Island Health Trust

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise concerns about the running of the Island Health Trust by its trustees and about the role of the Charity Commission. I would like the Minister to reassure me that when apparent abuses are highlighted, the Charity Commission has the appropriate powers and resources to investigate and intervene where necessary.

By way of a brief background, the Island Health Trust was set up to hold the physical asset of a health centre that provides much-valued GP services to residents on part of the Isle of Dogs. The centre also hosted several other health services at the same location. The centre was originally funded by a mixture of loan finance and grants from the London Docklands Development Corporation and Tower Hamlets Council, after a local campaign for such a centre in the 1980s.

The trust’s main sources of income are the rent from the local NHS clinical commissioning group and the service charges paid by the good doctors who work at the health centre. From that, the trust has accumulated a surplus of some £1.3 million. There are serious questions about £349,000 having been paid to a consulting company that is solely owned by the chair of trustees, Ms Suzanne Goodband. That represented 68% of the charity’s income over two years.

Despite the surplus that has built up, the trust has increased doctors’ service charges to such a high level that the GP practice has been forced to vacate the health centre’s first floor and other ancillary services have also had to move. There are concerns about trustees’ ulterior motives with respect to the future use and development of the building. There are suggestions that there is a plan to develop and build on the site, which has high land value, but such development cannot take place because of the terms of the original title deeds and arrangements, which were laid down decades ago.

It might be helpful if I list the concerns of local people and their representatives before I raise questions about the powers and response of the Charity Commission. The local concerns are, first, about money—the payment of £349,955 to the trust chair’s consulting company.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate, which highlights an important issue. Does he agree that regardless of how the money is distributed by the trustees, there must be checks and balances to secure the moneys? If things do not add up, questions should rightly be asked and must be answered. The hon. Gentleman is asking those questions.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman raises the central point that I am trying to make. I hope to elaborate on why there are so many concerns locally.

As I was saying, a number of questions have been asked locally, including about the lack of local control and the fact that there have been 10 new trustees since April 2016, but curiously none of them was appointed from among the residents who actually live locally or are patients at the centre. Other concerns include the loss of services at the centre—I have already mentioned the emptying of the first floor; the high increase in service charges at the centre, which has led to the emptying of the building; a trustee being removed without notice or agreement; and trustees approving payments for periods before they were appointed as trustees. I will come back to that last concern, because it seems to me to be bordering on fraud and so possibly criminal.

People are concerned about the resolutions that altered the trust’s constitution, which were allegedly approved by a trustee who has written to the Charity Commission to deny that he did so. At the time of the amendment, the board of trustees had a quorum of three and there were only three trustees, so his denial calls into question the legality of such changes. If the decisions were not legal, the spectre of fraud arises again.

In addition, there have been claims by the chair that she has expertise in getting around restrictions imposed by the Charity Commission; accounts detailing “grants” given by the trust in 2016-17 that were not approved until autumn 2017, six months after the end of the financial year; and accounts detailing “grants” that were actually costs, such as for a deep clean of the centre, which was never a grant. To suggest that the trust was making grants, in line with its constitution, seems to be a defensive move, but it is clearly false. That is not an exhaustive list.

This debate appears to be mainly about health provision on the Isle of Dogs, because it is about the running of a local health centre, but because the Island Health Trust is a charity, the management and running of the building is not an NHS responsibility. I am grateful to see the much respected Minister from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport responding and not one from the Department of Health and Social Care, because it is the Charity Commission, for which DCMS has oversight, that is responsible for governance of the IHT, not the Department of Health and Social Care. That itself raises questions about the model of oversight and controls —or the lack of them—but that is a separate issue.

I would not want the record to give the impression that it is just me who is unhappy. This matter is of public and cross-party concern. To show that, I need to say that these issues have also been raised by the mayor of Tower Hamlets, Mr John Biggs, who has written to me, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Charity Commission; the Tower Hamlets CCG; Blackwall and Cubitt town councillors Dave Chesterton and Candida Ronald, who have led the local campaign on this important issue, engaged directly with the Charity Commission, and written extensively to raise the alarm; and the leader of the Conservative group in Tower Hamlets, Councillor Peter Golds, who has also written to all concerned.

