European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), whom I gather felt that she had not previously had the opportunity to put her points. She has taken about 10% of the time allocated to debate this group of amendments, so I hope that she feels that she has now had the opportunity to make her case, and she did so extremely eloquently.

I want to cover a few bases. [Interruption.] There is a lot of noise coming from the Opposition Benches; it is quite hard to think or speak, but I will plough on. I feel extremely strongly about the rights of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom. I had a meeting in my constituency on Friday, in which I discussed Brexit with about 150 people, including a lot of people from different EU countries, because there are a great many scientific research and high-tech international companies based in my constituency.

These are people who contribute. I note that people love to talk about the economic contribution made by citizens from Europe, but I also deeply value their social contribution. They are incredible people who not only provide world-class expertise to many businesses and science, but make a huge contribution to the communities in my constituency. They are obviously devastated by what has happened and they seek reassurance from the Government.

I am not going to support any particular amendments, because I think that would mess up the Bill and that they would not necessarily achieve what they seek to achieve. I am also deeply reassured by the Home Secretary’s letter, which was circulated earlier, and by the Prime Minister’s repeated comments about how she is going to make it an absolute priority to get clarity on the rights of EU citizens.

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Mr Vaizey]

I give way to a former Treasury official.

[Helen Goodman]

The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a letter from the Home Secretary. Was it a letter for Conservative Members only? Now that he has referred to it in the House, is it not appropriate to put it on the Table or in the Library for all hon. Members to see?

[Mr Vaizey]

I may have made a faux pas. It was addressed “Dear Colleague”, and may have just been sent to me. It might be private correspondence between me and the Home Secretary, for me to circulate to my European constituents, who are among the most talented Europeans living in this country.

[Helen Goodman]

On a point of order, Mrs Laing. Is it appropriate for an hon. Member to refer to a document that is not available to the whole House?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

As I have already said, I think that the programme has been successful. We have passed more than 2.5 million homes. By the end of 2015 we should have 90% superfast broadband coverage in the UK, which compares well with almost every other country, and puts us at the top of the tree of the big five in Europe.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Hon. Members are right; this is a problem. As I recall, there was a big underspend—£75 million—on the super-connected cities programme. Would the Minister like to reallocate that to speed up broadband roll-out? I offer him this idea free, gratis and for nothing.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am extremely pleased to have a free, gratis and for nothing suggestion from the second candidate for the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee who has participated in questions this morning. I suspect that whoever wins that chairmanship will want to investigate broadband and will take note that the super-connected cities vouchers scheme has now taken off like a rocket, with 24,000 businesses now benefiting. In fact, we are going to spend the money by the end of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

As I said, we are well ahead of schedule with our roll-out of superfast broadband. On Yorkshire, North Yorkshire was one of the first out of the traps, and more than 60,000 homes have been connected through that programme. We also have a £10 million pilot scheme to connect the most remote parts of the country, and that is going very well.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Many people were pleased to see the Government’s announcement of 1,000 free wi-fi hot spots across the country, but the map on the Department’s website shows that Glasgow, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Bristol, with a combined population of 4 million, have no provision at all. What criteria did the Minister use when choosing locations? How could he possibly miss those great cities?

[Mr Vaizey]

Well, we worked with the cities, so they came up with up their own proposals. I believe that Newcastle has a cloud computing centre, using its super-connected cities programme, and Bristol, too, has a fast-speed internet hub. So it is up to the cities how they choose to use the money. The criteria have come from the cities and they are the ones that have chosen which public buildings they want to put wi-fi in.

Public Libraries (England)

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on securing the debate and, much more importantly, on making a really excellent speech, a first-class speech, a committed speech, an informed speech, a knowledgeable speech—possibly a speech that was written in a library. She knows a lot about libraries; she was involved with them when she was in local government in London, and it showed. She would make a fantastic Minister for Libraries—if it was not for the fact that I will be in that role if the Labour party wins the next election.

My hon. Friend pointed to the value of public libraries, and she was absolutely right to do so. Libraries are trusted by the public. They are not just places for learning, but community meeting places, where young people go to find information about jobs, children without computers can do their homework and grannies meet for knitting circles. Last week, BBC 6 even announced it would be broadcasting programmes from a series of Manchester libraries to celebrate libraries’ role in inspiring musicians.

However, as my hon. Friend set out, libraries are under extreme financial pressure. Over this Parliament, there will be a 40% cut in central Government funding to local authorities. That means that local authorities are making difficult decisions, often resulting in library closures, cuts to opening hours and staff, and the transfer of libraries to the control of voluntary groups.

[Mr Vaizey]

Given the hon. Lady’s statement about a 40% cut to local authorities, will she enlighten us as to what a future Labour Government would do in terms of restoring those cuts?

[Helen Goodman]

I am happy to do that, although I was going to come to that at the end of my speech. Resources are clearly one of the most important problems. The worst thing about what the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government have done is take out the needs element from the local authority funding formula. That means that in Surrey, Berkshire and Dorset the local authorities have received 1% increases in their resources, whereas in Durham, Liverpool and Hackney, the places where council services and libraries are most needed, the cuts are the biggest. A Labour Government would rejig the formula within the overall envelope, to take the pressure off the hardest pressed local authorities.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend has set out something that is of extreme concern to the people of Croydon. I wonder whether what the council did was legal. To issue consultation, ignore it and then take into account completely different factors does not seem to me to hold water.

In Lincolnshire a Tory local authority decided that it wanted to close three quarters of the libraries. It is very different from Croydon—a large rural area needing a totally different library service. A consultation was held, which was so inadequate that local library campaigners took the council to the High Court and won. It had not been properly carried out and the council must now do it all again. Would not it have been better to carry it out properly in the first place? That is what we think. It is similar to the Croydon case and shows that local authorities must take their responsibilities seriously, which is not happening at the moment. The Minister does not provide the leadership that he should.

[Mr Vaizey]

My recollection is that Brent also lost a judicial review for carrying out an inadequate consultation. Does the hon. Lady not undermine her argument by being so partisan and focusing only on Conservative councils? Surely she should also hold Labour authorities to account.

[Helen Goodman]

The point I was making about cuts to local authority grant, which were overseen by the Secretary of State, is that the Tory-led coalition made the funding decisions that were imposed on Labour and Tory councils around the country. There were unfortunate results in local authorities led by Labour, the Tories and presumably the Liberals as well. The problem was driven by the unfortunate way in which the Secretary of State carried out, or failed to carry out, his responsibilities.

The Minister is a cultivated man who reads books and may even have visited a library on occasion. The problem is that he has failed to persuade his colleagues in other Departments of the significance of the cultural life of the nation. For the country to have a good cultural life, all the Departments must work together. We need the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government to be on board. We need them all to understand; we even need the Ministry of Justice to understand that it is a good idea if prisoners can read books.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I am very pleased to hear what is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency and congratulate the Labour local authority responsible.

Despite the unhappy austerity that libraries face, there is a growing consensus about the role of libraries in modern Britain. The professional bodies have done a lot of work on that. The Society of Chief Librarians feels that every library should offer four things. The first, obviously, is books and reading; the second is information; the third is action to facilitate digital inclusion; and the fourth is health and well-being. I have sparred with the Minister on several occasions about the need for more Government action on digital inclusion, and the Government’s failures on broadband, and there is no need to go over it all again today. Suffice it to say that 5 million households are not online, and 11 million people lack basic online skills. Digital exclusion is a problem for many groups of people—not just old people, but also young people and, particularly, people on low incomes. Under the previous Government we had the People’s Network. A massive investment was rolled out through the library service. The present Government do next to nothing on digital inclusion. I have urged the Minister more than once to switch £75 million from his failing SuperConnected Cities programme into digital inclusion. I further urge that the best location for that would be in the public library service, which would give a boost to the libraries and to digital inclusion.

The geographical aspect of access also matters. It was fantastic that campaigners in Lincolnshire won some of their points in the High Court. It goes to show how, when a determined group of local people put their mind to it, they can achieve things for their community. It is not acceptable that people in a rural area should have to travel for more than an hour to reach a public library. I do not know why the Minister did not intervene, but I know why one of the professional bodies has passed a vote of no confidence in him, given that he has not intervened in any of the places in question.

[Mr Vaizey]

Which local authority would the hon. Lady like me to intervene in?

[Helen Goodman]

Lincolnshire would have been a good start.

We also need to consider where mobile provision would be most effective. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham set out very well how such provision has been reduced, which is very significant. The mobile provision in my constituency is extremely valued by some people.

Governance is another issue that needs attention. When I have talked to councillors involved in library provision, and to the professional bodies, they have praised standards in Wales. We should perhaps go back and borrow from the Welsh model for our system. The Government seem to be taking a completely laissez-faire approach. The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 requires local authorities to have a comprehensive and efficient service, but the Government have not fleshed that out in any way or form. At one point the last Labour Government had 24 indicators, and I agree that we do not need to be quite so bureaucratic, but we do need to think about the key measures for a good library service so that we do not have a postcode lottery.

My hon. Friend raised the important matter of professional leadership, and she made a good point. The Government got rid of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, and I do not know whether the Minister has completed the abolition of the Advisory Council on Libraries or whether he is just in the process of doing so.

[Mr Vaizey]

In the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Bayley. I apologise profusely for the number of interventions that I made during the excellent speech by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—it is brilliant that she has secured this debate. I also apologise for intervening on the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), but it is probably clear that I feel, to a certain extent, that much of the Opposition’s position on public libraries, and indeed on my role as a Minister, is somewhat distorted, if I may put it that way. I would not accuse either hon. Lady of doing that themselves, but four and a half years of pent up frustration may be apparent because this is the first real debate on libraries in this Parliament. Given the importance that the Opposition spokesman attaches to libraries, it is surprising that there has been no official Opposition debate on this subject. There was a debate on arts and culture two or three years ago, and I look forward to her using her influence to call an Opposition debate in the main Chamber so that we can properly debate libraries.

Although both speeches were excellent, another element that added to my frustration is that the only library authorities to be criticised were Conservative-controlled. If someone made it back in Philae from the comet that is spinning hundreds of millions of miles away from us and landed in this debate, they would think that everything was perfect both under Labour authorities and under the previous Labour Government. It may surprise people to learn that libraries did close under the last Government, and that many Labour local authorities have closed libraries over the past four years.

The main reason for my receiving criticism is because it is alleged that I have not used my power under the 1964 Act, an Act that is 50 years old, to intervene and order an inquiry into some of the closures that have been announced over the past four and a half years. It is important to put that in context. The power has been used only once in the 50 years that the Act has been active—it was used in 2009 by the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), to intervene on Wirral metropolitan borough council’s proposed closure of half its libraries.

I was then the Opposition spokesman, and I came off the fence to give my views on the Wirral. In fact, there were two causes célèbres at the time: there were the Wirral library closures and the proposed closure of the Old Town library in Swindon, of which my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) will be aware. I visited both local authorities and listened to the case of both local councils. It transpired that although Old Town library was closed, it was moved to the museum next door and is now more popular than it was in its previous location. I made it plain that I thought there should be an inquiry on the Wirral, and eventually there was. It is interesting that the Opposition spokesman has not called for a single inquiry into any local authority closures except, most recently, in Lincolnshire, which happens to be Conservative-controlled.

[Helen Goodman]

The Minister is slightly over-egging the pudding. There is a difference between what he has done and what I have done. When I went to Lincolnshire to meet the Lincoln library campaign, I did not sit on the fence; I jumped on a wall to make a speech. Apart from that, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about libraries before the summer recess, so I am not coming late to this; I did this months ago. I am sorry if the Minister did not know about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I reject that accusation, because when the hon. Lady says that the Government have failed to take leadership she is effectively saying that I have failed to take leadership.

