Parliamentary debate, 17 February 2023

[Roger Lancaster]

Baroness Brown of Cambridge Chair, Science and Technology Committee (Lords), Chair, Science and Technology Committee (Lords)
"To ask His Majesty's Government what support they provide for the development of chess to (1) schools, (2) communities, and (3) the English Chess Federation, given (a) the social and cognitive benefits that game brings, and (b) its increased popularity since the COVID-19 lockdown"

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
"The Government recognises the well-established social and cognitive benefits of playing chess, and is pleased to see its increased popularity. While the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not provide any direct support to the English Chess Federation specifically, we are supportive of all programmes which could extend these benefits to more people, including the work of the English Chess Federation and other chess charities which have successfully promoted the game of chess across the country.

"The charity Chess in Schools & Communities, for example, provides chess equipment, software and lessons to state primary schools in England and Wales. Its aim is to promote the educational and social benefits of playing chess and to organise chess events which encourage mass participation. As well as partnering with over 900 schools across the UK, it has also worked successfully with local authorities to empower whole communities through chess, and has established a growing network of chess clubs in libraries"

[Kevin Thurlow]

Better than answering "none", I suppose.

[Roger Lancaster]

Better than answering "none", I suppose.

I'm afraid that I have to agree. But I was intrigued by the fact that it was the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee in the House of Lords who posed the question. Is this something in which the committee in question is interested or did Baroness Brown ask in a private capacity?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Nothing obvious in the Wikipedia articles:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_K ... _Cambridge

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen ... hitley_Bay

Parkinson (who in fairness answered the question accurately) is probably best known for having been one of Theresa May's Special Advisors, and is progressing his political career in the Lords after being made a Lord in an Honours list.

I too would be interested to see if Baroness Brown has any connections with chess.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I too would be interested to see if Baroness Brown has any connections with chess."

From the wording of the question, someone has prompted her. Maybe there's a friend or family connection. But I'm pleased she asked the question.

[Brian Valentine]

While there is no mention of chess, she was interviewd here https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001jshz.

[Mick Norris]

Nothing obvious in the Wikipedia articles:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_K ... _Cambridge

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen ... hitley_Bay

Parkinson (who in fairness answered the question accurately) is probably best known for having been one of Theresa May's Special Advisors, and is progressing his political career in the Lords after being made a Lord in an Honours list.

I too would be interested to see if Baroness Brown has any connections with chess.

She worked at Rolls Royce, they have a chess club in Derby (where Derbyshire play county matches); she's married to Colin and there's an unrated C Brown listed under Rolls Royce Derby

This may just be a coincidence

[Angus French]

Malcolm Pein has claimed credit.

My thanks to the member of a SW London chess club for making the intro that enabled my question to be tabled. To all UK chess players: I am launching a campaign to get chess supported by HM Gov Sample text for letters to MPs will appear @ecfchess please get writing #Chess

[Roger Lancaster]

Thanks to Angus for that clarification. It had crossed my mind, after taking on board the Minister's generous mention of Chess in Schools & Communities, that Malcolm might have had a hand in this - and full credit to him for doing so. The Parliamentary question may not achieved much else, other than to draw the matter to the attention of this forum, but maybe it should set us thinking.

First, I'm very dubious that Malcolm's proposal (a campaign based on letters to MPs) is the best way of setting about his objective, with which I imagine we all agree, which is to get HMG financial support for chess. My impression, admittedly from speaking only to a handful of MPs past and present, is that they are less motivated by 100 copy-and-paste letters than by 10 unique letters each explaining the writer's personal views or experiences. And, in any case, I'm unconvinced that a sufficient number of chess players will respond to the campaign - sometimes because they regard Malcolm as a divisive figure but more often due to the simple inertia which is often referred to in threads here.

