Online Pornography: Age Verification

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. As the House knows, the Government announced that age verification for online pornography, under the Digital Economy Act 2017, would come into force on 15 July 2019. It has come to my attention in recent days that an important notification process was not undertaken for an element of this policy, and I regret to say that that will delay the commencement date. I wanted to take the opportunity to come to the House as soon as possible to apologise for the mistake that has been made and to explain its implications.

In autumn last year, we laid three instruments before the House for approval. One of them—the guidance on age verification arrangements—sets out standards that companies need to comply with. That should have been notified to the European Commission, in line with the technical standards and regulations directive, and it was not. Upon learning of that administrative oversight, I instructed my Department to notify this guidance to the EU and re-lay the guidance in Parliament as soon as possible. However, I expect that that will result in a delay in the region of six months.

As the House would expect, I want to understand how this occurred. I have therefore instructed my Department’s permanent secretary to conduct a thorough investigation. That investigation will have external elements to ensure that all necessary lessons are learned. Mechanisms will also be put in place to ensure that this cannot happen again. In the meantime, there is nothing to stop responsible providers of online pornography implementing age verification mechanisms on a voluntary basis, and I hope and expect that many will do so.

The House will also know that there are a number of other ways in which the Government are pursuing our objective of keeping young people safer online. The online harms White Paper sets out our plans for world-leading legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. Alongside the White Paper, we published the social media code of practice under the Digital Economy Act 2017, which gives guidance to providers of social media platforms on appropriate actions that they should take to prevent bullying, insulting, intimidating and humiliating behaviours on their sites. We will also publish interim codes of practice detailing the steps that we expect companies to take to tackle terrorist content, and online child sexual abuse and exploitation. These will pave the way for the new regulatory requirements.

We set out in the White Paper our expectation that companies should protect children from inappropriate content, and we will produce a draft code of practice on child online safety to set clear standards for companies to keep children safe online, ahead of the new regulatory framework. During the consultation on the White Paper, technical challenges associated with identifying the specific ages of users were raised, so I have commissioned new guidance, to be published in the autumn, about the use of technology to ensure that children are protected from inappropriate content online.

The new regulatory framework for online harms that was announced in the White Paper will be introduced as soon as possible, because it will make a significant difference to the action taken by companies to keep children safe online. I intend to publish the Government response to the consultation by the end of the year, and to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows after that.

I recognise that many Members of the House and many people beyond it have campaigned passionately for age verification to come into force as soon as possible to ensure that children are protected from pornographic material they should not see. I apologise to them all for the fact that a mistake has been made that means these measures will not be brought into force as soon as they and I would like. However, there are also those who do not want these measures to be brought in at all, so let me make it clear that my statement is an apology for delay, not a change of policy or a lessening of this Government’s determination to bring these changes about. Age verification for online pornography needs to happen. I believe that it is the clear will of the House and those we represent that it should happen, and that it is in the clear interests of our children that it must.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and the sincerity with which he has made this apology today. However, the statement is proof that a serious and important policy has descended into an utter shambles under this Government. I would like to ask the Secretary of State one question that he did not answer in his statement: when did he find out about this? He says that it was in the last few days, but could he be a bit clearer about that?

Age verification was supposed to be introduced last April; it was delayed. Then it was going to be introduced next month, and today we hear it is going to be delayed again. The Secretary of State says he regrets this. We do too, very much, because it is not good enough—it is not acceptable and it is letting children down. Recent reports showed that 70% of eight to 17-year-olds have seen images and videos that are not suitable for their age in the past year. Given the rise in the use of mobile devices and tablets in the past decade, the case for appropriate online pornography enforcement has increased.

The Secretary of State says that an administrative error caused the failure to notify the European Commission of key details, but are there more fundamental problems with this policy? Can the Secretary of State give us a commitment about exactly when it will be introduced? Indeed, is he confident that it will ever be introduced? When the legislation was going through this place, Labour raised serious concerns about whether the verification process was viable, and whether the process could work if very personal data was given over to commercial pornography sites. This delay shows we were right to be concerned. Is he confident that such extremely sensitive personal data will be safe from leaks or hacks?

Media reports from earlier this year showed serious flaws in the system, with journalists able to create fake profiles that circumvented age checks in minutes. Is the Secretary of State sure that when—if—the policy is finally introduced, it will actually work? The ultimate sanction under the age verification regime was the power to block rogue sites, with internet service providers compelled to comply, but new encrypted browser software is about to undermine this system fundamentally. The encryption will mean that ISPs are blind to the sites that users visit on the internet, and they will be unable to block rogue sites that compromise the safety of children. That system—DNS over HTTPS—undermines not only the age verification system, but the entire foundations of the regulation laid out by the Government in the online harms White Paper. Does the Secretary of State agree that online companies are outsmarting the Government, and that we urgently need to know how the Government plan to catch up?

[Jeremy Wright]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. As she knows, I have spoken to the shadow Secretary of State about this issue—I accept that he cannot be here today and I am grateful to her for stepping in.

The hon. Lady raised a number of issues, starting with when I discovered the error. The answer to that is Friday last week, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries found out a couple of days before that. As the House would expect, we have spent the intervening time seeking to confirm that there is no alternative way of doing what I have described. We do not believe there is, hence the course of actions that I have set out to the House.

The hon. Lady rightly asked about personal data and privacy, which is an area of concern. As she knows, it was discussed during the passage of the Digital Economy Act 2017 and subsequently. I do not believe that it is impossible to reconcile the important requirement that people’s data and privacy are protected with the equally important requirement that children are protected from material they should not see. It is perfectly feasible to do those two things in parallel, which is what we seek through our approach. As she knows, the British Board of Film Classification, which will be the regulator for this, has taken steps to ensure that beyond the requirement on all relevant companies under the general data protection regulation parameters, an additional scheme will be available to those who wish to take advantage of it. That scheme will set out a higher gold standard for privacy, which we believe should be publicised to those who may wish to use these services.

The hon. Lady mentioned sanctions, but she will recognise that the issue under discussion is not sanctions for a breach of the requirements, but notification of them to the European Union. It is important to understand changes in technology and the additional challenges they throw up, and she is right to say that the so-called “D over H” changes will present additional challenges. We are working through those now and speaking to the browsers, which is where we must focus our attention. As the hon. Lady rightly says, the use of these protocols will make it more difficult, if not impossible, for ISPs to do what we ask, but it is possible for browsers to do that. We are therefore talking to browsers about how that might practically be done, and the Minister and I will continue those conversations to ensure that these provisions can continue to be effective.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this is not the first time that a DCMS measure has had to be reintroduced because of a failure to notify the EU Commission? I hope that that problem will soon be removed, but while it exists, will he use this extra time to ensure that we get the measure right? There are still concerns on the grounds of freedom of speech and privacy, and about the ease with which measures can be circumvented through the use of virtual private networks. Will he raise similar concerns with the Information Commissioner to ensure that the age appropriate design code is right? It is much more important that it is properly designed than that it is rushed into place.

[Jeremy Wright]

I suspect that my right hon. Friend knows from experience that this is not the first time that such a thing has happened, but I am doing my level best to ensure it is the last. It is important that we have new mechanisms to ensure that such oversights are not repeated, and that is exactly what I am doing at the moment. He is correct that we should use the time we now have to get this right and to work through some of the additional challenges that I described a moment ago—we will do that. It is important that we understand these technological changes and, if I may say so, that validates our approach in the online harms White Paper, which was not to be prescriptive about technology, but to ensure that we adapt our systems as technology moves. We will seek to do the same on this point.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the age appropriate design code which, as he rightly says, is produced by the Information Commissioner, not the Government. He is right that it is important that we do not to rush this and that the Information Commissioner takes full account of the responses to the consultation. Having spoken to the Information Commissioner, I know that she will take full account of all the comments before taking the matter any further.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I agree with the Secretary of State that age verification needs to happen. The delay announced today is one thing, but the delays actually stretch back to April. This latest delay does not inspire confidence, which is extremely serious, given that this is about protecting children from harmful content. Another six-month delay is not acceptable. Can he guarantee that there will be no further slippage in the implementation of age verification? Does he agree that robust age verification must apply to social media companies, which may operate around the fringes of the law? Can he reassure us that he will do all that he can to prevent those who are unwilling to provide age verification from accessing pornography and other inappropriate material posted on a social media platform? Does he agree that that needs to be dealt with robustly as a matter of huge concern, as further delays will start to look like a lack of commitment on the Government’s part?

[Jeremy Wright]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that there is no lack of commitment on the Government’s part, as I hope she would expect. When we discovered that the mistake had been made and realised there was no way to avoid its consequences, the right thing to do was to come and say so to the House of Commons, to apologise not just to the House but, as I said, to those beyond it who have campaigned on this matter, and to set out what we now believe needs to be done.

We will of course do everything we can to ensure there is no further slippage. Both my hon. Friend the Minister and I will spend a good deal of time making sure that we have the necessary measures in place to ensure that such mistakes do not happen again.

The hon. Lady is right to say that social media companies have a responsibility. She will know that in our White Paper on so-called online harms, one area of focus was making sure that young people are not exposed to material to which they should not be exposed. We believe that the duty of care that the White Paper will institute should apply to social media companies across the board. They should be responsible for making sure, where they reasonably can, that harms do not reach their users. Through that process, we expect to develop a regulatory framework that will make that happen. I do not believe that online companies should wait for the regulator to be in place before they change their behaviour, and a sensible company will not do so. When the regulator starts work, it will want to be persuaded not just that an online company is doing the right thing on the day of the beginning of that work, but that it has been doing so for some time.

I very much hope that that will make a difference—I believe it will. The hon. Lady has my commitment that we will continue to work on a whole range of measures to ensure that young people are as safe online as they can be.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I commend the Secretary of State for being so open and frank about this administrative mistake; if I may say so, that is absolutely the right approach. However, as has already been acknowledged, this is not the first time that such a thing has happened. I understand that measures are being put in place to ensure that it does not happen again, but when will that happen so that we can be confident that the Department is operating as it should?

[Jeremy Wright]

We will conduct that exercise as quickly as we can. As I indicated in my statement, it is important that there is an external element in the process so that people outside the Department can look at what has happened and give us appropriate advice on how that can be avoided in the future. I also think that we will need to look at the mechanisms that are applied to ensure that such an administrative error cannot be made again.

It is worth my saying that it is an important convention of this House—I know, Mr Speaker, that you resolutely defend it—that Ministers should take responsibility for mistakes made by their Department. I am not here to talk about an error of a particular official; I am here to talk about a departmental mistake for which I take responsibility as Secretary of State. It is only right, too, that I reinforce the commitment and dedication of my Department’s civil servants to keeping young people safe online. The measures that we have taken over the past 12 months have represented significant steps forward, and I am grateful to my Department for having achieved that. I do not in any way defend this mistake, but I think it would be wrong to give the impression that the hard-working civil servants of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are not doing everything that they can to keep young people safe online.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is a very honourable man, and it is commendable that he has come to speak to the House today, but many people will be very disappointed by this delay. He said in his statement that he expected this to

“result in a delay in the region of six months”,

but often in this place we are able to expedite matters when they are urgent. Is there no opportunity to speed things up, rather than our having to wait for six months?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she says, and she asks a fair question. One reason why I did not come to the House before now was that I sought to explore exactly what we might be able to do either to avoid this delay altogether or to minimise it. Perhaps it would help if I explained why I think that six months is roughly the appropriate time. Let me set out what has to happen now: we need to go back to the European Commission, and the rules under the relevant directive say that there must be a three-month standstill period after we have properly notified the regulations to the Commission. If it wishes to look into this in more detail—I hope that it will not—there could be a further month of standstill before we can take matters further, so that is four months. We will then need to re-lay the regulations before the House. As she knows, under the negative procedure, which is what these will be subject to, there is a period during which they can be prayed against, which accounts for roughly another 40 days. If we add all that together, we come to roughly six months. As she will recognise, if we could proceed quicker than that, we would, but I do not believe that that will be feasible, so it is right that I am realistic at this stage.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has made a sincere and frank statement to the House about the reasons for the delay, and I appreciate that this is a change of timescale, not policy. I understand that the technology to enable the changes required by this policy already exists and could be implemented. Will he therefore comment on whether the stakeholders responsible for this—the key internet players—are co-operating on the right scale and at the right speed? We know that they can co-operate, but are they doing so?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is important that we have the necessary co-operation. Of course, that will need to come with the regulator, the BBFC, and those discussions are continuing, as he would expect. I have been clear that the reason for the delay is an administrative error—it is not anything else. We expect compliance by the companies that provide online pornography and, as I say, I see no reason why, in most cases, they cannot begin to comply voluntarily. They had expected to be compelled to do this from 15 July, so they should be in a position to comply. There seems to be no reason why they should not, but we do not rely on voluntary compliance and we will therefore pursue—somewhat later than we hoped—the regulations that I have described.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and his honesty. The protection of our children is paramount for everyone in the Chamber. Does he agree that typing in a year of birth is not an acceptable form of security to protect children’s innocence? Parents, including my constituents, demand that there must be greater verification. What does his Department believe can be done to enhance the verification process?

[Jeremy Wright]

I know the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing commitment to and interest in this issue. He is right that we should not accept that someone simply ticking a box or saying, “I am 18,” is sufficient for the companies concerned. The regulations that we have laid once, and will now re-lay, make it clear that from the point of view of the BBFC, as the regulator, that will not be an acceptable way of complying with the regulations. Companies will need to do more than that. There will need to be a way of demonstrating that someone is over 18 before they have access to this material so that companies can be sure of that fact, with us as legislators being sure that we are taking every measure that we can to keep young people away from material that will be harmful to them.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

It is vital that our legislation is fit for purpose in a digital age, and it is very unfortunate that age verification for online porn is being delayed. I join my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), in calling for us to ensure that this time is used well. I urge the Secretary of State to keep up a relentless focus on making sure that children are safe online, particularly regarding content on social media sites—especially inappropriate content on Twitter—and action on online harassment and bullying. Fundamentally, if a teenage girl walks down the street and some male in a mac flashes his pieces at her, that is illegal. It should not be legal to send that teenage girl a photo via AirDrop in a public place.

[Jeremy Wright]

I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. She is right: the principle that what is unlawful offline should be unlawful online guides much of the legislative activity in which we have engaged. As she says, we must maintain our focus on keeping young people—indeed, people of all ages—safe from online harms. As she knows, in parallel with these regulations, we will pursue the course set out in the White Paper.

We believe that the White Paper, along with the social media code of practice—which, as I mentioned earlier, has been published in conjunction with it—will start to drive these improvements, but the era of self-regulation has come to an end. It is important for the Government and legislators in the House to take seriously their responsibilities to keep people safe online, so that we know that social media companies will be more responsible in the future.

News Media Merger

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

My Department has today written to Lebedev Holdings Limited (LHL) and Independent Digital News and Media Limited (IDNM), the owners of the Evening Standard and The Independent, to inform them that I am minded to issue an intervention notice. This relates to concerns I have that there may be public interest considerations—as set out in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002—that are relevant to the recent acquisition of a 30% stake by the International Media Company (IMC) in LHL and the linked transaction involving the acquisition of a 30% stake by Scalable LP in IDNM and that these concerns warrant further investigation.

A “minded to” letter has therefore been issued to the parties on one public interest ground specified in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002:

(2A) The need for (a) accurate presentation of news; and (b) free expression of opinion.

It is important to note that I have not taken a final decision on intervention at this stage. In line with the statutory guidance on media mergers, the “minded to” letter invites further representations in writing from the parties and gives them until 5pm on Monday 17 June to respond. I plan to make my final decision, which needs to be made on a quasi-judicial basis, on whether to issue an intervention notice no later than the week commencing 24 June.

If I decide to issue an intervention notice, the next stage would be for Ofcom to assess and report to me on the public interest concerns and for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to assess and report to me on whether a relevant merger situation has been created and any impact this may have on competition. Following these reports, I would need to decide whether to refer the matter for a more detailed investigation by the CMA under section 45 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

In view of the time it has taken to obtain sufficient information to reach this point I have asked the parties to agree to extend the statutory time limit to allow Ofcom and the Competitions and Markets Authority to report to me on the public interest issues raised by the transaction.

I will keep Parliament updated on progress with this media merger case.

[HCWS1624]

Discrimination in Sport

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

Let me begin by thanking the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for tabling the motion and for the way in which she opened the debate. As she says, the motion should unite us as sport does, and the Government will support it this evening. Sport should represent society at its best. As she says, it should bring us together. It should be a forum for fair competition, where anyone, regardless of their background, can test themselves against their peers. It should offer a chance for anyone to join a like-minded community, where it is the colour of their shirt that matters, not the colour of their skin.

Discrimination and racism run counter to all these things, and if we allow them to creep into sport, we will lose what makes sport so inspirational for so many people across the world. Like Members from across the House—the hon. Lady mentioned this—I was appalled by the racist chants directed at England football players in Montenegro in March. International competitions should bring cultures and countries together and we should see meaningful sanctions for the culprits when they are used to spread hate.

The United Kingdom has been a leading voice on this globally and we will keep making that case to international governing bodies. If we are going to make that argument, we also need to make sure that we are doing whatever we can to combat discriminatory behaviour at home. I have been just as appalled by reports of discrimination in domestic and grassroots sport.

It is true that over the past few decades there has been much work to combat discrimination and create a positive and welcoming atmosphere in our stadiums. The Football (Offences) Act 1991 has helped to tackle discrimination in football. Stadiums are now better equipped with CCTV, helping real-time identification of discriminatory behaviour if it occurs. However, unless we continue to root out discrimination in all its forms, we will always face the risk that it might return. In recent months, we have seen a series of unacceptable incidents in English stadiums that threaten to set back the progress we have made. Whether they are a player, a manager or a supporter, no participant in sport should have to tolerate discrimination of any kind.

Our sporting competitions are admired across the globe for their excitement and passion. Players of over 100 nationalities have played in the premier league since its inception. Our rugby premiership is broadcast to over 200 countries and to over 170 million homes worldwide. If viewers from around the globe, including young people, are witnessing images of discrimination in our stadiums, it shames us all and we cannot stand for it.

Many sports clubs have initiatives to promote inclusion and diversity in the local community, and we should commend them. We are also seeing many of our top sporting icons acting as role models—not just through their sporting prowess, but through the way they have faced intolerance and bigotry head-on.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

In that vein, will the Secretary of State commend Joe Root, who was subjected to some homophobic sledging in a recent test in the West Indies? If this is about leadership—leadership on and off the field—he absolutely exemplifies it.

[Jeremy Wright]

Three lines later in my script, I was going to do so, but I am happy to do it now, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right. I think it is hugely significant when the captain of the England cricket team is prepared to stand up against this kind of abuse—because it is abuse, not part of the game of cricket—and call it out in the way that Joe Root did. We should absolutely recognise him for that, just as we should recognise Raheem Sterling, Nicola Adams, Danny Rose and so many other elite athletes for the dignity they have shown in the face of appalling provocation.

Discrimination should never be seen as an occupational hazard. After all, for sportsmen and women, our arenas and stadiums are their place of work, so they cannot be left to deal with this alone. Nor can they be expected just to put up with it in a way that nobody else would be expected to at their place of work.

There has been a widespread debate about the best way to respond to discriminatory abuse from spectators during a match. My view is that, if players decide they want to stay and respond with their skills on the pitch, we should support them in that and have huge respect for their resilience and professionalism. However, I also strongly believe that players at any level should not suffer any disadvantage, penalty or sanction if they choose to make a stand and walk off the pitch. We should respect those decisions, too.

Football has a protocol in place that advises referees to stop, suspend or abandon a match if discriminatory chanting takes place, and it should be followed. Football authorities must also give serious consideration to what sanctions are needed if clubs fail to demonstrate zero tolerance, whether that means significant fines, stadium closures or points deductions.

Partnerships across sport and across civil society are vital if we are to address this issue, because eradicating discrimination from sport is a challenge that affects all fans, all clubs and all governing bodies. The Government are supporting a number of different anti-racism initiatives, including the Premier League’s No Room for Racism, Show Racism the Red Card and Kick It Out campaigns, all of which have achieved much in this area.

We recognise that other forms of discrimination, such as homophobia, antisemitism and sexism, can be prevalent in sport, so we are working with a number of bodies, including Stonewall, Maccabi GB and Women in Football, to ensure that all discriminatory behaviour and cultures are challenged in local, national and international sport. We are bringing together everyone with an interest to discuss a way forward. In February, the Minister for Sport and Civil Society brought together administrators, campaign bodies, fan representatives, players and managers for a landmark summit. It was agreed that there was a number of ways in which improvements could be made, from support for match stewards to improving incident reporting. Only through the combined efforts of local police forces, clubs and stewards will these offences be picked up and dealt with in the appropriate manner. We are planning to announce a series of next steps before the end of the summer.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a role for sports broadcasters to feature more women in sport—as many women as men? That role should be firmly with those broadcasters.

