Online Pornography: Age Verification
Matt Warman Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Ind)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future of age verification for online pornography.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the work that she did as my predecessor at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
It will always be the priority of this Government, and probably of any Government, to protect citizens in general and children in particular. We will do that online just as much as we would seek to do offline. It is because of that approach that we are changing the approach to age verification on the internet. As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State tabled a written ministerial statement on this issue yesterday. I hope to provide some more detail on that.
Adult content is too easily accessed online and more needs to be done to protect children from harm. We want to deliver the most coherent approach possible. I believe we can protect children better and more comprehensively through the online harms agenda that my hon. Friend championed so effectively than we can through the measures in the Digital Economy Act 2017. I shall be straightforward: it will take slightly longer to do it through this mechanism, but we will go as fast as we can and deliver on the agenda in a more comprehensive way.
As my predecessor in the Department, my hon. Friend was of course responsible for the publication of the “Online Harms” White Paper, which proposed the establishment of a duty of care on companies to improve online safety, overseen by an independent regulator with strong enforcement powers to deal with non-compliance. That vehicle goes further than the age verification proposals originally tabled, and since the White Paper’s publication, the Government’s proposals have continued to develop at pace. This week, the Government announced as part of the Queen’s Speech that they would publish draft legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny next year. It is important that our policy aims and our overall policy on protecting children from online harms be developed coherently. In view of these developments, we will bring forward the most comprehensive approach possible to protecting children.
The Government have concluded that this objective of coherence and comprehensiveness will be best achieved through the wider online harms proposals that my hon. Friend championed and that have support across much of the House. That is why we do not propose to commence part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. As currently drafted, the Act does not cover social media platforms, for instance, which is something that she and I both know was of concern to this House. It will give us a further opportunity to revisit the definition of pornographic material, which was also a concern of some Members.
As I say, we want to deliver the most comprehensive approach to keeping children safe online. I fervently believe that we can do that better through the online harms agenda. We are committed to the UK becoming a world leader in the development of online safety technology as a whole. This is a part of that, and it includes age verification tools, which will continue to be a key part of it. Everyone across the House agrees on the need to protect children online and offline. Pre-legislative scrutiny for the online harms Bill will be a vital part of that process. I hope that Members across the House, particularly my hon. Friend, will continue to engage with the Government so that we can bring forward something for which there is a cross-party consensus and that delivers an agenda that we can all share.
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. The statement yesterday came as a shock to children’s charities, the age verification industry, the regulator and the online pornography industry itself, all of which were ready for, and expecting, the age verification regulations to be brought into law by the end of this year.
The Government postponed the introduction of the controls in July after an administration error in which the EU was not informed about the proposals as it should have been in line with single market rules. At that time, firm assurances were given to the public, children’s charities and the industry that the EU issue would be resolved swiftly and that legislation would be brought in by the end of the year or early next year at the latest. There was a debate in the Statutory Instrument Committee earlier this year about the exemption of Twitter and other social media platforms from the AV regulations, and it was agreed that we would review the effectiveness of the regulations 12 months on from their introduction. Such a timetable would still be much sooner than the indefinite postponement effectively announced by the Secretary of State yesterday.
No one is arguing that AV provides a panacea for the prevention of children accessing adult content—we know that there are ways to circumvent AV—but children’s charities have provided evidence that too many children stumble across adult material accidentally and that this can have a damaging effect on them at a vulnerable age. It is likely that the regulations would raise the age at which young people are first exposed to pornography. The Secretary of State should not make the perfect the enemy of the good when it comes to child protection, especially after the Government have given so many assurances that once the privacy issues have been dealt with—they now have been—the regulations will be brought into law. For the Government to renege on their commitments in this important area is a very retrograde step, and I urge my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State to think again.
Matt Warman
I share a huge number of the hon. Lady’s concerns. This is not an indefinite postponement of the measures that we are seeking to introduce; it is an extension of what they will achieve. I honestly believe that we can do even better than some of the original proposals. For instance, she is right that raising the age at which children are exposed to deeply inappropriate content is important. Nobody is pretending that the proposals, either in the online harms agenda or in the original legislation, are perfect, but we should do all we can to make them as good as possible. I honestly believe that we will achieve more for child protection through this slower but more comprehensive approach than we would be taking the faster approach, which, as she has said, would end up being reviewed relatively quickly and, I suspect, wrapped into the online harms agenda. We are not delaying this unnecessarily; we are seeking to bring forward this aspect of the online harms agenda as quickly as possible.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Every time the Government get in a mess, they used to say, “Uncork the Gauke.” But now, with Morgan missing, the cry goes out, “Where’s Warman?” And here is the Minister again, to clean up yet another Government mess.
Just four months ago, the previous Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport came to the House to announce another delay in the introduction of age verification. He stood at the Dispatch Box and told us
“let me make it clear that my statement is an apology for delay, not a change of policy… Age verification…needs to happen… it is in the clear interests of our children that it must.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2019; Vol. 662, c. 368.]
Well, it is not going to happen. It is obvious today that the Government’s much-vaunted age verification policy is dead.
The Government tried to bury the bad news once again, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) had the courage to force the Minister to the House, to clean up the Government’s mess and explain the policy to the nation. Ever since its inception, the policy has been beset by mistakes, mishaps and month after month of delays.
The Opposition raised serious concerns at the outset that the policy was not well thought through, posed serious privacy concerns and would prove nearly impossible to implement. The Government used every excuse in the book to explain the delays, but today we know the truth: the policy, as conceived by the Government, was unworkable, and the Minister has finally ditched it. Will he now confirm that the policy has been abandoned? If he will not, will he admit that it was at least severely downgraded in the Queen’s Speech?
My colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), in the process of scrutinising the legislation in Committee, warned that the British Board of Film Classification should never have been tasked with this job in the first place, even though it said yesterday that it had a system ready to implement. Can the Minister explain whether the Government had confidence that the BBFC was ready to implement age verification and whether it will have any future involvement in the project? Can he tell us how much public money has been spent on this failed policy? If he cannot do so today, will he commit to providing that information in writing in the near future?
The bigger danger in all this is that it is a sign of what is to come: that the online harms legislation that we so badly need will also be delayed, disrupted and finally abandoned in the “too difficult to implement” box. We must not let that happen. Every day our children are viewing hateful and harmful material online—material so sickening that it drives some young people to suicide and others to extremist violence and murder. These are the frontier challenges of internet regulation.
We need to keep our kids safe. Any Government taking on the tech giants will need determination and meticulous attention to detail. That has been utterly lacking thus far. The Government must not fail again.
Matt Warman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the beginning of his question, if not much else. He is absolutely right in his closing point that online harms is a difficult agenda and we must not get it wrong. I look forward to working across the House to ensure that we do this right because there should be no party political division on this agenda.
Age verification will be a key part of the online harms agenda. It will be a key tool in the box, but the toolbox will, through the online harms agenda, be bigger. I say honestly that the inclusion of the online harms Bill in the Queen’s Speech is testament to the Government’s commitment to delivering it, and we will be bringing it forward for pre-legislative scrutiny so that we can get it right. I hope that the BBFC will be a key part of the future of this process, because its expertise is in the classification of content. I am going to see its chief executive shortly; my officials have already been in touch. We look forward to working together with the BBFC.
The hon. Gentleman asked how much money has been spent. I think that approximately £2.2 million has been spent on this part of the agenda, but it is of course also a key part of the online harms agenda, so it would be silly to suggest that that is money wasted. It is money invested in protecting our children, and we will continue to do that.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
There is nothing that I have heard from the Minister today or that I saw in the written ministerial statement yesterday that gives any good reason why this decision has been made. There is no reason why these provisions could not have been commenced and then the online harms process added. This decision has delayed the provisions for at least a year, if not longer, as the Minister well knows. Will he explain why the previous Secretary of State came to the House in June and said that this measure would be commenced as soon as possible and that there was no change in policy, but now there has been? What has happened between the summer and now for this decision to have been made?
Matt Warman
Of course the Secretary of State appeared before my hon. Friend’s Select Committee yesterday, after the publication of the written ministerial statement. The Secretary of State and I sincerely believe that we can deliver this agenda better and with an overall more comprehensive net impact by doing it through this mechanism rather than through the Digital Economy Act. Some people will say that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but I think we can go further overall and do better with this approach. This agenda is so important that it is worth us taking our time to get it right.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
This disastrous handling seems to be a metaphor for this shambolic Tory Government—not least as they forgot to inform the EU of their plans. The first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens. The widespread availability of pornographic material to children and young people, and the increase in violent content and revenge porn, is having a profound impact on society, relationships and body image. This delay will create more harm to young people and citizens across the UK.
The Government have suggested that this issue will be addressed through the proposed online harms Bill. How do they plan to do that? Will the proposed online regulator be tasked with the responsibility for pornographic verification, or will that be conducted by a separate regulatory body? The charities I met have concerns about the BBFC, despite the assurances that it has given. What is the cost to the taxpayer and to businesses, which are ready for this change and will now be severely out of pocket?
Matt Warman
The approach of introducing a duty of care on all relevant companies through the online harms Bill is what will allow us to go further. The hon. Lady—as I did at the beginning of my response to the urgent question—talks about the duty of care that a Government have to their citizens, and that is what is driving us to take this new and broader approach. She asked about the money—as did the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson)—and I refer her to my answer to him. My officials met the affected companies yesterday, and I will continue to engage with them. In what was a constructive meeting, they said that they would seek to continue to be part of the online harms agenda because, as the hon. Lady says, it is an issue that is far broader than simply age verification.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
This is more than disappointing; it is critically urgent. Over half a million pornographic images are posted daily on social media platforms, and there cannot be a parent in the land who is not worried sick about this. The Government need to treat this with much more urgency and respect than they have done. How are the Government—how is the Minister—going to demonstrate urgency in protecting our children from accessing pornographic websites? There are over 50 streaming this material daily, many not from the UK.
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend is of course completely right. It is a critically urgent issue, but it is also critically urgent that we get it right, and I do think that we can make that progress by doing it in a way that is comprehensive, in line with the online harms agenda. However, I am not seeking to make age verification line up with that timescale. We will do this aspect of the policy as quickly as we possibly can, and I honestly look forward to working with her on that.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I am very shocked at this U-turn by the Government. The framework that had been created to support section 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 was robust: it was a platform to start protecting children from online harm. Why can it not continue in parallel with the online harms legislation being developed? The two are not incompatible. The Government have a choice—they start protecting children now from online pornography or they leave them exposed.
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady is right that the framework was potentially a start, but I think that we can do better. We have a duty to present a coherent set of regulations rather than introduce something that would have been, as she puts it, a start, but would not have gone as far as we can and that would overall, I think, be seen as something that we would have had to fundamentally reform and review once we had put it in the context of the online harms agenda. I understand where she is coming from—I really do—but I honestly believe that by doing this more slowly we will make a better impact overall.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The Government’s approach seems to be, “Give us more time and we can produce a better system”, so, as parents, when can we be satisfied that there will be a system in place that will protect our children from the corrosive effects of online pornography?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend characterises our response absolutely correctly. It is time that will allow us to produce the best possible solution for protecting children. We will be responding to the online harms consultation by the end of the year and bringing forward legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny in the new year.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In the statement yesterday, the Minister said that the regulator will have the discretion to require companies to meet their duty of care, so what sort of enforcement does he envisage that regulator having, and how soon will they get it?
