Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Channel 4 is fortunate in that it has to choose from a number of strong bids from a number of excellent places, but, as I said, this is a decision that Channel 4 must make, and it must do so on the basis of its own requirements, as well as what I hope will be its motivation to spread opportunity across the United Kingdom.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Most of the population of the United Kingdom do not live in cities. A superb bid was made by Chester and Wrexham, a smaller city and a town, to Channel 4, but they were not even given a hearing. Does the Secretary of State agree that that was a failure of creative imagination by Channel 4? There is a lot of talent in our towns and in our countryside particularly engaged in this process. Is it not a shame that we have ended up with a list of the usual suspects from which the choice will be made?

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent: talent is absolutely located in large and small communities around the country. One of the challenges for broadcasting is to be able to draw on all that talent. The decision that Channel 4 has to make—again, I stress that it is a decision for Channel 4 and not for me—is where to locate its national headquarters. I hope it will do that in an open way. I am sorry to hear about the bid from Wrexham and the surrounding area, but I do think there is an opportunity for Channel 4 and other public service broadcasters to draw on the whole country’s talent and what it has to offer.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees to Lords Amendment No. 62B proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No. 62 but proposes amendments (za) to (a) to Clause (Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism) inserted by Commons Amendment No. 109 and amendments (c) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

The House should be aware that some printed editions of today’s Order Paper do not include all the amendments that I am about to refer to.

We had a thorough and illuminating debate on the Data Protection Bill in this House just a few days ago, when we heard a range of perspectives from all sides on press regulation. This House plainly and clearly voted against the proposed Opposition amendments, and I thank all Members for their contributions and their constructive engagement.

Since that comprehensive debate, an amendment has been sent back by the other place for us to consider. The amendment would require the Government to establish a statutory inquiry into data protection breaches by national news publishers. It is essentially similar to new clause 18, which was proposed and defeated in this House last week. During the course of the Bill, we have repeatedly acted to take into account amendments made in the other place and to directly address concerns expressed by Members of this House. We have gone out of our way to offer concessions at every stage to make sure that the system of press regulation is both free and fair. On Report last week, we gave the Information Commissioner the powers that she needs so that those who flout the law are held to account for their actions. We introduced a data protection code of practice for the press; guidance on how to seek redress, which fits with the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s new system of binding low-cost arbitration; and a review by the Information Commissioner’s Office of how the new system is working.

I listened to the entire debate in the other place yesterday, and I understand some of the concerns raised there, both from those who essentially want to reopen the Leveson inquiry and those with deep concerns about the impact of that on the sustainability of the free press. Today, I am proposing further amendments to try to strike this vital balance and ensure that in future we have a press that is both free and fair. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this action can bring matters to a close.

I am proposing five further amendments to strengthen the system. First, we will strengthen the ICO’s review. Amendments (a) and (f) give the commissioner stronger powers to compel evidence to ensure that the review that she will undertake is both robust and comprehensive. Secondly, we will widen the ICO’s review. Amendment (za) broadens the remit to include looking at good practice in the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism. Thirdly, we will make the review permanent. Amendment (zd) will ensure that unlike the inquiry proposed in their lordships amendment, the ICO-led review will not be a one-off, but part of the media landscape, with a review every five years thereafter.

Fourthly, we are determined that there can be no backsliding on the media’s commitment to low-cost arbitration, which we welcomed the introduction of a few weeks ago. Amendment (c) will ensure that a report on the use and effectiveness of that arbitration is laid in Parliament at least every three years and that a copy is supplied to the devolved Administrations so that they can take action in areas of devolved competence. Fifthly, amendments (d) and (e) bring all these matters automatically into force without the need for a commencement order in order to show good faith. I think that this significant set of amendments is a better approach than amendment 62B—proposed by the other place—which is unnecessary for a number of reasons.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that amendment (c) will allow him to judge the effectiveness, personally, of the alternative dispute resolution procedures? Is he not giving himself the power to mark the press and their regulatory bodies?

[Matt Hancock]

No. The purpose of amendment (c) is to make sure that a report is laid on the effectiveness of that arbitration. With this set of amendments we propose that this House can continue to debate and scrutinise the effectiveness of the self-regulation of the press without requiring statutory regulation, which we seek to avoid.

[Matt Hancock]

That will be up to the Government of the day. We are trying to ensure that the welcome moves by IPSO in the last few weeks can be debated by this House and sustained. I think that the low-cost arbitration that it has brought in is good for the press and good for ordinary people who want redress from the press. I want to see it continue, and this report will consider whether it does.

