Online Harms

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the need to take urgent action to reduce and prevent online harms; and urges the Government to bring forward the Online Harms Bill as soon as possible.

The motion stands in my name and those of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for what I hope the House will agree is an important and urgent debate. I am conscious that a great number of colleagues wish to speak and that they have limited time in which to do so, so I will be brief as I can. I know also that there are right hon. and hon. Members who wished to be here to support the motion but could not be. I mention, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, who is chairing the Committee as we speak.

I hope that today’s debate will largely be about solutions, but perhaps we should begin with the scale of the problem. The term “online harms” covers many things, from child sexual exploitation to the promotion of suicide, hate speech and intimidation, disinformation perpetrated by individuals, groups and even nation states, and many other things. Those problems have increased with the growth of the internet, and they have grown even faster over recent months as the global pandemic has led to us all spending more time online.

Let me offer just two examples. First, between January and April this year, as we were all starting to learn about the covid-19 virus, there were around 80 million interactions on Facebook with websites known to promulgate disinformation on that subject. By contrast, the websites of the World Health Organisation and the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention each had around 6 million interactions. Secondly, during roughly the same period, online sex crimes recorded against children were running at more than 100 a day. The online platforms have taken some action to combat the harms I have mentioned, and I welcome that, but it is not enough, as the platforms themselves mostly recognise.

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

You may have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am ostentatiously wearing purple. I have been missioned to do so because it is World Pancreatic Cancer Day. We have been asked to emphasise it, because raising awareness of that disease is important.

My right hon. and learned Friend is right to highlight the horror of degrading and corrupting pornography. Indeed, the Government have no excuse for not doing more, because the Digital Economy Act 2017 obliges them to do so. Why do we not have age verification, as was promised in that Act and in our manifesto? It is a straightforward measure that the Government could introduce to save lives in the way my right hon. and learned Friend describes.

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, but I will be careful, Mr Deputy Speaker, in what I say about age verification, because I am conscious that a judicial review case is in progress on that subject. However, I agree that that is something that we could and should do, and not necessarily in direct conjunction with an online harms Bill.

Digital platforms should also recognise that a safer internet is, in the end, good for business. Their business model requires us to spend more and more time online, and we will do that only if we feel safe there. The platforms should recognise that Governments must act in that space, and that people of every country with internet access quite properly expect them to. We have operated for some time on the principle that what is unacceptable offline is unacceptable online. How can it be right that actions and behaviours that cause real harm and would be controlled and restricted in every other environment, whether broadcast media, print media or out on the street, are not restricted at all online?

I accept that freedom of speech online is important, but I cannot accept that the online world is somehow sacred space where regulation has no place regardless of what goes on there. Given the centrality of social media to modern political debate, should we rely on the platforms alone to decide which comments are acceptable and which are unacceptable, especially during election campaigns? I think not, and for me the case for online regulation is clear. However, it must be the right kind of regulation—regulation that gives innovation and invention room to grow, that allows developing enterprises to offer us life-enhancing services and create good jobs, but that requires those enterprises to take proper responsibility for their products and services, and for the consequences of their use. I believe that that balance is to be found in the proposed duty of care for online platforms, as set out in the Government’s White Paper of April last year.

I declare an interest as one of the Ministers who brought forward that White Paper at the time, and I pay tribute to all those in government and beyond, including the talented civil servants at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who worked so hard to complete it. This duty of care is for all online companies that deal with user-generated content to keep those who use their platforms as safe as they reasonably can.

Future of the National Trust

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Ms Bardell, for allowing me to contribute to this debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for bringing it to the House.

The National Trust has done immense work over 125 years. In its own words, its mission is to cherish the

“nation’s most significant cultural collection”.

It is, however, struggling. Covid has made that task harder, with falling membership and fewer visitors. Frankly, the membership has declining faith in the trust’s leadership, as evidenced at the recent virtual annual general meeting.

