Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Hancock Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
The National Citizen Service is a life-changing experience. The programme delivers good value for money for the taxpayer, and the most recent evaluation showed that the summer programme generated over £2 in benefits for every £1 spent.
Matt Hancock
I think the outcomes from the NCS are very powerful. It brings communities together and it is one of the most effective things that we have in making sure that people come together at a young age and understand our national life as a whole. Of course we are always seeking to improve its administration; the hon. Gentleman would expect nothing less.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give us the number of people who participated last year, and the number who are expected to participate this year? What is he doing to widen participation?
Matt Hancock
Just over 99,000 young people participated in the NCS last year. This year, the target is 100,000—so a little bit higher. We are looking to increase and broaden participation so that people from all backgrounds and communities get the opportunity to engage. In fact, engagement is very strong among the most disadvantaged groups.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
In reviewing the cost-effectiveness of the NCS, will the Secretary of State take into account the absolutely brilliant impact it has on so many young people? I have seen this for myself in Nottingham. Many young people who are disadvantaged or facing other challenges in life come together in the programme, and it makes a real difference to them.
Matt Hancock
Yes; the hon. Gentleman is a man after my own heart. The outcomes from the NCS are incredibly positive, and that will always be at the forefront of our minds.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
When we conceived the NCS, the ambition was that it would be so good that it would become universal. Does that still hold?
Matt Hancock
I would like it to become universal, but we are not requiring it to be universal because we want people to want to be on the programme. However, I think the message is increasingly getting out there that this should be done.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
We take problem gambling very seriously and have taken decisive action on fixed odds betting terminals. We are determined to tackle that social blight and have decided to cut the maximum stake to £2.
Alex Burghart
I thank the Secretary of State for his response and for what he has done in this area. Does he agree that online gambling is in many ways more dangerous than gambling in bookies? What steps will he take to tackle that danger?
Matt Hancock
In our response to the consultation, we set out significant further steps to strengthen the safeguards for online gambling. The Gambling Commission already has a whole series of requirements in that area. There is more to do, and we are getting on with it.
Michelle Donelan
As the Secretary of State knows, I am strongly supportive of the decision taken on FOBTs, but problem gambling is an issue in my constituency, especially among the vulnerable. What more can the Department do to push gambling companies to better support addicts?
Matt Hancock
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support and for that of many Members across the House for the action we are taking on problem gambling. Clearly it is important to ensure that we tackle online issues as well. That is complicated by the nature of the technology, but the Gambling Commission is working hard to ensure that the right protections are in place.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I once again congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing the £2 maximum stake for FOBTs. Will he use his considerable persuasive powers to talk to his colleagues at the Treasury and get that implemented by April 2019, and not a day later?
Matt Hancock
Of course, this needs to go through Parliament, and there is a process that needs to be followed. In order to cover any negative impact on the public finances, the change needs to be linked to an increase in remote gaming duty, paid for by online gaming operators at the relevant Budget. There are steps that need to be taken, but the hon. Gentleman knows just how enthusiastic I am to get this in place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While I welcome the lowering of the maximum stake for fixed odds betting terminals, has the Secretary of State considered a reduction in the number of betting advertisements shown during football matches, which are watched by a massive number of impressible young men and women?
Matt Hancock
That issue has been raised, and we have looked at it. Working with the Gambling Commission, we want to ensure that we get the rules in this space right.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
When is the Secretary of State going to ban 16-year-olds from playing the national lottery and buying scratchcards on the national lottery, or is he more worried about who is winning the money than who is losing the money?
Matt Hancock
We put that issue into the review, and I am sure that my hon. Friend’s consideration will be taken into account, along with others.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
Libraries support people, communities and society as a whole, by providing access to books and literature and, increasingly, to modern technology.
Peter Aldous
With today being Suffolk Day, it is appropriate to highlight the great work of Suffolk Libraries, which is a successful, industrial and provident society that provides a growing range of community services. Will the Secretary of State—a fellow Suffolk MP—work with it as it seeks to become more innovative, self-sufficient and resilient?
Matt Hancock
I commend Suffolk Libraries, which is a thriving public service mutual that, as my hon. Friend says, does a great job. Today could not be a better day to celebrate what Suffolk Libraries does, because Suffolk Day, on midsummer’s day, celebrates everything that is brilliant about the county that is beautiful and full of wonderful people and great food. It is a great place to visit, a great place to live, a great place to be, and a wonderful place to represent.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the Department for all the things that make life worth living. This week, one moment that really made life worth living was Harry Kane’s 91st minute winner against Tunisia. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing the England team the best of luck on Sunday and beyond. In the past week, we have seen three records set in cricket, with Scotland beating England and the women’s and men’s England cricket teams both setting world records. We send our admiration and congratulations to them all.
Mr Sheerman
I obviously support the Secretary of State in what he says about the English teams, especially the women’s cricket team, which was brilliant. Could I ask him to consider carefully our big towns, such as Huddersfield, which are not cities? Up to now, it has never had a consensus on becoming a city. Big towns such as Huddersfield really suffer from not receiving much money, which goes to cities. Is there some fund, or some way, in which the big towns could get their fair share of resources?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. Representing four towns myself, I entirely understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. We try to ensure that the funds that we supply through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are available right across the country, whether that means vouchers for broadband, or the cultural development fund to improve the cultural life of an area. Huddersfield, like many other towns, is very welcome to apply for them all.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
One in five children in their last year of primary school are obese. What plans does the Secretary of State have to restrict further junk food advertising on television?
Matt Hancock
We are working with all stakeholders—the Department of Health and Social Care as well as the public service broadcasters—to take this question forward. Of course, it is not just a matter of advertising. To tackle obesity in this nation, we need a full spectrum approach that looks at all matters. Possibly some of the most important measures are those that encourage reformulation so that everybody benefits from eating healthier food.
Tom Watson
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but as a former Digital Minister, he will know that children now spend more of their time online than watching TV. If he does not create a level playing field on advertising, will revenues not just flood from TV to targeted advertising on YouTube, a company that is less regulated and has proved itself many times over to be less responsible and less transparent than ITV and Channel 4? What is the Minister going to do about online junk food advertising?
Matt Hancock
As I said in my previous response, we need a full spectrum response. It is akin to the debate we had earlier about gambling advertising. This is not just a matter of TV. Increasingly, people are watching things through all the technologies available. We have to make sure that the response is appropriate to that.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. Property rights are the foundation of a market economy and intellectual property rights are the 21st-century version of that. The copyright directive is a good directive. We have to get the details right in its implementation, but it is a good step forward and I look forward to it becoming law.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
It is great to hear so many references to cricket this morning. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the Secretary of State are well aware that the cricket world cup will come to England next year. It will include games between New Zealand and Afghanistan and between Australia and Pakistan, at the glorious county ground in Somerset—in Taunton, indeed. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the event will attract the maximum number of international visitors, as well as home visitors, including, perhaps, the Secretary of State himself?
Matt Hancock
It is almost as if my hon. Friend had some connection with Taunton. [Laughter.] She certainly speaks well for it.
We are absolutely determined that when the cricket world cup comes to this nation next year we will gain the full benefit, including all the business people who will come here. I went to India with the world cup trophy itself to encourage Indian tour operators to send as many people as possible from that fine nation to this country, and that includes Taunton.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. We passed legislation to introduce the universal service obligation to ensure that everyone could have access to decent broadband by 2020. It has been harder in Scotland—we have been waiting five years for the Scottish National party Government to spend the £20 million that we promised them—but now we are just getting on with it and delivering directly to the people of Scotland.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking David Dimbleby for the role that he played for 25 years at the helm of “Question Time”, and does he agree that, in a year that marks 100 years of women’s suffrage, the baton should be passed to a woman?
Matt Hancock
I think the whole House will want to congratulate David Dimbleby on his achievement as he steps down. While of course the job must be awarded on merit, I do think it is about time there was a woman at the helm of “Question Time”.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Matt Hancock
There is no greater enthusiast for digital technology than me, and I warmly welcome the pupils and staff from Wick high school. Of course, technology must be used appropriately in schools. There are many incredibly bright schoolchildren in the Visitors’ Gallery, and I hope that they can make the most of all the digital technologies that are available.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Great Exhibition of the North, a summer-long celebration of the culture and science of the north, will open tomorrow evening in Gateshead, overlooking Newcastle. Does the Secretary of State agree that culture, science and engineering are essential parts of a vibrant economy, and will he tell us how that legacy will be ensured?
Matt Hancock
I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Lady has mentioned the Great Exhibition of the North, which will be launched tomorrow in Newcastle and Gateshead. I shall be going straight up there after questions, and the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), will be going tomorrow. It will be a brilliant celebration of everything that the north of England has delivered to the nation in the past and will deliver in the future, and the hon. Lady is a great example of that.
Mr Speaker
On the subject of the north of England, let us hear from north Yorkshire. Mr Kevin Hollinrake.
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is also a great example of the future of the north of England, and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss these new technologies that are coming on stream that will help improve connectivity in Yorkshire.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
In Bristol, Bristol Plays Music and the Music Trust are developing a cultural curriculum with Bristol Old Vic and various other arts organisations. Will the Secretary of State or the Culture Minister, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), visit Bristol when this curriculum is implemented, and will the Culture Minister support it being used in other schools across the country?
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
John Rowbotham and his staff at the Stirling Observer play a crucial role in the life of the communities I serve. What is being done to support local newspapers?
Matt Hancock
The first thing we have done is fought off attempts to put more costs on to local newspapers, and now we have the Cairncross review, which I hope my hon. Friend will engage with, which is looking at how we can make them sustainable for the long term.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Two fires in the last three months have destroyed three listed buildings in Glasgow, and over 100 listed buildings in Glasgow are at risk, so will the Minister engage with the Treasury and ensure they restore VAT relief on the renovations of listed buildings in this country?
Media Matters
Matt Hancock Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
On 1 May 2018, I informed the House that I had issued a public interest intervention notice (PIIN) in respect of the acquisition by Trinity Mirror plc (now known as Reach plc) of certain publishing assets of Northern & Shell Media Group Ltd.
The PIIN triggered the requirement for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to report to me on jurisdictional and competition matters, and for Ofcom to report on the following two media public interest considerations:
First, the need for, to the extent that it is reasonable and practicable, a sufficient plurality of views in newspapers in each market for newspapers in the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom; and
Secondly, the need for free expression of opinion in newspapers.
I received the CMA and Ofcom reports on Thursday 31 May and have today published these on the gov.uk website.
I accept the CMA’s findings that while it is, or may be, the case that a relevant merger situation has been created, the merger does not give rise to a realistic prospect of a substantial lessening of competition in any market.
I have also accepted Ofcom’s conclusions that the merger does not raise concerns in relation to plurality of views, nor does it raise concerns in relation to free expression of opinion in newspapers.
In the light of this, and having considered representations submitted by interested parties in response to the PIIN, I have written to the parties today confirming my decision not to refer the merger for a phase 2 investigation.
I have also notified the CMA, in accordance with section 56(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002, to now deal with the matter from a competition perspective.
The role of the Secretary of State in this process is quasi-judicial and procedures are in place to ensure that I act independently and have followed a process which is fair and impartial.
[HCWS779]
Media
Matt Hancock Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
On 5 June I made a statement to the House in which I set out my decision in relation to the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky.
I announced that having considered the CMA’s report, I agreed with its findings on the public interest grounds and its finding that undertakings to divest Sky News to Disney or to an alternative suitable buyer could potentially remedy the adverse plurality public interest concerns identified.
I also noted that there remained a number of issues with the undertakings that had been offered and that these would require discussions between my officials and the parties in order to reach agreement on an acceptable form of the remedy.
Following the successful conclusion of these discussions and the resolution of these issues, I am today publishing updated undertakings offered by 21st Century Fox along with new undertakings offered by Disney for the divestment of Sky News to Disney.
These undertakings are offered on improved terms and will include:
a commitment from Disney to operate and maintain a Sky News branded news service for 15 years rather than 10 years
a restriction on Disney from selling Sky News for 15 years without the consent of the Secretary of State
an extension of the funding commitment from 21st Century Fox from 10 years to 15 years
an increase in the total funds available to Sky News, to at least £100 million per year, with operating costs protected in real terms; and
a formal commitment from Disney to preserve the editorial independence of Sky News
In my view, these revised undertakings meet the criteria that I set out to the House on 5 June and will help to ensure that Sky News remains financially viable over the long term; is able to operate as a major UK-based news provider; and is able to take its editorial decisions independently, free from any potential outside influence.
Under the legislation, I am required to consult formally for 15 days on the undertakings, which I propose to accept. Views as to whether these proposals are sufficient to remedy the adverse plurality public interest concerns raised by this merger are sought by 5pm on Wednesday 4 July 2018. The consultation can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/sky-fox-merger-proposed-undertakings-by-21st-century-fox-inc-and-the-walt-disney-company.