[Ian C. Lucas]

The right hon. Gentleman has just said that it would be up to the Government of the day. The whole purpose of the Leveson process was to stop politicians having direct control of the press. To my astonishment, he seems to be proposing exactly that.

[Matt Hancock]

No. I do not want to see amendment 62B from the other place in the Bill precisely because I do not want to see statutory regulation of the press; I welcome the self-regulation of the press, because we want the press to be free.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I agree comprehensively with my hon. Friend, who set it out incredibly well.

I want to take a look at the precise details of amendment 62B, because it is unnecessary. First, it promises to look into the reporting restrictions around arrests, but this work is already under way. Indeed, I have committed to working with hon. Members to get the details right. Secondly, it promises to look into the impact of social media, but we are already undertaking this with the Cairncross review, which has started to take evidence right around the country. Thirdly, it promises to look into Northern Ireland, but this has already been provided for with the review outlined in new clause 23 last week.

In addition to replicating a lot of what is already going on, the amendment goes over ground already covered by the Leveson inquiry, the three substantial police investigations and the two Select Committee investigations. There has been no shortage of inquiry. I am focused instead on getting the system right for the future. The amendment is unnecessary at a time when we should be coming together to face the challenges of the future.

I fully understand the strength of feeling on the issue of press standards. I supported the original Leveson inquiry, and I have met victims of press intrusion, including some in this House, and, worse still, have heard about the impact on Members and their families. I am fully aware of the distress caused and of how lives have been affected by false allegations, how hacking was used to access the most intimate messages and how personal information was obtained through blagging and deception, but much has changed since the inquiry, While our press are not perfect, the culture that allowed phone hacking to become the norm has gone, and, with the newly strengthened IPSO, this country now has the most robust system of redress for press intrusion that it has ever had.

[Ian C. Lucas]

In his intervention, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) just talked about the importance of an independent regulator. Is it not the case, however, that IPSO is not independent? It was set up by the press and its terms of reference are those of the press; it is not an independent regulator. It is about time the Government accepted that. Does the Secretary of State agree?

[Matt Hancock]

No, I do not. Our proposal, which does not involve statutory regulation, is the best solution to this challenge and will ensure the separation of press and state, which is at the heart of our freedoms. It would be wrong to cross that line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian C. Lucas]

I want to say a word about Sir Brian Leveson. The first part of his inquiry was greatly valued and welcomed by all parties. Sir Brian Leveson said that he fundamentally disagreed with the Government’s decision not to proceed with part 2 of the inquiry. We should respect his view, and we should also keep the promise made by both sides of the House to the victims of press intrusion. This is very straightforward, and we should therefore support the Lords amendment.

[Mike Wood]

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I agree incredibly strongly with my hon. Friend, who is a great champion for North Devon. Coverage there is only 85%, so there is much further to go, but I was delighted that Ofcom said yesterday that the average download speed had risen by 28% over the past year. That shows that, although there is further to go, we are making progress.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The single economic area that covers north Wales and extends into west Cheshire is one of the most successful in the UK, but the final link that it lacks is a digital infrastructure hub. We must consider carefully the bid for such a hub that the economic region has put forward. Will the Secretary of State look at that closely?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I have looked at the bid closely; I think it is a good one. I agree with the hon. Gentleman very strongly. I grew up in Cheshire, but I had to drive through north Wales to get to school every day, so I know the area and the links incredibly well. That border is not an economic border at all. Wrexham and Chester, north Wales and Cheshire are all one area when it comes to the economy, and I look forward to working with him on the bid.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

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

[Matt Hancock]

The Data Protection Bill sets out a full new data protection regime for Britain, giving people more control over their data.

First, I wish to address new clauses 20 and 21, before turning to the other new clauses. These new clauses are essentially the provisions contained in sections 40 and 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, although they would apply only to breaches of data protection law and only in England and Wales.

Let me first set out exactly what these new clauses would mean and then our approach to them. They would set new cost provisions for complaints against the press, which means that any publication not regulated by IMPRESS would have to pay the legal costs for any complaint against it, whether it won or lost. Many would object to that and say that it goes against natural justice. It is grounds enough to reject these new clauses on the basis that the courts would punish a publication that has done no wrong, but that is not the only reason. Let us consider the impact of these new clauses on an editor. Faced with any criticism, of any article, by anyone with the means to go to court, a publication would risk having to pay costs, even if every single fact in a story was true and even if there was a strong public interest in publishing. Let us take, for example, Andrew Norfolk, the admirable journalist who uncovered the Rotherham child abuse scandal. He said that section 40 would have made it “near impossible” to do his job. He went on to say that it would have been “inconceivable” to run the front page story naming one of the abusers in a scandal that had ruined the lives of 1,400 innocent young people with disgusting crimes that had gone on for years and years and years. Without Andrew Norfolk’s story, the scandal would have gone on for years and years more.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

If the Secretary of State is so opposed to section 40, why did he support it?

