Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been following the debate. IPSO’s introduction of low-cost arbitration and the guidance on how to access it will ensure a stronger system of self-regulation.

All sides in this debate agree that our press must be free to report without fear or favour, to uncover wrongdoing and to hold the powerful to account. It is now a more difficult time than ever to produce high-quality journalism that does hold power to account. It was journalists who helped to bring Stephen Lawrence’s killers to justice; it was journalists who uncovered appalling child abuse, such as in Rotherham, and gave a voice to its victims; and it was journalists who reported on horrific allegations of sexual abuse in football, which led to many more victims coming forward.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) put it last week, newspapers are under threat from online media platforms that do not employ a single journalist.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

We all recognise and applaud the examples the Secretary of State has given, but they do not excuse the bad behaviour by other sections of the press. Our concern is not with journalists who behave ethically and well at all times; it is with those journalists who do not, so could he address that point?

[Matt Hancock]

If that is the hon. Lady’s concern, she should vote with the Government this afternoon. She should listen to the journalist who uncovered the thousands of victims of sexual abuse in Rotherham, and who said that with statutory regulation under section 40 it would have been effectively impossible for him to do his job. We do not propose statutory regulation of the press, because we want the press to be free, but also to be able to make public stories that are sometimes uncomfortable to print.

The pressure is on the press because of new online publications. That is important, because if we as a nation lose high-quality journalism, we will lose the capability to hold the powerful to account on behalf of victims of all sorts of abuses of power. Clickbait, fake news and malicious disinformation threaten high-quality journalism. Why does this matter? Because a foundation of any successful democracy is a sound basis for democratic discourse, and that is under threat from these new forces that require urgent attention. A weaker press would mean poorer coverage of courts, of council chambers and of corruption. Why are we acting in the way in which we propose to act today? Because I believe that it will ensure that the press are fairer, while safeguarding their essential freedom. Fundamentally, the sustainability of our media underpins the sustainability of our democracy, and our efforts must be focused on that.

Let us not sleepwalk into a society in which high-quality journalism has been decimated and our democracy is damaged as a result. We all benefit—every single one of us benefits—from what a free press gives our country and our democracy, whether or not the coverage is good for us as individuals: the scrutiny, the uncovering of wrongs, and the catalyst for debate. Protecting those benefits is today’s challenge. Now is the time to look forward, not back, and to come together to build a vibrant, free and fair press that holds the powerful to account and rises to the challenges of our times.

I oppose amendment 62B, and I urge every Member in the House to do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

The role of the House of Lords is to scrutinise, to inquire and, where possible, to improve. That is not what is happening here. What is happening in this case is that the House of Lords is asking this House, which has considered this question in great detail in Committee and on Report, to go back and change its mind, thereby rejecting conventions established by Lord Salisbury and Lord Carrington. Agreeing to the amendment would set a very unfortunate constitutional precedent.

I hope this House will reaffirm the decision it took last week, and previously, and that their lordships will then recognise the democratic legitimacy of this House and the manifesto commitment made by the Conservative party, which is now in government.

[Christine Jardine]

I believe the other place has given us a compromise to reassure those who are concerned about section 40 and its impact on local newspapers and those who are concerned about any threat to the freedom of the press, which none of us in this House wants to see undermined in any way.

Please look at the Lords amendment as an effective way of carrying forward and adhering to the promise made to the victims of press intrusion, and of looking for a more constructive future relationship between the press and the public in this country.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Christine Jardine Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

In the period in which people have raised concerns and said that they must be looked into in Leveson 2, every one that has been raised with me was covered in Leveson 1. Leveson 1 was exhaustive, and there were then police investigations, which went further. My judgment is about what is right now, and the challenges the press face now are fundamentally different.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that many of the challenges that the press face now are the result of the behaviour that led to Leveson 1 and undermined public confidence? The fact that the victims are not perceived as having had justice further undermines the press, and we would be helping the future of the press in this country if we continued along the lines of Leveson 2 and looked at how best to implement the recommendations of Leveson 1.

[Matt Hancock]

I think the representations from the press themselves show that they are not looking for help of that sort. Let us, however, look at the public: there is not a great public cry for this. In response to the consultation, 79% of direct responses favoured the full repeal of section 40. It is my job to address what we face now and the needs of the country now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 18, which my friend the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has so eloquently described. I would like to bring three words to the House’s attention: fairness, justice and honour. I say this not as a politician—although I hope that we would all hold those things in high regard—but because they were the things that originally attracted me to a career in journalism. That career involved challenging the establishment, questioning power and holding politicians, big business and powerful vested interests in the media to account. Standing here today, I do not believe that any good ethical journalist or publication in this country has anything to fear from revisiting the Leveson 2 inquiry. Indeed, I feel that they have much to gain.

The right hon. Member for Doncaster North talked about going with David Cameron and Nick Clegg to speak to the victims of hacking, and about the promise that was made to them. I respect the fact that this Parliament should not be held by promises made by another Parliament, but it would say a lot about this House if we were to hold to that promise. It would disappoint the public who are watching us today, hoping that we will live up to those standards of fairness, justice and honour, if we did not do so. That promise was about redressing the balance of power between the vested interests of the press and the ordinary public in this country. The ordinary public deserve the right of redress, and they deserve to have the confidence that everything has been done to safeguard their rights.