Matt Warman
I hesitate to pre-empt what will ultimately be in the draft Bill, but it is obvious that we would want any regulator to have extremely strong sanctions in extreme circumstances. However, we would also want there to be a tariff, as it were, of what they could do in less severe circumstances to make sure that users were protected from a whole host of both illegal and legal but harmful experiences online.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Age verification is important, but please, as a result of this debate today, let us not see it as a silver bullet. The real solution is to educate all young people on the harm caused by pornography. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that those who protest against mandatory relationship education for primary school age children—measures this Government have already put in place—are failing to see the importance of teaching all children what a good relationship looks like, which is not pornography?
Matt Warman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. While pornography is one extreme example of some of the corrosive effects of the internet, we have to look far more broadly than online behaviour in order to try to fix some of the effects that have come into the real world as well.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Further to that point, when the Children’s Commissioner worked with DCMS and had workshops with children asking them what they wanted from this, they reported that their e-safety lessons at school were generally boring and not very useful. Does this not highlight how important it is to have relationship and sex education across the whole of our education system, but also, critically, to give teachers high-quality training to deliver fun, useful lessons that children find will actually help them?
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach that goes far beyond online. The nature of the lessons that she talks about is not within my Department’s scope, but I think we would all agree that we want children to be engaged in lessons that are particularly important.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
This legislation is well overdue, and many are concerned that the delay may come at a significant cost. If we genuinely get better legislation that can better protect children, it may be worth while, but this delay has come as a surprise. What is the Minister doing to restore or build trust with key stakeholders that this delay will lead to better legislation to protect children?
Matt Warman
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is right that it is important for us to retain the confidence of stakeholders. For instance, the response of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is one that I share. It has said:
“This delay is disappointing, but it is also imperative that the vehicle used to achieve protection for children from pornography is robust and effective.”
That is what we seek to deliver, and we will work with the NSPCC and a whole host of other stakeholders to deliver it.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
We have been debating this in the House for nine years. The Minister simply cannot say that this is an urgent problem that has popped up. His decision today means that children will be exposed to this vile pornography for another two or three years. Can he take back his suggestion that it is the children’s responsibility to learn how to avoid it? It is his responsibility, surely, to protect them.
Matt Warman
If what I said was open to misinterpretation, I apologise. I am not suggesting for a second that it is a child’s responsibility to protect themselves online. That is why the Government are bringing forward the online harms agenda. I am not suggesting either that we are addressing a problem that has suddenly popped up. It is something that Governments of various colours have sought to address over a number of years, and we will continue to do that. We are seeking in the “Online Harms” White Paper to go further, in a thoughtful and sensible way, than any other country in the world has managed to do, and I hope we can do that with cross-party consensus.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The internet has been a fantastic resource for children in their education, but all too often, pornographic images are available to children when they are not specifically looking for them, particularly on social media sites. What will the Government do during this brief delay to ensure that social media is encompassed within their reforms?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend highlights one of the crucial differences between our new policy approach and the old one, which is that we are now able, via the “Online Harms” White Paper, to consider what the duty of care might mean for social media companies in a way that would not have been in the scope of the original proposal. That is just one example that demonstrates how much further we are able to go with this new approach, and it is a reason why this is the right thing to do, even though it is a tough decision.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am really struggling to understand the logic here. Some 95% of 14-year-olds have seen porn, and the harm that it causes to future relationships is well documented. Why, when the age verification regulator was ready to install this measure by Christmas, can it not go ahead? When, under the Minister’s new proposals, will we see protections in place for children?
Matt Warman
I sympathise with what the hon. Lady seeks to achieve, but we can do more by going slightly slower. As I have said, we will respond to the consultation by Christmas and bring forward legislation for prelegislative scrutiny in the new year. I hope that she will work with us on that. We will, of course, seek to bring forward this part of that agenda much more rapidly than the whole package, because, as she says, this is hugely important. Getting it right is important, but getting it enacted quickly is also important.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Does the Minister recall the nerve required to reach for Health and Efficiency and the looks at the counter as it was put in a paper bag? What is out there now makes H&E look like a nursery rhyme. His approach really is going to be comprehensive, is it not?
Matt Warman
I am afraid I am too young to recall precisely the experience to which my right hon. Friend refers—and I am sure he was speaking on behalf of others, rather than himself. However, he is absolutely right that what is out there on the internet now pales into insignificance compared with everything that was printed for newsagents. That is precisely why we have to go so much further.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
For the Minister to say that he will wrap up childhood protection in the online harms legislation is not even a fig leaf to hide the fact that his Government are absolutely naked when it comes to a robust legal framework that deals with privacy, data, age verification and identity. We need measures that put in place protection for children online, not that kick in after they have already been exposed. What is he doing to ensure that children have the same rights online as they do in the real world?
Matt Warman
I think what the hon. Lady is saying is that in many ways prevention is better than cure, and that is why the online harms approach will place a duty of care on website operators to make sure they have to take a preventive approach.
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady shakes her head as though I have misunderstood her question. I am very happy to talk to her outside the Chamber to try to give her a better answer if she wants one.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Keeping our children safe must always be a priority, and I too am deeply concerned by this delay. Age verification is achievable. The company Yoti in my constituency is already providing highly accurate digital ID in 170 different countries. Will the Minister work with companies such as Yoti to make sure that the very best technology is used to keep our children safe?
Matt Warman
I am glad my hon. Friend raises this point. In many ways, this is a technology problem that requires a technology solution. She mentions Yoti, and I have already met SuperAwesome, which is another company working in a similar space. People have talked about whether facial recognition could be used to verify age, so long as there is an appropriate concern for privacy. All of these are things I hope we will be able to wrap up in the new approach, because they will deliver better results for consumers—child or adult alike.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The age checks for porn have been backed by children’s charities. The NSPCC said this morning that
“viewing this explicit material can harm their perceptions of sex, body image and health relationships”,
and it has said that the climbdown was “disappointing”. May I therefore ask the Minister how the Government will allay my fears and those of charities such as the NSPCC, and how they will deliver the objectives of the Digital Economy Act to ensure the protection of children and vulnerable young people from online pornography?
Matt Warman
The hon. Gentleman is completely right that the concerns of the NSPCC are those that I know he and I, and, I am sure, Members across the House, would share. We will work with such charities to make sure that we deliver, as I quoted earlier, the “robust and effective”—and comprehensive—regime that they and I think we would all want to protect children online.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The tech companies and social media companies have incredibly powerful and sophisticated tools at their own disposal. Does the Minister not agree that they have a moral responsibility to do more themselves, and what will his Department be doing to urge them to do that to keep our children safe?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the technology companies can do more. For too long, a voluntary approach has not delivered the results that we would all like to see. As I have said, the “Online Harms” White Paper is the legislative method that will put a far greater duty on them not just to invest in safety, but to make it a genuine and meaningful top priority.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
During the Science and Technology Committee inquiry into the impact of social media on young people’s health, we heard some horrendous statistics about the number of young people who have stumbled across pornographic images. I asked my own daughter, who was 11 at the time, if she had seen such images, and she had. These are our own children—the children of many Members—who are stumbling across this. Yes, we have to get it right, but we have to get something in place now, as quickly as possible. If it needs correcting later on, we correct it. Why are we not acting now?
Matt Warman
I share the hon. Lady’s concerns. I worry about what my three-year-old might stumble across online, even though she would be too young to understand it. Too often, stumbling across explicit material happens through sites such as Twitter, which would not have been in the scope of the original proposals but now will be. That is an example of why we should take an approach that, while not being unnecessarily slow, is more comprehensive. I hope that we can work across the House to deliver on those objectives.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The internet can provide children with a wealth of information, but it also exposes them to real harm. What progress has been made by the Information Commissioner’s Office in designing a new statutory code of practice for developers regarding standards of privacy for children?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend references the age-appropriate design code, and the ICO has published proposals and is working vigorously to improve on what they might mean. As I said earlier, we do not fix problems after they have occurred for individual children in this country; we must present an internet that is appropriate for their needs.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Dominic Cummings know a lot about online harms—they have been committing them since at least 2016. The Minister calls for a cross-party approach, but how can that possibly happen when that triumvirate have been ducking and diving, avoiding questions from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and from me, regarding online harms through which criminal offences have been established, and in which they will not divulge their role?
Matt Warman
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the online harms being discussed in this urgent question are fundamentally about the protection of children on the internet, and I hope we can genuinely forge a cross-party consensus on what that means. This is an important and difficult agenda, and I hope that we can work together to protect children on the internet, wherever they may end up finding themselves.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
The protection of our children is paramount, and a recent report on online harms by the NSPCC did not make good reading, and suggested to me that time is of the essence. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that any independent regulator that is introduced will have sufficient enforcement powers to take effective action against sites that ignore their moral responsibility and make it easy for children to access inappropriate material?
Matt Warman
The precise purpose of changing our approach is to have a regulator that, in due course, will have comprehensive authority to take the actions that we need to protect children. That will always be this Government’s top priority on the internet. I hope that Opposition parties across the House will join us in that endeavour, and that we can come quickly to a conclusion that allows us to achieve what should be shared objectives.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Warman Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
Tackling disinformation is a key Government priority, and in our online harms White Paper we seek to take a world-leading approach to doing just that. We also seek within that to develop a media literacy strategy that tackles it through the people who are reading it.
Gavin Newlands
Civil servants have said they cannot see how the data being gathered by gov.uk could help with Brexit preparations. With the Cambridge Analytica scandal still fresh in the memory, along with the arrogant refusal by Dominic Cummings to assist the departmental Select Committee with its inquiry in any way, does the Minister not see that another mass data gathering exercise in the run-up to an election is a huge red flag for all those worried about a free and fair process?
Matt Warman
It is important to say in this context that what the Government are doing, via the Brexit website or any other website, is, first, nothing out of the ordinary, and secondly, serves a very useful purpose in ensuring that we, just like businesses, know our users.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend and his fellow Ministers to their leadership roles in this remarkable Department.
I urge my hon. Friend to translate the online harms White Paper into legislation as swiftly as possible, and invite him to agree that doing so is not just good for the United Kingdom, because it will create a regulator with the authority to enforce a proper duty of care on online companies, but will also be an act of global leadership, whether or not other countries are acting as swiftly as we are.
Matt Warman
I begin by paying tribute to the great work that my right hon. and learned Friend did in overseeing the birth of the online harms White Paper. He is completely right: we should be proud in this House that it is an open, liberal democracy such as the United Kingdom that seeks to lead the way in an immensely difficult area. He is right to say that we should move quickly, but we should also move at a pace that allows us to get this vital issue correct.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her position, and I look forward to her appearing before us at the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 16 October. She knows that we undertook a large inquiry into fake news and disinformation, for which the Prime Minister’s chief adviser refused to attend the Committee, and is therefore in contempt of Parliament. Would she like to bring Mr Dominic Cummings with her on 16 October?