[HCWS7758]
Education, Youth Culture and Sport Council
Matt Hancock Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
The Education, Youth, Culture and Sport (EYCS) Council took place in Brussels on 22 and 23 May 2018. Lord Ashton of Hyde represented the UK at the Youth session of this Council on 22 May. The UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, Katrina Williams, represented the UK on 23 May for the meetings on Culture and Audiovisual and Sport.
Youth
This session of the Council began with the adoption of Council conclusions on the role of young people in building a secure, cohesive and harmonious society in Europe. The Council adopted Council conclusions on the role of youth in addressing the demographic challenges within the European Union.
A policy debate was then held on the future priorities for EU Youth policy.
In addition, there was information from the Commission on European Youth Together, followed by information from the Belgian and French delegations on the Franco-Belgian declaration of Ministers responsible for youth on the prevention of violent radicalisation.
Culture/Audiovisual
This meeting began with the adoption of Council conclusions on the need to bring cultural heritage to the fore across policies in the EU.
There was also a policy debate on the long term vision for the contribution of culture to the EU after 2020, in particular looking forward to the next multiannual financial framework (2021-2027).
Additionally, there was a public deliberation of current legislative proposals. For this, the Council first welcomed information from the German delegation on the directive amending directive (2006/112/EC) as regards rates of value added tax—actively engaging in negotiations from a cultural policy perspective. In extension to this, information was provided by the French delegation on the regulation on the import of cultural goods. No legislative decisions were made in these debates, so there are no implications for the parliamentary scrutiny reservation.
Information was provided by the Lithuanian and Luxembourg delegations, on their respective hosting of the European Capitals of Culture 2022.
Sport
The sport session of EYCS began with the adoption of Council conclusions on promoting the common values of the EU through sport. This was followed by a policy debate on the commercialisation of elite sports and the sustainability of the European model of sport.
The EU member states represented in the World Anti- Doping Agency Foundation Board presented information on the Foundation Board meeting held on 16-17 May. The French delegation presented information on the informal meeting of the EU Minister for Sport (held in Paris on 31 May 2018), where there was the signing of a declaration for a Europe of Sport looking to the horizon of the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Other
The Austrian delegation set out their work programmes as the incoming presidency, for the second half of 2018. They highlighted a number of priorities for their presidency. These priorities included a focus on the work plan for culture 2018 plus, the successor programme to the Creative Europe programme and enhancing the principle of subsidiarity.
[HCWS756]
Proposed Media Mergers
Matt Hancock Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about the proposed merger between Comcast and Sky and the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky. In my quasi-judicial role I have considered the mergers separately, on their own merits, and wish to set out my decisions taken on the basis of the relevant evidence.
First, let me update the House on Comcast’s proposed acquisition. On 7 May, Comcast notified an intention to acquire Sky. As Secretary of State, I am required to consider whether the merger raises public interest concerns that meet the threshold for intervention set out in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002. As required, I considered the need for a sufficient plurality of people with control of media enterprises; the need for a wide range of high-quality broadcasting; and the need for a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. Last month, I informed the House that I was minded not to intervene in the merger, on the basis that it does not meet the threshold for intervention. I gave interested parties time to make representations, but received no further representations. As a result, I have concluded that the proposed merger does not raise public interest concerns, so I can confirm today that I will not be issuing an intervention notice.
Turning to Fox’s proposed acquisition of Sky, in March 2017, my predecessor issued an intervention notice on public interest grounds, because of concerns about media plurality and the genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. The intervention notice triggered phase 1 investigations by Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority. In September, having considered their reports, along with further advice from Ofcom, my right hon. Friend referred the proposed merger to the CMA for a phase 2 investigation on both grounds. The CMA published its interim report in January and provided its final report to me on 1 May. I have published that report today and deposited a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. The report confirms, as previously set out, that the proposed merger does pass the threshold for a relevant merger situation, and provides recommendations on both public interest tests.
On broadcasting standards, the CMA carried out a thorough and systematic assessment, taking into account the approach of Fox and Sky to broadcasting standards, both in the UK and outside, and the approach of Fox and News Corp to wider regulatory compliance and corporate governance. The CMA concluded, in line with its interim findings, that the merger may not be expected to operate against the public interest on the grounds of a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards, and I agree with that finding.
On media plurality, the CMA’s final report confirms its interim findings that the proposed merger may be expected to operate against the public interest. The CMA found cause for concern in two areas: first, the potential erosion of the editorial independence of Sky News, which could in turn lead to a reduction in the diversity of viewpoints available to and consumed by the public; and secondly, the possibility of an increase in influence of the Murdoch family trust over public opinion and the UK’s political agenda. The CMA used a clear and logical approach and took into account Ofcom’s media plurality framework. It took great care to obtain a wide range of written and oral evidence, and I agree with its finding, too.
When the CMA finds that a merger is likely to operate against the public interest, it is required to consider what remedy would be appropriate. To address plurality concerns, the CMA considered a range of options, including those proposed by the parties. Specifically, the options were: first, a firewall of behavioural commitments to insulate Sky News from the influence of the Murdoch family trust; secondly, a ring fence, whereby Sky News would be separated structurally from Sky but still owned by Fox, along with the same behavioural commitments; thirdly, divesting Sky News to a suitable third party; and fourthly, prohibition of the transaction as a whole.
I have considered the CMA’s detailed assessment and its conclusions on how effective and proportionate the different remedies are. I agree with the CMA that divesting Sky News to Disney, as proposed by Fox, or to an alternative suitable buyer, with an agreement to ensure that it is funded for at least 10 years, is likely to be the most proportionate and effective remedy for the public interest concerns that have been identified. The CMA report sets out some draft terms for such a divestment, and Fox has written to me to offer undertakings on effectively the same terms.
The proposals include significant commitments from Fox, but some important issues on the draft undertakings still need to be addressed. I need to be confident that the final undertakings ensure that Sky News remains financially viable over the long term; is able to operate as a major UK-based news provider; and is able to take its editorial decisions independently, free from any potential outside influence. As a result, I have asked my officials to begin immediate discussions with the parties to finalise the details with a view to agreeing an acceptable form of the remedy, so that we can all be confident that Sky News can be divested in a way that works in the long term.
Under the legislation, I am required to consult formally on the undertakings for 15 days. Subject to the willingness of the parties to agree the details, I aim to publish the consultation within a fortnight. I am optimistic that we can achieve our goal, not least given the willingness that 21st Century Fox has shown in developing these credible proposals. However, if we cannot agree terms at this point, I agree with the CMA that the only effective remedy would be to block the merger altogether. That is not my preferred approach.
We have followed a scrupulously fair and impartial process, based only on the relevant evidence and objectively justified by the facts. I wish to thank Ofcom, the CMA, the parties, my predecessor and my fantastic team at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for all their hard work. I hope we can reach a final agreement very soon. I want to see a broadcasting industry in Britain that is strong, effective and competitive. I commend this statement to the House.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, for which I had a little more time to read than usual; I suspect that was a benefit of the usual delays caused by Heathrow airport. [Interruption.] I had to get that gag in.
This is a saga which we have been living through for 18 months. In December 2016, when 21st Century Fox announced its bid for Sky, the world looked very different: the Tories were riding high in the polls; the Prime Minister was popular, even among her own Back Benchers; we had a different Culture Secretary; and I was six stone heavier. I do not think that even the Murdochs would have anticipated the changes that have happened since then.
To her credit, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), took her time over the bid. She ensured that it was subject to the full gaze of regulatory scrutiny and did not just provide the rubber stamp that Fox hoped for. During that time, Fox found itself not only covering scandals but embroiled in scandals, with sexual harassment allegations and high-profile dismissals at Fox News. A rival bidder, Comcast, has come forward. The approval of both bids today means that this is not the end of the story.
The Murdochs will be relieved that the old order is at least starting to reassert itself. Even before today, the new Secretary of State was doing what they asked of him, dumping the promises made to the victims of phone hacking by announcing that Leveson 2 would not go forward. Why is that relevant to this announcement? Well, the information that Leveson 2 would have revealed about corporate governance failure on an industrial scale is entirely relevant to the question of whether the merger would be good or bad for Sky’s adherence to broadcasting standards. Let us remind ourselves that the most recent allegations in the civil litigation against News Group Newspapers claim that senior executives at the top of the empire were not just culpably ignorant, but knowingly complicit about criminal conduct going on at News Group papers. Leveson 2 would have looked at that. The European Commission raided the London offices of 21st Century Fox just a few weeks ago as part of an investigation into violations of EU anti-trust rules. The Murdochs will be grateful that the Secretary of State is less curious than the officials who raided that building.
We on the Labour Benches understand that there are many commercial and technical elements of this bid to consider, but for us the priority has been to safeguard the future of Sky News. From Kay Burley to Adam Boulton, Sky News has some of the best presenters on TV and has always been a beacon for independent and rigorous journalism. Our priority is protecting that and ensuring that Sky News thrives going forward. The Secretary of State has given his approval for the Fox bid today subject to Fox’s proposed remedy that Sky News be divested to Disney or a suitable alternative. We have serious concerns about that, including how we ensure the long-term future of Sky News as a UK-based independent organisation under this option. Were the Fox-Disney deal to fail, it could leave Sky News isolated from Sky and owned by a foreign company with few news interests in the UK. It is hard to see how that would be in the public interest. Does the Secretary of State really think that this proposal of divestment is in the best interests of Sky News, or would it become isolated and at sea? He made it clear that he had no concerns about the broadcasting standards. Is he concerned that the civil cases that are currently being brought against Murdoch papers such as The Sun will reveal corporate maladministration that could have altered his decision?
Fox made many undertakings to get to this stage. Will the Secretary of State take personal political responsibility if Fox’s bid is successful and the guarantees that it made are broken, bearing in mind that the CMA opinion, expressed earlier this year, was that this deal was against the public interest? With Comcast now in the ring, the future for Sky is uncertain. A bidding war is on the horizon. That might be good for shareholders, but it is the Minister’s duty to protect the interests of the public. Sky is a gem of British broadcasting and is respected worldwide. Its future and global reputation for excellence is at stake in this process, so it is right that, if there is any doubt about whether the proposed solution is workable, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that this merger is blocked.
Matt Hancock
As I said in the statement, the analysis that I announced today and have put in the Libraries of the House follows a scrupulous process of scrutiny not just by me and Ofcom, but by the CMA. No matter how long debates over Heathrow took, I am sure that the shadow spokesman has not yet had the chance to read the full 410 pages of the CMA report. It goes into great detail in answering several of the questions that he raised. When it comes to the question of Leveson, it does take into account everything that was disclosed during the Leveson process and, of course, that which was made public by the many court cases since and it has looked over this area rigorously. The CMA concludes that what matters most in the broadcasting standards test is that which is most recent, so while it does take past behaviour into account, it ensures that that which is most recent is also weighted. The behaviour that was described and found under the Leveson inquiry was some time ago, as we have debated already.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman very strongly about the value of Sky News. This is very important to the UK broadcasting environment. I agree that we must be confident that the proposed solution and undertakings that have been given are robust. That is what I will be seeking to nail down over the next fortnight before consulting formally on those undertakings.
I am seeking to strengthen the undertakings that were given to the CMA and that have been repeated to me. When I am confident that those undertakings will ensure the long-term sustainable future for high-quality independent broadcasting at Sky News, as we know it now, I will be prepared to consult on those undertakings, take them and live by that decision.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and congratulate him and his predecessor on their handling of this matter? He will be aware that it is 16 months since the regulatory process got under way. Does he agree that it would be infinitely preferable if the future of Sky was determined by its shareholders and by the market, rather than by the regulatory timetable? Will he therefore give us an assurance that he will do his utmost to resolve the regulatory process before the summer recess begins?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. My goal on the timeline is to consult within a fortnight. That consultation is required by law to take 15 days, which means that, hopefully, within a month, I will be able to get undertakings in which I have full confidence and can then consult on and conclude this process.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. I wish briefly to pay tribute to my predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). He will continue his excellent work on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and I feel sure that we will make a formidable team.
The primary concern of the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government was always around the potential impact of the proposals on media plurality. We firmly believe that it is unhealthy for too large a proportion of the media to be under the control of one single group. It is interesting to note that the CMA findings specifically cite public interest and the concern that there will be an erosion of Sky’s editorial independence as well. I am interested to hear the Secretary of State’s views on that issue, particularly on jobs at Sky. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) has said, the Sky News brand is well known, particularly in Scotland and the other devolved nations, so I would like to hear about any impact on jobs. The Secretary of State will know, I am sure, that Sky is one of the biggest private employers in my constituency of Livingston, so I would be very keen to discuss any impact on the call centres there.