We have heard from the Secretary of State that time has moved on and that we live in a different culture, but the fact that we have moved on should not prevent us from learning the lessons of the past. If history teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that if we do not learn the lessons of the past, we will repeat our mistakes in the future. Today, we have an opportunity to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes that led to the hacking of phones, to the intrusion into the lives of innocent members of the public and to the hounding of people who were already suffering, such as the family of Madeleine McCann.

More than that, this is an opportunity to reassure members of the public who, as we have heard time and again over the past few years, feel detached from politics. They feel that we have somehow let them down and that we are not listening to them, but this is an opportunity to tell them that we are listening and that we hear their outrage at the way in which members of the public have been treated by the press—not all the press, but certain elements of it. I also understand the pressures on the press, as a former journalist and the wife of a journalist. I lived through my late husband’s employer announcing redundancies five years in a row, every year at Christmas. That is the reality of life in the modern media, but that is an economic pressure. It is not a pressure brought about by any ethical standard. It is the modern reality of the changes in technology that the industry is learning to deal with.

The Secretary of State said that we had moved on and that the culture had changed, but I would like to remind him of the Kerslake inquiry, and of the behaviour in Manchester that we have heard about. Unfortunately, the truth is that there are unethical individuals in every walk of life and in every profession. However, every other profession in this country—dentistry, medicine, the law—has a regulatory body that is underpinned by statute and that holds its members to a standard. Why should newspapers be exempt? I say that not as somebody who wants any restriction on freedom of the press; I believe that the fourth estate is a fundamental pillar of a free and democratic society. But it also has to be answerable, because freedom of the press should not mean freedom to intrude, to harass or to manufacture stories about individuals; it should mean freedom to be responsible and to be held to account, by the law and by the politicians who make the law.

Friends, the victims of the hacking scandal will be watching today to see whether we live up to the promise that was made to them by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, by David Cameron and by Nick Clegg. I appeal to Members, please do not be found wanting.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

May I say what a sad day this is? I pay tribute to the Government Chief Whip, who has worked exceptionally hard to try to protect the Government, which is particularly difficult, given that in 2013, 530 MPs voted for section 40 and only 13 voted against it. That vote was for the Courts and Crime Act 2013, which enshrined in law the low-cost access to justice that Lord Justice Leveson had agreed was necessary. That was first suggested by Lord Justice Leveson and then agreed to almost unanimously by all parties in Parliament. However, it was never commenced. Successive Secretaries of State have refused to commence the cost-shifting provisions that are so necessary for access to justice.

Section 40 is not about punishing newspapers that do not sign up to IMPRESS; it is about ensuring low-cost access to justice for vulnerable victims of press abuse. The first part of the Leveson inquiry uncovered the horrific scale of abuse, which was endemic in the press, and there have been many court cases and convictions since. Section 40 ensures that publishers that are members of an independently approved regulator that provides low-cost arbitration do not face expensive court costs. It also ensures that victims of press abuse who have been attacked by publications that are not members of an independently approved regulator can access justice via the courts without having to be extremely wealthy.

There are myths about section 40. The first myth is that it would damage the freedom of the press. That is not true. The press recognition panel is independent and was created by royal charter. The charter enshrines press freedom in law. Criterion 8 states that any regulator

“must take into account the importance of freedom of speech, the interests of the public… the need for journalists to protect confidential sources of information, and the rights of individuals.”

Criterion 17 states that such a regulator’s board

“should not have the power to prevent publication of any material, by anyone, or at any time”.

The only way to change the charter would be by a 66% super-majority in both Houses, plus the unanimous agreement of the press recognition panel’s board. This is not state regulation of the press, or even state regulation of the press regulators; it is the creation of an independent body that will apply Leveson’s criteria for a press regulator to potential self-funded press regulators.

The second myth is that it would threaten the existence of local newspapers. Again, that is not true. New clause 20 would protect all local newspapers that have a turnover of less than £100 million and exempt them from section 40. Local newspapers were generally omitted from the criticisms of Leveson 1, and they are rightly protected from costs shifting, which they might be unable to afford.

Ticket Touting: Musical Events

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are in constant contact with the industry. My officials have been in touch with the major event organisers UK Music to get the message out there that this is a powerful tool, which event managers and primary ticketers can use to oblige secondary sites to include the unique number on anything that they offer for resale.

I am also pleased, because I had personal involvement in this in my previous job at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, that last week I laid the draft regulations under section 106 of the Digital Economy Act, making a provision to ban the use of bots, and the purchase and resale—for profit—of more tickets than provided for by caps set by event organisers. I hope that that will be successful as well. Of course, the legislation has to be properly enforced.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Will the Minister tell me why the reselling of music venue tickets, which as we have heard is hugely damaging to the industry, is not comparable with sports tickets? It is actually illegal to have secondary sales on those.

[Margot James]

I think the hon. Lady is slightly mistaken. I believe it is only professional football that has that protection, for historical reasons. The rest of sport is dealt with in the same way as the music industry.

