The comments made by Ed Vaizey, the then Culture Secretary, on 9 January 2014.
The UK’s heritage is world renowned and the Lake District, England’s largest National Park is one of our heritage jewels. The UNESCO nomination process can be very demanding and success is not guaranteed but I believe the Lake District deserves to be recognised and inscribed as a World Heritage Site and I wish all involved the very best.
The speech made by Helen Grant, the Conservative MP for Maidstone and the Weald, in the House of Commons on 26 January 2021.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent football regulator in England; to make provision for that regulator to license football clubs, distribute funds within football, review English Football League club finances, and reform the governance of the Football Association; to require the regulator to take steps in connection with football supporters’ groups; and for connected purposes.
The governance of English football is broken. Our national game—the beautiful game—is in crisis. These issues are not new but have been laid bare and amplified by the covid-19 pandemic, during which, sadly, football has failed to speak with one voice. We have seen much-loved clubs go to the wall. Sadly, many more may well follow, and at the heart of this is broken governance, gross financial disparities between the rich clubs and the poor clubs, and unsustainable business models. It is staggering that the wage bills of championship clubs are equal to 110% of their revenues—just one example of the downward spiral as lower league clubs seek the financial nirvana that premier league promotion dangles. Ultimately, it is the loyal football supporters and communities up and down the country who suffer the most.
Football is different from any other sector of the economy. It is not just a business; this is our national sport. Our football clubs are societal assets at the beating hearts of towns and cities, making a huge contribution to the culture and identity of our nation. We in this place and the other place surely have a responsibility to protect them from maladministration, blinkered leadership and commercial suicide.
Football’s failing governance has been clear for many years, but again and again, football has failed to reform itself. The conflicts that have dogged the game’s integrity and financial probity have become more obvious under the current pandemic. In recent weeks, the authorities have failed to show decisive leadership on whether matches should be paused due to rising covid infections. The Football Association chairman resigned after using offensive language, showing himself to be out of touch with the modern players, the modern game and, indeed, modern Britain. We have also witnessed the tragically slow progress on addressing the link between dementia and heading footballs. For me, this demonstrates a failure that is tantamount to negligence.
Locally, too, working alongside Maidstone United in my constituency, I have witnessed the flawed distribution of emergency National Lottery funding to national league clubs. This botch, failing to account for lost gate receipts, has left many national league clubs in dire financial circumstances. These examples very sadly illustrate the fact that in England, no one is speaking for the football world with the independence and authority needed to address the big issues.
The Football Association, allegedly the governing body of the game, is outdated and out of touch. Its own governance leaves much to be desired. Frankly, it is not up to the mammoth task of driving through the reforms that football so desperately needs. Other powerful stakeholders in the game are too invested and too self-interested to bring about the changes required. Even as I speak today, the Premier League is midway through a lengthy governance review of its own, but to me that feels like students marking their own homework. Does anyone seriously expect the Premier League to make the radical and fundamental changes that are needed across the wider professional and grassroots game? I think not.
Now is the time for fundamental reform—reform that can only be achieved through the creation of an independent football regulator. That was the central recommendation of “Saving the Beautiful Game: Manifesto for Change”, a recent report co-authored by a group, of which I was part, made up of experienced individuals with a deep interest in football. Such a step would not be unique. In France, for example, lawmakers intervened to make governance of football fairer by implementing rules around club ownership and player contracts. In Spain, the lawmakers again intervened to ensure fairness in the sale of La Liga broadcasting rights, and in Germany professional clubs already operate under a tough licensing regime.
A regulator appointed under this Bill would be absolutely independent. It would be funded from within football, not by public money, and it would not require Government to run the game. It would have the power and responsibility, among other things, to do the following: distribute funds in the interests of the wider game of football, introduce a comprehensive licensing system for professional football clubs, review thoroughly the causes of financial stress in the game, bring forward reforms to modernise and strengthen the FA, work with supporters’ groups to advance the causes that really matter to them, and drive and promote diversity and inclusion—areas where football, from the coaching field to the boardroom, continues to fall well below the standards enjoyed in so many areas of modern British society.