I welcome the statement. It has taken some time to get to this point. The concerns that have been raised, including over consultation, must be addressed robustly. Given the scandals that have happened and the families that have been damaged, it is in the public interest that the behaviour of these organisations is considered in this process and in this merger.
Matt Hancock
I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of Sky News and about making sure that it remains financially viable over the long term. I want to ensure that we can have confidence in that in the final undertakings that are given. Of course Sky News has an excellent record for broadcasting. I am talking about its formal broadcasting standards and, as every Member in this House knows, its ability sometimes to reach the news faster than anybody else. Its interviews with those of us in public office are probing and invigorating. We thoroughly enjoy the service and I want it to be viable for the long term.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to praise Sky and Sky News. He will recall that it opened in 1989 and almost bankrupted, through its costs, the Murdoch family. What concerns me and the shadow Front-Bench spokesman is the long-term viability of Sky News. Ten years is a long time, and we are seeing a changing atmosphere and environment in broadcasting. How can he be assured that, over a 10 year period—and I hope many more years after that—Sky News will survive?
Matt Hancock
We have been given encouraging assurances thus far— not only in the bid directly before us, but in other bids associated with this takeover—that there will be long-term undertakings on the financial viability of Sky. I want to ensure that the organisation is robust, and that Sky News continues to do the brilliant job that it does now. I know that others have raised concerns about broadcasting standards within companies owned or part-owned by the Murdoch family trust, but Sky is an example of a brilliant broadcaster with incredibly high broadcasting standards, on a par with the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. That is why ensuring its long-term viability has so much resonance in the House, and it is also the reason why it matters so much to me.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The thing is, I can see exactly what is going to happen. The Secretary of State is going to accept any assurances that come in over the next few weeks and it will all be signed off. Then, in a few years’ time, Sky will be starved of money by whoever buys it and the broadcaster will end up coming to the next Secretary of State, or maybe even the same Secretary of State—I know he loves the job—to say, “Terribly sorry; it didn’t work out. Can we please now be subsumed back into Fox, or can we just let Sky die?” Kay Burley will then be out of a job, so she will stand in West Suffolk and defeat the Secretary of State, because most people in this country would prefer diversity of media ownership and want to keep Sky as independent as possible.
Matt Hancock
I relish the prospect of a contest against anybody in West Suffolk. I am not sure that the path set out by the hon. Gentleman, who is normally an optimist by nature, is the most likely one, not least because I will seek undertakings to ensure that Sky News remains viable over the long term and independent so that it can pursue us politicians without fear or favour.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Nobody could accuse the Secretary of State’s Department of rushing this decision; it has been made very carefully and cautiously, as it should, because Sky is well loved. I fought the Pontypridd by-election in 1989, which was the first by-election to be broadcast on Sky TV, so I have great fondness for the organisation. Sky has clearly weathered better than I did at the Pontypridd by-election. None the less, there is great plurality out there with the changing way in which people are accessing news these days. Given the diversification of Sky News and these guarantees, surely now is the time for the decision to be made so that the shareholders can make their decision.
Matt Hancock
I recognise the amount of time that has passed since we were first notified of this proposal. That is why I want to reach an agreement on the undertakings within a fortnight. I am absolutely certain that the parties will stand ready to meet that deadline, as my team and I also stand ready. We must then have the 15-day formal consultation, but I hope that will mean that the formal approval process from the Government side can be concluded within a month from now. There is a merger battle closer than on the horizon.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Liberal Democrats have been consistent in expressing our concern about the Sky-Fox deal should it have gone ahead in its entirety. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s assurances that Sky News will be protected and sold off. Will he also reassure us that that there will be similar undertakings about the future of Sky News in the event that Comcast is the buyer?
Matt Hancock
Undertakings and assurances have been made by Comcast. By law, I was required to look at the Comcast bid because it is also of material size. We have done that and, as I set out, it does not raise the public interest concerns. I have therefore confirmed today that we will not be issuing an intervention notice. I know well the Liberal Democrats’ concerns in this area, having worked with the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) in government. I hope that the resolution we come to over the coming weeks will be one that demonstrates with confidence that Sky News will be independent and viable, and that we can therefore be content with the media plurality.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Although it was right that we had a thorough and transparent process, may I echo the comments that we need swiftly to come to a conclusion? The UK is a proud hub for investment in broadcasting and production, creating high-skill jobs. We need to demonstrate that the UK is both open to and welcoming of further investment.
Matt Hancock
I very much agree with the sentiment that my hon. Friend expresses. In coming to the House with this decision a week before the deadline and being clear about the rapidity of the next phases, I hope that we have demonstrated not only that we will be thorough and do this by the book, but also that we will get on with it.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly his most welcome comments about protecting Sky News. Will he assure us that Comcast will be put through the same rigorous tests that others have been put through? Will he also assure us that we are going to see not more tunnel but some light at the end of the tunnel, and that there will be a final and conclusive decision before the summer recess?
Matt Hancock
On the latter question, yes; I very much hope so, and I am optimistic, presuming that the parties engage in full and rapidly. I have deployed my team to take forward immediately after this statement the work that is needed to finalise the procedures.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, we have subjected Comcast’s bid to the law in exactly the same way. The truth is that Comcast’s existing UK media footprint is very small, so it simply does not raise the same concerns over plurality. The Murdoch family trust has very significant other media interests—not least in newspapers—whereas Comcast does not, so it is in a different situation, but we have applied the law in the same rigorous way.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Having been a journalist and broadcaster for most of my life, I was prompted to speak because I think we should speak up for maintaining the high-quality news and journalism that Britain is famous for. That should be at the heart of this decision. We need competition, and we need Sky News still to be giving a professional service, especially in these days of fake news. That is essential. I am sure that the Secretary of State is taking this to heart, because it is important.
Matt Hancock
It is an incredibly important point on which to end. You will know, Mr Speaker, as my hon. Friend does, that I am absolutely committed to high-quality journalism in the UK. The decisions that I have announced today, along with decisions—sometimes controversial ones—to protect the future of high-quality journalism are at the cornerstone of my approach to media policy. It is vital to have a free press and free media to ensure that we have high-quality journalism underpinning our high-quality political debate.
Mr Speaker
I entirely accept that the Pow moment was a magnificent one, but the Secretary of State erred in suggested that it was the conclusion of our proceedings, for it would be a very considerable deprivation to the House if we were denied the opportunity to hear the voice of Strangford; and we will hear the voice of Strangford, I am sure, in full force and now. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; you are always very generous. It is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of the people of Strangford. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Avaaz has won permission to have its case for a judicial review of Ofcom’s decision heard in court on 19 and 20 June, so this statement is not the last word. Does the Minister accept that if Avaaz were to win the case, Ofcom would have to go back and reinvestigate the Fox-Sky bid, adding even more uncertainty to the outcome?
Matt Hancock
There are a number of ongoing court cases in this space, and they have all been taken into account up to their most recent stages. Everything relevant has been taken into account and we have followed the process scrupulously. Nevertheless, the decision that I have set out today is based on a thorough assessment of the relevant evidence. I hope that that means that we can now proceed with getting firm and final undertakings that secure the future of Sky News and allow this to go ahead.
Media Matters
Matt Hancock Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
On 7 May 2018, Comcast Corporation formally notified the European Commission of its intention to acquire the entire issued share capital of Sky plc.
Under section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (“the Act”), the Secretary of State has the powers to intervene in certain media mergers on public interest grounds.
Having reviewed the relevant evidence available, I can confirm that I have today written to the parties to inform them that I am minded not to issue an EIN on the basis that the proposed merger does not raise concerns in relation to public interest considerations which would meet the threshold for intervention.
This is a quasi-judicial decision and I am required to make my decision independently, following a process that is scrupulously fair and impartial, and as quickly as possible.
I will now allow until 5pm on Thursday 24 May for interested parties to submit written representations, and I aim to come to a final decision on whether to intervene in the merger shortly.
[HCWS701]
Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council
Matt Hancock Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
The Education, Youth, Culture and Sport (EYCS) Council will take place in Brussels on 22 and 23 May 2018. Lord Ashton of Hyde will represent the UK at the Youth session of this Council (on 22 May). The UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU will represent the UK on 23 May for the meetings on culture & audio-visual and sport.
Youth
This session of the Council will begin with the adoption of Council conclusions on the role of young people in building a secure, cohesive and harmonious society in Europe. The Council will then seek to adopt Council conclusions on the role of youth in addressing the demographic challenges within the European Union.
Also tabled for this session is a policy debate on the future priorities for EU youth policy.
In addition, there will be information from the Commission on European Youth Together, followed by information from the Belgian and French delegations on the Franco-Belgian declaration of Ministers responsible for youth on the prevention of violent radicalisation.
Culture/Audio-visual
This meeting will begin with the adoption of Council conclusions on the need to bring cultural heritage to the fore across policies in the EU.
There will be also be a policy debate on the long term vision for the contribution of culture to the EU after 2020, in particular looking forward to the next multiannual financial framework (2021-2027).
Additionally, there will be a public deliberation of current legislative proposals. For this, the Council will first welcome information from the German delegation on the directive amending directive (2006/112/EC) as regards rates of value added tax-actively engaging in negotiations from a cultural policy perspective. In extension to this, there will be information from the French delegation on the regulation on the import of cultural goods. No legislative decisions will be made in these debates, so there are no implications for the parliamentary scrutiny reservation.
Information will be provided by the Lithuanian and Luxembourg delegations, on their respective hosting of the European capitals of culture 2022.
Sport
The sport session of EYCS will begin with the adoption of Council conclusions on promoting the common values of the EU through sport. This will be followed by a policy debate on the commercialisation of elite sports and the sustainability of the European Model of Sport.
The EU member states representative in the World Anti-Doping Agency Foundation Board, will present information on the foundation board meeting on 16-17 May. The French delegation will present information on the informal meeting of the EU Minister for Sport (Paris, 31 May 2018) signing of a declaration for a Europe of Sport on the horizon of the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic games.
Other
There will be information from the Austrian delegation, setting out their work programmes as the incoming presidency, for the second half of 2018.
[HCWS702]
Data Protection Bill [Lords]
Matt Hancock Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees to Lords Amendment No. 62B proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No. 62 but proposes amendments (za) to (a) to Clause (Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism) inserted by Commons Amendment No. 109 and amendments (c) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
The House should be aware that some printed editions of today’s Order Paper do not include all the amendments that I am about to refer to.
We had a thorough and illuminating debate on the Data Protection Bill in this House just a few days ago, when we heard a range of perspectives from all sides on press regulation. This House plainly and clearly voted against the proposed Opposition amendments, and I thank all Members for their contributions and their constructive engagement.
Since that comprehensive debate, an amendment has been sent back by the other place for us to consider. The amendment would require the Government to establish a statutory inquiry into data protection breaches by national news publishers. It is essentially similar to new clause 18, which was proposed and defeated in this House last week. During the course of the Bill, we have repeatedly acted to take into account amendments made in the other place and to directly address concerns expressed by Members of this House. We have gone out of our way to offer concessions at every stage to make sure that the system of press regulation is both free and fair. On Report last week, we gave the Information Commissioner the powers that she needs so that those who flout the law are held to account for their actions. We introduced a data protection code of practice for the press; guidance on how to seek redress, which fits with the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s new system of binding low-cost arbitration; and a review by the Information Commissioner’s Office of how the new system is working.
I listened to the entire debate in the other place yesterday, and I understand some of the concerns raised there, both from those who essentially want to reopen the Leveson inquiry and those with deep concerns about the impact of that on the sustainability of the free press. Today, I am proposing further amendments to try to strike this vital balance and ensure that in future we have a press that is both free and fair. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this action can bring matters to a close.
I am proposing five further amendments to strengthen the system. First, we will strengthen the ICO’s review. Amendments (a) and (f) give the commissioner stronger powers to compel evidence to ensure that the review that she will undertake is both robust and comprehensive. Secondly, we will widen the ICO’s review. Amendment (za) broadens the remit to include looking at good practice in the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism. Thirdly, we will make the review permanent. Amendment (zd) will ensure that unlike the inquiry proposed in their lordships amendment, the ICO-led review will not be a one-off, but part of the media landscape, with a review every five years thereafter.
Fourthly, we are determined that there can be no backsliding on the media’s commitment to low-cost arbitration, which we welcomed the introduction of a few weeks ago. Amendment (c) will ensure that a report on the use and effectiveness of that arbitration is laid in Parliament at least every three years and that a copy is supplied to the devolved Administrations so that they can take action in areas of devolved competence. Fifthly, amendments (d) and (e) bring all these matters automatically into force without the need for a commencement order in order to show good faith. I think that this significant set of amendments is a better approach than amendment 62B—proposed by the other place—which is unnecessary for a number of reasons.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that amendment (c) will allow him to judge the effectiveness, personally, of the alternative dispute resolution procedures? Is he not giving himself the power to mark the press and their regulatory bodies?
