Arts Council England: Funding

Damian Collins Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. He was right to remind us that when the Arts Council was established, its principal role was to promote art for art’s sake and to promote excellence, and through doing so to give people the opportunity to experience excellence in the whole range of arts, from figurative and decorative to performing arts, and provide people with the opportunity to develop their talents. That should be something that is accessible to the whole country, and that is why the Arts Council was created. It is also perfectly legitimate that the Arts Council, which is in receipt of a large amount of public money, should be challenged and scrutinised over how it allocates those funds and the strategies that it deploys.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend may be aware that two leading arts commentators have published a pamphlet calling for the Arts Council to be abolished. Their reason was that it has been taken over by “highly-politicised staff” whose left-wing “woke agenda” is generally failing to support the arts. That came on the back of a case last year in which £3 million of taxpayers’ money was provided to a company that published posters stating that “straight white men” should “pass the power”. Does my hon. Friend agree that decisions such as this will raise legitimate questions among the general public about the level of oversight of some of these Arts Council decisions?

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There should be a clear strategy for allocated funds. It is right that the Arts Council is an arm’s length body and free to make decisions based on artistic merit that some people will agree with and others will not.

However, there is a clear strategy for how that benefits the whole nation, not parts of it. London receives a large amount of money because we have larger national institutions here. They demonstrate the benefit that they bring to the whole country, be that through touring exhibitions and performances or through the other cultural institutions around the country operated by the Tate, the V&A and so on.

It is important that there is a clear strategy and the Arts Council is held to account for it, because anyone who is in receipt of public money should be held to account. It is right that the funding strategy works for the national portfolio organisations on a three-year settlement, because organisations need to be able to plan for the future. While we welcome the additional year’s money that has been granted to the ENO for the coming year—it means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has said, that the 2023-24 season can go ahead—it gives no certainty beyond that and does not enable the ENO to make any further investment decisions. Even if the Arts Council had said, “We want the ENO to try to increase revenue from other sources,” that is not a compelling bid to take forward when the public money that the ENO relies on is no longer guaranteed. Who would match fund against public money that might not be there in just over a year’s time?

There needs to be a degree of certainty. There will always be more demands on the Arts Council than it can fulfil, and there will always be people it has to let down, but that is why having a clear strategy, plan and understanding with the organisations that it funds is so important. It cannot be right to take a major national institution such as the ENO that has been funded in a certain way for many years and pull the rug out from under it with very little notice; I understand that the ENO had 24 hours’ notice of the decision.

It would be perfectly legitimate for the Arts Council to say, “We must review the way opera is funded, and we want a strategy for that. We might want to look at how other revenue can support the opera, but we are going to do that during a transition period. What we are not going to do is create a cliff edge whereby the required funding is not there.” As hon. Members have said, not only has the decision had a direct impact on the ENO as an organisation, but the cuts have had a knock-on impact on arts and opera in the regions, which the Arts Council is there to support. That is the best evidence of the lack of a clear strategy. The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), raised that in his intervention.

The Coliseum is subsidised by the ENO to the tune of about £2 million a year. If the ENO cannot support the Coliseum as a building, who else will go into it? Who will pay those costs? Will we be left in the invidious position of using public money that should go into supporting performance arts to subsidise a building that nobody can use? That, again, demonstrates the lack of clear strategy. My constituency has organisations that benefit from national portfolio funding, not least Creative Folkestone. Less than 20% of its funding comes from the Arts Council; it has a diverse form of income, and that is right, but the extra money that it gets from the Arts Council enables it to do more, to do better things and plan for the future.

At the end of this sorry saga, we need to get to a position where the ENO can plan for the future and invest in the future. If that is against a strategy to do more in the regions and more to reach diverse audiences, it needs a fair funding settlement to enable it to develop that strategy. We must recognise, too, that with major cultural institutions such as the ENO, what we see on the stage is, in some ways, the icing on the cake. There is a long tail of people who rely on that institution being there—the people who will develop their talents and may go on to work in other companies, the regional companies and tours that will be supported by that, and the people who are involved in costume design and set design—and a great variety of projects that are there to support people. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) mentioned the fantastic Breathe project that the ENO ran. All those things are lost if the ENO has no secure future. While yesterday’s announcement is welcome, there has to be a longer-term plan, otherwise we will simply be back in this position in a few months’ time.