Association football is the most popular sport in the entire world. It is played by over 250 million people in over 200 countries, and it was born in England 150 years ago. It is a huge part of community life across the length and breadth of our country, but if we want to protect and preserve that fabulous heritage for generations into the future, our football governance needs emergency surgery, and it needs that surgery now. Let us drive through the radical change required, create an independent football regulator and make governance of the beautiful game that we all know and love fit for the 21st century.
The speech made by Pete Wishart, the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2021.
That is an immensely disappointing response from the Minister. Touring Europe means everything to our artists and musicians: the thrill of that first tour, crammed into the Transit van with all your gear; four to a room in a cheap hotel in Paris, Rotterdam or Hamburg; using what is left of the fee for a post-gig beer; the dream of coming back on a lavish tour bus, staying at five-star hotels—gone, all gone. Musicians and artists are mere collateral in this Government’s obsession with ending freedom of movement.
Does the Minister acknowledge that visas and carnets will render such tours beyond the financial reach of future generations of new musicians? Does she appreciate that is not just our new musicians but the whole creative sector that will have increased costs and red tape? What will she say to the crews, the technicians, the set designers, the transport? We were promised by her predecessor that arrangements would not change. What has happened to that commitment? The EU said it was prepared to offer a 90-day deal. Why was that turned down? The Government said they were holding out for a better deal, but we have ended up with nothing. How could that happen? Given that the Minister’s approach is totally contradicted by the EU, will she provide complete transparency in all these negotiations?
Our constituents really care about this; 263,000 have now signed the petition organised by our artists, calling for this to get sorted. We do not want any more of the EU-blaming—we have had quite enough of that in the past few years; we just want the Government to fix this. The Secretary of State has said that the door is still open, so will she walk through and fix it out? Will she restart talks with the EU immediately, to get our artists the arrangements that they need? Will she let the music tour freely once again?
The statement made by Caroline Dinenage, the Minister for Digital and Culture, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2021.
This Government recognise the importance of the UK’s world-leading cultural and creative industries. We recently demonstrated that commitment by providing an unprecedented £1.57 billion package of support to help them through the covid-19 pandemic. It is therefore entirely consistent that, during the negotiations with the EU, we pushed for ambitious arrangements allowing performers and artists to work across Europe.
Our proposals, which were informed by our extensive consultation and engagement with the UK’s cultural and creative industries, would have allowed UK musicians and other cultural touring professionals to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily, without the need for work permits. Regrettably, those mutually beneficial proposals were rejected by the EU. As a result, UK cultural professionals seeking to tour in the EU will be required to check domestic immigration and visitor rules for each member state in which they intend to tour. Although some member states allow touring without a permit, others will require a pre-approved visa and/or a work permit.
It is absolutely vital that we now support our touring sectors to understand the new rules associated with working and travelling in the EU. We are delivering an extensive programme of engagement with the sector to help them understand any new requirements. That includes working with Arts Council England and various other sector bodies, to help distil and clarify the new rules.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has already made very clear, we will also look at whether we can work with our partners in EU member states to find ways to make life easier for those working in the creative industries in our respective countries. In the meantime, we will continue close dialogue with the creative and cultural sectors, to understand the ongoing impacts and ensure that that they have the right support at the right time to continue to thrive.
The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 15 January 2021.
For hundreds of years, public statues and monuments have been erected across the country to celebrate individuals and great moments in British history.
They reflected the people’s preferences at the time, not a single, official narrative or doctrine. They are hugely varied, some loved, some reviled, but all part of the weft and weave of our uniquely rich history and built environment.
We cannot – and should not – now try to edit or censor our past. That’s why I am changing the law to protect historic monuments and ensure we don’t repeat the errors of previous generations, losing our inheritance of the past without proper care.
What has stood for generations should be considered thoughtfully, not removed on a whim, any removal should require planning permission and local people should have the chance to be properly consulted. Our policy in law will be clear, that we believe in explaining and retaining heritage, not tearing it down.
The article written by Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 18 January 2021.
