Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Christian Matheson and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 28th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

8. To ask the hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, what assessment the commission has made of the impact of digital political advertising on free and fair elections.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Digital advertising offers significant opportunities for campaigners to engage voters, and it accounts for an increasingly large proportion of election campaign spending. However, research conducted by the Electoral Commission shows that many voters have concerns about the transparency and truthfulness of digital political advertising. The commission runs a campaign to support voters to understand who is using online advertising to influence their vote, and provides educational materials to promote political literacy. It has also made recommendations to the UK’s Governments, social media companies and campaigners to strengthen transparency for voters.

[Kevin Brennan]

Digital political advertising in general is largely unregulated. This allows for the proliferation of misleading adverts and leaves us open to the influence of foreign actors, and all of us across the House should be concerned about that. Has the Electoral Commission made any specific recommendations to the Government as to how new regulation should be introduced to ensure that we protect our democracy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Christian Matheson and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

What recent representations the committee has received on maintaining the independence of the Electoral Commission.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester)]

The Electoral Commission’s independence is established in statute. It is a public body independent of Government and accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which I represent here today. Its independence is a vital part of ensuring that it is able to deliver the vital functions allocated to it by Parliament. The Speaker’s Committee seeks to uphold that independence when it fulfils its statutory functions in reviewing the Commission’s estimates and plans and overseeing the appointment of electoral commissioners.

[Christian Matheson]

The hon. Gentleman has always made his views in the House very clear on this matter, for which I am always grateful. I have seen the reports of Mr Straker’s comments, which have been made to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and we await its report on the evidence from Mr Straker and others coming to it. The commission’s record of having had about 500 adjudications, only five of which have been challenged, and only one of which has been upheld in the courts, is a record that I think the commission can be proud of.

[Kevin Brennan]

Ironically, I have come in to the House today in the middle of a training programme that I am doing with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on electoral monitoring. Of course, it is a feature of any proper democratic system that there is an independent electoral commission, and it is a feature of corrupt countries that they seek to undermine the work of independent electoral commissions. The remarks by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—I wonder whether the committee would agree—are typical of those who do not wish there to be an independent Electoral Commission, because the Electoral Commission found out that the activities of Vote Leave were illegal and fined it £61,000 as a result. That is the reason for these attacks.

[Christian Matheson]

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clarity of his position. The commission will continue to undertake its role independently, as decided in statute by this House. I would say respectfully to those hon. Members who seek to replace or abolish the commission that it might be helpful to bring forward proposals as to what they would replace it with so that we have some clarity about possible alternatives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Christian Matheson and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson]

When coronavirus-related restrictions were introduced, the commission shifted entirely to home working. It took forward work on reviews where further external information or input was not required, such as those for Westminster and Richmond. The commission aims to deliver external reviews informed by local needs, views and circumstances. It therefore paused some reviews that were part way through the review process while it considered how to proceed. It has now developed new ways of working, and commissioners are meeting today to agree how and when to restart paused reviews and begin others. On the wider issue of parliamentary boundaries using these building blocks, because that is a rolling programme, many of those building blocks will already be in place and other reviews perhaps would never have been ready in time for the particular parliamentary reviews.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

To ask the hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, what recent discussions the Committee has had with the Commission on improving transparency in digital election campaigning.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

At its meeting on 24 March, the committee approved the commission’s interim corporate plan, which includes plans to address voter concerns about digital campaigning. The commission’s recent report on the 2019 general election highlighted significant public concerns about the transparency of digital election campaigns, which risk overshadowing their benefits. The commission has set out actions that parties, campaigners, Governments and social media companies should take to support trust and confidence at future elections. The actions include extending the imprint rules for printed materials to digital campaign materials so that voters know who is trying to influence them.