Matt Hancock
No. The purpose of amendment (c) is to make sure that a report is laid on the effectiveness of that arbitration. With this set of amendments we propose that this House can continue to debate and scrutinise the effectiveness of the self-regulation of the press without requiring statutory regulation, which we seek to avoid.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Just to follow up on the question about the Secretary of State being able to examine the paperwork of the press, what happens if the Secretary of State of whatever party is not happy with what he sees?
Matt Hancock
That will be up to the Government of the day. We are trying to ensure that the welcome moves by IPSO in the last few weeks can be debated by this House and sustained. I think that the low-cost arbitration that it has brought in is good for the press and good for ordinary people who want redress from the press. I want to see it continue, and this report will consider whether it does.
Ian C. Lucas
The right hon. Gentleman has just said that it would be up to the Government of the day. The whole purpose of the Leveson process was to stop politicians having direct control of the press. To my astonishment, he seems to be proposing exactly that.
Matt Hancock
No. I do not want to see amendment 62B from the other place in the Bill precisely because I do not want to see statutory regulation of the press; I welcome the self-regulation of the press, because we want the press to be free.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
There is a slightly wider constitutional issue, which I hope the Secretary of State will get on to a minute. We passed the Bill in the House and sent it to the other place, having chucked out the new clauses, and the single argument that was made by the noble Baroness was that we do not have enough of a majority, which is why the other place was justified in returning the Bill to the House. Does my right hon. Friend not think that that is a rather absurd argument to make?
Matt Hancock
I think it is very important that the elected House, having considered the question and in supporting a manifesto commitment of the party in government, should have its say. That is absolutely right. It is a very important constitutional argument, but I am also making an argument of substance. The approach that we are proposing is the right one—that we do not have statutory regulation of the process, but that we in this House can debate a report on what is happening in the press and the self-regulation of it. I think that is the best way to take this question forward.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I fully support what the Secretary of State is trying to do. Does he see a rather worrying undemocratic tendency in the other place—it does not like the result of referendums, the EU withdrawal Bill, which was a manifesto Bill, or this manifesto Bill, and now it wants to regulate the press because the press point out the errors of its ways?
Matt Hancock
I support the Salisbury convention: if something is in the party of government’s manifesto and this House passes it, the other place should be very careful about sending it back. Indeed, the Salisbury convention says it should not. I hope that the vote of the House today is respected, because we will then have considered this question twice. We have made concessions, taking on board legitimate concerns, but ultimately the House will have decided its view, having considered the question twice, so I think my right hon. Friend asks an important question.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the noble Baroness is factually wrong and that the House does have enough of a majority? It was passed in this House and it is not the business of the unelected Members of that House to tell the elected Members of this House whether they have done a good enough job.
Matt Hancock
I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The best course of action now, given where we are, is to vote for the Government’s position and make the point incredibly clear.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I will not venture into this attempt to rewrite the British constitution to stop the House of Lords giving the Commons the right to consider things a further time; we will save that for another day. On the important matter of regulation, does the Secretary of State agree that the key point is that institutions such as a free press need independent regulation, as other great institutions in the country do? It might be set up by statute, but it needs to be independent. That it is set up by statute does not mean it will be run by Ministers in a politically biased fashion. That argument could be used to dismiss many other respected regulatory bodies in all kinds of areas across the country.
Matt Hancock
I welcome the fact that we have self-regulation of the press and that IPSO has been set up. Unlike when the Leveson inquiry took place, we now have an effective self-regulator that has introduced low-cost arbitration. The crucial thing about this self-regulator is that is has now committed itself to having compulsory low-cost arbitration, which it has not had until now.
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Nobody in this or the other House should ever fail to stand up and question the press. We know what has happened in the past, and people should always question the press, but there is a line, and it is that line to which the Government are adhering today. I have full respect for the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) and his campaign, as he knows, but there is a line, and that line should not be crossed. I hope that the Secretary of State will always challenge the press, but are we not right to hold that line, which Members of the other place they have not done?
Matt Hancock
I agree comprehensively with my hon. Friend, who set it out incredibly well.
I want to take a look at the precise details of amendment 62B, because it is unnecessary. First, it promises to look into the reporting restrictions around arrests, but this work is already under way. Indeed, I have committed to working with hon. Members to get the details right. Secondly, it promises to look into the impact of social media, but we are already undertaking this with the Cairncross review, which has started to take evidence right around the country. Thirdly, it promises to look into Northern Ireland, but this has already been provided for with the review outlined in new clause 23 last week.
In addition to replicating a lot of what is already going on, the amendment goes over ground already covered by the Leveson inquiry, the three substantial police investigations and the two Select Committee investigations. There has been no shortage of inquiry. I am focused instead on getting the system right for the future. The amendment is unnecessary at a time when we should be coming together to face the challenges of the future.
I fully understand the strength of feeling on the issue of press standards. I supported the original Leveson inquiry, and I have met victims of press intrusion, including some in this House, and, worse still, have heard about the impact on Members and their families. I am fully aware of the distress caused and of how lives have been affected by false allegations, how hacking was used to access the most intimate messages and how personal information was obtained through blagging and deception, but much has changed since the inquiry, While our press are not perfect, the culture that allowed phone hacking to become the norm has gone, and, with the newly strengthened IPSO, this country now has the most robust system of redress for press intrusion that it has ever had.
Ian C. Lucas
In his intervention, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) just talked about the importance of an independent regulator. Is it not the case, however, that IPSO is not independent? It was set up by the press and its terms of reference are those of the press; it is not an independent regulator. It is about time the Government accepted that. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Matt Hancock
No, I do not. Our proposal, which does not involve statutory regulation, is the best solution to this challenge and will ensure the separation of press and state, which is at the heart of our freedoms. It would be wrong to cross that line.
Mr Duncan Smith
This is a fundamental point. The big difference between this and the way we regulate agencies and others out there is that the latter do not in turn regulate and watch over this place. The press must be free from the idea of statute specifying how they are to be regulated. I completely agree with the Secretary of State that it is better that the press set up the process and we watch over it.
Matt Hancock
Furthermore, IPSO has now been granted powers to require front-page corrections—we saw it recently flex its muscles and use this power. When two years ago Sir Joseph Pilling concluded that IPSO largely complied with Sir Brian’s recommendations, the one major omission was compulsory arbitration. IPSO has now introduced compulsory low-cost arbitration, which the major national newspapers have signed up to, so that claims can be made for as little as £50. With the five further concessions today, we are clear that this will be the start of a tougher regime, not the conclusion.
We now have the basis of a stronger and fairer system in which everyone has accessible recourse to justice when things go wrong but in which the press are free to challenge those in power and bring them to account.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
IPSO and its so-called compulsory arbitration are wholly inadequate. The only independent redress is through the courts, but that is much weakened because, under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, no win, no fee arrangements are no longer available, so the public actually have no clear independent remedy.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been following the debate. IPSO’s introduction of low-cost arbitration and the guidance on how to access it will ensure a stronger system of self-regulation.
All sides in this debate agree that our press must be free to report without fear or favour, to uncover wrongdoing and to hold the powerful to account. It is now a more difficult time than ever to produce high-quality journalism that does hold power to account. It was journalists who helped to bring Stephen Lawrence’s killers to justice; it was journalists who uncovered appalling child abuse, such as in Rotherham, and gave a voice to its victims; and it was journalists who reported on horrific allegations of sexual abuse in football, which led to many more victims coming forward.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) put it last week, newspapers are under threat from online media platforms that do not employ a single journalist.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
We all recognise and applaud the examples the Secretary of State has given, but they do not excuse the bad behaviour by other sections of the press. Our concern is not with journalists who behave ethically and well at all times; it is with those journalists who do not, so could he address that point?
Matt Hancock
If that is the hon. Lady’s concern, she should vote with the Government this afternoon. She should listen to the journalist who uncovered the thousands of victims of sexual abuse in Rotherham, and who said that with statutory regulation under section 40 it would have been effectively impossible for him to do his job. We do not propose statutory regulation of the press, because we want the press to be free, but also to be able to make public stories that are sometimes uncomfortable to print.
The pressure is on the press because of new online publications. That is important, because if we as a nation lose high-quality journalism, we will lose the capability to hold the powerful to account on behalf of victims of all sorts of abuses of power. Clickbait, fake news and malicious disinformation threaten high-quality journalism. Why does this matter? Because a foundation of any successful democracy is a sound basis for democratic discourse, and that is under threat from these new forces that require urgent attention. A weaker press would mean poorer coverage of courts, of council chambers and of corruption. Why are we acting in the way in which we propose to act today? Because I believe that it will ensure that the press are fairer, while safeguarding their essential freedom. Fundamentally, the sustainability of our media underpins the sustainability of our democracy, and our efforts must be focused on that.
Let us not sleepwalk into a society in which high-quality journalism has been decimated and our democracy is damaged as a result. We all benefit—every single one of us benefits—from what a free press gives our country and our democracy, whether or not the coverage is good for us as individuals: the scrutiny, the uncovering of wrongs, and the catalyst for debate. Protecting those benefits is today’s challenge. Now is the time to look forward, not back, and to come together to build a vibrant, free and fair press that holds the powerful to account and rises to the challenges of our times.
I oppose amendment 62B, and I urge every Member in the House to do the same.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Last week, colleagues asked, “What is so special about the second part of the Leveson public inquiry?” Leveson part 2 is that rare thing: an inquiry into a national scandal that the newspapers are not calling for. If any other industry were subject to serious allegations of illegality, corruption and corporate governance failure, our national newspapers would be in the vanguard of calls for a public inquiry. That is not happening here. Here, the tabloid press are on the one hand warning about a chilling effect on investigative journalism, and on the other arguing that they should not be subject to any further investigation.
We believe that this new amendment addresses the legitimate concerns of local newspaper editors in specifically excluding local and regional publishers. I accept that it is a concession, and Labour Members respect that. The Secretary of State seemed to become confused earlier when making the case for section 40. Section 40 has gone, and I can clearly state that if the amendment is passed, we will not seek to push the case; we recognise that there is no majority in the House for it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Hancock Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
We warmly welcome Channel 4’s agreement to establish a new national headquarters outside London. I am sure that a number of cities throughout the country will be well placed to host Channel 4. The final decision on the location is one for Channel 4 and will be made later this year.
Deidre Brock
Does the Secretary of State agree that the strength of Glasgow’s creative and independent television production sector and its rich cultural diversity make it the ideal place for Channel 4 to land? How will he ensure that the devolved nations get a fair share of the spoils of relocation? There should be no more lift and shift, but some real spending on Scottish production companies.
Matt Hancock
Of course, as well as moving its national headquarters outside London, Channel 4 has committed to increase its production spend outside London to 50%, much of which will end up in the devolved nations. I am delighted to say that Channel 4 currently seems to be very popular right across the country. Once it has made its decision to go to one particular place, I hope it remains popular everywhere else.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
But would not Birmingham be a better choice?
Matt Hancock
I like to make decisions, but I am delighted that this is one I do not have to make.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I should declare an interest as the newly elected Sheffield city region Mayor. If Channel 4 were a city, it would be Sheffield, which is creative, dynamic, authentic and welcoming. It is a city rich in culture. Does the Secretary of State agree that Sheffield would be more than deserving of a place on the shortlist of those cities bidding to attract Channel 4’s national headquarters when it relocates?
Matt Hancock
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s modesty, because he merely asked for a place on the shortlist, as opposed to winning the decision. Of course, there will also be creative hubs for those cities to which Channel 4 does not move. I am sure that this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on this topic will be well subscribed, so that this debate can continue further.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Glasgow’s bid to be Channel 4’s HQ has gathered cross-party and, indeed, cross-city support, with Edinburgh prepared to set aside ancient rivalries. Does the Secretary of State agree that with that level of support, coupled with its ability to draw on production infrastructure and creative and cultural talent, Glasgow ticks all the boxes?
Matt Hancock
I love Glasgow. It is an amazing city that is really going places. I am delighted that there is so much enthusiasm from every corner of the House for the fulfilment of a Conservative party manifesto commitment.
Mr Speaker
I suppose we had better hear about the Northern Ireland situation. I call Mr Gregory Campbell.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I do not wish to add to the bidding war, but when the Secretary of State has discussions with Channel 4 about where it might relocate, perhaps it might also reconsider some of its options in terms of its broadcasting output throughout the United Kingdom.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is almost impossible to overplay the amazing advances in broadcasting production in Northern Ireland over the past few years. It has been an absolute triumph and a great addition not only to the economy but to society and culture in Northern Ireland. I am sure that Channel 4 will consider that, too.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
As well as moving Channel 4 outside London, we are clear that we need to continue to improve broadband and mobile connectivity in rural areas. We hit the target of achieving 95% coverage by the end of last year, and our broadband universal service obligation will be implemented by 2020, to make sure that nobody is left behind.