There has also been a resolution, unanimously passed by Tower Hamlets Council, and finally by a public meeting attended by more than 100 residents and patients. We therefore look to the Charity Commission to address the concerns. I first wrote to the Charity Commission on 10 February 2017, having been alerted to these matters. It wrote back, apparently on 2 March 2017, although I did not receive the response until 20 July that year, probably owing to the general election. Its conclusion in that correspondence was:

“The Commission is satisfied that the Trustees have acted within their powers.”

Needless to say, that was not the response that we wanted or hoped for, so we asked for an urgent meeting. Councillor Ronald and I got that meeting on 24 August 2017, when we personally presented our evidence, and asked why and how the commission could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the trustees acted within their powers in respect of the money paid to the chair’s personal consultancy. I should say that at that point we only knew about £180,000, as the latest accounts had not been published. It was only afterwards that we found out that it was nearly £350,000 that had been paid.

Although that did not look right to us, we then got correspondence from the commission on 1 September 2017, which stated that

“remuneration of the trustees, is explicitly allowed in the charity’s governing document, and therefore the Commission cannot intervene.”

That is key, because the constitution, which allows the payments to be made, only does so because it was altered by a vote of the trustees—a vote that I hope to demonstrate was actually invalid.

Evidence from documents supplied to the Charity Commission shows that the charity’s constitution was altered on 27 February 2015, reducing the quorum for decisions from three to two. It reads:

“The Companies Act 2006—Special Resolution:

1. That article 9.2 of the Charity’s Articles of Association be amended, such that Article 9.2 should read: ‘A quorum is two Trustee members.’”

This sounds fine, except that I have an email from one of the trustees at the time, Mr Stephen Molyneaux, which says:

“I was a Trustee of the Island Health Trust from the 1990s through to my ‘removal’ on 1 April 2016.”

He goes on to say that he wrote to the Tower Hamlets CCG expressing his concerns. He writes:

“This includes the ‘certificate of passing special resolutions’ which altered the constitution of the Island Health Trust. I can say categorically that these changes, were not approved by me. At the time that these resolutions were passed, the quorum for the Island Health Trust was three.”

He goes on:

“There were only three Trustees at the time – Suzanne Goodband, Alan Holman, and me. In the absence of my agreement, these changes could not have been legitimately agreed.”

It appears that the trust paid the chair’s consultancy over £300,000, and the Charity Commission concluded from the trust’s constitution that it had seen

“that the Trustees have acted within their powers,”

and

“that remuneration is allowed in the Charity’s governing document.”

But Mr Molyneaux, one of the three trustees in an organisation of only three trustees with a quorum of three trustees for decisions, says that the rule changes did not happen because he was not there.

Further to the meeting that Councillor Ronald and I had with the Charity Commission, and Mr Molyneaux’s email, the Charity Commission got in touch again. This time it said:

“However, we will look again at IHT and the decisions of the Trustees”.

On 1 December 2017, correspondence from the Charity Commission arrived saying that it had opened a statutory inquiry, which was better news. But two additional concerns are being raised locally.

First, a Charity Commission letter to me on 14 January 2018 says that

“the Commission normally deals directly with the Charity trustees.”

I seek reassurance from the Minister that former trustees, especially the whistleblower, Mr Stephen Molyneaux, will be interviewed, as well as others who have important evidence.

Secondly, a current trustee who contacted the commission with concerns reports that they were essentially told that as a trustee they are responsible, and that they should step down if they have concerns. That is second-hand information and not in writing, but the trustee is a professional person and I do not believe they could misunderstand. If that advice is accurate, it raises serious questions for other whistleblower trustees and the attitude of the Charity Commission towards them. It should afford them protection rather than just advising them to walk away.

There is serious unhappiness that a much used, needed and appreciated local health centre with professional clinicians and caring staff is being bled by people who should be cherishing, nourishing and promoting it. Furthermore, the Charity Commission, which is responsible for protecting public money and the good name of organisations that receive that money, could have acted more quickly and seems limited in how it can act. Money that should have been used for the health and welfare of local citizens instead sits in the bank account of an individual who boasts of getting around the rules and who has a chequered history of having previously resigned from an NHS trust, reported in the local media thus:

“In January 2004, Suzanne Goodband mysteriously quit her role as chief executive of the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals’ NHS Trust, after just seven months in charge.”

I hope that the Department of Health has advised the Minister what the background to that resignation was, as the information is not public. It may be entirely innocent, but I hope that the Minister can understand that there are local suspicions in east London.