[Matt Hancock]

I will come on to what has changed in the many years since 2013, not least of which is the fact that we now have a full-blown independent press regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which did not exist back then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I have explained that new clause 23, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman supports, will in the future bring in a review of behaviour following the new system that we are putting into place. That is true here, and it is true right across the country.

[Ian C. Lucas]

May I bring the Secretary of State back to the United Kingdom and to Manchester last year? The Kerslake review said:

“The panel was shocked and dismayed by the accounts of the families of their experiences with some of the media.”

That happened last year, so the Secretary of State should not represent the threats posed by press misbehaviour as being from the past; this is a real and pressing problem now. Will he keep his promise to the victims who have suffered from this in the past and are continuing to suffer from it?

[Matt Hancock]

New clause 23 is for the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I have read the Kerslake review, and we asked to see all the evidence that fed into it, but we have not received specific allegations. The crucial point is that the low-cost IPSO arbitration is precisely to make sure that everybody has access to justice and that the press improves the way in which it behaves so that it is both free and fair, and that is what we want to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

Actually, it is not wrong to conflate press regulation with these matters, because the purpose of press regulation, in case the hon. Gentleman has not spotted it, is to try to stop such offences happening again. That is how public policy tends to be made in this country.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Is it not extremely relevant that one of the main aims of Leveson 2 was to investigate the relationship between the police and the press, because the police are the people who look into illegal acts and there has been evidence in the past of corruption involving the exchange of information between the police and the press, some of which has affected how Government Members have been presented? Independent-minded Members of the House should be looking into that, not suppressing it. Is it not right that that is looked into?

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is precisely right. We heard a couple of different arguments from the Secretary of State this afternoon, but they boil down to this: “Inquiries are expensive and time consuming, and officials have a lot of better work to do, unless you live in Northern Ireland, in which case we will crack on with the job now.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The freedoms and liberties that we hold so dear should be preserved, even when they are inconvenient to us. The House may not have heard what my hon. Friend next to me just said. Baldwin’s line was that the press had the “prerogative of the harlot”—power without responsibility. That was his line, but I would rather have a free press in that condition than a Government-approved, propagandised press that took away all our ancient liberties. These new clauses must be wiped out and cut from the legislative book. We must preserve our freedoms.

[Ian C. Lucas]

This has been an excellent debate. I wish to tell the House about a victim of press intrusion. Twenty-one years ago, I represented the bodyguard who survived the crash that killed the Princess of Wales. I made it clear to the press at the time that neither he nor his family wished to be pressured, followed or traced by journalists. They completely disregarded my advice and treated someone who was gravely ill, and his family, appallingly.

When I saw the statements in the Kerslake inquiry last year, I saw that, contrary to what the Secretary of State has said, the situation has not changed. Individuals who were the victims of grave crimes were abused, their privacy invaded and their lives turned around by press intrusion. That was after Sir Brian Leveson had conducted his inquiry, and after he, a greatly respected judge, had told the Government that he fundamentally disagreed with their decision not to proceed with the second part of the Leveson inquiry.

Earlier, I intervened on the Secretary of State and asked him why the Conservative party previously supported the terms of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which it now opposes. For all the eloquence we have just heard, the position is that the Conservative party is breaking a promise that was made to victims of crime by a Prime Minister of this great country, the United Kingdom. Anyone who supports the Government today should be ashamed of themselves, because those victims of crime are the powerless who need protection from the powerful. The powerful are the people who are too close to those who have governmental power.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said, we know why this decision is being made—why the Conservative party is backing away from the promise made by a Conservative Prime Minister: it is frightened of the press and its influence. It is a shameful step that it is taking. I appeal to all individual and independent Members of this House to stand up for the powerless against the powerful and to support new clause 18. I implore the Secretary of State to be straightforward with the House.

Question agreed to.

