Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Sale to RedBird IMI

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Lady for her rather hyperbolic intervention. We are having a debate because two public interest intervention notices have been issued. The Government take their powers in this respect seriously, and the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom will be given the space and time to look into all these issues in detail. Those notices were issued because the Secretary of State takes the issues of media freedom and the ownership of important British media institutions extremely seriously.

I therefore ask the hon. Lady to help us. Those investigations are under way; we must not prejudice them and must ensure they are watertight. The important question of media ownership is something that all Members of this House care about. It would be regrettable if I were to say anything in this Chamber that should prejudice that process, so I say again to the hon. Lady that action has been taken, it is something the Government take seriously, and I ask her to let the process take its course.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is hugely new for us to be told that we will not get our questions answered at the Dispatch Box. We are used to that happening anyway, but it is good to be told that it is a waste of our time being here in the first place.

To press on with not being answered, I say to the Minister that I and 28 others, across all parties, wrote a letter to her Department specifying that we were all opposed to this potential takeover. We made it clear that we are not opposed to it because we dislike that particular Government—although I have to say that that may well be a feature. Rather, we would oppose it if the French Government wished to buy the newspapers, or even if this Government decided they would control them. We would oppose that on the basis that it would trample right across the idea of freedom of the press.

Following the notice that has gone to the CMA, I simply ask the Minister whether she would ask the Secretary of State to create a new PIIN on the basis that RedBird IMI has twice disrupted the Government’s efforts to properly scrutinise the purchase. Particularly with the idea of debt being loaded into the purchase, we need a further detailed investigation. I would be grateful if the Minister did that, because this could easily turn into a disaster for this Government.

[Julia Lopez]

I did not say I would give no answers; I said I would be able to give general answers, and my right hon. Friend will understand why. These are very precise processes that must be kept watertight, and I would not want to do anything to prejudice them or the Secretary of State’s ability to act in a way that is in the interests of this country and the media. This is not a waste of time. It is an opportunity for this House to make its voice and opinions known on what is a controversial issue of great public interest—an issue that we as a Government are very interested in.

My right hon. Friend also makes the important point that his concern is not about the Government in this particular case, but about Government ownership in principle. It is something I appreciate and understand, and I am sure it will be in the Secretary of State’s mind.

Proposed Merger of Three UK and Vodafone

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Navendu Mishra]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. This merger is bad news not just for UK customers, but for the people who work for both these businesses and, of course, it poses threats to national security as well.

Investment levels in the sector after the merger of Vodafone and Three in Australia went down by 45%. I ask the Minister: does the evidence therefore suggests that this will be a sensible merger here in the UK?

I want to place on the record my thanks to my union, Unite, for campaigning on this issue. It shares the concerns that so many of us have about jobs and national security, and it has consistently kept members aware of the implications since the merger was announced. According to Ofcom, 2.2 million households are struggling with the cost of mobile services. As a report by the House of Commons Library stated:

“Bills for some customers rose by over 11% in 2022. Communications consultancy Farrpoint has estimated that, based on inflation projections, bills will rise by a third over the next five years.”

Will the merger make bills cheaper for British customers? Research suggests not. The former chief competition economist at the European Commission has undertaken work showing that prices after a Three-Vodafone merger could be 50% higher. Based on average spending patterns, that means UK customers would pay up to £300 more per year on their mobile bills.

Only a few months ago, we heard that water companies were pushing for bills to rise by up to 40%. We know that electricity and gas payments almost doubled between May 2020 and June 2023, and the Bank of England chief economist recently warned that food inflation is unlikely to come down soon. Why will British customers who use Vodafone and Three have to find even more money for an unnecessary choice that has been foisted on them?

The merger is bad news not only for households’ financial security, but for the UK’s national security.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I apologise to all concerned, but I have a meeting in the Treasury very shortly that I will have to go to. However, I want to ask this question to ensure that it is raised with the Minister, who will no doubt be responding to this debate.

On the security issue—as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government, like others—I am concerned that there should be full and due diligence on such a merger, particularly given the Cheung Kong Group and the Li family being so knowingly involved with Chinese Government committees, their contacts in the Chinese Government and having to pass data over under the national security law. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the key question for the Minister is that the Government are able to assure everybody publicly that this will not take place unless these security issues are clarified and are not still security issues at the end of this process?

[Navendu Mishra]

The right hon. Gentleman makes important points, and national security is vital. I pay tribute to him for his work on this issue, and to all the members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China in the House of Commons and the House of Lords who are active in that campaign group.