[Jeremy Wright]

I certainly do agree. It is important for more women’s sport to be broadcast. I think that we are taking steps in the right direction. The England-Scotland football match—I am sorry to remind the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) of it; I will not mention the result—was watched by about 10% of our population. It is important for us to get the message across to broadcasters not just that broadcasting women’s sport is the right thing to do but that, if they broadcast it, people will watch it.

[Hannah Bardell]

I am happy to congratulate England on their 2-1 win, although I have to say that it was a very dubious penalty.

The Secretary of State speaks positively about the action that we should be taking on homophobia and discrimination in sport. I want to share something with him. I ask Members please to forgive me for the language; it is not mine.

Earlier, I called out someone who had tweeted a colleague of mine, saying:

“Is it wrong that I’m watching women’s football for a possibility of tits and fanny?”

I responded to that on Twitter and received this response from another unfortunate man who appears to be a football fan:

“People like this exist cause women’s fitbaw is absolutely dug shite and the only point in substituting real fitbaw for this pish is the hope of a decent swatch…it’s true and if you dispute it, you like men…there av said it”.

I will be reporting that homophobic, discriminatory tweet to Twitter. I hope that it will take swift action.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Of course I wanted to hear the hon. Lady’s intervention, but I have found room for her to speak later, because I think that she can make a very important contribution. I would sooner she did that in a speech, rather than trying to make an intervention into one.

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with the hon. Lady. Not only is that offensive, but it is wrong. I watched that match. It was a good game of football. I think that sports fans—real sports fans—will have enjoyed it, and I think that more of them should have the opportunity to do just that.

The summit in February also highlighted the fact that one of the strongest ways in which to promote diversity and inclusion in sport is to give more opportunities to those from under-represented backgrounds. That applies at all levels, whether it means ensuring that we have representation for top-level coaching staff or ensuring that young people from all backgrounds have an opportunity to take part in their favourite sports.

I welcome the English Football League policy to make sure BME first team manager candidates will get additional opportunities to be considered for roles at the highest levels. Sport England has also been investing £2 million each year to increase the number of qualified coaches in the game, with a particular emphasis on supporting bursaries for BME coaches. And through our sports governance code launched in 2017, we are aiming for greater diversity on the boards of our national governing bodies not just because it is the right thing to do but because diversity of thought leads to a higher quality of decision making. If our governing bodies are to fully reflect the communities they represent, we need to make sure they reflect the make-up of our society.

Let me say something about the role of social media. Social media has given many of our favourite sporting stars an opportunity to communicate directly with their fans. However, it has also created new avenues for abuse, where people can send vile remarks to top players, leading to some sportspeople closing their accounts and deciding to step away from social media for good. It should be an immense sadness to us all that professional footballers felt the need to boycott social media for 24 hours to protest against the toxic atmosphere that they experience on these channels. If we surrender our online spaces to those who spread hate, abuse, fear and vitriolic content, we all lose.

Our recent “Online Harms” White Paper was a world first, setting out the steps we are taking to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. We set out how we will create a new duty of care establishing that companies have a responsibility for the safety of their users and must take reasonable steps to tackle harmful content and activity and that compliance will be overseen and enforced by an independent regulator with significant penalties available to it. Discriminatory abuse should be as unacceptable online as it is in the stadium. The internet must remain free, open and secure, and this Government will continue to protect freedom of expression online, but we must also take action to keep our citizens safe, especially those who face bigotry and discrimination online.

We are hosting some important sporting events over the next few years: the cricket world cup, the netball world cup, Euro 2020 matches and the Commonwealth games in Birmingham, aside from the competitions already mentioned in this debate and many more.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

And the rugby league world cup.

[Jeremy Wright]

Including of course the rugby league world cup.

Spectators will be visiting from far and wide, and viewers will be tuning in from across the world. We have these opportunities to demonstrate, just as we did during that summer of 2012, our nation at its best—hospitable, inclusive and welcoming to all—and to show the world that we reject racism in all its forms. We know we have further to go, but I believe that, as the hon. Member for Tooting said, sport is fundamentally a force for good: it brings us together; it can improve physical and mental health; and it can provide valuable leadership skills and promote social integration. We need to face down racism and discrimination together and show that it cannot be tolerated in any sport, at any level.

Free TV Licences: Over-75s

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to make a statement on free TV licences for the over-75s.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

The BBC is a fundamental part of the social and economic fabric of this country. It is important for people of all ages, but particularly for older people, who value television as a way to stay connected with the world.

The Government recognised the importance of the licence fee when we agreed a funding settlement with the BBC in 2015 to provide the BBC with financial certainty to plan over the long term. We agreed to take action further to boost the BBC’s income by requiring iPlayer users to have a TV licence, and we unfroze the licence fee for the first time since 2010 by guaranteeing that it will rise each year in line with inflation.

In return, we agreed that responsibility for the over-75 licence fee concession would transfer to the BBC in June 2020. We agreed a phased transition to help the BBC with its financial planning as it did so. This was a fair deal for the BBC. At the time, the BBC director-general said the settlement represented

“a strong deal for the BBC”,

which provided “financial stability”.

The BBC is operationally independent, so the announcement yesterday is very much its decision, but taxpayers want to see the BBC using its substantial licence fee income appropriately to ensure it delivers for UK audiences, and that includes showing restraint on salaries for senior staff. In 2017-18, the BBC received over £3.8 billion in licence fee income—more than ever before. The BBC is also making over £1 billion a year from commercial work, such as selling content abroad, which can be reinvested. So we are very disappointed that the BBC will not protect free television licences for all viewers aged 75 and over.

The BBC received views from over 190,000 people as part of its broader public consultation, which sought opinions on a number of options. With a number of proposals on the table, the BBC has taken the most narrowly defined reform option. I firmly believe that the BBC can and should do more to support older people, and I am now looking to it to make clear exactly how it will do that.

[Tom Watson]

We found out yesterday just how little a Tory manifesto promise is worth. I have read these words in the Chamber before, but I will read them again:

“We will maintain all…pensioner benefits, including free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions and TV licences, for the duration of this parliament.”

No ifs, no buts, no wavering—a promise made in 2017 to voters by the Conservative party.

Today, 3.7 million over-75s find that promise in tatters. They have been betrayed, and it is shameful. The Government have the breathtaking gall to blame the BBC for this mess, but passing the buck will not work. The BBC is not the Department for Work and Pensions. Public broadcasters should never be responsible for social policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) warned in 2015 that this was a “smash and grab raid” by the Government on the BBC. He was right, and now older people are paying the price. There are 1.8 million over-75s who live completely alone, and they will lose their TV licence because of the announcement. How can the Secretary of State justify that? We cannot means-test for loneliness or social inclusion.

What about the very poorest in our nation who are eligible for pension credit but do not claim it? How will the Secretary of State protect them? Two of the Tory leadership candidates—the former Leader of the House and the Home Secretary—have committed to overturning the decision. Perhaps they know how it will look to the rest of the world when we start jailing pensioners who cannot or will not pay the licence fee.

I would like to share some figures with the House: 4,240 older people in Uxbridge will lose their TV licence; 5,970 people in West Suffolk will be affected; and 6,730—the number in South West Surrey. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) wants to give a tax cut to the very richest, but he will not lift a finger to defend pensioners. The Health Secretary says he cares about social care, but he will not defend pensioners either. The Foreign Secretary tells us that he cares about the chronically lonely, but he will not defend even the loneliest pensioners. Is it therefore any surprise that the country’s pensioners are asking whether the leadership candidates will honour their word and keep their promise, or break it?

This is a test not just of leadership, but of honour, integrity and truthfulness. Does the Secretary of State agree that someone who cannot keep a promise is not fit to be Prime Minister? It is as simple as that.

[Jeremy Wright]

Well, Mr Speaker, it is not quite as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman knows I have a good deal of respect for his passion and his consistency. I accept that he has always argued that it was wrong to transfer the responsibility to the BBC, but the arguments he makes today were better suited to our debate on the Digital Economy Act 2017. Indeed, he made those arguments then—I accept that. However, the argument was had, a vote was conducted and a result was recorded. Consequently, the BBC has the responsibility for deciding what to do about the licence fee concession. That is a fact.

The hon. Gentleman raised several concerns and I will try to deal with them. First, he is rightly concerned about those who are elderly and lonely. I know that he will recognise that the Government have not relied on the BBC to do something about those who are lonely. We are the first Government to appoint a Minister for loneliness, to have a loneliness strategy and to commit £11.5 million to pay for several programmes under the Building Connections fund. The Government take loneliness seriously and have put our money where our mouth is.

The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about the poorest pensioners. Let me say two things on that. First, as he knows, the Government have put considerable effort into raising pensioners’ living standards. We have increased the basic state pension by significant amounts. It is today £675 higher than if it had simply been uprated by earnings since 2010. In cash terms, that is £1,600 more for every pensioner. We take seriously the responsibility to look after those who do not have means and are pensioners. Again, we have put our money where our mouth is.

The hon. Gentleman made a good point about eligibility for pension credit. It is important that all those who are eligible claim it. That is exactly what we, too, believe should happen. My colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions have been working hard on that. I and they expect the BBC to help us in that task by ensuring that, as the opportunity presents itself, people who do not yet claim pension credit but are entitled to it do so. I hope that we will have the hon. Gentleman’s support in that process.

It is important to stick to the facts and not to scare people unnecessarily. It is important to understand that the change will not happen immediately, but next year, and that those who are entitled to pension credit can still have a free TV licence. It is also important to understand that evasion of the licence fee is not an imprisonable offence. It is helpful if we do not mislead people on those points.

I have said that the Government have put their money where their mouth is in looking after the individuals about whom the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned. The House and pensioners over the age of 75 have a right to expect the same of the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to come here and express his outrage about the transfer of responsibility to the BBC and away from the taxpayer, does he accept that it should be transferred back? If so, where will the money come from? He is offering to commit to £500 million of extra public spending. We are all interested to know where it will come from.

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend knows that there is no job in the world I would like more than his. He will therefore be delighted by what I am about to say because it will preclude any future Conservative Prime Minister from giving me the job.

I was in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport when the Treasury imposed the policy on the BBC to meet its £12 billion welfare target, which I doubt we have met and has long been forgotten. The Government should either take back the policy or support the BBC changes. They should not use weasel words to undermine the changes that the BBC has made. It is interesting that 40% of those over 75 subscribe to paid-for television services as well. We should support the BBC in making the changes.

[Jeremy Wright]

I respect my right hon. Friend’s experience in this matter. I am tempted to say that if he really wants my job, today would be a very good day for him to have it, but I do not think I will make that offer.

My right hon. Friend is right that the BBC’s decision must be respected, but we all have a right to express our view on the decision. It is a BBC decision—I have clearly accepted that; it is what the statute says—but we all have a right to express our view and I have been frank with the House in saying that I am disappointed that the BBC has not been able to do better. I think it still can do better and I intend to use the forthcoming period to persuade it to do so.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

As much as they try, Tory Ministers cannot wash their hands of this terrible decision. A Tory Chancellor, George Osborne, proposed handing responsibility for the licence fee concession to the BBC as part of a disastrous charter for the BBC. The Government knew exactly what they were doing and they knew that this would be the result.

The right hon. Member for Tatton (Ms McVey) has made the matter a Tory leadership issue, even if I have more chance of scoring the winner tonight in Belgium than she has of becoming Prime Minister. Every single Tory leadership candidate must answer the question: “Will you bring the TV licence fee concession back to the Government?” That is the only way pensioners will avoid losing out—some 300,000 in Scotland; 3,000 in Airdrie and Shotts. Age Scotland reckons that 76,000 pensioners in Scotland do not claim pension credit even though they are entitled to it.

In the light of that decision, what consideration has the Minister made of funding the BBC to reverse it? How does this decision square with the 2017 Tory party manifesto commitment that helped to elect the Minister, which promised to, and I quote from page 66,

“maintain”

pensioner benefits,

“including free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions and TV licences, for the duration of this Parliament”.

The Tories promised pensioners that their free TV licences would remain. They must honour that promise.

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman says that we should ask Conservative party leadership contenders whether they will bring this obligation back to the taxpayer. I hope that he will ask the same question of Opposition Front Benchers, and not just that question but the follow-up question: if they intend to do that, where will they find the money to pay for it? Will they cut elsewhere? Will they borrow more? That follow-up question must be asked of all those who argue that we should reverse course on what Parliament voted for in 2017.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government knew what they were doing when this arrangement was made in 2015. I suggest that the BBC also knew what it was doing. It is important to remember what the BBC said at the time. Let met quote what the director-general of the BBC said on the “Today” programme after the deal was done in 2015:

“The Government’s decision here to put the cost of the over-75s on us has been more than matched by the deal coming back for the BBC.”

That is what he said. If we all enter these deals with our eyes open—we all should—we should all be responsible for the decisions we take.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

May I respectfully say to my right hon. and learned Friend that when the decision was taken it was understood that this would be a possible outcome, not least because to maintain the existing concession would cost the BBC nearly £1 billion by the end of the charter period, which would mean either huge programme cuts or increasing the licence fee for the under-75s to nearly £200? Does he accept that restricting the concession to those over-75s on pension credit will provide help to elderly people on low incomes, and if it is publicised properly, it should actually significantly increase the take-up of pension credit?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes. My right hon. Friend’s last point is an important one. As I said earlier, it is important that we raise the take-up of pension credit. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of older people in our society who are entitled to help they are not currently receiving. If the BBC can assist in that process, by getting the message across that they are entitled to that help and that they will be able to claim it, that would be a good thing. I entirely respect his experience in the process that has led up to this point. As I said earlier, I accept that there are hon. Members who feel passionately that the decision taken in 2017 was the wrong one. I understand that that is their view, but it was the decision taken, and as a result, this is a BBC decision to make.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

While the then BBC management was extremely foolish to accept this albatross around their neck—we warned them at the time—I am absolutely aghast that the then Culture Secretary and his junior Minister sitting behind him, the right hon. Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), seem to be washing their hands of the responsibility. They were the people in charge and they just caved in to the Treasury—extraordinary! The Secretary of State, defending the BBC, should stand up to the Treasury. Is it not the truth that this is nothing to do with the BBC? This is about a Government who have deliberately passed responsibility for what should be a social security issue on to our main public service broadcaster.

[Jeremy Wright]

I will not repeat what I have said about the decision and the process that was undertaken in 2017, but the right hon. Gentleman knows better than many people in this House how collective responsibility works. He knows that the Government stand behind decisions they make collectively.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I would like to put in a word for BBC local radio. We have talked a lot about television, but many of my constituents love BBC Radio Cornwall. That is paid for by the licence fee, as well as the World Service, which is an extraordinarily good broadcaster. Clearly, the BBC said at the time that it would be able to keep this concession in exchange for increases in the licence fee, and it does have £5 billion of income. I am really disappointed that the BBC is doing this to some of its core listeners, but I do think that it is important the Secretary of State does what the Prime Minister said yesterday, which is sit down with the BBC and sort this out.

[Jeremy Wright]

I can tell my hon. Friend that I will be sitting down with the BBC to discuss this issue. As I said, this is a BBC decision. Statute gives this responsibility to the BBC to decide the question, but we can have further conversations, and we should, about what else the BBC can do to help precisely the people the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) raised at the outset, about whom we are all concerned: those who are elderly and those who rely on the television for all sorts of things.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The Secretary of State says that it is a simple matter and, yes, it is. This is the simple fact of a political decision being forced on a broadcaster. The BBC is not responsible for pension credit; the Government and the DWP are. By criticising the BBC for this decision, does he accept that he is undermining the BBC’s independence in a way that is completely unacceptable?

[Jeremy Wright]

No. I accept entirely that the BBC is not responsible for pension credit. It is, however, responsible for making a judgment on whether or not to continue with the BBC licence fee concession. It is not compromising its independence to say so; it is a restatement of what the Digital Economy Act 2017 says. The Act was passed by this House. I respect the BBC’s independence— I made that clear among the first things I said—but I think we are all entitled to express a view on whether we think the BBC has tried as hard as it might to help precisely the people we are all concerned about.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right that the maintenance of the concession for those on pension credit is the key to what happens next. May I introduce some maths into this? At the moment, roughly a third of pensioners who are eligible for pension credit do not claim it. That saves the Government about £3 billion a year. That is a considerably larger figure than is being talked about here in terms of the licence fee concession. Have the Government made any calculations about what will happen if even half of those who are eligible for pension credit now start claiming it? It seems to me that that would be a lot more expensive for the Government than maintaining the concession.

[Jeremy Wright]

My right hon. Friend knows, from his experience as a former Secretary of State in the relevant Department, that the irony of the situation is that this is a saving the Government do not wish to make. This is something the Government wish to change. We want more people to come forward and claim pension credit. Therefore, it is entirely in the interests of Government policy that we command the BBC’s support in getting those numbers up. I very much hope that is what happens.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State admitted that Ministers pushed this on the BBC, and all the Government’s Back Benchers voted for this policy in the face of all the warnings and knowing what the consequences would be, so forget the crocodile tears. The truth is that his Government are supporting taking away £150 from pensioners who are on about £10,000 a year, while Ministers and Government Back Benchers are careering around the country promising £3,000 in tax cuts for people who are on 10 times more than those pensioners. On what planet is that fair?

[Jeremy Wright]

No, I am not careering anywhere and I have not admitted any such thing. What I said was that when this deal was made, both sides—the Government and the BBC—ought to have known what they were doing. As I indicated, the BBC made it clear at the time that it believed the settlement reached in 2015 was, overall, a fair settlement. The consequences of that arrangement and the Digital Economy Act 2017 mean that the BBC has to make a judgment about what to do with the BBC licence fee concession. It has made that judgment. We are all entitled to say what we think of it, but in the end it was its judgment to make from the point at which that 2017 legislation was passed.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that the BBC’s income is about £5.5 billion a year? That is where the perspective needs to be presented. It is outrageous that this decision has been made in the manner in which it has been made. It is not necessary. Furthermore, I believe that the Government, under a new Prime Minister, must review the situation. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC does not give value for money and requires radical reform?

[Jeremy Wright]

No, I cannot entirely agree with my hon. Friend on that. I think that the BBC presents huge benefits to our society and to the nation beyond our shores. It is right that the BBC receives substantial income—I should say in the BBC’s defence that it has important responsibilities to carry out with that income and we expect it to do so—but it is also right that we expect the BBC to use its imagination and work hard to find ways to supplement what it has now agreed to do in the interests of older people, about whom we are all concerned.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I speak in support of the renewed campaign to retain the free TV licence for over-75s. Four years ago, the BBC agreed to the new regime, as the Secretary of State said. The demographics of the over-75s have not changed much since that time and nor has the take-up of pension credit. Four years ago, did the BBC raise either of those issues, which it now complains about to the rest of us?

[Jeremy Wright]

Of course, I was not present for those negotiations, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that. What I can say is that they were not conducted at gunpoint. They were conducted by two sides who ought to have understood the consequences of the obligations that they were taking on. I realise that this is a difficult concept for Opposition Front Benchers, but it is important that we all, when we take on a financial commitment, know how to pay for it.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party group on the BBC. A consultation was launched, to which 190,000 people responded, and the pension credit option, which the BBC has selected, was the preferred outcome. However, although we talk about the BBC having options and choices, we did not provide almost £750 million-worth of funding in the intervening years for it to make that choice. I also say, perhaps to all Members of the House: what is so fair about allowing millionaire over 75-year-olds to have a free TV licence when they may have Sky TV, yet those in their 20s are struggling to buy their own homes?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend’s points have been made elsewhere, both within the Houses of Parliament and beyond them. It is right to expect the BBC to consider carefully the responsibility that it has inherited. I have said before that I welcome the fact that the BBC conducted a full consultation, and the scale of the response shows that people took the consultation process seriously. It has considered the consultation responses and has come to a conclusion. I am disappointed at the conclusion that it has reached, but I accept that as a result of the statutory changes we made, it is the BBC’s decision, not the Government’s.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

Twenty years ago, I played a character in “Coronation Street” called Tricia Armstrong, who was imprisoned for not paying for her TV licence. That caused quite a furore and, in fact, was mentioned in this place at the time. I know that people do not go directly to prison any more for not paying for it, but of the 6,000 constituents of mine who will be affected by this change, I know that there are many who are so proud that they will never claim a benefit such as pension credit and will never claim support for their TV licence. What is the Minister going to do for those who will not claim, who do not want to be criminalised and are therefore prepared to let their TV licence go? Will the Minister with responsibility for loneliness—the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies)—be doing an audit on this?

[Jeremy Wright]

Of course, we want to make sure, in conjunction with the BBC, that everything that can be done to make sure that people do not find themselves in that position is done. The BBC has ways to contact people that are not available even to the Government. It is important that it makes use of every device that it can think of to get the message across that if people need this support and are eligible to claim pension credit, they are entitled to a free TV licence. It is important that we all help to get that message cross.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I do not have an over-75s TV licence because I do not qualify for one, but I will.

My view, as an officer of the all-party group on the BBC and as someone who has been watching the consultation, is that the BBC was required to make a proposal and it is doing so. This is not a still photograph; it is a moving picture. We should be asking in Parliament and in the Government, because there is a great range of views: what do we want to happen?