This is a serious local issue, and I look forward to hearing some reassurance from the Minister. Locally there is disbelief, as what has happened is not only questionable but wrong and possibly criminal. The Charity Commission is the body that we all expect not only to safeguard public moneys but to protect the reputation of the charity sector and to sort things out when they go wrong. I hope that the Minister can confirm that it has the resources and the powers to do that important job.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). It is fair to say that my party broadly supports much of this Bill, which is a vital component in our continued and smooth co-operation with the EU, should Brexit go ahead, but that support is not without qualification, which I shall come to shortly. As an EU member, we are assumed to be compliant with the requirements of the Union, but as a third party we will be required to demonstrate a suitable standard of protections. Failure to do this would jeopardise the co-operation that even the most zealous Brexiteers, I should imagine, want to maintain in defence and security.

The Data Protection Bill and the general data protection regulation bring existing best practice into law. This is not an onerous burden; it is a natural progression for information rights in the digital age. However, we have reservations about some aspects that we will discuss later. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) intends to speak about the proposed immigration exemptions. I had intended to concentrate on areas that deal with our personal data and the help that industry and charity organisations will need to cope with this regulation, but as the debate has progressed, I have become increasingly concerned about the Government’s intention to overthrow the amendment by the House of Lords. The Data Protection Bill is an important vehicle through which to bring forward recommendations from the Leveson inquiry, as this House promised to do. Data processing for investigative journalism purposes must strike a balance between press freedom and the individual’s right to privacy.

As a journalist, I value freedom of speech and freedom of the press as much as any other person. As a journalist, I was always impressed by and proud of colleagues who uncovered miscarriages of justice, political corruption or malpractice in India, for example. The freedom of the press to scrutinise and hold to account those in power—as the hon. Member for Dudley South said, the relationship between journalists and politicians should not be an easy one—is vital in a democracy. It must not, however, be at the cost of the individual—to their privacy in times of grief or hardship, to their hard-won personal and professional reputations—or mean chasing them when they have done nothing wrong other than perhaps disagree with the stance of a newspaper. That cannot be the way.

Newspapers in this country are not free of regulation. Broadcasting has to apply the standards set by Ofcom. Newspapers have to abide by the law of libel, contempt of court and the criminal code. All those things are necessary, but in an increasingly digital age it is necessary to ensure that all publications abide by data protection regulations. It is more than 20 years since Calcutt warned the press that they were drinking in the last chance saloon. Well, they have had their drink and frankly they have been thrown out. The Press Council failed; the Press Complaints Commission failed; and this House promised to bring forward a statutorily underpinned body. Self-regulation with statutory underpinning—it is good enough for every other industry, it is good enough for the Law Society, so why are we not prepared to follow through for the press? The vast majority of journalists are honourable. As the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said, we are talking about a small minority, but that small minority can do immense damage to individual’s lives—we saw it with the McCanns, with Milly Dowler and with the Hillsborough inquiry—and it is not good enough for us to say they are doing a good enough job; they patently are not, which is why I hope the House will uphold the amendments passed in the other place.

I turn now to what I had intended to speak about: the rights of individuals and the problem many have in talking about data and regulation. It sounds like a technical issue—something that does not affect them directly in their everyday lives. Algorithms are a mystery that many of us have no desire to investigate, never mind solve, yet they are a major influence in our increasingly technology-driven and social media-driven lives. Data harvesting can sneak into every corner of our existence, undertaken by public and private organisations—those we deal with and many that just want to deal with us, or use what they know about us. The information we provide tells them how to sell us everything from cars and mortgages to life insurance and funerals. As more and more information about our daily lives is digitally recorded, it is important that individuals have more control. With the passing of the Bill, we should all be able to rest assured that the information is being used both ethically and responsibly, including by the national and regional press, and that we have access to ensure that it is accurate, whether it is available to individuals or public or private bodies.

We should take into account that the information we provide can be used to infer information we have not given. For example, I am reliably informed that people who like curly fries are more likely to have high IQs. If someone was to pass on that culinary preference with their data, floods of adverts aimed at highly intelligent curly fries fans would be likely to follow. Occasionally, of course, it can all go wrong. Just after suffering a recent bereavement, I was in touch with a nationally known undertaker. Immediately afterwards, I was bombarded with adverts about planning for my own funeral, which is not really what anyone in that position wants. That is just an illustration of why it is important to the public that they have the right to view and correct or delete their own personal data, as laid out in the Bill. None of us wants false information out there about us that could prejudice decisions or jeopardise our security.