Sport in Schools and Communities

Damian Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

I am acutely aware of the concerns of many hon. Members about leisure centres and costs. Of course, the scheme that was announced initially has helped a great deal in that area, but to recognise the importance of the matter, I am holding a roundtable with some interested bodies in the coming weeks to look at it in more detail and see what else we can do.

As a Government, we are focused on how we can support our children and young people to become more active. Quite simply, sport and physical activity are a lifelong habit that needs to be carefully nurtured. We are committed to ensuring that every child, regardless of their background, has access to and benefits from quality sporting opportunities. Dealing with this challenge has never been more important than when we are coming out of the pandemic. Some 2.2 million children—or 30%—are not meeting the chief medical officer’s guidance on levels of activity. I was pleased to see in the latest active lives survey for children, which was released in December, that children’s activity levels have recovered to pre-pandemic levels. There were particularly significant increases in the activity levels of teenage girls. Although that positive progress should be applauded, we know that more work needs to be done to ensure that every child realises the benefits of being active and playing sport.

We are taking action to tackle that challenge. In partnership with colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, we continue to invest £320 million per year in the PE and sport premium to provide dedicated funding to primary schools to deliver high-quality PE provision. We also continue to fund the school games programme as a vital tool to encourage children to compete in competitive sport.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stuart Andrew]

Before I finish, I will take one more intervention.

[Damian Collins]

I am grateful. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Sports Trust in Folkestone and Hythe, which delivers a lot of primary school sport activity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in encouraging best practice, it is important to look not just at levels of activity in and out of school, but at the improvement in academic attainment in schools that do a lot of sport? It has much wider benefits than just physical health, including academic attainment.

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The benefits of physical activity are widespread, as I mentioned at the beginning. He is right to highlight that point, and we will make sure to consider it as we develop the strategy.

Last year, we saw how sport has the power to inspire. The fantastic success of the Lionesses marked a step change for women’s sport in this country, and we are fully committed to ensuring that all girls have equal access to provision within schools and to looking at how PE can deliver that. As a Government, we are committed to publishing an update to the school sport and physical activity action plan this year, which will set out our ambitions and next steps to support more children to take part in sports.

In conclusion, I welcome this debate on such an important topic. As I have set out, we are already taking action, and as we look to publish our sports strategy later this year, and the updated school sport and physical activity action plan, we will set the blueprint for how the Government will continue to support more people to enjoy the benefits of sport and then take advantage of the many benefits that we know it brings for everybody.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

T6. States in the USA such as Texas and California have a larger GDP than many European nations. Aside from the UK-US trade negotiations, will the Minister say what progress is being made on trade deals between the UK and individual states in the USA?

[Penny Mordaunt]

We are making considerable progress on that. We are in discussions with around 20 US states. I have just returned from Texas, which if it were a country in its own right would be the seventh largest economy in the world. We are going to do a state-level agreement with Texas, we hope, by October this year. We will start signing those agreements with US states next month. The first eight we have in the pipeline will be equivalent to 20% of the United States economy.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]]

The UK is one of the world’s greatest centres for digital trade, a sector that is vital to the future success of our economy. We want to attract investment and talent from across the globe and open up markets to the services that British companies provide.

Data is the fuel of the digital economy, driving everything that people and businesses see and do online. We need to work towards common standards among nations in how data is gathered, stored and processed, which can give citizens certainty about the security of their personal data when they share information with businesses online, as well as when they use apps on smart devices and cloud storage systems. We know that people care about these issues: more than 90% of iPhone users who have been given the choice have opted out of allowing apps such as Facebook to access data from non-Facebook apps on their devices.