If the last decade has been defined by anything, it’s the power of social media. Its opening saw the hope of the Arab Spring, whilst its closing witnessed last week’s disgraceful scenes at the US Capitol.
Both were the product of social media’s unprecedented ability to spread ideas and bring people together, for both good and bad. Put simply, we have a new printing press – but it’s an invention whose implications society and governments are just beginning to grapple with.
With so many of us now consuming our news and information through social media, a small number of companies wield vast power in shaping how we see the world. To an outsider, it doesn’t always seem this power is wielded transparently or consistently.
Iran’s Ayatollah has a Twitter account, whilst the elected President of the United States is permanently suspended from holding one. Trump’s supporters have labeled that move censorship; the other half of the country has asked what took so long.
Norway’s Prime Minister has had posts defending freedom of expression deleted on Facebook because they contained the iconic “Napalm Girl” photo – an unintentional violation of the site’s child nudity policy – whilst in Myanmar, the same platform has been used to whip up hatred towards Rohingya Muslims.
Those facts alone should make anyone who loves democracy pause for thought. The idea that free speech can be switched off with the click of a button in California is unsettling even for the people with their hands on the mouse.
Just this week, Twitter’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, said that while he felt that it was right for his platform to ban Trump, leaving platforms to take these decisions “fragments” the public conversation and sets a dangerous precedent.
So as we enter a new era in our relationship with tech, who should decide its rules?
We need to be able to define what social media is and isn’t. Given it is now so crucial a part of public discourse, should we compare it to a utility? Or should we see social media companies as publishers, akin to newspapers – and therefore liable for everything they publish?
In reality, neither the passive “platform” nor the editorialised “publisher” truly hit the mark. Holding companies liable for every piece of content – for 500 hours a minute of uploads on YouTube alone – would break social media.
But equally, when these companies are curating, editorialising, and in some cases removing users, they can no longer claim to be bystanders with no responsibility whatsoever.
However we categorise social media, one thing is clear: as with other forms of mass communication, democratically elected governments must play a role in regulating it.
In the UK, we are leading the world by starting to deal with this dilemma. I have been clear that we are entering a new age of accountability for tech.
At the end of last year, we outlined plans for a groundbreaking new rulebook for social media companies: one that would make sites like Facebook and Twitter responsible for dealing with harmful content on their platforms, while also holding them answerable for their wider role and impact on democratic debate and free speech.
We can no longer outsource difficult decisions. There’s now a burning need for democratic societies to find ways to impose consistency, transparency, fairness in the online sphere.
And it needs to be flexible enough to adapt as social media evolves. There’s always another platform somewhere else on the horizon. No-one had ever used TikTok in the UK before 2018 but now 17 million of us do: almost double the total newspaper circulation in 2019.
It also means navigating some complex philosophical disputes. How do you resolve the inherent tension, for example, between protecting people from dangerous misinformation in a global pandemic, whilst also protecting their right to express an opinion?
There are no easy answers. But we are setting out the parameters.
We need to do everything we can to protect our most vulnerable citizens, and particularly children, from harm. Our upcoming Online Safety Bill holds them as our number one priority.
The second is the protection of free speech. As Lord Justice Sedley put it in 1999, that definition has to include “not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative.” Without the latter, we are making an empty promise.
So, under our legislation, social media giants will have to enforce their terms and conditions consistently and transparently. This will prevent them from arbitrarily banning any user for expressing an offensive or controversial viewpoint.
If users feel like they’ve been treated unfairly, they’ll be able to seek redress from the company. Right now, that process is slow, opaque and inconsistent.
And it’s absolutely vital that internet regulations can’t be used as a tool to silence an opponent or muzzle the free media. So news publishers’ content on their own sites will be exempt.
The decisions governments around the world take will shape democracies for decades to come. As the UK takes up the G7 Presidency this year, we want to work with our democratic allies to forge a coherent response.
We are just taking the first steps in this process. But decisions affecting democracy should be made democratically – by governments accountable to parliament, not executives accountable to shareholders.
The comments made by Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 20 December 2020.
As a Star Wars fan, I know there’s no better place to experience great films than in your local cinema and these grants will provide vital support for independent venues through Christmas and beyond.