That, surely, is particularly important in relation to the many young people—a significant number of them children—who are regularly online. Ofcom estimates that 99% of under-16s are online for nearly 21 hours a week. The Children’s Society and YoungMinds surveyed more than 1,000 young people about their online experiences, both generally and more specifically with regard to cyber-bullying, and found that 61% of the under-18s who were surveyed had had their first experience of social media before the age of 13.

In setting the age of consent, it is important to be realistic about the lives of young people. Sixteen may not be an appropriate age of consent, or a realistic reflection of a situation in which practice allows only over-13s to have an account, but with no age verification. Young people need to learn their data and privacy rights much earlier, and that should be a mandatory part of their personal, social, health and economic education at school.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When it comes to the protection of children, there is a greater need for parents and guardians to be involved, but we often find that the care that ought to be there is not there. Has the hon. Lady any thoughts about how we could improve the situation?

[Christine Jardine]

I believe that parents should take more responsibility, but I think that the answer is to educate the children themselves and make them aware of the danger.

It will be important for the Government to support those who will feel extra strain as a result of the Bill, such as small and medium-sized enterprises and, indeed, the Information Commissioner’s Office itself. The ICO will have a much more proactive role in policing data protection matters and will be required to produce masses of guidance both now and after May. The office must be properly resourced to do its important job. There should also be targeted support for charities.

Many sectors—manufacturing, retail, health, information technology and financial services—are anxious for the free flow of data between ourselves and the European Union to continue with minimum disruption post Brexit. In an increasingly digital economy and society, that is critical for both our international trade and the protection of our rights of privacy. We must get this legislation right, and, as I said earlier, I believe that that will mean upholding the amendments passed in the other place.

Leveson Inquiry

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Of course there have been changes to policing—not least the code of ethics, the national guidance for police officers and the changes in the Policing and Crime Act 2017. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that I did not address the second part of his question. We are taking forward the need to look at and to ensure that this country has high-quality journalism, but we have to look at that in the full round. Yes, that includes the press, but it also includes online, where a huge amount of news is now consumed. I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) about what he thinks needs to be done, but I want to ensure that we address the problems that we still face.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Democratic Unionist party is listening, but we remain concerned that Northern Ireland newsrooms and papers seem to have got off scot-free in the first inquiry. Will the Secretary of State tell us just how the landscape has changed since Sir Brian initiated the report? In the light of our concerns, where does he think we are now?

[Matt Hancock]

There has been a change, not only in the wider media landscape that we have discussed, but in the means of redress available. Self-regulation is much tougher, with the introduction of IPSO and the ability for people to go to arbitration. We now have the means of redress to address problems in the press, and I hope that they will be strengthened.

Arts Council England Funding: Coalfield Communities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[John Mann]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[John Mann]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I merely say that when it comes to the English coalfields, we are talking about zero, zero, zero, zero, year after year. So the young people are reliant on the schools, which do their best, but we all know that schools funding has been tight. Schools funding for the arts has been tight for successive Governments—this goes back to the Labour Government as well. It has always been tight, but it has got tighter. Where someone wants to be creative in music in Bassetlaw, there is no facility available in the community for them. Where someone wants to go into the world of theatre, they find that no youth drama is being funded by the national Arts Council. The amounts of money that are there ought to be spread to some extent, to allow us to do things.

When we bid for money, the way the Arts Council works is that it says, “We’ll give you a consultant. One of our consultants.” That consultant will advise the Arts Council on what should be done. It is a closed shop within the arts world, where they give someone they know the contract to bid for money from themselves and none of it gets into the former coalfield communities. It is a scandal. The Arts Council needs to have the integrity to open up opportunities to give us the chance to demonstrate that where we do not have the arts infrastructure to bid for money, we can do it in a different way, with its assistance, without needing that infrastructure. Where people have the time, wisdom, inclination and skills, coming from the arts world, I do not begrudge them their brilliant ideas, inventiveness and claims in respect of facilities that already exist. If those facilities were in my constituency, I would be proposing the same. But is this fair on the national level? What about not just the education but the health, not least the mental health, of young people and the importance of the arts to them?