At the end of last year, we published our first report under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, which the Select Committee asked us to do. It asked us to do it at the end of 2014, but I was anxious to have a public document around which people can debate the future of public libraries. We published our first report at the end of last year, which recorded that fewer than 100 static libraries have closed.

It is important to remember that when I was the Opposition spokesman, I was keen not to say that the public library service was in crisis. Yes, I called out the Wirral, but at no point would I have said that the public library was in crisis. Time and again, we see only the bad news reported about libraries, as though the library service is being laid waste.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said in a passing remark that I have probably visited a few libraries. Yes, I have. On a couple of days I visited the fantastic Liverpool central library, in which there has been a £40 million investment. It is truly a cathedral of learning, and it has had more than 1 million visitors in the less than 18 months that it has been open. The hon. Member for West Ham referred to Birmingham, which has the biggest library in Europe. It has had 3 million visitors since it was opened by the Nobel prize winner Malala Yousafzai. Manchester central library has been refurbished, as has Wakefield’s library. The hon. Lady will know about East Ham, which has had a £40 million investment in its library. There are Havering and Streatham libraries, and the tri-borough model of Westminster, Hammersmith and Kensington, which saved £1 million and kept their libraries open. Bexley and Bromley merged their library services to save money. There is the Suffolk model—the independent industrial and provident society model—which has kept libraries open for longer. All around the country, one sees innovation in libraries and hard-working people in the library service making a real difference to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. We should celebrate those people.

What can one do from the centre? I cannot and do not want to run 151 library authorities, not only because it is physically impossible for me to do so, but because I believe local authorities should run their library services. I can encourage them and work with them.

When we abolished the Museum, Libraries and Archives Council, one of the first things I did was to put libraries with the Arts Council. If one looks at the framing of the 1964 Act, in terms of the White Papers that led up to it, a lot of the tone was about the merging, as it were, of cultural and library services—about putting culture at the heart of our libraries. With the Arts Council working with local authorities on arts provision, it is a totally natural move for it to work with libraries.

[Helen Goodman]

I just want to help the Minister, because he seems to be in a complete mess about what the role of central Government is in this sector. Could we just draw a little analogy with another public service that is delivered by local government—adult social care? However, that fact does not mean that the Department of Health does not have policy, does not provide the legal framework and that we do not have the Care Quality Commission to carry out inspections. Obviously, libraries are not as large as adult social care—what needs to be done is not as big—but it is just a little model, a little inkling, for the Minister about how he might approach libraries.

[Mr Vaizey]

But it is important to say that most adult social care is funded by central Government, so of course the Government will have a much more hands-on role in that area.

As I said earlier, libraries are funded, paid for and run by local authorities, and they always have been since the first public libraries emerged in the middle of the 19th century. The debate then was about putting money on the rates to pay for local libraries; it was not about central Government funding or running local libraries.

The Arts Council has taken a role with libraries, and with it we have set up a £6 million fund for libraries; 75 projects have already been funded. The Arts Council has worked with the British Library and the Department for Communities and Local Government on enterprising libraries, which put libraries at the heart of the business community, whose members are a good audience for libraries. Six major city-centre libraries and 10 hubs are planned, to provide advice for small businesses and intellectual property advice. We have paid for the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy statistics to be made public and freely accessible, to help library campaigners and people involved in the provision of library services to compare and contrast their library service with that of neighbouring councils; in this context, “neighbouring” does not mean geographically neighbouring, but councils with similar topography and demography.

We have worked to extend the public lending right to audio-books and e-books. We have also worked with William Sieghart to put together four pilots on e-book lending, bringing together publishers and libraries. They are obviously natural bedfellows, but on this issue there is some concern from publishers that e-lending could potentially cannibalise their business model. Consequently, we have worked to bring both sides together, so that they can work together for a solution that all sides can be happy with.

We work closely with the Society of Chief Librarians, which promotes its own campaigns to make libraries as relevant as possible; there is, obviously, a reading campaign, but also an information campaign, a digital campaign and a health campaign. The SCL has also launched a highly successful Books On Prescription scheme with the Reading Agency, which 91% of library authorities are signed up to. And the Reading Agency’s Six Book Challenge continues to draw in hundreds of thousands of children, and every year participation in the scheme increases.

To me, that is not the depiction of a library service in crisis. Of course, there are incidents where the modernisation, adaptation or change of a library service causes extreme concern, but everybody acknowledges that closing a library does not necessarily mean that the library service is no longer comprehensive and efficient. When we talk about a closure, sometimes we are talking about a merger of two libraries. Also, we rarely talk about the number of libraries that are opening across the country.

Earlier, the hon. Member for West Ham asked me about the Sieghart report. I would not have asked William Sieghart to produce a report unless I thought there was some opportunity to build on what I see as a highly successful public library service in England. The reason I asked him to produce this report—he has been ably assisted by a distinguished panel of publishers and other people working in worlds related to libraries—is to see how we can push forward, and the reason I asked him in particular is that he is an extremely practical man. He was the man who brought together the publishers and the libraries to support e-lending. He is now proposing a series of practical recommendations to move forward, one of which is a task and finish group that will work with local authorities to make practical recommendations to help library services to survive in what is not only a difficult financial climate but a difficult period of transition as the world itself changes, with the move to digital. It is important to emphasise that that group will meet, with local authorities at its heart, to make practical recommendations to take matters forward.

This has been a good and full debate. I completely understand the concerns of library campaigners across the country who would be concerned if they saw their local library closing its doors. However, a lot of heat and not enough light is generated in this debate. The number of library closures has been severely exaggerated. The number of closures that you, Mr Bayley, and I would regard as a library closure—that is, a building with its doors shut, empty and the lights off—is, by the Government’s estimation, fewer than a hundred. Libraries have opened up and down the country. I have already referred to the reams of central libraries that have been refurbished. In Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham, literally millions of people are visiting libraries and there are new library members.

[Helen Goodman]

The Minister is, of course, right to point to the success of the new library buildings in Liverpool and Birmingham is. However, is he not a little bit worried about the library service being a postcode lottery, because he is not seeking to have a secure policy framework across the country?

[Mr Vaizey]

I do not know what that means. For example, Liverpool reopened its central library; a million people have visited it; and until recently, Liverpool was proposing to close 10 of its 18 branch libraries. That proposal has now been withdrawn. Is it being suggested that I should have personally intervened three or four years ago to tell Liverpool, “No, you don’t run the library service like this. You don’t put money into refurbishing your central library. You’re going to keep all your branch libraries open”? Liverpool is seeking to deliver a comprehensive and efficient library service, and one of the ways it seeks to do that is to refurbish its central library to make it a hugely attractive hub for thousands of people living in that great city. That was a decision for the local authority, just as it was a decision for Birmingham to invest in a new central library, which is now the pride of the city and already one of the most well-known libraries in Europe.

Such decisions must be taken by local authorities but, as I said earlier, the number of static libraries that have been closed is often exaggerated; the actual number, while it may be regrettable, is far lower than people say. The action taken by this Government has been active: bringing on board the Arts Council, to provide leadership for libraries; providing a £6 million fund to support cultural work in libraries; extending e-lending to the PLR; working to introduce pilots with publishers, so as to promote e-lending; and now commissioning the Sieghart report, to continue to take libraries forward during the next decade or so.

As I have said, while I may understand the frustration and sometimes even the anger of some library campaigners, I feel that I can hold my head up high, in terms of being a proactive campaigner for the library sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The whole House knows that the roll-out of rural broadband is 22 months late. Yesterday, however, in answer to my questions, the Minister admitted that after three years only two of the 135 sites involved in the mobile infrastructure project had gone live, and that only £20 million of the £150 million for the super-connected cities programme had been spent. The targets are not going to be met. The Minister is lucky that he does not earn his living as a pizza delivery boy. Will he now apologise to the millions whom he has let down?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am sure that pizzas were not being delivered last night to the Labour women’s dinner, which I gather took place at the Imperial War museum. No doubt the hon. Lady will want to join me in congratulating the museum, which is so ably led by Di Lees, on its magnificent refurbishment, which has introduced the world war one galleries.

I am pleased to confirm that we are bang on target for our roll-out of superfast broadband. We expect to deliver it to 90% of premises by early 2016, but I expect that, given the pace of the programme, we shall exceed that target. The mobile infrastructure project is a pioneering project which has already brought many benefits to rural areas, and I am pleased to see that the super-connected voucher scheme is well under way.

Broadband (North of England)

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Sanders. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) on securing this important debate. He made an excellent speech, and I want to pick up some of his points and perhaps embroider them a bit.

I know from my constituency in rural County Durham how true the hon. Gentleman’s comments are. Furthermore, it is right that he raised the issue of broadband roll-out for the whole of the north of England. I do not hold out much hope that the Government will pay significant attention to the north of England or to building infrastructure there. We have seen a repeated pattern of capital projects that are very significantly well funded in the south but not in the north. That is borne out by the map that Ofcom produced, which shows the overall performance in different counties of the broadband roll-out. There is a central belt of London, the south and the west midlands, where things are looking quite healthy, but in your area of the south-west, Mr Sanders, things are not good, and things are certainly not looking at all good in the north of England. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing that to my attention.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Cornwall is widely regarded as having the best superfast broadband in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) pointed out, North Yorkshire was the first place to start the rural broadband roll-out.

[Helen Goodman]

All I can say to the Minister is that he should look at the map produced by Ofcom. I am sure that he will quote Ofcom’s report back to the Chamber in a minute, but he should look at that map, because it also shows significantly worse performance of the broadband roll-out.

The points that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made about the rural economy were absolutely spot on. Indeed, I would say that roll-out of broadband is even more important in rural areas than in urban areas, because for businesses in rural areas, transport accounts for a very high proportion of their costs and without broadband connectivity, they can do little to bring down those costs, so securing effective roll-out in rural areas is particularly important.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s complaints about the treatment of farmers and other small businesses by the public sector under this Government. It is completely disgraceful that farmers are expected to record their cattle movements online, that they have to deal with the Rural Payments Agency online, and that they have to upload their tax returns—their VAT returns—online, when they simply cannot do it. I find it astonishing that the Government think that is an appropriate way to treat farmers and rural businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have put a large amount of money into the super-connected cities programme—it ran into a rural challenge in Europe—instead of putting money into and prioritising rural areas such as his constituency and mine. I wish that what he is saying was true, but it is not. Will the Minister tell us in his winding-up speech what the spend in the super-connected cities programme is? It had a mammoth underspend a year ago and we have not had an update from him on the precise profile of what is going on with that programme, which I think is an extremely important point.

Twice the Government have been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for their roll-out of broadband. All hon. Members and all Departments should take seriously criticisms that come from that Committee. Last July, it pointed out that the broadband delivery programme will be 22 months late and that the programme, because of the way in which the contracts have been set up and the geographical areas have been designed, was not promoting market competition.

As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) pointed out, British Telecom now has even greater dominance in this area than it had previously. It is expected to win all 44 contracts being put out to tender by local authorities. The Public Accounts Committee also cast doubt on the transparency of the costs in BT’s bids and said that because there was a lack of transparency in the process and in the bids, it was impossible to tell whether we have achieved value for money. That is before we move on to the questions that have been raised not only by the hon. Gentleman, but by other hon. Members in the House about the behaviour in specific small locations.