Our Restart Scheme has already helped to get nearly 100 film and TV productions back up and running as part of our Plan for Jobs, and it’s right that we extend this to support even more jobs in the UK’s creative industries, including for the over 70s.
The comments made by Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 20 December 2020.
The magic of film is such an important part of the festive period and this investment will help protect our independent cinemas so they’re around for many Christmases to come. Alongside it, the extension of the Film and TV Production Restart Scheme means the UK will be producing even more great content as the cinema industry recovers, keeping us at the forefront of the creative industries.
The speech made by Tracy Brabin, the Labour MP for Batley and Spen, in the House of Commons on 2 December 2020.
What an enormous pleasure it is to be able to discuss the much-loved British institution of “Coronation Street”, as it reaches the grand old age of 60 and is still going strong. Our constituents have gone through so much in these last few months, and it is nice to be in this place to discuss something upbeat and positive. Reaching its diamond anniversary is a phenomenal achievement, especially as it remains so incredibly popular, attracting an average audience of—can you believe that it is more than that of the Parliament channel?—7 million viewers for each show.
First screened on 9 December 1960, “Corrie” was part of a new realism that was sweeping through the theatre, with “Look Back in Anger”, James Dean, Brando, and kitchen-sink dramas. Hardly anyone had a colour telly—remember that?—and there was no such thing as a remote. There were certainly no streaming channels, and we turned the telly off at 11 and went to bed. Created by scriptwriter Tony Warren, “Coronation Street” did not have a straightforward beginning, and was originally rejected by Granada television before being commissioned to run for 13 episodes. It was a slow burn, with Daily Mirror columnist, Ken Irwin, saying that it would “only last three weeks.” Earlier this year its 10,000th episode was broadcast, and in 2010, it became the longest running television soap opera in the world, earning a place in the “Guinness Book of Records.”
Set in the fictional working-class Weatherfield in Salford, “Coronation Street” has never disguised its roots. It is warm and authentic, at times laugh-out-loud funny, and at other times deeply affecting. From the very beginning, the northern dialect was used. I do not know if any hon. Members are old enough to remember those early episodes, with a young man by the name of Ken Barlow achieving a university place and finding himself embarrassed about his working-class upbringing. As a proud northerner, that is not something I have ever felt, and I am proud that this show, which is as much a part of British culture as a nice cuppa, a fish ’n’ chip supper, or sitting down to the Queen’s speech on Christmas day, is played out in a working-class community in the north.
In among the love stories, the breakups, the punch-ups, and the laughs over a hotpot, “Corrie” has always been true to the everyday difficulties that life, particularly working-class life, can bring, with strong feisty women at the centre of the action. As Ena Sharples classically said, “I don’t expect life to be easy. I’d think very little of it if it was”—a good rule of thumb for the moment.
Since those early days on the street, we have witnessed one or two things happen to the people of Weatherfield over the decades—many things—and those famous cobbles have been the stage to storylines that have gripped our country. We have cried together, gasped together, laughed together, and learned together. There have been iconic storylines that caused the nation to take a breather from people’s busy lives, make a cuppa, and pop “Corrie” on the telly—the train crash, the tram crash, the whodunnits, Richard Hillman’s reign of terror, Alan Bradley being killed by a tram in Blackpool, Deirdre, Ken, and Mike’s love-triangle! A certain Tony Blair got involved in the campaign to Save the Weatherfield One, when Deidre was falsely imprisoned, and a certain Tricia Armstrong was sent to prison for not paying her TV licence, and then gave birth behind the bar in the Rovers Return. Alongside all the entertainment, “Coronation Street” has bravely challenged us and our way of thinking with groundbreaking storylines.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr Speaker
Mr Shannon, you are more than welcome to intervene. You might even want to speak later, as we have a little time. Northern Ireland’s answer to Albert Tatlock, come on in.