At the recent G7 summit, the Government led successful negotiations between nations to create a business tax regime that is fit for the digital world. Trade agreements can also be used to help to establish common standards for data protection and processing. Laws affecting digital regulation and data protection should be set by Parliament rather than in trade agreements, which is why I spoke against the proposal by President Trump’s Government to include in trade agreements American legislation limiting the liability of tech platforms for the content posted on their sites—a measure that would restrict our ability to legislate to improve online safety, for example. That had formed part of the US’s agreements with Canada, Japan and Mexico, but I was pleased to receive assurances from the Secretary of State that it was something that we would not accept.

The CPTPP agreement seeks not to impose new digital and data policy, but to create certainty for citizens and businesses alike about the safety of their data and the interoperability of systems. I know that the Department for International Trade has closely consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office on the CPTPP’s terms and the obligations that it creates; in the ICO’s opinion, it is compatible with UK data protection law. It has also noted that a number of CPTPP member countries have already been granted data adequacy decisions under the EU’s GDPR, including Canada, Japan and New Zealand. The CPTPP also contains provisions similar to those in the UK-Japan agreement recognising the importance of data protection to electronic commerce and committing all parties to implementing a data protection framework that takes relevant international standards into consideration.

The ICO believes that it is possible to have separate but complementary data adequacy processes with international trade agreements. In Asia-Pacific, such agreements tend towards greater reference to international data transfers and the free flow of data in agreements, particularly to address risks of data localisation. It is important, however, to properly consider and understand the implications of any provisions in trade deals that cover privacy and data protection, particularly with regard to the processing of UK citizens’ data in a third country.

Trade Bill

Damian Collins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I know we have had some problems getting through to you, Damian, but I am glad to see that the communications are now working.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]]

I will be speaking to Lords amendment 7, tabled by Baroness Kidron, which seeks to protect the rights of children online with regard to the use of their data and the design of services targeted at them. This has been enshrined in UK legislation through the age-appropriate design code—something that Baroness Kidron has been a tireless campaigner for. That world-leading piece of legislation is already influencing the decisions of technology companies on how they design and create tools for young people to use online.

In opening the debate earlier, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy told the House that the Government’s forthcoming online harms Bill was the correct place to ensure the internet safety of children and all UK citizens. However, I understand why Baroness Kidron moved to insert Lords amendment 7 in the Bill, to ensure that those rights cannot be traded away in the small print of a future agreement. We can easily see how rights granted in international trade agreements on how companies can use data, where they can processes it and whether they can be subject to an independent audit of their algorithms could undermine the ability to create and enforce a robust duty of care regime on technology companies to meet their obligations to tackle online harms. In fact, in the trade negotiations between the UK Government and the outgoing Trump Administration in America, the US negotiators have sought to do just that. President Trump’s Government have sought to persuade the UK to trade away digital and data rights as part of securing a deal, as they have done in their agreements with Canada, Mexico and Japan. That would clearly be unacceptable, and I am pleased that Ministers continue to reassure me and others that they would not allow that to happen. Indeed, the UK has objected to those provisions being inserted in the trade agreement. A first positive step from the incoming Biden Administration will be to remove those clauses from the negotiating text.

It is important, though, for us to consider how the House will scrutinise detailed trade negotiations involving data and citizens’ and children’s rights online. I would not want to see trade agreements becoming the mechanism through which domestic legislation is undermined. In the agricultural and food sectors, the Government have now given a particular role in statute to the Trade and Agriculture Commission to advise Parliament on the impact of future trade deals on food standards and food safety. The Information Commissioner’s Office should have the same role on a formal basis to give advice to Parliament on the impact of draft trade agreements with regard to child protection, data sharing and data privacy.

A consumer can make a decision about whether they want to buy goods or not, depending on how they are made. Governments can enter into trade agreements to seek to reduce tariffs on particular goods to boost trade, create jobs and lower costs to consumers. All of those actions can be good things, but the impact of getting trade agreements wrong on data privacy and protection can be hard to see. It is hard to see how someone is exploiting a loophole in a trade agreement to gain improper access to someone’s data and to use it in ways to which they would not have consented. That is why it is so important that we safeguard digital rights online.