Gambling Act Review White Paper

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I am very grateful for that constructive approach and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on the measures as they progress. He mentioned the non-statutory ombudsman, which is an important measure to redress the balance between punters who feel that their issues have not been addressed sufficiently and the companies involved. That is why we are bringing it forward, and we will be consulting on it in due course.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome this announcement, and I pay tribute to the members of the all-party parliamentary group and its leadership, the hon. Members for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). The hon. Lady is with us today and has driven this with unstoppable power, like a force of nature, so I pay particular tribute to her.

I welcome this announcement because it is at least a start. It is a positive start, and it includes most of the recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm, which is welcome, but there are a couple of other areas to mention. First, we should recognise that gambling is an online harm, with most of the harm being caused by online companies. Physical betting shops and so on are not part of that process, and the Minister will recognise that the majority of the statutory levy should be borne by those causing online harm.

The second area is advertising and children, on which the announcement simply does not go far enough. I do not mean to be churlish, because I welcome the announcement, but it should not be voluntary for football clubs to take gambling advertising off their shirts. I am a season ticket holder at Tottenham, whose shirts do not advertise betting companies, but many clubs’ shirts do, and children wear these things and sometimes go to school in them. They are therefore advertising gambling companies on their shirt. We need to recognise that this is a permanent process. Even if advertising is moved to the sleeve, in two years’ time, who knows, it might creep from the sleeve to the front. After the consultation, the Government should come back with a decision that we need to take control.

I welcome this announcement. It is a step towards security, safety and common sense, and that has to be welcomed by the House.

[Lucy Frazer]

I commend my right hon. Friend for all the work that he and others have done in this area. It is because of their tireless campaigning, along with that of people and families who have suffered harm, that I am standing here today to introduce this White Paper.

My right hon. Friend mentions young people, and I share his concern. We must do more, which is why we are taking steps to make gambling illegal, in many forms, for under-18s. I welcome the Premier League’s announcement on banning gambling advertising from the front of shirts. Footballers are role models for our children, and we do not want young people to advertise gambling on the front of their shirts. They like to wear football shirts, so I welcome the Premier League’s voluntary move, which my predecessors and I encouraged.

Of course, we will look carefully at the evidence on the funding from the statutory levy, and we will keep all these matters under review.

Statutory Gambling Levy

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is always a privilege to serve under your suzerainty in these matters, Mr Betts. I am sorry that there is not a whole bank of media here to report this important debate. Something else seems to be going on in the House that has taken them away, although I cannot think what that is or was.

We do not have a lot of time, so I will keep this short. I say to some of my colleagues who have interests—I have nothing against that; it is important in helping them to keep in contact with what goes on outside—that I wish they would not keep repeating the idea that anybody who wants to deal with the harms that occur as a result of gambling, much as we would if we were talking about alcohol or illegal drugs, is somehow completely and utterly opposed to things that are legal.

The reality is that I, for one, happily bet when I go horse-racing, as I do occasionally. I like to go to the ring, because it is the most free market area of all, and I love it—I love walking around looking for the best odds. That, for me, is fine. I do not, therefore, have any problem with gambling, and I defend it endlessly. Some of my constituents have businesses in the ring, although many lost their businesses when the National Joint Pitch Council was formed, which was a travesty.

I simply say to my colleagues: please stop this nonsense that people such as Mr Dugher and others go on about! It is nonsense to suggest that someone who is in favour of some kind of help, support or assistance for those who have serious difficulties—as the families present are—is opposed to the whole idea of gambling. We could not stop gambling tomorrow if we tried, because people like to bet on things. That is the nature of it. However, the case for the statutory levy being debated today makes absolute sense. The argument that having a levy will somehow drive everybody into the black market is silly. I have always found that when one makes extreme arguments in this place, one loses the case.

I say honestly to some of my colleagues—those who have interests—that it would be a good idea to say to the gambling industry that things have to change. We did all of this in relation to fixed odds betting terminals, and we were given the same arguments then: it would be a disaster, it was terrible, it would end up with gambling collapsing and people going into the black market, and all the rest of it. Those extreme arguments do not work, because they lessen the point.

I come back to my genuinely hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), for whom I have huge regard, as he knows. I agree with him on pretty much everything, and I agree with him today. He is taking the right course, which is to look at how this issue can be resolved, rather than simply saying, “If you do anything, you are going to destroy gambling.” The gambling industry will destroy itself if it spends its whole time opposing everything with these doom-and-gloom scenarios. That will just make people think that it has something to hide.

I will not repeat my arguments on the statutory levy, because I do not have a lot of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris)—in this case, I will call her my hon. Friend—made her arguments well, so I will stand on those. It is true that all the reports show that we have to have a statutory levy. Not to have one would be unfair to many of those responsible companies that wish to do something but that find that others—some of which have a lot of money but are irresponsible—do less than they should. The way to do this is to find a way to pay a proportion back to help those who have problems and to improve things.