Jim Shannon
I am not sure how to respond, Mr Speaker. “Coronation Street” has been going all my life, and a wee bit more; and I understand, Mr Speaker, it has been going all your life, and a wee bit more as well. My wife is a tremendous fan of “Coronation Street”. She never misses it. Last week, in self-isolation for the second time, I sat and watched “Coronation Street” on numerous occasions with my wife in control of the remote, so I was not able to turn over.
There was a poignant storyline last week about the loss of a young boy called Oliver. We watched every night it was on during the week, and a person would need a heart of stone not to be moved by that story, how they portrayed in a soap what affects people in reality. The soaps have a tremendous role to play in telling the stories of real life out there, and last week “Coronation Street” did that with real passion, understanding, carefulness and caution—
Mr Speaker
Mr Shannon, I said you could intervene. I will put you down to speak. You do not need to make a speech in an intervention.
Tracy Brabin
That was a really excellent intervention, because it highlights the quality of the writing and the pressure that the crew and the actors are under, in this time of covid, to deliver those performances while being two metres apart, while wearing masks in public areas and while having all those other restrictions, and often in one or two takes, if they are lucky. Those authentic, passionate, emotional performances absolutely gripped the nation, and it is now on record in Parliament that they are two extraordinary actors. They will definitely be in line for awards.
The stories I spoke of have helped untold numbers to understand their own personal difficulties, to speak out and to get help if they need it. Hayley, the first ever transgender British soap character, was portrayed wonderfully by my good friend Julie Hesmondhalgh, who gripped us right to the end when she committed suicide in Roy’s arms.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I congratulate all the team who work on “Coronation Street” on reaching this milestone. Does she agree that “Coronation Street” should be recognised for its groundbreaking storylines over the years? She mentioned the first trans character in a British soap in, I think, 1998 and how “Coronation Street” has sensitively highlighted social issues such as that, teen pregnancy, domestic violence and male rape.
Tracy Brabin
That is a great intervention, because wasn’t it groundbreaking? So many families watching that storyline in their living room may not have understood the humanity or the difficulties of being trans in 21st-century Britain, but they loved Hayley. It opens people’s mind to things they may not necessarily have experienced, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those script writers pushed the boundaries. They were very brave to have that storyline, but we loved her. We really did love that couple so much. It was absolutely heartbreaking.
To pick up on a couple of other storylines: Aidan’s suicide, which led to more calls to the Samaritans than they have ever had; Shona’s memory loss; revenge porn; racism, with the writers working closely with Doreen Lawrence to make it authentic and to give it credibility; and James, a young gay footballer struggling against homophobia. And, right up to recent days, with Bethany Platt’s sexual exploitation, David Platt’s male rape ordeal, Yasmeen’s marital coercive control and, as was mentioned, the sad death of baby Oliver. Never shying away from a difficult storyline and shining a light into the lived experience of others is what our soap operas do best. They strive to inform as well as to entertain.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. As a long-time fan of the programme and, indeed, her role in it, I am a little bit jealous, having only graced the small screen reading the news—nothing as glamorous as the Street. She mentioned the topical storyline of the challenge of being a gay footballer, but I would submit that the Street has done a great deal over many years to support challenging attitudes to homosexuality, particularly by following the experiences of existing and well-loved characters such as Todd Grimshaw or Sophie Webster as they came out, and more recently gay parents. Does she agree that it is by being entertaining that information is often best imparted and taboos are overcome?
Tracy Brabin
I thank the hon. Gentleman so much for that intervention—he is absolutely right. As we were saying about the trans character, these things could not be discussed in any other forum than that of a show. Looking at fictional characters, we wonder, “What would I think if I was that person?” Storytelling has huge power to change people’s mind.
If my history of soaps is correct, the first ever male gay kiss on television was on “EastEnders” and the first female gay kiss on “Brookside”. We must not forget the power of those shows to get that liberal view and those conversations going in people’s living rooms. As Dame Carol Ann Duffy said at the funeral of the creator of “Coronation Street”, Tony Warren,
“the millions who have loved Coronation Street for over half a century have lost their Dickens.”
Isn’t that the truth? He and others are commentators on our lives; they amplify and give opportunities to share experiences.