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his contribution. He has just mentioned the very issue that I want to bring to his attention—the health institutions. Almost 50% of the nation’s healthcare institutions provide arts programming for patients, families and staff because of the health benefits of the arts to their patients. Surely if they can do it, we can see clearly the benefits that would be brought to the coalfield communities.

[John Mann]

It would bring a huge benefit. We are talking about small amounts of money to give us a chance with the few projects we ever put forward, which get knocked back repeatedly, as the evidence demonstrates. That requires a change of mindset in the arts world and in Arts Council England, which must say to communities—not only mine, but the many others from all corners of England—“You have the right to benefit from the arts. You have the right and we are going to help you. We are going to get in there. We are going to provide that little bit of funding that would make such a big difference.” I predict, Mr Speaker, that if the young people in my constituency were given that opportunity—you, Sir, are witness to this—we would see that they are as inventive, creative and brilliant as any other set of young people in the country, but they do not end up in the arts world because their skills remain hidden. It is hardly a surprise that the talent shows uncover so many people from areas like mine.

We once had in the miners’ welfares and institutes many educational, artistic and sporting structures, based on the coalmining industries. That gave an entire set of generations opportunities. Over the past 30 years, those facilities have gently crumbled away in most places. The miners are not there and the employer is not there to provide the time, facilities and, indeed, money that there used to be. The void needs to be filled.

Will the Minister meet representatives from the Arts Council to take them through these incredible figures and challenge them? I am more than happy to go with him. The big-picture issue is not whether it is my constituency or one of the many others that actually benefits. I shall of course fight strongly for my area, but if it was only my area that was not benefiting, one could see that we were doing something wrong. When so many scores of constituencies get no national funding whatsoever from the Arts Council, that shows that the system is wrong.

I say in a non-partisan way—the Minister will note that this affects constituencies represented by Members from different parties—that it is long overdue that this issue is addressed. The Arts Council is currently reviewing its priorities; here is a chance to direct a modicum of resource to the former coalfields to give our kids a proper artistic chance.

UK Basketball

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall for consideration. I am pleased to participate and to see whether we can persuade the Minister to do what everyone wants her to do: put more focus on basketball in this place and across the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, basketball is a small but passionate community, in which it is fair to say that love of the game has overtaken any issues of identity. With 22 teams in the Basketball Northern Ireland league, it is safe to say that we are happy to play—and hopefully beat—any and all teams.

My interest in basketball comes from my boys. We live on a farm and we had a basketball net out in the yard among the tractors and the cows. The boys played basketball when they could and it was a fun game for them. In America, where we sometimes go on holiday, the love of basketball is a phenomenon like our love of football or rugby. The players are superstars, the cheerleaders are as ferociously competitive as the players, and the sport has a buzz about it. Although we do not currently have that buzz in the UK, that is not to say that we cannot and will not. When I look back at Ulster Rugby in Northern Ireland 20 years ago, they did not have the passion and the buzz around them that they now have. I am astounded at how far they have come. It is not surprising to see young boys and girls walking down the street with their Ulster tops on, which gives an idea of what dedication and promotion can achieve among young people.

What brought about that change? It was the sport’s and promoters’ dedication to slogging away when we were not winning; it was going to schools and inspiring young people to take up the sport; and it was promoting the schools rugby cup with time, money, passion, drive and determination. All those things have brought about the change that was necessary.

The same can be said about the Northern Ireland football team, who are at a level that was unheard of years ago. We are no longer the joke act. The best teams understand that there is a good chance that they could fall under the weight of the green and white army; many of us have believed that for a long time, and the figures and statistics indicate it as well. For those who have kept paying for season tickets and hoping and believing, the ambition used to be for Northern Ireland to score one goal, but now it is for us to beat the best teams—and we can.

Hon. Members have mentioned cycling. Britain is now the greatest cycling nation in the world. Did that happen by chance, because hundreds more people just decided to take up the sport and were good at it? No, it came through a targeted offensive aimed at young people and showing what could be achieved. Why are we taking the focus off inspiring our young people to get off the sofa, get off their mobiles, interact in a team, build fitness and build relationships? We regularly read figures about childhood obesity. If those figures do not inspire us to act, I do not know what will.

Every year, Wimbledon lights a fire in a child to pick up a tennis racket. My parliamentary aide’s niece and nephew have done just that, and they now play for the Ulster team. We could achieve even more inspiration and attraction, but that takes funding.