Matt Warman
I hesitate to speak on behalf of the Secretary of State in response to every aspect of that question, but I am confident that she does not need to bring a man to answer questions for her.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
We would have a world-class regime for shutting down fake news and disinformation if we had courts that were actually accessible in the fight against misbehaviour by big tech. The breakthrough in the Court of Appeal yesterday, in the case of Richard Lloyd, shows just how hard it is to bring to account big tech firms, like Google, that have clearly misbehaved. So when the Minister brings the online harms Bill to the House—he might tell us when he expects that to happen—will he look again at the proposals that we will table in Committee to make it far easier to bring class actions against some of the biggest firms on earth? He has the chance to level the legal playing field against big tech; will he tell the House that he is determined to seize it?
Matt Warman
We are absolutely determined to tackle these vital issues, because we know that the behaviour of social media companies is not always acting in the best interests of all our constituents. Of course we will look at any proposals that are advanced by the Labour party, but it is important to say that we need to get this right, and that requires us to work with industry, as well as against it.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
Online abuse is unacceptable and far too prevalent. Close to half of UK adults say that they have seen hateful content in the last year alone. As has been mentioned, we published the online harms White Paper in April. It tackles legal but harmful and also illegal content, including hate crime, harassment and cyber-stalking. We will seek to bring that forward.
Vicky Ford
Recent events have highlighted the high levels of online abuse faced by Members of Parliament, especially women. The threats of violence and intimidation towards those in public life undermine democracy and cannot be acceptable. The Jo Cox Foundation is calling on all political parties to commit to a joint standard of conduct to uphold the highest standards in public life. Does my hon. Friend the Minister support that initiative?
Matt Warman
I pay tribute not only to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done in this area, but to the foundation for the work that it is doing. She is right that we should seek to do all we can, cross-party, not only to discourage the abuse that she speaks of, but to encourage people to come into politics. That will not happen so long as the level of abuse is as it is, and we will look closely at the proposals, as well as those others that have come forward.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Has the Minister, or anyone in his Department, had discussions with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster concerning these matters since the Chancellor was appointed?
Matt Warman
I have discussed aspects of this with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who obviously reports directly to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I will continue to do so.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Minister says that the abuse is unacceptable, and he is right. Some time ago, there was a picture on the internet of my young son being executed, but nobody seems to be able to do anything whatever about this. We say it is unacceptable, but we do not seem to be able to do anything. What are the Minister’s ideas?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend is completely right that, as things stand, we are not able to take the action that we should be able to. It is also important to say that social media companies themselves have also not taken the action required of them in a civilised society. The online harms White Paper and its journey into legislation will be a crucial method of tackling this, but it is not the only one, and I would like to continue to work with the social media companies to bring forward much more rapid progress.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. May I welcome the Secretary of State to her new role and, on behalf of my team, welcome her team to their new roles too?
The cyber-security fund forms part of this Government’s approach to combating harmful online activity, but serious doubts have been raised about the fund’s management. Given the concern, can the Minister or the Secretary of State confirm today whether Hacker House is a UK-based company?
Matt Warman
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we discussed this subject in an urgent question earlier this week. As far as Companies House is concerned, and as far as all the due diligence that was done at the time was concerned, Hacker House met all the criteria. He also knows, however, that we are looking into this matter, and that a review will report to the House by the end of this month.
Tom Watson
Last week, the Minister made a statement to the House in which he gave the impression that Hacker House was UK-based when he referred to a UK phone number owned by the company. My team phoned it and it was answered by a woman in California.
The Minister mentions Companies House. I looked at the Companies House website this morning and saw that there has been a registration detail change—one of the principal directors now registers their state of residence as the United States. So I remain concerned, not least because Hacker House’s accounts show receipt of a loan of £700,000 from one of the company’s directors. Can the Minister assure us that this unusual transaction was not used to unlock a taxpayer-funded Government scheme?
Matt Warman
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are having a review that will look into all these matters. As he knows, the residence of an individual director is not one of the defining characteristics of whether a company is based in the UK.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime Minister’s very welcome announcement yesterday about broadband access and mobile phone connectivity really will have a transformational impact on rural areas such as North West Norfolk. Can she also confirm that it is actually new money?
Sir Henry Bellingham
I would rather the Secretary of State answer my question actually, if the Minister does not mind.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Matt Warman
As part of our online harms work, we will of course look at the benefits and costs of online anonymity. We are very conscious that online anonymity can be important for purposes such as whistleblowing, but we all also know that people hide behind anonymity as keyboard warriors.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
The Stirling constituency is the third worst constituency for mobile phone coverage in Scotland. What are the Government doing to remedy this?
Matt Warman
As my hon. Friend knows, we have recently announced £5 billion that will cover connectivity in all its forms, and that will of course include Scotland. It is probably worth saying that I recently met Paul Wheelhouse, my opposite number in the Scottish Government. We got on well and will work well together. It is a good job that we got on well, because broadband needs all the help it can get under the Scottish National party.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
A number of my constituents are stuck with a single broadband provider, which is in a monopoly position, so it is charging very high prices for very poor service. What steps are the Government taking to ensure greater competition, which will drive down prices and improve the service?
Matt Warman
We are acutely conscious that the best possible market is one driven by competition. As we take forward our huge investment to ensure a better connected country, one of our key long-term aspirations will be to develop greater competition.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Gigabit fast would be fantastic, but a bit fast would be great for many East Hampshire homes and businesses. What comfort can my hon. Friend give to not just the hardest-to-reach 20% and 10%, but the hardest-to-reach 5% and 3%?
Matt Warman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. In some ways, we have look at the very hardest-to-reach areas first, because while it is important to upgrade commercial areas to gigabit levels, it is in areas where there is very often no broadband at all that we will make the greatest social and economic impact.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Internet of Things: Regulation
Matt Warman Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend, who is a great champion of innovation and technology—coming from the constituency that he represents, it is appropriate—makes a critical point. I could not have put it better. Although this debate is about regulation of the internet of things, it is impossible to talk about protection and security in the internet of things without talking about the data that is its lifeblood: the flows of data that both drive and enable the internet of things. We are in a confused state about who owns and controls the data and how it can be shared. The Government, for example, had at the last count at least 80 different ways of sharing data with themselves. As long as that is the case, we cannot have real security or integrity within the internet of things.
Last year the Government finally took some action with their Secured by Design voluntary code of practice on the security of the internet of things, as well as guidance for consumers, which was later codified as ETSI TS 103 645. In May this year, the Government announced a consultation on the introduction of some mandatory legislation on labelling. For example, retailers would have to label internet-of-things products as complying with varying levels of the Secured by Design code. Labelling is necessary because the Government will not decide what is secure and make it mandatory—if everything were secure, it would not need to be labelled. We await the outcome of the consultation. However, there are at least five major issues, and many others besides.
First, the tone of the consultation is, “Regulation is very, very bad and stops innovation, so let’s just have as little as possible.” Secondly, there is no enforcement or sanction. Thirdly, while some mandatory requirements are proposed, they would simply be a declaration of adhering to standards. That approach puts a major emphasis on the consumer to understand these increasingly complex problems and does not account for the use of the devices in public spaces.
The fourth major concern is that the regulations deal only with consumer things. The clue is in the name: it is an internet of things. We need an architecture of standards and a regulatory framework that enables security and interoperability across the internet and also considers the lifeblood of the internet of things—data. Fifthly and finally, there are billions of insecure old-generation IOT devices already enmeshed in our digital infrastructure. The regulations do nothing to address them.
The Government need to recognise that technology is not something that happens to us; it is something that we actively participate in, or should do. That does not mean stifling innovation. Instead, it means using Government influence to look forward to the impact of technologies and to shape them for the public good. The Government must understand technologies in terms of social purpose, rather than just profit margins. That must be done with the tech sector, but the Government must recognise that it is their job to protect the interests of the people. During the first and second industrial revolutions, it was the trade unions, organised workers, the nascent Labour movement, feminists, abolitionists and former slaves who pushed law makers into putting legislation in place that would direct the use of technology to more egalitarian ends. I fear that it will be for a Labour Government to ensure that that is what happens here.
Technology can be used for good or ill. My hope is that intervening now to set up a framework for data and the IOT will mean that we do not face problems and resistance further down the line.
Last year, I was at CES, which is the largest computer electronics show in the world, in Las Vegas. An American start-up literally begged me to put in place security regulations for IOT devices, so that it could compete on a level playing field with the cheap but totally insecure exports from less reputable manufacturers. It is cheap and, frankly, lazy to set up a sort of binary choice between regulation and innovation. A clear regulatory framework and strong governance allows good companies that are making socially useful products to succeed without markets being flooded with poor quality and potentially dangerous products that threaten security.
I want to say a little on Labour’s plans as I understand them—I know that the shadow Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), will set them out in more detail—and I want to put that in context. I am a technology evangelist. Before becoming an MP, I worked all over the world building out the networks that now form the internet. One of my proudest moments was when I rolled out the first global system for mobile communications network in Nigeria and saw how mobile communications could really make a positive difference to people’s lives. Fisherman in the delta could now know the market price in Lagos and could not be cheated out of the right price for their fish; pregnant women could phone for a doctor instead of having to send vital requests on foot, which took hours. The internet of things will bring more and better benefits.
I have also seen the flip side of new technology. When I worked for Ofcom, I was asked to report to the board on internet security in 2005. When I came back with stories of bot attacks, honey traps, distributed denial of service, white hat wizards, Trojans, worms, phishing and pharming, it was as if I was describing a war in a galaxy far, far away. More than 10 years on, however, those threats are very real. They are part of everyone’s daily lived experience. Online fraud is the most common crime in the country, with almost one in 10 people falling victim to computer misuse or one sort of fraud or another. The same may happen with the internet of things—in fact, to an even greater extent—and we must not allow that.
I talk about the internet of things for everyone, because I believe that technology can be democratising and enabling, but just as cyber-crime seemed so foreign only a decade ago, we do not yet fully understand the new risks posed by the internet of things. To fully realise its benefits, we need to be able to deal with the increasingly pervasive security threats it presents. To address them, we need regulation as well as action in other areas. For example, we need to invest properly in skills and adult learning to help people to become digitally literate citizens. Labour’s pledge to create a free truly universal national education service, the NHS for the innovation age, will help everyone to become part of an innovation nation in which everyone is a creator, not simply a user, of technology.
We also need the power of Government to address our creaking infrastructure, and close the productivity gap at the same time, by enabling businesses across the country to invest in the internet of things. Our national transformation fund will do what it says on the tin—transform our infrastructure to bring it up to OECD levels.
We need to address a critical part of the tech sector that I referred to earlier, which is a lack of diversity. Diversity is not an optional add-on; it is an economic imperative. It needs to be at the heart of economic and technological policy, because we cannot build a more prosperous economy without making use of everyone’s talents. We need a more comprehensive sector-wide approach to diversity, particularly in the tech sector. It is key that the creators of new applications for the internet of things come from diverse backgrounds, so we have technologies that work for all and make use of the full array of talent in our society.
Finally, an internet of things requires the right digital rights and responsibilities to exist across our nation. That is why Labour plans to introduce a bill of digital rights that will provide strong and easily understood protections for citizens and will give us all rights and control over our own data.
