National Trust: 125th Anniversary

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Derek Thomas]

I welcome that intervention, and that is exactly my point—the National Trust is such an important institution, is so celebrated and important to the British way of life, our care and protection of the natural environment, that if we allow some of these things to continue, that good work could be lost—lost in translation, if not lost to the awareness of the public. Yes, this is a difficult time, but I have been an MP for just over five years and many of these issues were there long before I became an MP. I have worked hard, but have failed to address some of those very difficult issues with the National Trust. This is not—I am really clear with the National Trust when they give me a similar response—about the additional pressures that covid has inflicted on the National Trust.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I should declare that I am a member of the National Trust and have been for many years, but I have a very robust relationship with it in my constituency, because I think it is very important that some of the issues that the hon. Member is bringing into the Chamber tonight are debated transparently and openly. Nevertheless, I hope that we can get back to a time when my constituency had a million visitors a year coming to the world heritage site that the National Trust manages. We have seen the benefit of that tourism to my constituency, and to the local farmers and local businesses in the village of Bushmills.

[Derek Thomas]

I want to make it clear that the work that the National Trust has done around west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—Cornwall in particular—is hugely important and valued.

In April 2020 I set up, with a councillor from Cornwall Council, a tourism recovery group, and the National Trust took part as a representative of many different organisations, all charged with trying to find a safe way to open up tourist attractions for people to return, as they did on 4 July. This is about identifying some of the concerns that constituents have, in order to address them, so that we can return to the core values and be reminded of the fantastic work that the National Trust can deliver through a huge army of fantastic volunteers across the United Kingdom. However, it is of great concern if the National Trust’s approach to increasing yield is to make as much money as it can, rather than protect and enhance small farms and support the fresh blood introduced into the sector.

A constituent that I have been in correspondence with for some time writes:

“We wanted to put solar panels on an agricultural shed on the farm as a way of reducing costs and our carbon footprint. The National Trust objected and prevented us from doing this.

The National Trust threatened me with legal action after we placed a temporary or moveable hut in a field for the summer months to sell ice cream from our own dairy cows, which we make on the farm. It is normal farming practice for a farmer to sell his produce in whichever way he deems the most profitable. To contradict themselves, the National Trust have ice cream vendors selling ice cream at multiple…sites all around the country, many of them rural beauty spots.

The National Trust reinvent the interpretation of the covenant as it suits them, as our family have found out on many occasions. In short, if it was okay to remove a rock or plough a field when the covenant was granted then it still is now, as the covenant’s wording has not changed, nor will it.”

She continues:

“This giant and powerful organisation is making uninformed, inaccurate and hugely detrimental decisions that are inconsistent.

Their interpretation is preventing small family farms from farming and could cause many of us to go out of business, as many farmers do not have the spare capital to litigate against such a huge organisation.”

Madam Deputy Speaker, if you wish to alter or extend your property, the local planning authority operates under strict rules and guidelines, the process is time-limited and the applicant has the opportunity to challenge the decision. If you happen to have a National Trust covenant on your property, sadly, the same transparency and accountability does not apply. The National Trust can determine whether the same improvements take place, with no clearly published process or procedure. There is no requirement for the National Trust to give reasons for its decision; it can take as long as it wants and there is no appeals process. For example, Cape Cornwall Club, a privately owned hospitality business that leases its 70-acre golf course from the National Trust, has taken 18 months to gain consent to pre-planning proposals to carry out much-needed improvements to the hospitality business—months and months waiting for responses to emails from architects, some of which were only obtained because my office intervened.

Now the club has got past that hurdle, the National Trust demands a new levy based on the improved value of the asset. No previous levy ever existed and no details can be found in the covenant. The owner wrote to me saying:

“The National Trust are trying to impose an undisclosed levy on any increase in the value of our freehold value once we have formal permission to complete the work and they also want us to pay for the surveyors’ valuation.”

In return, the National Trust said that

“as a condition of giving our consent, we require a monetary payment where our consent, substantially increases the open market value of the covenanted land. This increase is called ‘uplift’.”

The trust stated that its consent

“would add value to the property which you will benefit from when it is sold, in these circumstances it is only equitable that the Trust also benefits from this uplift having given permission for them”.

I really am not sure that that is appropriate or just, and I hope the Minister can look at that issue in particular. I would assume that it is for Government to apply taxes, not the National Trust.

Furthermore, other businesses have found the trust to be similarly unhelpful, despite the significant challenges, to which we have just referred, that businesses have faced this year. For example, the National Trust insisted on charging full rent on a hospitality business during lockdown and refused to negotiate any reduction whatsoever or even to negotiate a payment plan. The business was closed and had to return fees and charges that it had collected. The National Trust’s cold response in October this year was:

“As the restrictions were imposed by the Government, it is not for the National Trust as a landlord to be expected to credit valid rent/lease charges.”

The National Trust is not even prepared to discuss payment plan proposals. Instead, it has issued a final demand and intends to take legal action.