For the sake of mental and physical health, combating social isolation, encouraging those who struggle academically and building self-esteem and confidence in children, I ask the Minister and her colleagues for action to help children who play basketball, as well as tennis and other sports. Perhaps we can win gold at the next Olympics—who knows? We can certainly get kids off the sofa and involved in sport if we fund it and make it attractive and accessible. That would be gold enough for me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

The Ofcom “Connected Nations” report contains new measures that reflect truer consumer standards, and it is opening the new 700 MHz spectrum band, which will be suitable for wider area coverage. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we are working to get better consumer measures on those matters.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Although there has been an improvement over the years, 63,000 homes and offices in Northern Ireland—8% of properties—remain unable to sign up for broadband speeds. What discussions have taken place with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland to ensure a roll-out of the moneys agreed for rural areas through the confidence and supply agreement?

[Margot James]

Northern Ireland’s outdoor geographic coverage is better than the UK average, but I recognise that indoor coverage is poor compared with the rest of the country. The new code reforms will help, alongside our desire to extend geographic mobile coverage to 95% of the entire United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is the poorest who suffer most when corruption occurs around the world, and it is important that the UK plays a leadership role, not least by setting an example, and we have done that through the Bribery Act and what has flowed from it. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend. In his role as a distinguished Foreign Officer Minister, he was also able to do some of this work, and the work must continue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the Attorney General believe that his Department can provide more clarification on foreign public officials, hospitality and facilitation payments, self-reporting, sentencing and fines, adequate procedures and the meanings of “associated person” and “relevant commercial organisations”? How can that be done?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman is right that clarity is important. The Bribery Act and the prosecutions that flow from it are not all that matters here. We need to change corporate culture, and that is happening. It is important that corporations understand their responsibilities, and he is right that if they are to do that, they need to be clear about what they can and cannot do. We will always seek to give greater clarity, but it all depends on the circumstances.

Mobile Phone Contracts

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. As I was saying before the Division bell sounded, the fact is that most providers do not tell the customer how much of their monthly bill goes towards the mobile handset and how much is paying for their calls and data. Citizens Advice has discovered that three of the four largest mobile providers continue to charge customers for a handset after the cost of the handset has already been paid during the term of the fixed deal. That means that loyal customers who choose to stay on the same phone plan after their fixed deal ends see no reduction in their bills. They continue to pay, unwittingly, for a handset for which they have already paid.

Who is most likely to be caught up in this so-called loyalty trap? Those aged over 65 are most likely to be stung, with 23% of over 65s with a handset-inclusive mobile phone contract staying in their contract for more than 12 months past the end of their fixed deal period, compared with only 13% of people aged under 65. Worse still, if someone does not switch they cannot tell how much their handset is costing them, and whether they are getting a good deal or not. Indeed, the total cost of a handset as part of a bundled contract can vary considerably, even among plans offered by the same provider. In some cases, the price difference can be as much as £400. Of the 706 bundled contracts analysed by Citizens Advice, 74% were more expensive than buying the same handset up front and using it with a SIM-only contract, which is quite astonishing.

Three, one of the largest mobile phone providers, has been in touch with me. That company recognises that the way the market is currently organised means that mobile bills lack transparency and are difficult for consumers to comprehend, which in turn leads to them paying more than they should—that is, more than they need to—for their mobile phones.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate on an issue that affects my constituency and all others. Does she agree that the thirst for the latest phones means that many people buy themselves out of a contract at a massive financial cost, and that we—or perhaps the Minister—should look at whether the way in which the industry works out the buy-out clause for contracts can be made fairer, and not to the advantage of the mobile companies?

[Patricia Gibson]

There is, indeed, a range of issues with mobile phone contracts. The real concern is when a consumer is paying for something for which they have already paid, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that mobile contracts need to be seriously looked at.

For consumers, the way to get transparency is to separate out costs so that they can see clearly what they are paying for. In any other industry, that would not be controversial. Some people have pointed out that regulations are an obstacle in the way of separating out those costs because they would require the mobile phone companies to become regulated creditors under the Financial Conduct Authority. Some argue that that would be bureaucratic, burdensome and complex for the mobile phone companies, as they would have to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, that need not be the case, since there is a well-established precedent, of which I am sure the Minister is aware; exemptions from full regulation under the Consumer Credit Act are given to appropriate sectors, especially for loans with an annual percentage rate of zero.