Peter Heaton-Jones
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and welcome the progress that is being made. Does he agree that, in a rural area such as North Devon where small businesses, often based in people’s homes, form the backbone of the economy, it is vital that we deliver a good 4G and broadband service for entrepreneurs?
Matt Hancock
I agree incredibly strongly with my hon. Friend, who is a great champion for North Devon. Coverage there is only 85%, so there is much further to go, but I was delighted that Ofcom said yesterday that the average download speed had risen by 28% over the past year. That shows that, although there is further to go, we are making progress.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The single economic area that covers north Wales and extends into west Cheshire is one of the most successful in the UK, but the final link that it lacks is a digital infrastructure hub. We must consider carefully the bid for such a hub that the economic region has put forward. Will the Secretary of State look at that closely?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I have looked at the bid closely; I think it is a good one. I agree with the hon. Gentleman very strongly. I grew up in Cheshire, but I had to drive through north Wales to get to school every day, so I know the area and the links incredibly well. That border is not an economic border at all. Wrexham and Chester, north Wales and Cheshire are all one area when it comes to the economy, and I look forward to working with him on the bid.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This issue of take-up—how many people take up the broadband that is available—is very important. As availability gets to more than 95%, we are increasingly looking at the levels of take-up that we need to get up to.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that Network Rail is piloting the use of its network of global systems for mobile communications-railway masts for public mobile and internet access in rural areas. What discussions has his Department had with the Department for Transport and Network Rail about rolling out more pilot areas, and does he agree that Devon and Cornwall would make an excellent second pilot area?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I do. I have had a whole load of conversations with the Transport Secretary, Transport Ministers and Network Rail to make sure that we drive out connectivity where people live, work and travel, and the rail network is critical for a third of those. This morning, I was delighted to see the plans from Network Rail of a digital railway, and we need to get on with that as quickly as possible.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
We are the champions of British music. Music contributes a price tag of £4 billion to the economy, but it is not about the money. Britain’s music is our global calling card, so we will keep on supporting it, so that it is rocking all over the world.
Sir David Amess
UK music is the best in the world, except, seemingly, when it comes to the Eurovision song contest. I celebrate the fact that Southend-on-Sea has a wealth of musical talent. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what further assistance can be given to aspiring performers?
Matt Hancock
We have put a huge amount of effort, policy and enthusiasm behind Britain’s music industry, which is gangbuster at the moment. Protecting intellectual property and supporting music and education is a critical part of this. We obviously take inspiration from Southend’s famous sons, including Busted, but, unlike Busted, we are determined that it will not take until the year 3000 for us to get there.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), I recently held a roundtable for Bristol’s fantastic music venues, which, despite very great hard work, face many struggles. Given that every big star, including all the ones that the Secretary of State just named, has to start somewhere, what is he doing to help our fantastic music venues?
Matt Hancock
Supporting music venues is a key part of it. That includes making sure that if somebody moves in next door, the agent of change principle applies in the planning process, meaning that they cannot complain about a pre-existing music venue. This is a really important change, and one of many that we are making to support music venues.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay that Brexit does not mean that we are leaving the Eurovision song contest?
Matt Hancock
We should apply to the Eurovision song contest a principle that I try to apply to my life: whenever something goes wrong, we should try, try and try again, and maybe we will eventually get there.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
May I thank the Secretary of State for his positive contribution, along with that of the previous Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in introducing the agent of change principle that he just mentioned into the planning consultation process? I urge him to approach the new Secretary of State urgently to impress on him the importance of this change, as he just described it, for musicians and the music industry, and to get this into parliamentary regulations before the summer?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I should have paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s campaign for the agent of change principle. It now exists as a draft measure, and I am absolutely determined to make it a reality.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
It is very important that our broadcasting sector reflects and provides for the whole country. Moving Channel 4’s national HQ outside of London is part of that, but there is much more besides.
Julian Knight
Although I thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on Channel 4, does he agree that chronic under-investment in the west midlands by the likes of the BBC is a grave injustice and that the 5.5 million people in the west midlands deserve a better deal?
Matt Hancock
The west midlands has an awful lot to say for itself, in terms of more broadcasting. The move of BBC 3 to Birmingham soon is a step in the right direction, but I am sure there is much more to do.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
It has been another busy month for the Department. We have announced the artificial intelligence sector deal and the creative industries sector deal, agreed an ambitious new tech partnership in India and piloted the Data Protection Bill through the House, while protecting press freedoms.
I will, if I may, take a moment to congratulate my colleague and very honourable Friend, the Minister for Sport and Civil Society. She reaches a milestone of three very successful years in post on Saturday, and here’s to many more to come.
Mr Carmichael
I will never forget the day that David Cameron set up the Leveson inquiry, because on that day I met the family of the late Milly Dowler, and you just had to spend a few minutes in their company to understand how radically their lives had been affected by press intrusion. That is why we set up the Leveson inquiry in 2011. That is why David Cameron stood at the Dispatch Box in 2012 and promised the victims of press intrusion that there would be a second part to that inquiry. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what has changed?
Matt Hancock
As the right hon. Gentleman says, there has been bad behaviour by the press, but what has changed is that we have to look forward to how we address things now. Strengthening the Independent Press Standards Organisation and the improvements that we made to the Data Protection Bill yesterday are all about ensuring that we have a system for the future which ensures that the press is reasonable and fair but can also thrive in the difficulties of a digital age.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
In my constituency, the Bristol Robotics Laboratory, based in the University of the West of England, is recognised as the UK’s leading academic centre for robotics. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps his Department is taking to support emerging technologies, and AI in particular?
Matt Hancock
We are enormously enthusiastic about the advances in robotics, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I would love to hear more about that laboratory. We put £1 billion of public and private funds into AI just two weeks ago, and there is a lot more to do to ensure that we remain world leaders in this amazing technology.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will want to congratulate Cardiff City on their rightful return to the premier league.
When the Secretary of State was scouring the newspapers this morning searching for favourable headlines about himself, did he see the story in The Times relating to the fixed odds betting terminals decision and the need to reduce the maximum stake to £2? The intervention by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Ms McVey), has apparently blocked the Secretary of State from being able to make that announcement. Who is in charge of gambling policy in this country—him or the right hon. Member for Tatton?
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Matt Hancock
I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Stirling, where I saw on the ground the leadership my hon. Friend has shown in making sure that Stirling is a fully connected, future-facing city. He has lobbied me endlessly to make sure that we can get the strongest possible connectivity, including full-fibre connectivity, in Stirling. He is doing a sterling job.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
We are studying those recommendations closely. That report by the Lords Select Committee was one of the best reports by a Lords Select Committee I have ever read, so we are taking it extremely seriously.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Matt Hancock
It has made the decision to move its national headquarters, and it will make the decision about where to move them before the end of this year, with the move taking place next year. The case that my hon. Friend makes for Birmingham is a very strong one.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Matt Hancock
I am a great fan of minority languages. I grew up just on the Welsh border; I love the Welsh language, and I have strengthened the support for S4C through the S4C review. I am in discussions with the hon. Lady’s colleagues about BBC Alba as well.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Fixed wireless could provide an immediate solution to superfast broadband in rural areas. Openreach knows this, but constantly refuses to deploy it. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to persuade it to change its mind?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will. In terms of using technologies to get broadband rolled out, we should use whatever technologies are best in the location and the geography that there is. Of course, North Yorkshire has very big spaces, and fixed wireless is often the best approach.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Liverpool. Does the Minister agree that it is appalling that Liverpool football club has been allocated only 16,626 tickets for the Champions League final, some of them costing up to £400? Liverpool is one of the best-supported clubs in the world. This is not really paying due respect to the fans who support the game.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Recently in my constituency, I delivered surveys in rural areas to see how my constituents felt about the mobile coverage that was being delivered. I have had over 200 responses in the last week, and many people are not particularly happy with what is being delivered in their areas. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that these notspots are eliminated?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, while we have improved mobile coverage, and 90% of the country is now covered, 10% still is not. We are therefore going to put requirements on the mobile phone companies, so if they get licences in future spectrum auctions, they are going to have to do more in rural areas.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
What are Ministers doing to tackle the issue of scam adverts online, as highlighted by Martin Lewis recently?
Matt Hancock
I have seen with interest Martin Lewis’s legal action against Facebook. We are following that with great interest. The internet safety strategy will be coming out in the coming weeks, and that will address these issues.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Yesterday’s Ofcom report stated that Scotland had the lowest average rural download speeds anywhere in the UK. That has a huge impact on my constituency, so what are both of Scotland’s Governments doing to address that?
Matt Hancock
Overall in the UK, we have seen improvements of over 28% in download speeds over the past year, but it is frustrating that we have not been able to get as much broadband coverage in Scotland as we could have done, because the SNP Government in Holyrood have been sitting on millions of pounds of UK cash for over four years now.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
In March, a Populus poll of premier league fans showed that 72% supported the introduction of standing areas at football grounds. Why does the Minister believe that only a “vocal minority” want this to happen, and where did she get the figures for such an assertion?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of yesterday’s article in The Daily Telegraph by Adrian Parkinson, who led the campaign against FOBTs for the Campaign for Fairer Gambling? In it, he said that the campaign was
“greased in hyperbole, spin, misconstrued evidence and, worst of all, commercial jealousy”,
that there is no justification at all for a £2 maximum stake, and that
“the Government has fallen for the spin and hyperbole—hook, line and sinker.”
Matt Hancock
I did see the article, not least because my hon. Friend sent it to me via WhatsApp, and it is safe to say that I did not agree with all of it.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Scottish Government are having to invest £25 million to cover some of the mobile notspots, so rather than talking about future licensing requirements, when are the UK Government going to come up with cash to help with Scotland’s geography?
Matt Hancock
A very significant proportion of the mobile masts that went up thanks to our UK taxpayer-funded emergency services network were in Scotland, and the drive for greater geographical mobile coverage will benefit Scotland disproportionately.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
What is being done to help with mobile phone signals, particularly in rural areas such as west Oxfordshire where a signal is vital for businesses?
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Since the Government launched their review of gambling, more than £2.8 billion—£57 a second—has been lost on fixed-odds betting terminals. I urge the Secretary of State to put an end to this misery.
Matt Hancock
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work on this subject and the cross-party effort she has led. We have looked at all the evidence, and we will be coming out with our response shortly.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Ministers will know that Cleethorpes is the premier resort of the east coast, and we much appreciate the support that has come through the coastal communities fund, but what policies do Ministers have further to enhance the support for seaside resorts?
Michelle Donelan
Will the Minister join me in congratulating AFC Corsham, which battled the heat on Saturday to play a 12-hour football match in aid of the wonderful charity Scotty’s Little Soldiers?
Data Protection Bill [Lords]
Matt Hancock ExcerptsWednesday 9th May 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Data Protection Act 2018 View all Data Protection Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 May 2018 - (9 May 2018)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 22—Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism.
Government new clause 23—Data protection and journalism code.
New clause 18—Data protection breaches by national news publishers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into allegations of data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of national news publishers and other media organisations.
(2) Before setting the terms of reference of and other arrangements for the inquiry the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers with a view to ensuring, in particular, that the inquiry will consider the separate legal context and other circumstances of Scotland;
(b) consult Northern Ireland Ministers and members of the Northern Ireland Assembly with a view to ensuring, in particular, that the inquiry will consider the separate legal context and other circumstances of Northern Ireland;
(c) consult persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of victims of data protection breaches committed by, on behalf of or in relation to, national news publishers and other media organisations; and
(d) consult persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of news publishers and other media organisations (having regard in particular to organisations representing journalists).
(3) The terms of reference for the inquiry must include requirements—
(e) to inquire into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct by or on behalf of national news publishers and other organisations within the media in respect of personal data;
(f) to inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to failures to investigate wrongdoing at media organisations within the scope of the inquiry;
(g) to review the protections and provisions around media coverage of individuals subject to police inquiries, including the policy and practice of naming suspects of crime prior to any relevant charge or conviction;
(h) to investigate the dissemination of information and news, including false news stories, by social media organisations using personal data;
(i) to consider the adequacy of the current regulatory arrangements and the resources, powers and approach of the Information Commissioner and any other relevant authorities in relation to—
(i) the news publishing industry (except in relation to entities regulated by Ofcom) across all platforms and in the light of experience since 2012;
(ii) social media companies;
(j) to make such recommendations as appear to the inquiry to be appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the privacy rights of individuals are balanced with the right to freedom of expression.