I will not be voting against the Government tonight on these amendments, but I ask the Minister to consider a formal role for the Information Commissioner to advise Parliament on future trade agreements, and in particular to make sure that they comply with our data protection laws and the age-appropriate design code, to keep children safe online.

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]]

I will first talk to Lords amendment 1, pertaining to parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill provides inadequate statutory procedures for parliamentary scrutiny and ratification of trade agreements, and Lords amendment 1 seeks to remedy that. It also ensures parliamentary engagement and scrutiny during the negotiation process and consultations with devolved authorities and means that the Government are obliged to seek approval from both Houses of Parliament before becoming a signatory to any trade deal. It means that colleagues across the House can scrutinise any agreements that impact on our constituents or Britain’s reputation and standing on the international stage.

The amendment is important as it ensures that an independent impact assessment is carried out on any proposed trade deal on human rights and equalities, employment and labour and the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, among a whole host of other important markers.

On the back of that, I am also proud to give my support to Lords amendment 2, which ensures that we do not embark on trade agreements with countries that have committed grave human rights abuses. By creating a triple-lock barrier against such agreements, the amendment ensures that we will keep our international and national commitments to respect human rights, guaranteeing that we do not enter trade negotiations with those who seek to undermine human rights principles through actions such as unlawful detention and the unlawful killing of citizens.

Lords amendment 3 sets out in clear terms the UK’s determination to abide by human rights principles, standing firmly against the grave human rights abuse of genocide more specifically. By voting against that amendment, the Government will showcase that a country committing genocide is not of any consequence for the UK when seeking trade deals, which ultimately makes us complicit. The amendment ensures that we do not do business with countries that have a low regard for human life.

I also speak in support of Lords amendment 4, which seeks to protect our NHS and NHS data and safeguards our NHS, particularly in the event of a trade deal with the United States, which is of the utmost importance. The amendment protects NHS patient data against private healthcare corporations. The amendment is crucial, as it prevents the Government from making deals with those who want to undermine the Government’s ability to deliver free, universal public health and care services. It sends a strong message that our NHS is not for sale and that this Government are committed to respecting and protecting the long legacy of providing free healthcare to all at the point of use.

Finally, I also support Lords amendment 7, which focuses on protecting children from online harm. The Government have gone so far with the online harms White Paper to outline the actions they are determined to take to protect young people online. The amendment provides another opportunity for the Government to protect young people when they use the internet, particularly when the Government are seeking to embark on trade negotiations with countries that have poor or relaxed online protections.

UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement

Damian Collins Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I rise in support of the trade agreement that has been reached with Japan, and I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State on their efforts to secure this very important deal. In terms of scrutiny of the process, I have been grateful that the Minister’s door has always been open to my questions, particularly about digital and data policy relating to trade agreements, whether this agreement or the other agreements currently being negotiated. I note that he offered last week to write to me with a detailed note setting out the differences in data and digital policy between this trade agreement with Japan versus the EU-Japan trade agreement.

The Government have been clear that this is an enhanced deal. I welcome anything that increases the scope for digital trade in this country, because it is incredibly important to our future growth. These are industries of the future, and the UK is a world-leading nation, but I raise an issue that is important for this agreement and for other agreements as well, which is the scrutiny of data and digital policy as it is concluded in trade agreements. It would be worth while to have an opportunity to scrutinise the reports from the Information Commissioner on digital agreements, because the commissioner is responsible for the enforcement of our data protection rights.

I note as well that the Government say that there are high levels of data protection in this agreement, but this agreement means that UK data can be processed by data processors in Japan, rather than that having to be done here. We know that Japan has a data agreement with the US, which allows the free flow of data between Japan and the US, so people will naturally ask, “Does that mean that UK citizens’ data could end up, via Japan, being processed in the US, outside UK data protection laws?” I know that is not what the Government or the Minister want, and I am sure there are safeguards to ensure that cannot happen, but nevertheless those are natural concerns that people raise. If a company was processing UK data in America, having routed that through Japan in breach of the agreement and our laws, it could be very difficult for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take enforcement action. It is perfectly right that people ask those questions, and I certainly think the ICO could have a role in allaying such fears and concerns.