I welcomed the CMA’s announcement last week, as part of its ongoing enforcement investigation, that it had secured commitments from three of the largest secondary ticketing platforms to provide additional information. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that the one secondary site that has not yet co-operated is Viagogo, which is controlled from abroad. I believe it is based in Switzerland, which presents an extra challenge. I echo the remarks made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, advising customers not to use Viagogo’s services until it comes within the law. The CMA is concerned that all ticketing sites, secondary and primary, accept their responsibilities to consumers.

The Government are also giving approximately £15 million to National Trading Standards for national and cross-boundary enforcement. I welcomed the NTS’s announcement at the end of last year that its officers had conducted raids on a number of properties across the UK, resulting in four people being arrested under suspicion of breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. I congratulate National Trading Standards and local trading standards officers on their excellent work.

In addition, the Advertising Standards Authority has recently taken action against the main four secondary ticketing websites, banning the misleading presentation of pricing information on those websites. Companies will have to show prices in a clear, transparent and upfront manner before consumers make their purchasing decision. Hopefully, that will put an end to the drip-pricing practice that has been commonplace.

Clearly, enforcement bodies are taking the matter seriously. We are prepared to go after those who flout the law or abuse the ticketing market. The ticketing industry and online platforms need to take action, and we are attacking the situation on a number of fronts.

Google recently introduced new rules for ticket resellers advertising through its AdWords platform, requiring them to be certified. To apply for certification, they will need to comply with a number of rules to improve transparency, and stop implying that they are a

“primary or original provider of event tickets”.

We are getting at them through Google as well, and industry is becoming increasingly adept at using technology to improve the ticketing experience, exerting greater control over the transfer of tickets through the use, for example, of blockchain and “ticketless” tickets attached to fans’ mobile phones.

Leaving the EU: Tourism and the Creative Industries

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the UK leaving the EU on tourism and the creative industries.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to have the opportunity to debate the effect that Brexit could have on tourism and the creative industries in the UK. These are two vital and vibrant sectors of our economy, which I believe have largely been overlooked and underestimated in the Brexit debate. Their annual contribution to our economy needs to be acknowledged and protected. If Brexit goes ahead—I believe it is an “if”—these sectors will need special measures to prevent jobs from being lost and income draining from the economy.

It is no exaggeration to say that tourism and the creative industries are linchpins of our economy, which we cannot allow to be sacrificed on the Brexit altar of Conservative party self-preservation. Many of the millions of jobs and livelihoods that these industries support could be lost if we do not stop this dangerous economic self-harm. While they are significant separately, they also come together in some of our most iconic popular and cultural events, such as Glastonbury, the Proms and—for me, in my constituency, the most significant example—the Edinburgh International Festival and its Fringe. The Edinburgh festival is the biggest and most successful event of its type in the world, and has experienced seven decades of success—unending, growing success. It is a fantastic and awe-inspiring month-long festival of music, theatre, arts, books, comedy, street performers and now politics, but even it will not be immune to the threat posed by Brexit. You do not have to take my word for it, Mr Bone. The director of Festivals Edinburgh, which leads efforts to promote the city’s flagship events around the world, has said:

“There is a sense of threat and risk and making sure that Brexit doesn’t put us in a worse position.”

There are plenty of figures that illustrate the argument for both industries needing protection, but I will look first at tourism. Tourism encompasses about 250,000 small and medium-sized enterprises across the UK, and its growth is on a par with that of our digital industries. It supports approximately 3 million jobs, which are spread across every single local authority in Britain; this is not a problem that affects only one part of the country. Tourism brings in about £127 billion a year to the UK—9% of GDP. Around 37 million visitors come here every year, and in 2016 almost 70% of those visitors and 44% of what they spent came from other EU countries. Eight of our top 10 in-bound tourist markets are other EU states. Those visitors may now think twice about coming here. The UK’s tourism earnings from Europe will not be easily replaced by other markets, such as the USA and China, which require long-haul journeys and are much more difficult to access. In my own city of Edinburgh, almost 2 million international visitors spend £822 million a year—the figures are quite staggering. It is clear that if tourism begins to fail, or the industry begins to shrink, many areas, particularly our rural communities and parts of Scotland, will suffer badly. As I pointed out, jobs in every area of the country will be under threat.

There is a clear link to the hospitality industry and attractions, where, coincidentally, 50% of the workforce in Edinburgh come from other EU member countries. Those workers are now worried about their ability to stay and work in this country. The ripples of a decline in visitor numbers will reach far into other sectors of the economy—for example, aviation.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. As a remain voter, I am sympathetic to her position, but does she agree that sometimes one of the main drivers of tourism is the exchange rate, and one thing we have seen is increased tourism as a result of decreased value of the pound against the euro and other currencies, perhaps as a direct consequence of that Brexit vote? I know she will go on to develop this point, but does she also agree that the main concern is the workforce in the tourism industry—that so many workers in tourism are from Europe and overseas—and that, as in agriculture, that is a big problem that needs to be considered by the Government?

[Christine Jardine]

I do not agree that the decline in the value of the pound solves the problem, because it creates other problems elsewhere in the industry, as it suffered its biggest slump since the devaluation under Harold Wilson. However, I do agree that our main problem in this industry will be the workforce and how we will replace the workers who in parts of the country outside Edinburgh make up 20% of the workforce, but in Edinburgh and Glasgow in Scotland make up almost 50%.