This is not a success story; it is a story of promise and disappointment. The Minister admits that contracts are now being signed with late delivery dates. He has moved the goalposts on several occasions.

[Mr Vaizey]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Goodman]

Perhaps the Minister is going to move the goalposts again now.

[Mr Vaizey]

I have not admitted that there have been late delivery dates.

[Helen Goodman]

Well, at the time when the objective was to reach universal access by 2015, the Minister said that he was signing contracts with delivery dates of 2016. He then shifted the goalposts and announced a target of 95% roll-out by 2017 and 99% roll-out by 2018.

Furthermore, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced last summer a £250 million spend on rural broadband. We have asked—we have not been given an answer—why this was cut from the £300 million that the Government are top-slicing from the BBC licence fee to put into rural broadband. Where is this £50 million going? Why is it not being used to prioritise the needs of rural areas and, in particular, the north of England, to which Government Members have referred?

There was a second report from the Public Accounts Committee in March 2014. It was not satisfied with the initial response from the Department and made further criticisms and further recommendations to the Department. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to tell us what the Government are doing about those recommendations.

First, the Committee raised the issue of a lack of information about not spots—precisely the point raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood—and a lack of information about areas to which the rural broadband programme would not reach. The Committee said:

“The Department should work urgently with all local authorities to publish detailed mapping of their implementation plans, enabling searches down to full (7-digit) postcode level. The information should include speed of service, as soon as that is available.”

I hope that we will hear from the Minister on that.

Secondly, the Committee found that the Department had failed to act on its recommendation to secure a higher standard of cost transparency before the remaining contracts were signed. It had recommended that the Department

“collect, analyse and publish costs data on deployment costs in the current programme, to inform its consideration of bids from suppliers under the next round of funding.”

I hope that the Minister will tell us what he is doing about that.

Thirdly, the Committee reiterated its previous conclusion that the Department’s procurement approach failed to deliver meaningful competition. This was the recommendation:

“Before the next round of funding is released, the Department should work with local authorities to identify opportunities to promote competition and value for money; including considering alternative solutions, joint working and fair capital contributions from suppliers.”

I hope that we are going to hear from the Minister about that as well.

[Mr Vaizey]

You are not going to.

[Helen Goodman]

The Minister can say that in his winding-up speech, so that it is fully audible and on the record for Hansard and the great British public.

The Department has committed another £250 million to spend beyond 2015 and it is working on the assumption that, as in the first round, when it was spending £530 million of central Government money, that will be matched by local authorities, but I want to ask the Minister how realistic he thinks that is, following the very tight squeeze that has been put on local authority spending by his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, whether he thinks that it is still a realistic expectation, and what he will do if the local authorities find that they are not all as well resourced as North Yorkshire, which has clearly done a very good job for its local businesses, its farmers and its citizens.

The plain fact is that the north of England is particularly badly served. For example, in North Lincolnshire, superfast broadband availability is only 54%. In Lincolnshire, it is 49%. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, it is only 21%. In Cumbria, it is only 26%. These are serious problems. They are raised by our constituents and by the Country Land and Business Association and they are absolutely clear to everyone who is not sitting in the Whitehall Department, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Although some of us may disagree about the detail of the Government’s plans, we are all united in understanding the importance of broadband, and we are doing our very best. Believe me, if I could wave a magic wand tomorrow and deliver superfast broadband to every home in the country, I would, but it is an engineering project and cannot be done overnight.

We are hitting our targets. Let me explain that we measure superfast broadband homes passed on the basis of those who actually receive it. So it is not about simply putting up a cabinet and saying, “That is delivering superfast broadband to 2,000 homes,” because some of the homes in that cabinet area might be 1 km away and not get such speeds. We audit every quarter, and we estimate that by the end of February we had passed 370,000 homes with superfast broadband. We are well on track to get into seven figures some time this year. We were passing 10,000 homes a week and we are now on track to pass 40,000 homes a week, so the programme is accelerating all the time.

North Yorkshire is a brilliant example of how well a programme can be run when there is a go-ahead local council with a real appetite for it and it works very well. As I understand it, there are now 118 live cabinets in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, which serve almost 34,000 premises. In North Yorkshire, we have met all seven of our time and deployment target milestones. We have deployed 462 cabinets out of an overall programme of 673, and more than 120,000 premises have been passed, 100,000 of which receive superfast broadband. We also have significant take-up. My understanding is that the average take-up is some 20%, with two cabinets exceeding 30% take- up. In the next phase, we expect to reach another 17,000 premises under the superfast extension programme. Those programmes are going well.

Another area that has been mentioned is Lancashire, which is receiving £10 million under the broadband delivery UK programme. We are aiming for 95% superfast coverage under the existing programme. In North and North-East Lincolnshire, we are aiming for 90% coverage and targeting almost 40,000 premises. It would be a travesty to say that we have forgotten the north of England; nothing could be further from the truth.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) mentioned the super-connected cities programme, which is separate from our rural broadband programme. It is perfectly possible for the Government to run two programmes at the same time. We set aside £150 million for the super-connected cities programme, which is designed to help our small and medium-sized enterprises to connect to superfast broadband. At the most recent party conference in Manchester, I was lucky enough to visit a local business that had received superfast broadband through the scheme, and to visit a business broadband provider that had benefited from selling connection vouchers to businesses and developing an ongoing relationship with them. We estimate that up to 30,000 small businesses will benefit from the programme, and it is well on track. Another important aspect of the programme is the support it provides for public and community wi-fi, which we are installing in 21 areas and which will benefit, for example, libraries, museums and art galleries.

[Helen Goodman]

Before the Minister moves on, would he care to tell us how much of the £150 million set aside for the super-connected cities programme he expects to have been spent by this time next year?

[Mr Vaizey]

We expect to spend a substantial proportion of it. We want cities and councils to work with local businesses and encourage them to take up the money. I am not one to oppose underspend in a Government programme, but the money is available if businesses want to use it. We will not spend money for the sake of it, however.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood raised B4RN and asked whether he could get a map of Lancashire. We strongly support rural community broadband schemes. At the outset of the programme, we put aside £10 million from the BDUK money and £10 million from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to create a £20 million fund to support community broadband schemes. There is a reason why it can be difficult to get such schemes off the ground, because we are dealing with state aid and a complicated process for accessing public money in compliance with Commission guidelines. I am confident that we are ready to help when problems arise, however.

My understanding is that Superfast Lancashire, which is responsible for delivering the programme, is in discussions with B4RN about the footprint where it wants to bring its community network. Superfast Lancashire is also in discussions with BT about how BT can accommodate B4RN’s commercial desires. Nobody is trying to stop B4RN doing what it is doing. My understanding—my hon. Friend may correct me if I am wrong—is that Dolphinholme, the village that he mentioned, was part of the contract with Lancashire when it was signed, and Lancashire county council decided where that broadband should go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I must say to my hon. Friend that my understanding was that Lancashire county council decided that Dolphinholme should get superfast broadband, so that is a matter for Lancashire county council. If I am wrong about that, I will apologise. I will double-check that with the county council and get back to my hon. Friend, but that is my understanding.

As far as the map is concerned, we are dealing with expectation management, if I can put it that way. I do not think that BT has made any attempt to stay under the radar to ambush local community providers. The local authority is in charge of the map, and there is nothing to stop it publishing a map, however detailed. It is also in charge of expectation management. When on the ground delivering broadband, circumstances can change. When the van and tools arrive in a particular area, it might turn out that it is going to be three times more expensive than expected. Another area might turn out to be twice as easy as expected.

If someone told a Mr Ollerenshaw, for example, that he was going to get superfast broadband in September 2014, but they then discovered either that that was not going to be economical and they were going to go somewhere else or that he was not going to get it until March 2015, they would have to manage his expectations. It is true that the Superfast Lancashire map gives some details, saying, “We are currently mapping this area and looking to come here”, but it does not give every single address, and it allows people to know when they are going to get superfast broadband only once the roll-out has been started in a particular area. I understand that people can type in their postcode or telephone number.

[Helen Goodman]

Is the Minister saying that he is going to ignore the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendation in its March 2014 report and just hand responsibility for maps over to local authorities?

[Mr Vaizey]

It is not a question of handing over responsibility for the maps to local authorities; they are our partners in delivery and we respect their right to manage their local broadband roll-out plans. We provided the framework contract, which means that local authorities do not have to reinvent the wheel when negotiating a contract with a broadband provider. We provide the money, which they use in partnership with us, and they are the ones on the ground delivering broadband. Although I would like to take a lot of the credit for the success of the broadband programme, it is important that North Yorkshire, Lancashire and other county councils across the north of England also take credit for the excellent job that they have done on delivery.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland keeps saying that the north is forgotten, but I well remember my recent visit to Durham, where Digital Durham is showing that that is a fantastic local authority with a huge hunger to deliver superfast broadband to its residents.

Future of English Heritage

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. I must declare an interest, as I am a trustee of Auckland castle. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on securing this important debate and on making such a good opening speech, which gave an excellent overview of the work of English Heritage and the financial issues that have arisen from the Government’s proposals. I did not know she was an archaeologist, but it was clear that she did a lot of digging in preparing for her speech.

I thank my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) and for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has been involved in this issue from the very beginning, and he has brought his great knowledge and experience to bear. There is no more passionate defender of Durham than my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham.

The quality of the built environment is incredibly important to people’s well-being, and their sense of place is defined by the buildings around them. Indeed, some buildings become the institutions in people’s minds. Thus, for many people, Parliament is Big Ben, and the Church is their local parish church. Therefore, how we care for, preserve, enhance and use our heritage sites is incredibly important. If it is done well, it is a source of pleasure and enjoyment for generations to come. There is, of course, an economic and financial payoff from the tourism income it generates for the country, but it is worth doing in itself; it is not a burden but a privilege. Our aim this afternoon is to test whether the Minister’s proposal will achieve those aims.

It is logical to put the management of the 420 sites into a charitable trust while retaining their ownership by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, given the 45% cuts to English Heritage in this Parliament. It is welcome that an £85 million dowry from the Treasury has been secured and that there will be greater management freedom to raise money, but will the Minister guarantee that the sites that are currently free will remain so? What will happen if other sources of income do not materialise? He is assuming a philanthropic income of £84 million in a climate of huge pressure on philanthropic funds, which other hon. Members have described. Is that £84 million realistic? What will happen if it does not materialise?

Local authorities are under massive pressure, totally, if I may say so, caused by the 40% cuts imposed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. High-profile sites might attract grants and philanthropic giving, but what about the others? Even more worryingly, what will happen to English Heritage’s role as custodian of last resort? What if there is another Windsor castle? What if another building that is not in the English Heritage or National Trust portfolio is seriously damaged? If Castle Howard has a big fire, are the Government seriously suggesting they will walk away? What contingency has been made for that? Nigel Hewitson of Norton Rose said:

“The distinction between English Heritage and the National Trust is that the former is the custodian of last resort…The National Trust won’t take properties on unless they have a dowry for future maintenance.”

English Heritage does precisely that.

