Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I want to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend, who, like others, has improved the Bill no end through her work. I reiterate that what is illegal offline is illegal online. For online, we have used the Bill to introduce and enforce age verification. Age verification can, of course, take place only online, because it is about stopping people viewing such material online. I therefore think the point that she has just made is taken care of.

As for definitions, we had to use an existing definition but, as I said in my speech, we regard that as unfinished business. We have accepted an amendment that compels the Secretary of State to report, after consultation, between 12 and 18 months after this Bill is enacted. That report will provide the opportunity to take all the research into account and reach a good settlement that has strong support behind it, rather than doing everything in a rush just before the Dissolution of Parliament.

[Claire Perry]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments, and he neatly anticipates what I was going to say: I have no intention of causing trouble at this stage, because he has assured us from the Dispatch Box and in meetings of his firm commitment to making sure that these definitional questions are resolved in such a way as to enable all parties to support them.

Digital Economy Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

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

[Matt Hancock]

I recognise the strength of feeling across the Committee on this matter. I will certainly do the bidding of the hon. Member for City of Chester and pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty, who is a long-standing supporter of live music and has made his case. Last week, he introduced me to Josh Franceschi in the House of Commons, who was able to make his plea very directly.

I match my hon. Friend’s Green Day ticketing problem and raise him my Paul Simon ticket problem. I had a similar experience when buying tickets to see Paul Simon next week at the Royal Albert Hall, to which I am looking forward enormously. I had to pay an eye-watering amount for the tickets—much higher than the face value.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

If even the Minister cannot obtain tickets, given the strings he can pull, what hope is there for the ordinary punter?

[Matt Hancock]

I stress that I bought my tickets to see Paul Simon completely off my own bat, as a fan. My wife and I are enormously looking forward to going. I am prepared to pay the very high price because it will be such an amazing concert, but it would be far better if I could pay the face value or something close to it. I went online immediately the tickets were released and a huge number had gone already. Secondary ticketing sites were the only way that I could get the tickets. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty, I was bent over my laptop pressing the button trying to get the tickets as quickly as possible. I only say that to explain to the Committee that I feel the pain of all those who end up having to pay far more than face value because of automated bots.

The Committee will know that we asked Professor Michael Waterson to review secondary ticketing. His very good independent report makes a number of points relevant to the new clause. The offences set out in the Computer Misuse Act 1990 have broad application and the Waterson review concludes that unauthorised use of a computerised ticketing system to avoid ticket volume constraints may give rise to breaches of that Act. Such breaches need to be reported, investigated and case law then established.

Having said that, I recognise the very clear sense in the debate that there remains a problem to be solved. I reiterate the words of the Secretary of State, who said last week that

“the advice has always been that the Computer Misuse Act applied. I want to look carefully at that and see how best we can get to a robust position on this matter”.

She proposed to convene a meeting of all interested parties. If we can get it scheduled, we will have that meeting within a month; if not, I commit to holding it before Christmas.

Digital Economy Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 20th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Hancock]

The principle is that there is a distinction between those who are making money by targeting and are indifferent to potential harm and those whose services facilitate the provision of porn to those who are under age. I think it is a reasonable distinction. We are trying to deal with the mass of the problem. By its nature, it is very difficult to get to 100%. I think that leaving the Bill in this way, with flexibility for the regulator to act, has a big advantage over being overly prescriptive in primary legislation and too specific about the way in which the regulator acts, not least because disrupting the business model is the goal of trying to provide enforcement.

[Claire Perry]

I support the Minister’s point about over-prescription, but perhaps he could help me by talking about a particular case. Let us take Tumblr hosting a stream of content which is 18. Who would the regulator target if it issued an enforcement notice? Would it be the content provider, or would it be the social media platform that is hosting that content?

[Matt Hancock]

In that case, the platform—I do not want to get into individual platforms, but I am happy to take my hon. Friend’s example—would likely be an ancillary service provider and therefore captured. This is a very important distinction. There is a difference between somebody who is actively putting up adult material and choosing not to have age verification, and a platform where others put up adult material, where it is not necessarily impossible but much harder to have a control over the material. There is an important distinction here. If we try to pretend that everybody putting material onto a platform, for example, the one that my hon. Friend mentions, should be treated the same way as a porn-providing website, we will be led into very dangerous territory and it makes it harder to police this rather than easier. That is my argument.

On the specific amendments, I understand entirely where the argument on demand is coming from. I want to give an assurance which I hope will mean that these clauses will not be pushed to the vote. On-demand audio-visual media services under UK jurisdiction are excluded from part 3 of the Bill because they are regulated by Ofcom under part 4A of the Communications Act 2003. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said, other on-demand services that are not currently regulated in the UK will be caught by the Bill regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

Mr Stringer, I assume that, like me, you sometimes have the feeling that you have sat down before you have finished what you are saying. I apologise to the Committee. I am rarely short of words, but in this case I was.

I want to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol West and clarify exactly what we have asked and should be asking internet service providers to do. In doing so, I shall refer to the new EU net neutrality regulations, which, despite the Brexit vote, are due to come into force in December. They cause many of us concerns about the regime that our British internet service providers have put in place, which I believe leads the world—or, at least, the democratic free world; other countries are more draconian—in helping families to make these choices. We do not want all that good work to be unravelled.

Our current regime falls foul of the regime that the European Union is promoting, and unless the Government make a decision or at least give us some indication relatively quickly that they will not listen to that, we may have an issue in that all the progress that we have made may run out by December 2016. I would be grateful if the Minister told us what the Government are doing to get the new legislation on the statute book in line with the schedule set out by his colleague Baroness Shields last December.

We have an effective voluntarily filtering arrangement. I believe—I think that this point is in the scope of ancillary service providers—that we intend to capture internet service providers as part of the general suite of those responsible for implementing over-18 verification, but I want the Government to make crystal clear that they are aware of the responsibilities of internet service providers and intend for the regulator to include them in the basket of those that they will investigate and regulate.