Aviation is one of the UK’s success stories and supports 500,000 jobs in the tourism industry. The current ease of transit to and from the EU enables tourism to contribute £500 million a week to the economy, but 85% of the UK’s air traffic is through our EU membership.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

On the first point, I think we are seeing record levels of tourism in this country, because the pound has dropped—I think that is more or less indisputable. On the aviation point, does the hon. Lady agree that abolishing air passenger duty would give a bigger boost to the UK economy with no cost? A number of studies show that if air passenger duty were abolished, Treasury income from other sources, because of increased economic activity, would benefit the UK as a whole.

[Christine Jardine]

While air passenger duty might have an economic impact, it cannot overcome the biggest single problem: it will not allow planes to take off. We need a deal on coming out of the EU that will allow our flights to continue to take off and land in Europe, and travel across Europe with the same ease that they do today.

For the creative industries, the figures are, if anything, even more impressive: these industries are worth an estimated £90 billion to the economy and account for one in every 11 jobs. That is something we often overlook. Those jobs are in fashion design, video games, television, theatre, furniture design, radio and many other sectors. International broadcasters alone invest more than £1 billion a year in Britain. It is our fastest growing sector and the UK is currently a world leader in the field, with creative exports from Stormzy and Shakespeare to “The Great British Bake Off”, which define what the UK is to visitors we want to attract from across the globe.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the light of what the hon. Lady just listed and the importance of the creative industries to our wider economy, does she think it will be pertinent for the Government to appoint officials from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to the Department for Exiting the European Union?

[Christine Jardine]

That is not a point that I had previously considered, but I think it is well made. Perhaps that would help to alleviate the problems those industries might face and actually draw attention to some of them.

As I said, international broadcasters contribute about £1 billion to the economy. All of that economic strength—jobs, growth and potential—is undermined by Brexit. If our creative industries are not protected, world-class events such as the Edinburgh festival, Glastonbury and many others, will find that for musicians and artists who used to tour Europe freely, with no issues over EU crew, equipment licences or visas, the whole process will become slower, more expensive and in some cases not possible at all. Fashion, lighting and furniture designers will lose the benefits of cross-EU design rights. The video games, advertising, publishing, television and film sectors will lose access to the talent that is their lifeblood. Funding from Creative Europe is at risk.

If the UK’s creative industries are threatened, there will be an impact on tourism. As I said, the Edinburgh International Festival is the biggest event of its kind in the world. To put it into context, if we imagine the FIFA World cup coming to the UK every summer, we begin to understand the value and impact on the country’s economy that the Edinburgh festival has. In 2016 it was estimated that festival audiences accounting for around 4.5 million ticket sales generated £300 million for the economy, and that is not unusual.

The festival is the biggest, most high profile and most diverse in its scale and scope, with everything from street theatre to major orchestral concerts. Because of that, it offers a unique insight into why organisations representing our musicians, hotels, venues and performers are campaigning hard for protection against the potential damage of Brexit. The festival is regarded as one of the most important cultural events in the world. The Fringe in its own right is the world’s largest arts event, and there are affiliated events in film, art, books, science and television. Together they guarantee that throughout the summer my city is awash with tourists, often visiting the festival as a gateway to the rest of Scotland and the UK. Only the Olympics and the FIFA World cup are bigger attractions.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on an excellent speech. Does she agree that sharing art, music, sport and culture enriches people’s lives and our communities? In St Helens, we have had a twinning arrangement with Stuttgart for 70 years. We are very proud that people from there come to visit us, we visit them and we work together. Brexit should not put any of that in jeopardy. It is important we work together to ensure those partnerships endure.

[Christine Jardine]

I absolutely agree. The value of the creative industries to our economy is not simply in the money they bring in; it is in creating our culture and events for young people to enjoy, as well as bringing tourists to the country and maintaining that industry. The problem we face is that people might opt to take up opportunities on the continent or elsewhere after Brexit.

Music development organisations and other cultural groups might also find themselves without funding streams. That is the immediate effect, but collateral damage could be seen in other industries if the creative industries and tourism cease to be the cash cows the economy has come to depend on. Without freedom of movement, many of those who take part in these festivals may not wish, or be able, to stay. It is absolutely clear that if we are to protect those areas, which are central to not just our economy but our social and cultural wellbeing, our creative industries need changes now.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point about those working in the creative industries. Does she agree that without the right to work being protected, organisations such as Scottish Ballet in my constituency, which has a large international ensemble currently touring Scotland with the wonderful “Highland Fling”, might not be able to continue to attract the audiences it has or the talent it needs to put on such big performances?

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. It would not be stretching the point too far to say that not only Scottish Ballet, but Scottish Opera and every single arts event staged at the Edinburgh International Festival and other festivals in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK may face that problem.

The hon. Lady is from Glasgow. It is interesting to consider whether Glasgow would have benefited from the cultural renaissance that it has since 1990 if it had not been able to host the capital of culture that year. I was brought up in Glasgow. The difference that that single year of cultural events and the gathering of the creative industries in the city made cannot be overestimated.