As I draw to the end of my comments, I want to make sure that the Minister understands the questions that I am asking, so I will list the ones to which I would like him to respond. First, as I have mentioned, who owns and controls the data flowing to and from internet of things devices? Why is it not the people who are generating the data? The Prime Minister said that data is the new oil, but we have seen what the corruption around the oil industry did to many developing economies. Our citizens deserve to be in control of their own data.
Secondly, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that insecure internet of things devices cannot be sold? Thirdly, will the provisions of the online harms legislation, specifically the duty of care, apply to the internet of things? I asked his predecessor that question, but the answer was not clear. Fourthly, when the internet of things is combined with facial recognition to monitor people, whether in education or on our streets, what requirements are there on consent? Fifthly—this was raised by TechNorthWest—internet of things devices take data for one stated purpose. What prevents its being used for various others? How does consent work in that case? Is the general data protection regulation sufficient?
Sixthly, I believe that all our critical national infrastructure is connected to the internet of things. I have mentioned the blackouts in Ukraine and attacks on an Iranian power station. What regulation is there of the internet of things in critical national infrastructure?
Seventhly, what analysis has been made of how the Government should respond to the misuse of internet of things devices? What scenarios are being considered and what plans are in place?
Eighthly, for the purposes of internet of things regulation, what is the nature of the relationship between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the National Cyber Security Centre, the Cabinet Office and the Information Commissioner’s Office?
I expect the Minister to respond to the five criticisms of the current consultation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
How long do you think we’ve got?
Chi Onwurah
We have an hour and a half, which will be more than adequate. I should perhaps have said that the Minister has a background in technology, as a tech correspondent, so I am sure that he has the answers to all the questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I begin by saying that I will not intrude on the private grief of where the industrial revolution began; I am certain that it did not begin in Skegness, so I have no dog in the fight. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing the debate. I well remember the work that we did together in the parliamentary internet, communications and technology forum—PICTFOR—and in other forums.
The hon. Lady says that she is a tech evangelist, and so am I. Although I regret the tone of some of her comments about some aspects of the Government’s policy, I think we agree that there is not a huge amount of partisan disagreement on many of the issues. We want to get it right. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and I also agree on a huge number of issues, as he said, particularly around discrimination and what we should do to ensure that the well-known principles that exist in the offline world persist online. I hesitate to use the slogan, but we too want technology to work for the many, not the few.
I will begin by seeking to answer some of the questions of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, which might be a novel approach, although I am sure she will not be satisfied with all the answers. In many ways, as she identified, this is a debate about data, not the internet of things. On the principle of who owns the data, the general data protection regulation applies to data controllers in exactly the same way whether they are processing data that derives from the internet of things or anywhere else, so the principles that we all subscribe to, of the consumer owning their data, should persist. That is a hugely important starting point, and we should acknowledge that there is agreement on it. The hon. Lady frowns as if she disagrees, so I invite her to intervene.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for the tone of his opening comments. It is certainly true that there are many areas on which we agree. The reason for my frowning is the idea that the GDPR recognises the right of ownership of consumers or citizens. The fact that there is a data controller who is not the citizen or consumer suggests that it does not. As I have said, the GDPR is progress, but issues of ownership and control are still far from clear. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) made some excellent points in this area.
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady pre-empts my next point: all of this is predicated on consent. The consumer has to understand that they are giving up their data for a particular purpose and a particular benefit. As the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) said in what was a fascinating speech—albeit one where I wondered if I had at times transcended, if not humanity, at least this debate—these are fundamental issues that have effects far beyond what we might think of in an arcane debate about the ownership of data. I commend the approach that says we are dealing with issues that go far beyond a debate about technology, which will have an impact on huge aspects of humanity itself, whether we get them right or wrong. That is why it is important to consider them in that wider way.
The hon. Lady was right to point out that, in some ways, the internet of things represents a whole new chapter of how technology is becoming more common in our homes and making our lives easier and more enjoyable, but potentially also more fraught with decisions that we need to be aware we are making. I will trump the hon. Lady’s numbers: Statista says that by 2025, there will be 75 billion internet-connected devices worldwide—I am sure other analysts are available to provide even higher numbers. In our estimates, that translate to some 15 devices per household by next year. The internet of things is very real; it is already with us.
Liam Byrne
Before the Minister moves on, I just want to clarify one point. Is it his position to accept that data that is generated as user data does have an economic value, but that it is basically fine for the individual to surrender that economic value through the way in which they consent to use a service?
Matt Warman
I feel like the right hon. Gentleman is going to accuse me of wilfully misunderstanding his question, but it is obviously fine for an individual to choose what they do with their own data. If that involves, as he puts it, surrendering the data for a particular purpose, that is their decision to make. I am not sure that that is quite the question he was asking. The point about consent being absolutely in the hands of the user is the most important one to make. That is why the cyber-security of the products that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne central referred to is so hugely important, in many ways; it is why we have put so much effort into delivering the code of practice for consumer IOT security.
The hon. Lady mentioned the sale of potentially insecure devices, which is one of the key planks that we are seeking to address. People want to have implicit trust in their devices and they need to have confidence in how their data is being used, not just when they first purchase that device but into the future as well.
Liam Byrne
The Minister is helpfully helping me join some dots. Why does he think that it is right for the Government to intervene to ensure that the consumer has particular cyber-security protections but not to ensure that the consumer enjoys any particular economic protections, for example around the value that is created through third-party use of their data?
Matt Warman
It is obviously about a balance between different situations. The Government, in a host of ways, provide a degree of opportunity for the kind of protection that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. In other fields there are already opportunities for redress in extreme circumstances. In some ways he and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central are asking for greater coherence in this space, and others. It is precisely for that reason that my Department is developing the strategies that they both referred to. On the one hand he seems to attack the bonfire of the quangos, but on the other he seemed to want fewer regulators, so I am almost reduced to asking what his favourite number is.
Liam Byrne
My point is simply that according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I will soon not be allowed to sell my labour for less than £10.50 an hour. The Government have put a floor on the economic freedom that I enjoy, and that is giving me a degree of economic protection. Why does not the same principle apply to the way in which my data as opposed to my labour is exploited?
Matt Warman
That is a philosophically interesting question but it is also obvious that at the moment data is readily given up in exchange for a service. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman would therefore seek to put a value on the service and say, “That service, whether offered by Facebook or whoever, should not be worth less than a certain amount.” That seems to be the logical conclusion of his argument, which is why I say it is perhaps more an interesting philosophical question than a practical one.
Matt Warman
I am conscious of the time, but this is all very interesting, so I am happy to give way.
Daniel Zeichner
It is more than interesting. It is critical. Is the Minister assured that people are involved in a free exchange, and that there is transparency—that they understand the terms and conditions of all the things that capture data on their devices? I am certainly not. I think most people who look at it are convinced that people do not know, so they are not getting the economic benefit of that behavioural data.
Matt Warman
Essentially I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is obvious that not everyone reads the terms and conditions of every single thing they have signed up to for any website; but it seems to me that Government’s role in this space is not to stop people making those decisions. It is to make sure that people have a better understanding of the decisions they make, and that they trust the companies that are doing whatever it may be with their data. That obviously requires us to put certain constraints on the behaviour of companies, as we do in every other circumstance. However—and I do not think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting this—it should surely not be for us to say that people should not be allowed to make certain decisions. I think that on the Government side of the House we would be keen to free people up to make whatever decisions they reasonably want to make.
Liam Byrne
The Minister is being incredibly generous and this is the last time I shall intervene. To round out the picture that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) is presenting, network effects mean, obviously, that in social media land we have monopolies—or, if not monopolies, certainly oligopolies. It has long been an established principle of consumer welfare protection that there should therefore be some kind of price protection. In a debate about how we protect and enhance the economic welfare of the citizen if we do not recognise a defined value for their data—which they are not freely surrendering into a free market, but giving over to a monopoly—surely the quid pro quo is some kind of price regulation on the other side. The Minister cannot have it both ways.
Matt Warman
The right hon. Gentleman raises a lot of points in one short paragraph. I understand what he accuses me of seeking, when he speaks of having it both ways. Actually the services that are offered digitally, ostensibly free, are different from services in a physical world where we might talk about the kind of monopoly that he has mentioned. In that sense, all he is doing is underlining why we need to get things right, in a way where the digital challenges are understood, without reinventing the wheel and pretending that all online challenges are necessarily different from those in the physical world. It is an emerging picture, which is why I refer back to the technology innovation strategy that we published in June 2019 and that includes new measures, such as the Spark procurement programme, to enable Government and the wider public sector to benefit from new digital technologies and the service that can be provided by stimulating the UK’s world-leading tech sector. It is also why we set up the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, which will allow us to consider how we might best benefit from those opportunities and ensure that we seek not to design in the kind of prejudices that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central mentioned. One of its first papers is on smart speakers and voice assistants and on how industry and Government can work together to ensure that the products do what they are supposed to and that users consent to them.
We should also be mindful that the 75 billion devices, or however many there turn out to be, will have a physical environmental impact. I am therefore pleased that as part of its resources and waste strategy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to updating the existing guidance for local authorities on managing the collection of smart items and similar electricals. That might sound like a minor point, but it is probably less minor than others.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Prime Minister’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly. I am not delivering the rhetorical flourishes that he delivered late at night at the UN, but it is important to say that he made that speech in that location because this country is already a world leader in this area in so many ways. It is right that our Prime Minister is addressing these issues and the legitimate public concern.
It is also right that, as several hon. Members have mentioned, when we seek to regulate in this area and on online harms, we in this country and across the parties should be proud that the UK is a liberal democracy that seeks to lead the way. We have an opportunity to shape a global debate, as my Opposition counterpart, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, observed.
In some ways, the greatest thing we can do is use Britain’s status in this area and on the world stage to try to develop global standards. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central mentioned those of the ETSI, which in its way is world-leading: it seeks to produce standards that can be replicated or mirrored globally, addressing some of the coherence that risks arising in the area. She says that we are not providing leadership and quotes the Prime Minister’s speech, but I say that his speech demonstrates the existing status of Britain’s leadership in the area already. If I am being kind to her, although we disagree on several minor issues, I should say that she too would agree that Britain has a huge opportunity to capitalise on its place in the world on this issue.
In June, we published a White Paper, “Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution”—we are sticking to that number, although I understand that there is a dispute over whether it is correct. It confirms that the Government will establish the regulatory horizons council to identify the implications of precisely the sort of technological innovation that the hon. Lady spoke about, and to advise the Government on regulatory reform so that we can take exactly the kind of steps that she highlights.
In that process, security should not be an afterthought; it has to be embedded. Thus far, we have taken the approach of working with industry, and industry is now saying to Government—the hon. Lady will have heard these calls as well—that greater clarity, particularly in regulation, will help consumers and the industry itself. Many of the internet-connected devices that are currently on the market still lack even the most basic cyber-security provisions. Some 90% of 331 manufacturers that supply the UK market and that were reviewed in 2018 did not use a comprehensive vulnerability disclosure programme up to the level that we would expect; I think that hon. Members on all sides would agree that that is unacceptable. Organisations have a duty of care to their customers, to help make sure that they can access and use their internet-connected products safely.