I agree with the comments that have been made about the health service. Every time money is put into it, that money goes into all sorts of places, but not necessarily where we might want it to go, so a statutory gambling levy must be ringfenced to tackle the harms that are created. In a way, ringfencing would limit the amount we need, because as we put more money in, we hopefully reduce the harms. In terms of some of the other reforms, if things such as the abuse of VIP rooms are taken out of the equation, I sense that the level of harm would be reduced to a manageable level—I doubt it will ever be eradicated, but we would get it to a manageable level.

I just want a bit of common sense in this debate. Let us engage with the idea of a levy. Personally, I would be happy to look at the case for saying that we do not shift it for a set period of years. Perhaps we can look later at varying it in degrees if there is a reduction in the level of harm, but that is a debate to be had. What we should be debating is how that levy comes in and is managed, and how we can give some guarantees to companies that this is not simply a rolling tax increase. I accept that that is where we should be with this debate.

In a previous debate, three hon. Friends, who are not here today, read out speeches written by Bet365, and I did not think that that did this place any good at all. In truth, we are here for our judgment, not for somebody else’s judgment. I have no objection to Members standing up for the gambling industry and defending it; that is absolutely right and exactly what this place is all about. However, I do object to the fact that we sometimes think that we have to just say what the industry wants us to say—we do not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is right that we should recognise that there is a problem and that there may be a way of dealing with it. We must come together, across parties, to resolve that problem. I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to tell his colleagues in Downing Street, “Just think about how we could do this, not whether we should do it.” If we can get to that point, the White Paper will make sense. We should make sure it is a proper paper that deals with the problems and recognises that the industry will not simply go away.

If the harms can be dealt with, we can have a reasonable, decent industry that recognises and faces up to its issues and problems without running away from them. We will then have fewer people, and their families, being destroyed by addictions that have come about because of the pressures that have mounted up on them. If we can do all that, we will have done a service in this place. On that basis, I would be happy to discuss with anybody how we get this done.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

Thank you, Mr Betts. It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship and I will ensure that there is time at the end for the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) to reply. I thank her for securing the debate and thank all those who have contributed today, articulating a variety of views in a genuinely constructive manner. She has been a staunch campaigner for gambling reform for a very long time and I thank her and other parliamentarians for the many meetings that they have had with DCMS Ministers over recent months and years. As has been mentioned, I am not the responsible Minister for gambling: the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is unavoidably detained in a Bill Committee but I will ensure that he gets a full read-out of today’s debate.

It has been 17 years since the Gambling Act 2005 was passed and it is clear that the risks around harm and the opportunities to prevent it are different now from when that legislation was introduced. We must act to recognise that our regulatory framework needs to change. In recent years, the Government and the Gambling Commission have introduced a wide range of reforms to help protect, support and treat people who are experiencing gambling harms. The protections include the ban on credit card gambling, the fixed odds betting terminal stake reduction and reform to VIP schemes, as well as ongoing work to improve and expand treatment provision through the NHS and third sector. The review is an opportunity to build on those changes and ensure that we have the right protections in place to prevent harm.

As the hon. Member for Swansea East will appreciate, I cannot pre-announce what will be published in the White Paper, which we are finalising, nor can I comment on speculation in the media and elsewhere about its contents. However, I can say that I absolutely recognise the importance of sufficient and transparent funding for research to strengthen our evidence base, as well as for treatment to help those who need support. As part of the wide-ranging scope of the review––it is widely recognised as being wide-ranging––we called for evidence on the best way to recoup the regulatory and societal costs of gambling. We have been clear for several years that, should the existing system of taxation and voluntary contributions fail to deliver what is needed, we would look at a number of options for reform including, but not limited to, a statutory levy.

As hon. Members know, when the Gambling Act was introduced, the gambling industry agreed to provide financial support for tackling problem gambling, and the Gambling Commission requires operators to make an annual contribution to approved organisations, which deliver or support research on the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms, as a licence condition. We considered that issue closely in 2018 as part of the previous gambling review, when much of the debate centred on the quantity of funding provided by the industry. Since then, there have been a number of changes to how much is given and how it is managed.

Since 2018 the Gambling Commission has improved transparency around the amount given by the industry to research, education and treatment, and which bodies it is paid to, and required operators to donate to organisations approved by the commission. Most donate to GambleAware, an independent charity with no industry involvement in commissioning decisions, and the funding in the system has also increased substantially. In 2019, the four largest operators committed themselves to increasing their contributions tenfold, including £100 million for treatment over the following four years. I think the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) mentioned that contributions under the voluntary system were indeed £34 million last year, and they are due to reach £70 million by 2024. By way of context, £34 million is about 0.3% of GGY, which is about £10.2 billion.