(4) In setting the terms of reference for the inquiry the Secretary of State must—
(k) have regard to the current context of the news, publishing and general media industry;
(l) must set appropriate parameters for determining which allegations are to be considered;
(m) determine the meaning and scope of references to national news publishers and other media organisations for the purposes of the inquiry.
(5) Before complying with subsection (4) the Secretary of State must consult the judge or other person who is likely to be invited to chair the inquiry.
(6) The inquiry may, so far as it considers appropriate—
(n) consider evidence given to previous public inquiries; and
(o) take account of the findings of and evidence given to previous public inquiries (and the inquiry must consider using this power for the purpose of avoiding the waste of public resources).
(7) This section comes into force on Royal Assent.”
This new clause would require the establishment of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 as recommended by Lord Justice Leveson for Part two of his Inquiry.
New clause 20—Publishers of news-related material: damages and costs (No. 2)—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a relevant claim for breach of the data protection legislation is made against a person (‘the defendant’),
(b) the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time, and
(c) the claim is related to the publication of news-related material.
(2) If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (or was unable to be a member at that time for reasons beyond the defendant’s control or it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs against the claimant unless satisfied that—
(d) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or
(e) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case, including, for the avoidance of doubt—
(i) the conduct of the defendant, and
(ii) whether the defendant pleaded a reasonably arguable defence, to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.
(3) If the defendant was not an exempt relevant publisher and was not a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (but would have been able to be a member at that time and it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—
(f) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or
(g) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case, including, for the avoidance of doubt—
(i) the conduct of the claimant, and
(ii) whether the claimant had a reasonably arguable claim, to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.
(4) This section is not to be read as limiting any power to make rules of court.
(5) This section does not apply until such time as a body is first recognised as an approved regulator.”
This new clause would provide that court costs of non-abusive, non-vexatious, and non-trivial libel and intrusion claims would be awarded against a newspaper choosing not to join a Royal Charter-approved regulator offering low-cost arbitration, but that newspapers who do join such a regulator would be protected from costs awards even if they lose a claim.
New clause 21—Publishers of news-related material: interpretive provisions (No. 2)—
“(1) This section applies for the purposes of section (Publishers of news-related material: damages and costs (No. 2)).
(2) “Approved regulator” means a body recognised as a regulator of relevant publishers.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a body is “recognised” as a regulator of relevant publishers if it is so recognised by any body established by Royal Charter (whether established before or after the coming into force of this section) with the purpose of carrying on activities relating to the recognition of independent regulators of relevant publishers.
(4) “Relevant claim” means a civil claim made in respect of data protection under the data protection legislation, brought in England or Wales by a claimant domiciled anywhere in the United Kingdom.
(5) The “material time”, in relation to a relevant claim, is the time of the events giving rise to the claim.
(6) “News-related material” means—
(a) news or information about current affairs,
(b) opinion about matters relating to the news or current affairs, or
(c) gossip about celebrities, other public figures or other persons in the news.
(7) A relevant claim is related to the publication of news-related material if the claim results from—
(d) the publication of news-related material, or
(e) activities carried on in connection with the publication of such material (whether or not the material is in fact published).
(8) A reference to the “publication” of material is a reference to publication—
(f) on a website,
(g) in hard copy, or
(h) by any other means,
and references to a person who “publishes” material are to be read accordingly.
(9) A reference to “conduct” includes a reference to omissions; and a reference to a person’s conduct includes a reference to a person’s conduct after the events giving rise to the claim concerned.
(10) “Relevant publisher” has the same meaning as in section 41 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
(11) A relevant publisher is exempt if it satisfies Condition A or B.
(12) Condition A is that the publisher has a constitution which—
(a) requires any surplus income or gains to be reinvested in the publisher, and
(b) does not allow the distribution of any of its profits or assets (in cash or in kind) to members or third parties.
(13) Condition B is that the publisher—
(a) publishes predominantly in Scotland, or predominantly in Wales, or predominantly in Northern Ireland or predominantly in specific regions or localities; and
(b) has had an average annual turnover not exceeding £100 million over the last five complete financial years.”
This new clause would provide that the penalty incentives in New Clause 20 would not apply to companies which publish only on a regional or local basis and have an annual turnover of less than £100m. It sets out that only data protection claims are eligible, and provides further interpretive provisions.
Amendment (a), line 33 leave out subsection (10) and insert—
“(10) ‘Relevant publisher’ has the same meaning as in section 41 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, subject to subsection (10A).
(10A) For the purposes of this Act, a publisher shall only be a ‘relevant publisher’ if—
(a) it has a registered address in England or Wales; and
(b) its publications are published in, or in any part of, England or Wales.
(10B) A relevant claim may be made under the data protection legislation only in respect of material which is published by a relevant publisher (as defined by subsections (10) and (10A)) and which is read or accessed in England or Wales.”
Government amendments 146 to 150 and 145.
Amendment 144, page 122, line 10, in clause 205, leave out “Section 190 extends” and insert—
“Sections (Publishers of news-related material: damages and costs (Amendment 2)), (Publishers of news-related material: interpretive provisions (Amendment 2)) and 190 extend”.
Amendment 14, page 156, line 4, in schedule 2, at end insert—
“(d) any code which is adopted by an approved regulator as defined by section 42(2) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.”
This amendment would give the Standards Code of an approved press regulator the same status as the other journalism codes recognised in the Bill (The BBC and Ofcom Codes, and the Editors’ Code observed by members of IPSO).
Matt Hancock
The Data Protection Bill sets out a full new data protection regime for Britain, giving people more control over their data.
First, I wish to address new clauses 20 and 21, before turning to the other new clauses. These new clauses are essentially the provisions contained in sections 40 and 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, although they would apply only to breaches of data protection law and only in England and Wales.
Let me first set out exactly what these new clauses would mean and then our approach to them. They would set new cost provisions for complaints against the press, which means that any publication not regulated by IMPRESS would have to pay the legal costs for any complaint against it, whether it won or lost. Many would object to that and say that it goes against natural justice. It is grounds enough to reject these new clauses on the basis that the courts would punish a publication that has done no wrong, but that is not the only reason. Let us consider the impact of these new clauses on an editor. Faced with any criticism, of any article, by anyone with the means to go to court, a publication would risk having to pay costs, even if every single fact in a story was true and even if there was a strong public interest in publishing. Let us take, for example, Andrew Norfolk, the admirable journalist who uncovered the Rotherham child abuse scandal. He said that section 40 would have made it “near impossible” to do his job. He went on to say that it would have been “inconceivable” to run the front page story naming one of the abusers in a scandal that had ruined the lives of 1,400 innocent young people with disgusting crimes that had gone on for years and years and years. Without Andrew Norfolk’s story, the scandal would have gone on for years and years more.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State is so opposed to section 40, why did he support it?
Matt Hancock
I will come on to what has changed in the many years since 2013, not least of which is the fact that we now have a full-blown independent press regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which did not exist back then.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. First, IPSO is not a press regulator, because it does not comply with the requirements to be a regulator; it is merely a complaints handler. Secondly, he may have inadvertently misled the House, because it is not necessary to join IMPRESS as he said earlier on. It is necessary for regulators to comply with the rules, which is slightly different.
Matt Hancock
There is no recognised press regulator other than IMPRESS. As many journalists have pointed out, the truth is that these new clauses would have made it near impossible to uncover some of the stories of abuse, including the abuse of all those children in Rotherham. Another example is that of Mark Stephens, who represented phone hacking victims. He wrote today that the new clauses would
“return Britain to the legal Dark Ages and make it easier for wealthy people to suppress negative stories.”
The impact on local newspapers, too, risks being catastrophic. I say do not just take my word for it. The editor of the Express & Star, well known to the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), said that the new clauses could spell the end of newspaper printing in this country on a large scale and are a
“ludicrous and patently unfair…piece of legislation.”
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the BBC, Channel 4 and every other broadcaster operates under much more stringent rules, and yet nothing seems to have got in the way of their powers of interrogation and investigation? Does he think that they are operating second-class investigations today?
Matt Hancock
We have three separate systems of media regulation in this country: a separate system for broadcasters; an essentially self-regulated system under IPSO for newspapers; and then there is the issue of how we make sure that what happens online is properly regulated as well. I will come on to that last point, because it is a very important part of the debate. The impact of the new clauses on the local press should not be underestimated. Two hundred local newspapers have already closed since 2005, and these new clauses would accelerate that decline. However, there is one national newspaper that is carved out in the small print of the new clauses as it only covers newspapers run for profit. Which newspaper is exempted? It is The Guardian. If those who tabled these new clauses thought that they were making friends with The Guardian, they were wrong. The Guardian has said that
“the Data Protection Bill should not be used as a vehicle for imposing an unfair and partial system on publishers.”
It did not ask for the measures, and it, too, opposes them. Indeed, in a recent consultation, 79% of direct responses favoured full repeal of section 40, compared with just 7% who favoured full commencement.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The Secretary of State quoted The Guardian. In fact, its statement released this morning went even further. The Guardian News and Media said that these new clauses would
“further erode press freedom and have a chilling effect on the news media.”
Matt Hancock
It did, yes. I am trying to ensure that we have a debate on these measures that takes into account the fact that, yes, we want a free press that can hold the powerful to account, but also that it is fair. I know—as does everyone in this House—that there has been irresponsible behaviour by the press. Although I want to see a press that is free to report without fear or favour, to uncover wrongdoing and to hold the powerful to account, I also want to see a press that is fair and accurate. I am determined that we have a strengthened system so that people have recourse to justice when things go wrong.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in many ways, there are two forms of media already operating in this country? One is printed, published and broadcast from reputable sources, which have assets in this country that we can take action against, or not, and the other form is websites that have either very low assets or no assets in this country with very different accountability. Bizarrely, could we not find ourselves in a position under this system where the only people who can get justice are those who are rich enough, such as Peter Thiel, to destroy the website Gawker, in this case, because it was acting against him, rather than those of us on more modest means who would have absolutely no recourse against these organisations, but yet all the news would have gone online because these regulations would force out our newspapers?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is completely right about the gap between online and print in terms of standards of regulation. That is because IPSO was brought into force—I was glad to see it being introduced in 2014. He is also right that tackling the problems online is critical. Our internet safety strategy, which will be published in the next couple of weeks, will address that matter directly. I know that there are many Members who have concerns about the impact of content online, of abuse online, and of the ability to get redress online, and we will not let that rest. We will ensure that we take action to tackle the problems online in the same way that IPSO deals with the press and indeed that these new clauses deal with publications in the press.
I am glad that IPSO now has the power to require front page corrections as it did, for instance, just a couple of weeks ago with The Times. As the House knows, I have pushed IPSO to bring in further measures. It recently introduced a system of compulsory low-cost arbitration. This means that ordinary people who do not have large sums of money can take claims to newspapers for as little as £50. Almost all of the major national newspapers have signed up to it. That means that anyone who has been wronged by a national newspaper can, for the first time, ask for arbitration and the newspaper cannot refuse. The scheme applies not just to words, but to images. This must be the start of a tougher regime, and not the conclusion.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Is not one of the problems that the scheme does not include everyone? It is compulsory, but does not include everyone. When MailOnline is excluded, does that not leave a whacking great hole in it?
Matt Hancock
I have a lot of sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend. MailOnline is, of course, an online publication, and we are looking at that as part of our internet safety strategy. I am very happy to talk to him about how that can be done. Only in the past week, however, many publications have joined the IPSO low-cost arbitration scheme, which is binding on them, and I very much hope that more will join in the future.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the new scheme will allow for a higher maximum level of damages of up to £60,000 and that it can be run for as little as £100?
Matt Hancock
That is absolutely right. The minimum access cost will be £50, which means that everybody has access to justice at low cost. There is more to it than that, however. Some people argue that the £60,000 limit on damages is too low, but the arbitration scheme does not stop somebody going to court, so there is access to justice where damages should be higher. The arbitration scheme is an addition to, rather than a replacement for, going to court. It introduces a robust and fair system that is easy for everybody to access, so everyone can have access to justice.
The section 40 amendments would, ironically, have the opposite effect, because anybody with the means to take small newspapers to court could stop them publishing stories for fear of having to pay the costs, even if they get everything right.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Is it not the case that IPSO proposed its arbitration scheme only when a number of colleagues had tabled amendments that were distinctly unhelpful to the print media? Can we trust that organisation? Will my right hon. Friend be extremely careful about removing the boot from the neck of IPSO, particularly in relation to the review period? I know that he will come on to talk about that shortly, but will he consider tightening the review period, because at the moment it gives IPSO the best part of a decade before there is any prospect of further change if the industry does not behave itself?
Matt Hancock
I agree with the sentiment, which is that we have to ensure that the press remains free but also fair and reasonable, and that is the purpose of the amendment proposing a review period of four years. We will not let matters lie.