One of the earliest and most troubling examples of the National Trust’s approach to discharging its duties, which takes me right back to soon after I first became an MP, was the case of Levant mine. If anyone has the opportunity to go and see it, it is an amazing, historical, vitally important former tin mine, right at the far western end of my constituency. The National Trust’s approach in the case of Levant mine was to run roughshod over planning laws, local concerns and sensitivities in order to maximise income for the trust and in the name of health and safety.

The difficulty was that, as someone who learned some important skills about preservation and heritage while working on National Trust sites as an apprentice, I could see on visiting the site that the work carried out at Levant fell well short of anything that would previously have been accepted. The sad twist of this particular episode is that Levant mine saw the loss of 31 miners last century and many people, including descendants of those lost, hold a special place for Levant mine in their hearts. The National Trust’s approach to Levant mine resulted in many excellent, experienced local volunteers packing it in. Thankfully, much of the work has been rectified, but only after significant local objection, local expertise, which I was very grateful for, enforcement by Cornwall Council and intervention, including by my office.

The trust’s completely avoidable misdemeanours included installing unsightly signage and infrastructure on land that forms part of one of our most important areas of outstanding natural beauty. It sought to impose parking charges on land that does not belong to the trust. It intended to increase the car park in a way that was completely inappropriate, given its location in an AONB. It failed to secure building consent. It parked a coffee van adjacent to the place where the families go to remember the miners who died, and it erected poorly designed safety grilles and barriers of dubious build quality. Even today, I hear concerns about the lack of basic maintenance on this hugely important site.



During my brief time as a MP, I have found that the case load of National Trust-related issues is disproportionate to the many other issues that an MP’s office encounters. I accept that the National Trust has important responsibilities for huge parts of the Cornwall, and it does an important job for us. I have many more examples that I could give, but I will just mention one: Porthleven slipway. The beach is another beautiful place to visit if you are in the area, and it is owned by the National Trust. The only access to the beach is via a slipway that Land Registry records show the National Trust is responsible for. The National Trust does not accept that, and despite advice to rectify Land Registry records, it has decided not to. The slipway is dangerous and unmaintained. To me and many others, this is an abdication of duty by the trust.

As I say, there are plenty of examples, but instead I will turn to the Minister with four clear asks. Important comments have been made in the debate about the value of the National Trust, its service to our beautiful country and the opportunity it provides to attract visitors from overseas and to protect our beautiful natural environment. Given that, will the Minister look at the need to review whether the National Trust is acting in keeping and truly in line with its core principles and charitable aims? Will he consider the need for an ombudsman or similar pathway for people who believe that they have been treated wrongly or poorly by the National Trust to be heard and for the National Trust to be held to account? Will he investigate the practice of the National Trust in imposing charges and levies on landowners and businesses? Will he look at the need for an independent body or mediator to approve any proposed changes to existing covenants by the National Trust? Currently, landowners have no course of action other than to go through a legal route, and the cost of litigation is far too high, so they buckle under the pressure.

I am a fan of the National Trust. I learned important skills—ones that I may well need to fall back on at some stage in my life—by working on National Trust sites. I have huge admiration for the army of National Trust volunteers, who do incredible work across west Cornwall and around the country. I have enjoyed a good relationship with most of the National Trust—possibly not after this evening. I do not believe that the trust is rotten to the core, but there is certainly rot within the organisation. There is a need to review how it operates, to ensure that it can deliver on its primary purpose and charitable aims and continue to provide all the value added that it does to our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

The Father of the House is right that there is a diversity of opinions on this issue and others. As I said, I have had many conversations with the National Trust. Where it has caused offence—and it recognises that it has caused offence and upset—I genuinely believe that that has been unintentional. It focuses very much on its core role. On my hon. Friend’s other comments about responding to our hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, that will indeed be one of the requests later in my speech.

[Ian Paisley]

I hope that the Minister will recognise that the National Trust has actually appointed someone to address the issue of “woke” within the organisation, and that is clearly a recognition within the trust that it has not got the balance right. As has been inferred by the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), a lot of work needs to be done, but we congratulate it on the steps that it is taking and look forward to working with it, hand in hand. I am looking forward to seeing how the Minister responds to the calls tonight for an ombudsman-type service into some of these issues, so that we can really ensure that the National Trust is the nation’s trust.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the National Trust endeavours to work with all stakeholders, who hold a variety of opinions, as we do in balancing the opinions of our constituents. I appreciate the comments that he made earlier praising the National Trust, as well as, quite fairly and reasonably, expressing concerns about its practices.