The big missing link in all this has been getting content providers that provide material deemed to be pornographic to do anything with that material. The difference is that content providers of, say, gambling sites have always been required to have age-verification machinery sitting on their sites.

The hon. Member for Bristol West is quite right that we want ISPs to be captured under this regulatory regime, but I am keen to hear from the Minister that all the work that we have done with ISPs that have voluntarily done the socially and morally responsible thing and brought forward family-friendly filters will not be undone by December 2016, when the EU net neutrality regulations are intended to come into place.

[Matt Hancock]

Quite a lot of points have been raised, and I seek to address them all. Clause 22 is an important provision containing the powers at the heart of the new regime to enable the age-verification regulator to notify payment service providers and ancillary service providers that a person using their services is providing pornographic material in contravention of clause 15 or making prohibited material available on the internet to persons in the UK.

Amendments 66, 67, 77, 78, 90 and 91 would provide that the requirement to implement age verification does not fall on ISPs and further clarify that ISPs are to be considered ancillary service providers. Amendment 91 would clarify that as well as ISPs, domain name registrars, social media platforms and search engines are all to be considered ancillary service providers for the purposes of clause 22, which makes provision for the meaning of “ancillary service provider”.

This is a fast-moving area, and the BBFC, in its role as regulator, will be able to publish guidelines for the circumstances in which it will treat services provided in the course of business as either enabling or facilitating, as we discussed earlier. Although it will be for the regulator to consider on a case-by-case basis who is an ancillary service provider, it would be surprising if ISPs were not designated as ancillary service providers.

New clause 8 would impose a duty on internet service providers to provide a service that excludes adult-only content unless certain conditions are met. As I understand it, that measure is intended to protect the position of parental filters under net neutrality. However, it is our clear position that parental filters, where they can be turned off by the end user—that is, where they are a matter of user choice—are allowed under the EU regulation. We believe that the current arrangements are working well. They are based on a self-regulatory partnership and they are allowed under the forthcoming EU open internet access regulations.

[Claire Perry]

I think I understand the Minister to be saying that in cases where companies have introduced filters that are on by default, the fact that the users can choose to turn those filters off in the home means that they would not be captured by the net neutrality rules. Is that correct?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

David Austin of the BBFC said:

“We see this Bill as a significant step forward in terms of child protection.”––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 42, Q94.]

We think, on balance, that the regulator will have enough powers—for example, through the provisions on ancillary service providers—to take effective action against non-compliant sites. For that reason, I think this is the appropriate balance and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes to withdraw her amendment.

[Claire Perry]

I think that we are running through two definitions of ISPs: one relating to ancillary service providers and the other to enforcement and blocking. If we include ISPs in the definition of ancillary service providers, we want to make sure that they are captured, either explicitly or as a service provider. Is the Minister saying that he is comfortable with the enforcement regime without blocking? Would it require further legislation for blocking to be carried out if the regulator felt it was an appropriate measure? Are we ruling that out in this legislation?

[Claire Perry]

I apologise. I would like to conclude my speech by inviting the Minister to respond.

[Matt Hancock]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I would like to provide a point of clarity on the speech she has made. Treatment of an ASP will not lead to blocking. I think that is the answer to her question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I would expect that to happen immediately. The question of the designation of the backstop enforcement regulator does not stop or preclude the BBFC from getting going on this. As we have heard, it is already working to put in place its own internal systems. As I have just said to the Committee, we have a new commitment that we expect to commence the provisions in terms of getting the system up and running within 12 months of Royal Assent; after that, if the BBFC has designated that there is a problem, I would expect action to be immediate, because I expect the BBFC to ensure through good relations that systems are in place.

I see enforcement very much as a back-up to good behaviour. As we have seen with the taking down of child pornography and material related to terrorism, many providers and platforms respond rapidly when such material is identified. It will be far better if the system works without having to resort to enforcement. We will set out in due course who is best placed to be the regulator for enforcement, but the system is new, and the approach provides the level of flexibility that we need to get it right. I have every confidence in the BBFC’s ability and enthusiasm to deliver on these aims, so I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Enforcement of sections 15 and 19

[Claire Perry]

I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 20, page 21, line 5, at beginning insert

“If the person in contravention of section 15(1) is resident in the United Kingdom,”.

This amendment and amendments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 and 74 place a requirement on the age-verification regulator to impose fines where a UK person has contravened clause 15(1) unless the contravention has ceased; or to issue an enforcement notice to person outside of the UK who has contravened clause 15(1).

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I am thankful for the opportunity to respond. I will actually respond to the points made about these amendments, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, rather than the reiteration of the blocking debate, which we have had and will no doubt have again on further clauses.

First, clause 17 clearly makes provision for the Secretary of State to designate more than one person as a regulator. Secondly—a crucial point—the complexity in regulation is deciding who is satisfying the rules and who is not, and that is for the BBFC to determine, whereas issuing fines is essentially a matter of execution and could be fulfilled by a variety of bodies. We will come forward with more detail on that in due course.

I think the whack-a-mole analogy inadvertently made the point, which is that when we are trying to deal with a problem on the internet, where people can move about, we can deal with the mainstream of the problem, which comes from reliable providers of adult material, who are already engaged and want to ensure they comply with the law. In future, once this measure becomes law, refusing to put age verification on adult material will be illegal, so we will be dealing with illegal activity. That will mean that the vast majority of people will comply with the law, and we heard that very clearly in the evidence session. The question then is how to deal with non-compliance and on the internet we know that that is very difficult. The proposals are to deal with non-compliance by disrupting business models and by imposing financial penalties.

I understand what my hon. Friend is trying to do. She is trying to strengthen the imposition of financial controls. Inadvertently, however, her amendments would reduce the regulator’s discretion by obliging the it to apply sanctions when they are available, and they would remove the power to apply financial penalties to non-UK residents.