Some have asked, “What happens if newspapers pull out of the IPSO scheme?” I think that would send a terrible signal of the newspaper industry’s attitude to the standards that it rightly ought to sign up to. The review is there precisely to address my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State refer to a low-cost scheme. People have told me about their concern that £60,000 may be too low because there needs to be a deterrent. Will the four-year review also cover that £60,000 cap?
Matt Hancock
Given that this is a Data Protection Bill, the review will consider data protection issues, but I would expect it to be as broad as necessary, to ensure that all those matters are considered.
We have listened to concerns raised during the passage of the Bill, including in this debate.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way just before he moves off the subject of IPSO. He has set out arguments in IPSO’s defence. It is not just MailOnline that is outside the arbitration scheme; that is also true of Newsquest and Archant, so a significant chunk of the press is outside it. Brian Leveson said that the regulator needed to have independent board members, independence of operation, fair remedy for complaints, the ability to carry out investigations, the ability to issue fines, and universal arbitration. None of those conditions is put in place by IPSO, so which of those principles does the Secretary of State think should be retired?
Matt Hancock
On the contrary, the scheme introduces new, compulsory, low-cost arbitration to ensure that people can have exactly the recourse to justice mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. In order to address some of the concerns, we have tabled two new clauses. First, new clause 19 requires the Information Commissioner to publish information on how people can get redress. The point is to ensure that there is a plain English guide to help anyone with a complaint to navigate the system. Secondly, new clause 22 requires the Information Commissioner to create a statutory code of practice, setting out standards on data protection. The point is that, when investigating a breach of data protection law, the commissioner has to decide whether a journalist acted reasonably. When making that judgment, a failure to comply with the statutory code will weigh heavily against the journalist.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
How binding is the arbitration, and how binding is the code of practice?
Matt Hancock
The arbitration is binding on the newspapers, meaning that anybody who wants to get redress from a newspaper in the scheme can do so up to a limit of £60,000, and then the recourse is through the courts. The Information Commissioner’s statutory code of practice is binding with respect to data protection standards; after all, this is a Data Protection Bill, so that is what is in scope.
Taken together, the changes from IPSO and the new clauses mean that Britain will have the most robust system we have ever had of redress for press intrusion and it will be accessible to all. It will achieve that and the benefits of high-quality journalism, without the negative effect that section 40 would have.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous in taking interventions. Before he finishes his peroration on the new clauses, will he confirm that they are purely procedural and will give members of the public, including our constituents, absolutely no new rights whatsoever?
Matt Hancock
No, that is not right. The statutory code of practice for journalists must be a consideration in the Information Commissioner’s judgments, and a failure to comply with the statutory code will weigh against the journalist in law. It has precisely the impact that we are trying to bring about.
New clause 18, tabled by the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), requires the Government to, in effect, reopen the Leveson inquiry, but only in relation to data protection. I want to say something specific and technical about the new clause. Even on its own terms, it would not deliver Leveson 2 as envisaged. It focuses on data protection breaches, not the broad question of the future of the press. The new clause, therefore, is not appropriate for those who want to vote for Leveson 2.
The first Leveson inquiry lasted more than a year and heard the evidence of more than 300 people, including journalists, editors and victims. The inquiry was a diligent and thorough examination of the culture, practices and ethics of our press, in response to illegal and improper press intrusion. There were far too many cases of terrible behaviour, and having met some of the victims, I understand the impact that had. The inquiry was followed by three major police investigations, leading to more than 40 criminal convictions. More than £48 million was spent on the police investigations and the inquiry.
Liam Byrne
This is probably a good point for the Secretary of State to remind the House about Brian Leveson’s view of the future of the inquiry. Will he set that out for us?
Matt Hancock
Sir Brian was very clear in his letter to me. He stated that he wanted the inquiry to continue on a different basis. I think, having considered his view and others, that the best approach is to ensure that we do the work necessary to improve the standards of the press, but we do it based on what is needed now to improve things in the future. I will come back to that.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am glad that my right hon. Friend acknowledges the diligence and hard work of Sir Brian Leveson in the inquiry. He highlighted the particular vice of corrupt police officers giving the names of persons—perhaps whose premises are being searched—to corrupt journalists who publish them before charge, and very often those people are never charged. No amount of redress can undo that damage. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and other concerned Members to consider revisions and what additional legal protection can be given to people post-charge to prevent this trade in muck and dirt, sometimes without anybody ever coming before a criminal court, which undermines the presumption in favour of innocence?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are discussing the rules around the disclosure of the names of people who are under investigation before arrest. This is a sensitive area, and we have got to get it right. I want to work with colleagues and others to explore the reporting restriction rules further, and I look forward to meeting him and any others who share those concerns.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; it is very generous of him. Some years ago, I put forward a private Member’s Bill calling for anyone who was accused to keep their anonymity until they were charged. It is all there—it is effectively good to go. I too would very much like to meet the Secretary of State, because this is the right thing to do. People should not be named before they are even charged, unless a judge orders otherwise.
Matt Hancock
I am aware of my right hon. Friend’s proposals, and I look forward to meeting her. Getting the details of this right is incredibly important, and I am happy to take that forward.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
To go back to the key question of holding an inquiry, the Secretary of State rather implies that the first Leveson inquiry is closed and we now face the possibility of starting a new one. Does he not accept that, from the moment it was set up, the Leveson inquiry was always going to be in two parts? That was the commitment of the Government in which he and I served. It was only suspended so that police operations could take place, and it was quite clearly agreed that part 2 of the inquiry would then resume. The case he has to make is: why is he cancelling a previously promised inquiry endorsed by Leveson? What on earth is the reason for stopping investigations into the kind of things we are all talking about? No one would stop investigations of this kind against any other body in this country.
Matt Hancock
I have a huge amount of respect for my right hon. and learned Friend. I was about to come on to precisely the reason for that. The reason is that inquiries are not costless, and not just in terms of taxpayers’ money; that is one consideration, but inquiries also take hours of official time and ministerial time. They divert energy and public attention—[Interruption.] Hold on. The question for the House is this: given all the other challenges facing the press, is this inquiry the right use of resources?
There is something in the calls to reopen the inquiry that implies that the problem is that we do not know what happened, but we do know what happened, and then we had police investigations and the convictions. It is fundamental that we get to the bottom of the challenges that the press face today. I want to divert our attention and resources to tackling and rising to the problems of today and ensuring we have a press that is both free and fair.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In answer to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), surely the question here is not that further issues should not be settled, such as those that have been raised, but how one should go about it. An open-ended continuation of this inquiry will not necessarily resolve those issues but could travel into all sorts of areas, which would take time. Will the Secretary of State commit to dealing with all these issues raised in a more effective way, rather than just opening a further point in the inquiry? That is the point.
Matt Hancock
Yes, and my right hon. Friend has pre-empted what I was about to say, which is that the choice is not between doing something and doing nothing, but between doing something and doing something better. New clause 18 calls on us to go into a backward-looking inquiry when what we need to do is ensure that we allow the press to rise to the challenges we face today.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, not least in view of what I am going to say. Is the truth not that he has broken promises to the victims, ignored the opinions of Sir Brian Leveson and ridden roughshod over the cross-party, unanimous opinion of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee? Much has happened since Leveson 1, and one thing that Leveson 2 could establish is who told Sir Brian the truth and nothing but the truth the first time round. Why is the Secretary of State afraid of establishing the truth?
Matt Hancock
I want to focus on the challenges we face now. That is my job as Secretary of State, and it is my judgment as to what the proposals I have put forward do, and do in a better way than re-establishing the inquiry.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Has this not been decided in the jewel of our legal system—that is to say, in front of a jury? Some people accused of things that would have been part of Leveson 2 have been acquitted, and a very few have been convicted, but once someone has been tried in front of a jury, it is fundamentally unfair, unjust and a question of double jeopardy if they are then brought before another tribunal and put once more on oath to repeat evidence that they have given before and then been acquitted for. It would be against British justice to proceed in that way.
Matt Hancock
The police inquiries and the prosecutions that followed were exhaustive, so much so that in 2015, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that the end had been reached of the need to inquire further into those criminal acts. Of course, the criminal acts were punished, and people were convicted and went to prison.
Crucially, the arrival of the internet has fundamentally changed the landscape. That was not addressed at the core of the first Leveson inquiry, but it must be addressed. Later this month we will publish our internet safety strategy, as I mentioned, in which we will set out the action we need to take to ensure that the online world is better policed. Many colleagues have raised with me huge concerns about online abuse and the inability to get redress. That is a significant challenge for the future, and we must address it.
However, the internet has also fundamentally undermined the business model of our printed press. Today’s core challenge is how to ensure a sustainable future for high-quality journalism that can hold the powerful to account. The rise of clickbait, disinformation and fake news is putting our whole democratic discourse at risk. This is an urgent problem that is shaking the foundations of democracies worldwide. Liberal democracies such as Britain cannot survive without the fourth estate, and the fourth estate is under threat like never before. These amendments would exacerbate that threat and undermine the work we are doing through the Cairncross review and elsewhere to support sustainable journalism.
The terms of reference of part 2 of the inquiry have already largely been met. Where action is needed, I do not back down from taking it. The culture that allowed phone hacking to become the norm has changed fundamentally and must stay that way. We have already seen reforms of police practices, with a new code of conduct for the College of Policing. As I said, we are discussing rules around disclosure. I can confirm that we have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to undertake a new review of how police forces are adhering to new media relations guidance, as recommended by Sir Brian, and we will not hesitate to strengthen the rules further if that is needed.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has talked about victims of abuse, but he seems to have forgotten that Leveson was set up because of the victims of press harassment and abuse in the first place. Many of those victims have written to Members on both sides of the House, rejecting the ridiculous IPSO scheme and asking for part 2 of Leveson to proceed. He has heard concerns from Members on both sides of the House today, so why will he not think again? What has changed his mind about those victims over the last three or four years?
Matt Hancock
In the period in which people have raised concerns and said that they must be looked into in Leveson 2, every one that has been raised with me was covered in Leveson 1. Leveson 1 was exhaustive, and there were then police investigations, which went further. My judgment is about what is right now, and the challenges the press face now are fundamentally different.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State accept that many of the challenges that the press face now are the result of the behaviour that led to Leveson 1 and undermined public confidence? The fact that the victims are not perceived as having had justice further undermines the press, and we would be helping the future of the press in this country if we continued along the lines of Leveson 2 and looked at how best to implement the recommendations of Leveson 1.
Matt Hancock
I think the representations from the press themselves show that they are not looking for help of that sort. Let us, however, look at the public: there is not a great public cry for this. In response to the consultation, 79% of direct responses favoured the full repeal of section 40. It is my job to address what we face now and the needs of the country now.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has made the very interesting point that he will try to address some of the grievances and outcomes by way of a review. Doing so specifically in relation to Northern Ireland was in effect precluded by the first part of Mr Leveson’s inquiry. Will the Secretary of State tell us how he will try to resolve this problem in Northern Ireland?
Matt Hancock
Through new clause 23, as I have mentioned, we will require the Information Commissioner to conduct a statutory review of media compliance with the new law over the next four years. Alongside that review, we propose to have a named person review the standards of the press in Northern Ireland, and we will take that forward as part of and alongside new clause 23.
Ian Paisley
I thank the Secretary of State for his generosity. Would it be fair for me to characterise that review as a Leveson for Northern Ireland?
Matt Hancock
I would characterise it as a review aligned with new clause 23, which we are bringing in for the whole country, specifically to look at the effects in Northern Ireland. The crucial point is that we will make sure, through the review in new clause 23, that the future of the press is both free and reasonable, that its behaviour is reasonable, and yet that it is not subject to statutory regulation. I want to see a press that is both free and fair.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
This is an extraordinary way to make policy. Will the Secretary of State explain to us why there can be a Leveson for Northern Ireland, but not for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Matt Hancock
I have explained that new clause 23, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman supports, will in the future bring in a review of behaviour following the new system that we are putting into place. That is true here, and it is true right across the country.
Ian C. Lucas
May I bring the Secretary of State back to the United Kingdom and to Manchester last year? The Kerslake review said:
“The panel was shocked and dismayed by the accounts of the families of their experiences with some of the media.”
That happened last year, so the Secretary of State should not represent the threats posed by press misbehaviour as being from the past; this is a real and pressing problem now. Will he keep his promise to the victims who have suffered from this in the past and are continuing to suffer from it?