[Kevin Brennan [V]]

This follows on from what the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) asked earlier. Last week, he said the Electoral Commission, which, as my hon. Friend said, is asked to do this important work on digital campaigning, was “arrogant”, “incompetent” and

“politically corrupt, totally biased and morally bankrupt”.—[Official Report, 13 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 246.]

This was because it had the nerve to enforce the law and fine Vote Leave £61,000. Would the committee agree that to try to intimidate an independent electoral body in this way is more in the tradition of the politicians of Zimbabwe than of Britain?

[Christian Matheson]

The Electoral Commission has a regulatory role and regulatory authority which are the same as those of many regulators throughout the United Kingdom. I suggest that the track record of the Electoral Commission is one that perhaps does not bear some of the description that has just been repeated. In the past five years, it has carried out approximately 500 investigations into a variety of electoral offences. Only five of those have been challenged in the courts and only one challenge has been upheld.

Digital Economy Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Christian Matheson and Kevin Brennan

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

Is there not a further cynicism to this? The Government did that in the full knowledge that the policy had what the Treasury often calls “future reach”, as the number of over-75s is likely to go up. Even given that the Government are partially compensating the BBC for this, they know full well that the policy will become more expensive.

[Christian Matheson]

That is an extremely good point, and it reads back to the point that I made earlier: when there has to be a review of the cost of the policy, and perhaps a reduction in the availability of free TV licences, Ministers—perhaps they will be shadow Ministers by that time—[Interruption.] We fight on to win. Conservative Members will be able to point to the BBC and say, “It was the BBC what done it”, in order to evade all responsibility. But they will not evade responsibility, because this will not be forgotten, if they get away with doing it. There is a much better alternative: the excellent new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley.

Digital Economy Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Christian Matheson and Kevin Brennan

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Now we’re listening, Mr Streeter. Does my hon. Friend know what that represents in terms of sales?

[Kevin Brennan]

I shall stick strictly to the amendment, but I think it is mainly in relation to live performances, rather than through physical or online sales.

The impact of copyright infringement is very difficult to quantify precisely because not every copy of a music track that is illegally shared necessarily represents a lost sale. Nonetheless, the scale of illegal downloading and streaming of music remains significant and it continues to undermine the economic health of the UK’s music industry. The Ofcom Media Tracker survey, average retail prices and academic evidence taken together all suggest that the losses from piracy to the UK recorded music industry are between £150 million and £300 million a year. That is a significant loss of value to the UK economy and legitimate music-related businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

Do not many of the search engines make their money by prioritising businesses and organisations that have chosen to advertise with them? It is therefore easily within their power to change their algorithms at will to meet the requirements that my hon. Friend suggests.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is within search engines’ ability to change the algorithms. I had always thought that the problem might eventually solve itself, because when advertising is placed next to the results of an online search, the companies whose products and services are being advertised appear next to websites that are run in the shadows, often by criminal networks. Surely reputable businesses with statements of corporate social responsibility would not want their advertisements to appear next to a search that turned up an illegal website run by some gangsters somewhere in Russia. However, it turns out that search engines do not solely or even principally make their money from advertising; it is data that are valuable to them. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, data are the new oil. It is the data acquired on individuals through search engine practices that are so valuable and that enable companies to put product placement in their advertising and search engines to tailor searches to individual consumers online. Embarrassingly, that fact once resulted in a Conservative Member criticising a quote of mine on the Labour party website because the advertising content that appeared next to it was to do with dating a certain type of person. The Member in question subsequently found out that the advert had been placed there not because the Labour party was short of money but because that advert was tailored to his personal search activities. Members should beware when making such criticisms.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester is absolutely right that it is perfectly within search engines’ power to solve this problem. Some efforts have been made by Google, and they worked for a short time, but a search engine search for widely available music by some of the most popular artists in the UK will still return a lot of illegal results. The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty may wish to cover that point in his remarks, so I will not go into further detail, but BPI research certainly indicates that.