Sport Sector: Financial Support

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Lady. Of course, community facilities and leisure facilities are the responsibility of both central and local government. I know how important they are for local government, and as I say, information on the application process for this £100 million package will be coming very soon. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention the importance of making sure that Government money is spread right across the country. The very first sport package we gave out in order to help was for rugby league, and today’s announcement will help clubs right across the country.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

I welcome the £6 million announcement for motorsport in particular. There is currently no certainty about the future of next year’s world rally championship in the United Kingdom. Can any of the resource that has been announced today be released to facilitate the bid, which is being supported by racers and by Motorsport UK, for Northern Ireland to host the WRC in 2021? This is not a devolved issue; this is a UK-wide issue. I hope that the Minister can help us, and help Elfyn Evans in what I hope will be his world championship year to race it in Ulster?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I know what a fan the hon. Gentleman is of motorsports. What he proposes is not the purpose of this package. As I said, this is a sports winter survival package for the specific purpose I outlined earlier, but I am happy to have conversations with him about what he proposes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

It is very important that victims have faith, and we ask everyone involved in the criminal justice system to support that system in giving victims faith. Dealing with this awful crime is a high priority for the Crown Prosecution Service, and for the Government, and driving up rape prosecutions continues to be a major focus. The overall trend over the past quarter shows that the volume and proportion of suspects charged is slowly increasing, but I accept that there is more work to do in this complex and multifaceted area. We are working with a number of bodies, including the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, to facilitate improvements, so that people can, and should, have the fullest confidence in our criminal justice system.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It has been a year and a half since the publication of the Gillen review into serious sexual offences and how they are prosecuted through the courts in Northern Ireland, and the Solicitor General’s office has taken a considerable interest in that, until the re-establishment of devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. It will now be another year before legislative changes are tabled in the Northern Ireland Assembly to deal with that review, which quite frankly is not acceptable. What can be done in this place to expedite those necessary changes and ensure that victims get fairness and equal British justice across all the United Kingdom?

[The Solicitor General]

As usual, the hon. Gentleman stands up for the people of Northern Ireland, and he is right to focus on that issue. I will make inquiries with the Northern Ireland Office and see how that matter is progressing, but he will acknowledge that there are no doubt legislative pressures, and that these things do take time. I assure him, however, that every effort will be made to liaise, and where possible to assist, in the furtherance of this matter.

British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill (First sitting)

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Tracy Brabin]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Certainly, when I sit in the reading rooms of the British Library, I see international students from all over the world. The library is part of the soft power that draws the cleverest people from across the world to London, and will hopefully draw them to Leeds.

I want the library to keep growing and expanding its outreach work. In many communities, libraries have been lost or cut, so it is important that exhibitions and galleries are not confined to King’s Cross. The library should always be seeking opportunities to get out to new areas. Indeed, it recently produced pop-up displays in over 20 partner libraries across the UK, through its Living Knowledge Network. That is the sort of innovation that I encourage; let us hope that we see more of it.

It is easy to look excitedly at the possibilities for the future and ignore the elephant in the room. Covid has impacted all walks of life, and the British Library has not been exempt. It was closed for four months, and even now, after reopening, footfall is significantly suppressed due to social distancing requirements. Of course, this has a major financial impact, and with visitor numbers a fraction of what they were, the library is likely to continue to face financial hardship for a period to come. I know that the library has drawn down on DCMS support already, and that all of us present are keen to see the library thrive again in future. I applaud it for prioritising access to reading rooms for medical research, and for using some of its space for a testing centre.

Earlier I touched on digitisation. The library has worked hard during covid to expand its online offering. The current exhibition of Hebrew manuscripts is available online, and its next exhibition, “Unfinished Business: The Fight for Women’s Rights”, has an exciting digital offer, too, including online discussions, a podcast series, and online resources for researchers.

The Bill brings the British Library in line with DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries, as well as the British Film Institute, the Churches Conservation Trust, Historic England and more, by allowing it to borrow money as its peers already do. However, we need to support the library, and many other organisations, not only in borrowing money in future, but in the here and now, during the covid crisis, and we need to reach out across our communities. The British Library has made great strides in that direction already, and we support it and its power to borrow money.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I want to speak in support of the Bill. It is absolutely essential that we support libraries, library services, and one of the finest libraries in the United Kingdom. It is a testament to what libraries should represent.

It was once said that

“A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies”,

and that we should never trust a person who does not bring a book to a room. It is important that we recognise the importance of people’s access to reading material. It gives them interaction, escapism, opportunity, and powerful learning. The British Library, of course, does so much more. It has an outreach programme, and I agree 100% with what the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Batley and Spen, said about libraries reaching people who are hard to reach.

The threat to library services has increased because of covid. If the British Library is able to borrow money, and extend its digital platform, so that people can access it through a new and increased digital awareness, that too will be a benefit, but that of course costs money, and we cannot have everyone coming to Government with their hand out, saying, “We need more money.” The Bill creates an opportunity and flexibility that allows the library to use its skills to gain resources to expand its services. I hope that that will be possible, and that this House will support the Bill completely. I look forward to seeing it enacted.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden on introducing the Bill, and I thank him. As he says, it is small but perfectly formed, and that is why it has the strong support of the Government. As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen says, just before Second Reading—it seems a really long time ago—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed a suite of Government funding: up to £95 million for the British Library’s plans for Boston Spa, £13 million to expand the brilliant network of business and intellectual property centres, and £25 million to help find a site in Leeds for British Library North. After all that good news and positivity, the British Library went into lockdown, and, like so many other cultural institutions up and down our country, lost visitors and valuable commercial opportunities overnight.