We want to be able to fine non-UK residents—difficult as that is—and there are international mechanisms for doing so. They do not necessarily reach every country in the world, but they reach a large number of countries. For instance, Visa and other payment providers are already engaged in making sure that we will be able to follow this illegal activity across borders.

Therefore, while I entirely understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, the amendments would inadvertently have the effect of removing the ability to apply an enforcement notice to a UK resident, although I am certain that that is not what she intended. So I resist the amendment but I give her the commitment that we have drafted the clause in such a way as to make it as easy as possible for the enforcement regulator to be able to take the financial route to enforcement.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, the provisions do extend to Scotland, with necessary modifications to Scottish law. I am sure that he, like me, will have seen clause 17(5) and clause 20(11)(b), which refer to modifications needed to be consistent with Scottish law. On the basis of that information, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.

[Claire Perry]

I thank the Minister for that clarification and for the mention of support. The intention was to help to provide a practical solution rather than cut off aims. He has persuaded me that I do not need to press the amendment to a vote. Although I take the point about shared regulation, I would ask him to consider in setting up the BBFC as the primary regulator that it is working reasonably well in the video-on-demand world, but this may be having them stray into a new sphere of expertise in terms of finding, identifying and sending out enforcement notices or penalties, particularly for foreign-based companies. I think the whack-a-mole analogy is entirely consistent—they will shut their doors and reopen in another jurisdiction almost overnight. Given the anonymity principles, it is sometimes almost impossible to know where they actually are. If the Minister is assuring us that everyone is aware of the problem, he believes the powers allow the regulator to be flexible, and it is something that his Department will consider, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful. I heard the BBFC or the Open Rights Group say that the incidence was very low, but it would do no harm to build an appeals process into the legislation to ensure that where sites that should not be blocked or require age verification have fallen through the cracks, that can be resolved at the behest of the regulator.

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct that there needs to be an appeals process. That process is provided for in clause 17(4):

“The Secretary of State must not make a designation under this section unless satisfied that arrangements will be maintained by the age-verification regulator for appeals”.

I agree with everything else she said. It is worth remarking on the recent announcement that gay and bisexual men will now be pardoned over abolished sexual offences—that is not in the Bill, so that remark was completely out of order, but I still think it was worth making. Appeals are important; I hope she is satisfied that they are provided for.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Age-verification regulator’s power to give notice of contravention to payment service providers and ancillary service providers

[Claire Perry]

I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 22, page 23, line 28, at end insert; “and

(c) the person has been the subject of a enforcement notice under section 20(2) and the contravention has not ceased.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

Then I will carry on, because it definitely is. I think I misspoke at the beginning when I talked about new clause 7. I was actually referring to new clause 6; it was just my note-taking.

I was trying ensure that we put in place series of protections, including enforcement notices that are acted upon, financial penalties that make a difference and the ability to stop income streams moving from the payment providers to the various content providers. I want to press the Minister on the question of blocking, because it comes back to the issue of why anyone would care. If somebody does not respond to an enforcement notice—if, for example, the fine is not sufficient to make them stop —how can it be that we are not considering blocking? Of course, we do that for other sites. I know it is not applicable to every form of illegal content, but I am very struck by copyright infringement, which generates take-down notices very swiftly, and upon which the entire provision of internet service providers and ancillary services act. I would be really interested to hear from the Minister why blocking has been rejected so far. Could it be put in place as a backstop power? I worry that, without it, all of this amazing progress will not have teeth.

[Matt Hancock]

It is sometimes said that Parliament skates over matters and does not get under the skin of things, but in the discussion we have just had Committee members displayed a great deal of analysis, experience and wisdom, and our debate on the Bill has been enriched by it. I am very grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who made very good contributions to help us get this right.

Exactly as the hon. Lady the Member for Sheffield, Heeley said, getting this right involves walking a tightrope between making sure that there is adequate enforcement and appropriate access for those for whom it is legally perfectly reasonable to access adult content. We must get that balance right. With that mind, we have drafted the clauses, particularly clause 22, to allow the regulator to operate with some freedom, because we also need to make sure that, over time, this remains a good system and is not overly prescriptive. It was ironic that in a speech about privacy, the hon. Lady started to speculate about which MPs enjoyed watching porn. I am definitely not going to do that.

The truth is that age verification technology is developing all the time. Online personal identity techniques are developing all the time, and indeed, the British Government are one of the leading lights in developing identity-verification software that also minimises the data needs for that verification and does not rely on especially large state databases to do that, and therefore does it in a relatively libertarian way, if I can put it that way. Providing for verification of identity or of age, because age without named identity is what is really being sought here, but is difficult to achieve, is an incredibly important issue. A huge amount of resource is going into that globally to get it right, and it ties closely to cyber security and the data protection requirements of any data.

The UK Data Protection Act has a broad consensus behind it and follows the simple principle that within an institution data can be shared, but data must not be shared between institutions. The institution that holds the data is responsible for their safekeeping and significant fines may be imposed for their inadvertent loss. The forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation increases those fines. Rather than reinventing data protection law for the purposes of age verification in this one case, it is better to rest on the long-established case law of data protection on which the Information Commissioner is the lead.

We had a very informed debate on the role of search engines. The regulator will be able to consider whether a search engine is an ancillary service provider. Although we do not specify it, I would expect ISPs to be regarded as ancillary service providers, but that will be for the regulator.

On the name of payment providers who are already engaged, rather than enforced engagement, we already have engagement from Visa, MasterCard, UK Cards Association and the Electronic Money Association, and clearly there a lot more organisations that can and should be engaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

I thank the Minister for that response. I would have liked to hear him say a little bit more about how the payment service providers are involved in the game and whether we are relying on them to do the right thing because they are large corporate companies, or whether, as new clause 6 proposed, there was an opportunity to strengthen the wording of the Bill.

[Matt Hancock]

I apologise; there were so many interesting points made that I did not get to that one.