Alongside that, the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS are taking forward work to improve and expand treatment provision. The 2019 NHS long-term plan gave a commitment to expand the coverage of NHS services for people with serious gambling problems and announced the creation of 15 specialist gambling clinics by 2023-24, with £15 million of funding over the same period.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) and others have commented, there are five NHS specialist clinics in operation, with a further three due to become operational by the end of this month. The Department of Health and Social Care is working with the NHS and GambleAware to help to improve the join-up between NHS and third-sector services, and to develop a clear treatment pathway for people seeking help.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) again raised the tragic case of Jack Ritchie. In March, the hon. Gentleman secured an Adjournment debate on the coroner’s finding that gambling contributed to Jack’s tragic death. As the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, said then, the findings are an important call to action for our Department, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education.

As we said in our response to the coroner, the Government are committed to building on the reforms made since 2017 and addressing the concerns identified in the prevention of future deaths report. The coroner’s report and lessons arising from Jack’s tragic death are important inputs to our considerations and the review of the Gambling Act. I can assure hon. Members that, overall, the voice of people with personal or lived experience of harm was thoroughly represented among the submissions to our call for evidence, and I and my successors leading the review have met a number of people who have suffered because of their addictions or those of the people they love. I thank them for their contribution to the debate and the evidence gathering.

As part of the review, we are looking closely at the barriers to high-quality research, which were mentioned by many hon. Members, and how we can overcome those barriers. Building the evidence base to deepen our understanding of gambling can involve the input of a range of groups, including the Gambling Commission, researchers and the third sector. A good example is the research commissioned by GambleAware on the impacts of marketing and advertising on children and young people.

The research showed the impact that certain aspects of gambling advertising can have on young people, including depictions of the association between football and gambling, which I know is a hot topic. That pointed to the need for change to ensure that the UK advertising codes continue to provide effective protection from gambling advertising-related harms. The research has led to the Committee of Advertising Practice announcing stronger protections, which will be backed by the enforcement powers of the Gambling Commission. Those include banning content with strong appeal to children from gambling advertisements, as well as further changes to protect vulnerable people. Research on gambling, like any other subject, is funded by the research councils, and we want to encourage more researchers from a wide variety of disciplines to work in this area. We will say more about that in the White Paper.

I will briefly mention a few other points raised by hon. Members during the debate. The Gambling Commission has piloted a new methodology to measure problem gambling, and that is being worked on. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned gambling in Northern Ireland. Gambling is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but I believe new legislation is being brought forward there. I can confirm that officials have met to share experiences regarding the Great British legislation and regulations, so the conversations are ongoing.

On the effectiveness of GambleAware services, 70% of people who started treatment as problem gamblers were no longer defined as such on the problem gambling severity index at the end of treatment, and 92% saw their score reduced, so there is evidence of some impact.

Several Members raised the important role of the gambling sector’s tax contribution to the economy and the fact that those tax revenues are then used to fund our public services, including the NHS. Everybody has recognised, today or previously, that gambling can be performed safely by millions of people every year. Again, a very clear message from Members today is that nobody is advocating a complete ban on gambling. Of course, any changes must be proportionate and evidence- based, and where possible they must avoid unintended consequences.

The Government have an important responsibility to get reform right. We will build on the many strong aspects of our existing gambling regulatory system to make sure it is right for the digital age and the future. The White Paper is a priority for the Department and we will publish it in the coming weeks, which is precisely the wording that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington asked for.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will my hon. Friend define what “coming weeks” means? When is a coming week no longer a coming week? Is it two or three weeks ahead, or four or five? A little definition would help.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I can say no more than that we will be publishing in the coming weeks. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South is currently detained elsewhere, so the coming weeks is all I can say today.

Gambling-related Harm

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris]

The whistle-to-whistle ban is not worth the paper it was written on. As for supporting anything Bet365 has done, I am sorry, I could not possibly do that. My experience of it does not allow me to do that.

That is a fraction of the alarming statistics that come across my desk each day. We know from research by Ipsos MORI and the University of Stirling that regular exposure to gambling promotions can change perceptions and associations with gambling over time and impact the likelihood that young people will gamble in the future. That advertising is a catalyst to risk and problem gambling in secondary school-aged children as a result, according to the Journal of Gambling Studies.

How can we let gambling companies spend more than £1.5 billion a year on advertising to the extent that in one single televised football match over 700 gambling logos were visible throughout the game? That is insane.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady think that kind of answers the last intervention? If the gambling companies that are businesses did not think the advertising was successful in capturing more people, would they put £1.5 billion into it, or would they stop advertising now?