I wish the National Trust well. Its work is vital, but it really is not appropriate for a charitable organisation to become involved in politics. The chairman, in a recent letter to a member, chose to defend Black Lives Matter, describing it as a human rights organisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) said. That is not a fair reflection of that organisation in its own words or by any routine or reasonable assessment. It is very dangerous for the National Trust to stray into that territory. It is not in line with its charitable purpose, as the Charity Commission made clear.

To remind hon. Members, the trust’s charitable purpose is

“to look after places of beauty”.

Beauty, because it is the exemplification of truth, is the most important thing to which we should all aspire. In beauty, we begin to have sight of the Lord. The National Trust is beginning to lose credibility, frankly, both with its membership and the public, because of misunderstandings about its purpose.

It is hard to know whether it was malign, naive, malevolent or just ignorant, but the defence by the trust’s chairman, Mr Tim Parker, was essentially that Black Lives Matter is not a party political movement and has no affiliations. That is a pretty thin defence if he is merely naive; surely he must know that political organisations are not all linked to parties.

Octavia Hill, who founded the trust and who came from Wisbech near my constituency in the Fens, said:

“We all want beauty... We all need space. Unless we have it, we cannot reach that sense of quiet in which whispers of better things come to us gently.”

The National Trust, whether gently or more loudly, needs to disassociate itself from some of the rather foolish things that some of its leading members have said. I hope that the Minister will tell us how much the review into colonial links cost, how many staff were involved, how much was budgeted, and how much public money was spent on it.

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

It is a genuine honour to serve under your maiden chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on securing the debate, and thank all those who have participated. No debate is complete without a quote from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), so it was a pleasure to hear from him today.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire acknowledged, the National Trust is one of the largest and most respected heritage membership organisations in the world. It has more than 5.5 million members, welcomes nearly 27 million visitors to its sites each year, has around 9,500 staff and is supported by 65,000 volunteers. The trust’s first property was acquired in 1895 for £10 and is still open today, and from that, the trust has steadily grown. Today, it has 250,000 hectares of land, 780 miles of coastline and more than 300 historic houses and gardens.

Some 125 years later, the National Trust is still helping people to enjoy the country’s enormous wealth of heritage sites. The trust is, in so many ways, a hugely successful heritage organisation, but that does not mean that we should not ask serious questions about it or how it should be held accountable. As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, the National Trust is a creature of statute: it was formally created by the National Trust Act 1907, which has been amended several times since, and the organisation has evolved since Royal Assent.

The organisation’s vision is to preserve,

“protect and care for places so people and nature can thrive.”

To deliver on that ambition, the trust is governed by a board of independent trustees. The chair is supported by a team of trustees who bring expertise to the running of the trust. It is also a registered charity and is therefore regulated by the Charity Commission, which is itself answerable to Parliament. The board must therefore ensure that its activities do not contravene or compromise the trust’s charitable objectives.

I set out those governance arrangements to make one point: the National Trust is an independent body. It is independent of the Government and does not receive any ongoing public funding for its work, and its activities are overseen by its board and the regulatory Charity Commission. Of course, as I have said, the trust is a creature of statute, so although the Government could, in theory, instigate a review into the trust’s operations, for which some have argued, we would not be able to implement changes in the way that some have suggested. If the trust is found to have breached its charitable objectives, the Charity Commission, as the trust’s regulator, would be a more effective body to implement that.

That does not mean that the Government are not actively interested in what the trust does or how it goes about its business. I gently suggest, however, that tasking a Government commission to look into the trust to solve its complex problems is not a realistic idea. If there were an appetite for it—both in Parliament and in Government—the statute could be reviewed to consider whether it continues to provide a suitable legislative framework. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will agree that that should be done only as a last resort, but it is an option. There are many other avenues of influence to effect change, including debates such as this one.

Parliamentary interest can be extremely influential, and I am sure the National Trust will be listening closely to the views expressed today, as I am sure are members of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, who will also reflect on what has been said.