The provision of pornography without an age verification in the UK will become illegal under this Bill. There is a vast panoply of financial regulation requiring that financial organisations do not engage with organisations that commit illegal activities, and it is through that well-embedded, international set of regulations that we intend to ensure that payment service providers do not engage with those who do not follow what is set out in the Bill. Rather than inventing a whole new system, we are essentially piggybacking on a very well-established financial control system.

[Claire Perry]

That is a very reassuring reply and I thank the Minister for it. We have had a very good debate. I know that his officials will be listening and thinking hard about what has been said, and I do not think it would serve the Committee any purpose to press my amendments or my new clause to a vote.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Louise Haigh]

It was interesting to hear the Minister refer to financial regulations. I was not present on Second Reading because I was not then in the position that I occupy now, but having read that debate I do not believe that there was any such reference. So we would like some clarity on who will be the regulator of the payment service providers and what work has already been done with the Financial Conduct Authority—I assume it will be with the FCA in this circumstance—to ensure that it will be regulating those providers, to make sure that they act with speed and due diligence on receiving notification from the age verification regulator under clause 15.

It is disappointing that the Government do not consider new clause 18 necessary to amend the Bill. I appreciate that the BBFC has been given powers to establish a code of practice, but given the very serious consequences that could result from that not being done correctly, some basic principles need to be embedded into the process, based on the issues that I raised earlier in our discussion.

I will just add that we will return to this issue on Report.

[Matt Hancock]

We have been engaging directly with payment service providers, although—no doubt as and when necessary—engagement with financial authorities will be made. Payment service providers can withdraw services from illegal activity under their existing terms and conditions, so the provision is already there for the measures to take effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Exercise of functions by the age-verification regulator

[Claire Perry]

I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 23, page 25, line 1, at end insert—

‘(3) The age-verification regulator must consult with any persons it considers appropriate, about the option to restrict the use of its powers to large pornography websites only.’

This amendment requires the age-verification regulator to consult on whether, in the exercising of its function, it should restrict its powers to large pornography websites only.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I do recognise that. My point is that making non-statutory guidance statutory will not help in that space, but there is clearly much more to do. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes will withdraw the amendment.

[Claire Perry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

Part of my reason for withdrawing my amendment was that I was encouraged by the word “principally” on line 35 of this page. It is not a restriction; the regulator certainly has the power under the clause to go after it. My issue is that there is a worry, although not with this regulator, that success will be defined by the number of websites or the number of enforcement notices issued. It is not about the number of websites; it is about the number of eyeballs going to them, so it is absolutely right that the regulator focuses on larger sites first. The wording of the Bill allows the regulator discretion to go after any site.

[Matt Hancock]

On the basis that I agree with that explanation also, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Digital Economy Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 20th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Hancock]

Amendments have been tabled by Members on both sides of the Committee. The argument that we should not table amendments in Committee is an argument for having Bills come out of the parliamentary process in exactly the same form as they go in. Even the Government would not make that case. The central point here is that we offered plenty of time, which was agreed on a cross-party basis, and the Labour party has asked to reduce that time. In considering whether there has been enough time in Committee, those who read the transcript in the weeks and months to come ought to recognise that the Government have been as accommodating as possible, but that we had to give way to the Labour party’s request for less time and scrutiny in Committee.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

We have a Minister who is engaging with the nuts and bolts of a Bill that was prepared long before he came to office. I, for one, am delighted that we have an active Minister who is determined to make this exceptionally important Bill as good as it can be. I do not accept this criticism. It is excellent that the Government are tabling these amendments and allowing time to consider them.

[Matt Hancock]

I obviously agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Yes—although I have had no discussions with them at a ministerial level about the amendments, I understand that discussions have taken place between officials. The effect of the amendments will be to make the law work better, so I hope they will have cross-party support.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendments made: Government amendment 9, in clause 14, page 17, line 18, leave out “Subsections (3A) and (3B)” and insert

“Section 41(7) and subsection (3B) above”.

Subsection (3C), inserted in section 107 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 by the clause, lists enactments displaced by the time limits mentioned in subsections (3A) and (3B). Subsection (3A) merely refers to section 41(7), and the amendment substitutes a direct reference to that provision for the reference to subsection (3A).

Government amendment 10, in clause 14, page 17, line 26, at end insert—

“(3D) In relation to proceedings in Scotland, subsection (3) of section 136 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (date when proceedings deemed to be commenced for the purposes of that section) applies also for the purposes of section 41(7) and subsection (3B) above.”.

The amendment adds provision about when proceedings in Scotland are deemed to be commenced for the purposes of the time limits in section 41(7) and new subsection (3B) of section 107 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006.

Government amendment 11, in clause 14, page 17, line 31, at end insert—

“() for subsection (8) substitute—

“(8) For further provision about prosecutions see section 107.””.—(Matt Hancock.)

Existing section 41(8) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 applies to section 41(7) and is superseded by section 107(3C) inserted by the clause (see amendment 9). Amendment 10 also inserts provision applying to section 41(7) into section 107. Amendment 11 therefore substitutes a subsection referring the reader to section 107.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Internet pornography: requirement to prevent access by persons under the age of 18

[Claire Perry]

I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 15, page 18, line 15, at end insert—

“(d) how persons can make a report to the age-verification regulator about pornographic material available on the internet on a commercial basis that is not complying with subsection (1).”.

This amendment places a requirement on the age-verification regulator to provide guidance as to how persons can report non-compliant pornography websites to the age-verification regulator.

I am extremely glad to have tabled a series of amendments to the vital provisions in part 3 of the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, we have come such a long way, and the enormous cross-party consensus to make the internet safer for young people has been crucial to that. We have seen some very effective sponsorship and responses from the previous Minister and his Department under the leadership of the last Prime Minister. Without his championship of this issue, we would not be where we are today.

My intention in tabling the amendments was to make provisions that are already good somewhat better, in the spirit of trying to encourage the Government to think hard about the line-by-line drafting. It has been made clear to me in meetings with organisations such as the British Board of Film Classification that there are ways to enhance the role of a regulator. I am delighted that the BBFC has been given the role, because it is truly a trusted brand; it is innovative and it does brilliant work to define age-rating boundaries. I have listened carefully to it.