Matt Hancock
New clause 23 is for the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I have read the Kerslake review, and we asked to see all the evidence that fed into it, but we have not received specific allegations. The crucial point is that the low-cost IPSO arbitration is precisely to make sure that everybody has access to justice and that the press improves the way in which it behaves so that it is both free and fair, and that is what we want to achieve.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The Secretary of State may not be aware of this, but my daughter, aged seven, was spoken to and recorded by a journalist in 2016. The incident, which was in our own garden, traumatised her greatly, as has been stated by her school and by her doctor, but it was ignored by IPSO. Will he meet me and my daughter to explain how children like her will be protected by his amendments and what he is trying to do, because she has no faith in the system?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I absolutely will. This is the sort of thing that I am trying to put right. It is about making sure that the system is right now: rather than going over the past—there is an enormous amount of evidence of what happened in the past—this is about making sure that we look to the future.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned Northern Ireland and the review I have committed to in Northern Ireland will take place at the same time as the review under new clause 23 for the UK that is before the House.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) about the special review for Northern Ireland, may I ask the Secretary of State in reference to the Hurst case—the former Army intelligence officer whose computers were hacked by newspaper journalists working for newspapers in England about his activities protecting our state in Northern Ireland—whether his review will also examine such criminal activity?
Matt Hancock
If there are allegations of criminal activity—the hon. Gentleman has just made such an allegation—then that is a matter for the courts.
Tom Watson
A newspaper group has admitted liability for criminally hacking the computers of a former Army intelligence officer.
Matt Hancock
In a way, the hon. Gentleman has summed up my case. My case is that we want a press that is free and that is fair. Statutes already exist to ensure that, when there are cases of wrongdoing, people can be brought to account through the courts. That already exists, and we now also have a system of compulsory, low-cost arbitration to make sure everybody can get recourse.
I am focused on ensuring that we have high-quality political discourse and a press that can survive and thrive, with high-quality journalists who can hold the powerful to account, and on ensuring that we face the challenges of today rather than those of yesterday. That is what we want to work towards, and new clauses 18, 20 and 21 would make it harder to find solutions to today’s real problems.
Ian Paisley
The Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but new clause 23, to which he has referred at the Dispatch Box, looks at cases going forward; it is not retrospective—I hope I am correct. Therefore, it addresses some of the deficiencies in the other new clauses before the House about having just a consultation process on what has happened previously.
Matt Hancock
New clause 23 is about ensuring that in the future there is a review of activity from now onwards, and alongside it we will ensure that there is a named person to ensure that the issues in Northern Ireland are looked into properly.
Overall, I want to ensure that the law that applies to the press is applied fairly, and that we have a free press and one that is responsible. I therefore oppose new clauses 18, 20 and 21, which would make that more difficult, not easier, and I urge every Member of the House to do the same.
Liam Byrne
I rise to support in particular new clause 18, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and indeed our new clause 20 and the consequential amendments.
The background to this is fairly well rehearsed, but it is worth remembering the level of shock we all felt when the revelations about phone hacking first became public. It is worth remembering the shock we felt when we heard that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked. It does not often happen in this House that Members on both sides unite to try to construct a shared way forward through an extremely difficult problem, yet that is exactly what we managed to do with the Leveson inquiry.
That was very difficult, but it was always going to be a game of two halves. There were too many cases coming to court at the time; there was too much evidence still under wraps; and there was too much that had to be left in the dark. As the Father of the House so rightly pointed out, it was never a question of opening a new inquiry; this is about letting the existing inquiry actually finish its work.
When the previous Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, having spoken to victims, made a statement, the point he wanted to impress on Members on both sides of the House was the need for Leveson to finish the job:
“One of the things that the victims have been most concerned about is that part 2 of the investigation should go ahead—because of the concerns about that first police investigation and about improper relationships between journalists and police officers. It is right that it should go ahead, and that is fully our intention.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 458.]
The then Prime Minister was not speaking simply on his own behalf; he was speaking on behalf of Government Members, including members of today’s Government Front Bench such as the Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who wrote not too long ago to one of his constituents:
“The Government has been clear all along that the status quo is not an option and I, personally, am determined to see Lord Justice Leveson’s principles implemented.”
Where has that commitment gone this afternoon?
Liam Byrne
What I want to learn is the truth. I want to learn the truth about police-press collusion and I want to know how we improve our press regulation in the future, so that we have not just a free press but a clean press.
Let me make some progress. The Secretary of State offered us a second line of argument that has now collapsed. I am not quite sure of the exact words he used when he came to the House, but most of us walked away thinking that Lord Leveson was pretty content that the whole thing was going to be shuttered. The House can therefore imagine our surprise when Sir Brian Leveson said that he “fundamentally disagreed” with the Government’s decision to end part two of the inquiry. When Lord Leveson said that he wanted the terms to be revised, he meant that he wanted them to be expanded, not cancelled all together. The Secretary of State says that malpractice is in the past and that there is nothing more to see, officials are busy, inquiries are expensive and so we must move on. He intimated that Lord Leveson agreed with him when that was not in fact the case.
A third line of attack from the Secretary of State was that the review looked to the past and ignored the challenges for the press in the future. That was a legitimate challenge and if he studies carefully the words of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), he will see that there is a new ambition to get into some of the challenges around fake news that were looked at by Brian Leveson. That was not enough to satisfy the Secretary of State, however. In a letter to Conservative Members—I did not receive a copy—he offered some more objections, each one of which we can knock down.
The Secretary of State, in his letter to his colleagues, says that the first half of Leveson was “full and broad” when in fact it was partial and incomplete. He says that newspaper margins are under pressure, as if economic hardship is now some sort of defence against the full glare of justice. He says that the effect of the proposals will be “chilling”, when he knows that our fine broadcasters in this country operate under far more rigorous regulation than newspapers and that does not stop them pursuing the most extraordinarily brilliant investigations. He says that Sir Joe Pilling has “cleared” the IPSO scheme, but Joe Pilling was appointed by IPSO and IPSO itself says it does not comply with Leveson. He says that IPSO now has a low-cost arbitration scheme, but as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) pointed out, MailOnline, Newsquest and Archant are all outside it, so it is not a universal scheme in the way the Secretary of State has tried to present it to the House this afternoon.
The final line of argument is that officials are very busy and inquiries are very expensive, and we should therefore just walk on by. I just do not think that that is good enough.
Liam Byrne
I am happy to hear from the Secretary of State why he thinks I am wrong.
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Gentleman is not making much progress. He is implying that broadcasters are under regulation but there is no chilling effect. The description of a chilling effect, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is the expected impact of section 40, under which anybody would be able to take a newspaper to court and get costs awarded against the newspaper even if they did not have anything in their case. The broadcasters do not have to deal with anything like that. On the point about things being brought to light, will he confirm that the case of Mr Ford, which he raised and was raised in an argument for Leveson 2, was in fact raised in the original Leveson inquiry and was therefore covered?
Liam Byrne
Mr Ford’s activity was, but not Mr Ford’s allegations that the activity is already under way.
Let me come on to the point the Secretary of State made about the future of press regulation. The scheme he voted for—it was elegantly designed, I think, by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)—was a good scheme. There have been a couple of important objections to it made by many of our constituents, but more importantly by many journalists in our local media. The first objection is that a royal charter is somehow tantamount to a state authorised, state-operated regulator, which will somehow impede free speech. Royal charters have for centuries been the basis by which we have given stature to universities and learning societies like the Royal Society. None of them confront restrictions on free speech in any way whatever. That argument, frankly, is fanciful.
Matt Hancock
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
What a great pleasure this is. The Bill gives people more power and control over their lives online while supporting innovation and entrepreneurship in the digital age. It will deliver real benefits across the country and help our businesses to compete and trade abroad. Strong data protection laws give customers confidence in the products and services that they buy, and that is good for business. The Bill provides a full data protection framework as we leave the EU, consistent with the general data protection regulation.
We have heard many things during our debates in the Chamber and in Committee, including concerns about small businesses. I reassure colleagues that the Information Commissioner’s Office has produced specific advice for them, as well as detailed advice for charities and local government.
The Bill provides a bespoke tech framework that is tailored to the needs of our criminal justice agencies and the intelligence services. That will protect the rights of victims, witnesses and suspects while making sure that we can tackle the changing nature of the global threats that the UK faces.
The Bill has received coverage from around the world, including Australia, the Philippines and, indeed, Suffolk. Let me be clear: the Bill is about preparing Britain for the future. As we leave the EU, the Bill sets out full spectrum data protection legislation, and I hope that the House will give it its Third Reading.
I am very grateful for the way in which the House has engaged with the Bill. I want to put on record my thanks to many people: my hon. Friend the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, in particular, for her sterling work day in, day out; my predecessor, who is now Northern Ireland Secretary, who worked hard with me on the Bill before her promotion; the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), for grappling with the Bill in a brand new brief; the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, whose members made many contributions; the Public Bill Committee; the Information Commissioner herself, with whom we have worked very closely on the Bill and who is a great star; and the Whips, Clerks, Committee Chairs, Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. They have all been of great assistance. I also thank the Front-Bench teams of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the Scottish National party and other parties for, on the whole, their highly constructive attitude to this important legislation.
The Bill that we send back to the other place has been improved in three key respects. First, we have made good on the promises made by Lord Ashton in the other place. For instance, we have delivered certainty for patient support groups—a cause passionately championed by my noble Friend Baroness Neville-Jones. We have provided reassurance for those on the frontline, safeguarding the emotional, physical and mental health of some of our most vulnerable citizens. We have legislated for a statutory review of the private enforcement provisions of the Bill, which will ensure that we leave no stone unturned in our search for strong and effective oversight of data controllers, particularly where children are concerned.
Secondly, the House has ensured that we have learned the lessons from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which exploded during the passage of the Bill. The ongoing investigation into that is unprecedented in its scale and importance. We have increased the powers of the Information Commissioner to ensure she has enough resources. Some say that that scandal put data protection at the top of the news. Some even say it made data protection sexy. With the Bill, we can be assured that the Information Commissioner will have the powers that she needs to ensure that those who flout the law are held to account for their actions. I want particularly to thank the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for its proposals, which we took on board to strengthen the Bill in response to that scandal. Finally, we have ensured that when it comes to the freedom of the press, we are prepared for the future, not stuck in the past.
The Bill will give people more control over their data, support businesses in their use of data and prepare Britain for Brexit. Over a generation, the Data Protection Act 1998, which this Bill replaces, has commanded broad public consensus and cross-party support. That has been one of its strengths. I hope that this Bill will gain cross-party support on Third Reading so that no matter the debate on some of the points of detail, we will have a broad consensus behind our data protection approach here in the UK for the years to come, because that is one of the strengths of our digital economy—a digital economy that is powering ahead. I hope that the Bill can add to the fundamental underpinnings of the strength of our economy and our society for the future. I commend it to the House.
Peter Heaton-Jones
It is a pleasure to be able to speak briefly at the conclusion of our proceedings on the Bill. I have followed it with interest throughout all its stages, and I had the pleasure of sitting on the Public Bill Committee. I echo what has been said about the fine contributions made by Members on both sides of the House at all stages, and I thought that the Committee was extraordinarily well conducted. I particular enjoyed my light-hearted sparring with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), and the people at BBC Radio Essex will have been delighted that they got a disproportionate amount of airtime as a result.
This is a good Bill. Data protection is incredibly important—and increasingly so. The Bill has successfully navigated the choppy waters that are coming towards us, created by the need for the GDPR to be implemented in only about 14 days’ time. If I may say so, the Secretary of State and his entire team have navigated those waters with skill and elegance to ensure that we in the UK now have legislation that does what it needs to do as far as the GDPR is concerned, on which I congratulate them. The Government, the House and the other place have looked into this matter very carefully and rigorously, and they have arrived at what I think is a good package of measures that will do what it needs to do as far as data protection is concerned.
My interest has been in the amendments concerning press regulation, as Members on both sides of the House will remember. I believe that the House has reached the right decision on what started off as an amendment in the other place and what was set out in new clause 18 today. Not to go ahead with Leveson 2 is the right decision. However, I agree with the sentiment that we must keep the victims of what will undoubtedly still be a difficult press environment at the centre of our thinking. It is important that we have not lost the opportunity to do that, and I know the Secretary of State and his team will continue to do so, but I think we have got the balance right today.
I congratulate the whole ministerial team and all those who have taken part in these deliberations. I have followed with interest the arguments made by Members on both sides.
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend mentioned some people he wanted to thank, and there is one other person I want to thank: my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). She was involved with the development of the GDPR in the European Parliament right from the start, and I want to put on the record our thanks, and my personal thanks, for her guidance. She has lived with the Bill for far longer than anybody else in the Chamber.
Peter Heaton-Jones
Yet another mention for Essex, where people will be absolutely delighted.
This is the Government getting on with business. We promised that we would do this in our manifesto, on which we were elected, and we have got on with and delivered it. I will be delighted to see the Bill reaching the statute book. This is the Government delivering what they need to deliver, and doing it in a very rigorous, elegant and clever way. This is a digital Bill for the digital age, and I am pleased to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Deferred Divisions
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Jeremy Corbyn relating to Education (Student Support).—(Jo Churchill.)
Question agreed to.