My view is that we should raise the 75 age threshold by one year every two years, because of longevity, and we ought to add the value of the concession, together with the free bus pass, to the tax allowance for the over-75s, so that those of us who are earning well or have a good pension are contributing, without having them taken away. That would be simple and easy.

[Mr Speaker]

Enjoy the next 49 days—plus the year, of course.

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. He will know that one of the options that the BBC considered and consulted on was raising the threshold from 75 to 80. I appreciate that he is suggesting a rather more subtle variant of that. I want to continue the conversation with the BBC about what else it might be able to do, but I recognise that this specific decision is the BBC’s to make and that it will make that in the form that it thinks is most appropriate.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Change UK)]

It is not just this issue that is affected by the way the funding arrangements have changed. Until 2010, the BBC World Service was funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but £253 million in funding was stopped and the BBC was given the responsibility. Does the Secretary of State accept that the FCO has subsequently given money to the BBC for language services, so there is a precedent? Could we get around this by the Government paying the entirety of the World Service funding as they used to, so that we would not have this problem?

[Jeremy Wright]

Well, I do not know whether that is a way to deal with the whole issue, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but he is right to point out that since the licence fee settlement, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has announced direct funding, in fact, of £255 million over three years to support language services for the World Service. He is right to point out that other streams of income are involved, but of course, we are talking about very much larger sums than that over a prolonged period in connection with this concession.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

I worked for the BBC on and off for 20 years and it is an organisation that I love. I am not now and will never be a Tory Beeb basher, but on this, it has got it wrong. The BBC gets a guaranteed income from licence fee payers of £4 billion a year in a deal that the BBC was eager and enthusiastic to accept, because that gave it a guaranteed cash income that commercial organisations can only dream of. And now the BBC tells us that it cannot afford to continue this concession. Will my right hon. and learned Friend work with the BBC to ask it to live within its means, stop scaremongering about cuts, be more accountable in the way it spends our money and reverse this decision?

[Jeremy Wright]

I shall certainly continue to engage with the BBC and to continue to ask it to live within its means and provide the services that my hon. Friend and I both want to see it provide to a very high standard. As he will recognise, this decision is one that we have already transferred to the BBC. It is the BBC’s decision to make, but I do not believe that this is the end of the conversation about what more the BBC can do to assist the older people we are all particularly concerned about.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

In response to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), the Secretary of State said that the Government are simply taking forward a decision of the House under the Digital Economy Act 2017. For the purposes of transparency, will he tell the 4,030 pensioners in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North, representing three quarters of all over-75s, which two parties during the passage of that Act voted against the Government continuing to fund this scheme?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am very happy to make it clear that the Scottish National party voted against these changes, as did the Labour party, as I said. The hon. Gentleman will recognise, inconvenient though this sometimes is, that decisions in our democracy are made by majority, and that is the same in this House.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

The 2017 Conservative manifesto contained a number of interesting ideas, some of which it has been more convenient to forget from time to time. In this instance, it was quite categorical, so will my right hon. and learned Friend in some way, shape or form ensure that the over-75s maintain their free TV licences for the duration of this Parliament?

[Jeremy Wright]

As I have made clear, this decision is not for the Government to make any longer; it is for the BBC. We made clear our expectations before the decision was taken; I have made my views to the BBC clear since the decision was made; and I shall continue to make arguments to the BBC about what more can be done.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

In Lewisham East, 3,410 pensioners will lose access to free TV licences, which will perpetuate feelings of loneliness and isolation. The Government are clearly refusing to accept responsibility —indeed, they are dodging responsibility—for breaking a promise made in their 2017 manifesto. Does that mean the Tory Government cannot be trusted?

[Jeremy Wright]

No, of course not. More to the point, if the hon. Lady is concerned about loneliness—I accept in good faith that she is—I hope she recognises that the Government have taken material action on loneliness more than any Government before. We take these matters so seriously that, as I have said before, we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is on loneliness—and we have done so.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that instead of forcing the over-75s to pay the compulsory TV tax, with the threat of criminal prosecution, the BBC, which consistently tells me that it is the best in the world, should move to a subscription model and sell its services to those who wish to buy them all across the world? The current system is completely unfair, because every time it is heads the BBC wins, tails the taxpayer loses again.

[Jeremy Wright]

As my hon. Friend knows, the question of replacing the licence fee with a subscription model or any other model was considered relatively recently and the licence fee model was considered still to be the best one to pursue. I do not believe this is the right time to review that question.

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

It is not the BBC’s responsibility to guarantee free TV licences for the over-75s any more than it is the energy companies’ responsibility to provide the winter fuel payment. The Conservatives’ manifesto was very clear: they committed to protecting free TV licences for all over-75s. Some 3,600 pensioner households in my constituency have been betrayed. What message would the Secretary of State like to send to them? How can they trust a word the Conservative Government say ever again?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong. It is the BBC’s responsibility to decide what to do about the licence fee concession; it says so in the Digital Economy Act 2017. As it happens, this is the sequence of events: the Digital Economy Act passed and received Royal Assent before the 2017 general election. She is simply wrong to say that it is the Government’s responsibility. It is not; it is the BBC’s decision to make.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I add my name to the list of MPs bitterly disappointed at the BBC’s reneging on its 2015 deal. I hope BBC bosses are listening to the debate and will listen to my constituents and everyone else’s, because they depend on other people paying their licence fees. If the BBC does not feel that it has a moral obligation to uphold that deal, will my right hon. and learned Friend do everything in his power to ensure that it informs every single person over the age of 75 who will lose the concession, so that they know what steps to take to avoid ending up without a TV licence?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about communication. It is important that the BBC does its utmost to ensure that such changes are communicated in a responsible, accurate and helpful way so that those who are still entitled to help can receive it.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)]

As the Government decided to subcontract a key election promise and the subcontractor has failed to deliver on it, might they not take the decision back in-house and fulfil their election promise?

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the process is in statute. If the Government were to seek to pursue a different course, we would have to bring further primary legislation before the House. I do not believe that is necessary. What is necessary is for the BBC to sit down with us, as I am sure it will, and talk about what more it can do beyond the decision it announced this week to assist those in greatest need of the assistance that the concession offers. That, we will do.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I, too, am a huge supporter of the BBC, but this decision stinks and it needs to rethink it. It has resiled from a commitment and based the decision on the wrong argument. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), the pride of many over-75s, who do not want to be part of the benefits culture, will not drive them to claim pension credit merely to get a free TV licence. They will suffer to scrape the money together to avoid and avert the loneliness and isolation of not having the TV, their only companion. When my right hon. and learned Friend talks to the BBC, will he make the point, which I do not believe it understands, about the pride of this generation and their aversion to being part of a benefits culture?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but it is important that the BBC does everything it can—we will assist it in the process—to ensure that the scenario he outlines does not happen. Actually, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) mentioned, there is an opportunity to do something about the ongoing problem of underclaiming of pension credit by those entitled to it. We should look to do something about that, which, as I have made clear, the Government have sought to do for some time.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

More than 4,000 of my constituents will lose their free TV licences. Will the Secretary of State explain to them simply and clearly how he expected to keep the promise made to them in the 2017 manifesto about their free TV licences? What mechanism did he intend to use?

[Jeremy Wright]

As I have said, the Government’s view as to what we expected of the BBC was clear. It was expressed clearly a number of times, including by me and indeed by the Prime Minister. However, the statutory fact of the matter is that this is a decision for the BBC to take. We made our view very clear, and other hon. Members made their views clear too, but it remains the BBC’s decision to take. I regret that it took the decision it did, and we must now speak to it about what more can be done.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Lord Hall is quoted today as saying that many feel that

“the Government should continue to foot the Bill.”

Does the Secretary of State have an idea of what caused the change of thinking in the BBC? Would he like to say a little more about what he expects the BBC to do to support older people?

[Jeremy Wright]

I do not know what caused the change of view. There has been a gradual process—a transition—during which public subsidy has diminished and the BBC’s responsibility for covering the cost has increased, so this is not an immediate, overnight change. The BBC has covered such costs in larger and larger amounts for two years. It is up to the BBC to determine what more it feels it can do to support those must vulnerable pensioners.

For those asking what more can we do, I think I have made it clear. The Government have already done a huge amount for pensioners. We have made substantial inputs into ensuring that the poorest pensioners in our society are properly supported. The BBC needs to talk about and think about what more it can do. That is exactly the conversation I intend to have.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I agree with colleagues who have expressed opposition to the decision. Unfortunately, it is an inevitable consequence of the Government effectively outsourcing austerity by transferring responsibility for the over-75s concession to the BBC. If the Government will not right that wrong today, will the Secretary of State at least outline how he intends to increase the take-up rate of pension credit, which as has already been mentioned is at the dismal level of 60%, to ensure that those entitled to it do not lose out twice?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, and I hope that as a result of this debate about the licence fee concession many people who are entitled to pension credit but are not claiming it may have their attention drawn to that fact, recognise that they can claim, and do so. We, with the BBC, will certainly give thought to the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about how that can be best communicated.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The television is a window into the world for lonely elderly people, and may be their only company for long periods. We keep hearing about millionaire pensioners receiving free TV licences, but this decision is not about millionaires. Pension credit is available only to single people with weekly incomes of less than £167.25 and couples whose weekly incomes are less than £225.25. That is not a lot of money. Those who just miss out on pension credit will struggle to find the money for the TV licence. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do all that he can to persuade the BBC to reverse its decision?

[Jeremy Wright]

I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment, for the reasons that she has given, and the answer to her second question is yes.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is clear from the Secretary of State’s answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) that the Government made a promise in their manifesto, but knew at the time that it was not theirs to make. The Secretary of State has said that he is disappointed with the BBC. Will he clarify whether, during those discussions with the BBC, it ever promised the Government that for the foregoing period of that settlement it would retain free TV licences for all pensioners?

[Jeremy Wright]

I was not present at those discussions, but it is very clear, is it not, that if someone wants to know roughly how much the financial obligation they are taking on will be, there are ways in which to establish that. One would assume that the BBC carried out exactly that exercise, and therefore knew what it was taking on when it made the agreement; hence the disappointment that I have expressed today.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

It appears to me that the elderly, vulnerable people of Willenhall, Bloxwich and Walsall North are being asked to contribute to the £1.75 million salary of Gary Lineker, which does not seem particularly fair. Does the Secretary of State agree?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend has heard me say that I think one of the things that the BBC must always have an eye on is the need to control salary levels, which, as he says, the people who are licence fee payers expect to be within sensible bounds. I know he will recognise that one of the reasons we know these things is the transparency that the Government have brought about, and that is a good thing, but I think he has made an interesting and fair point.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I can tell the Secretary of State that Gary Lineker is a lot more popular than the Tories.

We have been here before. The Government hiked up council tax to offset Tory cuts in council services. They introduced a care tax to offset Tory cuts in social care. They introduced a policing tax to offset cuts in policing. Now every single pensioner in the country will know that the Tories made a promise in their manifesto which they could not keep and never intended to keep. When it comes to the next election, those pensioners will remember that, and will remember that they are paying more under the Tories, because of the Tories, for worse services cut by the Tories.

[Jeremy Wright]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly overstated his case, but if he is concerned about the value of promises, let me say to him that I am still waiting to hear from any Labour Member how exactly Labour intends to fund the promise that it appears to be making to put matters back to the way they were. If they believe that promises are important, they ought to be able to explain how they intend to pay for theirs.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It was fairly obvious that the BBC would seek to minimise the loss of revenue as a result of this decision. We know that we have a severe underspend on pension credit, and we also know from the database how many over-75s live alone or live together as a couple. Clearly that promise should be kept, and those people should receive free TV licences. I have less sympathy when it comes to large families with wage earners who could pay for the licence. Will my right hon. and learned Friend use this as a means of discussing with the BBC what it should do to honour the commitment that it made?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes. As I have said, I will continue to have those conversations. As my hon. Friend will recognise, there were other ways in which the BBC could have approached this issue—even if it took the view that the full concession should not be maintained—and it consulted on some of them. We will, of course, discuss these matters further with the BBC.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State may not accept the moral case for keeping the pledge in his manifesto, but there is a good, cold, hard economic case for resolving this too. He said earlier that pensioners would not go to prison, but we know that people go prison for not being able to pay the fine for not holding a licence. Does he accept that the cost to the public purse of the prosecutions and the potential incarceration of pensioners, and indeed the consequences of pensioner poverty, far outweigh any benefit from this? Just like the bedroom tax, this is a false economy. Rather than avoiding responsibility for it, the Secretary of State should act on behalf of public taxpayers and get it sorted.

[Jeremy Wright]

As I said earlier, it is important to be accurate about what may or may not happen. The scenario that the hon. Lady has set out is not one that any of us wants to unfold, and one of the conversations that must now take place with the BBC is about ensuring that we do everything possible to avoid it.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I am a huge supporter of the BBC and normally support the director-general, Tony Hall. Can the Secretary of State confirm that Tony Hall was in the room when the negotiations took place, that he accepted the terms, and that he called the deal a good financial settlement? Perhaps, however, we could help the BBC to fill the gap by enabling and encouraging it to exploit its valuable library further, for instance through streaming and other commercial opportunities.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows that that is exactly the sort of option that the BBC is considering, as indeed it should. He is also right to say that Tony Hall was fully engaged in those negotiations. I know he will understand that it is important that I continue to discuss with the BBC not just the matters that he has raised but other matters too, and I shall do so.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The BBC was very happy to grab a contract that gave it an increase in the licence fee when it was offered that contract by the Government, in the full understanding that it would have to cover for the over-75s. However, it continues to squander money. For example, 150 people there are paid more than the Prime Minister. The Newsgathering agency pays far more than commercial enterprises. When will the Secretary of State hold the BBC to account by saying, “Either you honour this contract, or we take the money back from you and make the free TV licences available ourselves”?

[Jeremy Wright]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the position is resolved in statute, and unless we choose to change that statutory position, this remains a BBC decision. As I have said, however, I do not think that it is the end of the story. I think that the BBC can do more than it is currently proposing to do, and I intend to continue to put pressure on it in that regard.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

This day was inevitably going to come, given the policy concerned. When the Secretary of State responds by saying that this is a BBC decision, he is in fact saying that the BBC, an outside organisation, has a veto over the Conservative Government’s delivery on their manifesto commitment. May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) in inviting my right hon. and learned Friend to confirm that he will ensure that the Government fulfil that manifesto commitment?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend will recognise that the delivery of many manifesto commitments requires the co-operation and assistance of others, and this is one of them. We made clear our expectations, and I hope that we have made clear our disappointment. What we must do now is engage further with the BBC about what further action it can and should take.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to what the Secretary of State has said, and I am getting a bit sick and tired of the weasel words that he is using. It was quite clear to the 9,000 over-75s in Hull who are to lose their free TV licences that it was a manifesto promise made by the Conservatives in 2017 that they would not lose those licences. As the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) has just said, surely a manifesto promise is the responsibility of the Government, and the Government should ensure that it is implemented.

[Jeremy Wright]

I think that the responsibility of the Government is to continue to discuss with the BBC how this can best be done. This is a BBC responsibility, and those are not weasel words. It is a matter of fact. It is what the statute says, and we must therefore work within the bounds of what that statute tells us. But within those boundaries I believe the BBC can do more even if we accept, as I believe we have to, that this is a BBC decision from the outset. Now that it has made this call, we need to talk to it about what more it can do to address the concerns of the older people that I know the hon. Lady and others are concerned about.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Is the truth of the matter not that both the BBC and Her Majesty’s Government are at fault over this issue? On one hand my constituents in Kettering are outraged that, having accepted the financial settlement in 2015 and an increase in the licence fee for all the rest of us, the BBC should effectively renege on that commitment by targeting the over-75s at a time when it spends zillions of pounds on overpaid presenters and other so-called stars. At the same time, both my right hon. and learned Friend and I were elected on the Conservative manifesto, which promised pensioners that they would retain their free TV licences. We have already broken one huge manifesto commitment to leave the EU on 29 March, and I suggest we do not add to that list.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you will not want me to engage in that particular manifesto commitment, but let me deal with the other one. It is important, as I have said, that the BBC, which does have this responsibility, takes it seriously and makes the best judgment it can, but also that once the BBC has made that judgment we talk to it about what other things can be done in pursuit of the assistance that we all agree needs to be delivered to the most vulnerable older people in our society.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

This measure means that 5,100 of my constituents will lose out—a whopping 72% of those who currently qualify—and for the record I am appalled at the blatant attacks I have heard today on the very principle of universalism. Is the Secretary of State comfortable—a yes or no answer will do—with people in their 80s and 90s facing prosecution for not having a TV licence while Tory leadership contenders line up to compete about who can implement the biggest tax cuts?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am not here to speak for any leadership contender; I am here to speak for the Government, and the Government have the responsibility to make sure the BBC carries out its particular obligations under the Digital Economy Act 2017, but that we have the opportunity thereafter to talk about what more can be done, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Nearly 3,500 households in my constituency are now set to lose their free TV licences next year despite a Conservative manifesto promise that they would be kept. This is an outrage. So will the Government apologise, do the right thing, and commit today to funding these TV licences at the very least until the end of the next Parliament?

[Jeremy Wright]

I hope I have made it clear that I think the right thing to do is accept what the law requires as things stand but to work with the BBC to make sure that those in greatest need are properly looked after, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The 1,440 of my constituents who are affected are not going to be impressed by the Government’s shamefaced turnaround on this issue after having committing to upholding the free licence fee. The Secretary of State might say that the Government are not responsible for this, but they are responsible for the increase in pensioner poverty, loneliness and isolation that will ensue, so what are the Government going to do to mitigate those inevitable impacts and guarantee that those detriments are reversed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

I gave the House the statistics some moments ago: the position is radically improved since 2010 for pensioners who rely on a state pension. That is what this Government have done to make sure that pensioner poverty is tackled. We have done more than Labour ever did, and I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman about what it is to look after pensioners; it was not our Government who came up with a 75p increase in the pension. So we will do what is necessary to look after the welfare of the poorest pensioners, but the position on the licence fee is as I have set it out.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State shifts the blame on to the BBC, shifts the pain on to 3,300 of my constituents, and stands there in shame for breaking this promise to the British people. He is in government; he can change the law, take this back into the Department and make this promise good. Will he do that?

[Jeremy Wright]

This is the BBC’s responsibility. It is not shifting the blame to say so; it is pretty much quoting word for word what the Digital Economy Act 2017 says. What we should now do is seek to address what else the BBC can do in this space, and that is what we are going to do.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

I have written to Portsmouth pensioners to understand the impact the change to the TV licence scheme would have on their lives, and as one 95-year-old constituent told me:

“I lost my wife in January and now I spend a lot of time alone. Having the TV on is like having someone with me, I do not know what I would do without it.”

How would the Secretary of State advise me to respond to that pensioner?

[Jeremy Wright]

It would of course depend on that gentleman’s circumstances, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to assist us and the BBC in making sure the right information is given to older people who may be concerned that they are about to lose their TV licence when in fact they are not, because some will retain it. It is important that we get across clearly to those who will otherwise worry that if they are or could be in receipt of pension credit, they will not lose that benefit. So it is important that we all take the chance to communicate with our constituents in a way that is accurate and that reassures where we can.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

This is a Government who raised the pension age and who only last month changed the pension credit criteria, making it more difficult for couples to qualify for pension credit—something the Secretary of State has not mentioned. Those couples could very well be among those who do not now qualify for the TV licence. But does the Secretary of State agree with the principle that this Parliament has a right to reverse the decision of a previous Parliament, and that there should now be a debate and a vote on who is responsible for the TV licence and who is eligible for free licences?

[Jeremy Wright]

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right that Parliaments cannot bind their successors, and if the Government bring legislation forward Parliament will have to consider it. On the question of whether or not Parliament has opportunities to consider this matter, it is having one now, it has had them in the past and I have no doubt that you will be prepared to entertain all applications if they are made, Mr Speaker.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Most of those set to lose the TV licence will not qualify for pension credit but still struggle to make ends meet, including 4,470 from Bedford and Kempston. Does the Secretary of State agree that his party has broken another manifesto pledge and cut a lifeline to the outside world for many older people, who suffer most from loneliness and social isolation?

[Jeremy Wright]

No.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Some 3,220 people in my constituency currently benefit from this policy. No matter which way the Secretary of State tries to dress it up, to transfer the responsibility to the BBC without the corresponding budget and then have Tory MPs line up, as they have done over the last few days, and criticise the BBC is just plain wrong, not to mention shameful. So will the Secretary of State review this situation, yes or no?

[Jeremy Wright]

I think I have been clear about what I intend to do next. I am not seeking to dress anything up; I am expressing to the House what the current situation is, and the situation is that the BBC has the responsibility to decide what to do with the TV licence concession we have been discussing, and it has decided. I have expressed my disappointment with what it has decided and intend to take the matter further in discussions with it.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Nearly 4,000 of my constituents are going to be affected by this decision. I find it absolutely shocking that the Secretary of State, who stood on a 2017 manifesto that promised over-75s that they would keep this benefit—hard-working over-75s who have lived by the rules all their lives and contributed in every way to get this tiny benefit—now says they cannot do so. Does he not think he owes those people more of an explanation than he is giving this House today?