What I am looking for is a clearer understanding of how the Government envisage the process of regulating websites and apps that provide access to material defined as pornographic in the UK. In his evidence session last week, David Austin referred to

“stages 1 to 3 of the regulation.”––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 39, Q84.]

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of how those different stages might work and to understand better how the enforcement element will work in practice—perhaps we will touch on that today but return to it in a later sitting.

I was struck by evidence given by those who do not support the changes; they feel that the issue is important but they argue that we should not be bringing in the new rules because we will not be able to make them stick. I must also mention my gratitude to the many organisations that have provided information and support on part 3 of the Bill. In particular, I note the contributions of Christian Action Research and Education, the Digital Policy Alliance, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Centre for Gender Equal Media.

My first amendment is to clause 15, which sets out the extremely welcome requirement that age verification should be introduced by websites and apps that are making commercial pornography available in the UK. Amendment 65 would add a new paragraph to clause 15(3) to strengthen enforcement by allowing the public and industry to provide intelligence to the regulator about the sites that do not have age verification.

I have always been struck by what we do not know about the internet. We all know that there is a massive proliferation of sites. I do accept what is said about much of the pornographic traffic concentrating around particular sites, but it grows like a Hydra every day. One of the BBFC’s most effective acts has been to allow effectively self-regulation and allow people to report and comment on a particular posting, which is, if you like, a sort of self-rating scheme. That would be extremely valuable. Clearly, the regulator cannot be expected to scrutinise the entire world of sites. Allowing members of the public and industry to notify the regulator that information is there that should be regulated would be helpful.

I note that the Digital Policy Alliance recommended in one of its parliamentary briefings back in April that this power should be available. It would be an excellent way to ensure that the public can feel involved in protecting their children. One of the messages I have heard over the past few years is how much families feel disempowered in the process of keeping their children safe. Of course, people accept the notion of parental responsibility and of course schools have become involved in this process, but we have made it uniquely difficult for families effectively to keep their children safe on a digital platform.

We have other rules and regulations around broadcast and written media that make it much easier for families wanting to be involved in that process. The amendment, allowing the BBFC to provide notice that these referrals can be made, would be very helpful. I note that David Austin of the BBFC said last week that he does intend to take referrals from the public.

Will the Minister please confirm that it is also the Government’s intention to promote the involvement of the whole community in championing online targeted child protection, and how this referral mechanism can be guaranteed? I hope he will consider this small change to the Bill.

[Matt Hancock]

Our intention is to establish a new regulatory framework and new regulatory powers tackling the viewing of adult content by minors. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend over many years in getting us to this point. It has already ensured that there is voluntary activity, and that there are now legislative proposals is in many ways largely thanks to her campaigning. I am delighted that we have reached this point.

I am also delighted that, as we heard last week, the British Board of Film Classification will be designated as the age verification regulator. That is undoubtedly the best body in the land to do that job. It has the capability, as we heard at the evidence session. It will be responsible for identifying and notifying infringing sites. That will enable payment providers and other ancillary services to withdraw services from those providers that do not comply as soon as possible. Proceeding in that way will allow us to work quickly and effectively with all parts of the industry to ensure that they are fully engaged—indeed, that engagement has already started. We need to ensure the system is robust but fair and the providers of pornographic material are encouraged to be compliant by the processes in place.

I have every confidence, as I think we all should, in the BBFC’s ability to deliver on this. We heard from David Austin, the chief executive, in evidence that he is already working on this. He said that the BBFC would create something, and that it has done so with mobile operators. I think that its commitment to enable members of the public and organisations such as the NSPCC to report a particular website is the best way forward. That is a sensible approach for the regulator to take.

We should take a proportionate approach to the regulator’s role and allow the BBFC to do the job at which it is expert. We have required the regulator to issue guidance in circumstances where it allows the subjects of regulation to understand how the regime applies to them, but I think that going further and requiring this level of specification is not necessary, given the BBFC’s commitment and the uncontroversial nature of the need. That will give us flexibility as well as a clear commitment to make this happen. I hope that given that explanation, my hon. Friend will withdraw her amendment.

Digital Economy Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Hancock]

I will look into that. I will be surprised if that does not happen already, but I will take it up.

[Claire Perry]

Will the Minister make representations that the threshold of 100 houses for the mandatory provision is perhaps a little high, certainly for those of us in rural constituencies?

Digital Economy Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

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

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

Q I welcome the commitment from BT to reach 100% of premises by 2020, but I ask for a point of clarification on language. Mr Williams, you referred in the percentages to “fibre” and, separately, to “fibre to the premises”. Can you confirm that by “fibre” you mean a combination of fibre and copper and that by “fibre to the premises” you mean pure fibre? The use of the term “fibre” reflects statistics that I understand mean fibre to the cabinet, so I find confusing the offer to households being “fibre plus copper”. I would be grateful if you clarified that.

Sean Williams: I am happy to. When I use the term “fibre broadband”, I mean fibre to the cabinet, which is a combination of rolling out fibre further into the network but with copper into the end premises. When I use the term “fibre into the premises” I mean fibre all the way into the building. I apologise for being unclear.

When I say we will deliver fibre broadband, it will largely be, in my view, through a combination of fibre and copper, but we are also very positive about fibre to the premises and typically deploy fibre to the premises in all new building sites and in lots of Broadband Delivery UK areas. We are developing fibre to the premises solutions that are particularly targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises. We have made a commitment that we will get ultrafast broadband speeds, which is both fibre and copper, and also fibre-to-the-premises solutions to 1 million SMEs by 2020. We have heard the prioritisation that the Government have put on getting very good broadband speeds to small and medium-sized enterprises and we have made a commitment we will get that to 1 million of them by 2020 as well.