That is far from being an unrealistic risk, as the news from Hadrian’s wall amply demonstrates. The trust set up to safeguard the wall is to be closed down as a result of funding cuts. Staff at Hadrian’s Wall Trust face an uncertain future. The body tasked with managing the world heritage site will be lost. English Heritage has reduced the funds for Hadrian’s wall management over the past three years. We are told that a working group will be chaired by Northumberland county council, the partnership will be chaired by Cumbria county council, and there will be a steering group with members from the public, private and voluntary sectors. I am sorry to say that that sounds utterly chaotic. People in the north-east cannot believe that the Government can rightly find a lot of money to invest in Stonehenge but cannot get their act together adequately to look after Hadrian’s wall. People do not believe that that would have happened if the wall were in the south. It is shameful that the northern extent of the Roman empire, marked with wall built 2,000 years ago, is in doubt under the Tory-led Government. It is amazing that the Romans were able to build a wall 1,500 miles from their capital but the Minister cannot look after one 300 miles from his.

[Mr Vaizey]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Goodman]

The Minister will have an opportunity to respond in a moment, but I want to hear some reassurances about the wall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

That is an interesting point. In no way do I wish to bat back what the hon. Lady says, but we are debating the future of English Heritage as an organisation, and I am obviously a great advocate for that future. She is inviting me, perfectly legitimately, to debate wider heritage powers that Government could introduce and which organisation would have those powers. I have to say, without wishing to bind the Government in any way, that I have a lot of sympathy for her point of view. I, for one, value views and landscapes as much as our built environment, and I think that it is important that we preserve them where we can.

English Heritage has been in place for 30 years, and our system of heritage protection began, broadly speaking, a century ago, with the passing of the Ancient Monuments Act 1913. By the way, an excellent book was published on that by Simon Thurley, the chief executive of English Heritage. It is available in all good bookshops. As that book and the creation of English Heritage show, the system of heritage protection constantly evolves. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool South that Michael Heseltine and the other people who were present at the launch of English Heritage—I am thinking in particular of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—were perfectly capable of imagining the kind of future that English Heritage now sees. However, I think that they would also agree that as that bright future comes into being, we must look at the structures that support it.

It is a fact that the national heritage collection is an £84 million business. It attracts 5 million visitors a year and it needs investment and a long-term plan. That is why English Heritage has proposed an eight-year programme of reform to establish a new model for the management of the national heritage collection. It is a model that we support. It will be supported by the investment of £80 million, alongside the additional £20 million that we have found for cathedrals. It will allow essential conservation work to be carried out, and it will allow investment in new projects to build on commercial success and enhance the visitor experience. It will allow it to grow its income to become a more resilient organisation. We hope by the end of the eight years, the management of the national collection will be self-financing.

[Helen Goodman]

My understanding was that English Heritage’s current function as the owner of last resort should continue. My question was whether there is enough finance to fulfil that. At the moment, English Heritage has a number of strategies for saving heritage at risk—

[Mr Vaizey]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. Of course—

[Helen Goodman]

The Minister—

[Mr Vaizey]

I am taking back the floor.

[Helen Goodman]

The Minister seemed to walk away from that—

[Mr Vaizey]

I am taking back the floor. The point is that English Heritage, as now, will be the saviour of last resort. That is the point I am making. People see the change in English Heritage as meaning that any future problems will somehow be the result of the change in the structure. English Heritage is able to take, as an owner of last resort, a property that is threatened. There are a whole host of factors that come into play, one of which will be financing. If a property were to come up now, English Heritage might find that it did not have the financing. That would be a straightforward point.

Nothing will change under the new model. English Heritage will still be, potentially, the owner of last resort. A whole range of factors, depending on the particular situation, will influence whether it chooses to step in. As the hon. Lady knows, when it becomes the owner of last resort, English Heritage tries to move the property on. Sometimes it will stay in the national collection, but often English Heritage will want to put it back with a different owner to continue its future.

I have only got a minute left, but I want to make a simple and straightforward point. Change is happening, but the fundamentals will not change. Historic England will continue its brilliant role as the steward of our wide historical environment. It will continue to list, it will continue to research and it will continue to support the hon. Member for Darlington and other hon. Members who care about heritage. The national charity will, under a licence from Historic England, manage the properties, which will still be owned by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

One of the reasons that the licence fee represents value for money is that this Government have frozen it for the past four years.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Despite its disadvantages, the licence fee remains a good way of funding the BBC. Of course no one wants to see 50 people go to prison each year for non-payment, but given the financial implications of decriminalisation, this is clearly a matter to be considered alongside the other funding issues at the time of the royal charter renewal. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government will reject new clause 1 to the Deregulation Bill, tabled by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)?

[Mr Vaizey]

My Secretary of State is on record as saying that this is an idea that needs considering, although I do not want to get ahead of myself, because there is a question on the matter further down the Order Paper. She is also on record suggesting that the best way to consider it is as part of charter review.

Supporting the Creative Economy

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 13th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman]

I was going to say that the demise of the regional development agency and the much reduced resources of the local enterprise partnerships have left rather a gap outside the M25. I know that in Folkestone in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, people have benefited from a philanthropist whose name escapes me—

[Mr Vaizey]

Sir Roger de Haan.

[Helen Goodman]

As ever, the Minister is there, ready to help at any moment. Of course, that philanthropy has bolstered considerably what has been going on in the constituency of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), but we need a more structured approach from Government. I will come on to talk about geography.

[Helen Goodman]

I agree that the creative sector is one of the few sectors that is growing rapidly. I will make my points in a different order to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Under the Labour Administration, culture was part of the regeneration programme in Liverpool, Gateshead, which was mentioned, Manchester and Salford; for example, there was the movement of the BBC. Those were big initiatives. The hon. Gentleman will be hard-pressed to find examples of such significance in the current climate. The Government do not have anything comparable to those initiatives that goes beyond the M25.

[Mr Vaizey]

Many of those initiatives were financed by the lottery, which was created by the Conservative Government who preceded the Labour Government.

[Helen Goodman]

I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but a lot of the money was put into those initiatives by the regional development agencies. He needs to talk more to his colleagues in other Whitehall Departments, because those self-same big cities are seeing the biggest reductions in funding in their local government settlements. The reduction in Liverpool is somewhere between 30% and 60%, and the picture is similar in Gateshead and Manchester. He should be less complacent about the situation faced by the creative sectors beyond London. He cannot get away from giving the impression that the Government are not developing creative industries across the entire country because they are staying within their comfort zone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I am grateful for that clarification. My excellent officials have provided me with answers to most of the questions that have been posed in this debate. I feel like I should recreate the famous Bob Dylan video when I read them out, but I will address some of the excellent points that have been raised.

Copyright reform began with the Hargreaves review, which has been extensively consulted upon. Many views have been taken into account, and it is important to get the balance right. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) knows that I am going to say that we believe that the private copying exception is the narrowest exception in Europe, so we do not think a levy is appropriate. I shall write to her as she invited me to, setting out in great detail why I think that.

[Helen Goodman]

When the Minister writes to my hon. Friend, will he copy me in?

[Mr Vaizey]

I shall certainly copy in the hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Lady mentioned discount codes. The Government recognise the differences between artistic disciplines, and it is important to get it across that decisions on discount codes are made on the basis of a detailed scrutiny of the exam specifications, rather than on a general view of the subjects concerned. Where substantial overlap between two specifications exists, the subjects will be discounted. Those decisions can be reviewed and are being reviewed in the case of drama and dance. I emphasise again the Department for Education’s continued support for music and dance schemes, which equates to some £18 million-worth of bursaries over the next three years, which is a huge amount of support. The Department has also listened to concerns about the EBacc and that is why we now have the new progress 8 measure, which allows schools to have their teaching of arts subjects taken into account when measuring their progress and success.

We have had a lively and well-balanced debate with contributions from both sides of the House and from hon. Members who are passionate advocates and supporters of the creative industries, even when not taking part in this debate.

[Helen Goodman]

Before the Minister sits down, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) asked whether he would look at the potential implications of Scottish independence on the cultural industries. It was a good suggestion, and I would be happy to co-operate with the Minister if he takes it forward.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hesitate to commit my Secretary of State or the Government to such a report, but given today’s important speech by the Chancellor about the future of currency in Scotland and the Prime Minister’s important speech about Scottish independence just under a week ago, I am sure that an opportunity will present itself between now and the vote for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to highlight the effect that independence could have on the creative industries.

Regional Arts and Culture

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Vaizey]

I feel that I did give him a direct answer. I explained that the chair of Arts Council England had said that things were going well, but could always do better, that the message has been heard loud and clear and that judgment should be made in two years’ time.

I will not support the recommendation from Patrick Diamond, the former adviser to the previous Labour Prime Minister, to close the British Museum and move it outside London, probably costing several billion pounds. I will also not support Labour’s proposals to stop funding the big five. [Interruption.] The shadow culture spokesperson is going to rule that out.

[Helen Goodman]

I certainly am going rule out that we are going to end all funding to what the Minister calls the “big five”. I have not said it and I do not think it.

[Mr Vaizey]

That is good to hear. I am glad that that rumour has been put to bed, but I remain in the dark on the hon. Lady’s regional policy. Labour has initiated a second review of the creative industries, so we will wait to hear its conclusions.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is not pertinent to the discussion, because the question is this: how will money be spent in the future? The Minister should tell us what measures he will take to prevent it from going to such political organisations. On Second Reading, I asked him many questions that I hope he will answer this afternoon. What will the application process be? Who will get the money? How can we spread it across the whole country, not just organisations that have been habitual beneficiaries, so as to spread an understanding of Europe? Government Members display such understanding in great measure, but they are much better informed about the mechanisms of the EU than most people in this country, and I do not understand why they want to keep this knowledge to themselves. It is profoundly undemocratic.

I agreed, however, with the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) when he raised the issue of money going to non-EU member states under the theme of enlargement and work. It seems to me that whereas we have settled European policies on, for example, education and culture, enlargement is much more contentious.

That brings me to my next point. I am not going to ask the Minister what the process would be if he wanted to veto the regulation, because it is patently absurd to say that because we have a veto, we should use it. There are other matters relating to Europe that I think it would be far more important to veto than this. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are tempting me down a path down which I think it would be wrong for me to go. What I want to ask the Minister is this: what would be the process for amending the regulation, rather than rejecting it in its entirety? We need to get on with some of this work, and we do not want too much delay.

[Mr Vaizey]

There is no process for amending the regulation. We would have to vote it down and then start again.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the Minister for that information.

There are weaknesses in the regulation, such as the one identified by the hon. Member for Bury North, but I think it entirely reasonable for us to have a process allowing voluntary organisations to bid for funds so that people can learn about the European Union. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has provided extremely positive feedback on the grants. It refers to

“Support for participation and democratic engagement. People’s wellbeing…employment, social cohesion and sustainable development. Impact of EU policies in societies”.

What could be more neutral than that? The NCVO also refers to

“Exchange of expertise…Building capacity of voluntary and community organisations.”

Conservative Members claim to support the big society, but now they seem to want to vote down money that would promote it. Finally, the NCVO refers to

“Establishing links between local authorities and community organisations in different countries”.

Although there are weaknesses in the regulation, I think that the positives outweigh the problems raised by Conservative Members.

I should like the Minister to answer these questions. What will the application system be? How will he ensure that the money goes to groups throughout the country, and is not concentrated on small and highly politicised groups? I should also like to know whether he has discovered the answer to the question I asked him earlier about the archiving: why are we locking up the European documents for 30 years—which is what we do with documents in London—and who will have access to them in the meantime?

[Mr Vaizey]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

We had a lively Second Reading debate on the Bill last week, and I commented at the time that the Chamber was full of the House’s most prominent European experts. I think it slightly unfortunate—although I do not blame anyone in particular—that today’s debate falls at the same time as the annual parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. Members will be aware that the Council of Europe advertises itself as an organisation consisting of 47 countries and 820 million citizens. I gather than some of our leading experts on Europe are in Athens, debating matters of European import. It is interesting that their expertise is being put to good use.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Good point.