[Jeremy Wright]

I think I am up to about an hour and 10 minutes’-worth of explanation so far, and I think it is important, as I have said, that we communicate what is happening to older people who will be concerned. It is important to do that with accuracy and to be straightforward about who will be able to retain this benefit, and it is important for the Government to continue to communicate with the BBC. As I hope I have made clear, I intend to do so.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I always believe that there are three sides to the truth. There is the truth of the BBC, which I have much sympathy with; the Government’s truth of not fulfilling a manifesto commitment; and the truth of the 7,066 pensioners over 75 in my own constituency. There is also the truth of Josephine, who phoned GMTV yesterday morning to say that

“it means an awful lot to me, because that would be £25 a month coming out of our joint pension. We’re self-funding in a residential care home”—

luckily, that will not happen in Scotland—

“and he gets no pension credit. They’ve taken all his attendance allowance when he went in, so what happens to people like us?”

Would the Minister like to tell Josephine what happens?

[Jeremy Wright]

As I have said, it is important that we continue to discuss with the BBC what more can be done for people like that. It is important, as I have said, to be clear about who will continue to get this benefit, and it is important to have this continuing conversation with the BBC about what more can be done for those people, but I will not accept that this Government have not done anything to support people who are in difficulty. Quite the reverse: this Government have done a huge amount to do that, and it is important that when we communicate these things, they are communicated in the round.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Knowing that this decision was coming down the line, knowing that the BBC may have made the choice that it has made and knowing that this was a manifesto commitment of his Government, has the Secretary of State personally had any discussions with the Treasury in his 11 months in office, to ensure that the 3,800 pensioners in the Delyn constituency who will lose their benefit and now pay over £500,000 more—money lost from our local economy—can get justice and see the Conservative party meeting its manifesto commitment?

[Jeremy Wright]

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that I discovered the BBC’s plans on Sunday, before the announcement on Monday. I have not had a discussion with Treasury Ministers since that time but, as I said, I intend to have a number of discussions about what further action can be taken, predominantly by the BBC, but of course the Government will continue to look at what they can do across the whole range of benefits policy, as they always do.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is predicted that this change in plans will cost the BBC £250 million by 2021-22. That is money that is not going into jobs in Pacific Quay in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State stand here and guarantee that no jobs will be lost in Pacific Quay as a result of this sleekit Tory sleight of hand?

[Jeremy Wright]

What I can say to the hon. Lady is that when the BBC decided to take on this responsibility, one would have thought that the bare minimum of what it expected to have to outlay would have been what it is currently intending to outlay, so it should have made any calculation about how affordable that might be in 2015—and I am sure it did. She and I will both continue to expect the BBC to provide a good service, employing excellent people in her constituency and elsewhere to offer the best possible television product to the nation.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

About 4,400 pensioners in the Scunthorpe area will lose their free TV licences based on this announcement today. Is the Secretary of State saying that the Government are happy to break the election promise that those people voted on in 2017?

[Jeremy Wright]

I do not think it is possible to say I am happy. I think my disappointment has been made very clear, but it is, I am afraid, now for the Government to work with the BBC to see what more can be done. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman’s party continues to say that this responsibility should be taken back by the taxpayer, we will at some stage get a little detail about how that might be paid for.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Three thousand households in my constituency will lose their TV licence, yet the Tory leadership candidates are focused on cutting taxes for the wealthy and have nothing to say about this vital support being taken away from the elderly. Is this not another broken promise from a Tory Government who always choose to protect the few at the expense of the many? Will the Minister tell me which Tory leadership candidate he would support to find the money?

[Jeremy Wright]

I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and if he was here earlier, he would have heard others quoting what the Conservative party leadership candidates have said specifically on this subject. As I said earlier, I do not answer for any of them; I answer for the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know what the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) did or did not pick up, but he has certainly been here throughout these exchanges.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I have 4,200 elderly constituents who will lose out because of this. Any of them who are watching the answers from the Dispatch Box today will be reminded, as I am, of a line from a Billy Connolly joke, which is that “a big boy did it and ran away”. That seems to be the Government’s response. The Secretary of State asked how the £500 million could come from the taxpayer, but he is one of those who voted for inheritance tax cuts, corporation tax cuts and cuts to income tax thresholds for the richest. I have figures from the House of Commons Library showing that those measures will cost £80 billion by the year 2025. I will send him those figures as a starter for where the money can be found.

[Jeremy Wright]

If the hon. Gentleman is waiting for me to apologise for my advocacy for low taxes, he will wait a long time. I believe in low taxes, and it is important that we are a low tax economy, but I also believe it is important to offer the maximum support to those who need it most, and that is exactly what this Government have done. There has been no evasion on the position from me. I have made it quite clear to the House what the position is, and the arguments that have been deployed today are the same arguments that were deployed in 2017 and the same comments that were made in 2015. We have all known what the position was in terms of the BBC’s responsibility for at least two years, and arguably for four.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State not agree that the BBC saying it is not in charge of welfare benefits does not take away from the fact that it has a duty of care to the public, and that its petty statement of shifting blame does not help those who are sitting alone at home? Does the Secretary of State agree that this could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in terms of people determining not to use the BBC and to withdraw their fee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the BBC has a responsibility here, and to be fair to the BBC, most of the people I speak to at the BBC accept that. However, I do not find the conclusion they have reached so far to be satisfactory, which is why I will continue to speak to them about what more can be done. I very much hope that his conclusion is wrong and that people do not move away from the BBC to other providers. I believe the BBC has a good deal to offer, not just to the world of broadcasting but to our society more broadly. However, it is important, as he says, that it takes its broader responsibilities very seriously.

Bill Presented

Climate Change (Emissions Targets) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Rachel Reeves, supported by Mary Creagh, Edward Miliband, Drew Hendry, Norman Lamb, Caroline Lucas, Nicky Morgan, Peter Kyle, Zac Goldsmith, Anna McMorrin, Antoinette Sandbach and Dr Sarah Wollaston, presented a Bill to amend the Climate Change Act 2008 to require net United Kingdom carbon emissions to be zero by 2050 and to include international aviation and international shipping in the calculation of such emissions.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 399).

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the contribution of horse-racing to (a) social, (b) cultural and (c) economic life. [R]

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

Our world leading horse-racing industry employs over 17,000 people and contributes around £3.5 billion to rural economies across Britain each year. The Government support British racing, and our reforms to the horse-race betting levy have established a firm financial basis to support the sport.

[Conor McGinn]

I am very proud to be the joint chairman of the all-party parliamentary racing and bloodstock industries group. Like many Members across the House, I strongly support our fantastic sport and our fantastic British horse-racing industry, but the sport does face challenges. Given that the yield from the levy is £17 million less than forecast, what measures will the Secretary of State and the Government take, working with British horse-racing to ensure its long-term financial sustainability?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not just for what he says, but also for the valuable work he does with the APPG to support the industry. He is right that the levy receipts this year will be lower than expected, but he will recognise that there was a very substantial increase last year because the Government reformed the levy in order to bring offshore bookmakers into scope. That was an important change to give the industry a broader and more substantial financial base. We will look at future changes to the levy that may be appropriate to deal with any change in circumstances, but it is right to allow the substantial changes that we made last year to bed in. We will of course discuss with the hon. Gentleman and the APPG what further action may be appropriate.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

As the other co-chairman of the APPG, may I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the recent Racing Together Community Day. Does he agree that, with 60 racecourses across the country, horse-racing has a wonderful opportunity to reach out to very many people, including schoolchildren, and can he help us to support that action?

[Jeremy Wright]

In order to be even-handed, I should offer equal thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend for the work that he does with the APPG. He is right that horse-racing can make a significant contribution —not just to our sporting life, but to our broader community life. It is important that young people understand the sport and understand horses, and we welcome any opportunity that the industry has to support that.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to support older people to improve their digital skills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to support the maintenance of free television licences for the over-75s.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

The Government have guaranteed the over-75s licence concession until 2020. After that, the future of that concession is the BBC’s decision, but we have been clear that we would want and expect it to continue. We expect the BBC’s decision next month.

[Mr Hepburn]

It was a Labour Government who introduced free TV licences for pensioners, in the vital battle against isolation, loneliness and severe mobility problems. Next year, up to 6,000 pensioners could lose their licence in Jarrow. Half of them class the TV as their main source of company. What is the Minister going to do about that?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is right that television is important for many older and more isolated people, but the key word in his question was “could”. We do not yet know what decision the BBC will make, and it is sensible to wait until we have the proposal before commenting upon it.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What deal have the Government come to to compensate the BBC if it decides to continue with free television licences, bearing in mind that this was in the Conservative party’s manifesto for the general election?

[Jeremy Wright]

We have made it quite clear that we will continue to fund the concession until 2020. It is worth noting that, over the last two years, the funding has been managed in a transitional way. The Department for Work and Pensions transferred £468 million in 2018-19 to the BBC and £247 million this year. It is important to make that point, because it means that the remainder of the cost is now being borne by the BBC. We have been clear that when the BBC takes on this responsibility, it is important for the concession to continue.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

As this is the last Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions before the women’s World cup in France, I want to take this opportunity to wish Scotland, led by Shelley Kerr—another Livingston lass—all the very best, as well as England, who we look forward to taking on on 9 June.

Research by Age UK shows that more than 2 million over-75s will have to go without TV or cut back on heating and food if free TV licences are scrapped. The scale of loneliness in the UK is becoming apparent, and the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty, Philip Alston, concluded that unless austerity is ended, the UK’s poorest people face lives that are

“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

Why do this Government want to heap more misery on to the elderly and poor and think it is worth removing what, for many, is the only source of information, company and link to the outside world?

[Jeremy Wright]

First, let me mostly endorse what the hon. Lady said about the women’s World cup and wish a huge amount of luck to England and almost as much luck to Scotland.

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s description of the position. We do not accept the characterisation in the report that she refers to. In relation to TV licences, as she has heard me say this morning, I think it is important to wait until we see the BBC’s proposals, and we will then be in a position to comment. That principle applies more broadly—it is always sensible to wait and see what is proposed before you decide you do not like it.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to ensure adequate funding for (a) education, (b) research, (c) treatment and (d) support to minimise gambling-related harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

7. What steps he plans to take in response to the consultation on society lottery reform.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

As outlined in the consultation, we are considering changes to the sales and prize limits for society lotteries. The regulatory framework for lotteries must be appropriate, and both society lotteries and the national lottery should be able to thrive. We hope to respond to the consultation by the summer recess.

[Tommy Sheppard]

In February last year I wrote on behalf of the People’s Postcode Lottery to ask for the limit on charity lottery sales to be raised to £100 million. On 7 February I was told that the Department was “considering” that proposal. There have been 15 months of consideration and deliberation, so is it not now “make your mind up time”? Many of those charity lotteries are trying to fill the gaps left by the Government’s austerity policies, and it seems unfair to continue to hold them back. When the Minister announces the response to the consultation, will he commit to raising that limit in line with inflation?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I will not announce the result of the consultation until we have that result. We have been saying for some time that we would seek to do that by the summer, and that is what we will do. It is important to consider carefully the balance of arguments. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that society lotteries make a considerable contribution, but he will understand that I also have a responsibility to protect the interests of the national lottery. Getting that balance right is not straightforward, and we seek to do it so that a contribution to the life of this country will continue to be made by both society lotteries and the national lottery.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the cultural importance of heritage to towns and cities throughout the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

I congratulate the four English football teams, one of whom I know you take a particular interest in, Mr Speaker, who have qualified for the European finals. It is the first time that one nation has ever provided all the major European finalists in a single season. We have seen success elsewhere in my Department’s portfolio, too, with the Tech Nation report showing that our digital economy is leading the way in Europe, with 35% of Europe and Israel’s tech unicorns being created here in the UK. We have the cricket world cup to look forward to, with the opening match at the Oval next week. I am sure the House will join me in welcoming the nine visiting teams and in wishing our cricketers the very best of luck. Perhaps I also ought to congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), the shadow Secretary of State, on climbing Snowdon, which he recently achieved. All of us in the House are used to uphill struggles; I am pleased that he has completed that one successfully.

[Bim Afolami]

The access to cash review recently published a report setting out that 17% of the adult population—about 8 million adults—would struggle to manage in a cashless society, with the majority of those people in rural areas. Will the Minister explain what the Department is doing to improve the situation for those in rural areas to bring the standard up to that in more urban areas?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is right that we face two challenges: one is skills and the other is access to broadband. On broadband, he will know that we have succeeded in achieving our initial objective of 95% of the country being covered by superfast broadband, and in fact, exceeding that somewhat, but we now need to move on to rolling out full fibre. When we do that, it is important that we focus on those areas that the market will not reach unaided—an outside-in approach, as we have described it. I believe that will benefit rural areas predominantly.

[Mr Speaker]

The notable athlete himself: Mr Tom Watson.

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Good morning, Mr Speaker, and my very best wishes to Jemima and all colleagues’ family members in their thespian endeavours, including my daughter, Saoirse, who has just successfully auditioned to play Nancy in the school production of “Oliver Twist”.

UEFA’s inclusion and diversity policy says the following:

“Everyone has the right to enjoy football, no matter who you are, where you’re from or how you play.”

But next week, Henrikh Mkhitaryan will miss the match of a lifetime because he is from Armenia, and Arsenal fans with Armenian names are being denied visas to travel to Baku. This is a scandal. It is a deeply ugly side to the beautiful game, and if I was Secretary of State, I would make it clear to UEFA that it is completely unacceptable. Will the Minister demand that UEFA ensures that countries that force players to choose between their sport and their safety and that discriminate against travelling fans will never be allowed to host future events?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is right: if football is to be for everyone, and we all believe that it should be, that should apply to football in our own country and to football in places where we want our fans to be able to travel. It is important that we engage with UEFA, as we have been doing, to send the very clear message that places where football travels to should be welcoming to those who support football, and politics should have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

There is, as the hon. Gentleman says, the related challenge of whether British fans who are of Armenian descent are able to have a visa to travel to Azerbaijan. That is something that my colleagues in the Foreign Office are picking up, because it is important that all those who want to travel to support their team should be able to do so. If they cannot, football is not achieving what it should.

[Mr Speaker]

Quite right.

[Tom Watson]

A woeful ticket allocation means that the vast majority of fans will not travel to that match or, indeed, to the Champions League final, because UEFA has favoured corporates over fans. Will the Secretary of State condemn UEFA with me today? On this day when the House is divided over Europe, can we unite to condemn UEFA for its disgraceful treatment of football fans?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there are not enough tickets available for fans, either on Saturday or next week in Azerbaijan. I think we can agree that as many people who are passionate about their team as possible should have the chance to see them succeed and compete on the European stage, just as they can on the national stage. We believe that it is important to say to UEFA that that is a message we all support. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it, so that we can communicate that message with clarity.

It is important that we spread the benefits of the major European competitions around Europe. I do not believe it is right that they should be held in only a small subset of European countries. There are huge economic and sporting benefits to be derived from them, and countries should have access to those benefits, but only if they are prepared to give access to passionate football supporters.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

T2. I add my best wishes to the England women’s team for success in the forthcoming World cup. Will the Minister give them the best possible send-off by ensuring that the Government commit increased funding to football facilities at grassroots level?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

T5. The video games industry is a beacon of success in the British economy. It is particularly strong in the west midlands, especially around the so-called Silicon Spa area of Warwickshire. What is the Department doing to support this industry—in particular, to provide it with people with the right skills to enable it to grow?

[Jeremy Wright]

As my hon. Friend would expect, I am very proud of Silicon Spa in the area of Warwickshire that I represent. I visited one of the games-designing companies very recently. I accept that having one’s picture taken under a big sign saying “Rebellion” is not a sensible thing to do at the moment. None the less, I thought it was important that I made that visit, and I was impressed by what I saw. My hon. Friend is right that it is important that we give these companies people with the skills that they require to continue to be successful. He will know about our creative careers programme, which gives 160,000 children an opportunity to learn about careers in video games and elsewhere.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am very proud that I supported the millennium dome, which became the O2 and is a great success. The other night, I heard Elbow play there. Will the Secretary of State help me get a performing arts centre of international quality in Huddersfield—an O2 for the north?

[Jeremy Wright]

As it happens, when I am in London I live very close to the O2, so I hear all kinds of people playing there. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should be looking to deliver the benefits of these kinds of performing opportunities to the whole country. I am happy to talk to him further about what we might do to bring this opportunity to the north, and, of course, all parts of the UK.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T6. Since we are celebrating the achievements of our families today, I would like to wish my daughter Rosie good luck with her grade 5 singing exam and my younger daughter Matilda good luck with her grade 1 piano exam—and, since a mother never leaves out any of her children, congratulate Wilfred on winning his very first swimming badge this week.Barclays released a report this week showing that more Britons are taking holidays in the UK—staycations—which is a great boost to local economies. As the Member of Parliament for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I am very fortunate to represent an area that has many fantastic tourist attractions including the International Bomber Command Centre, the National Centre for Craft and Design, Belton House and Doddington Hall. What more are the Government doing to support tourism in Lincolnshire?

Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

The Education, Youth, Culture and Sport (EYCS) Council will take place in Brussels on 22 and 23 May 2019. The UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, Katrina Williams, will represent the UK for the Youth session on 22 May. Minister of State for School Standards Nick Gibb of the Department for Education will be representing the UK in the Education session. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Lord Ashton, will be representing the UK on 23 May for the Culture and Audiovisual and Sports sessions.

Youth

This session will begin with the adoption of the Council conclusions on young people and the future of work. Furthermore, the Council will also seek to adopt a resolution on the governance of the EU Youth dialogue.

Also tabled for this session is a policy debate on young people as agents of democracy in the EU.

Other

There will be information from the European Commission in regards to Discover EU and information from the Portuguese delegation on the World Conference of Ministers responsible for Youth 2019 and Youth Forum Lisboa (22 and 23 June 2019).

Culture-Audiovisual

This meeting will begin with the adoption of the Council conclusions on young creative generations. In addition, the meeting will also look to adopt conclusions on co-productions. This shall be followed with a policy debate on ‘from tackling disinformation to rebuilding EU citizens’ trust in the media’.

Other

Information will be provided from the Hungarian delegation on the nomination of Veszprem for the European Capital of Culture 2023. Moreover, information will also be provided from the Spanish and Portuguese delegation on celebrating the fifth centenary of the first circumnavigation of the world, led by Fernao de Magalhaes and Juan Sebastian Elcano.

Sport

The sport session of EYCS will begin with the adoption of a resolution on EU member states’ representation and coordination for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) meeting in Montreal. In addition, there will also be the adoption of the Council Conclusions on access to sport for persons with disabilities.

The session shall then proceed with a policy debate on increasing the participation of children and young people in sport in 21st century Europe.

Other



There will be information from the EU member states’ representatives in the World Anti- Doping Agency (WADA) Foundation Board on the meeting with the WADA taking place in Montreal on the 14-16th May 2019. There will also be information from the Finnish presidency on the work programme of the incoming presidency and information from the Danish delegation about the Council of Europe Convention on the manipulation of sports competitions (match fixing) and the ways forward for the EU.

To conclude, there will be information from the Bulgarian, Greek and Romanian delegations on the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Serbia to host either the Euro 2028 championship or the 2030 World cup.

[HCWS1573]

UK Telecoms: Huawei

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to make a statement on the future role of Huawei in UK telecoms infrastructure.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

The security and resilience of the United Kingdom’s telecoms networks is of paramount importance. The UK has one of the world’s largest and most dynamic economies, and we welcome open trade and inward investment in our digital sectors, but at the same time the UK’s economy can only prosper when we and our international partners are assured that our critical national infrastructure remains safe and secure.

As part of our plans to provide world-class digital connectivity, including 5G, my Department has been carrying out a cross-Whitehall evidence-based review of the supply chain to ensure a diverse and secure supply base. The review aims to ensure stronger cyber-security across the entire telecommunications sector, greater resilience in telecommunications networks and diversity across the entire 5G supply chain. It has considered the full UK market position, including economic prosperity, corporate and consumer effects and the quality, resilience and security of equipment.

Despite the inevitable focus on Huawei, the review is not solely about one company or even one country. We have to strike a difficult balance between security and prosperity, and recognise the reality of globalised networks and supply chains, although I will make it clear that our security interests are pre-eminent and that has been the focus of this review. That is the way to ensure that the UK fully realises the potential of 5G through its safe and secure deployment.

As would be expected given the importance of the subject, it is a thorough review of a complex area, which has made use of the best available expert advice and evidence, including from the National Cyber Security Centre. It will report with its conclusions once ministerial decisions have been taken. The review is an important step in strengthening the UK’s security framework for telecoms and ensuring the secure roll-out of 5G and full-fibre networks.

I am sure that the House will understand that National Security Council discussions should be confidential, and will understand why that must be the case. However, I know that Members on both side of the House feel strongly on this issue and I will make a statement to the House to communicate final decisions at the appropriate time.

[Jo Platt]

Thank you for granting this urgent question today, Mr Speaker.