[Claire Perry]

Q I am conscious of what Baroness Harding said about perhaps not setting a quantum, but do you think there should be a separate quantum for SMEs? One of the challenges we have is that there is not enough. We do not have separate legislation or, indeed, powers for cabling to new business parks. If I may ask a supplementary question, in my experience the issue with the USO is often with the broadband speeds in the household; it is not just a question of getting the cable to the front door or the bricks. What could the process be for dealing with those claims and helping householders realise that that might be a problem?

One final question: we would like the USO to be an average speed, rather than being achieved 15% of the time, or whatever the current average regulations are. What are your views on that? Are you prepared to commit to our offering an average USO of 10 megabits per second?

Baroness Harding: At the risk of being dangerously technical, I think we all try to summarise in the form of speed, but actually consumers and businesses would say that reliability and consistency are every bit as important as speed. The small businesses that are customers of TalkTalk would say, “It’s not the headline speed I need. I need it to work every single second when my customers are using the chip and pin machine in my small corner shop”, for example. So while speed is a useful proxy, it is not perfect.

The Minister gets to the nub of the issue: when you have a proper fibre network that goes all the way to the premises, you have upgrade potential. You just change the card in the rack of computers back at the exchange and you can go from 1G to 100G. You also have a much, much more reliable network. When it rains, water does not get into the copper and it does not stop working.

The small businesses that we talk to are very cross that the fibre-to-the-premises roll-out has missed out a lot of business parks—not necessarily because they want speed, but because they want a reliable service where they can upload as much as they can download and customers can always buy things from them.

I would therefore support being clearer in the detailed regulations that I presume Ofcom would set in specifying the service requirements for small businesses as opposed to consumers.

East Anglia Rail Franchise

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

Before I respond to an incredibly powerful set of speeches, may I crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, to put on the record my thanks to the staff of this place, who have done so much for us over the year? In my view, they never get thanked enough and I am truly grateful to them.

We have a star-studded Chamber for this Adjournment debate. Such debates are usually very ill-attended. I think there are more Members here than we had for the previous debate. It is quite terrifying to face this star-studded pack tonight. They represent—if I have not left anyone out—the fine counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire. They have very passionately and powerfully made the case for improvements in our railways.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). Like many new Members in the Chamber she has been an assiduous correspondent and lobbyist for improvements in her railways. She has focused specifically on the requirements of her constituents and on what the improvements will bring to the broader area.

I am pleased that I have the time to try to set out what we are attempting to achieve with the franchising process. There is a tension between specifying everything, crowding out any form of innovation in the market and not being able to cope with franchise change and setting out more broadly what we expect bidders to deliver, while letting them come up with the right solutions.

My hon. Friend, like others, very powerfully made her point about the need for new rolling stock. Indeed, she referred to what is currently running as “decrepit and aged”. We have discussed this matter, so she will know that we absolutely expect the rolling stock on the whole franchise to be transformed, because we completely agree with the assertions made about its unsuitability for purpose. But we want the market to go away and find the best solutions for customers, based on what different customers along the routes may need. There is a combination of inter-city, metro and suburban services, and we want the bidders to be creative in what they come up with. I can, however, tell my hon. Friends that the score that we will give to rolling stock in this franchise process is the highest ever. We are no longer in the business, as previous Governments were, of letting franchises purely on the economics. That did a huge disservice to the customers who use the routes. Now, the process asks what the economics look like and, crucially, what the quality looks like for the passengers. Rolling stock provision will have the highest score ever in this franchise.

We will also have very clear customer performance targets in the franchise. I was shocked to find out that we used to let operators set their own. How can we possibly run a contract with an operator if we do not know what we are contracting for? I of course want to contract for measures such as punctuality and reliability, but crucially I want to contract for customers, because these are not empty boxes rolling around the network; they are boxes full of people, often over-full of people, trying to get to their jobs or home to their lives. I reassure right hon. and hon. Members that we are expecting a transformation in the quality of the rolling stock.

Turning briefly to stations, I know that my hon. Friend’s station is a grand old building that features all of 20 car parking spaces. We should expect to see real improvements at that station and at many stations across the network. We have asked bidders to make those improvements. We have asked them to work against a 40-year asset management strategy. We are trying to extend the management of the assets beyond the franchise period to ensure that investment proposals can be properly made for the stations in the franchise. We will look at those proposals in the bids and hold bidders to account against them.

Turning briefly to routes and services, I was delighted that we were able to confirm the absolute requirement for Norwich in 90 and Ipswich in 60. I pay tribute to the group that has been led so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith); my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), who have to remain silent as they are on the Front Bench; and my dear friend the former rail Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns). That group has become the poster child for how to do it.

I am the most popular Minister and, in a way, the most unpopular Minister, because I am deluged in the Lobbies and at other times by people who want to talk about railways. What I say to them is, “Go and look at what was done in this study”, because, for the first time, it tried to capture that elusive thing that we all know is there: it asked, if we invest a bit of money in transport, what is the broader economic value that it delivers?

You will be amazed to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, or perhaps you will not, that every major infrastructure project in this country—the extension of the Jubilee line, HS1, the M25—has failed the economic value test that the Government have imposed on it, because such projects are looked at through a very narrow prism that does not factor in the economic value added that good transport investment brings. This group broke that mould and created a model—we are working hard to see how to capture this—that showed what we all instinctively know to be true: that if we invest in transport infrastructure, we grow the local, regional and national economy. That is an incredibly important point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds asks why no half-hourly service is specified between Ipswich and Cambridge, via Bury St Edmunds.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

And Newmarket.

[Claire Perry]

I do understand the need for special services on race days, my right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear.

Such a service has been looked at carefully and I looked at it again today. Two things would need to happen to make it work. The first is a series of infrastructure investments, including in the Ely North junction, which several Members have referenced. The disappointing news on that is that the original project cost of about £30 million to £40 million has escalated to more than £130 million in the current analysis. Given that we are in the business of delivering infrastructure against the very tight Hendy review, with a known amount of funding, that is simply not acceptable. The team has been sent away to look at how that work could be delivered more cost-effectively.