[Carolyn Harris]

The right hon. Gentleman will know my answer. I was surprised when I saw the comment from the industry that advertising did not affect people’s behaviour. I thought if that was the case spending £1 would be ridiculous, but to spend £1.5 billion beggars belief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I will be reasonably brief, as the hon. Lady—in this case, my hon. Friend—the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) has laid out all the criteria. I want to emphasise a couple of points, and then appeal to my colleagues to think carefully about what their arguments really are.

It is worth reminding ourselves that this is a very cross-party affair. Across the political parties, we all campaigned for reform back in 2019. Recent polling shows that 70% of existing Conservative MPs agree that people should be protected from losing more than they can afford, so straightaway my own party is very strongly in favour of the changes that the Minister, who will be answering in due course, is looking to make; and I encourage him in doing so. Some 64% of Conservative MPs agreed that the industry needs greater regulation, and 68%—I know these figures have been given already—agreed with stake limits for online gambling. That is my political party, but this is very much a cross-party issue, and I know that Members who represent other parties will make similar points. This is not party political; it is about harm, and how we control that harm.

We have been told frequently by the gambling companies—I remember the debates on fixed odds betting terminals and so on—how they would all do self-regulation very carefully and responsibly. The industry simply did not take the big and early decisions that it should have taken; in a way, it has brought this on itself. I happen to think that many of these companies are very greedy. They have resisted regulation because they have been making such handsome profits out of the way that the industry works right now—excessive profits, in a way—which should be the giveaway. Failing to have self-regulated early means that it is simply not feasible to trust those companies to do what they should do.

As I understand it, the public agree that these changes need to happen and, as I say, parliamentarians are also in favour. If any colleagues have not done so, they should meet those who have suffered enormously as a result of gambling-related harm. Proportionately, a very high number of the British public—7%— are involved in serious gambling harms. That is to say that their families, family members, children, husbands, wives and partners also get sucked into their situation, because an individual or individuals have got themselves sucked into terrible debts, spending more than they can afford and becoming more in debt than their family can afford.

I want to draw attention to one element of the issue about which I have been particularly furious, which is the existence of VIP rooms. The gambling companies persisted with those rooms until they finally started explaining that they were somehow not going to do so anymore, but this has been going on for years. VIP rooms target the most vulnerable people—the people who, as the hon. Member for Swansea East said, the gambling companies make their money off—who are seriously caught up in gambling, often spending much more than they can afford. They are encouraged and incentivised to gamble more, getting special tickets to events, meeting celebrities, and being told what wonderful and clever people they are. All of this is a vortex of debt to them.

We know something about debt that is really important, and the Centre for Social Justice did a lot of work on this: debt is the single biggest cause of family breakdown. It is a dramatic and damaging process that destroys lives. It has led, as we know, to embarrassment, shame and eventual suicide—although in some cases people are caught before they get there. The truth is that debt is damaging, and for many people gambling is a real cause of serious and unregulated debt.

I do not believe in constantly regulating everything, but at time industries need to be regulated to shape the market. The gambling industry was deregulated far too much. At the time, I made a speech saying that I thought it would lead to serious problems, and that speech was right. It is not about the fact that the Labour party did it at the time; the reality was that it was wrong, whoever did it. Now we have to try to make that better. To improve the situation is not about being against gambling. It is about the gambling harms that come from an unregulated and unsupported process, and it is about not allowing people who do gamble to fall into the deep trough of debt.

My final point is about black markets. I have lost count of the number of times that I have been told, when any reform or change is planned, that there is going to somehow be a black market, and that people are going to go off and use it. A gambling black market is a pretty specialised area. If we are worried about that black market, we should simply seek to reform it; we do not stop doing something because we think it will somehow plunge people into debt. I appeal to colleagues, and those who may not be here today, to accept that the time is long overdue.

The hon. Member for Swansea East is quite right that we must move now and swiftly. I urge the Government to come forward and not to listen to the shrill voices that surround them at times, telling them, “This is going to destroy and damage an industry, and it is going to lead to huge hardships and problems.” Given the level of profits and the private money that is taken out of the industry, frankly, if it had common sense it would plough that money back in and then not need to suffer anything at all.

The time is overdue; the Government are now in the right place, although the Minister will no doubt explain that further. The Minister responsible for this issue—the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—has already explained his intentions. It is time for the gambling industry to recognise that the time is up, change is coming—it has to come—and it is not too soon, given the lives that have been lost and the damage that has been done to families. I say to my colleagues, do not continue to defend bad practice.

Russia’s Attack on Ukraine

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He has raised some valid points, all of which are being addressed. He spoke about athletes competing under neutral flags, tennis players coming to Wimbledon and other sporting events. As I said in my statement, I am holding a summit this afternoon with in excess of 20 of my ministerial opposites in countries around the world, and I hope we can take a joint position on this matter. It is important that we take a global approach as far as possible, because that will have more impact and will be a sustainable position for the long term.