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend quite rightly achieves approbation from all corners of the House for his intervention. I know that the hard work he undertakes on these issues as a Member of Parliament is well recognised. It is a serious point that much of the programme’s funding supports issues relating to commemoration, which covers the holocaust, and some British organisations that commemorate the holocaust have received funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

Would the hon. Lady agree that the more people know about how the EU works, the less likely it is to continue to exist?

[Mr Vaizey]

That should be a reason for some people to support the proposals.

[Helen Goodman]

As the Minister points out, that should be a reason for some people to support the programme, but actually I do not necessarily agree with the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for reasons I shall explain.

I have some observations and questions for the Minister about these two major themes in the Bill. As he has explained, EU documents will be archived at the European University Institute in Florence so that future historians can benefit from complete records. The Clerk of the House has explained to me that our own material is archived in Victoria Tower. Will the Minister tell the House—[Interruption.] Could he stop talking to his Parliamentary Private Secretary and listen to me? Would the EU institutions be able to make duplicates in vellum as we do in this Parliament?

The Minister said that the Bill does not cover the documents of the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank. The ECB position is rather controversial, given our own decision, in 1997, to publish, after only six weeks, the meetings of the Monetary Policy Committee. Expectation management is an important part of monetary policy, so I wonder why we are not seeing the ECB papers in the same way. The whole exercise cannot be described as a measure to improve transparency, given the decision to keep everything secret for 30 years. Who decided that these documents should be kept secret for 30 years and why? My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who sadly is not in his place, has commented on Mrs Thatcher’s approach to the miners’ strike, demonstrating how few people can fully understand the significance of papers when they are kept locked up for 30 years.

The aim of the citizen programme is to improve how citizens participate in and contribute to the EU by strengthening remembrance and common values and encouraging a broader engagement and debate. The budget is €185 million, so by my calculation about £7 million will be spent in this country—not, I would suggest, a vast amount. The Minister has said what he thinks we will contribute to the budget, but I wonder whether he can say how much of it he thinks will be spent in the UK.

As the Minister said, 20% of the money will go towards commemorating the world wars and victims of totalitarianism. The Government are spending some £50 million on commemorating world war one. If the remarks of the Secretary of State for Education and the decision to put Lord Kitchener on the £2 coin are anything to go by, the Government are embarking on an unnecessarily jingoistic approach, which this EU programme might usefully counterbalance.

I want to ask the Minister how the funds will be distributed. It is unfortunate that world war one appears only fleetingly for children in key stage 3, so a little more understanding can only be a good thing. Will the money for the commemoration of the world wars be distributed in its own channel, or will it be bundled up with the money the Government are spending directly and through the Heritage Lottery Fund?

As the Minister said, the major part of the moneys will be used on EU citizenship projects for learning and twinning. Since the major wave of twinning took place in the late-1970s, just after we joined the Common Market, and given that the EU now has 22 member states, it seems a good idea to give this initiative fresh impetus so that new relationships can be built across the Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

In fact, the creative industries is one of the few areas of the British economy that is currently growing, but despite what the Minister said, Ofsted has criticised the effectiveness of music hubs and one school in six is cutting arts subjects. If DCMS Ministers cannot persuade their colleagues at the Department for Education to take a broader view, our young people will be permanently disadvantaged. Is the problem that the Minister is not sufficiently persuasive or that the Secretary of State for Education is too narrow-minded?

[Mr Vaizey]

I would never accuse the Secretary of State for Education of being narrow-minded. I take on board the hon. Lady’s praise for my Secretary of State who is leading the growth in the creative industries. We in DCMS are led by a Secretary of State who is leading a Department for growth. That is very good news indeed, and I repeat what I said: there is a huge input from the Secretary of State for Education.

I really would not take too much from an Ofsted report that looks at music hubs four months after they have been created and condemns them. The hon. Lady should speak to her friends in the Musicians Union, who are furious about that report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I think we are making very good progress—

[Helen Goodman]

You’re not.

[Mr Vaizey]

Well, the balance in lottery funding between the regions and London was 60:40 under the previous Government, and it has now gone up to 70:30. The Arts Council chairman is well aware of the issue and wants to go further. The Arts Council has set up the strategic touring programme and the creative people and places fund to help to rebalance arts funding in the regions, and our brilliant Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced proposals to support touring theatre with tax relief.

Cyber-bullying

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

All schools will have to have a protection policy in place and they will be subject to Ofsted inspections. My hon. Friend’s intervention gives me an opportunity to say what a fantastic job he did as children’s Minister. One reason why I have such respect for his remarks is because he is one of those former Ministers who has maintained an interest in the policy in which he was so intimately involved, and he continues to make important interventions in our debates.

The Education Act 2011 strengthened schools’ powers—a specific Government intervention in this area—so that teachers can now impose same-day detention, use reasonable force to protect children from harm and have the power to search for and delete images or files that they think are inappropriate. Schools do not exist in a vacuum. Sometimes the rhetoric is such that we almost pass on to schools the responsibility for sorting out all society’s ills. Schools have to work with parents, and parents have to be participants and allies in the work to combat cyber-bullying. Schools need to work with parents to make it clear that no one will tolerate any kind of bullying, and to ensure that parents are aware of the procedures to follow if they believe their child is being bullied. Schools should investigate and act on all reports.

Making parents aware of what they can do to keep children safe online is also important. I am pleased that, as part of our work to protect children from inappropriate content online, the main internet service providers have come together and formed an alliance to carry out a large-scale internet safety awareness campaign for parents. I understand that that will have a budget of approximately £25 million per year for the next three years and will include signposting to further sources of help and advice. I have said to the ISPs on many occasions that while it might be helpful to them in a competitive environment to offer new and up-to-date tools to parents to keep their children safe online, they must also work together as one. They have the experience, they know their customers, they have the highly paid marketing directors and they have the relationships with the advertising agencies and so on to work together as one for the common good to put forward this message. I am pleased we have got this deal with them.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am pleased to hear the news about the campaign. Will the Minister clarify whether that will be £25 million per year for three years, or £25 million over three years?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am so sorry. I misspoke because of what was written in my speech. I now understand that it is £25 million over three years. I thank the hon. Lady for correcting me, and I will double and triple check that.

A range of agencies and organisations have a role in preventing and responding to bullying: local authorities, local safeguarding children boards, law enforcement, schools, parents and the internet industry. Drawing on the breadth of expertise available, the Government are supporting a number of specific initiatives. For example, we are providing four organisations—I think this figure is correct—with more than £4 million in total over two years from spring 2013. [Interruption.] I am assured that that is correct. We are giving £800,000 to the Diana Award to identify and train 10,000 pupils as anti-bullying ambassadors. We are giving £250,000 to Kidscape to work in nine of London’s most economically deprived boroughs to train primary school professionals to deliver preventive and remedial strategies. We are giving £1.5 million to BeatBullying to train 3,500 11 to 17-year-olds over two years as cyber-mentors, and we are giving £1.5 million to the National Children’s Bureau consortium to focus on bullied children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities, to work with 900 schools, parents, carers and school staff to reduce bullying and its impact when it occurs.

I have spoken for some time in this short debate on a subject that is important and wide-ranging. I reiterate how welcome the debate is, and how judicious the opening remarks were from the hon. Member for Upper Bann. Building on the work of the UKCCIS—in its time, a relatively unique organisation, bringing together a range of stakeholders, and it remains the forum to debate many of the key issues—the Government have developed a range of measures, such as important legislation to give teachers powers to intervene in cyber-bullying and a campaign to work with ISPs to ensure that we can educate parents. I urge hon. Members to engage with social media on their procedures and thoughts. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and to my hon. Friend the Minister when he sums up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Slamming is against the Ofcom regulations, and I am appalled to hear about what my hon. Friend’s constituent has gone through. I will certainly do everything I can to assist her, as this is an appalling practice.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Will Ministers join me in congratulating the National Theatre on 50 years at the very heart of our cultural and artistic life? It is a great reminder of the sheer quality of the excellence of our national arts institutions, many of which are based in the capital. Outside London, however, the picture is now very different. I pay tribute to those who have produced a report today showing the massive disparity in Government and lottery support for the arts. What the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) said earlier is wholly wrong: whereas Londoners get £70 per head each year the rest of the country gets only £4.60 per head. So what are the Government going to do to rebalance our cultural economy?

Bow Match Women’s Strike

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Vaizey]

I hope that the hon. Lady will supply me with the appropriate quote so that I can make that point to my right hon. Friend. He is obviously extremely busy, because he is trying to put forward very important reforms to our education system to help, funnily enough, the very poorest in our society, which is his passion. The fact that too many children are written off at a very young age and told that they cannot achieve is what he wants to change. It may not be possible for me to have a meeting with him, but certainly I might write to him and perhaps the official history of the match girls’ strike, written by Louise Raw, could be made available to him. He is an assiduous reader. Even in a digital age, if someone stops my right hon. Friend in the street—as I am sure you know, Mrs Main—they will find at least 10 and possibly 20 books in his satchel. He is also a keen historian, although perhaps not in the same league as his new shadow.

Let me talk more generally about some of the issues to do with heritage, because this is a timely debate in terms of what the Government want to do to recognise heritage. I have been given a list of some of the small grants that have been made to relevant projects by the Heritage Lottery Fund. Interestingly, we increased the share of the national lottery money going to the Heritage Lottery Fund from 16% to 20%, so there is now substantially more funding available for these schemes. Last year, almost £10,000 was given to Maximal Learning for a seven-month project to explore the history of the Bryant & May building in Bow, east London. We have also got a huge sum—up to £28 million—for projects to commemorate the first world war. We have recently given some money to the Charles Dickens museum, the author’s former Bloomsbury home, as well.

Most importantly of all, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced earlier this month the creation of an anniversaries fund. That is a fund of £10 million, to which people who wish to commemorate a significant anniversary can apply. That is something that is very close to my heart and that I have long wanted to see come about. Obviously, I was thinking about some of the big anniversaries that are coming up, such as the celebration of the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, but there is a general point that is relevant to this commemoration in Parliament of the match girls’ strike, which is that, as part of our society and as part of community cohesion, it is important that as many people as possible know our history and know the significance of great events. That includes Magna Carta. It includes the match girls’ strike. These are events that have shaped our history and continue to have a resonance.

Perhaps it is too late for a group to apply to the Heritage Lottery Fund for funding to commemorate the match girls’ strike, but it may be possible to find a suitable anniversary further down the line to which that would apply. Obviously, the anniversaries fund should certainly not exclude anything that commemorates the important industrial and labour history of our nation.

Let me move on to the subject of health and safety. There were impassioned speeches from Opposition Members about the importance of maintaining heath and safety legislation. Again, this subject is close to my heart. I was struck when I went round the Olympic village before the opening of the Olympics and was told that it was the first such stadium to be built without a single fatality. I certainly do not and nor, I hasten to add, do any of my fellow Ministers come from the school that sees health and safety as a burden and that does not understand the importance of health and safety in keeping people safe. However, it is important that we review regulations and that we strike a balance between the need to protect people at work and the need not to burden business unduly.

We have conducted some key reviews. Professor Löfstedt carried out an independent review, and of course Lord Young of Graffham carried out his own review. They found that there was an over-implementation of health and safety regulation, driven by a fear of the civil law—a fear of lawyers, who can see an opportunity presenting itself. There was an opportunity to simplify health and safety legislation, and by doing so we can improve health and safety. We are, for example, introducing a register of occupational safety and health specialists, which will mean that small employers no longer have to waste time searching for the right person; they will be able to consult the register to find a specialist. A teacher now has to fill out only one form when they organise a school trip, so the process is much easier. We hope that that will encourage more schools to take school trips. We have also made it easier to make a personal injury claim through a simplified three-stage process.