The voluntary approach is not working. We have seen this movie before; we have downloaded it many times, and it always has the same inconclusive ending. New clause 3 would provide it with an ending to match one of the best last lines in the movies, which is “Shut up and deal.” Any offers from Government Members? It is from Billy Wilder’s great film “The Apartment”; Shirley MacLaine says it. The new clause would enable the Government to say to the search engines, “Shut up and deal,” because there is no incentive for search engines to do so at the moment. We are being helpful to the Minister, as is his colleague. We are trying to put a bit of lead in his pencil, and he should welcome this cross-party effort to ensure that progress is made.

One further point: I have a sneaky feeling that the Minister actually agrees with the new clause, although he will not agree with it today, and will want to make this change to the Bill but to do so in the House of Lords. If my prediction is wrong, I will take it back in due course. The only thing that I would say is that it does not do this House’s reputation any good when Governments behave that way. I accept completely that all Governments do it: they know that they want to make a concession on a Bill, but they decide to do it in the House of Lords rather than the Commons. Ultimately, although we hear all the talk about the House of Lords being such a wonderful revising Chamber, the Government should accept once or twice that hon. Members, including those of their own party, come up with amendments that are perfectly sensible and should be incorporated into a Bill. It would help the reputation of this House if the Government were prepared to behave in that manner.

One fundamental aim of the e-commerce directive was to identify clearly which practices fall within and outside safe harbour defences. Part of the legislation— article 16, to be specific—encourages member states and the Commission to draw up a code of conduct at community or national level. However, no such code of conduct has ever been drawn up due to resistance by the search engines. They should not be allowed to avoid parts of legislation at the expense of UK creative industries just because they find it inconvenient. The new clause would end the wasting of Ministers’ time in chairing meetings that go nowhere, the repetitive process of rights holders producing proposals and the practice of search engines consistently refusing to comply to combat piracy, thus ensuring that the digital economy continues to benefit both the UK creative industries and the British public.

New clause 33 is the last amendment in the group. Last month, the Government released their annual intellectual property crime report. Some of the trends are quite startling: they reported 33% more illegal TV programming downloads in March to May 2015 than in the same period in 2013—a rise from 12 million to 16 million. The report highlights as a major concern the proliferation of internet protocol TV, or IPTV as it is known, which offers viewers increasingly easy access to pirated digital content. Technological changes have led to exponential growth in this new form of piracy. Android-based IPTV boxes are being loaded with software linking thousands of streams of infringing entertainment, movie and sport content. The boxes are sold on mainstream marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay, and through Facebook.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has yet to be updated to reflect the new technology. It offers no effective remedies to copyright owners, who at present can rely only on laws that are not particularly tailored to copyright infringement. The new clause would help prosecute those who pre-load and distribute such devices and make it easier to work with online marketplaces to remove listings by wholesalers of such products.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Obviously I cannot speak for the Minister, but he is free to say something after I have sat down. He is free to intervene now if he wants to clarify that point for my hon. Friend. It would be helpful if he did so, because I think this is exactly the right time for the measure. That is the purpose of new clause 3 and the thinking behind it. The talks have been going nowhere. As I have said, we have seen the movie several times before, and we know how it ends.

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: talks are going nowhere. Would an indication from the Minister that there is an intention to bring the proposals forward into legislation perhaps aid those talks in going somewhere?

[Kevin Brennan]

In a nutshell, that is the reason for new clause 3, and I am sure that was exactly the thinking of the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty when he tabled it.

It might help if the Minister indicated when he expects the talks to conclude. He says he hopes there will be a positive outcome to them and that this is not the right time for new clause 3. He likes to talk softly; if new clause 3 were incorporated into the Bill, he could carry a big stick while talking softly about this matter. If he is not prepared to amend the Bill, perhaps he could tell the Committee when he believes the talks should conclude, as that would help to focus minds a bit. Perhaps he could put it on record that he is not happy to allow the talks to drift on and on inconclusively, as they have for many years.