What a mess we are in. The only reason we know of the decision to green-light Huawei is from an apparent ministerial leak of a meeting of the National Security Council, which has served only to raise public concern while undermining the integrity of our security agencies. Let me be clear from this side of the House: if a Minister did leak this information, they are not fit to serve in the cabinet and are certainly not fit to be Prime Minister. Indeed, if the leak was for an advantage in a Tory leadership race, that would be truly shocking. Critical issues of national security should be handled with utmost care, not used as political ammunition in a Tory party civil war. A full leak inquiry should be undertaken, and if identified, the individual should immediately resign or be removed from their position.

Turning to the substance of the question, the decision to allow Huawei’s involvement in building our 5G network raises some extremely serious questions that must be answered if we are to provide the public with concrete assurances about the integrity and safety of the network. Huawei is a company known from multiple public reports from our security services to manufacture sub-optimal equipment, often at a lower than average cost. Can the Minister clarify if the equipment described just two weeks ago by the technical director of the NCSC as “very, very shoddy” will be the same equipment green-lit for deployment in our networks?

We heard last month in a report from the Huawei oversight board, chaired by the head of the NCSC, that it still has only limited assurance that the long-term security risks presented by Huawei can be managed, and it is still identifying significant issues. For the benefit of the House, can the Minister confirm that is still the opinion of the security services when the Prime Minister has decided to allow them access to our 5G networks for the decades to come?

We need not listen only to the security services: listen to Huawei itself. In a letter to the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee in February, it said that it will take three to five years to see tangible results from its reform programme. Just weeks after those warnings, why has the company been given the go-ahead to help to build our critical national infrastructure?

Why are we in this situation today? Ultimately, the chronic lack of investment by the Government has meant that we are without thriving digital or manufacturing industries capable of producing this equipment, leaving us reliant on foreign suppliers. To that end, the Government must be called out for their negligence. The only way we will keep Britain safe and secure in the 21st century is by investing in our industries, rebuilding Britain and always placing security ahead of cost. That is exactly what a Labour Government would do.

[Jeremy Wright]

First, let me repeat what I said a moment or two ago. A final decision has not been made on this subject, so the hon. Lady is wrong to describe matters in the way that she has. However, I entirely agree with what she said about the leak of any discussions in the National Security Council. As she says, there is good reason for such discussions to be confidential, and I hope the House will understand that I do not intend to discuss here, or anywhere other than in the National Security Council, the matters that should be discussed there. The reason we do not is that officials, including the security and intelligence agents she has referred to in her remarks, which I will come back to, need to feel that they can give advice to Ministers that Ministers will treat seriously and keep private. If they do not feel that, they will not give us that advice, and government will be worse as a result. That is why this is serious, and that is why the Government intend to treat it seriously, as she and the whole House would expect.

I shall now respond to the other points that the hon. Lady raised. She made reference, quite properly, to the work of the oversight board. Of course the oversight board is evidence of the fact that we have arrangements in place for the management of Huawei technology that do not exist for the management of equipment supplied by others; there is reason for that. The oversight board’s concerns are, as she says, about the technical deficiencies of the equipment that Huawei is supplying. They are serious concerns; they need to be addressed. They are not, as she will recognise, concerns about the manipulation of that equipment by foreign powers, but they are none the less serious and they will be addressed. The objective of this review is to ensure that the security of the supply network, regardless of who the equipment supplier is, is improved. That is our objective, and it would be wrong to focus entirely on Huawei, or even, as I said, on Chinese equipment.

However, it is worth recognising that Chinese equipment —and, indeed, Huawei equipment—is prevalent across the world, not just in the United Kingdom. There is a good deal of Huawei equipment already in the UK networks, so we are not talking about beginning from a standing start, but it reinforces, in my view, the need to ensure that this review of the supply chain is broadly based—as it is—to ensure that we address the security of the network, regardless of where the equipment comes from.

Finally, on the issue of the security and intelligence agencies, as the hon. Lady would expect, we take full account of what the security and intelligence agencies have advised us on this subject, and she has my reassurance, as does the House, that we will continue to take seriously what they tell us, because it is a key component of the review that is being conducted—and that is being conducted, as I have indicated, with the full input of the National Cyber Security Centre.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right to make no comment at all on an apparent leak from an organisation like the National Security Council. But questions must be asked as to why a document such as this, of such huge national and international security importance, was being discussed openly at the National Security Council, and indeed the content of the document itself equally is worthy of much further inquiry across Whitehall and in this place. Would my right hon. and learned Friend perhaps welcome an inquiry by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, on which I serve, into the document, the way it was handled by the National Security Council, and the way in which the leak occurred?

[Jeremy Wright]

I think it is entirely appropriate for the Committee on which my hon. Friend serves to make inquiries as it thinks fit. It is not a matter for me or for the Government to indicate what it should or should not do. He will recognise, of course, that these are documents that should be discussed by the National Security Council—it is a way in which the National Security Council can make sensible and properly informed decisions—but as I said a moment or so ago, and as he knows full well from his own experience, that will become less and less likely to happen, and decisions will get less and less properly based, if we cannot trust people to keep private what should be kept private.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

As I see it, there are two major considerations. In the UK we are lagging behind China, the USA and South Korea. The fact that we are even talking about this issue is a strong indication that there has been a lack of a realistic UK Government-backed strategy, and that has allowed us to fall behind, and we are now facing tough decisions, which could and should have been avoided. There is the threat of espionage, which is obviously denied by China. There have been persistent rumours since 2012 of an elite cyber-warfare unit using either Huawei’s software or flaws in it. Why it should go to such lengths when the NSC leaks like a sieve is beyond me, but if we do not know, how we can possibly take that risk?

I have two brief questions for the Secretary of State. Can he define the “core” and the “edge” of a 5G network and assure me that it cannot be compromised from either side? As EE is building 4G to carry emergency services, with its planned 5G piggybacking on that, will Huawei’s 5G plan disrupt that service?

[Jeremy Wright]

First, there is no lack of UK strategy. We have a clear intent to make maximum use of 5G technology. That is important because, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, in order for our economic development to be as successful as we all want it to be, this country will need to embrace this technology and make use of it in a variety of ways. The option of simply saying we will not engage in 5G technology is not available to us, nor should it be, and I know he does not argue for that.

If we need to provide for 5G networks, I repeat that it is important to be realistic and to recognise that Huawei is a significant player in this market. There are few others—and, by the way, the others that exist use Chinese equipment or assemble their components in China. The idea that any option available to us could completely exclude Chinese equipment or involvement of any kind is, I am afraid, not realistic.

It is also worth saying, for the reassurance of the hon. Gentleman and others, that we already take action to, for example, exclude Huawei from sensitive networks. There is no Huawei equipment in defence or intelligence networks. The division between core and access networks—which, as he says, is technically complex—is something we will need to address in the review, but I would much prefer that we discuss that review in the round when it has been properly developed, rather than attempt to do it piecemeal on the back of incomplete leaks.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

The Secretary of State talks about coming to the House with a final decision. Is this not an opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate about this issue? There are many technical, political and security considerations. If the US and Australia can block Huawei without damaging their trading relationships with China, it raises the question of why the United Kingdom could not do the same.

[Jeremy Wright]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s considerable interest and expertise in this field. I will say two things to him. First, he is entirely right that Australia has decided to exclude Huawei completely from these systems. The United States has not yet made such a decision. It does so from federal networks, but it has not yet decided what its approach will be in the areas we are considering.

As my hon. Friend knows, I always welcome wide-ranging debate and am happy to come to the House for it. The difficulty is that, in order to have such debate, we need to have access to material that is very hard to share with the House. That is why these discussions are had at the National Security Council and why decisions must, in the end, be reached there. It is then the responsibility of Ministers—I take this responsibility seriously—to come to the House and explain those decisions to the greatest extent possible, with those caveats. I always intended to do so and still intend to do so.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Why does the Secretary of State think that Australia has taken that decision?

[Jeremy Wright]

I do not answer for the Australian Government; the hon. Lady would have to ask them. We are all—this applies particularly to Five Eyes partners—wrestling with these complex questions, and we may reach differing conclusions. There is good sense in having those conversations as extensively and often as we can. In fact, the Government will be doing so shortly with security and intelligence partners, and I have no doubt that this subject will be high on the agenda.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that partners—in fact, our closest intelligence partners—have been very clear in their views on this decision? Indeed, the Australian Signals Directorate made a very clear statement only a number of months ago in which it said that there was no such division between core and non-core, because the nature of 5G includes the whole gamut of the technology in one, and therefore the distinction possible in 3G and 4G is no longer feasible.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that this is not simply a technical issue—arguing about whether we would be vulnerable to espionage in a broad sense or whether Huawei would be able to hoover up the digital exhaust that is in fact the gold mine for so many businesses today—but a diplomatic one, undermining the trust that has built the 70-year relationship we know as the Five Eyes community, which keeps threats away from our shores and ensures the security of our citizens around the world? Does he not therefore see that this is fundamentally a diplomatic and political question, just as much as a technical one, and that respecting our Five Eyes partners is an essential part of the decision?

[Jeremy Wright]

On my hon. Friend’s last point, I entirely agree. It is important that we do not just discuss these matters with our partners, but have rather more complex and detailed technical discussions about the precise restrictions we may all seek to impose, and there is no lack of respect for what they say in this. Of course, many of our Five Eyes partners are operating under some difficulty, as Members of this House are, in that they do not know all of the decision making because some of it is not yet complete.

It is worth recognising that my hon. Friend is right that the concerns our partners have expressed are legitimate concerns. We listen very carefully to what they say, and we listen very carefully too to what our own security and intelligence agencies say. For reasons he will appreciate perhaps better than almost anyone else in this House, I do not intend to go into any detail about that, but I repeat my reassurance that we will act in full consideration of what they say, because it is an important and fundamental part of this review.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

This leak is not only embarrassing, but, I am afraid, symptomatic of a wider breakdown of discipline and collective responsibility in the Government. This decision should be taking into account both our national security needs and our technological requirements for the future. Those should be the only two things under consideration by Ministers, not their own political share price or anything else. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that, in our altered post-Brexit geopolitical position, there is no question of future trade requirements or the urgency of a trade deal with China influencing national security judgments?

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the importance of this decision and the considerations that legitimately play a part. This decision will be taken by the Government as a whole, but the recommendations of this review have been produced by my Department in collaboration with the intelligence agencies, particularly the National Cyber Security Centre, as I have said. We have done that with the country’s security considerations pre-eminent among the issues that are discussed and will be put forward at that review. That will remain the case for as long as I lead this Department and have anything to say about it.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

We are only here today because there has been a leak. That is incredibly regrettable for the whole of the House—I have heard that opinion from both sides of the House—and national security could not be a more important topic for all of us to be discussing. I am a little concerned that the leak may be trivialised by saying that it is as a result of someone’s leadership campaign. I am more concerned that it may be as a result of whistleblowing, because the process is so concerning to someone that they have felt the need to break the bond of trust that has existed for so long.

I accept that the review is going on at the moment in great secrecy, but since this has now been brought out into the open, can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that absolutely every consideration will be given to all the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members here today about both our relationship with countries such as Australia and our cyber-security and national security? Importantly, will he make sure that some concept of future deals with China is not colouring what we must now have absolutely at the forefront of our mind—the safety of the British public?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. That will indeed be the focus of this review, as she has just heard me say. I do not think that the motivation for this leak matters in the slightest. This was unacceptable, and it is corrosive of the ability to deliver good government, which is something for which we must all take responsibility. In discussions of this kind, people are entitled to express whatever views they wish—and they do—but once the discussion has been held, collective responsibility requires that people do not repeat their views publicly, and they certainly should not discuss matters that have a security implication of this kind. I think that is clear, and the majority of Members of the House will agree. We will return to the substance of this issue when I have the opportunity to speak rather more freely than I can at the moment, and I will of course give the House as much detail as I can.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Protecting this country’s national security must be non-negotiable, but there have also been reports, including in The Daily Telegraph, that Chinese technology companies have been complicit in the internal repression of ethnic Muslims in western China. That involves the internment of hundreds of thousands of people in “re-education” camps, and the creation of a surveillance state, and it is possible that that includes Huawei. Is the Secretary of State aware of any allegations that specifically involve Huawei, and if so, should we be doing business with a company that engages in that sort of activity?

[Jeremy Wright]

As the right hon. Gentleman says, our concerns about Huawei are at least in part due to the potential interlocking nature of what it does and what the Chinese state does. That lies at the heart of our concerns, hence the oversight mechanisms with which he is familiar. We will, of course, take full account not just of what he has said, but of all our other information when making our judgment. He will understand that the involvement of the intelligence and security agencies in that process is fundamental and integral, and it means that we can get a good sense of the sort of information he describes.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I am not encouraging my right hon. and learned Friend to comment on the substance of leak, but while that leak might become the subject of a criminal investigation, does he agree it is important that people both in and outside this House choose their words carefully when talking about what happened yesterday?

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with my hon. Friend, as she would expect, and she speaks with experience on this matter. We cannot exclude the possibility of a criminal investigation, and everybody will want to take that suggestion seriously. We are all entitled to say what many of us have already said about the undesirability of this kind of leak, and it is perfectly proper for the House to express its concern in such a way.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State is being very open and reasonable, but does he agree that fundamentally this is all about trust? When I was a very young MP, one of my first parliamentary jobs was to go to Hong Kong as part of a parliamentary delegation, to assess the agreement that this country reached with China on the future of Hong Kong. This very week we have seen how China has shredded that agreement by taking those democracy protesters and giving them long prison sentences. The Secretary of State says that we want a broad-ranging inquiry, but Syngenta in my constituency has been taken over by ChemChina. That is not on the stock exchange; that is the Chinese Government buying into our economy. We must look at that seriously as it is a question of trust.

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and as I have said, the approach that we take to Huawei is different in nature to the approach we already take to other suppliers of similar equipment. He will recognise that the problem is not specific to the United Kingdom, and neither is it easy to resolve by simply saying, “We’ll have nothing to do with the Chinese”. As I have set out, a considerable amount of Chinese equipment is already in the system both here and elsewhere, and a considerable amount of Chinese components are in the supplies that we get from anywhere. This is not straightforward, hence the need for the type of review that we have engaged in, to discuss the issue sensibly and reach considered conclusions. The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that that is my preferred approach, and that is what I intend to do.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the UK relies on many international tech companies for its digital and telecoms infrastructure? All have different levels of risk, but all have contributed to enabling the UK to have the largest digital economy as a percentage of GDP in the G20. Can he assure me that the British Government would not take undue and unnecessary risk with citizens’ data or national security, whether our partners be Chinese or the US, international or domestic?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. As I said, the purpose of the review process is not simply to answer questions about Huawei or even to answer questions about China; it is to ensure that our telecoms supply chain is secure for the future regardless of where the equipment comes from. That is our objective and that is the sensible approach.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Since it was leaked that the Prime Minister has given the green light to Huawei’s involvement with 5G, what representations has the Secretary of State had from Huawei’s competitors?

[Jeremy Wright]

Again, I think the way in which the hon. Gentleman has phrased what has happened is incorrect. I have made clear what the position is. Of course, we will listen to those in the sector, as we listen to others. In the end, however, the judgment that the UK Government have to make is how we ensure that our telecoms system is secure, safe and provides the kind of 5G network that will be the foundation of our economic success in the future. That is the objective here and that is what we will pursue.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure the UK remains at the forefront of the development of new technologies like 5G? In particular, what are the Government doing to ensure that rural areas, like those in my own constituency in the Scottish borders, are not left behind as the 5G network is rolled out?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important that we recognise the need to ensure this technology serves our whole population and that its potential is properly developed. As he will know, the Government, in conjunction with others, are attempting to develop this technology in test beds, particularly, as he will know, in rural applications, which I hope will be of benefit to him and his constituents. I believe that that can transform how our citizens connect to the essential services we now all use.

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

I should declare an interest, having spent 20 years building out mobile and fixed networks around the world, working with a variety of vendors including Huawei and latterly for the regulator Ofcom.

Mobile networks are an increasingly critical part of our national infrastructure, but the regulatory framework has not kept pace since 2010. For example, it has not matched the resilience and security requirements of fixed networks. 5G makes mobile networks part of the everyday infrastructure of our lives, but it will be built out using existing components and network parts where, in many cases, Huawei is already present—it is based on 4G, for example. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need a transparent principles-based and standards-based resilience and security regulatory framework? Will he comment on why Ofcom has not provided that under the duties set out in section 105 of the Communications Act 2003? Will he ensure that in the future Ofcom has the resources and the powers to ensure it does?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady is right. The importance of the review is that it deals with the need to ensure security is in place for the mobile network, as it is elsewhere. That becomes increasingly important as we move towards extensive applications of 5G. That is the logic for the review. That is why it is important and that is why it is happening now. Ofcom will have its part to play in that process. She will understand why I do not talk now about the conclusions of the review, but I will discuss them when they are available. I have no doubt that she will wish to participate in that conversation.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Following on from the question from the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), does the Secretary of State recognise that there are legitimate human rights concerns about reports of the use of technology by Chinese authorities to monitor its own citizens—for example, the recent reports of the extensive use of facial recognition technology by Chinese law enforcement agencies to characterise people by social groups, race or ethnicity and to monitor the movements of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of minority Uighur Muslims simply going about their daily business?

[Jeremy Wright]

Those are legitimate concerns, and they are the reason why we have to consider companies that are closely connected with, or potentially influenced by, the Chinese state in a different category. As I have said, however, there is a practical problem, which is that if our objective were to exclude all Chinese equipment from these systems, we would find that exceptionally difficult to do. There is a balance to be struck. The purpose of this exercise is to ensure that we do not expose our systems and our citizens to risks that we can sensibly and prudently avoid. That is what the review is designed to do, and I believe that it will succeed.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

When the Foreign Affairs Committee was in Beijing recently, every single person whom we spoke to made it absolutely clear that the Chinese Communist party would stop at nothing to gain whatever economic or political advantage it could possibly achieve, whether through espionage, massive data gathering or the abuse of intellectual property rights. The people whom we met will be enormously sceptical about direct engagement with Huawei, a company that operates directly under Chinese law and is likely at any one moment suddenly to be seized by the Chinese state to perform its duties under that law rather than the law of this country.

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right about those concerns, which are legitimately held. Let me repeat, however—I know that he understands this—that we are not at a standing start. There is already considerable engagement with Huawei, not just in this country but around the world, and we seek to manage that process in the ways that he knows about. The long-term aspiration of broadening the market and diversifying suppliers is absolutely the right one, and I hope very much that the review will address those issues, too, but that in itself will not be a quick fix. We will seek to do it, but it will take some time to broaden the market beyond what are now essentially three suppliers in this space and three only.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

If the National Security Council is not secure, what is the point of it?

[Jeremy Wright]

The point of the National Security Council is to enable us to discuss matters of national security, and we will continue to need to do that. I suspect that my hon. Friend will have detected in what I have said my view of the importance of those conversations remaining confidential.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Today’s Financial Times quotes Rob Joyce, a senior cyber-security adviser to the US National Security Agency, as saying:

“We are not going to give them the loaded gun.”

He said of the oversight board:

“For eight years they have had the cyber security centre there and the last several years there have been some really horrific reports about the quality of that activity and what’s being produced.”

How seriously should we take those comments?

[Jeremy Wright]

Of course we take comments of that kind seriously, but it is important when people reach a judgment on these matters that they are in possession of all the facts, all the evidence and all the advice that we receive from many sources, including the security and intelligence agencies. It is difficult for anyone who does not sit around the National Security Council table to have access to all those different materials, but, as I have said, what is important is that we produce a secure system that will deliver safely a 5G from which all our constituents will benefit—including, importantly, those in Warwickshire. That is what we seek to do, and that is what the review is for.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I, too, must declare an interest: I spent 31 years in the telecoms and high-tech industry before coming to this place.

My right hon. Friend has indicated that Huawei’s technology, while niche, is not unique and that there are alternatives. The lesson of 3G and 4G procurement is that technological solutions came along quite quickly during the process. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever decision is made, this process will be subject to open competition and companies will be able to compete freely for our business?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose experience is valuable in this discussion. He is right that we must also consider the competition aspects, not just from an economic point of view, but from a security point of view. It is obviously better to have a number of different suppliers, not just because it helps with the economics, but because it makes the network more secure. The difficulty, as he will recognise, is that essentially there are only three suppliers in this space: Huawei, Nokia and Ericsson. There are difficulties, on a number of levels, with the assumption that were we to exclude Huawei and rely entirely on the other two suppliers, we would have a safe network as a result. That is not the right assumption to make. That is why the review process is more complex than it might initially appear to be.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

As well as the current controversy over safety and security, there is another aspect to this: the safety of human health. Will the Secretary of State assure me that whatever company he chooses as the main contractor will have to take full account of the impact on human health and ensure that any infrastructure minimises any possible danger to human health?

[Jeremy Wright]

Of course that is important, and the hon. Gentleman will know that colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are working on this. Whatever use we make of this technology and whoever supplies it, it is important that human health considerations are taken into account.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Over the past few years, many serious questions have been raised over Huawei, so it seems reckless even to consider it for the 5G network. The Secretary of State said earlier that Huawei is not operating in sensitive or defence areas, but as we become ever more reliant on the internet of things the ability to shut down a network poses a serious threat to our national security. If he is so confident about Huawei’s integrity, why is it not operating in sensitive areas?