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 created an exemption from the Consumer Credit Act regulations for providers of 0% APR loans of up to four months. That was raised to 12 months—the current limit in 2015—through a statutory instrument, to allow insurance companies to offer monthly payments for annual plans. Perhaps the Minister will consider raising that limit further to 24 months, to allow mobile phone operators to offer separate mobile handset financing. That would make bills more transparent for consumers, since handset and service contracts would then be separated. Given that it would be prohibitively expensive to ask consumers to pay off their handsets in 12 months, raising the current 12-month limit to a 24-month exemption in the Consumer Credit Act would offer a way forward. It has been done successfully in countries such as Germany and Australia, as well as other countries, so there is no reason why it could not be done here.

O2 has told me that it is the only operator to separate the cost of mobile phones from the airtime on consumer bills and that when a consumer has paid off his or her mobile phone, all charges for it are stopped. That leads me to wonder why one such company can manage such transparency in its billing but others do not seem able to. I am sure the Minister is wondering that as well.

We must make it as easy as possible for those companies who engage in this blatant, unfair and unjust overcharging of customers to stop doing so and remove all the so-called obstacles and hiding places. In no other industry would such blatant ripping-off of the customer be tolerated; it should not be tolerated in the mobile phone industry either. Indeed, it undermines consumer confidence and trust in the entire industry, which is unfair to those players in the industry who play fair by the consumer.

Too many consumers in too many sectors endure a “loyalty penalty” and mobile phone charges are symptomatic of a wider problem. Indeed, in the wider telecoms market, people experience a persistent and ingrained level of detriment. We should be grateful for the sterling work of Citizens Advice, who I pay tribute to today, as its research has uncovered the fact that people experience 27 million problems with their mobile, broadband or TV services per year and those problems cost people £4.2 billion a year in wasted time and money. It is simply not good enough.

As the Minister will be aware, we currently have very powerful voices in the telecoms industry, with no independent voice speaking up for consumers. The telecoms industry has vast resources to expend on lobbying the regulator. It is time for the consumer’s voice to be heard.

The Minister will also be very aware that in their 2017 manifesto, the UK Government made a commitment to make telecoms billing fairer and easier to understand for consumers, including clarifying when the cost of a mobile handset has been paid off by the customer. That is not difficult to do. It can be done by statutory instrument, as I have said.

In a letter of 17 November to me on this issue, the former Minister of State for Digital told me that he hopes

“that providers will now take the initiative by clearly separating the cost of handset and tariff in mobile contracts”.

In Ofcom’s response to me of 8 November, it said that it wanted to help people to

“shop around and secure the right deals”.

But unless costs are separated out and mobile operators are forced down that path, consumers cannot and will not know what deals are the best value for money. We cannot rely on the goodwill of the mobile phone operators, because that has not worked. Action is needed and I have offered a way forward, which I urge the Minister to adopt.

The responses from the former Minister for Digital and Ofcom, although well-meaning, do not go far enough. In fact, the responses give me cause for concern—I am a bit alarmed—because they both, in their different ways, suggest that the mobile phone companies can decide if and when they take action on this matter. I would argue that the Government and the regulator must act urgently to protect consumers from being ripped off. When someone unwittingly pays for the same product twice, make no mistake: that person is being ripped off.

With inflation running high, as it has done for a number of years, and with a continuing squeeze on living standards, it is only right and proper that consumers are treated fairly and are able to see more easily what they are paying for, so that they can properly compare prices. I urge the Minister to set out a clear timetable to implement what she and her Government have publicly said they believe. That can be done very soon, very cleanly and very quickly, by statutory instrument. It is needed so that there can be no excuse or hiding place for mobile companies that continue to charge mobile phone customers for something that they have already paid for. It is time to redress the imbalance between the powerful voice of industry and the weak and too-often ignored voice of the consumer. It really is time to act.

BBC Pay

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. Making sure that we have equal opportunities is not only about the protected characteristics in the Equality Act; it is also about social background and making sure that people from all backgrounds get an equal chance.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far. The BBC has been guilty of discrimination and a gender pay gap differential. The national average gap of 18.1% is wrong, but it is hard to understand the satisfaction that the BBC seems to have and the feeling that 9.3% is not too bad. Does the Secretary of State agree that whether the figure is 18.1% or 9.3%, the BBC needs to put in place action to ensure that all receive equality of pay immediately?