Although Government have previously encouraged industry to adopt a voluntary approach, it is now clear that decisive action is needed to ensure that stronger cyber-security is built into these products by design. That is why we launched our consultation on secure consumer IOT in May. That consultation built on the extensive work to which I have referred. It allows us to talk about minimum security principles for connected devices, which my Department elaborated on in the document published last year. Our focus will be on ensuring that there is a baseline of cyber-security built into all consumer IOT products by design, to eliminate the most harmful practices.
These are, I freely admit, low-hanging fruit. We wish we did not have to tackle issues such as forbidding the use of universal default passwords, ensuring that manufacturers provide a contact point for security researchers, and making sure that consumers are informed at the point of sale of the minimum length of time for which security updates are provided for their device. Those measures address some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, and we would like to go further in due course. We will respond on what that will look like as soon as possible after the consultation.
We are advocating a staged approach to enforcing those principles through regulation. Obviously, there is always a balance to be struck between regulation and legislation, and in this case I think it will be a bit of both. We will publish the formal response to our consultation on the regulatory approach later this year, but we are mindful of the urgency of this work. Our approach must keep pace with the technological change identified by the hon. Lady. We have said that we will review the code of practice every two years. The development of the code of practice may not sound exciting, but as the hon. Lady acknowledged, and as the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham said, these things are hugely far reaching, even if they do not sound as exciting as some people might wish, because then they would attract the attention they perhaps deserve.
There is major business support for our approach, including from the signatories to the cyber-security tech accord. I always hesitate to say “major business support”, because businesses will not always necessarily greet with enthusiasm the actions of a sensible regulator. Some would say that this is a sign of success. We will develop the strategy, but ultimately the security of the internet of things is a global challenge and it requires a global effort to get it right and to shape those norms.
In February 2019 we worked closely with international standards bodies and the National Cyber Security Centre to make sure that we publish the ETSI standard to which the hon. Lady referred, though without the complementary tone it deserves. None the less, I understand her point.
We do not think it is right to expect all users of all internet-connected devices to become cyber-security experts, and we recognise the need to take from them the burden of differentiating between good and bad. That is why we have been clear with industry what good practices will look like, and we wish to support manufacturers of all sizes to embed them and to support retailers to make sure that they are obvious.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for giving way. In the absence of any time to sum up, I want to thank him for his comments and to confirm that I will write to him with my list of questions so that he can answer them in full. Will the regulatory horizons council cover all regulation with regard to technology or only that relating to manufacturing, and does he agree that this is about not only consumer data but citizen data, because it relates to Government as well?
Matt Warman
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady’s second point. The council will, of course, be wide ranging. I look forward to answering her comprehensive list of questions, and I will be grateful to Hansard for providing clarity on them.
Finally, in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Cambridge, this Government do not think there is a choice between innovation and security. We have to make those two complement each other. That is at the core of our strategy and will continue to be so, and I would hope that we can move forward together with the cross-party consensus to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central alluded.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered regulating the internet of things.
Hacker House
Matt Warman Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on payments made by her Department to Hacker House, and on how her Department manages possible conflicts of interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this question today. I am answering it because it is part of my portfolio.
As hon. Members may know, the Department runs a programme known as the cyber-security immediate impact fund. It is one of a range of programmes designed to increase the number and diversity of people who pursue careers in the cyber-security profession. Through the fund, we want to support new, creative and innovative projects that are delivered by a range of organisations, including start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises.
We have supported a variety of initiatives, awarding grants of between £20,000 and £500,000 since March 2018. Hacker House is one of the businesses that was awarded a £100,000 grant in February 2019 as part of our second funding round. To date, it has been paid around £47,000 for work completed. The grant was awarded by officials from DCMS, the Department for Education, techUK and, indeed, people from the National Cyber Security Centre. If the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) wishes to impugn the motives of those officials, I invite her to think carefully before she does so.
To date, we have awarded 11 companies grants to deliver 12 initiatives. More than 400 people have benefited from support through the fund. Our objective is that even more people will benefit as the businesses with which we partner further invest in a sector that I know the hon. Lady agrees is vital to the future of our security and our economy. That is part of our mission as a Department to identify untapped talent and help a broader range of individuals who have the capabilities and aptitude to develop their careers in cyber-security. I assure the House that all grants are awarded through an open, transparent and competitive process. Each grant is judged on specific assessment criteria and is approved by the panel I referred to earlier, with cross-departmental and industry representation. We are, of course, aware of the claims raised recently by The Sunday Times, and the Department is reviewing the decision that was taken, but we monitor all initiatives that have been awarded grant funding and we treat any allegations of impropriety with the utmost seriousness. As soon as I have any further information to share on this matter, I will, of course, update the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
Layla Moran
I thank the Minister for his reply. I should make it clear that I care very little about the personal life of the Prime Minister, but I care a lot about how this Government manage conflicts of interest and how they spend taxpayers’ money. On that basis, I am concerned that the Department appears to have given Hacker House a £100,000 grant in January 2019 as part of the cyber skills immediate impact fund, a grant that was open to initiatives based in, and that operate from, Britain. Furthermore, these grants should not exceed 50% of the company’s revenue.
We now know that Hacker House is not based in the UK. The Sunday Times reports that its owner, Jennifer Arcuri, moved back to the USA in June 2018. The grants were not open for application until November. The registered address of the company is in fact a house in Cheshire that she used to rent, and the current occupant apparently sends any post addressed to Ms Arcuri back to the sender.
Where is the due diligence? What steps did the Department take to ensure that Hacker House was indeed based in and operating in the UK? Why did officials waive the rule that the grants could not exceed 50% of the company’s collective income? How many of the other companies that we now find have had these grants have had this kind of preferential treatment? Did the Prime Minister, then a Back Bencher, make any representations, official or otherwise, to the Department recommending Hacker House for the funding? The Department says that it will investigate the award of the grant, but will the Minister tell us when will that review conclude and will it be made fully public?
The misuse of public funds and conflicts of interest in relation to Ms Arcuri run deeper than just this matter. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to speak for the actions of the Prime Minister when he was the Mayor of London, but would he, on behalf of the Government and the Prime Minister, ensure that all Departments fully co-operate with the investigation being launched by the London Assembly’s oversight committee into how the Mayor’s office handled conflicts of interest?
We are back in the Commons today because the Prime Minister has been shown to ride roughshod over the laws of this land. It would indeed be disappointing if we were to find that the Prime Minister has form in bending the rules for personal or political gain.
Matt Warman
I want to start by saying that the Prime Minister and his staff have had absolutely no role in the award of this grant; I suspect I will be saying that a number of times, but it will remain the case.
In answer to the hon. Lady’s other questions, the review will report by the end of next month, and I have said that I will update the House where necessary. Of course, we will fully co-operate with any other inquiry. She raises the matter of the match funding of 50%. The officials involved in awarding such grants scored the application very highly in all other aspects; as they routinely do in a number of other situations, they decided that the other aspects more than outweighed that particular criterion.
On the question of where the company is based, the officials have done the usual due diligence on the company. The hon. Lady herself mentioned the address where it is based. It will, of course, be a part of the review that we are doing, but, as I say, this is a company that is based in Britain as far as Companies House is concerned. It is a company with a British phone number. We will review that, but we have no reason to think that there is anything untoward in this particular matter.
Finally, to address the range of issues that the hon. Lady raised at the end of her question, if she wants to raise matters about a grant that was awarded by officials through the proper process, this is of course a completely legitimate forum for her to do so. If she wants to use this opportunity to try to spread tittle-tattle that is much more about politics, she should think very carefully before doing so.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister said about the review being conducted in the Department. He will know that the Secretary of State is due to give evidence to the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 16 October. Will he or the Secretary of State write to the Select Committee before then with an update on the terms of reference for the review and the results of the review so far, as well as the details of other awards made to other companies and how much was given under the same scheme?
Matt Warman
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assures me that we are more than happy to write to his Committee. Of course, the awards that were made to other companies are no secret. A press release was put out about these things. We are of course happy to provide him with more details of that.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his new role, and I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her forensic questioning this morning. This company, Hacker House, got a grant of £100,000. I have looked at the stated aim of the fund, and it says that it is
“to increase the diversity and numbers of those working in the UK’s booming cyber security sector”
and
“developing a sustainable supply of home-grown cyber security talent”.
As I understand it, Hacker House is a company headquartered in California and the principal owners of the company live in the United States. The company claims to have employees in London, but refuses to reveal who they are or where they are.
It is very difficult to see how the company fulfilled the criteria for these grants, so will the Minister explain to us how Hacker House did so? Was the connection with the then Foreign Secretary, or any other MP in this House, declared when the application was made? Will all applications and paperwork relating to the Hacker House grant now be published in the Library or made available for public scrutiny? Did any MPs lobby on behalf of the company in regard to this or other grants granted by Government Departments?
The broader questions that the Minister has alluded to need answering, because they keep coming back to the current Prime Minister. The issue of whether he has represented the interests of the company or other companies requires scrutiny, as the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee alluded to. This is fundamentally a question of character and of suitability. Is the Prime Minister of sufficient character to occupy high office and disburse public funds? Is he suitable? Does he understand that the trappings and privileges of power come with restrictions and restraints? Is he capable of restraining himself?
The truth is that our Prime Minister does reckless things. He is a man whose character renders him unsuitable and unfit for the office he holds. I want answers to these questions, but we all know the broader essential truth. We can all see who Boris Johnson is.
Matt Warman
The hon. Gentleman said that it was a pleasure to see me in my place, and it is a pleasure to see him still in his, although I am not sure how many of his hon. Friends share that view.
I am, of course, happy to repeat what I said before. The Prime Minister has had no role whatsoever in this application, and it is, I think, important to bear in mind that this is a decision made by officials, including people from the National Cyber Security Centre, the Department for Education and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. These are honourable people doing the right thing, and their reputation should not be impugned in the way the hon. Gentleman seeks to impugn it.
I have said that there was no lobbying, from either the Prime Minister or any other Member of Parliament, and we will seek to make public the bid submitted by Hacker House—I have it here—so long as there are no commercial sensitivities. The aim of the cyber skills immediate impact fund is to build our strength and depth in what is, as I know the hon. Gentleman will agree, a vital area. The Hacker House bid seeks to train people and to build a platform to train more people. That platform has already been built. He can check it out online for himself—he could even sign up—and we will seek to ensure it reaches hundreds of people. That is part of the bid and an important part of this country’s national cyber-security strategy. I would have hoped that he would have supported it, rather than raise a whole host of issues that are not relevant to this question.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Ind)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the assumption of his office. I quite agree that the cyber skills immediate impact fund is a crucial driver for Britain to upweight its skills in this vital and growing area. I commend the DCMS officials and those at the National Cyber Security Centre who have managed this fund, but I ask him to look closely at its performance in relation to the grant given to Hacker House in the light of the information shared with the House by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. Close scrutiny of what it is doing with the money is of paramount importance.
Matt Warman
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work as my predecessor. It is an honour to follow her at the Dispatch Box. She is completely right. She will know that we as a Department routinely talk to those in receipt of grants and ensure as much oversight as possible, and that process will continue. As I have said, there is a review into this particular grant to make sure it delivers maximum value for money for the taxpayer.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I too welcome the Minister to his place. I wonder if when he was discussing accepting the job he knew he would be doing the Prime Minister’s bidding in cleaning up his mess.