[Jeremy Wright]

We of course recognise that there is a material distinction between Huawei and other suppliers, and that is its potential interconnection with the Chinese state. It is therefore sensible for the UK to ensure that when we are dealing with particularly sensitive networks, Huawei is not involved. That process is well understood by both sides. Of course, the Chinese would apply a very similar principle to non-Chinese companies in China. But that is not what we are talking about in relation to the entire telecommunications network. The hon. Lady is entirely right that we must have the greatest possible security on our 5G systems, because as we do more and more with those systems, the consequences of someone being able to influence them at a fundamental level become more and more severe. That is exactly why the review is needed.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the 1980s, Britain was a world leader in the development of fibre-optic broadband, but we have since lost that capability as a result of the privatisation and fragmentation of Britain Telecom and GEC-Marconi. We are now reliant on Ericsson, Nokia and Huawei, as the Minister has said. Is it not clear that, with the development of the internet of things, which has huge industrial potential, the opportunity now is for Britain to build a national champion in this space, perhaps working with Five Eyes partners and other close allies, that could deliver an internationally competitive capability in its own right?

[Jeremy Wright]

I know that it is tempting for Opposition Members to blame everything on privatisation, but I do not think that is fair in this context. The point about a potential alternative contender, whether a national champion or something developed in concert with others, is something we should of course consider. However, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, that will not happen overnight, even if we and others are determined to achieve it. The more pressing problem for us to address is this: if we need to get our 5G systems up and running —I suggest that we do, in order not to fall behind in all these important economic areas—we need a system in place that enables us to develop those networks with the existing technology coming from existing suppliers. I repeat that we have a very limited choice available to us. The purpose of the review is to find a way to navigate that marketplace without sacrificing our security.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Our security services say that this is the first ever leak from the National Security Council. May I press the Secretary of State to tell us whether there will be a criminal investigation?

[Jeremy Wright]

As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, that is not a matter for me. What I have said this morning —[Interruption.] What I said when I spoke 10 minutes ago was that I cannot rule that out, and nor can anyone else. It is a matter for the investigating and then prosecuting authorities to consider. It is not a matter for me. However, the leak can be condemned by us all, whether or not it is proceeded against in a criminal way.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman will know from our discussions this morning that these are important conversations with our Five Eyes partners, and they are continuing, as he would expect. I repeat the point that, as yet, the final decisions on this matter have not been taken, so we should not characterise it in that sense. However, it is vital that when we come to make the decisions, we consider all relevant matters. I repeat my reassurance to him that the priority in all those considerations will be security. That is why this review was commenced in the first place. That is its purpose, and that is what we seek to achieve with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

3. What recent steps he has taken to tackle fake news and disinformation online.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

On Monday, my Department, in conjunction with the Home Office, published the Online Harms White Paper, which sets out our plans for a new regulatory framework for online harms underpinned by an independent regulator. As part of that framework, the regulator will publish a code of practice to ensure that platforms take proportionate steps to tackle the issue of disinformation and other forms of online manipulation.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I also welcome the White Paper. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I serve, took a lot of information on the threat to our democracy; the White Paper is not silent on that, but it is not very talkative about it. Will he outline what steps the Government plan to take to protect our democracy?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady is right: it is an important area. The Select Committee has done very good work in drawing attention to it. As I made clear on Monday in my statement to the House, we should not see the Online Harms White Paper as the only part of the Government’s response in this area; there will be other important components to it. One of those that will cover the area that she describes will be the work that the Cabinet Office is doing, which I hope we will see very shortly.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Any regulator will be effective only if it has proper sanctioning powers with teeth. With tech companies turning over billions of pounds of profits and creating untold online harm, particularly to our young people, will the Secretary of State give more information about what kind of sanctioning powers—especially financial sanctions—the regulator will have? Will he give us an idea of what he will do to make sure that companies get in line?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady is right that the sanctions available to the regulator will be important here. The White Paper includes a number of options. We will want to look at remedial notices and at fines, potentially comparable to General Data Protection Regulation fines, which, as she knows, are very substantial indeed. We will also want to consider individual director liability and, at the top end of the scale, internet service provider blocking for those websites that refuse to co-operate with what the regulator requires.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The rocket fuel for fake news and disinformation is the tidal wave of dark money flowing into dark ads that are targeted with psychographic precision. Vote Leave has admitted breaking the rules—cheating by pumping in way over the odds during the referendum campaign—but the Secretary of State has done nothing to ensure that we have the transparency we need ahead of a possible second referendum. Will he think again and bring in the honest ads Act we have proposed, so we can finally see who is paying for what—not least the dark ads targeted at Members of this House?

[Jeremy Wright]

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, it is important that the Government act collectively on this matter. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), we will shortly see some work by the Cabinet Office, which will deal with some of the questions around transparency that he perfectly fairly raises. However, I hope he will also accept that this Government have given the Information Commissioner additional powers to enable her to take the sorts of actions that he would wish to see taken. Of course, it is for the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner to act in these spaces.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of access to public libraries on social mobility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on the provision of music education in schools.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

The opportunity to participate in music, art and drama can be transformative for young people’s self-confidence, mental health and life chances. That is why this Government will invest £500 million in cultural education between 2016 and 2020. We are in regular discussions with colleagues at the Department for Education. The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries and the Minister for School Standards recently co-hosted a roundtable with the music industry to discuss music education.

[Tracy Brabin]

UK Music and the Musicians Union have recently revealed that children in households where the income is £28,000 are half as likely to learn an instrument as children in families that earn £48,000. We know, and I am sure the Secretary of State will agree, that the ability to participate in music is a gift. Will he tell us when the national plan for music will be refreshed so that students in state schools can participate in music?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady is right: it is important that all pupils have this opportunity. She will know that for pupils aged between five and 14, music is a part of the national curriculum. It is important that all children, whatever their backgrounds, have these opportunities. As she knows, we are working on a non-statutory-model music curriculum, in conjunction with some expert advisers, for key stages 1 to 3. We hope that that will be ready for introduction in the autumn term of this year.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

16. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the UK music sector is hugely successful across the world, and that part of ensuring that continued success is the strength of music in our schools, which makes this a hugely important issue for our economy as well as for people’s life chances in learning music?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I do agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course, as she knows, the creative industries more broadly are some of the fastest-growing sectors of our economy. We should be proud of that and encourage that development.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker,

“Too many politicians are being told a message that is glossy and bears little relation to the reality of what is going on.”

That is what an instrumental teacher told the Musicians Union in its recent report on music education, “The State of Play”. Music teacher training places are down from 850 to 250 per year since 2010, teaching staff are declining year on year, exam entries are down, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) said, there is a worsening class divide in learning an instrument. When will the Secretary of State drop the glossy rhetoric about the Government’s record on music education that is so out of tune with reality?

[Jeremy Wright]

No one doubts the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to music in this House, and he is right to be so committed, but he will get no glossy rhetoric from me: what he will get is facts, so let me give him some more. My reference to £500 million-worth of investment includes £300 million in music education hubs, which have so far reached 89% of schools. He will also know that 10% of the funding allocation for those hubs is based on the number of pupils in the area eligible for free school meals, so we are doing something to ensure that this kind of education reaches the right people.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is not merely committed to music; I think people should be aware that he is a distinguished member of MP4—the parliamentary rock band, no less, which has performed with considerable distinction in Speaker’s House and elsewhere. People should know that—it is very important.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

In Staffordshire, Entrust Music Service and Friends of Staffordshire’s Young Musicians do an excellent job in bringing music tuition and music performance to young people, but we need to do a lot more. Will the Secretary of State meet me and others to discuss how we can ensure that the money that is going in is translated into reality, particularly for children in families on low incomes, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin)?

[Jeremy Wright]

Of course I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss this. He is right—there is always more that we can do. As I said in my initial answer, it is right to look not just at music but at art and drama, too. As he will know, the Government are also taking action in those spaces to make sure that more young people who do not yet have these opportunities are given them.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of internet access in public libraries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

I wish to draw the House’s attention to a written ministerial statement that I am making this morning. As the House will be aware, on 10 January News UK submitted an application to vary certain conditions that were put in place in 1981 by the then Secretary of State for Trade. The proposed changes will allow The Times and The Sunday Times to share journalistic resources, subject to the agreement of each newspaper’s editor. I have reviewed the case, and I am minded to accept News UK’s application. However, in considering the proposed new undertakings as a whole, I noted that the existing governance arrangements agreed in 1981 could be clearer and more certain regarding some roles and responsibilities. I have therefore asked my officials to consider those questions further with News UK before agreeing the application, and the full detail will be set out in the written ministerial statement.

[Bob Blackman]

Harrow Council has raised the rents of uniformed youth groups from £300 a year to a massive £3,000 a year, which will undoubtedly lead to youth organisations closing down. At a time of rising knife crime and real concerns in the community about what young people do, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a desperate attack on youth organisations?

[Jeremy Wright]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is extremely important that youth organisations, particularly the uniformed youth organisations that he describes, have the opportunity to do their important work, which includes helping young people to stay away from knife crime. How they choose to approach that is, of course, a matter for local authorities, but my hon. Friend will know that the Government have ensured additional funding for uniformed youth organisations which, in our view, is the right thing to do.

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, it is great to see you looking so jolly this morning.

Yesterday, I met a young woman who racked up a crippling debt of over £100,000 using nine different credit cards in just two days while gambling online. The operators that took her bets, LeoVegas and Casumo, should be held responsible for their disgraceful conduct. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet the young gambler? Does he agree with me that it is time to ban credit card gambling? No one should go into debt to place a bet.

[Jeremy Wright]

I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says and huge sympathy with those who find themselves in the position of the individual he describes. I will of course meet her. Indeed, I will try to meet others who have been affected by this kind of gambling. It is important that not just gambling companies but all of us take an interest in the way in which this kind of problem gambling is developing. It is very clear that those who are gambling with money they do not have find themselves very quickly in very serious trouble. He will know that the Gambling Commission is at the moment looking at the specific question of gambling on credit. That is a process we have encouraged. I look forward very much to its conclusions. The Government intend to take action on the back of what it says.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

T2. I recall, in bygone years, the fun my father had completing his pools coupon. That stands in stark contrast with the sinister attempts of corporatist, globalist gambling firms to bypass the new restrictions on fixed odds betting terminals. Will the Minister meet me and others to discuss how we can revitalise the football pools, perhaps by cutting duty on this family fun?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with what the hon. Lady says. It cannot be more important that journalists in this country and abroad have the opportunity to report what is happening. We have discussed already this morning the question of disinformation, of which there is too much. A large part of the answer to disinformation is good quality, well researched journalism produced by those who are free to do it. We must defend their rights at every opportunity.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

T8. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we must protect our children and young people from the wicked and dark side of social media? The Online Harms White Paper must, without fail, lead to legislation that is wide-ranging, robust and effective.

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend. He will have recognised from the White Paper that what we believe will be necessary to provide for a duty of care for online companies, and for an online regulator to enforce it, is primary legislation. I look forward to his support and, I hope, support right across the House for that legislation.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. The Minister will, I am sure, be aware of the work done by the Industrial Communities Alliance and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) to demonstrate the disproportionate nature of areas that play the national lottery and areas that subsequently receive lottery funding for community projects. What work is he doing with Camelot to ensure that small towns, small cities and industrial communities feel the benefit of the lottery that they play?

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

What steps is the Department taking to encourage consortiums of arts organisations to work together with local authorities on applications to the cultural development fund to help local culture’s potential and the visitor economy?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend will know that in relation to the cultural development fund, five local areas will receive a share of £20 million. We believe that that is hugely important for the reasons that she gives. We expect it to create more than 1,300 new jobs across the country and, as she rightly says, to boost tourism and inward investment.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

T5. The roll-out of broadband has been patchy to say the least, with some people getting duplication and some getting no coverage at all. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the roll-out of superfast fibre optic broadband does not have the same problems?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with the hon. Lady. The actions of those who tried to find a way around the procedures banning the things that we across this House have decided should be banned were disgraceful. What happened thereafter, as she knows, is that the regulator took immediate action and those particular products were withdrawn. I hope that that lesson will be learned by all those across the industry who are tempted to try it again.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I was one of 80 parliamentarians who wrote to the Secretary of State recently to press the case for requiring mobile phone operators to allow roaming across their networks in rural areas. Will he support those calls?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to other colleagues who wrote to me. As he knows, my view is very simple: we must get to a place where rural coverage is better than it is. All of us and the mobile network operators have an obligation to achieve that. If it cannot be done any other way, I am perfectly prepared to entertain rural roaming as a way in which it might be done.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State look favourably at the opportunities presented by 5G connectivity on the train line in Devon and Cornwall? If our train journeys are to be long, can he at least help us to make them productive?

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, mobile coverage on train lines at the moment is based substantially on wi-fi coverage—about 85% of trains now have wi-fi coverage, including, I think, the GWR service from London to Penzance. However, 5G gives us the opportunity to do better. He will be aware of the technical challenges in providing the lineside equipment that we need to make the system work properly. We are investing time and effort with Network Rail to develop that technology in a test-track facility. I hope it will bear fruit.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Tourism and hospitality are vital sectors for Stirling’s economy. When can we expect to see a tourism and hospitality sector deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I support anything to do with tennis, Mr Speaker, as you know.

I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State’s comments just now about mobile roaming. A recent survey highlighted that a third of all rural buildings have either no mobile coverage or poor coverage. At a time when we are trying to get more small and medium-sized enterprises in rural areas, when we have an increasingly elderly population and when tourism is so important, is it not a disgrace that we should have such a divide between urban and rural? I am sure the Secretary of State understands that we must address that.

[Jeremy Wright]

I do, and we will.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Food banks are like the fourth emergency service, especially in rural areas such as mine. High Peak Foodbank has helped over 1,000 people this year, but it is no longer funded by the lottery. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the lottery’s decision on food banks and the vulnerable people who need them?

The Times/Sunday Times

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

On 10 January 2019, News UK submitted an application to vary certain conditions put in place in 1981 by the then Secretary of State for Trade. The changes proposed by News UK would allow The Times and The Sunday Times to share journalistic resources, subject to the agreement of each newspaper’s editor. The application proposed no other changes to the 1981 conditions. As set out in the invitation to comment which my department published on 18 January 2019, this was treated as an application by News UK to replace the 1981 conditions with new undertakings in accordance with schedule 18 to the Communications Act 2003.

I have considered this application in my quasi-judicial role regarding media merger cases. Having considered News UK’s application and the representations made to the invitation to comment, I have concluded that there has been a material change in circumstances since 1981 that warrants me considering the application. I have also concluded that the change of circumstances justifies the variation, as the effect of News UK’s proposed changes would not, in my view, materially impact on the public interest considerations contained in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

I am, therefore, minded to accept News UK’s application. However, in considering the proposed new undertakings as a whole, I have noted that the existing governance arrangements—agreed in 1981—lack clarity and certainty over roles and responsibilities. Before agreeing the application I am therefore of the view that these arrangements need to be suitably updated and enhanced to better reflect current corporate best practice.

I have asked DCMS officials to discuss these issues with News UK and to consider new proposals from News UK to update the proposed undertakings to address my concerns. I will update the House in due course on these discussions. Should News UK be able to offer revised undertakings which meet my concerns, I will, as required in legislation, consult on the final form of the undertakings before deciding whether or not to accept them.

[HCWS1505]

Online Harms White Paper

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. The Government have today published a White Paper setting out our proposals for making the internet a safer place. For so many people, the internet is an integral part of daily life; nearly 90% of UK adults are online, and for 12 to 15-year-olds the figure is 99%. As the internet continues to grow and transform our lives, we need to think carefully about how we want it to develop. In many ways, the internet is a powerful force for good; it can be used to forge connections, share knowledge and spread opportunity across the world. But it can also be used to circulate terrorist material, undermine civil discourse, spread disinformation, and to bully or abuse.

Our challenge as a society is to help shape an internet that is open and vibrant, but that also protects its users from harm. There is clear evidence that we are not succeeding. Over 8,000 sexual offences against children with an online element were reported to the police in 2017, and that figure is continuing to rise. Up to 20% of young people in the UK have experienced bullying online. The White Paper sets out many more examples of harms suffered. People are closing their social media accounts following unacceptable online abuse. For the vulnerable, online experiences can mean cyber-bullying and the risk of grooming and exploitation. We cannot allow such behaviour to undermine the very real benefits that the digital revolution can bring. If we surrender our online spaces to those who spread hate, abuse and fear, we will all lose.

This is a serious situation and it requires a serious response. The Government have taken time to consider what we might do and how we might do it. I am grateful to Members across the House, and indeed in the other place, for their consideration of these issues, in particular the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I am also grateful for the discussions I have had, including with the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) and his Opposition Front-Bench colleagues. We intend to continue those conversations and to consult on what we propose, because it is vital that we get this right.

No one has done this before. There is no comprehensive international model to follow, and there are important balances to strike, in sustaining innovation in the digital economy and promoting freedom of speech, as well as reducing harm. None of that is straightforward, and the Government should not claim a monopoly on wisdom. That is why the consultation that will follow will be a genuine opportunity for Members of the House and others to contribute to these proposals.

It is also right to recognise that some work is already being done to make the internet a safer place, including by online companies themselves, but it has not been enough and it has been too reactive. It can no longer be right to leave online companies to decide for themselves what action should be taken, as some of them are beginning to recognise. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have concluded that the Government must act and that the era of self-regulation of the internet must end.

The Government will create a new statutory duty of care, establishing it in law that online companies have a responsibility for the safety of their users. It will require companies to do what is reasonable to prevent harmful material from reaching those users. Compliance will be overseen and enforced by an independent regulator. The White Paper sets out the expectations for the steps that companies should take to fulfil the duty of care towards their users, and we expect the regulator to reflect those expectations in new codes of practice. In the case of the most serious harms, such as child sexual exploitation and abuse and the promotion of terrorism, the Home Secretary will need to approve codes of practice and will also have power to issue directions to the regulator about their content. The Home Office will publish interim codes of practice on these subjects later this year. We are consulting on the role that Parliament should have in relation to the codes, too.

If online companies are to persuade the regulator that they are meeting their duty of care to keep their users safe, there will need to be transparency about what is happening on their platforms and what they are doing about it. If they are unwilling to provide the necessary information voluntarily, the regulator will have the power to require annual transparency reports and to demand information from companies relating to the harms on their platforms.

It is also important to give users a voice in this system, so that they can have confidence that their concerns are being treated fairly. We will therefore expect companies to have an effective and easy-to-access complaints function. We are consulting on two further questions—how we can potentially provide users with an independent review mechanism, and how we might allow designated bodies to make super-complaints to defend the needs of users.

For a model based on duty of care to work, those subject to it must be held to account for how they fulfil that duty. That is why we have concluded that a regulator will be necessary, whether a new entity or an extension of the responsibilities of an existing regulatory body. The regulator must be paid for by the online companies, but it is essential that it commands public confidence in its independence, impartiality and effectiveness. We propose that the scope of the regulatory framework will be to cover companies that allow users to share or discover user-generated content or to interact with each other online, where that activity is currently unregulated. That includes a wide variety of organisations, both big and small, from a range of sectors, and the new regulatory regime will need to be flexible enough to operate effectively across them all.

There are two key principles in such an approach. First, the regulator will adopt a risk-based approach, prioritising regulatory action to tackle harms that have the greatest impact on individuals or wider society. Secondly, the regulator will require companies to take reasonable and proportionate actions to tackle harms on their services, taking account of their size and resources. The regulator will expect more of global giants than small start-ups. It is also necessary for the regulator to have sufficient teeth to hold companies to account when they are judged to have breached their statutory duty of care. That will include the power to serve remedial notices and to issue substantial fines, and we will consult on even more stringent sanctions, including senior management liability and the blocking of websites.

However, this regulatory approach is designed to encourage good behaviour as well as punish bad behaviour. Just as technology has created the challenges that we are addressing here, technology will provide many of the solutions, for example, in the identification of terrorist videos online and images of child sexual abuse or in new tools to identify online grooming. The regulator will therefore have broader responsibilities to promote the development and adoption of these technologies and to promote safety by design.

The truth is, however, that if we focus only on what Government or the online companies do, we miss something important. We all need the skills to keep ourselves safe online, and too few of us feel confident that we have them. We will therefore task the regulator to promote those skills, and we will develop a national media literacy strategy.

This White Paper does not aspire to deal with all that is wrong with the internet; no single piece of work could sensibly do so. This White Paper forms part of the Government’s response to the many challenges that the online world brings, but it is focused on some of the most pernicious harms found online and it expects much more of the companies that operate there in tackling those harms. These are big steps, but they need to be taken.

Some will say that the internet is global so no country can act alone, but I believe that we have both a duty to act to protect UK citizens and an opportunity to lead the world on this. With well-deserved worldwide reputations for fostering innovation and respect for the rule of law, the United Kingdom is well placed to design a system of online regulation that the world will want to emulate.