Some of these issues are very difficult, involving athletes who have trained all their lives to compete in certain events. As the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box on Wednesday, we are not anti the Russian people; we are anti-Putin and his regime. However, the actions of Putin have consequences, and at this afternoon’s summit I hope we will reach a position on many of the issues the hon. Gentleman has raised, and release a statement afterwards.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. In line with her brief, I point out that we now know today that US intelligence has made it clear that President Xi knew about the invasion before it took place—in fact, he had asked the Russians to delay their invasion so that it would not affect the Beijing Olympics. We also know that when the Russian 4G system was attacked, hacked and brought down, it was Huawei, based in Cambridge, that helped to repair the system for the Russians.

I hear that the Government are thinking about a trade deal with China and that they think that China can be an interlocutor with Russia. May I remind my right hon. Friend and the Government that a similar argument was advanced in 1940, whereby Mussolini was going to be the interlocutor with Hitler, and Churchill refused that? When will the lesson be learned?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his points. Obviously most of them are not in my brief and I cannot comment, but I am sure his comments have been heard. I cannot comment on his assertion that the invasion was held for the Beijing Olympics, because I do not know that is the case. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), we are holding an international summit this afternoon with world leaders —20-plus, I hope, by the time we get to this afternoon—to reach a position, and we will release a statement after that.

Independent Fan-led Review of Football Governance

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the pivotal role that our football clubs, and indeed many sports clubs, play in their community on an ongoing basis—and boy, did we see during the covid crisis how pivotal they were to their communities. I thank them for all the work they have done up and down the country in that regard. He is right that there are many elements in the report, some of which will require legislation. However, I repeat the appeal to the football authorities and football clubs: there are many recommendations in the report that make a lot of common sense, and they do not need to wait for legislation in order to move forward with changes on, for example, heritage, financial flows, aspects of governance and other things. In fact, I encourage them to start working and moving now.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome the report from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She and I share a passion in that we are both season ticket holders at Tottenham—and you have to be passionate about football if you are a season ticket holder at Tottenham at the moment. Yes, absolutely, the part about the regulator and all the other bits and pieces in the report are important. I agree a little bit with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) with regard to the money. One of the areas that is really critical is that a successful league attracts money. As co-chair of the all-party Magnitsky sanctions group, I want to make sure that in the end, when the Government implement those, at the heart of it is an ability to stop people bringing money into our sport that actually degrades it and comes in very dangerous and dodgy circumstances.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments; he is absolutely right. There are, understandably, recommendations in the report on the owners and directors test, which is also right. There is an inherent instinct for not really liking too much regulation, but in this case, with football being so unique and so special, because it has shown itself to be incapable of reforming itself, we have to move, albeit reluctantly. Ideally we would not have had to take these measures. He is also right about the huge success and the important economic value of football to this country. A report recently came out that said, for example, that inbound tourism of people going to football matches was worth £1.4 billion alone to the UK economy, with 1.5 million people coming to the country just to watch our football matches. We really do appreciate that value and want to make sure that football is even more successful in the future because it is so pivotal to our communities but also our economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to refer to those who suffer acute harm. Yesterday I met many people whose relatives have committed suicide, or who have lost their homes and whose families have been destroyed, to discuss the issue. I agree with the PHE report that online gambling can often be a lot more pernicious and addictive than in-person gambling. We will certainly be looking at that. We are acutely aware that the restrictions introduced to land-based stakes for fixed odds betting terminals could be applied online in some way, and are carefully studying how that could be calibrated.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend look seriously in the White Paper at the abusive use by gambling companies of VIP rooms, through which companies deliberately target those who are gambling massively and losing massively to encourage them to gamble more and lose more? It is an immoral practice. Will he make certain in the White Paper that the Government will deal directly and immediately with this issue?

[Chris Philp]

I thank my right hon. Friend again for our meeting this week. I agree that actively encouraging—indeed, even inciting—people to gamble more without reference to affordability or their ability to pay is a damaging practice. We certainly intend to address that through the White Paper.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s comments. When the Secretary of State is looking to designate a vendor, she will put that to the House to be scrutinised, and we will be scrutinised on this issue through the usual procedures that I have outlined in my previous comments.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to her place. If we look back over the past few months, even the past year or so, we see very much that the resistance early on by the UK Government with Huawei, when other Five Eyes countries were banning it, has led to a remarkable back-cost for replacing all this stuff because we failed to take an early decision. While the amendment may not be perfect, it indicates clearly a big weakness in the Government’s position, even in this very good Bill. If Five Eyes countries, which are our main allies in intelligence, spot there is a problem, we should pause, investigate the reasons why, and then come back to the House with the reasons why we disagree or agree. The amendment aims at doing that, so perhaps the Government should think about amending the Bill in such a way.