We need to look hard at what the industries are asking for. Measures such as touring passports for musicians, special equipment licences and support for arts development are all ways that they can be helped. The creative industries must be at the top table. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) suggested that they should be represented in the Brexit Department. Indeed, they should. Membership of Creative Europe and Erasmus must be maintained, and the UK Government must agree to replace EU funding sources. Access to talent must be protected, touring performers must have a single EU-wide work permit, and mutual recognition of qualifications must be protected—the list is long.

There is a much simpler way of protecting not just the creative industries and tourism but every single industry in this country: taking the first opportunity we have to rethink the Brexit position completely. We must consider whether it is in fact better for all our industries for us to take an exit from Brexit and to allow the British people to decide whether it is what they actually want. The control that they desired might give them the opportunity to say, “Yes, we want to stay within the European Union.”

--- Later in debate ---

[David Duguid]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree that we have an opportunity to be a lot more positive about Brexit.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of varying VAT once we have left the European Union, but is he aware that 25 members of the European Union currently vary VAT on the tourism industry? In France, for example, it is only 9% for a hotel or a tourist attraction. It would be possible today for the UK Government to vary VAT on the tourism sector.

[David Duguid]

I have no reason to doubt the hon. Lady. That was not my understanding, but I will definitely look into that.

To conclude, we can be exceptionally proud of our creative and tourism industries in this country. I fully understand the concerns put forward by hon. Members as a result of Brexit, but I gently suggest that perhaps erring too much on the side of caution and pessimism is not necessarily the way to go. We are a world leader in this area, and that will not disappear overnight—far from it. The Government rightly speak about building a new global Britain after Brexit. Why not build it on the back of our sensational creative talent and beautiful destinations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this debate for rehearsing all the arguments and laying out clearly why tourism and the creative industries need protection and special measures to help them through the challenges they are going to face if Brexit goes ahead—everything from the impassioned plea from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for our creative industries as world leaders, to the argument that I confess I did not mean to spark between the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) about who has the most beautiful constituency. I would not like to comment on either of them, except to say they are both wrong—it is Edinburgh.

I hope the Minister will take on board everything he has heard from this side of the Chamber today.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Blagging: Leveson Inquiry

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Not only is that what is in place, but it is what must be in place. Ensuring that that happens and that, at the same time, the free press is protected and standards are protected is extremely important.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The Secretary of State tells us that the world has changed. May I remind him that when the Press Council was set up we were assured the world had changed, and then when the Press Complaints Commission was set up we were assured the world had changed? We do not know it has changed; we do not know that this action stopped with the Leveson inquiry. Perhaps the only way we would know was if we had Leveson 2. Will he reconsider having Leveson 2?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady tries to argue that things are not different from seven years ago. The challenges facing the press are different, but the polity is also different. We have legislative changes in the rules for the police—we have a new police code of ethics—and on the press side, we have a wholly new regulator. The idea that things are the same as they were is undermined by the fact that this is historical activity, not recent activity.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will start with a little anecdote about my local paper and IPSO. On 9 November, just four days after the Paradise papers story broke, the Hereford Times published the headline, “Tory MP dragged into offshore row”. It clearly implied a connection between me, a law firm I have never had anything to do with, and tax avoidance, which, equally, I have had nothing to do with. To make matters worse, the editor then chose to publish letters the next week from readers who believed that I was part of the Paradise papers. Amazingly, IPSO ruled that that was not misleading or inaccurate in any way. Even though the article contained factual inaccuracies that I had pointed out, IPSO’s complaints committee simply ignored them. IPSO is a press protector, not a press regulator. MPs can speak out against it in the public domain, but normal people have no such voice, so we need this excellent Bill, which I look forward to supporting, largely because of the amendments from Earl Attlee.

Let me describe the Hereford Times a little bit. It is owned by Newsquest, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gannett Company UK, the UK branch of Gannett Company—a US media giant. In 2015, Newsquest reported a loss of £24,349,000. Meanwhile, Gannett reported revenues of £2.89 billion and a net income of over £146 million. On 11 August 2017, Chris Morley from the National Union of Journalists described Newsquest as

“exporting tens of millions of pounds profit to its US masters”.

In October 2016, the NUJ said, after its pay survey, that Newsquest was one of the stingiest employers, despite Gannett paying its top five executives over £15 million between them. I am pleased to say that I do not believe that John Wilson, the rather hopeless editor of the Hereford Times, was one of them.

Moving on to Leveson 2, Baroness Hollins’ amendment provides for an inquiry with similar terms of reference to part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. I am obviously extremely disappointed that the Government last week chose to abandon Lord Leveson’s recommendations. The inquiry was always one inquiry in two parts, not two inquiries, and it should not stop halfway through. Sir Brian Leveson was absolutely clear in his letter to the Secretary of State that he does not want the inquiry to stop halfway. However, there is no justification for spending millions on part 2 if we are simply to abandon the recommendations of part 1. We must carry out the recommendations of part 1 and then continue with the second half of the inquiry.