The more we do online, the less acceptable it is that content which is controlled in any other environment is not controlled online. A safer internet is in the interests of responsible online companies, which want their customers to spend more time online, and it is a legitimate expectation of those we represent. That is what this White Paper will deliver, and I commend it and this statement to the House.

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving advance notice of his statement. I also thank the members of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for their meticulous work, much of which has made it into today’s document.

Let me outline what I think is at stake. We are at an inflection point in technological and human advance. Data can transform this planet almost beyond our current comprehension. The ideas of John von Neumann, I.J. Good and Ray Kurzweil tell us how accelerating intelligence and artificial intelligence can lead to a technological singularity. On health, for example, it will allow humans to take control of their own cellular biology; cancer patients worldwide will be able to share their data for the common good.

At the heart of this revolution, however, is a public policy question about the legitimate use of our personal data. That legitimate use has been imperilled because a couple of early big data pioneers distorted the market by making crazy amounts of money from targeted advertising and then protecting their market dominance.

These past months, this House has felt more divided than at perhaps any time in our recent history, yet one person and one cause has united elected representatives of all parties throughout the House—Mark Zuckerberg and the urgent need to bring social media giants into line.

It feels like we are living in a digital dystopia: a nightmare where a young girl commits suicide after being exposed to images of self-harm on Instagram; a business model where a massacre can be livestreamed on Facebook and the video shared thousands of times on YouTube; and a horror where a teenager is groomed in an online gaming community and then murdered in cold blood.

These companies are making billions extracting and monetising our personal data, and what do we get in return? Harms, hate speech and fake news filling our timelines and the minds of young and vulnerable people. It is no wonder that New Zealand’s privacy commissioner called the executives of Facebook “morally bankrupt pathological liars” after the company refused to acknowledge any need to change its policies following the Christchurch mosque attacks. I cannot disagree with him.

We found out today that Google avoided £1.5 billion of corporation tax last year. That could have paid for 60,000 nurses for our NHS. This from a company with a net worth of £645 billion. The abuses and harms perpetrated online represent one of the toughest social policy challenges of modern times. It is our duty, as elected representatives and policy makers, to rise to that challenge, and it is to the Secretary of State’s credit that he has clearly taken that duty seriously today.

Labour has already committed to many of the announcements in this White Paper. An independent regulator, a legal duty of care and a tough sanctions regime will support the Government in introducing these measures, but I have no doubt that the industry will fight back. The tech giants are certainly gearing up for a fight, hiring an army of lobbyists who I expect will be in touch with each of us very soon. I hope we can all make a commitment now that these measures will be the minimum standard of regulation and that we will not resile from any of the report’s recommendations.

There is much in this White Paper to be commended, but we also have concerns. Our biggest fear is that the announcements will take months, if not years, to come to fruition. When terrorists are recruiting, children are being exploited and disinformation wars are being waged online, we do not have time to spare. We need action now. Will the Secretary of State commit to bringing forward the legislation on the new regulator in the next parliamentary Session?

There is nothing in this report about protecting our democracy from dark third-party political advertising and those who wish to sow disinformation and discord. Even Mark Zuckerberg has said that Governments need to introduce regulation to protect electoral integrity. Does the Secretary of State admit that this White Paper fails to do that?

The duty of care codes and the codes of conduct sound like very important steps, but the devil will be in the detail. For example disinformation, such as anti-vaccination propaganda, is being spread unchecked in closed groups on Facebook, contributing to a burgeoning public health crisis. Will the Secretary of State explain how this White Paper might tackle that?

Underlying all the harms, hate and fake news on social media platforms is one central, fundamental problem: the distorted digital market dominated by a small number of data monopolies. These companies surveil our every like and share, extract our data and sell it on to advertisers 10 times over. They are hoovering up companies big and small, suppressing competition and innovation. They are now so dominant that they think themselves too big to fail—untouchable by mere national Governments.

We agree with the Secretary of State that this is only the start, and we respect what is in this White Paper and will work to help deliver it, but the truth is that, until we deal with the fundamental issue of data monopolists dominating the market, we will never really see the end of this digital dystopia.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman not just for what he has said this afternoon but for the open approach he has taken to the discussion of these matters. As he says, this is one of the toughest policy challenges we face, and I believe we will resolve it only if we are able to work across the House to make sure that what we produce is as robust as it can be.

As the hon. Gentleman also says, there will be a considerable amount of resistance to what is proposed in this White Paper, and we will all need to hold our nerve in the face of that pressure. He asks about legislation, and it is our intention to legislate in the next parliamentary Session, but he will understand that there is a tension between the urgency, which we all accept exists, to tackle these harms and, indeed, to legislate to do so and the need to make sure that we have taken account of the views and the thinking that others can contribute. He knows that I have sought to do that up to this point, and I will seek to do it from this point on. I want to ensure that we make this as robust as we can, that we get it right, that we have understood the detail, and that it will stand up to the kind of scrutiny and pressure that he rightly describes. With that tension in mind, we will move as quickly as we can.

On electoral integrity, the hon. Gentleman heard me say a moment ago that the White Paper does not represent the sum total of the Government’s action in relation to harms on the internet more broadly. He will know that the Cabinet Office will imminently be bringing forward its “defending democracy” piece of work. I hope he will find in that a good deal of the material he referred to. Indeed, while a good number of the Government’s responses to the excellent piece of work produced by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee are, as he said, dealt with in the White Paper, some will be dealt with in that document.

Disinformation is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the harms that we have identified in the White Paper as needing the attention of the regulator. We believe that a number of things can be done. We will expect the regulator, in its codes of practice and through the duty of care more broadly, to focus on the need to ensure that authoritative sources are prioritised over non-authoritative sources and that fact checking is available. There are other measures that the regulator could take, not least in respect of the point I made about public education. In relation to many of the issues on which disinformation is focused, we believe that the answer, at least in part, is to ensure that our fellow citizens are equipped with the skills they need to understand what they should be looking for to determine what they believe and what they do not. That is a legitimate focus for the regulator.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned competition, and I understand his focus on that. Again, I make the point that it will be dealt with, but that it will be dealt with elsewhere. He will know about the Furman review, which was recently completed at the Government’s instigation. We will take seriously what Professor Furman and his panel have said, and we will respond in due course. When we do so, the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to take the matter up again, and I know he will.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words acknowledging the work of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and for accepting so many of our recommendations in the White Paper. I want to ask expressly about the investigatory powers of the proposed new regulator. Does he agree that it is important that the job of the regulator is not just to identify that a failure in the duty of care has occurred, but to go into the company and investigate why that failure occurred, who knew about it and when, and what needs to be done to ensure that such a failure does not happen again? Only with that sort of internal investigation and scrutiny will we be able to set companies back on the right path.

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will see in the White Paper provisions to make transparency powers available to the regulator, not just so that it can ask for annual transparency reports from online companies, but so that when the regulator thinks it appropriate to do so, it can ask specific questions about information that it wishes to have. It will of course be important, as he will recognise from the work of the Select Committee, to make sure that the regulator is properly staffed with those who have the necessary skills and understanding to ask the right questions and then understand the answers. We will certainly attend to that, and I am grateful for the help of my hon. Friend and the Committee in developing some of the further detail.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. Although it is disappointing that the White Paper was delayed, I commend the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary on the sensible and robust plans, which the Scottish National party absolutely supports. The devil will, however, be in the detail.

The extended Ofcom or the new regulator that is created will have a big and serious job on its hands. Will the Secretary of State reassure us that any regulator will be properly resourced and have the full weight of the law behind it? The protection of vulnerable children is of particular concern to many of the stakeholders and schools I have spoken to in my Livingston constituency.

The Secretary of State made some important points about people closing their social media accounts because of abuse. The reality is that online abuse has a disproportionate impact on women and girls, who face sexism and misogyny, and are readily silenced online. I am sure that he will be aware of the work of Caroline Criado Perez and her book on this issue. In a world designed for men, women and girls are being rendered invisible. That cannot continue.

Just because a regulator is appointed does not mean it will be effective. The 2008 financial crash had to happen before the Financial Conduct Authority started to regulate effectively. Any regulator, the Secretary of State says, will be paid for by the online companies. Will he say more about how that will be levied? He also mentioned that the Home Secretary will publish an interim code of practice. Will he give us a sense of when that is to happen because, as we know, it is desperately needed?

I understand—we understand—that a balance needs to be struck with free speech. The tech companies seem to take the issues of terrorism, child abuse and paedophilia a bit more seriously, but the everyday abuse of people in public life and young people, particularly girls in schools, is a serious concern. I commend to the Secretary of State “The Burning” by Laura Bates, a brilliant book that draws on Laura’s own experience of talking to students in schools. It is about a young woman who is forced to move school and country because of the vitriolic abuse that she faced online.

The Secretary of State talks of a national media literacy strategy. That is welcome. I am sure that he is aware of the SNP-led Government’s child internet safety plan, and I hope that he will co-ordinate and work closely with the Governments in Scotland and the devolved nations.

Finally, it is imperative that any new regulation or legislation addresses the funding of political advertising online. The illegal activity of the leave campaign is a dark stain on our democracy. We must ensure that our democracy is not interfered with or damaged any further. We must get this right. For the sake of the family of Molly Russell and the victims of Christchurch, we must work together across this House to ensure that social media and tech companies are properly held to account.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I agree with much of what she says. She asks some good questions, which I will try to answer.

It is important that we have a regulator that is properly resourced. I said that it was our intention to ensure that the industry pays for that regulator, which is of course what one would normally expect, but whether that is predominantly through a levy or fine income is a question we have asked for views on in the course of the White Paper. We look forward to hearing what people have to say. I am open to persuasion either way, or a combination of the two might be the best way to proceed, but obviously the weight of payment must be with the industry.

The hon. Lady asks whether the regulator will have the weight of law behind it. It will. As I indicated, we will need to legislate to set up the regulator; it will need statutory underpinning. I hope that she will be supportive of that effort when we bring legislation before the House.

The hon. Lady makes a good point about online abuse of women and girls in particular. One of the reasons that I am so keen to see this process continue is that if we do not give the citizens of this country the opportunity to speak up online, to participate in the debate on what is now one of the central forums for debate, we will lose a huge number of powerful voices in the course of making our country a better place. To women —young women in particular—who feel that that is a hostile environment in which to participate in debate, we have a particular duty. I believe that the regulator will help us to fulfil that duty.

The hon. Lady mentions codes of practice. She might not yet have seen that the social media code of practice is published alongside the White Paper, so that document is now available and I hope that online companies will start to take clear account of it. The work that the Home Office will now do will specifically be in relation to child sexual abuse and to the promotion of terrorism. Because of the seriousness of the harms, we believe it is appropriate for the Home Secretary to have input into the design of the codes of practice.

Finally, the hon. Lady has my assurance that we will continue to work with the Scottish Government. I have already had a very productive conversation with her colleague in the Scottish Government, Kate Forbes. We will seek to take forward that co-operation as we develop the proposals.

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

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on producing something that clearly binds all parts of the House together. There is much to be welcomed. I want to make two quick points. First, at the heart of the problem is the business model for such businesses. Because they are so light touch and therefore bear no responsibility for what they publish, they have in a sense been able to build up companies on the cheap. Making them publishers of their content is the quickest way to achieve our No. 1 purpose, which is to break up what Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations” called “cartelling”. May I direct the Secretary of State, as he looks at the legal constraints, to the idea that such businesses should be responsible, as publishers are, for the content on their websites? That would radically change everything. Has he had conversations with his counterparts in the United States to see whether there is commonality of purpose in what he requests?

[Jeremy Wright]

The argument about whether such businesses are publishers or platforms takes up a great deal of time, and not necessarily to great purpose. It is better to ask how we can keep the focus on ensuring that online platforms take responsibility for what they do. We believe that the duty of care is the right method. It will not be sustainable any longer for online companies to say, “We have no responsibility for the harms that may appear on our platforms.” They will instead be required—by law if necessary—to look at what they can do to keep their users safe in any reasonably practicable way they can. If they do not do that, they will find that the regulator imposes sanctions upon them. That seems the right way forward.

I said earlier that it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to lead on this matter, and we should be proud that we are doing so, but I hope that other countries, including the United States, will see how we are approaching common challenges that the United States faces, too, and will seek to adopt similar proposals.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Forty or 50 years ago, the tobacco industry was largely responsible for driving up cancer in our country. It took the Department of Health many years to start to regulate what was going on in the industry and deal with it on behalf of the taxpayer. It is clear from looking at some drill music and its relationship with knife crime and gang culture, and self-harm among young people, that mental ill health is being driven by much of this social media. Will the Secretary of State say something about the intersection between the Department of Health and Social Care, the chief medical officer and the new regulator?

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As he will recognise, the White Paper deals with some of the harms that he mentions—serious violence and self-harm, in particular. It is right that all of government is behind the strategy. It is important that we ensure that the links between what this regulator does, what the health service does and what many other bodies within and outside Government do are sustained.

On social media, we all recognise that we cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Social media will continue to be a significant element in the lives of young people, in particular, with all the challenges to their mental health that we know it brings. Those who promote platforms for the kind of user-generated interaction that we are concerned with in this White Paper must accept that they can do something about some of the harmful material on those platforms. If they choose to do so, they will have nothing to fear from our proposals; if they choose not to, they will find that consequences follow.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I am sure many of my constituents in Truro and Falmouth will welcome these important measures. How can the Government ensure that the regulator is able to compete with the tech giants in attracting the best talent to keep pace with rapid technological change?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It will be a challenge to ensure that the regulator employs people of sufficient experience and ability, who can get to grips with the challenges we will expect it to confront. A linked challenge is that we must determine, in the process of designing the regulator, what rules we believe there should be about the progress that employees from the industry can make to and from it. That can be argued both ways. My hon. Friend puts her finger on one of the great design challenges, and we shall pursue it with vigour.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

On behalf of my party, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. We need regulation in this area, but regulation alone cannot address issues such as the impact on the emotional development of children and young people. Schools must be able to educate about social harm, and parents must be empowered to support their children. What will the Secretary of State do with other Departments to ensure that that sort of action takes place?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady is right. She has heard me refer to education—I mean that in the broadest sense—for adults, as well as for children. She will know that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has recently made changes to relationships education in our schools. It is important that understanding the online world—digital literacy—is a key part of the education that we give all our young people. They now cannot manage without it.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

On the question of online addiction, the focus tends to be on the horrors of addiction to online gambling, but the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is hearing evidence about the problems associated with addiction to online gaming. Will the Secretary of State give that as much attention as gambling when he looks at the legislative part of this?

[Jeremy Wright]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he knows from the inquiries that he and his colleagues have been pursuing, there is considerable overlap between the two. We all need to turn our attention to the opportunities to engage in activity that looks very much like gambling within a gaming context.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I welcome much of what is in the White Paper, but it does not address the serious concerns that our Select Committee raised about the need for transparency in relation to political advertising and campaigning, which has been the source of much disinformation on social media. It is vital that electoral law is brought up to date as soon as possible, and the possibility of an early general election or a confirmatory referendum makes that even more urgent. Will the Secretary of State be a bit more specific and tell us when the Cabinet Office will publish its proposals?

[Jeremy Wright]

I cannot give the hon. Lady a date today, but it is imminent. When she sees that document, she will see that it complements what the Online Harms White Paper is designed to do. There is a huge amount to be discussed in relation to the challenges that the online world brings us. If I tried to put all of them in one document, it would have become pretty unwieldly. This White Paper is designed to deal with the harms that are set out within it, and the Cabinet Office documents will, I hope, deal with many of the points that she is concerned about.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I welcome the White Paper and the fact that it has taken on board many of the recommendations of the DCMS Committee inquiry, which revealed some spine-chilling evidence about what is going on and how we are being manipulated. One of the keys is education, and I welcome the strategy for that. People need to know how vulnerable they are and how to distinguish truth from non-truth. Will the Secretary of State expand a bit more on the strategy and how we will make it effective?

[Jeremy Wright]

As my hon. Friend says, the Select Committee helpfully focused on that area. We want the regulator to take responsibility for ensuring that more of this happens. It will, of course, be able to make use of the resources available to it to pursue education for all. We need to ensure that we do not just pursue education in a school context but give every member of our society the skills and capabilities they require to make sense of the online world. Some of that can be described in an over-technical way. Frankly, we sometimes require greater scepticism and less trust about what we see online so we can apply our critical faculties to it, but even if we do that, greater visibility is required. The point that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) made about political advertising is right. We must ensure that we have the greatest possible visibility to add to our scepticism.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the White Paper and on the approach he has taken. This is not about censorship; it is about encouraging responsibility. Many of the recommendations of our Select Committee reports are echoed in the White Paper. In our reports, we left the identity of the new independent regulator unspecified. There will be a consensus that we should try to build on tried and trusted structures, rather than create a new, possibly overlapping and competing public body. In that respect, I draw attention to the growing work between Ofcom, the Information Commissioner’s Office and, where necessary, law enforcement. I encourage the people who respond to the consultation and the Secretary of State, as he takes it forward, to adopt a pragmatic approach.

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I will certainly do that. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about the White Paper. As he will recognise, we have said already that we think freedom of speech is one of the issues that the regulator should concern itself with. Like him, I do not believe that there is any necessary conflict between the promotion of freedom of speech and the protection of the most vulnerable members of our society from some of the most pernicious harms.

On the identity of the regulator, the hon. Gentleman is right that this could become a congested space. He will see in the White Paper that, despite the fact that, initially at least, we have asked people to tell us what they think about the two possibilities as they stand—either a new regulator or the extension of the powers of an existing regulator—we have also envisaged a somewhat more comprehensive look at the way in which the regulatory structures currently operate.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

As a former journalist and broadcaster, I am used to being identified as the source of whatever I wrote, along with my colleagues, but trolling has the most appalling effect on many of our young and indeed—dare I say it—on many MPs who are subjected to it. Has my right hon. and learned Friend done anything about that, and can anything be done—I am afraid I am not an expert in this field—to end this and to identify those who put stuff online, because if they have nothing to hide, why can they not be identified?

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Abuse and intimidation are of course covered in this White Paper, and it is important that online platforms do what they can to minimise that kind of activity. As he will recognise, harassment and intimidation can be criminal offences. Where they are or may be criminal offences, powers already exist to seek to identify those who may be responsible, and we should be making full use of them.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention, I welcome today’s online harms paper as a significant step towards protecting the most vulnerable young people, but the proof will be in the implementation, and a major challenge is that much of the damaging content is hosted outside the UK. What will the Government be doing to scale up their plans and to drive forward global change to protect young vulnerable people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and, indeed, the APPG for its work. I hope she will have the chance, with her colleagues, to look carefully at what we propose, respond to the consultation and give us her views.

On what the hon. Lady says about some of this content being hosted outside the UK, the important point is that companies that offer services to UK citizens will be within scope of these proposals. There is an enforcement challenge for some of the sanctions we have set out, but it is worth keeping in mind that some 85% or so of the traffic we are concerned about comes through platforms that have a significant corporate presence in the United Kingdom. That does give us a purchase on them, and it is important that we make use of it. I would also say that some of the other sanctions we are considering, including ISP blocking—although it would never be used except in the most extreme circumstances, and it does have technical challenges—would be applicable even to platforms that do not have a corporate presence in the UK.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

This is a great cross-party cause. I strongly support what the Secretary of State has said about extending the duty of care to social media firms. He will know that, some time ago, I advocated something similar in relation to the extension of the duty of care on teachers and youth workers to those who are coaching or training under-18-year-olds, particularly driving instructors or sports coaches, where there are one-on-one relationships with real child-grooming risks. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has now taken this up as part of its “Close the Loophole” campaign. What can my right hon. and learned Friend do about this duty of care issue as well?

[Jeremy Wright]

That was a brave attempt to stretch the concept of online harms a very long way. I simply say to my hon. Friend that we are working on it.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I hope the hon. Gentleman feels that his elasticity has been suitably rewarded.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One of the problems is anonymity, because people seem to feel able to write on social media things that they would never think of saying to another person or that they would never write if their name was revealed. Yet I have known instances, for my constituents and for myself personally, when it has taken months and months for the police to be able to get the identity of individuals from the internet companies, even when serious violence has been threatened. When are these companies going to do something about the anonymity, make sure that state actors from elsewhere, such as Russia and China, stop interfering in our political processes in this country, and clean up their act?

[Jeremy Wright]

On anonymity, as the hon. Gentleman has heard me say and as he recognises, there are powers available; the issue is how quickly they can be used. When we come to consider a duty of care, it seems to me and my colleagues that one of the advantages of the duty of care approach is that it should bring about a change of attitude across a whole range of activities among the online companies. It will no longer be sufficient for online companies to say, “Well, we’ve met this rule or that rule.” Instead, they must demonstrate to a regulator that they are doing all they reasonably can to keep their users safe, and that includes being safe from some of the activities the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I do not promise that any of this will be a magic bullet or that things will be transformed overnight, but I do think that the approach we are setting out will start to change the culture of these companies and start to make them think about how they meet their responsibilities more effectively.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The briefing for this statement mentions, correctly, that all five terrorist attacks in the UK during 2017 had an online element, and online terrorist content remains a feature of contemporary radicalisation. Given that some of these companies have created applications with end-to-end encryption that they claim they cannot get into themselves, let alone the security services being able to get into them, what will these measures do to prevent online harm being done through these inaccessible applications?