Although it sounds contradictory, the simplification of health and safety legislation can improve health and safety by encouraging small businesses to apply health and safety law. We have also made it absolutely clear that we will not stint on health and safety inspections of dangerous occupations or workplaces. We will name and shame those who breach health and safety law, and we will make them pay for follow-up inspections if they are found to be in breach of the law.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is also the Minister for Women and Equalities, and equality in the workplace was mentioned with some vigour.

[Helen Goodman]

The Minister mentioned, rightly, the excellent health and safety record in the Olympic stadium. Has his Department made—and if not, does it intend to make—representations to FIFA and to Qatar about the health and safety standards surrounding construction for the World cup?

[Mr Vaizey]

I thank the hon. Lady for presenting me with the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), whom the Prime Minister yesterday appointed Minister for Sport. With your indulgence, Mrs Main, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) for his extraordinary service in that role—service that, if we include his time as Opposition spokesman, spans almost a decade. He will be a sad loss to the Department. Our new Minister for Sport will read what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has said and will respond appropriately regarding the Government’s position.

I return to the question of equality in the workplace. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to “Made in Dagenham”, a film about equal pay by the brilliant British producer Stephen Woolley, which I would commend to anyone. The soundtrack to the film was sung by Sandie Shaw, who was a Dagenham Ford clerk but has moved on to greater things and is now my constituent. [Laughter.] It does not get any better than that. The hon. Lady mentioned that a period of more than a century did not seem like a long time, and it is interesting to note that 80 years after the match girls’ strike, it was still perfectly legal to pay a woman less than a man for doing the same work. The Equal Pay Act 1970 was introduced to tackle that discrepancy, but such inequalities still exist. Women now make up half of the work force in Britain, but they are under-represented in senior positions. If we want to harness the country’s full potential, we must remedy that imbalance and waste of talent. That is why the Government are committed to making Britain fairer.

New Media and Personal Data

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am grateful for this chance to respond, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on securing this important debate on new media and data protection. I thank her for her kind words about seeing me in my place. She expressed surprise at seeing me here, but she wrote to me about this issue on 13 May this year, so she should not be surprised to see me here tonight. She has, however, inadvertently put her finger on an important matter—namely, the responsibility within Whitehall for some of these issues. She will know that, as communications Minister, I am responsible for the mobile phone companies in the round, but that the Information Commissioner’s Office remains under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice. It is therefore right that the Ministry of Justice should address such matters as the data protection regulations. A similar issue arises with nuisance calls. I am driving forward reform in that area, although the Information Commissioner deals with that matter, which remains under the remit of the Ministry of Justice. However, I care passionately about these issues, and I want to see progress and change in this area.

As Minister for communications, I have been involved in trying to strike a balance between the use of personal data and the need to keep people’s privacy secure. As the hon. Lady made clear in her speech, this is a very real issue in the age of the internet. We talk about data, but let us put a bit of colour into this. We share data, as in information about ourselves, every single day on the internet. I was interested to read the recent World Economic Forum report that estimated that we send 47 billion e-mails a day, that we submit 95 million tweets—not always accurate ones—and that we share 30 billion pieces of content on Facebook every day. We are sharing personal data all the time.

A thriving information economy is essential for enhancing our national competitiveness and driving economic growth. That is why the Government have published an information economy strategy that looks at how Government, industry and academia can work together to exploit the many opportunities available in that sphere.

It is important that we distinguish between personal data that we make freely available, and personal data that we give up to mobile phone companies and that may be used in the future. The report to which the hon. Lady refers from 12 May would, on first reading, give anyone cause for concern. I am happy to report to the House, however, that not everything in that report was entirely accurate.

In a parallel world while the hon. Lady was meeting the Information Commissioner’s Office and talking to mobile phone companies, my officials were doing the same having received her letter. In fact, I replied to her letter today, and she should find that reply in her inbox this evening or tomorrow morning. Purely coincidentally, while I was going through my correspondence I found her reply to my letter in my inbox.

When the story broke, the Information Commissioner’s Office spoke to EE—the company referred to—as well as to Ipsos MORI, and was reassured that the detail of the story was not entirely accurate. EE confirmed that it works with Ipsos MORI on customer behaviour and network usage analysis, and to prepare reports on how, when and where its network is being used. However, data shared between the parties is anonymised and aggregated in groupings of a minimum of 50 to remove any individual references or identifiers.

In that respect, the article in The Sunday Times was not entirely accurate. Ipsos MORI did not sell the personal data of 27 million customers to the Metropolitan police as the data are not generically made available. Furthermore, the Information Commissioner’s Office has seen examples of the output that Ipsos MORI created using data from EE, and it confirmed to my officials that they were not sufficiently detailed or granular to enable individuals to be identified.

Ipsos MORI or EE remain responsible for ensuring that any outputs are compliant with the relevant legislation, and do not identify particular individuals. EE has confirmed that position, and is adamant that it would never breach the trust that its customers place in it, and that it complies fully with all relevant regulations. Telefónica O2 says that it does not sell customer data, and has provided details about a product that it, local councils and others use called “Smart Steps”. That is a data analytics tool used to measure and understand the number of people visiting a specific area. Telefónica O2 confirmed that data are anonymised and aggregated, in line with UK and EU data protection legislation. Similarly, 3UK confirmed that it does not sell customer data. It shares information with third parties such as service providers, to help them deliver services to their customers, but that is done in full compliance with privacy laws. Vodafone also provided details of the two legacy analytical projects in which it participates, both of which were designed to comply with the Data Protection Act.

The Information Commissioner’s Office “Anonymisation: managing data protection risk code of practice” provides guidance on how anonymisation can be used to manage and minimise data protection risk when releasing information. That code was published last year in November with the aim of helping organisations ensure their use of anonymisation techniques safeguards individual privacy. I am pleased to say that that code is online on the ICO’s website.

Where data have been anonymised and aggregated, they will not fall within the scope of the Data Protection Act as they do not enable particular individuals to be identified or differentiated from one another. The requirements of the DPA apply only to the processing—the use, disclosure, collection and storage of personal data that relate to an identifiable individual.

The Data Protection Act does not prohibit the sale of personal data—it is not clear that there is a legal loophole as such in terms of companies trading in personal data, but it is something about which individuals should be informed. As the hon. Lady points out, it is important to obtain individuals’ consent. That is an important issue that we should be addressing, particularly in an online world where often one is confronted by terms and conditions of inordinate length that no reasonable person could be expected to read in great detail. I would certainly like to see much simpler terms and conditions specifically designed for an online age covering the essentials necessary to giving informed consent.

[Helen Goodman]

The Minister is responding to the points I raised on 13 May, but things have moved on and I have found out more. I was not arguing that these companies were breaking the law. Clearly, they are large companies with big legal departments and would not be so foolish as to do that. My point was that these data, when combined with other data, can enable another person to identify the individuals. That being the case, we need to tighten the law. I hope the Minister will deal, in his further remarks, with that and the Government’s response to the proposed tightening of the law.

[Mr Vaizey]

I will certainly do that, but I hope the hon. Lady will bear with me briefly, because it is important, given what provoked this debate, that these issues be put on the record.

I was talking about consent and, in my humble opinion, meeting the hon. Lady halfway on some of her concerns, which I think were perfectly legitimate to raise in the House. Personal data required by legislation to be provided and made available to the general public—for example, directors’ information or births, marriages and deaths—can also be sold, but as I said, I would be concerned if any of the mobile operators were to release personal data for sale in contravention of the law. As she made clear, however, that was not her point.

I turn now to the thrust of the hon. Lady’s comments. We have moved on from the report in The Sunday Times to the general issue of how personal data are handled, particularly in an online and digital age. I begin with two points. First, we take this issue very seriously. Quite recently, we strengthened the powers of the Information Commissioner’s Office. All Members will recall the issue with Google street cars, which were sent hither and thither to take pictures of everybody’s houses so as to provide a public service. When data protection was deemed to have been breached, it was discovered that the ICO did not have the powers to fine Google. As she made clear, the ICO is currently considering a privacy case involving Google, and over the heads of Google and of other companies that break privacy laws hangs the possibility of a significant fine from the ICO, thanks to European legislation introduced by the Government. Those fines are already being used to full effect to combat the plague of nuisance calls.

The second privacy issue that required an important balancing act was the transposition of the e-privacy directive, in which I was closely involved. This relates directly to the issue of cookies, to which the hon. Lady referred earlier. A cookie can be many things, but in the online world, it is a small packet of data that allows one’s movements to be tracked across the web. They can provide a useful service to the user of online services by providing, for example, advertisements tailored to the interests of the individual internet user based on their browsing history, but, based on an important principle, the e-privacy directive introduces the opportunity for an individual to consent to the use of cookies. That is why anyone who uses the internet will see on most websites a pop-up display, banner or some other notice making it clear that the website uses cookies and asking the user to give their consent. By and large—I do not have any specific evidence to support this assertion—most people consent to the use of cookies, because there are some benefits. However, let us not underestimate the concerns that people have about this kind of tracking. As the hon. Lady pointed out, people want to feel that they have given their consent for tracking behaviour. Those of us who have covered this brief in Government for a while will remember the storm that occurred when BT tried to introduce tracking users through software created by Phorm. That caused an enormous row and BT had to withdraw it, because the people who used its website did not feel that their consent had been given properly. That is the kind of issue covered by the e-privacy directive.

The hon. Lady raised the matter of the proposals currently under discussion in the Commission. I am loth to correct the hon. Lady on any issue, but the proposals are not being put forward by Commissioner Kroes, who is the Commissioner for digital services, but by Commissioner Viviane Reding, who is the Commissioner with responsibility for consumer affairs. The proposals will update the data protection regulations and, as she pointed out, the Ministry of Justice is the lead Department. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has been to Brussels and he has used the straightforward and plain language that has stood him in such good stead in his career over many years to make clear the concerns of the British Government.

Let me again be clear: we do not oppose the data protection regulations. We support updating the regulations, but we have legitimate concerns about some of the detail. The most notorious regulation, which has grabbed the headlines, is of course the one that goes by that vernacular phrase “the right to be forgotten”. Our concern is straightforward: saying to any ordinary person that we are going to give them the right to be forgotten on the internet will raise a huge amount of expectation. We therefore want absolute clarity on what can be achieved by talking directly to the website—for example, Facebook—whose data we want to erase, and by asking how far that can go and how many other people one has to speak to. The clear concern of the British Government relates to scope.

The hon. Lady is right to raise these concerns. All British citizens are rightly concerned about how their data might be used in a digital age. It is right and appropriate that the Government respond in a judicious and sensible fashion.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are a number of players in the marketplace. It is fiercely competitive, not just in mobile but with Virgin in fixed-line and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, there are many community players as well.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister will join me in welcoming the National Audit Office inquiry into why the 4G auction raised £1 billion less than was forecast. In a time of austerity, it is quite wrong for the mobile phone companies to be given spectrum at prices below even what they were prepared to pay. In his letter to me, the Comptroller and Auditor General said:

“This differs from the earlier auction of 3G spectrum…where the generation of proceeds was at least one of the objectives of the auction.”