An amendment put forward by Earl Attlee in the other place adds provisions similar to those in section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The Secretary of State last week suggested that the current system of press regulation was sufficient and that implementing section 40 would damage the freedom of the press and hurt vulnerable local papers, but he is wrong on all those counts. In response to the idea that the current system of regulation is sufficient, I point out that IPSO cannot be “largely compliant.” It is not possible to be largely pregnant—someone is either pregnant or not. As per the Secretary of State’s statement, a regulator either follows all 29 criteria or it does not. IPSO does not, and therefore it is not the method of press regulation that Leveson recommended and that has already been passed into law. The Secretary of State suggests that we do not need further regulation. Why would we regulate energy providers, communications providers and even exam providers, but simply decide to trust newspapers that have criminal convictions? That is plainly barmy.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is ironic that the press is not to be regulated, when broadcasters are, via Ofcom?

[Bill Wiggin]

Either we regulate or we do not, but we cannot do bits. That is why it is important that the Bill passes into law as it is. I agree with the hon. Lady.

The second accusation is that Earl Attlee’s amendments would damage the freedom of the press. The Press Recognition Panel is entirely independent of the Government and the press. It is funded by the Government, but so are the courts, and no one would accuse the judiciary of being influenced by the Government. In addition, the PRP’s charter is as good as unamendable, as amendment requires a 66% supermajority in both Houses and, crucially, the unanimous agreement of the PRP board, so any Government who chose to change press regulation would find it far easier to do so through primary legislation. It is fiction to think the PRP is anything other than independent.

Finally, it has been suggested that Earl Attlee’s amendments would harm local newspapers financially. Section 40 is not about punishing newspapers; it is about creating a fair and low-cost arbitration process that is good for local newspapers and for vulnerable individuals. Lord Leveson envisaged his proposals protecting local newspapers from rich and powerful litigants, and he certainly did not intend for newspapers to refuse to join a regulator.

Section 40 is not only desirable but necessary. IPSO will never agree to apply to become an approved regulator unless it is forced to, and section 40 would ensure that it happened. These measures already received the full support of both Houses in proceedings on the Crime and Courts Act. We must now implement them. The challenge goes out to the Opposition parties: there is support on both sides of the House for section 40, but if there are not sufficient Members here to vote for it, the Government will have their way. I hope we will make sure that this House does not bend the knee to the power of the press barons, but remembers its role to speak up for the vulnerable—the people who have no money, and who need a proper, fair and low-cost arbitration system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

Well, we do not know that. The difficulty is that a lengthy, costly process that in the end might not even achieve what was hoped for is not the answer. The answer, as the Secretary of State rightly said in his statement on Thursday, is to ensure that we shine a light through proper regulation on the practices that have done wrong to a number of people in the country.

I accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). We should absolutely focus on the rights of people in this country—people who cannot afford the voice to stand up for themselves—but Leveson 2 was never going to solve that issue. It was going to be a long-winded inquiry that would not have got there, and the Secretary of State made that point convincingly on Thursday.

[Christine Jardine]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me, a fellow former journalist, that one of the things that has most undermined the reputation of the media in this country in general has been the behaviour of our newspapers, which have seemed to the public to be beyond regulation? Self-regulation has failed and undermined the image of the media. The Press Complaints Commission failed, as the Press Council did. We had an opportunity to put that right, but it has been lost.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

The hon. Lady is right that the Press Complaints Commission did fail, which is why it is rightly no longer there and we now have a new framework. While we are talking in general about regulation, I should say that I have some sympathy with the question marks raised over the regulation of my former employer, the BBC. We got that wrong for many years. There was the bizarre situation in which the BBC board—later, the BBC Trust—was acting as both poacher and gamekeeper, marking its own homework. The Government have rightly sought to put that right and we have moved a long way towards doing so.

I do not believe that the answer to the wrongs that still exist in the regulatory regime for newspapers lies in the amendments that have come our way from the other end of the Palace of Westminster. I do not believe that they would do the job that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire rightly said, the people outside this place want us to do: to make sure that they have a fair right of reply when something wrong is done to them by newspapers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

rose—

[Christine Jardine]

rose—

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

If hon. Members do not mind, I am coming to the end of my remarks.

In my 20 years as a journalist at the BBC, I was passionate about freedom of speech and a right of reply, because that is the desperately important foundation on which our newspaper industry is based. I am also desperately passionate about ensuring that people who are wronged in some way by the media are given an effective response mechanism. Neither amendment that has come our way from the other place would achieve that. I am grateful to hear that the Opposition will support the Bill’s Second Reading, and I hope that we will not accept those two amendments and that we will pass the Bill as it was drafted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).

As we prepare to leave the European Union, this country is committed to remaining a global leader on data protection. Data flows are important for the UK and the EU economies, and we recognise the need for safeguards. The Bill is important in both promoting the flow of information sharing and protecting individuals’ personal data, while complying with the EU framework. It will ensure that our domestic data protection rules are aligned with our economic partners at the point of exit from the EU.

I welcome the measured response of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) to the Bill. While I agree that a balance must always be maintained between press freedom and the freedom of the individual, the amendments passed by the House of Lords are a direct threat to press freedom. This Government want to ensure that the press is well regulated and has high standards. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), who is no longer in his place, said, the amendments would do damage. Newspaper circulation continues to decline.