We are not satisfied with the Minister’s response on new clause 3, and I repeat that it is my belief that at some point during the progress of the Bill the Government will concede on that point. It would be a terrible shame if they did not concede to the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty—one of their own elected Members here in the Commons, who has tabled a sensible amendment—but did so in another place, giving the credit, yet again, to the unelected House for being a wonderful House in revising legislation. There is plenty of expertise right here in the Committee and in this House, among elected Members who know about the subject and know that this is the right thing to do. I urge the Minister to change his mind about new clause 3, if not now, perhaps on Report, when we will no doubt return to the issue.

Finally, I hope it is helpful to you, Mr Streeter, to be aware that it is not my intention to divide the Committee on new clause 33. As for the Minister’s response, I think I referred to the shortcomings of the current offence. I did not say we did not think that people could currently be prosecuted, under the Fraud Act 2006 or the Serious Crime Act 2015; in fact, I specifically mentioned those Acts—it might have been while the Minister was searching for something online. I also mentioned why the Acts were inadequate, and the Minister did not respond. First, they require a great deal of expertise in the area on the part of the police, which is not necessarily a resource that is sufficient to meet the growing size of the problem. Secondly, by amending the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, my new clause would have not just allowed but compelled trading standards to get involved and would have allowed the body to take action.

It would be useful to hear from the Minister why he does not think it a good idea that trading standards should be brought into play in that way, rather than simply relying on a police force that is under pressure and has many things to investigate—an ever-growing problem. Is it the Government’s position that is it wrong that trading standards would be the right body to involve? It would be extremely useful if the Minister felt able to clarify that. He said that he would keep the matter under review. I welcome that, and I hope he will be able to tell us more about the issue at a later stage, but if he told us at this stage why trading standards is not the right body to involve, that would be helpful.

We have had a fairly comprehensive debate. I do not think I need to add much on clause stand part, apart from that the latest data, published by the IPO, demonstrate the need for Government action. The research found that 15% of internet users—6.7 million people—still access copyright-infringing content, so it is absolutely right that the Government should act. I hope that the Minister feels able to add a bit more, in light of what I have said.

Digital Economy Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Christian Matheson and Kevin Brennan

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Q What flexibility would you like to see within the legislation for either the Government or perhaps Ofcom to be able to deem the level of the USO in the manner that Baroness Harding described as technology increases?

David Dyson: I have a couple of points. Covering some of the previous questions, it is impossible to predict what will be the right speed in five years’ time. There are two elements to delivering that. One is effective competition. On the second, I agree with Baroness Harding that in those harder-to-reach less economic areas, the separation of Openreach is the only way that you will get assurance that those customers will get the right speed.

Fundamentally, Ofcom needs to have more powers to make the right decisions that effectively create the right competitive environment in the UK—an environment where it is not constantly worried about being litigated. At that point, you have a stronger regulator that will make the right decisions for the right reasons and a lot of these discussions will take care of themselves.

Baroness Harding: You can see from my nodding head that I agree with David. A lot of the provisions in the Bill are very good, pro-consumer, and I would encourage the Committee to look very favourably towards them. David has just alluded to one of them, which is to make sure that you have a stronger regulator that can get decisions taken faster without using up nearly 50% of the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s time.

Sean Williams: On the specific question about flexibility, as long as it is stable enough for network investors to deploy a certain investment in order to get to the target and then recover some of their investment money, it can be flexible after that. If it is too flexible, you never quite know what you are supposed to be investing in, so I think it needs to be definitive for a period and then it can move on progressively as society and the economy moves on.

I agree with Baroness Harding on the subject of reliability. Reliability is a very important metric, but SMEs are not typically the most demanding broadband customers. A big household streaming lots of HD videos is a very demanding broadband supplier. SMEs and large households have different kinds of requirements and we need to work with Ofcom to establish exactly what those standards should be.

