Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Nicolson and Oliver Dowden

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am a great supporter of Cornish culture and heritage, and I know of the outstanding reputation of Falmouth University. We have done a huge amount to support this country’s film industry, which is currently probably stronger than it has ever been, notwithstanding covid. I or one of my ministerial colleagues would be delighted to meet her to discuss what more we can do to support the Cornish film industry.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

Last week the Culture Secretary boasted that his Government were defending heritage. If only that were so. Cuts have led to almost 800 library closures, the Whitehall Bell Foundry has been passed by Tory Ministers into the hands of commercial developers after 450 years of continuous existence, and we have heard nothing of what will replace Creative Europe culture funding. What is the Culture Secretary’s focus in telling museums what statues they can have and blocking trustees that he does not like? As one museum curator said, “arm’s length” Government interference is now becoming “knuckle length” interference. Should the Culture Secretary not be focusing on sorting out the Brexit visa mess rather than on petty culture wars and museum meddling?

[Oliver Dowden]

There were an awful lot of questions wrapped into one from the hon. Gentleman, but in terms of what I am doing and where my primary focus is, it is about returning the things that we love and ensuring that we move from stage 3 to stage 4 of the road map to enable heritage attractions, theatres and companies up and down the country to operate normally again. We have given £2 billion-worth of support—the single largest injection by any Government ever—but I make no apology whatever for standing up for this country’s heritage against a small and noisy minority that wants to tear down the things that we enjoy as a nation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Nicolson and Oliver Dowden

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I share the hon. Lady’s passion for the creative industries. That is why we have put the support in, including in her own constituency. For example, the World Heart Beat Music Academy has received over £100,000, and the Exodus track and the Deptford Northern Soul Club have received over £50,000. On what we are doing to promote touring, there are basically three threads to it: first, we are working with the industry to help it overcome barriers. Secondly, we are working across Government to overcome barriers; and, thirdly, we continue to engage both with the Commission and member states to see what further support we can provide.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

I deeply regret that Ministers have rejected the EU’s offer. Like petulant weans, Ministers have walked away from negotiations on musicians’ and artists’ visas. The Government did not get what they wanted, and have given up. Stating that the UK’s door remains open is simply not good enough for the people who desperately need visa-free travel in the EU. Without it, there will be disastrous consequences. British haulage firms go on tours, but they will go bust. British crews will lose out to cheaper competitors from the EU, and all but the most successful bands will struggle to tour in Europe. The result will be bad for the economy and bad for culture. Surely the Secretary of State must now realise, as so many Tory MPs do, that renegotiations are the only option. Going off in a huff is not the answer; this is all far too important.

[Oliver Dowden]

To be clear to the hon. Gentleman, the reason why we rejected the offer from the European Union, which he seems so keen to accept, was that it was not binding, it did not cover touring, it did not cover technical support staff and, crucially, it did not cover work permits. Of course, we continue to engage with it, but I must say to him that the most devastating consequences for musicians in Scotland would be to rip our precious shared cultural heritage apart by pulling Scotland out of our Union—I would note that £450 million a year is generated in Scotland through domestic music tourism; 90% of the revenue is through domestic markets—and that would be terrible for Scottish musicians.

Online Harms Consultation

Debate between John Nicolson and Oliver Dowden

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee asks about the involvement of the Committee; we will of course seek to involve the Committee extensively in the prelegislative scrutiny. He has already made an important suggestion about dynamic monitoring, which we will of course consider as we firm up the legislation.

My hon. Friend talks about a video sharing; the exemption for news publishers to protect freedom of speech will apply to all their output and will include that.

My hon. Friend asks about disinformation; if disinformation—for example, anti-vax content—causes harm to individuals, it will be covered by the legislation, and I very much expect to set that out as one of the priority areas that would have to be addressed in secondary legislation.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his speech, much of which we SNP Members agree with.

At a time when anti-vax disinformation floods social media, when hate is spouted at minority groups under the cowardly veil of anonymity, often without consequence for the perpetrators, and when more children than ever before are using the internet and need to be shielded from harmful content, the proposed online harms Bill is welcome.

We welcome, too, the requirement that companies must accept a duty of care, and the fact that Ofcom will be the independent regulator—but it must be a regulator with teeth. As Dame Melanie Dawes, Ofcom’s boss, told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee a short while ago, Ofcom needs much-enhanced powers to be effective; what additional powers will she have?

To enjoy maximum support in the House, the Bill must, while balancing the right to free expression, tackle illegal content as well as content that is potentially harmful but not illegal. In particular, companies must protect all children from harm, and the Government are right to recognise that.

The covid epidemic and lockdown have seen a surge in homophobia and transphobia online. The TIE—Time for Inclusive Education—campaign reports a 72% rise in attacks on and cyber-bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people, with organisations such as the so-called LGB Alliance leading the onslaught. In that context, surely there is a case for looking again at social media anonymity. Noms de plume are fine, but we believe that users’ identities should be known to the social media publishers—they should not be completely anonymous in all circumstances. Does the Secretary of State agree with that?