The financial impact of covid-19 will of course last a very long time. The British Library, along with many other DCMS-sponsored bodies, will be working out how to manage that in the weeks and months ahead. It will need to be more flexible than ever before, which is why we need to give the British Library the same option to borrow money as its peer museums and galleries. The Bill will remove the legislative barrier that prevents the British Library from having the freedom that its fellow national museums and galleries enjoy.

We are granting the British Library the power to borrow money, but of course that does not mean that it has to, or that it will. There is no guarantee that any application to borrow will be successful, but it is important that it has the option to apply.

Huawei and 5G

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Indeed. We are all neighbours in the global environment, as the dreadful coronavirus shows us.

The problem is compounded—this is not really spoken of in these debates, and the Government never make any mention of this—is a deeper and further problem. It exposes the degree to which western Governments, including our Government, to a degree—I am talking about successive Governments; this is not a shot at my Government, as the issue goes back further than that—have taken their eye off the ball. Much of the available equipment, including electronic sub-assemblies, is of unknown security provenance. At present, beyond existing contracted functions, we have little to no idea what else lies in our installed systems. UK Governments and others—I particularly want to focus on my Government—have done little to tackle the problem. Understanding what is inside the chips and processors is critical. Any malware needs to be detected. Surely, after all these years, we could have worked to ensure as much as possible that products deployed into secure or critical national infrastructure are auditable, so that we understand what is in them. What better way to do that than by collaboration with our Five Eyes allies, to ensure that we drive security much deeper? Nothing has happened, however.

We are in a mess, and the only way to get out of it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) said, is to ensure that Huawei’s involvement is reduced from the Government’s present position of 35% down to 0%. I recognise that may take a little time, but that should be the purpose of the Government over the next two years.

Successive British Governments—this is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made—have tried to get close to China in the hope that we can take advantage of their markets. I recognise that that is not unreasonable, but in so doing, we seem to be playing a dangerous game. After all, this totalitarian regime is not an ally of ours, and we get confused about that at times, even if the Foreign Office is reluctant to admit that China poses a threat to us, for fear of upsetting the Chinese Government. That threat is not just in its cyber-attacks on our systems, but also in the way in which it does not obey the international rules-based order in trade. That point has been made today. By the way, no other country does a level of business proportionate to its population as much as Australia does with China. Australia is not frightened of saying no to the procedure, and I do not see anybody trying to beat it up on trade. Sometimes I wonder if we do not project the sense of power or force that we should.

As the UK leaves the EU, we should avoid kowtowing, as my right hon. Friend so rightly said—that wonderful Chinese act of placing one’s forehead on the ground in front of one’s respected superior—to China or anyone else. The British Government should commit to reducing and eradicating our dependence on Huawei, in line with our allies. That is really important. After all, defence of the realm is surely our first priority, and that goes for cyber-space as well. If defence of the realm is our first priority, what the Government are proposing today is not defence of the realm, but semi-defence of the realm, and that simply will not do.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

We have had a 26 minute-speech or thereabouts and 15 interventions, some very substantial, which have maybe taken the ardour out of some people already. I have 11 speakers to get in, including the Front-Bench spokespersons for the Government and the Opposition parties. I will therefore be time-limiting Members to four minutes, to allow all the speakers on my official list to speak. However, if they take interventions, that could be reduced or may knock a speaker out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I call Stuart C McDonald.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I will take it, Chair, because the other one is not here. I guess you mean me. [Laughter.]

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I beg your pardon.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

That is quite all right.

We can tell this debate is important because of the variety of personalities sitting here. We have several former Cabinet Ministers, a former Deputy Prime Minister, and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Chairman and the former Chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee were here earlier. If the Tory party had a politburo, this would be it. It is clearly a sign that the Government have trouble ahead, and so they should. I do not need to echo many of the objections already made by Members here this morning. I am sure they will continue as the debate goes on, not only here in this room today, but in other parts of the House.

I want the House to consider the issue in a much broader sense. Who writes the rules on this part of international engagement when it comes to things such as the use of chemical or nuclear weapons, or traditional kinetic warfare? We have all kinds of international rules and treaties on the international order, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, but we have very little written down internationally with our partners when it comes to the cyber world. As far as I can see, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, by dint of China buying its way into the market, China is writing the rules. The decision has been made by the UK Government from a position of enormous weakness. I take no pleasure in that. I want the Government to get this right, but they are getting it wrong—badly wrong.