[Sir John Hayes]

I understand the Minister’s remarks about the Government’s position, but surely asking the National Trust—at a time when it is laying off something like 1,300 staff—how much it has spent on the review, how many staff have been involved and what it has budgeted for a review of the link between 93 properties, including Chartwell, and colonialism is not an unreasonable question for a culture Minister to ask.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I do not think my right hon. Friend is understanding what I am saying. We do need to hold the trust to account and to ask it questions, but it is, after all, an independent body. We have many mechanism to do so—of course, we are doing so today. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that I will write to the National Trust. I will send it a transcript of the debate so that it can hear the strength of feeling expressed today and answer some of the questions raised. I repeat: it is an independent body, and we need to respect that.

Reports of the events at the National Trust’s annual general meeting suggest that some of its members are not impressed with some of the trust’s activities and direction. It was reported as being bombarded with complaints, with its members wanting it to focus on managing the beautiful houses and gardens, and not on the historical links to slavery and empire in its collection. The chief executive was reported as saying that the National Trust was still deciding how it will use information in the recent slavery report, and the Government will continue to take an interest in that.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has also made his views clear about the trust’s review of the links to slavery and empire in its collection. On 22 September, he stated firmly that the National Trust should focus first and foremost on protecting and preserving our heritage. He was right to highlight that as the trust’s chief concern, and he rightly pointed out that neglecting it will understandably surprise and disappoint people.

I hear the calls for a review or commission on the National Trust. As I set out earlier, however, I am not convinced that a commission is the most effective way to bring about the sort of change that right hon. and hon. Members would like to see. Given the current state of play, I believe that the best approach is to rely on the good sense of the board and its executives to heed and respond to the voices of its members, its army of volunteers, the general public, the media, the Charity Commission as its regulator, and of course Parliament.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire is aware, the trust is losing approximately £200 million of its budgeted revenues for this year as a consequence of coronavirus. It is having to draw on its reserves, though it is also making use of Government assistance, such as the furlough scheme. However, it is important for us to bear in mind that 80% of the National Trust’s funds are legally restricted, meaning they are not available to the trust to spend on running costs or redundancy.

The loss of funding has meant that, sadly, the National Trust has made 513 compulsory redundancies and 782 redundancies. As I understand it, the redundancies protect as far as possible the conservation and curatorial functions of the trust, and it has stressed that the changes do not alter its mission. I also understand that there are no plans to permanently close any of its properties. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned that he has heard otherwise, so I will seek clarity on that point.

For the reasons that I have set out, I believe the National Trust is a success story. One hundred and twenty-five years on from its foundation, it continues to serve the country by preserving the United Kingdom’s rich tapestry of heritage sites and buildings for the public to enjoy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire has argued, however, its future must be a focus, and it must focus on its core functions: to curate and preserve historic houses, gardens and landscapes for everyone to enjoy.

Although I completely understand the intent behind the National Trust’s decision to undertake a review of its historic houses, especially in this time of heightened awareness of discrimination, I think the National Trust will feel that the way that it was done was unfortunate. I accept that the trust did not intend to cause offence, but we must acknowledge that, for many people, it did cause offence. The trust must reflect on that and learn from it.

For over a century, the trust has focused on preserving and curating our great historic houses, gardens and landscapes for the nation. That is what it should focus on during the next century, too.

Question put and agreed to.

WhatsApp Data Breach

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I reassure the hon. Lady that we already have robust legislation in place through the introduction of GDPR. We also have competition law and a number of agencies. Indeed, Opposition Members usually complain that we have too many regulatory bodies in this space. We have the Competition and Markets Authority, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office, and we will be setting up a powerful regulator on the back of our online harms White Paper. People should be taking more responsibility for the security of their devices, and the NCSC has very good user advice on its website.

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

No Government would find it easy to cope with the rapidly changing character of technology and its associated protocols, and I congratulate the Minister on both her diligence and commitment. I am pleased that, as the former Minister responsible, I put in place the means and methods to deal with this issue in the form of the strategy and the NCSC. However, would she acknowledge that, for too long, we assumed that these big tech companies could be asked, not told; and requested, not obliged? We cannot be too tough in dealing with these matters, for at risk is the welfare of our citizenry and our nation.