It is true that some of the problems happen within the home or within the business premises. It is important to make sure that all the retailers—TalkTalk and all the others—are able to support their customers in the business or home. Making sure those networks and wi-fi work well is also very important, to answer Mr Perry’s earlier remarks.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q Sean, do you recognise the figure that improving wayleave rights under the ECC will reduce costs for providers by 40%? Would you like to tell us whether any surplus from that will be used to invest in local communities or will it be going to your profit margins?

Sean Williams: I do not recognise the particular figure, to be honest, but I would not necessarily dispute it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Q Will certain areas be limited, do you think, in reaching the 10 megabits?

Baroness Harding: I think the way that you ensure that there is sufficient competition to drive investment and create choice is by having a very strong regulator that does not believe any of us, actually, when we say “Trust us, we will be okay; we will do it for you.” If you live in any of the rural constituencies in the country, you do not have Virgin as an alternative. There is only one fixed line network provider. There are only two mast joint ventures for mobile networks, so I would argue that the telecoms market is not competitive enough at all and that the best way Government can ensure that all constituents across the country benefit is by having a much stronger regulator that forces competition. I think you should be very worried when you hear large incumbents saying, “Set up a universal service obligation but don’t let it get too far ahead of what we’ve got in our business case.” That is not what business should be doing. Businesses will invest more if they are scared their customers will go elsewhere, not because they have been given a promise by Government.

David Dyson: But also you should be very worried when you hear statements about how BT is planning to take profits from the duct access and reinvest in that, and in cross-subsidising mobile access. That is just fundamentally wrong, and is not supportive of competition.

[Christian Matheson]

rose—

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Christian Matheson and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

They can make matters far worse. When we look at this proposal alongside clause 7, it becomes clear that the introduction of an extended notice period is there to give the employer additional time to organise agency workers to undermine the industrial action, as well as to be able to prepare for legal challenges. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: this is bad for safety and bad for service users, and bad because it could serve to prolong industrial action unnecessarily. It will also be bad for the general public. Conservative Members ought to care about the fact that it will also be bad for social cohesion in this country. Presumably, as a next step the Government will be getting the Department for Work and Pensions to sanction the unemployed for refusing to act as strike breakers.

[Christian Matheson]

Has my hon. Friend also considered that in the long term the resentment that will be caused in the business affected will also mean that those actions will be bad for business?

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. He knows well, and Conservative Members ought to know, that the festering resentment that would arise as a result of this kind of approach to industrial relations would last for many years, and in some communities would never be forgotten.

The TUC is firmly opposed to this proposal, which in its opinion will breach international law. The International Labour Organisation’s freedom of association committee has confirmed that

“the hiring of workers to break a strike in a sector which cannot be regarded as an essential sector in the strict sense of the term...constitutes a serious violation of freedom of association”.

New clause 1 would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes, and we will therefore support it if it is pushed to a vote tonight. I also want to press amendment 6 to a Division—the lead amendment in this group, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.

Let me say a few brief words about amendment 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It would allow check-off if employers and unions agreed that they wanted it, provided that the unions paid for the service. I understand why the hon. Gentleman would table such an amendment, as it seems to reflect some of the basic values that I thought were supposed to be in the DNA of his political party. When one party is willing by agreement to provide a service to another party in exchange for payment, the state should not interfere unless the service forms some kind of criminal or immoral activity.

Check-off is a voluntary agreement by an employer to collect through its pay roll the union subscription of trade union members who are its employees. Despite what the Government seem to think, that is not a criminal or an immoral activity. Why on earth would a Conservative Government think it is right for the state to proscribe a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee where a payment for that service is involved? I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled his amendment.

What is wrong with an employer, in whatever sector, voluntarily agreeing, as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with employees, to help collect the trade union subscription in exchange for an administrative payment? How on earth is it the responsibility of Government, particularly a Conservative Government, to introduce a provision of this kind?