[Jeremy Wright]

My right hon. Friend identifies one of the most troublesome aspects of online harm—that encryption is extraordinarily difficult for us to wrestle with. That is of course because there are advantages to encryption, and we use it all the time in our daily lives, but he is right that those who choose to use it for criminal purposes must also be challenged. In relation to this White Paper, I would say to him that harms at the top end of the seriousness spectrum, including the promotion of terrorism, will receive the greatest possible attention from the regulator, and our expectations from the Government will also be higher, hence the Home Secretary’s close interest in the way in which codes of practice are developed, so that online companies are doing their utmost to ensure that this kind of behaviour is challenged.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Ind)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Catfishing is the theft of a person’s identity in order to sexually exploit vulnerable people on social media platforms. Of course we must help people become more resilient in relation to online grooming, but we also need to change the behaviour of those who exploit others. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Home Secretary about making catfishing a criminal offence?

[Jeremy Wright]

I have had no specific conversation with the Home Secretary on exactly that point, although the hon. Lady will recognise, when she has a chance to look at it, that the White Paper refers specifically to catfishing. If these are offences of fraud and misrepresentation, they may already be on the statute book, so it is worth looking at what the overlaps might be. However, I will take away what she says and make sure we discuss it with our colleagues in the Home Office.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for this report. The recommendations are very much in line with the thoughts of the Science and Technology Committee inquiry. I am remembering last November, when 100 women MPs from 100 different countries met in this Chamber, and time and again we heard how the abuse that women politicians get is hampering them in doing their jobs and is a direct attack on democracy. They were looking to the UK to take global leadership, so I thank the Secretary of State for taking that leadership. Will he confirm that the duty of care is not censorship or curtailing freedom of the press, but that it will help to protect democracy as well as individuals?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I can confirm that. It is important to repeat that this is a process that we believe is necessary to level the playing field. These are abuses that, if they were happening in any other environment, would be controlled, and it is important that we do the same online. The point my hon. Friend makes about the abuse that female politicians have to endure very much echoes the point made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), who speaks for the Scottish National party, and she is right. Of course, it is not just politicians—female journalists and others in public life have to endure the same. It is unacceptable and it must stop.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary appear to have listened to many of the concerns raised by the Home Affairs Committee, including by me and the Chair, about the failure of social media companies to deal with online extremist and terrorist content. I look forward to action on that, but may I press the Secretary of State further on the integrity of our elections, our referendums and, indeed, our democracy on a day-to-day basis? Particularly in the light of the revelations in The Guardian last week about the millions in dark money that is being spent on advertising to influence votes going on at this very moment and to whip up hatred against Members of this House, does he not agree that we need action today, rather than to wait months for that to come?

[Jeremy Wright]

I certainly hope the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait months. He raises fair concerns, and I have indicated that the Government are not blind to them. This particular White Paper does not deal with that subject, but the Government will produce very shortly a document that does.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Of course, it is not just the tech giants that are active in the digital space; it is also our local papers. The Redditch Standard and the Redditch Advertiser, for example, do a fantastic job of holding us local politicians to account. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the welcome measures in the White Paper will not affect the ability of our small local papers, which do not have a massive resource base, to do their job?

[Jeremy Wright]

I can confirm that. We are concerned here with user-generated content, not with the activities of journalists or their editors. I would go further and say that it seems to me that the press—both local and national—and recognised journalists who do a good job of producing authoritative, sourced work are part of the solution, not part of the problem, particularly to the disinformation that has been identified across the House as one of the fundamental harms we are concerned about.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am grateful for advance sight of the statement. I welcome the principles of the White Paper, and particularly the establishment of a statutory duty of care to users, but I note the proposal for codes of practice that are not compulsory. Is there not a risk that companies will be allowed to fulfil the duty of care as they see fit? How will the effectiveness of the alternative approaches that companies are allowed to take be evaluated, and how will the regulator sanction companies that fail to abide by their own policies?

[Jeremy Wright]

I think there are two points worth making in response to the right hon. Lady. First, how well the platforms hold to their own terms and conditions may well give the regulator a good indication of how well they are complying with their overarching duty of care. Secondly, she is right that the White Paper envisages that a platform might say to a regulator, “We don’t wish to follow the codes of practice,” but if a platform chooses that path, it must be able to demonstrate to the regulator that the approach it takes instead is at least as effective in dealing with online harms as the codes of practice would have been. Of course, if the platform did not succeed in persuading the regulator that it had done that, the overarching duty of care would continue to apply to it. The duty does not rely on the codes of practice for its ongoing effectiveness.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

Like many families in south Somerset, I have been concerned about what exposure my children might have to various things online, so I welcome the look that is being taken at this issue. What are we going to do to try to stay ahead of new technologies that are able very efficiently to impersonate so that we can take action in advance? Are we looking at revising the legal framework around harassment and malicious communications to take account of that?

[Jeremy Wright]

The answer to my hon. Friend’s second question is yes. The Law Commission is looking now at exactly how we may refresh the law on online harassment. On his first question, I think he refers to what are commonly described as deepfakes, which are technologically very challenging. As I said earlier, it is important that the process we suggest encourages online platforms to use technology to provide solutions as well as to recognise problems. We expect that, as technology develops to create deepfakes, so should technology develop to help identify them. This duty of care will put the onus on online platforms to do just that.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the White Paper, but I warn the Secretary of State that he has a big, tough fight on his hands. These people are wealthy, they are well organised and they will fight back. They also have interfaces. I learned about this kind of danger in 2012, when Issenberg wrote “The Victory Lab”. He predicted much of what was going to happen in politics, but at that time the offline was solely influencing the online, so the data manipulation models were coming from financial institutions—particularly the banks. Will the Secretary of State look broadly at what is going on? Yes, some of it is online, but it has real links with data collectors in other sectors.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He makes a fair point. He is of course right that there will be opposition to what is proposed, but it is worth noting that online companies, including Facebook, have recognised that forms of regulation are inevitable, and we shall expect them to co-operate in the design of these processes. If they choose not to, they will find that we shall regulate anyway.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Over the past 20 years, the thrust of children’s legislation has been to place a duty on public agencies to co-operate in the protection and safeguarding of vulnerable children, yet no such duty exists for social media companies. In that time, social media companies, using complicated algorithms, have become exceedingly skilful at trying to persuade me that I need to buy essential products that I never knew I could not live without. Will the duty of care require those companies proactively to use algorithms and artificial intelligence not only to block harmful sites in the first place, but to flag up vulnerable users who search for terms such as “kill myself” and clearly harmful websites so they are detected and helped?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right that we should be particularly concerned with the most vulnerable in our society—especially children. The way we envisage the duty of care operating is that online companies should do all they reasonably can to keep their users safe. The greater the user’s vulnerability, the more care they should take to do so. It follows that, in relation to children who may be using those services—of course, this will apply particularly to services that are attractive to children—there will be a greater onus on those responsible to act. We want to see a regulator pay close attention to what has been done—proactively, not simply reactively—to ensure that that harm can be avoided, whether by the use of algorithms or by other methods. The onus will be very clearly on those who provide the service to satisfy the regulator that they are doing all they can. If they are not, the consequences I described earlier can follow.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing forward the White Paper. It is certainly a step in the right direction. However, I echo the disappointment that a number of my colleagues have expressed about its relationship with the electoral reform process, and particularly the issue of political disinformation, which is penetrating social media so avidly. The Secretary of State mentioned that cultural change is needed. Does he have a sense of optimism about that from his conversations and dealings with social media platforms? If his optimism is limited, what pressure does he hope to apply with international partners?

[Jeremy Wright]

The straight answer to the hon. Lady’s question about my level of optimism is that it is limited but it exists. It is probably necessary for us all to recognise that the online companies are making progress in the right direction, but not fast enough. We need to take action ourselves to ensure that the proper protections are in place for our citizens. As she says, we need a cultural change. We in the United Kingdom have every reason to act first and to be proud of doing so, but we must ensure—we certainly intend to do so—that we explain to our international colleagues the way we are approaching this, in the expectation and hope that, as they face similar challenges, they will want to take note of the way we have approached these subjects and approach them in a very similar way. I reassure her that the international conversation will continue.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

As a parent, I of course want my children to be safe on the web, but as a civil libertarian, I want to ensure free speech. The Secretary of State spoke about the need to be sceptical and about challenging the perceived truth. People do not trust Governments, for very good reasons. With 194 other jurisdictions around the world, how does he envisage that important balance being struck through this White Paper?

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is indeed the balance to be struck. I hope that I can reassure him that it is our intention to do so and that we believe that free speech and safety online are not mutually exclusive. We can do both; we must do both. That is what the White Paper intends to do. As he says, it simply would not be right for Government to seek to determine the answers to the questions that we are concerned with. There must be an independent regulator to do so. It must be properly funded and must be properly robust in the opportunities that it has to hold online companies to account.

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

Having spent 20 years in the tech industry, I can say categorically that the harms that the White Paper begins to address were well identified five or even 10 years ago, but it does nothing to address the growing harms associated with algorithms, artificial intelligence, the internet of things and data dominance. The Secretary of State says that other Departments or consultations will address them but, like the world we live in, those harms are all interconnected. Why is the Secretary of State allowing a piecemeal, ad hoc and at times knee-jerk legislative framework to develop, when what we need is a comprehensive, cross-departmental, evidence-based, forward-looking review of digital rights and responsibilities, so that we can have a regulatory framework fit for the future?

[Jeremy Wright]

I do not wish to damage the atmosphere of consensus that has helpfully emerged this afternoon, but I have to say that I think that the hon. Lady is completely wrong. What we have set out is exactly designed to deal with the problem that she has identified: that if we are reactive—if we chase harms that emerged some time ago and do not think about harms that are yet to emerge—we will indeed miss the point. However, that is exactly what a duty of care is designed to do. Those who are subject to a duty of care will be obliged not just to look at the harms that they already know about, but to scan the horizon. If they see a harm coming and choose to do nothing about it, they will be answerable for that failure. That is exactly one of the advantages of the duty of care model.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Secretary of State, the digital Minister and all stakeholders on the development of an excellent White Paper? Not surprisingly, already there have been some criticisms of the potential impact on freedom of speech, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is a world of difference between online banter and abuse and harassment, between expressing an opinion and promulgating disinformation, and between expressing a belief and spreading hatred and terrorist propaganda? In order to ensure that everyone understands those differences, in particular our children, will some of the money raised through a digital levy or similar be used to finance education and awareness?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says and, if I may say so, his help and his contribution during his time in the Department. I am privileged to lead in developing this piece of work; he deserves a share of the credit too, and he is right. This is not a challenge to freedom of speech. As we were discussing earlier, if we do not make the online environment safer for everyone, whoever they are, we will be damaging freedom of speech, not enhancing it. It is important that we all recognise that this is a proposal to apply the same levels of activity, control and restriction to the online world that already exist everywhere else. Our freedom of speech thrives well in this place and elsewhere within the confines of the law. The same will be true online.

In relation to my hon. Friend’s point about education and how it might be funded, it will of course be open to the regulator—we will encourage it to consider this—to spend some of its revenue on education, which we think is a key component of the White Paper.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

A vast number and variety of forms of behaviour that are quite properly illegal offline are entirely legal or unregulated online, which effectively makes parts of the internet a kind of lawless wild west, from fake cures for cancer to fake news and the bots that make it, and from harvesting of personal data to its unfettered exploitation for commercial gain. Does the Secretary of State agree that the entire online world needs a thorough review and is well overdue for regulation, so that it is put on a sure legal footing to take us into the future? Will he commit to looking at the full range of online harms?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady will see that there is a fairly extensive list of online harms in the White Paper already, and we do not regard it as exhaustive. As she heard me say to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), we think it is important that the process should be able to deal with new harms as they emerge. However, she will recognise that it is important to ensure that we preserve what is good and special about the internet—the capacity for people to come up with new ideas, to have discussion and to have a free flow and exchange—while ensuring that the harms that she rightly points to are controlled. That is exactly what the White Paper seeks to do. We do not, as I have said, believe that everything in it will yet be perfect, but it is important that she and others contribute to the process over the next period of consultation and make it better.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I very much welcome the statement, but returning to the earlier question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), does the Secretary of State accept that if we are not clear about the extent to which the new duty of care impacts on the issue of publisher versus platform, the courts will make that interpretation for us?

[Jeremy Wright]

Harking back to a former life, in my experience there is always a risk of court involvement, but we should seek to be as clear as possible about the responsibilities of online companies. Whatever we choose to call them—platform, publisher or something else—it is their responsibilities and what they are engaged in doing that matter. That is what we are seeking to achieve, and once we have defined that with clarity, the necessary powers will need to be available to a regulator to deal with when that does not happen.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

This is an important White Paper; greater online regulation is long overdue. As the Secretary of State said, over 8,000 sexual offences against children with an online element were reported in 2017, and the tragic massacre in New Zealand showed just how quickly illegal, terrorist and extreme content can spread, so is publication by the Home Office of interim codes of practice for terrorist content and online abuse later this year soon enough or strong enough?

[Jeremy Wright]

We think it is important to get those codes of practice right; therefore, it would not be feasible to produce them overnight. However, the hon. Lady makes a fair point, which is that we should not be waiting for these measures to be taken to see an improvement in the behaviour of online platforms. Online companies will be able to see the nature of the regulation that will come—they will also hear from this Chamber the support that exists for this kind of approach—so they will need to start to change their behaviour now. That is because when a regulator starts its work, it will want to know not just whether the online company has behaved itself for a week but for how long it has had in place the practices and procedures that we and the regulator will expect to show that it is doing its best to keep its users safe from harm.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Mandy Rose Jones, who founded the Empowered Woman Project, has been campaigning against online advertising of harmful rapid weight loss products, which are often given legitimacy when they are endorsed by celebrities and Instagram influencers. Will that be covered by the UK Government’s proposals?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady will recognise that there are a number of ways in which we might approach the problem that she describes, but the process that we are looking at relates to user-generated content, not necessarily commercial activities. I will have a look at what she says and perhaps write to her about how we might expect the White Paper to help.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Offensive Weapons Public Bill Committee heard that some weapons that cannot lawfully be sold in the UK can readily be bought online on platforms such as eBay and Amazon. The Minister, in answering that debate, referred to the forthcoming White Paper. How will the proposals tackle this particular online harm?

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman will see among the list of harms exactly this type of activity. It is important that we place the obligation on those who operate online platforms to take their responsibilities seriously. I stress that we are predominantly interested in user-generated content, not so much the sales platforms, but he will see what is said in the White Paper. We will be grateful for his input on where he thinks we might develop ideas. I hope he will choose to respond to the consultation accordingly.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State might be aware that I have been meeting the Minister for suicide prevention, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), to discuss my deep concern and upset over the rising number of suicides in my constituency. Just last week, there were thousands of posts under the hashtag “suicide” on Instagram. What can the White Paper do to address that?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. She will see in the White Paper that we think the prohibition of material that promotes suicide is exactly something that the online platforms should concern themselves with. They need to think why it is that in some cases when people enter certain search terms what comes up is material promoting suicide, rather than advice and guidance on what could be done to help. That is exactly the kind of action we will expect online companies to take. If they do not, it will be hard for them to persuade the regulator that they are doing all they reasonably can to keep their users safe.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a very important point about the damaging effect anonymity and pseudonyms can have on social media platforms, particularly social media monopolies such as Twitter and Facebook. However, the Secretary of State was quite vague in his response and seemed to hope more than expect that their policies might change. What consultations has he had with the police on how policies and enforcement need to change to tackle the damage caused by anonymous trolls effectively and efficiently?

[Jeremy Wright]

There is no vagueness here. We know what we are dealing with, and both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) have identified the issue. It is not a lack of powers; it is how quickly those powers can be used. I can assure him that the Government are already in conversation with the law enforcement authorities and the online platforms about how that can be done more quickly.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his personal commitment to change, which is very obvious to this House. The number of children contacting ChildLine in the past year rose by 30%, due in large part to anxiety caused by cyber-bullying and the pressure of social media. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to target this specific area of online harm, and how does he intend to do that?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he gives me a chance to pay tribute to ChildLine. I was at its London centre last week. Those who volunteer and those who work for it professionally do remarkable work to help our young people deal with some of the challenges of our modern existence. He is right that cyber-bullying is particularly pernicious; it does not go away and it happens to young people whether they are at school or not. It is having a serious effect on their mental health. I hope that he will see in the White Paper, and what will follow it, a clear commitment to say to online platforms that they must do all they can to protect users from this kind of abuse. We do not expect anything unreasonable and we do not expect anything impossible, but where they can address this issue they must.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Last week, the Minister for Security and Economic Crime informed the Defence Committee that 43% of the terrorist threat in the UK currently comes from far-right groups who find each other on the internet and meet in enclosed chat rooms in encrypted space. They then come on to the internet to spread fear and intimidation among people who are tackling and pushing back against their activities. Will the Secretary of State talk to the Security Minister to ensure that the proposed legislation is able to deal with the threat from the far right?

[Jeremy Wright]

The security Minister and I have discussed the White Paper and we will do so again in view of the hon. Lady’s specific comments.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

This is as much about morality as it is about technology. As the digital and physical worlds get ever closer and more blurred, it is important that we have consistency right across the board. I am sure we can all agree that the vast majority of issues we are talking about should have no place online or in the real world, but what about the issues on which there is a difference of opinion? Who will be the arbiter, and what role will this place have in discussing whether the threshold of harm has been met?

[Jeremy Wright]

I hope this House will have a role not just in holding the regulator to account but in the design of codes of practice. We will consult on, among other things, how that might be done. We look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to that process. It is of course worth saying—the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed a concern—how judgments on individual pieces of content might be made. It is much more likely, in my view, that the regulator will be deciding whether or not the systems that an online platform puts in place are adequate or not in protecting their users from harm, than it is that the online regulator will be making a judgment on individual pieces of content. One only has to think about the sheer volume of material being considered to realise how impractical it would be for the online regulator to decide in each and every instance. So this is really about whether online companies have in place systems to keep their users safe in the majority of cases. The regulator will have to determine that when it looks into the matter and speaks to online companies individually.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State mentioned the Furman review earlier. The White Paper references it, but does not take a view on some of its recommendations. Does the Secretary of State agree that getting more control for individuals over their personal data, so that they control where it is stored, would alter the balance of power between individuals and tech companies? That would have a range of benefits, including tackling internet harms.

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise, because he is a fair man, that the Furman review was produced only in the past few weeks, and it is important that the Government take the time to look properly at its conclusions. He is right, however, that one of the significant aspects that Professor Furman and his panel picked up on was the potential advantage of users having more control over their data and the impact that that might have on the competition questions he was concerning himself with. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that we will look carefully at the recommendations and respond to them fully.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for an excellent White Paper. I am extremely pleased that a regulator will be taking things forward. Only last week, an individual pled guilty to sending me threatening messages which have had a grave impact on me and my family. What became difficult was understanding the extent of the abuse, because a victim is blocked very quickly and pages are closed down. What more can be done to allow the police to access closed pages and blocked accounts?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am very sorry to hear about what has happened to the hon. Lady. As she knows and as others have said, she is sadly not alone. It is important that we consider what online platforms can do. As I have said, closed groups and encrypted communications are a particular challenge. None the less, we think that online companies should do everything they can, with the restrictions that apply to encrypted communications, to keep their users as safe as they possibly can. The regulator will be entitled to ask, as it is entitled to ask in relation to other matters, whether the platform really is doing everything it could. If it is not, there will be consequences.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I was delighted when I got to page 26 of the White Paper to read the phrase “designed addiction”. My heart sank, however, when I got to “future action” and it talked about setting:

“the right expectations of companies to design their products in safe ways”

and to

“set clear expectations for companies to prevent harm to their users.”

If we have recognised designed addiction, has the time not come to legislate and stop those companies?

[Jeremy Wright]

When I visited the west coast to discuss these matters with a number of online companies, I had the privilege of meeting the inventor of the infinite scroll. He was, I am pleased to report, suitably apologetic. The hon. Gentleman is right. There are a certain number of technological responses that we might expect online platforms to adopt to deal with some of the harms we will expect them to tackle. As I have said, that will be a significant part of what the regulator should do to encourage those technological developments and ensure they are widely implemented.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s paper; I would argue that it is long overdue. He may be aware that last week, and three weeks ago, I launched a report by the all-party parliamentary group on social media and young people’s mental health and wellbeing. The report was about social media and its impact on young people. Many of its recommendations are in the White Paper, and I genuinely welcome that. One that is not is a 0.5% levy on social media companies’ profits, which could go into a social media health alliance. One thing that we heard during our inquiry from clinicians and young people was that we needed far more research into the impact of social media on mental health. Many individual areas of research need to be collated so that we can educate, inform and protect our young people as technology advances.

[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.