[Margot James]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his previous work. I strongly agree with his thesis that a voluntary approach of asking companies for their co-operation has not produced the needed change in a timely manner, which is exactly why in the White Paper we published last month we concluded that statutory regulation that places on companies a duty of care for their users, backed up by a powerful regulator, is the answer to these problems.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I am always happy to look at these matters, but of course the facts are that over 99% of public library buildings now have internet access, and we have invested over £4 million on innovative library projects to improve people’s digital skills, literacy, health and wellbeing. Many millions of pounds are going into that topic, but we will remain alive to those issues.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Oh! When one looks at the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, one thinks not of digital, media or sport, but unfailingly of culture. I call the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir John Hayes]

In that spirit, Mr Speaker, Marcel Proust said:

“There are perhaps no days of our childhood that we lived as fully as…the days we spent with a favourite book”.

Getting children into libraries is critically important not only for the health of those libraries, but for the development of our collective futures. Will the Minister, the nation’s librarian, confirm that he intends to begin a new initiative to bind schools and libraries together so that we can allow more children, particularly from disadvantaged homes, to enjoy the benefits of books?

[Michael Ellis]

I am very flattered by my right hon. Friend’s question, and he makes an important point. The interplay between schools and libraries is a long-lasting one. It enriches lives and we want to promote it at every possible opportunity. We do that by encouraging the wide use of libraries by all sections of society, and I am pleased to confirm that libraries are used by more people across all socioeconomic groups and parts of our society than any other cultural form. He is right to quote Proust, as of course he always is.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

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

My mum was a big fan of doing the pools, an opportunity many people took. We have rightly taken decisive action. From the start of this month, the FOBT stake has been cut. We have been absolutely clear that harm around gambling is not confined to one product. We will always look at where there is harm and act where we see it. We want responsible business. I will of course meet my right hon. Friend to discuss his concerns.

Centenary of the Armistice

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Speaker. This has been a privilege and an education, a reminder that no community was truly unaffected by the visible and invisible scars of a century ago. Both Front Benchers spoke about sacrifice, and we have heard not only about emancipation, courage, gallantry, equality, bravery, impact, loss, opportunity, reflection, contribution, community, family, survivors, duty and tragedy, but about home and coming back safely.

This weekend, we will mark the Armistice with silence and we will pay our respects. This is an opportunity for all the communities represented in this House to come together. The Secretary of State spoke about blood, mud and misery, about a collective effort of commemoration and about using history to bring us together. He said that we should give thanks for the end of the great war and be ready for the special sound of church bells as they ring out across the land 100 years on. It is bittersweet, said the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), and what a magnificent speech that was. He talked about learning from living memories, not just from history, about the poppy from Flanders fields, about civilian support for our Royal British Legion, and, yes, about common cause and, again, about bell ringing for those millions who never came home.

It really has been the most poignant and often painful afternoon of debate. It has been touching, thoughtful, passionate, emotional and, above all, personal. I shall try to pay tribute to some of these heartfelt contributions this afternoon. There were Members of Parliament from across this land in the Chamber—from Aldridge-Brownhills, Eastleigh, Henley, Ynys Môn, West Dunbartonshire to Cheltenham.

Moving tributes will be made this weekend as we all give thanks. I, too, will lay wreaths in my constituency—nine will be laid across the day. In the afternoon, in Netley, I will be at the site of the Royal Victoria Hospital, where only a refurbished chapel stands. It is also the site of the Netley military cemetery, in which 636 Commonwealth service personnel from world war one and 35 service personnel from the second world war lay. The site is maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. There are also the graves of 69 Germans, 12 Belgians and one Pole, all of which continue, rightly, to be cared for.

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

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It is always an honour to speak in this place, but, sometimes, it is also worth remembering that it is just as great an honour to sit and listen quietly, which is what I have done. I want her to do this, if she will. Many hon. Members have mentioned Victoria Cross winners—there were 627 in total in the first world war. Will the Government commit to ensure that every one of them, as a way to remember all those who served, are particularly marked in their locales—in the villages, towns and cities—perhaps by a plaque, by a road name, by a building or even by planting a tree? There will be war memorials, but I think that we can do more in this centenary year.

[Mims Davies]

My right hon. Friend is tenacity itself. It is right that such important people are raised in this debate, and I thank him for making such an important point.