Why was the Minister so casual with taxpayers’ assets?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

It is absolutely essential that we strike a balance between protecting our rural environment and removing some of the obstacles that have slowed the roll-out of broadband, so that it can be laid more quickly, more cheaply and more efficiently. It is important to strike a balance and I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The House knows by now that it was Labour’s policy to roll out broadband across the nation by 2012. The Government put the target back to 2015 and BT now says that it will not be achieved until 2017. What will be the impact of the Prime Minister’s decision to agree the 90% cut in the European broadband budget last week?

[Mr Vaizey]

We would not expect that to have any impact on our own proposals. We are well ahead of the game in rolling out superfast broadband. Most of Europe—in fact, all of Europe—sees us as a leader in that respect. I am delighted that we did not introduce Labour’s telephone tax on hard-working people. Instead, we are delivering superfast broadband to the vast majority of people in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

No, 2 megabits is not too much to ask, which is why we will deliver 2 megabits to the last 10%.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said, Policy Exchange produced an important report yesterday, which I thought the Minister had welcomed. It said that the Government should stop

“pursuing speed as a proxy for progress”

and focus

“explicitly on economic and social outcomes”.

The report pointed out that 16 million people lack basic IT skills and that that is one of the major reasons that people give for not getting online. What specific action will the Minister take to help those people?

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. It is good to hear her endorsing the work of Policy Exchange, a distinguished centre-right think-tank. I hope that she will continue to support its policy proposals. As I said at the launch of the Policy Exchange pamphlet, Go On UK is doing extraordinarily good work to encourage people to go online. Along with all the councils that are procuring superfast broadband, we have a strategy to encourage people to take up broadband.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

For the 4G auction, we have put in place a 98% coverage obligation. Getting broadband to the village of Denton will, of course, be part of the Kent rural broadband programme, so it will be a matter for my hon. Friend to discuss with his county council.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Government chose to abandon Labour’s target of universal broadband access by 2012, and last week Ofcom published figures that showed that 10% of the population— 5 million people—have no access to broadband whatever. The problem is especially bad in rural areas, where access is 50% worse than in urban areas. In north Lincolnshire, only one person in five has access to broadband, and in Ceredigion the proportion is one person in four. Whatever happened to the party of the countryside?

[Mr Vaizey]

We did not abandon Labour’s pledge; Labour’s pledge was unaffordable and it was unclear how it was going to be paid for. We have put in place a much better pledge—to deliver superfast broadband—and we have among the highest penetration of internet access in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

That consultation is being handled by our Liberal Democrat colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and I am sure that he will not sit on the fence when it comes to making a decision on that issue.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

In recent years, 242 local papers have closed. Meanwhile, Ministers are throwing £40 million into local television, which will only add to the competition for advertising that local papers face. I know that Ministers have recently had some difficulty remembering all their conversations, but will the Minister tell us when they last discussed local television with News Corporation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I cannot guarantee that the engineers who lay broadband will stay in the areas in which they work, but the key point about broadband roll-out is to ensure that all parts of the country benefit from the infrastructure so that we can base companies with high skills all over the country.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer found extra money to extend superfast broadband to small cities, but, as the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) said, the real digital divide today is between those with broadband and those without. Peter Cochrane, former chief technical officer at BT, giving evidence in the other place, described access as “a fundamental human right”. Two million people, mainly in rural areas, are still without broadband, and Labour pledged to guarantee 2 megabits to almost every household by 2012, but this Government will not achieve that until after 2015. Why are Ministers so unfair in their treatment of rural Britain?

[Mr Vaizey]

I certainly reject the accusation that we have been unfair on rural Britain, and my glass, unlike the hon. Lady’s, is half full not half empty. I look forward to going on a tour with her to Belfast, Cardiff, Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester and so on and telling people that they are getting unfair treatment from the Government because we are investing in their broadband networks.

Media Regulation

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman]

I was going to ask the Minister whether he will go back to his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and address the clauses in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is currently before Parliament. It would be good if Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport took seriously their responsibilities and got Ministers from the Ministry of Justice to shift their position.

We have briefly discussed the fact that we need a free press that pursues the public interest. Just like books and magazines, newspapers have a VAT exemption which, I understand from questions that I have asked of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, is worth £150 million. It seems to me that the public expect to get something for their £150 million—namely a responsible newspaper industry.

Everybody who contributes to this morning’s debate will say that they favour press freedom. There is, however, sometimes confusion about what we mean by that. I just want to tease out some distinctions in relation to that small phrase. Of course, everyone agrees that we need freedom of expression in a free society. If, after this debate is over, people want to say, “The Member for Bishop Auckland made a terrible speech and I didn’t agree with a word of it,” that is fine by me; they are free to do that. However, I do not think that that freedom of expression extends to a licence to ride roughshod over both the law and ethical considerations in order to pursue stories.

We need to be very clear about the distinction between freedom with respect to the content of what is written and freedom in terms of the process that the media use to acquire stories. If we take seriously that distinction between process and content—Onora O’Neill wrote a very interesting essay on this before Christmas—we will find it very helpful. I say that because when we look at the systems that apply—the PCC and whatever we would like to succeed the PCC—we are looking at systems that address the processes, not at systems that control what people write. No Opposition Member and, I am sure, no Government Member has any interest in standing in a newsroom with a big red pen. That is not what we are talking about.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

indicated assent.

[Helen Goodman]

I am glad that the Minister is nodding; we clearly have a consensus on that. However, if there is to be more discipline in relation to processes, that obviously requires the institutions, organisations and corporations themselves to have some proper internal management control.

[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]

I am pleased to welcome you to the Chair, Ms Osborne.

I have to say that it was pathetic to hear James Murdoch before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport saying that he did not know in answer to all the questions that the Committee was putting to him. I am leaving to one side the question whether all those answers were, strictly speaking, accurate and truthful. He seemed to think that not knowing was some kind of excuse, but in a well run organisation, the people at the top should know what is going on. It is not an excuse not to know. I have written about that in more detail, and people can see what I have written on my website. I now want to talk about the move to a new system and the criteria that a new system must fulfil.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) made a speech in Oxford last month, in which she highlighted three criteria. A new system must be independent, must be citizen-centric and must have 100% coverage of all newspapers. At the same conference shortly afterwards, and very helpfully, Ed Richards, the head of Ofcom, spelt out the meaning of independence. Independence means independent of political influence and independent of those who are regulated. The system needs to be independent of those who are regulated with respect to the decisions that are taken, the governance and the budgetary control.

Mr Richards went on to set out other qualities that a good system should have. He mentioned clear objectives, an investigative capacity, transparency of process, power to sanction and public accountability—something that we have not looked at enough in relation to the PCC, which is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act or all the usual accountability mechanisms of bodies that are pursuing public interests. The system must also be accessible to complainants.

In the light of what has happened, I would like to add four further points. No one should be above the law. The financial compensation that people receive should be related to the wrong that they have suffered, not the depth of their own back pocket. We need to see competent management systems and proper audit trails in the media industries. As the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) said, we need to look across to the new media as well, because otherwise we could simply set up a system or see a system set up that made traditional newspapers completely uneconomic, with everything migrating to the net. We would then have the wild west on the net, which would not be acceptable, so the hon. Lady was right to raise that point.

Obviously, this is a difficult and complex area, and it would be good if the industry could produce some solutions that met the criteria that have been outlined. So far, we have seen some very positive and interesting ideas put forward to Lord Justice Leveson by Alan Rusbridger in relation to the Reynolds defence and the Omand principles, which show what The Guardian has done and how it has kept ahead of the PCC code.

We have also seen proposals from the current chair of the PCC, Lord Hunt of Wirral, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda reminded the Chamber, takes the Tory Whip in the House of Lords. Lord Hunt seems to be putting forward a convoluted construction of commercial contracts between press and regulator. I would like to ask a number of questions about that proposal. First, is it not the institutionalisation of agency capture? Secondly, if it is based on contracts between the regulator and the regulated, how can the regulator be truly independent? Will not the regulator always be looking over his or her shoulder to see whether membership or income might be lost? That does not seem to meet the criteria for independence set out by Ed Richards in his speech.

My next question is how the proposal can guarantee 100% coverage. Of course, it might guarantee 100% coverage in the short term. It might be that Lord Hunt, who is an extremely persuasive and plausible man, can get people to sign up now, but what guarantee is there that people will not subsequently want to leave such a system? Is it not really designed to maintain the existing “cosy club” style of regulation? Do other hon. Members really believe that those commercial contracts will satisfy the public, given everything that they have seen come out in the Leveson inquiry?

On Sunday, on the television, Lord Hunt claimed that he had the support of political parties for the proposal. I have to say that he does not have the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition for the proposal. Has the Minister met Lord Hunt? Has the Minister agreed the proposal? I believe that we should wait for Lord Justice Leveson to fulfil the inquiry that the whole House agreed it wanted him to undertake. We all agreed that that was important—that we needed the independence of a senior judge. I hope that the Minister will say that he, too, agrees that we should wait for Lord Justice Leveson to report, and that he does not accept the hysterical criticisms that were made of Lord Justice Leveson by the Secretary of State for Education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that my remark, albeit in shorthand, echoed the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend said:

“I don’t know whether legislation would form part of the solution or not…I would love the industry to come to me with their proposed solution, but what I would say to them is that whatever you propose must have the confidence of the public, because the public are not happy with what’s been going on.”

We all agree that we do not want statutory regulation of the content of the press. We want to hear what proposals the press have for regulation, and we have not ruled out statutory backing for a regulatory system.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently noted in the same interview, there is more agreement than expected on the tougher form of newspaper regulation that will emerge in the light of the phone hacking scandal. It is no secret that we would like a regime for regulating the press that is independent, but which has credible sanctions to deal with transgressors, to pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. It must also cover all the press.

Our preference is that there should be no direct statutory regulation of press content and that the press should be able to come forward with a new regime that is credible to the public. The press have already begun that process with the appointment of a new chair of the Press Complaints Commission—Lord Hunt. We wish him well in tackling the challenges he and the industry face. However, we have ruled nothing out at this stage, and we are certainly not in the business of pre-empting Lord Justice Leveson’s report.

[Helen Goodman]

I am pleased the Minister has said he does not intend to prejudge Lord Leveson’s inquiry, and that is helpful, but does he have any thoughts about the ideas put forward by Lord Hunt?

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what Lord Hunt has to say, and my understanding is that he wants everyone to be members of the new body. He wants credible sanctions, he wants the body to be independent of the Government and the industry, and he wants the industry to come forward with credible proposals. As I say, however, it would be wrong for me to comment on the specific elements he is putting forward for debate ahead of the Leveson inquiry’s findings.

Let me talk a little about the Leveson process before I make the other point I was about to make. The inquiry will have two parts. As everyone knows, the first part looks at media ethics and will make recommendations for a regulatory regime to ensure we have ethical media. It is important to note that that part of the inquiry will report in October 2012. The second part will look at the extent of illegal behaviour by News International and other media organisations and at the police inquiry into that behaviour. That part of the inquiry is necessarily longer because of the difficulties of operating around live criminal investigations, as the hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned.

The first part of the inquiry is made up of four modules. Module 1 dealt with the press and the public, and the hon. Gentleman will have seen the extensive media coverage of the witness hearings at the royal courts of justice. The evidence given has helped to raise the inquiry’s profile, and the continued coverage serves only to highlight the intense importance the public attach to the regulation of the press and to the inquiry’s outcome.