New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Cambridge Analytica: Data Privacy

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We have not seen any evidence of the impact of these things calling into question the outcome of any electoral event, whether an election or the referendum. What we need to do is make sure that these investigations take their course.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The difficulty is that Facebook holds all the evidence, and we cannot have access to it. We know that Facebook approached probably everyone in this House before the last two general elections, indicating that it wanted to help us to win our seats. Will the Secretary of State join those of us who are very concerned about this issue and ask Facebook to come clean about all the information that it has, where it got it from and how it used it?

[Matt Hancock]

There are increased powers of transparency in the Bill. Most importantly, the Bill has in it the power for the Information Commissioner to audit and therefore to demand information to undertake such investigations. Making sure that the Bill gets on to the statute book is the single best way that we can make progress on stopping flagrant breaches in the future.

Leveson Inquiry

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend’s second point raises a very important question. I am sure the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) will be thinking very hard about that now that he has admitted that it was a mistake to take this money. On my hon. Friend’s first point, it is critical that the press and online publications act responsibly and accurately in their reporting.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State agree to meet the Dowler family, Christopher Jefferies and the McCanns to explain to them why this Conservative Government are breaking the promise given by a Conservative Prime Minister?

[Matt Hancock]

As I said, I have already met some of the victims. I have also already extended an invitation to meet victims and Hacked Off in order to discuss today’s statement and what we are doing.

Sky/Fox Update

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Of course, “Farming Today”’s loss has been Taunton Deane’s gain, as we are all conscious.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he will consider “all the evidence carefully” in his quasi-judicial role. How is it possible for him to consider all the evidence unless he goes forward with Leveson 2—thereby honouring the promise given by a Conservative Prime Minister—and hears the evidence that remains unheard so that he can properly judge the Murdochs’ capability and competence for governance?

[Matt Hancock]

As I think I mentioned earlier, the question that the hon. Gentleman raises is not relevant to what we are discussing, because the latter is about exercising a quasi-judicial decision within the law as it stands. As I might have mentioned already, I intend to exercise that quasi-judicial decision-making role very clearly within the process as laid out in the law as it stands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend has been an absolute stalwart in campaigning for Dundee, both before the very disappointing announcement by the European Commission and since, and in finding a way of recognising the work that has been done. Dundee should be congratulated: it made a bid for city of culture in 2017, when Hull was given the award, and since then, the same team has worked together and really built up the Dundee waterfront, with the new V&A coming next year. We are working with Dundee and the other cities to find a way through this, but I once again commend my hon. Friend for her incredible work in promoting the bid.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

T5. The Prime Minister herself referred to allegations of police misconduct in her correspondence with the former First Secretary of State last night. Is it not high time that the Secretary of State commenced this unfinished business, and honoured the promise of a previous Conservative Prime Minister to get Leveson 2 under way?

[Karen Bradley]

We have consulted on Leveson, and we will release the responses and our response to the consultation in due course. We are currently having conversations with all those involved to make sure we follow the proper process that is required before we can release the figures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

We are determined to make sure that all businesses and people living in my hon. Friend’s constituency are able to access the broadband speeds they need to ensure they can be part of the digital revolution in our economy. I assure my hon. Friend that we will deliver full fibre to his constituency as soon as practicable.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Virgin Media has recognised that Wrexham is a great place to invest and is building new infrastructure in Wrexham. What can the Secretary of State do to help all the Conservative Members who ceaselessly complain about this Government’s performance on superfast broadband, and ensure they have the benefits that Wrexham is now having?

[Karen Bradley]

It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman takes that approach. In 2012 only 2% of premises in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), for example, had access to superfast broadband, but the figure is now 94%, thanks to the actions of this Government. We know that we need to continue working on this, because it is important that we get the right access for people, and I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency has such good broadband access.

Sky/Fox Merger

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

Just to be clear, I am minded to make a referral on the basis of commitment to broadcasting standards, not corporate governance. It also worth saying that the CMA has to look at the merger on the basis of the evidence available at the time. Whatever comes out in the future may impact on the “fit and proper” test, as decided by Ofcom, the independent regulator, but the merger has to be governed by information in the public domain and the private domain, with the evidence provided to the CMA as part of the process.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I commend the Secretary of State for her decision, but is it not incumbent on her to secure the evidence to make the correct decision? She must now take forward Leveson 2, which the House clearly wants and the victims were promised so long ago.

[Karen Bradley]

As I said, I will come back with the Government’s view about the consultation on the Leveson inquiry, which we conducted earlier this year. However, I again make the point that the merger has to be looked at in the context of today and not what might come out in the future. That is a matter for the fit and proper test, which is covered by an ongoing duty of Ofcom.