Where do I begin with some of the contributions this afternoon? My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) spoke about Brockenhurst. He said that we must not stint on defence and resources in peacetime. As we heard from the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), we need to commit to peace, to remember the people who were in peril on the sea and to remember the pain that they felt. Also among us was a historian—my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson)—who has headed off to talk some more on this. His speech focused on why these events matter to young people and why we must have the sites commemorated appropriately, particularly for those who lost their lives at sea.

This Department has given £10 million to deliver events over the past four years. In addition, there has also been a mix of programmes from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Defence, and that is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) spoke about the hollowing out of communities by the great war, and it is absolutely right that we remember those sacrifices.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) told us about the Weeping Window, an installation in the heart of her constituency showing the bravery of service personnel, who continue to do so much for this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) showed a passion for peace making by the Council of Europe. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) gave us some great, positive news about a statue to commemorate Sikh soldiers and spoke about unity, integration and all-important diversity. Creating such a memorial 100 years on is the right thing to do.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) told us about the shamrock poppy, which is rightly being worn in the House of Commons to show this is a common cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) talked about a devotion to duty, thanked his loved ones and mentioned the impact of the war on friends and family. The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) spoke about the bravery of the Commonwealth—local heroes from Reading and those from across the world—and mentioned clubs and charities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) reminded us not to forget about our furry friends—the animals who were casualties of war and who were taken by their owners to an unknown fate. He also told us about learning lessons from his grandfather and said that the first step in preventing this from happening again is never to forget. In the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we heard from a serviceman, who spoke about the new generation, uniformed cadets and young people always willing to serve.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) rightly raised the importance of culture. The 14-18 NOW project has engaged 35 million people, immersing them in cultural integration activities. We heard my right hon. Friend’s poetry oration, and he spoke about the horror of war and the sacrifice for rightful freedom.

The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) talked about the trenches and the sunflowers in Gallipoli, and he told us about emotional sacrifice and terrible stories of the “goodnight kiss”. It was a passionate and brave contribution, highlighting that, moments before the Armistice, we still lost our brave men.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke about people coming home from war, including the story that the men left in one town were only enough to fill three pews in the church. He said that the huge effort of valour must always be remembered, and he reminded us that 20,000 men and boys were lost on the first day of the battle of the Somme.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) gave us a precious reflection on the Devonshires and spoke of the emancipation of women that came through the war—the gallantry of our men, and the impact of our women. I thank him for the huge amount of work he has done for this commemoration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) rightly told us about the bravery of our allies and the impact on Canadians, the US, Australians and people from New Zealand. He spoke of the struggle to return to normality after knowing such pain and of soldiers coming from foreign lands to do their duty.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) mentioned the sacrifice given to continue trade links and the connections between the Welsh and the Irish through Holyhead. He told us of 500 lives lost one night at sea; we will remember them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) spoke about Northumberland’s proud work to put together such a huge amount of battalions. There were 52 battalions and the regiment was awarded five VCs. She made a passionate, brave and typically emotional speech. She also spoke about the submarines, and it was news to me how dangerous serving on submarines could be.

I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for speaking about the importance of local cemeteries and about the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has done so much, contributing £96 million to over 2,000 projects to mark the centenary.

I find it so difficult not to mention everybody, but an important contribution for me was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who spoke about his great-grandmother—the foreboding matriarch who paid him 10p to put whisky in her tea. He mentioned the 1.7 million “surplus women” and quoted a headmistress who is said to have told girls, “You must make your way in the world as best you can,” after they lost brothers and others lost sons and they could perhaps have become the maiden generation.

I pay tribute to the huge amount of people who have been pivotal in the commemorations that we have been discussing, including the Royal British Legion, which has been at the heart of so much important activity over the last four years. In my constituency, Norman Brown MBE personally raised £1 million over 25 years to give to the Legion. The tireless community work done by people across the UK is incredible, and they are rightly well regarded. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, as we have heard, has sensitively maintained 23,000 sites in over 150 countries across the world.