[Julia Lopez]

I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s comments, but it is important that we do not put in primary legislation the specific partners that we should have to listen to on these specific issues. It would create a hierarchy of diplomatic networks.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

With respect, these are not specific partners; these are our closest allies when it comes to intelligence sharing. They do not get any closer than this. Working with them, as we do in sharing intelligence, means that using systems for sharing that intelligence would corrupt our own ability. I wonder whether the Minister could just slightly reset: these are not just partners.

[Julia Lopez]

I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s comments. The amendment would require us to do something that has been part of the legislation from the outset. We believe that our existing approach is the right way to continually consider the decisions of our international allies and partners, whether or not they are part of Five Eyes. That brings me to the second objection to the amendment, which is that it is unnecessary because we regularly engage with our Five Eyes partners and are committed to a close and enduring partnership with them. We agree with the other place that where possible, the UK Government should consider the actions of other countries when developing our own policies, and that is exactly what we do already. It is what we have been doing before and during the passage of this legislation.

The intelligence and security agencies across Five Eyes retain close co-operation, which includes frequent dialogue between the National Cyber Security Centre and its international partners. This dialogue includes the sharing of technical expertise on the security of telecoms networks and managing the risks posed by high-risk vendors. There are mechanisms in place for the NCSC to share this and wider information with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

Collaboration with our Five Eyes partners forms an intrinsic part of our national security work. The alliance was not created through legislation and it has not required legislation for us to develop and strengthen that relationship, and the amendment would set an unhelpful precedent. We do not need the amendment to compel us to work with our Five Eyes partners.

That takes me to our third reason for resisting the amendment, which is that the UK needs to have the flexibility to develop and encourage international relationships in addition to Five Eyes. Naming individual countries in this way would set an unhelpful precedent for national security legislation in future. As I have acknowledged, it is important that we consider the policies of our Five Eyes partners, namely New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the US, when developing our own policies, but we also need to consider the policies of a wide range of other countries, including those of our European neighbours, such as France and Germany, and those of other nations, such as Japan, South Korea and India. Stipulating in primary legislation the countries whose policies the UK Government should consider when developing our own national security policies, whether Five Eyes or other countries, would be unhelpful, given the wide-ranging nature of our international collaboration. It would be highly unusual to refer to specific countries in legislation in this way, and this Bill is not the right place to create such a precedent.

The fourth reason for resisting the amendment is that it is impractical because of the many different ways in which other countries operate their national security decision making. The amendment would require us to act whenever a ban takes place in another Five Eyes country, but it may not be immediately clear when a country has taken a decision to ban a vendor, particularly if they have relied on sensitive intelligence to make that decision.

It may not always be apparent why a particular country has banned a particular vendor. There could be any number of reasons why a foreign Government would choose to restrict a company’s ability to operate within that country. Those reasons may not be based purely on national security grounds. I welcome the intention behind the amendment, but we cannot accept it because we feel that it is duplicative, impractical, restrictive and, ultimately, unnecessary.

In summary, the House is presented with a strengthened Bill as Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3 will increase the chances of parliamentary scrutiny of the telecoms security framework. As I have set out, however, it would be inappropriate to agree to Lords amendments 4 and 5. I thank the other place for its scrutiny of the Bill. I commend Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3 to the House and ask that the House disagrees with Lords amendments 4 and 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and as a telecoms engineer, it has been sad to see the lack of an industrial strategy for our telecommunications capability, which strengthens our UK capability. We have excellent engineers and excellent research. We should be leading in future telecommunications capability, and an industrial strategy would ensure that was the case. It would also help collaboration with our allies. For example, the US does not have a vendor that can provide our 5G networks at the moment, and collaboration with our allies and an industrial strategy or plan could make such a difference globally and locally to our security and economic strength.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Is the main point in all of this that this was not a market failure? Although an industrial strategy is important, in reality this is a national security failure. Huawei has undercut the market progressively for nearly 15 years through its subsidies, breaking every rule and driving every company out of business. The single biggest problem we face is having a proper functioning market that requires those involved in it to obey the rules. China does not, and everyone has paid lip service to that. Is that the real problem?

[Chi Onwurah]

I both agree and disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree totally that national security is not a function of the market, and the fact that we have a network that is not secure is not a market failure but a failure of government and foresight. China had an industrial strategy. That is why it has a vendor in all the networks across the world—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

To break the rules—

[Chi Onwurah]

Not to break the rules, but to work with other nations whose values we share, and in the long term to develop and support companies in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendment 5, which was tabled by Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra.