It is fair to thank and to pay tribute to the bravery and determination of those who fought through the courts to ensure we could be back here today and able to hold the Government to account: my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), Gina Miller and Jo Maugham of the Good Law Project. We thank and salute them.
The blame and bluster that has come out of this Government over this issue and the matter of what happened in the Supreme Court is outrageous. The Prime Minister is under significant pressure to declare what interests and relationship he had with Jennifer Arcuri. There is no disputing that the work is important—I agree with the Minister on that—but, despite what he says about other Members impugning her character, in reality it is the Prime Minister who is impugning her character because of the lack of transparency and his unwillingness to answer questions about their relationship.
The Minister will be aware that Hacker House received £100,000 from the DCMS. Members have already raised the matter of where that business is domiciled. Given the huge amount of public money spent, does he think it appropriate that his Department is investigating itself in those discussions and in that process? I would suggest that that is highly inappropriate and that there should be an independent—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, but she has exceeded her time by 50% already, so that’s the end of that I’m afraid.
Matt Warman
I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the importance of this work. This process, like all Government grant-giving processes, is conducted in a transparent way. The review will not be the Department marking its own homework, and as I said, we will put any further updates to the House as they become available, which will be by the end of next month.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I understand that Ms Arcuri’s mother has described the Prime Minister as her daughter’s sponsor? What kind of sponsorship does he provide?
Matt Warman
I struggle to see how that question is directly relevant to the one that I am here to answer, but I would say, as I have said before—[Interruption.] I am not here to answer for anyone’s mother. As I have said before, the Prime Minister had no role whatsoever in the application, but none the less we are reviewing the process.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. I also welcome the support he is providing to small and medium-sized enterprises in this area. Can he confirm that clear criteria are applied in the awarding of these grants and that grants are made on the basis of a business case and adherence to those criteria? Does he agree that Opposition Members should probably learn from the past and suspend making wild allegations until a proper review has taken place?
Matt Warman
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He is absolutely right that supporting SMEs in such a sector is particularly important. It is something we will continue to do. On the process, I referred to the bid earlier. I have the form here—several dozen pages—that must be provided to access Government funding. That is right and proper. He is right also that we should all shy away from making unsubstantiated allegations.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us will have constituents who represent companies that might bid for Government funding and constituents with concerns about this place and the probity of anything that happens. It was a former Prime Minister who said that sunlight was the best disinfectant. The Minister has already said he is looking to publish the details of the bid, which might contain commercially sensitive information. If he wants to defend the Prime Minister’s reputation, why does he not save us all the freedom of information request and commit to publishing all the documentation regarding the bid, including anything his officials received? I am sure some of those trainers could show him how to do it online today if he wanted.
Matt Warman
As I have said, we are doing a review into the decision, and I hope we will be able to publish as much as possible as a result. She is right that sunlight is the best disinfectant in many cases. It is a policy the Government apply very widely, including in this Department.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Probity and ethics seem to have gone out the window with this Government, so can the Minister assure us that the Prime Minister will co-operate fully with the Department’s inquiry and with the Greater London Assembly’s inquiry? If not, is it not only right that the Metropolitan police open an inquiry into whether there has been any misconduct in public office?
Matt Warman
The hon. Gentleman is obviously right to ask the question, but the review will go wherever it needs to, and I have had no indication that anyone is not going to co-operate, be it the Prime Minister or anyone else.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Minister insists on calling this a review. Why is he shying away from referring to it as an inquiry? What will the scope and terms of the review be?
Matt Warman
I have already said to the Chair of the Select Committee, who is no longer in his place, that we will write to him with more information on that. All I can say now is that the review will leave no stone unturned.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. I am sure he will also thank you, Mr Speaker, for choosing this UQ from the 44 that were submitted. Can my hon. Friend tell the House how long ago this took place and for how long we have had a Labour Mayor of London who could have investigated this before now?
Matt Warman
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for providing me with my Dispatch Box debut, as my hon. Friend alluded to. He is right to refer to the fact that this matter concerns a company that was founded in 2016 and that the Government did not hide anything—we put out press releases. Perhaps the Mayor of London does not check the gov.uk website as often as we might like.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Some £47,000 of the £100,000 grant money has now been awarded to Hacker House. Will the remaining £53,000 be withheld until a review has been concluded?
Matt Warman
As with all such processes, while the review is ongoing that process will be paused, but I should like us to get on with ensuring that the good work done under this fund continues as rapidly as possible.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Times revealed today that the Prime Minister previously planned to set up a £100 million fund with the owner of Hacker House. May I remind Members that, as Mayor of London, the Prime Minister oversaw the Garden Bridge project, which was the subject of allegations of corruption and was riddled with conflicts of interest? Will the Minister reassure the House that there will be no further examples of “friends with benefits” funding from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport or any other Department?
Matt Warman
Of course I speak for the DDCMS, but, as I have said, this is a process that is scrupulously transparent, it is a process that is rigorous, and it is applied equally to all. The hon. Lady mentioned something about the Garden Bridge; perhaps she was pre-empting the Secretary of State for Transport, who will be here shortly.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has said that this whole process has been rigorous, open and transparent, and he is rightly making the bid available and accessible to all MPs in the Library. However, if he is completely confident that there have been no issues with this process, and if he does indeed believe in its being open and transparent, why does he not put all correspondence relating to the bid in the Library so that we can see it, instead of hiding behind his own governmental review? Show us the evidence!
Matt Warman
That is, of course, part of the point of having the review. As I said earlier in answer to another question, I will encourage those conducting the review to make as much of its material as is commercially possible in any circumstances as public as possible. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I have agreed to the premise of her question, and we will do it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
This is not just about money. It is also about influence, because it has been alleged that the Prime Minister and former Mayor of London obtained access to trade missions for Jennifer Arcuri, despite her apparently not meeting the criteria for those trips. Can the Minister tell me on how many other occasions the Prime Minister has intervened to secure junkets for his pals?
Matt Warman
As I have said repeatedly, there is no input from the Prime Minister at any stage in this process. Opposition Members can say it as often as they like, but that will not make it true.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week’s open letter from the Committee on Standards in Public Life to all public office holders describes the
“long-established principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership”
as “a personal responsibility”. Given the Prime Minister’s seeming disregard for conflicts of interest and his refusal to answer questions, does the Minister agree that he has not the character to lead this country?
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady has talked about the Prime Minister. He will be here later, and she can put that question to him herself. She has also talked about the principles of public life. What I think the public cannot get their heads around is how they can have a Parliament that is blocking the will that they expressed in a referendum.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The Minister will realise that this is not going to go away any time soon. Does he agree that only a full independent inquiry will be able to remove the stench of sleaze and scandal that is currently engulfing the Prime Minister, and that any inquiry must investigate the circumstances of this use of public funds to check that it was legal and appropriate, that there was no conflict of interests, and that at no time did the now Prime Minister abuse his position or misuse public funds? If that does not happen, the stench of sleaze and scandal that currently engulfs the Prime Minister will linger long.
Matt Warman
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not accept the vast majority of the premise of his question, but he says that this is not something that will go away, and he is right. We are having a review. We are not seeking to make it go away, and we will leave no stone unturned.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Minister has given assurances that no Member of the House of Commons was involved in lobbying for Hacker House, but can he give the same reassurances about the House of Lords?
Matt Warman
As I have said, we are having a review. I have no indication whatsoever before me that there is a positive answer to the hon. Lady’s question, but we are having a review, and we will make sure that that is covered.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
A great number of people out there are trying to get start-up businesses off the ground, and to those people a grant would be hugely welcome. Can the Minister at least see that the impression—I use my words carefully—of money being dished out to mates is corrosive to public confidence in the grant system, and that that, in turn, is damaging to the reputation of any Government?
Matt Warman
I agree that that impression is, in part, why we are having the review, but I would also say very gently to the hon. Gentleman that one of the things that is corrosive to public confidence in that process is people repeatedly making allegations when we have not had that review, and have not yet had any proof.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
There have been reports that the Prime Minister, when Mayor of London, had a close relationship with Jennifer Arcuri, which included receiving personal, one-to-one technology lessons from her. Can the Minister assure us that, even if no representations were made directly by the now Prime Minister, no representations were made on his behalf?
Matt Warman
I have said that, and I am happy to say again that there was no undue lobbying to the best of my knowledge. As I have said, we are having a review and we will make that public, but I think that the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to broaden the scope of this will not change the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Prime Minister sought to do anything improper.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Ind)
Has this company, or its directors, applied for any other Government funds? If so, over what period, and successfully or unsuccessfully?
Matt Warman
The two other companies that are related to Miss Arcuri have not made any applications whatsoever to this Department. Of course we will be double-checking that as part of the review, and I am sure that the review will also look at other Departments, but, as I have said, this is a process that is scrupulous, transparent, and rigorous in its independence, whichever company is in receipt of Government money.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am sorry that the Minister is rattled, as evidenced by his dismissal of questions about the Prime Minister’s possible conflict of interests when he was London Mayor as “tittle tattle”. That is contemptible, and sadly shows—as did yesterday’s announcement of the result of the court case—the staggering sense of entitlement that is at the heart of this Government, with a Prime Minister who thinks that he can do as he pleases. Will the Minister confirm that he believes that this Parliament and the public are perfectly entitled to hold the Prime Minister and his Government to account, and that any hints or suggestions to the contrary about “tittle tattle” only show yet more disrespect for the democratic process?
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady tells me that I am “rattled”. I am enjoying this debut rather more than I expected, but none the less, it is always a pleasure to answer pre-written questions. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady shows me that it was pre-written; that is very good to see.
To be fair, the hon. Lady has raised an important constitutional principle. It is an important constitutional principle that this Government absolutely respect, and will continue to do so.
Matt Warman
It is, of course, a part of the Department’s processes that we will make sure that the services we procure are properly delivered. We are very happy to have a look at that, and we will continue to do so.
Johnston Press: Administration
Matt Warman Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jeremy Wright
The Pension Protection Fund has over £30 billion-worth of assets and can cover these liabilities. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, again I am fortunate that my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister is sitting along the row from me. I am sure he will write to the hon. Gentleman with the timescales he seeks.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
As a former journalist, it strikes me that the party that stopped section 40 and facilitated local democracy reporters has a great deal to be proud of in this House. On the subject of local democracy reporters, it occurs to me that the Cairncross review has a huge opportunity to propose far more of that sort of thing, and it would be much more profitable for all of us if we ended up with a set of measures that resulted directly in local democracy reporters, for instance, rather than a simple fund.
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend speaks with considerable expertise, as he says, and I hope he will find time next Wednesday, or on another occasion, to come and speak to Dame Frances and discuss with her the matters he has raised.
Data Protection Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
Matt Warman Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s history lesson about Estonia.
Matt Warman
I had that sense. The key thing about Estonia, aside from the fact that it is a far, far smaller country, is that the register for the digital ID that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about is held centrally by the Government. There is a fundamental difference between this country and Estonia. If he were seriously to propose to citizens in the UK that the Government should hold that central register, I think they would give him pretty short shrift. In his long lecture, will he either make the case for a Government-held central register or acknowledge that it would still be a pretty tough thing to get past the British public?