“Corrie” has given us actors and characters so well written and so brilliantly acted that they could be part of the family. Names such as Jack, Vera, Roy, Rita, Steve, Gail, Ken, Sally, Jim, Betty, Mike, Fred—the list could go on and on of characters so distinctive that they are recognised across the country by their first name alone. It is also a show that incubates talent, giving new actors a chance to cut their teeth on great storylines and powerful emotions. “Corrie” gave us early moments in the careers of Ben Kingsley, Sir Patrick Stewart, Joanna Lumley, Sarah Lancashire, Joanne Froggatt and Bradley Walsh. Even Sir Ian McKellen dropped by, wearing a very dodgy hat and scarf, I seem to recall.
Writers including Jack Rosenthal, Kay Mellor, Sally Wainwright and Paul Abbott have all worked in the writers room carving out brilliant plotlines and one-liners. So powerful is the writing that as a young girl I felt the trials and tribulations facing the Duckworths were as vivid as those of my own family. To go on to become part of “Coronation Street” was almost an impossible dream.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I happened to switch on my TV, and when I saw “Corrie” was being discussed I had to come down and pay tribute as a north-west MP. It is not just the actors and the writers that “Coronation Street” has developed. There are also the back room staff who are so critical to delivering brilliant television day in, day out—the wardrobe team, the make-up artists, the camera operators and so on. “Coronation Street” and Granada Television have fostered and developed that talent, transforming the north-west of England into a TV powerhouse. I am sure the hon. Lady agrees, having spent time at Granada studios, that that embryonic development has played a significant role in transforming the north-west media environment.
Tracy Brabin
I could not agree more, and I will go on to talk about how creativity and the creative industries can be a powerhouse and an engine of regeneration in our communities in the north.
Let me speak a little more personally for a minute. I grew up in a housing estate in Howden Clough in Batley, watching acts at the Batley Variety Club. For a working-class kid like me, it was a source of pride and wonder that huge stars of the day, such as Shirley Bassey and Louis Armstrong, came to my bit of the world. Seeing photographs of Eartha Kitt eating chips in Dewsbury market is sort of mind-blowing. It set me on a path that was hard. I worked in precarious jobs trying to make it, sleeping on couches and living hand to mouth, like so many aspiring actors do. We all know how tough it is to get on in such industries for those who do not have rich parents,. For working-class northern actors, working on “Coronation Street” meant you had arrived. We had grown up watching it, and we wanted to be in it. I got the chance to work with the legends of “Corrie”—Jack and Vera, Raquel, Bet Lynch and Betty Turpin—watching and learning. As someone who had not been to drama school, the ability to memorise pages and pages of script overnight and bring authentic emotions and truth to the work was a skill I learned on that job.
Many may know me as Tricia Armstrong, but aficionados may also know that I joined the show for three episodes playing Chloe, a toy shop manageress. It was a Christmas episode, and I ended up on top of the roof of the toy shop with Peter Baldwin dressed as Father Christmas. I must have impressed in that role, because I was then invited to come back a number of years later as Tricia Armstrong. That first day was, as the House can imagine, very overwhelming. Everybody in the green room was a famous face. When you have William Roache—he is now, unbelievably, 88—saying, “Would you like a cup of tea, Tracy?”, it is quite a surreal experience, as was working with Liz Dawn, who had her lines stuck all over the set like in “The Generation Game”, because she could not remember all of it. As long as there was a bit of script somewhere, she was all right. Famously one Christmas she pulled out the chicken and the lines were on the bum of the chicken as it came out—I thought, “Very convenient.” Then there was Annie Kirkbride, who we all sadly miss, who played Deirdre. Her wicked sense of humour creased us up in serious scenes.
Having struggled with the feast and famine nature of the freelance life, it was such a huge relief to have regular paid work, a paid holiday and a chance to save. More than that, it was the honour of being part of something so associated with my class and being in the homes of people every night who shared my accent and my experiences.
“Corrie” is not just about portrayal or about telling working-class stories brilliantly; it is, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) says, absolutely about jobs in the north. It is not just about actors and directors, but schedulers, designers, editors, costume and make-up, researchers, the props team, office staff, accountants, carpenters, electricians, painters, security guards and canteen staff—the list goes on.