This is important in the context of other trade agreements because we know that the big technology companies, particularly through their trade bodies, are actively lobbying for trade agreements to be used to lock in more liberalisation of data policy and of how data is handled and processed around the world. In America, they have lobbied successfully for the US-Japan trade agreement and the US-Canada-Mexico trade agreements to abide by the section 230 provisions in US law, which give immunity for tech companies in how they process and handle content. That is contrary to the rules and regulations we have here.

I have discussed this with the Minister many times, and it is not something I would want to see in a UK-US trade agreement. If the House said, “We would rather have data protection laws that are more like America’s than the EU’s,” that is a matter for the House to decide and for legislation to be passed to do that. It is not the route I would want to go down, but it should not be the role of trade agreements to try to lock in the changes.

The Minister will know that there has been considerable criticism in the US Congress of the Trump Administration using trade agreements in that way to try to set domestic policy in this area. That should rightly be the role of Parliaments, not trade agreements. I have expressed to the Minister my concern that if the current US proposals for a US-UK trade agreement were accepted, we would also have to take this measure on board, which would massively restrict our ability to legislate on things such as online harms. It would potentially undermine such things as the age-appropriate design code to protect children online. I know that is not what the Minister wants. The Government have resisted those efforts, and I hope that President-elect Biden’s Administration will review the terms offered by the American Government in that trade agreement and change them.

I raise this today because the Government’s intention is clear to ensure that we keep high levels of data protection. Any changes to our data protection laws should be something that Parliament votes and legislates on, but there are forces at work who want to use trade agreements to try to change the global norms, and we do not really have a global system for monitoring and policing the movement and use of citizens’ data. Data is the new oil of the economy, so it is important that people know what their rights are and how they can be enforced around the world and that trade agreements do not affect that.

Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny

Damian Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is quite right. We have gone through Stoke from south through to central and now to north. I reiterate our commitment to the ceramics industry, ensuring that we break down barriers, and reduce and remove tariffs to our ceramic exports in a way that is consistent with the UK values that I know both he and I share.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

The Minister will know that when new trade agreements or changes to trade agreements can affect other areas of policy, there are, understandably, questions, so I thank him for meeting me on numerous occasions to discuss digital and trade policy. Specifically looking at the EU-Japan trade agreement, will the Minister say whether that agreement will change the enforcement powers for people’s data protection rights? Has his Department already consulted, or does it intend to do so, directly with the Information Commissioner on that?

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for all his interaction. As the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, he has genuine expertise in this area and has continued his interest in it. He mentioned the EU-Japan trade agreement, but I think he is really asking about the UK-Japan trade agreement and the difference with the EU-Japan deal. If I commit to write to him in some detail on exactly where those differences are, he will be able to see them. I expect the report that is being submitted to Parliament will look at those differences in some detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jayawardena]

My Department really does recognise the role that trade and tariffs can play in reducing global carbon emissions, and we are clear that trade does not have to come at the expense of the environment, but growing trade is important for so many more reasons. It delivers the things that our people care about: better jobs, higher wages, greater choice and lower prices, and our new global tariff helps to deliver that, as well as supporting the environment, by liberalising tariffs on 104 environmental goods that we are promoting.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

What progress has been made in the UK/US trade negotiations on digital trade.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

The UK has published its US negotiation objectives, which outline our intention to include provisions that facilitate the free flow of data while ensuring that the UK’s high standards of personal data protection are maintained. They include provisions to prevent unjustified data localisation requirements.

[Damian Collins [V]]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he confirm that under a trade agreement, American businesses processing UK citizens’ data in America would still have to abide by UK data laws, and also that a trade agreement will do nothing to undermine the age-appropriate design code for social media?

[Greg Hands]

On the second point, nothing in any trade agreement would prevent us from legislating against online harms in this country. On the first point, the UK’s trade policy seeks to maintain high levels of data protection by committing parties to legislate for the protection of the personal information of users of electronic commerce. That means that users of electronic commerce will have legal certainty over the protection of their personal information.