Other works such as doubling track, putting in passing loops or improving signalling capability would also need to happen to deliver a robust service. I believe that work will be done on that as part of the analysis going into the next control period, which starts in four years’ time.

Alternatively, a service could be provided that skips stops. One challenge on our network is that we always want stops from everywhere to anywhere, but it is also possible to provide fast and semi-fast services with slightly different stopping patterns. The beauty of having a unified group of people who work intelligently together, is that they can work out what such a measure might look like for the benefit of the region. I do not suggest that there should be a bidding process for whose station will be missed out, but we could consider whether there is a way to serve better an enormous housing development or a new town by using existing infrastructure.

It has become clear that we are good in this country at specifying enormous investments in infrastructure without necessarily thinking more creatively about how we could deliver that solution through better rolling stock or minor track improvements. For example, we might not necessarily need dual tracking, but perhaps there could be some passing places, and I encourage people to work on that.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The 1974 Act does not give that protection, because a test of negligence is not required to proceed with a prosecution. In future, proof of negligence will be required to bring a case. It will be possible to bring a civil action for a breach of common law duty of care only on the basis that the employer has been negligent.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I am enjoying the Minister’s attention to detail on this important matter. Will he reassure us that this provision will not add to the burden for small businesses because of the process of providing proof? Has he done any number crunching to show what it will mean for the businesses that matter so much to Britain?

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend anticipates my speech, because this provision will reduce the burdens on business. It is difficult to know precisely by how much because businesses react not only to the letter of the law, but to the perception of the law. There are perceived health and safety requirements that go beyond technical breaches of the law, and we want to remove them. One can go to the new Government website and ask whether something is required by health and safety legislation. Many of the cases that are brought to the Government’s attention are not required by health and safety legislation. The problem is the perception of health and safety legislation. By including a reasonableness defence, we will help to remove the implied, expected and perceived burdens on business.

Offshore Gambling and the Horseracing Levy

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this House on any day, but on a day like today, when the voice of the House has called so loudly, it is an honour indeed.

I shall speak about an issue that is extremely important to a large part of my constituency: offshore gambling and its relationship with horse racing. When they talk about hacking in Newmarket, they tend to be talking about something rather different to what the House was talking about earlier, because Newmarket is the global centre and headquarters of horse racing. Five thousand people employed in the town get their jobs and livelihoods directly or indirectly from the sport. That means that one third of employment is linked to the sport.

This is not just an issue for Newmarket, however; it is an issue for our whole country. I want to set out the argument that over the past few years, funding for horse racing has been in crisis and that the problem has in part been that those who make a profit from the sport through gambling have gone offshore to escape contributing to the sport on which they rely. I then want to propose action that the Government should take and set this in the wider context of changes that need to be made. We need to put this sport, which gives so much excitement to so many people, back on an even keel so that its funding is fair and secured for years to come.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject again in the House. As he knows, my constituency has a number of racing stables. I was recently at Richard Hannon’s stables in Herridge. It is not just the excitement that the sport brings; it is the employment that it provides for thousands of people across the country and the support that those people then bring to the rural community—to the shops and the pubs. It is an unbelievably important industry in so many of our constituencies. I commend my hon. Friend again for raising this important matter.

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes a typically passionate intervention. I am talking not just about the beauty and heritage of horse racing, but about jobs—not just those directly involved in the horse racing industry, but those in breeding, training and all the connected livelihoods that support the sport. I will give some examples of the problem. Over the past two or three years, funding of racing through the levy has declined rapidly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

It absolutely is, because bookies who go offshore for tax purposes also go offshore for regulatory purposes, and that means that all the high standards demanded by the British Horseracing Authority are not required of them. There have been instances of poor practice by bookmakers based elsewhere—for instance, in Gibraltar—who fall outside the regulatory practice in the UK. That is not necessarily because the bookie wanted to be outside the regulatory net; rather, they went because of the competitive pressure to reduce their tax and stop paying what had become a voluntary tax and a voluntary levy.

I come to the action that we need in the narrow sphere of offshore gambling. The case for action is strong, but what can we do? I propose a simple solution: we should make the requirement to pay tax and the levy in the UK part of a gambling licence. It is a simple change, but the consequence would be that no serious bookmaker could avoid what has become a voluntary tax, because they would be liable to the law of the land and would be unable to advertise in the UK. Indeed, they would also be unable to come to the UK, because what is currently tax avoidance would become tax evasion. My proposal is for a straightforward change that is being looked at in many other countries. Indeed, it has been enacted in Ireland, and a similar but bigger change has already been put through in France. In any other walk of life, we would not accept an industry choosing not to pay tax by moving headquarters offshore while continuing operations onshore in precisely the same way as before. Why should we allow the gambling industry to avoid tax in that way, when no one in this room could simply choose not to pay their income tax?

[Claire Perry]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, given his wide experience of economic matters, that we have debates in the Chamber and elsewhere all the time on tax evasion in other industries. Indeed, the way in which we tax people whose main sphere of operation is in the UK, and the need to prevent the kind of tax-shifting mechanisms that so many companies use, form a big part of the political discussion. Is he saying that we need another simple mechanism to ensure that an industry that primarily gets its funding and its excitement from the UK market properly pays its taxes in that market?

[Matthew Hancock]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. We need to ensure that the foundations on which the funding of racing is built are strong. We can then go on to deal with the wider task of replacing the broken levy system, which the racing industry, the gambling industry and the Government do not like, with a commercial arrangement that recognises the contribution that racing makes to the product on which gambling bases its bets.