The Five Eyes alliance is one of the most important strategic alliances that the UK shares. It is one of the world’s most comprehensive intelligence-sharing alliances, bringing together nations that have a strong bond forged through our shared history and values. The Government have recently taken a great stride towards strengthening our relationship with two of our Five Eyes partners, Australia and the United States, through the AUKUS agreement. I believe that Lords amendment 5 would further strengthen our ties with those great allies and ensure that we look to the future of the security and resilience of our telecommunications network.

Telecommunications networks have become the foundation of our economy, allowing business, Government and communities to connect and share information. This ability to connect and communicate is now a fundamental part of the way in which our society operates. Only last year, however, the Government were still considering using the services of a Chinese company, Huawei, to manage the introduction of 5G technology in our country. That was deeply worrying, owing to the complete subservience of the Chinese tech companies to the Chinese Communist party. The unholy alliance of these so-called private companies and an authoritarian Government who have no respect for basic values such as privacy has allowed the CCP to increase internal surveillance to a level never seen before. We would be foolish to think that the CCP would not have used its access to the information accumulated by Huawei through its involvement in our 5G roll-out, given the immense levels of intelligence that it would have been able to gain from that.

This debacle of Huawei shows that we must be extremely careful in protecting the security of our vital infrastructure. Letting companies that are so intertwined with a malign Government manage the implementation of our telecommunications systems would be no less than an act of national self-harm. If one of our close strategic allies makes the decision to ban a telecommunications company from operating within its borders, it will have a good reason for doing so. Taking the time to consider the rationale for such decisions will cost us little, whereas I worry that not doing so could be catastrophic for our national security. I hope that this House will approve amendment 5, as it will send a clear message that technology companies that work against our national interest will not be allowed to operate in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s position.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I will be brief, as much has been said already. However, I want to say a bit to my hon. Friend the Minister about Lords amendment 4. I also, by the way, want to recognise my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who is no longer a Minister but who was in charge of much of the Bill’s passage. I thought that he did an excellent job. It is a very good Bill which is long overdue, and there is much to praise in it.

I think that Lords amendments 4 and 5 are worthy of a little more assessment. Lords amendment 4 does have merits, because it recognises that there is a real problem about diversification. The point that I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) earlier was not an argument against any kind of strategic review or industrial policies; it was the argument that if a nation is in a sense rogue, in terms of its ability to stay within the market, and subsidises companies deliberately for strategic effect, that is why the number of companies will fall from 15 to three in the free world, which is what happened in this case. I think the amendment is about the need to recognise the fact that diversification, if not pursued deliberately, will lead us into the hands of a country like China, which then forces us eventually to have only one vendor on price, because that country has subsidised it.

As for Lords amendment 5, I heard the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I would not regard this as “gilding the lily”. I do not much like lilies and I think they could do with a bit of gilding, but I think that this is more a case of locked doors, and if the amendment is about putting an extra door into the security panoply, I think it is important. I will be brief, but last year, along with many others, I had very strong arguments with the Government about Huawei, and we were disregarded, disregarded, disregarded. The Government even led out all the great security experts who told them that they could control everything, saying, “Don’t worry, we can manage the risk”—until it finally became apparent to them that they could not. We faced that at the time. Other Five Eyes members had already said that this was not on, but we seemed to disregard their views. So I simply say that this is not about gilding the lily; it is about reminding the Government that they must abide by these provisions.

I should also make the point that there are many other companies to which we should be giving real consideration right now, and which are being looked at and banned by the Five Eyes—such as Hikvision and ByteDance—and I urge the Government to think again about those as well.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I want to thank the various Members who have paid tribute to my small role in this Bill. I say simply to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that I regard all reshuffles as an upgrade, so I welcome the Minister to her place. I mean that sincerely. I would also like to pay tribute to the officials—some of whom are in the Box today—who do not get enough credit for getting the Bill to the place that it is in. Ultimately, this is the Bill that will remove Huawei from our 5G network, and that is something that we should all welcome. It addresses a number of the issues that I raised and discussed robustly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, during the process of getting the Bill to this point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise a hugely important issue. I and this Government share his impatience to tackle it, but that is why we are talking, through the online advertising programme, about looking at every single option, whether it is to tackle user-generated content through one mechanism or, potentially, advertising through another. It is about getting that combination of measures right so that we can achieve the maximum possible effect.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I, through the Minister, pass on my congratulations to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), on her appointment?

In line with the whole issue of fraudulent adverts, there is also the big issue of the appalling behaviour of gambling companies and their advertising, which causes huge problems and addiction for many young people. May I, through the Minister, ask the new Secretary of State whether she would take a meeting with families bereaved as a result of gambling addiction?

[Matt Warman]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that terrible scourge. I am happy to tell him that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be delighted to take the meeting he suggests.