Mr Speaker, you may know I am standing to be the candidate for the West Yorkshire Mayor. If I am elected, that experience on “Coronation Street” will drive my creative new deal, because our entertainment industries also have the power to build our economies, to deliver regeneration and to provide opportunity, hope and skills, and that process will take inspiration from “Coronation Street”, as it has shown us how important television can be for the economy.
“Coronation Street” has a bespoke 7.7 acre set in the north-west. It employs about 450 people and hundreds and hundreds of freelancers. It firmly cements the importance of the north in TV’s history, and in its future, too. We know it is a creative powerhouse, and the skills and talent it nurtures and develops have aided and continue to aid the gentrification of Salford.
I know that ITV takes the development of skills very seriously. To this day, it supports Tony Warren’s determination to be a champion of local talent. Tony wanted to support disadvantaged young people to get a career in an industry that is famously difficult to get started in. Shortly before his death in 2016, he worked with “Coronation Street” and ITV to establish a bursary to support local actors from disadvantaged backgrounds to train at drama schools. I can think of no better legacy for a man whose creation has brought us 60 years of public service broadcasting at its best.
The success of “Coronation Street” is built on a healthy and well-supported public service broadcasting system. In order to preserve these valuable national treasures, reforms need to be made to protect and support our PSB. I hope that the Minister, when he gets to his feet, will also reflect on that and work with the broadcasters and Ofcom to ensure public service broadcasters can continue to deliver for their audiences and, more urgently, for our regions.
Like all parts of life, covid has put massive obstacles in the path of “Coronation Street”, and the team has worked hard to overcome them. The Rovers Return is not that busy these days. The desks in the factory are slightly more spread out than they used to be, reflecting the regulations of real life, and keeping cast and crew as safe as possible while bringing familiar entertainment to our homes. While the Minister is here, let me say that large parts of film and television production have been able to get back on track thanks to the support of the Government around insurance. Screen production is part of a creative ecosystem, and to get it fully functioning once again our performing arts, theatres, music festivals and venues also need that insurance support to keep as buoyant as they can be.
During the last few months of pain and frustration, there have been many times when I am sure that many of us would have found familiarity and comfort in these words from the legendary Blanche, written by my good friend Damon Rochefort: “In my day, summit bad ‘appened you stayed home, got drunk and bit on a shoe.” I think that is quite a good metaphor for the times we live in.
If there is one thing in our country that can cross political divides, it is our love of “Coronation Street”. I am incredibly proud to have been part of the show’s history. I am one of thousands of actors, writers, producers, directors, costume makers and off-screen staff who have worked around the clock—trust me, I absolutely mean around the clock—to bring this programme to our screens year after year, decade after decade, never slipping in quality. Now I am proudly one of the millions of fans of “Coronation Street” who make the show so special, and I know that history is still there to be made, so here’s to the next 60 years.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. As somebody who was born and brought up in Granadaland and who has seen “Coronation Street” develop, it would be remiss of me not to be in the Chair at the start of this debate. Shortly I am going to hand over to another north-west Chair from Lancashire—Nigel Evans, no less. It is interesting that in “Coronation Street”, they always talk about going to Chorley market, because they know the good value of Chorley market. The other thing, of course, is that Ken Morley is from Chorley; he is just one of the stars who have been in “Coronation Street”. At home I have a tray from Newton and Ridley from the set of “Coronation Street”. Both myself and Mr Evans were on “The Politics Show” and we had to answer a certain number of questions. Guess who won—I’ve got the tray!
No more from me. I call Conor Burns.
The comments made by Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 23 November 2020.
This is a big step forward for sport. Bringing grassroots sport back was my number one priority so I’m pleased we are reopening sports and gyms in every tier, in recognition of the significant health benefits.
I’m also delighted we are able to get the turnstiles turning sooner than expected, taking a cautious approach and starting with the lowest risk areas first. I’m confident that sports will take every step to ensure their fans are safe, and fans will play their part and look out for each other until we can safely get everyone back in.