Liam Byrne
I am very happy to. I am lucky enough to be able to draw on my extensive experience as the Minister for ID cards in the Labour Government. I will take the hon. Gentleman, in detail, through the architecture I proposed. Well, he asked for it.
The challenge we confronted in about 2006 is that we originally proposed one big database for all the data, including biometric data. That was an error. The architecture I proposed in its stead was a way of connecting three different databases—one that would have basically held Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency data, a second that would have held the passport services data, and then a couple of identifiers that would have allowed those two records to be indexed and joined together. That brought the cost of the ID card system down by about two thirds.
Although the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness says that the British public would not like Government databases to hold all that information, that happens to be the country they live in. The Passport Office and DVLA hold comprehensive data on most people, and people find that extremely useful.
I was very careful about what I said. What I said was not that we should have compulsory e-ID, but that we should have a public option so people can choose to use it. That is obviously a different regime from Estonia’s, where ID cards have been compulsory since the country was invented about a century ago.
Giving people a public option would be quite attractive. There are, however, important safeguards that we need to learn from. It would be a mistake to have biometric information connected to that kind of service. We do not need biometric information connected to that kind of service. The ID card system in India has gone down that route, and it has suffered pretty significant leaks of biometric data over the past year and a half. If people get their hands on that data, that will be far more dangerous. The Estonian system, in which people have an electronic ID and a password that sits in their head—a two-factor authentication—has proven much more successful.
My broader point is that we should have a debate about the data rights that we, as citizens of this country, should have. Partly, that is about having rights to things that would make our lives better and would allow us to pursue new freedoms, such as the freedom not to have a million and one passwords, which we lose track of. It is also about having certain protections. We have had a useful debate, and will have an even longer one shortly, about the right to be treated fairly by algorithms. That is obviously incredibly important. The Government have given a nod in that direction, so the Minister will probably say a little about their digital charter.
On the different sides of the House, there are different philosophies on rights. The Conservative party traditionally defends rights to do with negative freedoms, and my side often talks the language of positive freedoms—the power to do things, which we think is necessary for social justice. However, I hope that in the months ahead we can have a sensible conversation about what negative and positive freedoms we can crystallise and enshrine in a bill of digital rights. At some point in this century, we shall write that. It is inevitable, because the world will change in a way that requires it, and the citizens of this country will begin to demand it. What we are starting to debate today is what will come to pass at some point. I hope to be the Minister who drives it through in the next Labour Government, which is imminent.
I hope, too, that we can debate that idea and help to perfect it. Where regimes of rights have been most effective, they have stood the test of time. For something to stand the test of time, it always helps if there is a little—not too much—cross-party consensus.
The new schedule has a couple of ideas at its core, and we are lucky in having been able to draw on not only the rights literature, but the incredible work of Baroness Kidron. As well as being a talented member of the creative industries, she has been one of the leading champions of the creation of strong digital rights for our children. As we have rehearsed in Committee previously, the issue is fundamental, not marginal. About a third of online users are children. The Government will have, in a way, to step in that direction. They will have to step towards new clauses 5 and 6, and new schedule 1, because they have committed to issuing an age-appropriate design code that will operationalise clause 124. I want to encourage the Government to think creatively about the way they will write the code of practice on age-appropriate design codes, with at least one eye on the broader bill of data and digital rights, which we want to propose.
The 5Rights movement has a couple of important ideas. One is the right to remove: children should be able to remove content that they have uploaded. There are probably members of the Committee who have posted all kinds of unfortunate content in their lives, which they might not want to have there in the future. That is certainly true of many children I know. The right to remove is, I think, widely accepted, and is reflected as one of the ambitions of the Bill.
The second right is the right to know. Children should be able to learn easily the who, what and why—and know for what purposes their data is being exchanged. That is important. The Minister herself has talked about the need to educate online users—to educate us all, so that we become better critical consumers of the content that we find online. That is doubly important for children.
The third right is the right to safety and support. Much of what upsets young people online is not illegal. It is legal. Support is often quite sparse and fragmented. It is often pretty invisible to children and young people when they need it most.
It will be challenging for the Government to turn the right to informed and conscious use into part of the code of practice, but that is incredibly important. It is simply unfortunate that social media firms spend quite so much money, effort and engineering talent on creating features that create a kind of addiction because of the rush of endorphins that they trigger in young people’s minds.
Those technologies, techniques and tricks of the trade are based on exactly the same principles as casino slot machines, and it is quite telling that a number of social media leaders have, over the last six months, gone on the record to say that they will not let their children use the apps that millions of children around the world use. The right to informed and conscious use will be difficult for the Government to interpret, but it is none the less important.
The right to digital literacy is perhaps the most important of all. It is something that our schools already do a terrific job of putting into practice, but what struck me in Estonia is the way that people see the right to internet access as basically a social right. That is surely something that we should debate and put in practice, too.
We have had quite a collection of evidence over the last year from people such as the Children’s Commissioner, who have ridden in behind and supported Baroness Kidron’s 5Rights movement. The Children’s Commissioner recently said:
“The social media giants have simply not done enough to make children aware of what they are signing up to when they install an app or open an account.”
The idea that children can look at these pages and pages of terms and conditions and just click and agree to them is obviously nonsensical. Indeed, the Children’s Commissioner, when reflecting on that, said:
“Children have absolutely no idea that they are giving away the right to privacy or the ownership of their data or the material they post online.”
The Government have obviously sought to exercise their derogation under the GDPR and set the age of consent at 13, rather than 16, so the code of practice that the Minister has agreed to is really important.
We would like this bill of data rights to go alongside more effective mechanisms to ensure that those rights are enforceable. That is why we tabled our amendments to clause 80(2). We think it is impossible in today’s economic environment for ordinary citizens to take effective action against the biggest firms on earth. These five firms have a market capitalisation, although it is slightly less than it was, of about $2.5 trillion, so the idea that a humble citizen can take on some of these giants is nonsensical. We would therefore like this bill of data rights to sit alongside a much more effective, open and democratic form of class action.
I am really interested in the Minister’s observations on the rights we have set out. Article 1 of our proposed new schedule covers equality of treatment, which is enshrined in the GDPR. The GDPR is long—we have made incredible progress through it, article by article—and it is a miracle that we have arrived at page 123 of the Bill by Thursday afternoon, but that is a real testament to the skilful chairing of Mr Hanson and you, Mr Streeter. The principle of equality of treatment is written throughout every clause of the Bill. The point is that it is written through 200 clauses, so we think a basic statement of equality of treatment is a good place to start.
Article 2 covers the right to security, which is the subject of the Bill. Again, let us set that out in terms. Article 3 covers the right to free expression, which is something we have signed up to in articles of the European convention on human rights. It is something that we should set within the context of a bill of data rights. Article 4 covers the right of equality of access. Giving equal access to the digital environment is extremely important. The digital environment creates a network, and network effects mean that the more people joined to it, the greater the value of the network. It is important to specify, set out and declare that we see equality of access to the digital environment as important.
Article 5 sets out the right to privacy, which, again, is scattered throughout the Bill, although we would like to consolidate and crystallise it and bring it together. Article 6 covers ownership and control, which will only grow in importance. This is not the place to get into the vexed debate about who owns the copyright to the data that someone might have and the new data that might be created by joining that data with someone else’s. However, the question of who owns the copyright, and therefore who owns the value of data that is personal in origin, is only going to grow. That debate is almost the 21st century equivalent to that on the enclosure of the commons, frankly. Who owns the copyright of data will become more important as the value of data grows exponentially.
Article 7 talks about the right to fairness when it comes to automated decision making, which we will come to in the debate on algorithmic fairness. Algorithms are making more and more decisions in our lives. People have a right not to be treated unfairly as a result of those decisions. In the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, we cannot have a world in which yesterday’s injustice is hard-coded into tomorrow’s injustice. We think that ensuring a right to algorithmic fairness in our bill of data rights is important. The rights to participation, protection and removal are important too.
We have a long tradition of rights in this country; we are the world’s pioneers of them. It is because we have been that pioneer down the centuries that we are today the world’s fifth-biggest economy, but we are not the world’s leading digital society. It is an ambition of the Opposition that we should be, and we think that a bill of digital rights would help us to get there.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] (Sixth sitting)
Matt Warman Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I shall be mercifully brief. As a print journalist for 15 years, I start by saying that the entire industry was genuinely horrified to learn of the extent and the offences that had been committed by organisations that, in the main and over many centuries, worked genuinely in the public interest. We should not forget that journalists who work in the media today, and were doing so while that was going on, are in the main trying to do the kind of public service that we would all defend. We should not underestimate the horror with which the industry greeted the stories of what happened to the Dowler family and many others, be they celebrities or other victims. I hope we would agree across the House that the media in the main have fulfilled that remit. I should also say, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, that I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments proposed by the Scottish National party. We should prize consistency above all else in this area.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said that he was surprised to learn that the Government did not seek to proceed with the second part of the Leveson inquiry. It was in our manifesto, so his surprise is surprising. I can only conclude that he did not read the Conservative manifesto. Perhaps he read the Labour manifesto and was so horrified he could not face reading another one.
Matt Warman
The Labour one? Quite right. We should bear in mind the two things used in favour of the position taken by the Conservative party and the Government in the manifesto. The first, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon said, is that the world has indisputably moved on. Even Sir Brian Leveson agrees that the world has moved on. The challenges that face our modern media are not the challenges that would have been subject to the Leveson inquiry. The more important point is that, where there are legitimate concerns about the media and how people are treated, the solution to that is effective and independent regulation, and that is what we have now more than ever.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman served on The Daily Telegraph long enough to know that the IPSO code today bears a striking resemblance to the old editors’ code. Perhaps he could give us the benefit of his experience and tell us whether he is satisfied that the IPSO code meets the tests set out by Sir Brian Leveson and agreed in all parts of the House.
Matt Warman
I will say two things. I had a mercifully limited engagement with what was then the Press Complaints Commission, although we did have to deal with some complaints in my small bit of the paper. Although we took it seriously, it is in no way comparable with the seriousness that IPSO is now taken. That might be down to the fact that the scale of the apology that can be demanded by IPSO, and has to be given, is exponentially greater. That is a crucial deterrent when it comes to the work done by journalists in the newsroom, who sometimes regard their editors as figures of great fear as much as great role models.
The other side is that we have a crucial low-cost arbitration system that allows people who are not of the means that the right hon. Gentleman described to bring cases against the media and get the redress they deserve when people make mistakes. Those are the two crucial differences between the PCC and IPSO. The latter is a fundamentally more powerful, very different regulator, but it has the credibility and independence that IMPRESS will simply never have.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman was an experienced and respected journalist and has a track record on which to draw in his reflections. He did not quite answer the question whether he thought the code of conduct that IPSO regulates meets the tests set out by Sir Brian Leveson and agreed on both sides of the House. Will he reflect on whether the code of conduct is prone to changes driven through by newspaper editors? There is no guarantee that newspaper editors cannot influence that code, and its shape and bite, in the years to come.