Trade Bill

Damian Collins Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]]

I wish to speak in support of the Bill, but also to address the importance of scrutiny by Parliament of digital trade provisions in proposed future UK trading agreements. This is a vital and fast-moving sector that is very important to the British economy. Technology touches almost all aspects of our national life, as indeed these proceedings themselves make clear.

One of the most important new trade agreements being negotiated right now is the one with the United States, but we need to make sure that the digital trade provisions of a deal do not impact on other areas of domestic law, in particular our ability to legislate to create new responsibilities for large social media companies to act against harmful content online. The example of the recently negotiated trade deal between the USA, Canada and Mexico, which I understand is the basis for the start of the American approach to negotiations with the UK, shows how the danger can lie in the detail of these agreements.

The agreement states that the signatories shall not

“adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created, or developed the information.”

What that means, in short, is that while a social media platform can be used to disseminate harmful content, and indeed the algorithms of that platform could be used to promote it, the liability lies solely with the person who created that content, and it could be impossible to identify that person, except perhaps through data held by the social media platform they have used. In this context, the harmful content being shared on social media could include a wide range of dangerous material from content that promotes fraud, violent conduct, self-harm, cyber-bullying or unlawful interference in elections. This provision was included in the US-Canada-Mexico trade agreement, despite opposition from prominent members of the United States Congress, including the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Senators Mark Warner and Ted Cruz.

The provision is based on the provisions in US law known as section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act. Section 230 provides broad unconditional immunity to internet platforms from civil liability for unlawful third-party content they distribute. This sweeping immunity gives internet-based entities an unnecessary and unfair commercial advantage over various law-abiding bricks-and-mortar businesses and content creators. Section 230 immunity is unconditional. The platform can even be designed to attract illegal or harmful content, to know about that illegal or harmful content, have a role in generating and editing it, actively increase its reach and refuse to do anything about it, profit from it and help hide the identity of third-party lawbreakers, and still not be civilly liable.

The grant of immunity for online services under section 230 was supposed to be in exchange for the act of voluntary filtering in a proactive and effective way, yet we all know that there are constant complaints about the failure of major tech companies to act as swiftly as we would like to see against content that could cause harm to others. If such a provision were required in the UK-US trade agreement, it would severely limit our ability to tackle online harms, as we would be prevented from creating legal liabilities, or to tackle companies failing in their duty of care to act against harmful content.

This prompts the question whether international trade agreements should be used to fix such important matters of domestic policy. There is growing cross-party consensus on that point in the US Congress as well. In the UK, these should always be matters on which Parliament has the last word. Indeed, in America, those who have advocated the inclusion of section 230 provisions in trade agreements, do so knowing that they will make it harder for them to be removed in US law itself. The Secretary of State for International Trade has assured me that the Government will not accept trade agreements that would limit the scope of Parliament to legislate to create responsibilities to act against harmful content online. I agree with her that that should be our priority, but we need to understand that that will require a different approach to the negotiations on digital trade from that which was followed by Canada with America. We should not include the provisions based on section 230 in a UK-US trade agreement.

Having trade agreements for digital services, data and technology with other major markets around the world is greatly in our national interest, but we need to make sure that they give us the freedom to act against known harms and the freedom to enforce standards designed to protect the public interest, just as we would seek to do in any other industry.

UK-US Trade Deal

Damian Collins Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

There are huge opportunities in the midlands for further trade with the US. The midlands is already a very strong exporter to the US. I believe that one in five goods from there goes to the US market, but we can do more to remove tariffs and also to get rid of some of the testing procedures and non-tariff barriers that are stopping our car industry exporters so much.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State state her commitment to protecting UK citizens from online harms. She will know that the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement required the insertion of the section 230 provisions of the United States’ Communications Decency Act, which give immunity from liability to the big social media companies. If an approach like that were incorporated in a UK-US deal, would be impossible for us to bring forward the online harms regime and take action against social media companies for failing to act against harmful content. Will she confirm that the British Government would not accept a move in this country equivalent to section 230 in the US-Mexico-Canada agreement?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can confirm that we stand by our online harms commitment, and nothing in the US trade deal will affect that.