The Government are getting it wrong not only because of all the issues around privacy and the broader issues of security, and not only because of the actor involved and its appalling human rights record, but they are in danger of being present but not involved, to coin a phrase, when it comes to setting rules that our citizens rely on so that we can live peacefully, freely and with prosperity. If this is global Britain, I am concerned. Global Britain is not my project, but I wish it well. It is important that it is got right. From where I stand, this looks like gullible Britain, and I think that is a great shame.

During the 2014 independence referendum the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who is sitting here, would have argued that an independent Scotland would be thrown out of Five Eyes and unable to get access to it. It strikes me that the United Kingdom is doing its best to get chucked out of Five Eyes at this very minute, and I do not want that to happen.

I hope that the Minister will respond to many of the concerns that have been raised, but we all need to lift our eyes a bit. We need greater international co-operation on attribution. Given that we do not have—here comes the dreaded phrase—a coalition of the willing in order to set some rules, we will continue to be played by not just China but Iran, Russia, North Korea, non-state actors and surrogate actors. My goodness, what a mess that will make.

If we are serious about global Britain—my party has something to say on that—let us have that discussion, but we cannot talk about Huawei and 5G in isolation, because there is a much bigger picture and something more dangerous at stake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Edwards]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There are engineering problems in Huawei, and the Government and many UK customers have been very clear that they want Huawei to solve them. The news that I must give him is that if he started looking at the code of any supplier, he would see security issues. In security engineering, I am afraid that people make mistakes when it comes to software.

Equipment and performance is monitored in-life by telcos, and threat hunting is carried out across the whole network. Technologies are increasingly powered by artificial intelligence. AI look for anomalies of behaviour both inside the network, in terms of patterns of incoming traffic, and suspicious outbound traffic. Attempts to sabotage equipment or exfiltrate data at scale will be detected.

The National Cyber Security Centre, my former employer BT and many other telcos have all been very clear that they have not previously detected attempts at malicious activity by Huawei. If they had, they would hardly be doing business with them for their 5G networks. However, we cannot rely on the past to determine the future. That is why the cap on the amount of equipment provided by one supplier is so important, as it stops an over-reliance on one supplier in the network. Other arrangements, such as the escrow of source code, enable providers to isolate equipment in their networks and take over full operation of it, should that be deemed necessary due to mounting international tensions.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Paisley. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for introducing it, for setting the scene so well, and for speaking for the majority of us in this House and in the Chamber today, and the majority of those outside as well.

I am no tech expert—far from it—yet I have had concerns from the outset about the safety of allowing Huawei into the 5G network. When I find myself at a loss regarding the nuances of an issue, I always turn to those who understand it much better. For that purpose, I have looked at the relations of other nations with Huawei, and the facts cannot be ignored. My concerns have led me to question the Minister, today and on previous occasions.

Security and democracy must have priority. Defence of the realm, as the right hon. Member referred to, for this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must be protected. Our first duty must always be to our citizens and constituents. They have told me that they share the deep concerns that so far all Members bar one have expressed in the Chamber today.

My fears and concerns have not been assuaged since the question I asked the then Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), in April last year. I said:

“Huawei has been banned from the core of 5G, but it is to be allowed to operate at the edge. The edge includes masts and antennas, which are also very sensitive. Canada and New Zealand have expressed concern, and Australia and the United States of America have said there is no relevant distinction between the core and the edge of 5G networks. What discussions has the Minister had with those four countries, and has their determination had any influence on our decision?”—[Official Report, 25 April 2019; Vol. 658, c. 892.]

The then Minister’s response was that discussions with our Five Eyes partners were ongoing, yet we appear to have dismissed that, while still allowing that there is a safety implication of Chinese interference and reliance on that technology. Again, I find myself uneasy and desirous that, even at this stage, we rethink this massive step. That is the feeling of the majority in the Chamber.

China is guilty of some of the worst, barbarous, evil, surgical human rights abuses against its own citizens. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and others have referred to the Uyghur Muslims, but it is not just them; there are also the Christians, the Falun Gong, and many other people. China has tried to re-educate them through forced labour and surveillance of what they are doing, and has used Huawei 5G to do so. Huawei has also been deeply involved in organ harvesting—commercial harvesting of organs from people who just happen to have a different faith.

The Financial Post has given this summary:

“The United Kingdom has now broken ranks with many of its closest allies”—

allies in whom we have great trust—

“including fellow members of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing club. The British government classified Chinese company as a ‘high-risk vendor’ and banned it from the core network that manages access and authentication, but nevertheless permitted it to compete for up to 35 percent market share in the country’s access network—that is, its antennae and similar equipment.”