Matt Warman
The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is a continuous thread to the sensible key principles of press regulation, and for journalists to have a role in shaping those is not entirely illegitimate. None the less, we must bear in mind that those principles should serve the public before they serve the press. That is what is in the principles that Sir Brian Leveson sought to suggest. The right hon. Gentleman is right that we agree on those on both sides of the House, and that IPSO strikes the right balance. The sense that both the world and the regulator have changed should reassure both Opposition Members and members of the public who would like the Government to secure a free but sensibly regulated press that serves all of us.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Surely my hon. Friend shares my concern, and more to the point the public’s concern, that state interference smacks of all the wrong things the Government do and undermines the free press, on which we depend on a national and a local scale.
Matt Warman
I agree, which is why IPSO rather than IMPRESS strikes the right balance between the two. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill made great play of David Cameron promising IPSO, but I would make great play of Government delivering on the manifesto pledges they made when they fought an election in 2017. Not doing what he set out also delivers on a promise—the more recent promise should take precedence.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon powerfully made the case against section 40, which seeks to punish the victim. That would obviously have a clear chilling effect not only on our local newspapers, which are often on the brink of bankruptcy, but on the broader media. We can look at fantastic pieces of journalism even today, such as the one about Cambridge Analytica. The Guardian itself says, “Please, we would like your donations so we can keep our valuable journalism free”—the paper has had to fight off three pieces of legal action by Cambridge Analytica and one from Facebook. Those huge corporations seek to shut down legitimate investigation, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill suggests that if they were to bring and win cases, The Guardian should pay for them. That is an extraordinary position to take.
Matt Warman
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is about to assure me that he is not taking that position.
Liam Byrne
Let us be real about this. The idea that companies such as Facebook or Cambridge Analytica will desist from legal action to shut down stories that they do not like—the idea that that will not happen at any time in the future, even under the existing regimes—is for the birds. The argument that is better made by some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues is to do with the risk to local newspapers, most of which are now owned by Trinity Mirror, which makes tens of millions of pounds in profit, or the Johnston Press. The point is that vexatious claims can be shut down and thrown out at any one of three stages by the regulator or, before the case goes to arbitration, by the arbitrator or by a judge, so the incidence of costs arising will not be on the scale the hon. Gentleman anticipates. Equally, he must accept that, without a form of low-cost arbitration, justice is denied to people who are maligned by newspapers.
Matt Warman
I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I disagree with him profoundly. I worked for a newspaper that had, by comparison with our local papers, an enormous budget. The threat of having to pay the legal bills of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica would have a profoundly chilling effect, even at the very highest level of journalism.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that The Times journalist who uncovered the Rotherham child abuse scandal said that it would have been inconceivable—that is the word he used—for the newspaper to have run that story on its front page had section 40 been in place? How would that have damaged the investigation?
Matt Warman
Exactly—there are a number of such examples. Opposition Members might wish to imagine that the so-called Fleet Street media has money to burn and could not care less about paying all sorts of legal costs. However, we all know that these businesses have to mind every penny, whether they are profitable or not. It is legitimate for them to do that. If every single investigative journalist was constantly living under the threat of their piece of work costing their newspaper and their boss tens of thousands of pounds, they simply would not get hired, never mind allowed into print.
Liam Byrne
Finally and very briefly, the hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent argument. Why, then, was that proposed by the right hon. Members for West Dorset and for Basingstoke? How did they get it so profoundly wrong?
Matt Warman
That is a fascinating philosophical question, but I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that I would not have voted for it. I appreciate that he will say that it is easy for me to say that now, but the idea that people in this place would be convinced that it is the best possible model is simply not plausible after the statements that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and I have made today. Surely we need a set of press regulations that preserves the independence of the media, and their ability to invest in journalism at local and national level, which we all want if we are to hold the powerful to account. We also need regulations that allow hon. Members to say with a clear conscience that we have done nothing that puts those businesses in serious jeopardy.
It does not seem to me that a costly Leveson 2 is the best use of public money, or that the threat of section 40 will ever be the best use of private money, putting legitimate local and national media out of business. Those arguments seem to me like a powerful case for IPSO, and for a sensible look at the sustainability of the press, as the Prime Minister has set about doing. They do not under any circumstances seem to me like a good reason to vote for the amendments.
Margot James
I will set out the Government’s position on clauses 142, 168, 169 and 205, before returning to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute.
As we have heard, clause 142 requires the Government to establish an inquiry with terms of reference similar to those contained in part 2 of the Leveson inquiry, but in relation to data protection only. The Government set out our intention not to reopen the Leveson inquiry in our response to the consultation on the future of the inquiry on 1 March. I will not repeat the arguments in full, but I will say that the Government’s firm focus is on the problems faced by the media right now.
The Government recognise that there is a great deal of feeling on both sides of the debate. We have listened to all views, including those of victims, in reaching a decision. No one seeks to excuse the past behaviour of individual media organisations, nor to legitimise it. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said, some of the stories we heard at the beginning of the Leveson inquiry were horrific. The Government have a duty, however, to make decisions that are proportionate and in the public interest. In the light of all the evidence available, it is apparent that part 2 of the inquiry is no longer appropriate or proportionate.
Part 1 of the inquiry lasted over a year, and heard evidence from more than 300 people, including journalists, editors and victims. Since then, the majority of the Leveson recommendations have been implemented. Three major police investigations examining a wide range of offences have been completed. More than 40 people were convicted, some of whom were sent to prison. There have also been extensive reforms to policing practices, and significant changes to press self-regulation.
As a result, the terms of reference for part 2 have largely been met, and the culture that allowed phone hacking to become the norm has changed. Meanwhile, the media are facing critical challenges that threaten their sustainability, including fake news, declining circulations and gaining revenue from online content. Free and vibrant media are vital to democratic discourse, and we need to tackle those challenges urgently. Holding a costly and time-consuming public inquiry looking predominantly backwards is not the right way to go.
The Government are committed to addressing these issues, and we are developing a digital charter to ensure that new technologies work for the benefit of everyone, with rules and protections in place to keep people safe online and to ensure that personal information is used appropriately. As part of that, we are also undertaking work to ensure that there are sustainable business models for high-quality media online. The media landscape is different and the threats are different, too. Issues such as fake news mean there is a need to protect the reliability and objectivity of information.
Likewise, clauses 168 and 169 are similar to the provisions contained in sections 40 and 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, but apply to breaches of data protection law only. The Government do not believe that introducing a provision similar to section 40 of the 2013 Act into the Bill is appropriate, but in relation to data protection only. That is particularly so given our decision earlier this month to repeal section 40 when there is a suitable legislative vehicle. In coming to that decision, we considered all the available evidence, including the views of respondents to the public consultation that we undertook last year. Many respondents cited concerns about the chilling effect that section 40 would have on the freedom of the press, which was so ably summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness.
Blagging: Leveson Inquiry
Matt Warman Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Hancock
As the hon. Lady knows, if the allegations are to be investigated, that is a matter for the police. They will therefore look into these allegations, and that is the right place for that to happen.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I should declare that among the allegations printed in The Guardian, it is alleged that Mr Ford worked for The Telegraph, my former employer. Is it not itself a demonstration of how much the culture has changed that our newspapers are reporting on these historical allegations and, furthermore, that we have a regulator that provides the low-cost arbitration that would give victims the redress the Opposition claim they need so desperately?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is spot-on. There is a group of people in this House right now who are interested in the past, and there is a group interested in the future, and I am firmly interested in making sure we have decent, high-quality journalism for the future.
Data Protection Bill [Lords]
Matt Warman ExcerptsMonday 5th March 2018
(6 years, 2 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: HL Bill 77-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 71KB) - (16 Jan 2018)
Peter Heaton-Jones
I do not believe that the inquiry that the other place seeks, through its amendment, to impose on the Bill would do the job that the right hon. Gentleman wants done. The position that the Secretary of State laid out on Thursday is the right way to proceed. Leveson 2 would simply not do the job that many Members on both sides of the House want it to do.
I am going to move on, as I am thinking about Mr Deputy Speaker’s strictures about timing.
Matt Warman
For the sake of novelty, my hon. Friend is taking an intervention from the Government side.
The one point that my hon. Friend has not yet mentioned is that IPSO is a fundamentally very different regulator—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) might not like it, but low-cost mediation is a crucial feature that allows exactly the redress that he wants.
Peter Heaton-Jones
I had a lot to say about IPSO and IMPRESS along the lines that my hon. Friend has laid out, but I am aware of Mr Deputy Speaker’s strictures. I have tried to take as many interventions as I can, and page 2 of my remarks will be put down on this green Bench very shortly.
I move on to the second issue that I wanted to raise: the second amendment sent to us by the other place saying that we should commence section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. That would not be the right way to proceed, and I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that point so clearly on Thursday. Many local papers in North Devon have written to me on numerous occasions expressing deep concerns about the impact that section 40 would have. I mention just three: the North Devon Journal, the North Devon Gazette and the South Molton & District News, which is, incidentally, one of the few papers to have signed up to IMPRESS, the new press regulator.
Freedom of the press is absolutely essential in a democracy. Let us think carefully about what section 40 says: if a paper not under the auspices of a Press Recognition Panel regulator is sued for defamation, for instance, it has to pay the legal costs of both sides, even if it wins the case. How can that be sensible? We might argue that that is a pretty blunt instrument with the intention of coercing newspapers to sign up to one of the approved regulators, but 90% of the national press have not done so, so the blunt instrument is clearly not being effective. The biggest danger, however, is that many small, local media companies, such as those in my constituency that I have mentioned, would simply not be able to run a viable business if section 40 were enacted. Financially, the court costs would cripple them. Individuals could make vexatious claims in the knowledge that there was no chance of their ever having to pay costs, whatever the outcome. That is simply something up with which we will not put.
The local press in North Devon and many other parts of the country is still extraordinarily important. The two main papers I mentioned are still read widely today and help to maintain our sense of community. We cannot face a situation in which such papers are threatened by what could be a series of vexatious claims, encouraged by the fact that there would be no risk to the person making that claim.
Leveson Inquiry
Matt Warman Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
As I said, I have already met some of the victims. I have also already extended an invitation to meet victims and Hacked Off in order to discuss today’s statement and what we are doing.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
In my 15 years at The Daily Telegraph, I had a thankfully limited amount to do with the Press Complaints Commission. I reassure the Secretary of State that IPSO is genuinely a profoundly different regulator with far greater powers and far more teeth. Section 40 would have a chilling effect not just on our valued local papers, but on our national papers. The issue that faces local papers today is social media and the changes in technology that I saw the beginnings of over those 15 years. May I say that what the Secretary of State has done today has done more for the freedom of the press in this country and our accountability than the alternative course of action that the Opposition would like to see?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this matter because not only was he a journalist, but he was a journalist of technology, so he understands the impact of technology on journalism in a very personal way. I agree entirely with what he said on the importance of having a press that can report without fear or favour, and that can hold the powerful to account. We sometimes talk in a glib way about holding the powerful to account, but accountability is critical to good decision making. It is only when we have full accountability for our decisions that our feet are held to the fire and we think extremely hard about all the different courses of action available to us.