I thank all hon. Members who have done so much. In particular, we have seen the remarkable contribution from the Prime Minister’s special representative for the first world war commemorations, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), whose work over six years in delivering these commemorations has been exceptional, alongside the hon. Member for Barnsley Central. I thank all our important devolved Administrations who, as we heard, do so much across the UK and across the world.

It has been heartening to see this House come together to pay tribute to those who tragically paid the ultimate price. We rightly thank all those who went to serve their country and all those who continue to serve their country, to show them that all they have done is right because it has protected our precious freedom. The parliamentary prayer said that we should unite and knit together, in the spirit of recognition and peace, as we reflect on the centenary of the end of a war that brought so much bloodshed and so much horror. Let us all pledge that the sentiments expressed today over in St Margaret’s Church will remain in our thoughts today and over the weekend and in our hearts forever. We will remember them.

Gaming Machines

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who has been a stalwart campaigner on this issue. As she pointed out, this is not just about individuals; it is about their families and the communities they live in, which is why it was important we took this decision.

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

It is most welcome that the Government have recognised that my father’s weekly pools coupon, my mother’s visit to the bingo hall and my aunt’s gambling, which, with working-class lyricism, she described as her “flutter on the gee-gees” were a far cry from the brutalising effects of these gambling machines. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who met me and others, and to his ministerial team for doing the right thing, rather than the easy thing. Will they now do the right thing by taking a very close look at online gambling and particularly online gambling that targets young children by using cartoon images and other devices to draw them in? This is an urgent matter. As Members on both sides of the Chamber have said, this is about social responsibility, and social responsibility is not the preserve of any one party in the House.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right that a great deal of further work needs to be done to protect vulnerable people, particularly children, from the harm of online gambling. We are looking at all those issues, and I expect the Gambling Commission to take a robust look at some of those he raises.

Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 General Committees

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful for support across the Committee for these measures, which are the right ones to introduce. They close a loophole and they will ensure that customers have greater clarity about what they are getting involved with.

I would like to address some of the additional points made by the hon. Member for Tooting: operators have logged a judicial review, but we have set out a robust defence of the legality of the issues and we believe that we are acting well within our powers in doing so. She asked about EuroMillions and the return to good causes. EuroMillions returns approximately 27% of its sales to good causes through the retail sector, and 33% through online sales. In contrast, betting operators can advertise the same jackpots—a key sales driver—at lower prices without any obligation to return a percentage to good causes, perhaps increasing some of the confusion to which the hon. Member for Wallasey referred.

The ban aims to eliminate customer confusion by protecting those who wish to buy a EuroMillions lottery ticket online from ending up on a betting site. We do not intend to prevent operators from offering bets on lotteries that do not form part of the national lottery to consumers who genuinely wish to place a legitimate bet on such a lottery. Betting on the national lottery is illegal, and this ban will bring betting on all EuroMillions products in line with the rest of the national lottery portfolio. We believe that that is a way of supporting customers to ensure they make the right decisions about what they are betting on, and for the right reasons. People are not aware that by betting on a lottery they are not returning any money to good causes—good causes that, as the hon. Member for Tooting pointed out, have returned billions of pounds to support a variety of projects.

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

The explanatory notes make the point that the number of non-UK EuroMillions bets is increasing. Indeed, the Gambling Commission has said that it has grown, endangering the pot of money that goes to good causes. I do not expect the Minister to be able to give details of the extent of that issue today, but will she let members of the Committee and others know how she sees that going, and at what point will it become a real problem for the amount of money that is distributed to the good causes that we all support?

[Tracey Crouch]

We face many challenges at the moment regarding the national lottery and the return to good causes. We are seeing some stabilisation of lottery sales, which is a good sign, and we have regular discussions via the Gambling Commission with Camelot about lottery sales. Today, we are specifically looking at EuroMillions, which gives 27% of its retail sales and 33% of its online sales to good causes. We want to ensure that we eradicate any threat to that by looking at closing the loophole that allows people to bet on EuroMillions. That is something that has been discussed over time, and we feel strongly that it is a way of supporting the good causes that people who play the national lottery believe they are getting involved in.