What seems to me prima facie more promising is the Parliamentary petitions route. If I read the rules correctly, 10,000 signatures are needed to get a response from HMG (which may be no more than that already provided by Lord Parkinson) and 100,000 to trigger a debate. That sounds a large number - and I've already referred to the inertia factor - but signature of the petition is, as I read it, open to all British citizens and UK residents. If that's the case then the potential, if we can energise the ECF's junior membership (and their parents, relatives, schoolfriends, etc) to support a petition, is considerable. And people are more inclined to sign petitions than to write letters - even letters of the copy-and-paste variety! First question, and it's a key one, can anyone authoritatively confirm that juniors can support such a petition?

If so, I'd suggest that the substantive issue would be to request HMG to include chess among the activities supported by Sport England - a proposal which, because it doesn't per se entail extra HMG expenditure, would seem to have a fair expectation of success. If there's any wide enthusiasm for this among members of this forum, it might be a unique opportunity for the membership to unify and see whether it can work together to achieve a positive outcome for English chess. (These last two words aren't intended to exclude other parts of the UK but simply reflect the limit of Sport England's remit).

[Roger de Coverly]

If so, I'd suggest that the substantive issue would be to request HMG to include chess among the activities supported by Sport England - a proposal which, because it doesn't per se entail extra HMG expenditure, would seem to have a fair expectation of success.

Are not Sport England completely hostile to the notion of Chess as a sport they should support? Although they support Rambling which is non-competitive, they rule out Chess, Bridge etc by virtue of the issue that their definition of a sport requires some degree of physical activity which doesn't in their eyes include moving pieces on a board.

[Roger Lancaster]

If so, I'd suggest that the substantive issue would be to request HMG to include chess among the activities supported by Sport England - a proposal which, because it doesn't per se entail extra HMG expenditure, would seem to have a fair expectation of success.

Are not Sport England completely hostile to the notion of Chess as a sport they should support? Although they support Rambling which is non-competitive, they rule out Chess, Bridge etc by virtue of the issue that their definition of a sport requires some degree of physical activity which doesn't in their eyes include moving pieces on a board.

Largely agree but Sport England is a HMG-funded operation so, if HMG tells them to include chess, I rather think they will.

[Ian Thompson]

If so, I'd suggest that the substantive issue would be to request HMG to include chess among the activities supported by Sport England

The difficulty with that is that Sport England say they will only consider supporting sports that meet the Council of Europe’s European Sports Charter 1993 definition of sport:

What's a sport?

The sports councils don’t decide what is and what isn’t a sport. There’re many different opinions as to what constitutes a sporting activity and the sports councils don’t have their own definition of sport.

However, we operate the recognition process to establish which sports we may consider working with. When deciding whether to recognise a sport, the sports councils look to see if it meets the Council of Europe’s European Sports Charter 1993 definition of sport, and whether it’s well established and organised within our jurisdiction.

The European Sports Charter definition of a sport is:

"Sport" means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels.

I don't see how chess, or any other board game, is going to meet the requirement of being a physical activity.

The question then becomes either what's the likelihood of getting Sport England to change their definition of a sport to something that is different from the Council of Europe’s definition, or what's the likelihood of getting the Council of Europe to change their definition of a sport to something that would include board games.

[Paul Cooksey]

Even then, why would Sport England spend money on games without physical exercise?

I don't think we can expect to get any of the money the government is willing to spend on sport to improve peoples physical health because we are not a sport that helps people improve their physical health.

Chess needs to have a convincing public policy argument if it wants more funding than it already gets.

[Roger Lancaster]

Other side of that particular coin (ie. Ian's point) is that chess is recognised as a sport by the International Olympic Committee. As to the Council of Europe, its core mission is said to be the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law across Europe. I think it's fair to say that chess, or sport in general for that matter, falls only peripherally within that mission whereas sport is the wherewithal for the IOC.

I take Paul's point but, if one accepts the premise that playing chess benefits mental health, that's on a par with benefitting physical health.

[Paul Cooksey]

I understand, I am just making the point that getting recognised as a sport does not get chess any funding.

I can't imagine Sport England are naïve enough to answer the question "would you give us any funding if we were recognised as a sport?" but I am reasonably sure they would not.