[Christine Jardine]

Would the hon. Gentleman contend that in the pursuit of press freedom, we should also do away with contempt of court and libel? That, to me, as a former journalist, is equivalent to suggesting that we should overturn the House of Lords amendments. The press is already regulated, and those regulations are important. It is important that we continue to ensure that we have a responsible press.

[Colin Clark]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have great respect for her, having debated with her on many occasions as we both tried to get elected to this place. I think that the amendments go a lot further than that and will do damage, and that is the crux of it.

Leveson 2 is unnecessary and would be backward-looking, as other Members have said. Regulation has moved on. The rise of digital news has led to the closure of hundreds of local newspapers, and commencing section 40 would threaten their fragile financial viability even more. The venerable newspapers in my own area—The Press and Journal and The Courier in Dundee—are important to the north-east of Scotland, but their sales have dropped by 10%. Section 40 would be calamitous to those papers. Local papers will become more important as we devolve powers to local communities, which we want to do. The Huntly Express and the advertisers, which have carried many stories on the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and myself over the years, would be undermined and threatened. We cannot see that happen if we want local democracy to continue.

Politicians deciding how newspapers should behave is a direct threat to our democracy, of which a free national and local press is an essential component. The data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office, will go a long way to defend consumer interests and can issue higher fines of up to 4% of global turnover. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State reassure us that the burden on businesses will be reduced. The UK is and will remain a safe destination for personal data. The Bill will help Britain prepare for a successful Brexit and make its own laws in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). It is fair to say that my party broadly supports much of this Bill, which is a vital component in our continued and smooth co-operation with the EU, should Brexit go ahead, but that support is not without qualification, which I shall come to shortly. As an EU member, we are assumed to be compliant with the requirements of the Union, but as a third party we will be required to demonstrate a suitable standard of protections. Failure to do this would jeopardise the co-operation that even the most zealous Brexiteers, I should imagine, want to maintain in defence and security.

The Data Protection Bill and the general data protection regulation bring existing best practice into law. This is not an onerous burden; it is a natural progression for information rights in the digital age. However, we have reservations about some aspects that we will discuss later. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) intends to speak about the proposed immigration exemptions. I had intended to concentrate on areas that deal with our personal data and the help that industry and charity organisations will need to cope with this regulation, but as the debate has progressed, I have become increasingly concerned about the Government’s intention to overthrow the amendment by the House of Lords. The Data Protection Bill is an important vehicle through which to bring forward recommendations from the Leveson inquiry, as this House promised to do. Data processing for investigative journalism purposes must strike a balance between press freedom and the individual’s right to privacy.

As a journalist, I value freedom of speech and freedom of the press as much as any other person. As a journalist, I was always impressed by and proud of colleagues who uncovered miscarriages of justice, political corruption or malpractice in India, for example. The freedom of the press to scrutinise and hold to account those in power—as the hon. Member for Dudley South said, the relationship between journalists and politicians should not be an easy one—is vital in a democracy. It must not, however, be at the cost of the individual—to their privacy in times of grief or hardship, to their hard-won personal and professional reputations—or mean chasing them when they have done nothing wrong other than perhaps disagree with the stance of a newspaper. That cannot be the way.

Newspapers in this country are not free of regulation. Broadcasting has to apply the standards set by Ofcom. Newspapers have to abide by the law of libel, contempt of court and the criminal code. All those things are necessary, but in an increasingly digital age it is necessary to ensure that all publications abide by data protection regulations. It is more than 20 years since Calcutt warned the press that they were drinking in the last chance saloon. Well, they have had their drink and frankly they have been thrown out. The Press Council failed; the Press Complaints Commission failed; and this House promised to bring forward a statutorily underpinned body. Self-regulation with statutory underpinning—it is good enough for every other industry, it is good enough for the Law Society, so why are we not prepared to follow through for the press? The vast majority of journalists are honourable. As the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said, we are talking about a small minority, but that small minority can do immense damage to individual’s lives—we saw it with the McCanns, with Milly Dowler and with the Hillsborough inquiry—and it is not good enough for us to say they are doing a good enough job; they patently are not, which is why I hope the House will uphold the amendments passed in the other place.

I turn now to what I had intended to speak about: the rights of individuals and the problem many have in talking about data and regulation. It sounds like a technical issue—something that does not affect them directly in their everyday lives. Algorithms are a mystery that many of us have no desire to investigate, never mind solve, yet they are a major influence in our increasingly technology-driven and social media-driven lives. Data harvesting can sneak into every corner of our existence, undertaken by public and private organisations—those we deal with and many that just want to deal with us, or use what they know about us. The information we provide tells them how to sell us everything from cars and mortgages to life insurance and funerals. As more and more information about our daily lives is digitally recorded, it is important that individuals have more control. With the passing of the Bill, we should all be able to rest assured that the information is being used both ethically and responsibly, including by the national and regional press, and that we have access to ensure that it is accurate, whether it is available to individuals or public or private bodies.