Hon. Members may have noticed that the hearings for module 2, which focuses on the press and the police, started yesterday. They will be followed by module 3, which focuses on the press and politicians. It is obvious, therefore, that media interest will continue right up until Lord Justice Leveson reports and that there is still a huge amount of evidence to be gathered and considered. Let me therefore repeat—I have said this almost ad nauseam—that it is important to wait for Lord Justice Leveson’s report.

There is, however, another opportunity to look at these issues. We will publish a Green Paper focusing, if I can put this in shorthand, on how to bring the Communications Act 2003 up to date. We hope the Green Paper will lead to a White Paper and then to a communications Bill. I say that in all sincerity because of the work the hon. Member for Rhondda has done on the issue and the position he has taken.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues this morning, and I hope that he does not feel I am being too much of a politician when I say it would be wrong for me to give a view on each of his points about a small claims court or amendments to interception rules, or, indeed, his concerns about the proposed parliamentary privilege Bill, which is still very much in the drafting stage, the fit and proper person test or the need to amend the Communications Act 2003. I hope that he will, perhaps in a personal capacity, submit evidence to the Green Paper.

[Mr Vaizey]

It is sad that our relationship has reached this stage, when the hon. Gentleman deliberately mischaracterises what I have said. If he is honest he will say that the Secretary of State has not reached a conclusion on whether the small claims court is the right way forward. My right hon. Friend said merely that it is an idea that should be considered, which is exactly what I said about two minutes ago: the hon. Gentleman put forward some interesting ideas and I would welcome it if he—I am treating him with a lot more respect than he is giving me—would put those ideas into the Green Paper. Is that all right?

I am sorry, Ms Osborne; I got slightly carried away, but it is a bit unfair when all we are saying is that the arguments being put across are perfectly valid and deserve consideration in a process that is being undertaken by the Leveson inquiry and the Green Paper.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being generous with his time. We were expecting the Green Paper to be published before the end of January, and it is now almost March. Does he have any idea about the timetable for the process, for which he is in fact responsible? [Interruption.]

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is an experienced politician, says that the conventional answer is “Soon”. As a Minister I have come up with a new conventional answer to any question like that, which is “in the spring”, because I have discovered that in Whitehall the spring season runs from February to November. Therefore, to say that something will be published in the spring covers all the bases. However, to be more accurate, and feeling the vibes of pressure about my performance coming from the hon. Member for Rhondda, I can say that the timing has changed from spring to imminent, which means that we hope to publish the Green Paper in the next few weeks. We wanted to tighten up a number of issues, not related to what we are discussing today, but on a wholly separate matter.

[Helen Goodman]

We know about that.

[Mr Vaizey]

That is the reason for the delay, and I gather that the hon. Lady knows about it.

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which is that the document is a Green Paper, not a White Paper. It is not a precursor to the legislation. The Green Paper is a consultation document, and it will raise a number of issues. It will, in some areas, give a clear view of the Government’s direction of travel, and in others it will simply raise an issue and invite comments. However, it is important to emphasise that a Green Paper is a precursor to a White Paper and is therefore not necessarily so detailed. It is designed to invite comment, ideas, thoughts and proposals. In that sense it is much more open minded, and is effectively a call for further evidence.

The hon. Member for Rhondda has raised a number of points during the debate, which although its title is “Media Regulation” focused on the issue that has exercised us for the past few months: the future of press regulation.

[Helen Goodman]

I intuit that the Minister may be about to sit down. Before he does I want to remind him of another issue raised in the debate: whether he has put any further pressure on his Ministry of Justice colleagues to amend the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

[Mr Vaizey]

It is worth making the point that the conditional fee arrangements could be interpreted as a restriction on press freedom. I hear what the hon. Lady has said about the Opposition’s case for a clear exemption in the relevant areas; but there is certainly an argument that conditional fee arrangements put the press under undue pressure. I hear what the hon. Member for Rhondda says about the sums of money involved, but there is evidence that newspapers might settle cases that they would otherwise be prepared to fight, on the basis of the legal costs that they are likely to rack up against a litigant. I will happily write to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Rhondda, setting out the position on that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

rose—

[Helen Goodman]

I just want to comment on the intervention made by the hon. Member for Worthing West. There are many things in the draft defamation Bill that will free the press, which the Opposition support. However, the Joint Committee report makes the point that the Jackson proposals should have been introduced rather than the things in the Government’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I very much welcome the Select Committee report that was published this morning. The House will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced an additional £150 million to invest in mobile networks in order to cover many of these not spots. We certainly wish to get much greater mobile phone coverage, particularly because of its importance to broadband.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

When the Labour Government left office, the sale of the 4G spectrum was scheduled for 2010, but it has been delayed twice since the general election, which has meant a loss of £300 million a year in fees and a delay of at least £2 billion in auction receipts. If Ministers had pressed Ofcom to do this to the original timetable, they would have needed no cuts in their departmental budget and they could have handed over a surplus to the Treasury. Why have they been so lackadaisical?

[Mr Vaizey]

I welcomed the hon. Lady to her new position at two very lively Westminster Hall debates last week, but may I welcome her again, to the Dispatch Box? It is hard to know where to start in pointing out how wrong the points she makes are. First, any receipts would have gone to the Treasury; and secondly, the delay was caused by the previous Government, who could have done this five years ago. They left us an order on their last day in office at a time when Orange and T-Mobile were separate companies, but when those companies merged that had to change. We have got on with this whereas Labour delayed for five years.

Internet (Governance)

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I welcome the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) to her position as Labour spokesman on communications and creative industries.

I pay a heartfelt tribute to the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), not just for securing this debate but for his leadership on this important issue, both as a Minister and since leaving post. In the spirit of co-operation that I think has characterised the debate, let me put on record how helpful he has been to me as a new Minister, in establishing myself in the post and finding my way around it. His co-operation and knowledge sharing has helped me to get up to speed and to continue, I hope, to represent the UK effectively in these important debates. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who was with us at the Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi, is now following these matters very closely, and will be an important contributor to debates on this issue.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) for his contribution on broadband, and I shall briefly touch on that issue now before turning, in the main part of my response, to internet governance. On the issue of the spectrum, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), we obviously know that the internet is very important. At lunchtime, I was at a retail store with people we were encouraging to get online—there is a campaign called “Give an hour”, run by Martha Lane Fox. Pat Harran, Mohammed Mir, Errol Hall and someone called Pitchit were there to get online, and I promised I would mention them so that they could look up Hansard online. Showing them how to find a Hansard debate on the Parliament website on an iPad was instructive because it was almost impossible; there is a message there for the parliamentary authorities.

I learnt an interesting statistic today that marries my two responsibilities in culture and communications. During the Frieze art fair, which lasted just four days and had 60,000 visitors, 1 terabit—a trillion bits of information—was downloaded. Incidentally, 85% of visitors were using an iPhone or an iPad, which shows the dominance of Apple, at least in trendy circles such as contemporary art. In 1993, 100 terabits was the entire amount of information transferred across the internet—I was virtually middle-aged then—so we can see how things have changed in a short time. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West are entirely correct to focus on the spectrum, and it is vital that Ofcom gets the auction rules right and that we are able to auction the 4G spectrum as soon as possible, because otherwise it will become more and more difficult to use the smart phone gadgets on which we all depend.

Turning to the substance of the debate, which is the Internet Governance Forum and the multi-stakeholder approach, I shall recount a short anecdote for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. The Foreign Secretary does not like the term “multi-stakeholder”; indeed, he has said that it is an ugly term, and at the London conference, which begins next week, I think he plans to use “co-operative governance”, which is a bit of a mouthful for a Conservative—he might even stretch to “mutual governance”. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary’s power will shift us away from “multi-stakeholder engagement,” but that is the term that people across the world understand.

The conference in Nairobi was very useful. I went because of the persuasion of the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, and I am grateful that people said it was good to see a Minister there. It was certainly worth my while, and I will continue to go as long as I hold this job, because it is important to have a presence there and engage with not just stakeholders but Government representatives who might have a different approach. The multi-stakeholder model is not universally accepted, and different models have been put forward. The right hon. Gentleman knows that moves are afoot to transfer responsibility for internet governance to the International Telecommunication Union—the ITU. The UK Government does not support that, and so in answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, we will continue, I hope, to lead on this issue and support the multi-stakeholder approach.

There is a proposal from India, Brazil and South Africa, known as the IBSA model, to set up a new global body within the UN system, but I think that that would be an unravelling of the world summit on the information society—WSIS—principles that were established, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman, in Tunis in 2005. In addition, China and Russia have submitted to the UN General Assembly a proposal for the international management of the internet.

I subscribe to the multi-stakeholder model. The internet was built from the ground up. It is an innovative medium, and not just Governments but other stakeholders, civil society groups and business all must have their say if it is to remain so. One reason for the debate in this area is the continued role of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Recently, there have been concerns about ICANN’s approach regarding the .xxx domain name, but I am glad that as a result we have had significant reforms of the corporation and a more coherent role for its Government Advisory Committee—GAC—and are now well placed for the corporation to move forward, particularly as it releases more generic top-level domain names from next year.

We also have the re-letting of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority—IANA—contract, which is currently operated by ICANN under the auspices of the US Government. It is absolutely clear that the US Government take their responsibility in that regard very seriously, as a steward for the global internet. People who suggest that they would somehow seek to turn off the internet are completely wrong —there is even an untrue anecdote that they cut off Syria four or five years ago. It is important, however, that the US recognises such concerns, and I think that it does. For example, when the IANA contract is let, it might go to ICANN or it could go to another body, and that will be seen as a global body, although it will be registered in the US. Local law will apply to the country that owns the domain name, so .uk will continue to be subject to UK law. In any dispute, the relevant domestic law of the domain name will prevail.

In consideration of new generic top-level domains, there will be a requirement for community support for IANA to amend the root and thus add a new domain—.scot for example—to protect us against controversial root domain names coming forward. The operator of IANA will also have to introduce enhanced transparency so that a request for root zone changes can be tracked through the system. I hope that people who feel that somehow a UN or an ITU route would be better—in that it would reduce the influence of the Americans— understand that the Americans do not seek to influence the governance of the internet and that they regard themselves very much as stewards.

I have very little time left, but I am glad that I have covered the main points: support for the multi-stakeholder approach; concern about the two proposals that I have mentioned; contentment that the issue between GAC and ICANN has, I think, been resolved and moved forward; and the United States Government’s recognition and addressing of the concerns about the re-letting of the IANA contract. We have the important London conference on cyberspace next week, and I hope that some of the Members present will be able to attend. If not, I ask them to please let me know. I am sure that they will be able to attend if the problem is at our end.

Let me make a couple of other points. There is the importance of internet protocol version 6. We have run out, as it were, of domain names and need to move to IPv6, and I want to use this opportunity to call on industry, particularly the internet service providers and the mobile operators, to support 6UK, which is the business body charged with raising awareness of IPv6. So far, support has not been forthcoming, and it now needs to come from the people who will reap the main benefit—the ISPs and the mobile operators. On the philosophical approach—if I may put it that way—that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland took, there is potentially common ground between us. I am interested in her monopolistic and mons—

[Helen Goodman]

Monopsonistic.

[Mr Vaizey]

I will not even try to say it. I will not give any views on that approach because I do not want to set any hares running.

There is also the self-regulatory approach to try to protect people from inappropriate content on the internet, and I welcome the ISPs’ code of conduct on active choice, which is designed to do precisely what the hon. Lady says, to give parents easy tools with which to protect their children. My approach with these businesses is to say, “This is the policy problem. You have the technical knowledge, so help us to solve it. Don’t simply say, ‘It can’t be done’.”