I am only one of 650 Members of this House, and I absolutely believe in the tenets of democracy, but I will not stay silent. I do not believe that what the Government are doing is in the best security interests of this nation, and if steps can be taken to pare it back, those steps must be taken. We have been known as security giants, and I do not like the idea that we are now standing on the shoulders of Chinese giants. We have stood alone, and can do so again, but it is always best that we stand with our allies. The Chinese may hopefully be strong trading partners post Brexit, but by no stretch of the imagination can they ever be considered our allies; their human rights abuses cannot be ignored. This issue is concerning, and we must not leave it here.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I call Tom Tugendhat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

The hon. Member took very little time, which gives considerable time to the shadow Minister. I call Chi Onwurah.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this incredibly important debate. We are on opposite sides of the House, but we share a deep commitment to British security and technological capability, which is clearly also shared by the many hon. Members present.

The UK has a proud technological history, from the earliest days of the industrial revolution to the invention of the first fibre-optic cable and, of course, the world wide web. Why, then, at the outset of the fourth industrial revolution, are we in a Huawei hole of our own making? As an enabling technology, 5G represents much more than faster mobile internet speeds. As the web enables applications that its inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee could never have dreamed of, 5G provides the platform for the technologies that will define the 21st century.

As I may have mentioned before, I am a chartered electrical engineer and a tech evangelist. I want the United Kingdom to harness all the benefits that 5G networks can bring, but if the foundations are poorly laid, or not laid at all, the potential for national harm is significant. After I graduated from Imperial College London, my first job was for a world leader in the then-emerging telecommunications sector. I spent eight years with Nortel designing networking equipment all over the world and working with many of the other equipment vendors at the time, such as Alcatel, Siemens, Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola. If someone had said to me that, a couple of decades later, we would be incapable of building a European telecoms network without a Chinese supplier, I would have been dumbfounded.

As we have heard, Huawei is bound by China’s national intelligence law to support, co-operate and collaborate with national intelligence work. That raises many concerns for the security of our 5G network. I will not repeat those raised by many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). The fact that Huawei is designated by our National Cyber Security Centre as high risk says it all. It is high risk, so why are we taking a risk with our national security? My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the human rights and employment rights abuses with which Huawei is linked.

I have 10 questions for the Minister. How has the industry got itself into a position where our critical national infrastructure is so dependent on one high-risk vendor? The UK telecoms supply chain review, as summarised by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), was seven months ago. The then Government committed to reduce our reliance on high-risk vendors over the next five to 10 years. Can the Minister say how that is happening? We have heard nothing since. The Government also said then that they would legislate at the earliest available opportunity. Again, we have heard nothing since.

With network design, cyber-security specialists will always advise people to assume breach, but the Government’s approach seems to have designed into it breach by a foreign power at a time of unprecedented geopolitical tension. I have many more questions as there is much that we do not know. What percentage of the UK’s currently deployed full fibre and mobile networks involves a designated high-risk vendor? From what proportion of our networks are they to be excluded under the terms of the NCSC advice?

If I understand the Government’s position, 5G and full fibre are critical national infrastructure, but only parts of them need to be secure. That is a difficult but, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe suggested, tenable technological position, but we need to see the measures that will mitigate the risks and manage them out of our network.

On the international ramifications of the Government’s decision, as we have heard, the UK is the only member of the global intelligence-sharing network Five Eyes to have chosen to accept Huawei, with the exception of Canada, which is yet to make a decision but is being advised to block it. All the other members, the US, Australia and New Zealand, have blocked Huawei’s involvement, citing security concerns. Can the Minister tell us why our allies are taking such a different approach? Does he have a proper and detailed understanding of the impact on our international relationships, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) highlighted?

Labour wants to work with the Government on this clear issue of national security. The Government say that the economic cost of barring Huawei would be too great and Mobile UK has estimated that a delay would cost £7 billion. If I compare that with the £8.3 billion committed by the Government to Brexit preparations, however, it strikes me as a clear case of political priorities—and what priorities they are, when we are at a profound national security crossroads.

I hold the National Cyber Security Centre in the highest regard—I thank its representatives for meeting me yesterday—but I ask the Minister to address a concern. The supply chain review report spoke of statutory guidance, but so far we have only had blogs. It is good to be responsive and we know that President Trump’s tweets have some force of law in America. Is the same true of these blogs? Will Ofcom be enforcing them?

The supply chain review report also promised telecoms security requirements, which would set a new bar for security and be enforced by Ofcom. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe seemed to imply that those requirements are available, but I have not seen them. Will the Minister tell me whether they are available, how they are to be enforced and with what resources, for both Ofcom and the Huawei cyber-security observance centre?

Finally, consolidation and competition from the Chinese subsidised sector means that many of the vendors and operators in the telecoms sector have finances that do not look exactly sustainable or stable. What is the Minister doing to assess the financial security of the sector?

As the Government shilly-shallies over national security, we will be tabling amendments to the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill currently going through Parliament that will seek to reduce our dependence on high-risk vendors. I hope I will have the support of the Minister and other Members in this Chamber.

Labour also has proposals on the telecommunications industrial strategy, which has been highlighted by many Members, to ensure that we can take a leap forward in this critical technological area, including support for new standards and a new catapult, to bring together existing centres of excellence to ensure that we can once more be at the forefront of technological innovation. The good news is that, in technology, you are never so far behind that you cannot leapfrog existing technology. The bad news is that it takes investment in strategic vision—a quality that this Government sorely lack. Huawei is a test of both.