We should take into account that the information we provide can be used to infer information we have not given. For example, I am reliably informed that people who like curly fries are more likely to have high IQs. If someone was to pass on that culinary preference with their data, floods of adverts aimed at highly intelligent curly fries fans would be likely to follow. Occasionally, of course, it can all go wrong. Just after suffering a recent bereavement, I was in touch with a nationally known undertaker. Immediately afterwards, I was bombarded with adverts about planning for my own funeral, which is not really what anyone in that position wants. That is just an illustration of why it is important to the public that they have the right to view and correct or delete their own personal data, as laid out in the Bill. None of us wants false information out there about us that could prejudice decisions or jeopardise our security.

That, surely, is particularly important in relation to the many young people—a significant number of them children—who are regularly online. Ofcom estimates that 99% of under-16s are online for nearly 21 hours a week. The Children’s Society and YoungMinds surveyed more than 1,000 young people about their online experiences, both generally and more specifically with regard to cyber-bullying, and found that 61% of the under-18s who were surveyed had had their first experience of social media before the age of 13.

In setting the age of consent, it is important to be realistic about the lives of young people. Sixteen may not be an appropriate age of consent, or a realistic reflection of a situation in which practice allows only over-13s to have an account, but with no age verification. Young people need to learn their data and privacy rights much earlier, and that should be a mandatory part of their personal, social, health and economic education at school.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When it comes to the protection of children, there is a greater need for parents and guardians to be involved, but we often find that the care that ought to be there is not there. Has the hon. Lady any thoughts about how we could improve the situation?

[Christine Jardine]

I believe that parents should take more responsibility, but I think that the answer is to educate the children themselves and make them aware of the danger.

It will be important for the Government to support those who will feel extra strain as a result of the Bill, such as small and medium-sized enterprises and, indeed, the Information Commissioner’s Office itself. The ICO will have a much more proactive role in policing data protection matters and will be required to produce masses of guidance both now and after May. The office must be properly resourced to do its important job. There should also be targeted support for charities.

Many sectors—manufacturing, retail, health, information technology and financial services—are anxious for the free flow of data between ourselves and the European Union to continue with minimum disruption post Brexit. In an increasingly digital economy and society, that is critical for both our international trade and the protection of our rights of privacy. We must get this legislation right, and, as I said earlier, I believe that that will mean upholding the amendments passed in the other place.

Leveson Inquiry

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I do. To be frank, I am concerned by the statements coming out of some parts of our political system that seem to think that state control over newspapers is a good idea.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

As a former journalist, I am utterly dismayed by the Secretary of State’s statement. I value the freedom of the press, but does he not see the sad irony in talking about how the press has held the powerful to account and then closing the door on our opportunity to hold the powerful voices of the press to account on behalf of the victims? Those victims were promised the sort of legislation in section 40 that the Secretary of State is now turning away from. The problems faced by local newspapers and the newspaper industry in general are nothing to do with Leveson; they are to do with modern technology. Will the Secretary of State please reconsider thinking about the victims and giving them a chance to raise legitimate concerns under section 40?

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with the hon. Lady that there has been a big change because of modern technology. I want to make sure that we have high-quality journalism in future and that that cannot be undermined by any complainant having costs assigned to the newspaper for any complaint. That is no way to organise a system of press regulation. Instead, we have to make sure that we have sustainable business models for high-quality journalists so that, just as the hon. Lady had the opportunity to be a journalist in the past, people have that sort of opportunity in future.

BBC Pay

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I agree that a root-and-branch analysis is needed and must happen. There is of course much more to the BBC than just the high pay. There are the local stations and the local work, which receive far less scrutiny than many of these issues at the top. We must ensure that the solutions brought by transparency for top pay apply throughout the organisation, and apply to presenters and off-air staff right across the BBC, and not just at the top.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State. Does he share my deep disappointment in my former employer’s clumsy memo reminding staff of the need for impartiality on this matter at a time when it is facing criticism over the gender pay gap? Does not that call into question the corporation’s attitude to reporting to the Government on this issue, and indeed to the Equality Act itself?

[Matt Hancock]

The BBC appears to have demonstrated more enthusiasm for ensuring that those editorial guidelines are put in place on this matter than on many others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience and knowledge on this matter, and the House does well to listen to his wise words.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, as Channel 4 is not a programme maker but only a programme commissioner, there is limited benefit in moving staff, and surely it should be the programme making that reflects the diversity of the country?

[Karen Bradley]

This is one of the arguments that has been made about how Channel 4’s business model operates. We have seen what happened with the BBC’s move to Salford—although I accept that the BBC has a different business model. That creativity and clustering of talent has had benefit. One has only to look at the analysis of the amount of programming that is currently commissioned outside London to see that basing Channel 4 outside London could have significant benefits for those independent production companies that are not in SW1.

Russian Interference in UK Politics

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will not give way; I have got to finish now. The paranoid tendency to see a red under every bed is very much alive, albeit changed, and there is an explanation for such paranoia. Look at Trump’s victory, and look at the success of Brexit in the referendum. Things are not going the way of the liberals’ world view, and they cannot accept that the people—the workers, even—are abandoning their ideology, presuming that they ever agreed with it in the first place. The left knows that the people are never wrong, so when the people are wrong, as with Brexit or Trump, the left has a psychological need to find some excuse for the people’s misbehaviour.