigwigs running the council after the first world war. We explored that through fantastic arts and cultural events, and while it was inspiring and enjoyable, the investment in this cultural programme, with diverse participants and audiences reflecting the whole of our community, importantly employed 84 artists, trained 13 young people from diverse backgrounds, worked with 400 local participants and engaged 138 volunteers. This participation of our community in large-scale outdoor cultural events builds on our spectacular one-day international carnival, our excellent mela and our vibrant St Patrick’s Day festival. Again, it is at this grassroots level that we see such fantastic work by local creatives, supported so well by local volunteers and charities.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House. As well as volunteer organisations, Luton has fantastic events businesses, such as Creative8, which I visited last week. The events industry is vital not just for jobs but for our culture and our economy. Does she agree that, in order to protect all of that, it is vital that it gets specific support during this pandemic?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such a superb point. I absolutely agree that such business are vital to our creative and cultural sector and that they need that specific support. I may mention that later in my speech.

Luton’s most famous public artwork, “Beacon”, by Turner Prize-winning, Luton-born Mark Titchner, is a mural that shines out from the side of Luton’s Hat Factory arts centre, and has a simple message that inspires many of us, including budding artists:

“If you can dream it, you must do it.”

However, these dreams are at huge risk of being completely lost, as the global coronavirus pandemic has forced grassroots artists and local arts organisations, such as Next Generation youth theatre, to the brink of devastation. The arts sector was the first to close and will be one of the last to reopen, and this is leaving local creative businesses and freelancers fighting for their future. I am, therefore, deeply concerned that the Government’s response to the crisis fails to recognise the importance of grassroots arts and culture. Although the Government’s £1.57 billion covid-19 arts package is welcome, it is targeted at buildings and institutions, which means that it will fail to reach grassroots precarious workers, freelancers and self-employed entrepreneurs.

The Creative Industries Federation report projects that 122,000 permanent creative workers will be made redundant this year, including 42,000 jobs in the east of England, with the impact being felt twice as hard by freelancers, as 287,000 roles are expected to be terminated in the UK in 2020. The premature decision to end the job retention scheme before the sector has returned to pre-pandemic levels will fail to prevent rising unemployment. This will hamper both the economic recovery and the survival of the sector.

I have been in close contact with the grassroots Luton Creative Forum about the impact of the crisis. Its members tell me that they are fearful for the survival of the arts organisations, as many of them are accruing large debts with no indication of when they will be able to reopen. Pay-as-you-earn freelancers, the newly self-employed and those with less than 50% of their income through self-employment are all suffering, too, as they are excluded from Government support schemes.

My constituent Dan is one of those people excluded from support. Dan is an arts worker who earns a percentage of his income through PAYE and the remainder through self-employment. As Dan is married and his husband was furloughed, he has been unable to access Government support. This has left their joint income at below the minimum wage for one individual. This is a disgrace. With the continued impact of covid and venues not being able to reopen—we heard more about that today—and performances such as the usual Christmas pantomimes having to be cancelled, many partially self-employed workers like Dan, who rely on freelancing to top up their PAYE income, will be forced to take on more debt without targeted Government support.

Luton’s Next Generation youth theatre submitted an application to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport recovery fund. It is great that it has been able to apply, but NGYT is the only organisation in Luton eligible to apply because of the restrictions on the fund, and it has yet to hear whether it has been successful.

The Government’s policies and the recovery fund are failing to meet the needs of grassroots organisations, and if these organisations fail, it will have a hugely damaging impact on the social value provided by the sector in Luton. I urge the Government to be more forward looking and to recognise the long-term social capital that can be provided by the grassroots arts sector.

We also know that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers will have widened owing to the pandemic. Across the country we have heard of some home-schooling difficulties and many families facing digital exclusion. In Luton, this is terrifying because 46% of children live in poverty, according to End Child Poverty.

The creative industries provide the Government with a vehicle to build back better. Research by the Cultural Learning Alliance shows that participation in structured arts activities can increase cognitive abilities by 17%, students from low-income families who take part in arts activities at school are three times more likely to get a degree, and learning through arts and culture can improve attainment in maths and English and develop skills and behaviour that lead children to do better in school.

I urge the Government to consider innovative ways to make up for the educational impact of coronavirus through the benefits of supporting pupils to engage in grassroots arts and culture, building on the work of Luton Cultural Education Partnership, for example. A building back better agenda must recognise the diversity of our grassroots artists. Luton is proud of our community’s diversity, and by creating opportunities to address inequalities among the working class, black, Asian, non-white and ethnic minority communities, we have advanced community cohesion.

However, I am concerned that the Government’s economic schemes may perpetuate inequalities, as those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to suffer more, meaning they are less able to remain in the industry. The Government must make a concerted effort to create pathways for people from working-class, black, Asian, non-white and ethnic minority communities to rise to positions of leadership in arts and culture.

It is therefore disappointing that among the 10 members of the Government’s cultural renewal taskforce, only three are women, two are non-white British and none are independent artists. As the latest Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre report shows, those from privileged backgrounds are more than twice as likely to land a job in a creative occupation. They therefore dominate key decision-making roles in the sector and influence what appears on stage, page and screen.

Young people in Luton, just setting out on their career in the arts, need to see role models that look like them so that they can remain ambitious for their futures and feel confident that they can succeed. We sow the seeds of tomorrow today. What does that mean for the next generation? We are influenced and inspired by those we see in our community.

A number of brilliant creatives have come from Luton, whether it is the musician Paul Young, the actor Colin Salmon of James Bond fame, our national treasure and “Bake Off” winner Nadiya Hussain, or my good friend who sadly passed away a few years ago, Steve Dillon, or New Bloke, known internationally for his superb comic book drawing such as in “The Punisher” and “Preacher”—and I could go on. Not only have those people done much for art and culture; they have shown working-class young people from Luton that they can aspire to a creative career. However, we need to protect grassroots arts support and organisations to give our young people the opportunity to develop their craft and reach the same heights.

If the Government fail to protect the arts sector, not only will there be a short-term contraction of the sector, as actors, singers, artists and writers are forced into other work to survive, but it will have a long-term impact on the skills the sector needs to thrive, and a negative impact on our economic recovery and the renewal of our high streets. The Government have a choice: to empower people and their local community through grassroots arts and culture, or allow rising unemployment and debt and the devastation of a sector that everyone enjoys. To me, the people of Luton South and people across our town and the UK, the choice seems pretty simple.