I return to my first question. Why are we in this position and what steps are the Government taking to ensure that it does not happen again, and to eliminate our dependence on high-risk vendors? The Government should start to proactively identify future technological needs and invest strategically to ensure that they can be met by a wider range of platform providers.

The Government claim to care about political sovereignty—about taking back control from foreign powers. It is high time that we started caring about technological sovereignty too.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I inform him that he has considerable time in which to make his contribution and he can take a number of short interventions, if he so chooses. Any time that he leaves at the end, I will give to Sir Iain Duncan Smith for a wind-up speech.

BBC Licence Fee

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend on his election to the Select Committee. I know he is a huge fan of the BBC. He is right to say that as we move forward into an increasingly digital age, where there are more and more channels to watch and platforms to choose from, it is clear that many people consider it odd that they can be imprisoned for not paying their licence fee. On the over-75s free licence, we believe that is the responsibility of the BBC.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Is it not a fact that the BBC has been great at undermining itself? It tells us that it cannot afford to spend £750 million on licence fees for the over-75s, yet it can afford to pay 493 of its employees above their grade pay band and 129 of them above the highest-grade band, and it can afford to pay only 21 of those in the lowest-rate band above their pay band. When is the Minister going to get this out-of-control broadcaster under control?

[Nigel Adams]

The BBC is alive to the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is having to deal with a number of pay-equality cases and I am sure that there will be many more of those cases. Nevertheless, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the BBC is operationally independent from Government.

Online Harms White Paper

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work and that of his colleagues. I hope that the House recognises that within the White Paper there are contributions from a large number of Members of the House. That is as it should be, because this is a shared challenge that we must address together. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on research. It is important that we understand these problems properly, and we will do all that we can to encourage that research to take place.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

We will come to points of order in due course. I await the hon. Gentleman’s point of order with eager anticipation, as will the House.

Cairncross Review

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend will recognise that one reason why these companies are such a force in our society, as he says, is that so many of our constituents use their products so extensively. That is a fact of modern life, with which we must contend. It is also apparent that it will be difficult and perhaps wrong for us to assume that we can treat these companies in exactly the same way as we can treat newspapers and their editors. But none of that means that we need to abdicate our responsibility to ensure that these companies fulfil theirs. The Government intend to ensure that they do, and he will see, when we bring forward the White Paper and we talk about some of the issues that have been canvassed this afternoon, that the Government have every intention of making sure that these companies do live up to their responsibilities.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I would like to associate my colleagues and myself with the tributes paid to Gordon Banks. This weekend, we will have the Northern Ireland BetMcLean league cup final, and I am sure the Secretary of State will want to take the opportunity to wish Ballymena United and Linfield Football Club all the best as they compete for that cup—I hope the sky blues win.

We are dealing here with the concentration of enormous economic power with the few, and with a very few platforms and platform owners; the dangerous monopoly of expertise; the power of surveillance; the fact that the much-promised encryption and privacy of personal data does not exist, even in WhatsApp; and the unlimited potential for the abuse of technology and people. Surely the Secretary of State agrees that the commercial strength and share of the advertising market of these new platforms, the personal wealth of those who own them and the monopoly of personal data are, in the words of this important review, each alone a “justification” for regulation. Surely he agrees that much more must be done immediately. Will he join me and the deputy leader of the Labour party in saying from the Dispatch Box that there must immediately be put on these companies a duty of care to all those who use them? That will be the first wake-up call and the first sobering reality that these platforms will face.

Unfortunately, I fear that the Government, once again, have pulled their punches on the BBC. The BBC has huge firepower compared with ITV and UTV, its subsidiary in Northern Ireland. It has the largest news-watching audience, yet the BBC competes deliberately against it to undermine it in Northern Ireland. That disadvantage must stop as soon as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We have a ten-minute rule Bill and important business to move on to, so I ask colleagues to make questions and, correspondingly, answers short.

Proposed Media Mergers

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I very much agree with the sentiment that my hon. Friend expresses. In coming to the House with this decision a week before the deadline and being clear about the rapidity of the next phases, I hope that we have demonstrated not only that we will be thorough and do this by the book, but also that we will get on with it.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly his most welcome comments about protecting Sky News. Will he assure us that Comcast will be put through the same rigorous tests that others have been put through? Will he also assure us that we are going to see not more tunnel but some light at the end of the tunnel, and that there will be a final and conclusive decision before the summer recess?

[Matt Hancock]

On the latter question, yes; I very much hope so, and I am optimistic, presuming that the parties engage in full and rapidly. I have deployed my team to take forward immediately after this statement the work that is needed to finalise the procedures.