I have spoken before in the Chamber about the need for a racing right, and I was delighted to see that that is one of the three proposals in the consultation put forward by the Minister. I urge him to push in that direction. Before he does so, however, it is critical that we solve the problem of offshore gambling. From the romance of the misty gallops on a Newmarket morning through to the excitement of the finishing post, racing is threaded through the history of our country and through the history and culture of my constituency. Let not its future be built on sand; instead—

Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

rose—

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

rose—

Horse Racing Levy

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but his phraseology lets slip the error in the argument. The betting industry gives no money to racing; it pays money to racing. I want a system in which that is sustainable. Of course, people who watch a sport should pay towards it. How much of the money made from media rights gets to the front line of racing is an important question, and I hope that those rights will be negotiated very tightly by racing in future. The amount of levy has fallen from more than £100 million to £65 million, but the levy reflects the fact that when people make bets, part of their stake is a contribution to the cost of putting on that race. It is appropriate for racing to charge bookmakers for using its output and product. That is the nub of the argument.

The first hole in the levy is offshore betting. UK consumers are reported to spend about £2.5 billion on internet and phone gambling, but operators licensed by the Gambling Commission represent less than a quarter of that—the rest is spent offshore. Three quarters of online betting, therefore, does not contribute to the levy or other taxes, and consumers are not protected under UK rules. Ireland’s recent budget began to tackle that, and I hope that the Minister will follow suit. I am sure that such a measure would have the support of the gambling industry. I spoke to the big gambling organisations in the run-up to this debate. Each firm told me that it considered going offshore only because all the others are doing so. Let us bring all those firms onshore and subject bets to the levy and the appropriate tax here in Britain.

Betting exchanges are the second hole in the levy. Currently, exchanges pay 10% of the levy on profits that derive from commission from winning bets on each market. However, that produces very little for the levy—less than 0.5%—compared with the return from the same activity with traditional bookmakers. According to Betfair, some users of betting exchanges place around 1,000 bets per hour, but pay no levy or tax because they close their bets before the race is concluded. I am delighted that Betfair paid around £6 million to the levy last year, and by its widespread sponsorship, but the loss to the levy from the fact that exchanges are treated inappropriately is roughly £25 million, and I urge the Government to act.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate that is hugely important in my constituency, where we have a lovely combination of free-draining soil, chalk and turf that does not freeze very easily, hence our important training and racing industry. Exchange transactions are frequently concerned with how many goals will be scored in a football match or whether a player will show up, and other things that do not have a cost associated with them and have almost no benefit to the rural economies we are so proud to represent. Does he agree that part of the reason for securing a change to the levy is so that the industries that employ thousands of people and have a material benefit in our rural communities—they are hugely important—can be adequately supported?

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes her case with the passion to which we have become accustomed.

The third hole in the levy is that outdated threshold rules exempt approximately two thirds of betting shops from paying the full rate. Thresholds were brought in to protect small independent bookmakers, but because the threshold applies to the shop and not to the company, we have a proliferation of corporate betting shops up and down our high street—in Newmarket, we are about to get our 12th. This allows betting shops to profit from fixed odds betting terminals while avoiding some of the levy. Independent members of the levy board say that this threshold error costs racing some £10 million. They think that it should be abolished, and I hope that the Minister will listen.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman answers his own question when he says that the previous Government did nothing about the problem over the last 10 years. As for this new argument I am hearing expressed by Labour Members, that we had a large deficit in 1945—yes, we did, but we also had large cuts in 1945 and not least to the military because we had just won a war. There are no such easy reductions now because of the mess left by the Labour party—[Interruption.] I will take no lessons from what the hon. Gentleman shouts out from a sedentary position. At one point in the last three years, £8 billion was spent on redundancy payouts. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is willing to defend very high payouts, but we seem to be getting a reaction on the Labour side against any change to anything. It is a great pity that Labour Members do not engage in the process of trying to deal with the deficit as we Conservative Members do.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I would like to focus on the average rather than the outliers, as that seems to elicit cries of outrage from the Opposition. It is an incontrovertible fact that if we look at the average redundancy payout and average compensation, we find that the average cost in the private sector in autumn 2008 was £8,981, while it was £17,926 in the public sector—almost twice as much. That demonstrates that we have reached a position where, on average, people are being paid twice as much to retire from the civil service as they are to retire from the private sector. There is nothing fair about that.

[Matthew Hancock]

It is always dangerous to give way to my hon. Friend, because she usually puts the point far more lucidly than one could oneself.

I was going to come on precisely to that point—my second point about fairness. Not only is it fair to deal with the deficit and, I think, unfair to give enormous payouts when we have to achieve other very difficult things, but fairness across the economy and across society is also important. The maximum payout in the mandatory private sector compensation scheme, for which this House legislated, is £11,400, yet the proposal is nowhere near that figure within the public sector.

It was interesting to note that when the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), responded to an intervention about whether it was fair to have a similar sort of payoff scheme in the private sector as in the public sector, she effectively said that she was not in favour of equality. I thought that Labour Members were in favour of equality, but obviously not when it does not suit.

Industry (Government Support)

Debate between Claire Perry and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I think that is one for the Budget statement on Tuesday.

Finally, we are starting to get the answers to some of these deep-rooted problems. We heard today about the changes to financial regulation, and I wonder how long it will take the Labour party to involve itself in the debate about the future of financial regulation. We think that banks should be properly regulated, not regulated under the old system that failed. The Government are also putting forward solutions to help credit flow to businesses; we are getting increased certainty in the tax system; and of course we have measures to tackle the deficit. As a result of those last measures, since the election, the interest rates paid on Government bonds has fallen by 0.4%—one tenth—which means that the interest on Government debt has fallen by one tenth in just over a month since the election, in anticipation of action to deal with the deficit.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I want to emphasise that point. We heard so much about the financial stability that the previous Government were going to give us, yet the international markets have sent out an incredibly strong signal: that we finally have a Government with the guts and the policies to tackle this deficit, which hon. Members who are now on the Opposition Benches could never even own up to, let alone deal with. The markets are saying, “This is now a country that we want to invest in again,” and interest rates have fallen as a consequence. I want to underline the importance of the statistic that my hon. Friend gave in demonstrating the world’s view of Britain finally being open to business, now that we have had a change of Government.

[Matthew Hancock]

I agree with my hon. Friend.