[Matt Hancock]

The BBC would do well to reflect on the discussions that we have had in this House this afternoon, where we have seen, unless I am mistaken, unanimity from every single Member in demonstrating the need for action that we, as a House, hold to. The defence that, as an organisation, it is better than others and better than the average is frankly not good enough, not just because everybody should be doing better, but because the BBC should be held to a higher standard as a treasured national institution and our national broadcaster.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the small charities in her constituency. Small charities provide a huge benefit in their locations. We celebrated the work of small charities on Local Charities Day last Friday, and we will continue to do all we can to support them in the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her responses so far. Will she further outline whether she intends to oversee a more streamlined approach to administration, which would allow more funding to go to charities, and how would she envisage such a scheme?

[Tracey Crouch]

We look at administration issues all the time. This was reviewed recently and I am sure it will be a key part of the conversation as we take forward the next licence discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

Yes, and it is important that the Government comply with the judgment of a Court whose jurisdiction we have accepted. As my hon. Friend says, however, it is equally important that we stick to the clear view of this House and those beyond it that convicted prisoners should not vote from their cells, and they will not do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Attorney General outline how many prisoners the extension will apply to and what type of short-term licences will make them eligible to vote?

Russian Interference in UK Politics

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for raising this issue today. I am always interested in what my learned friend, as I would call him, has to say. We agree on many things, although not on everything.

When I sat on the Defence Committee, along with Members who are present today, an issue that was often drawn to our attention was the influence of Russia through cyber-technology, radio stations and other media.

I am a staunch Brexiteer, and I was so pleased that the result of the referendum reflected what I believed was best, and still believe is best, for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am proud to represent the constituency of Strangford, which is a mixture of rural and urban, of city workers and villages, and which I believe contains a fair representation of the views of the United Kingdom. Strangford voted to leave. The question is, do I believe that that was achieved by Russian interference? Some Members have argued that there was an attempt to influence our vote, and the part of me that enjoys spy films has perked up: I want to see how the conspiracy works.

I am in no way casting aspersions on anyone who has spoken today. Members have their own opinions, and they have a right to those opinions, but they must also accept the ballot-box decision of June 2016. If they accept that, they should work with the rest of us to ensure that Brexit happens. I am simply trying to ascertain whether Russian influence changed the outcome of the referendum, and I have to say that I do not believe it did. I believe that my fishing community in Portavogie and the surrounding villages, who have seen their livelihood and their villages decimated by the structure imposed by the common fisheries policy, decided that enough was enough. They had had enough of Europeans lining their pockets at the expense of our fishermen in our seas catching our fish. They were fed up to the back teeth with bureaucrats sitting in centrally heated offices in Brussels making decisions about how many fish should be caught in Portavogie, along the coasts of County Down and elsewhere. They wanted out.

It is my opinion that the farmers who have been tangled in red tape and regulation for too many years, and who can rely on the Government to support and facilitate them, wanted out. The people on the street who see the money going to Europe with little return—and who want our money to stay here and be handed to those areas of need such as education and health, instead of being used to erect monuments in European cities—wanted out. We made our own minds up.

A balanced argument demands that I also highlight the people in my constituency who wanted to stay in, and who believed, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” There were those who were concerned about how local business and trade with Europe would continue, and there were those who were concerned about how their business would continue, and they voted to remain, as was their right. I visited those businesses and got their opinions, which I have fed into Government through my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the Brexit Committee, to make sure that they are a part of the strategy the Government are trying to pursue. I must also say that these businesses have since put in place plans to secure their business and to ensure that they survive and thrive. That is what we do in my constituency, and it is what we should do in this House.

Was Russian influence at play? Did the Russians skew the vote? No, I do not believe they did. My constituents are intelligent people with a good understanding. They voted with their heads and hearts, and I do not believe for a second that a Twitter or a Facebook campaign affected this in any way. I believe the waiting lists in the hospitals and the problems with education were major issues, alongside the true driver of taking back our sovereignty and independence. That was what the vote was about.

The people have voted to ask us to do this, and we must deliver on that, regardless of any Russian campaign. It is clear to me that the people want out, and they want the Brexiteers, like me, and everybody else in this Chamber to be of the same opinion.