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, we have subjected Comcast’s bid to the law in exactly the same way. The truth is that Comcast’s existing UK media footprint is very small, so it simply does not raise the same concerns over plurality. The Murdoch family trust has very significant other media interests—not least in newspapers—whereas Comcast does not, so it is in a different situation, but we have applied the law in the same rigorous way.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Ian Paisley Excerpts

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

[Matt Hancock]

I think the representations from the press themselves show that they are not looking for help of that sort. Let us, however, look at the public: there is not a great public cry for this. In response to the consultation, 79% of direct responses favoured the full repeal of section 40. It is my job to address what we face now and the needs of the country now.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has made the very interesting point that he will try to address some of the grievances and outcomes by way of a review. Doing so specifically in relation to Northern Ireland was in effect precluded by the first part of Mr Leveson’s inquiry. Will the Secretary of State tell us how he will try to resolve this problem in Northern Ireland?

[Matt Hancock]

Through new clause 23, as I have mentioned, we will require the Information Commissioner to conduct a statutory review of media compliance with the new law over the next four years. Alongside that review, we propose to have a named person review the standards of the press in Northern Ireland, and we will take that forward as part of and alongside new clause 23.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Secretary of State for his generosity. Would it be fair for me to characterise that review as a Leveson for Northern Ireland?

[Matt Hancock]

I would characterise it as a review aligned with new clause 23, which we are bringing in for the whole country, specifically to look at the effects in Northern Ireland. The crucial point is that we will make sure, through the review in new clause 23, that the future of the press is both free and reasonable, that its behaviour is reasonable, and yet that it is not subject to statutory regulation. I want to see a press that is both free and fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

In a way, the hon. Gentleman has summed up my case. My case is that we want a press that is free and that is fair. Statutes already exist to ensure that, when there are cases of wrongdoing, people can be brought to account through the courts. That already exists, and we now also have a system of compulsory, low-cost arbitration to make sure everybody can get recourse.

I am focused on ensuring that we have high-quality political discourse and a press that can survive and thrive, with high-quality journalists who can hold the powerful to account, and on ensuring that we face the challenges of today rather than those of yesterday. That is what we want to work towards, and new clauses 18, 20 and 21 would make it harder to find solutions to today’s real problems.

[Ian Paisley]

The Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but new clause 23, to which he has referred at the Dispatch Box, looks at cases going forward; it is not retrospective—I hope I am correct. Therefore, it addresses some of the deficiencies in the other new clauses before the House about having just a consultation process on what has happened previously.

[Matt Hancock]

New clause 23 is about ensuring that in the future there is a review of activity from now onwards, and alongside it we will ensure that there is a named person to ensure that the issues in Northern Ireland are looked into properly.

Overall, I want to ensure that the law that applies to the press is applied fairly, and that we have a free press and one that is responsible. I therefore oppose new clauses 18, 20 and 21, which would make that more difficult, not easier, and I urge every Member of the House to do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

The point of inquiries is to get to the nub of the truth. There was much that the first half of the Leveson inquiry could not consider because of the courts cases that were ongoing. As a Member of this House, I want to know whether the press regulation system that we are setting up takes account of what we have learned about the sins of the past. I do not think that those sins should be buried and forgotten, and that we should walk on by—unless, of course, people are lucky enough to live in Northern Ireland.

[Ian Paisley]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that people in Northern Ireland can be treated with the back of his hand with comments like that, but I should make it clear that the Northern Ireland press were exempt from proper scrutiny by Leveson. That is why people feel aggrieved. Many Members whose phones were hacked, like myself, were completely ignored by that process. Now, perhaps, we will have the chance of fairness. Quite frankly, there has been no fairness up until this point.

[Liam Byrne]

I am listening very jealously to the hon. Gentleman. I would like the privileges he has just secured for Northern Ireland for the rest of the country, because the victims who live in England and Wales deserve the same rights.

[Ian Paisley]

I understand that new clause 23 applies to the whole United Kingdom. I live in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

Other people have asked, “Why can’t the police just do it?” That suggests that whenever there is a police inquiry there cannot be a public inquiry. My answer is this: there is no substitute for the breadth of a public inquiry and its ability to see what happened. A lot has emerged even since Leveson 1. At that time, people said the hacking and improper behaviour were just at the News of the World. There have now been revelations at The Sun, allegations about The Sunday Times and a decade of blagging by John Ford—a whole range of allegations that we need to get to the bottom of. Crucially, we need to learn lessons for the future. The useful thing that can come out of this is to prevent there being future victims like the McCanns and the Dowlers. That is why so many victims have written to the Prime Minister, saying it is important to get to the truth—not just for them but to prevent it from ever happening again.

[Ian Paisley]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very compelling argument—one that I am not turned off by—but when I read new clause 18 dispassionately, I see that it offers me a consultation process with parties in Northern Ireland and an Assembly that is not functioning. It offers me very little, although it promises me something. In new clause 23, the Government from the Dispatch Box today have offered me an actual inquiry. I ask him, then, to put himself in my shoes: should we take what we have or a promise of what we might get?