Social media disinformation has been especially pernicious during the covid pandemic. Experts tell us that the disinformation during this crisis is unparalleled in the internet era, and the consequences of online harm can be catastrophic, undermining public trust, faith in health officials and acceptance of the value of the vaccine now being rolled out.

In principle, we welcome much in the proposals. Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating—exactly how tough the Government are prepared to be in reality, how hard they will be on the social media companies, and whether they will enforce some of the proposals—but we welcome it.

[Oliver Dowden]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the legislation. He raised some important points. On anonymity, we have not taken powers to remove anonymity because it is very important for some people—for example, victims fleeing domestic violence and children who have questions about their sexuality that they do not want their families to know they are exploring. There are many reasons to protect that anonymity.

The hon. Gentleman talks about Ofcom; over the years, we have seen Ofcom rise to the challenge of increased responsibilities and I am confident that it will continue to do so. We will of course look to Ofcom to bring in independent expertise to help it in that process. It will clearly require a step change from Ofcom, but Dame Melanie Dawes and others are very much alert to that.

The hon. Gentleman talks about misinformation and disinformation. There are three things that we have to do to address those. First, we have to rely on trusted sources. We are so fortunate in this country to have well-established newspapers and broadcasters that are committed to public service information. We have seen that through the covid crisis, which is why we have supported them through this period. Secondly, we have to rebut false information. Through the Cabinet Office, we are working 24/7 to do that. Finally, we have to work with the tech companies themselves. For example, the Health Secretary and I have recently secured commitments to remove misinformation and disinformation within 48 hours and, crucially, not to profit from it. To the hon. Gentleman’s central concern, I think these measures really do mark a step change in our approach to tech firms. The old certainties are changing, and we are taking decisive action.

Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee

Debate between John Nicolson and Oliver Dowden

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

Seventy years in the one job is a remarkable achievement, and we on these Benches congratulate the Queen on the occasion of her platinum jubilee. My mother, who died this summer, was the same age as the Queen. A left-wing, pro-European Scottish nationalist, she always had a bit of a soft spot for her contemporary. Mum was not a natural monarchist, but she shared a sense, as so many of that generation do, that they had gone through a dark time together; the war, she felt, had given them a bond.

The UK has changed beyond all recognition in the seven decades since the Queen came to the throne. In 1953, we were still living with the brutal consequences of a war that had seen slaughter on an unprecedented scale all across Europe and the far east. We were a new nuclear power; rationing was in place; and we were to have a new national health service treating people on the basis of need, not money. Families like my own no longer needed to live in fear of facing a choice between food and medicine. It was an age of deference: our colonies were demanding and getting independence; and there were stirrings of demands for Scottish independence, with the first SNP Member of Parliament elected in Motherwell. Westminster MPs were arguing about Europe, however, so perhaps some things have not changed that much. We recognise the years and dedication Elizabeth I, Queen of Scots, has put into a job she might not have chosen.

Politicians often have a peculiar idea of what the Queen is going to enjoy when they arrange parties for her—who can forget her look of elation when standing in the dome with Peter Mandelson one damp London Hogmanay? So I make a plea to the Secretary of State: try to arrange a shindig she would really enjoy—maybe a ceilidh; at 96, I think she deserves it.

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and perhaps I should put on record my thanks to the Scottish Government, and indeed the Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments, for their support in bringing this together. He is absolutely right to highlight both the constants and the changes throughout Her Majesty’s reign. He is also absolutely right that we want to make this a party and a celebration to remember. One of the things that was always put up on the wall during the Olympic games was, “Just make sure it’s not like the millennium dome celebrations.” I shall not comment on it this time around, but we are ensured that we have the very finest brains and minds to make sure that it is a great occasion.

UK Telecommunications

Debate between John Nicolson and Oliver Dowden

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend’s point is absolutely right: how do we ensure that this is future-proofed? The first thing that we have said throughout all this is that we will depend on advice from the NCSC and keep our security situation under review. In terms of the irreversibility of the decision to remove Huawei from the 5G network, first, it will be in the Bill, so it will be set out in statute. Secondly, by the end of this Parliament the flow of Huawei equipment into 5G will have stopped, and we will be well through the path of the stop, because we have set out the path to the end of 2027. Unless the Opposition are going to say that they will come into office, immediately repeal all this legislation and instruct all telecoms providers to almost exclusively procure from Huawei, we have dealt with Huawei in the 5G network through this announcement.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

Well, well, well. Here we go again—another screeching handbrake turn. When we debated this in January, SNP Members warned the Government that Huawei could not be trusted with our 5G mobile network. Security experts were clear: we should not open up the central nervous system of our modern society to a company owned by the Chinese Communist party. With that characteristic combination of error and overconfidence, the Foreign Secretary opined that I had got my analysis wrong “on all counts”, but it seems not: less than six months later, we are witnessing yet another of the volte-faces that are fast becoming a hallmark of this Government. Small wonder, then, that Ministers and Back Benchers are reluctant to be wheeled out in defence of a Government policy on Monday, knowing that they could be required to argue the polar opposite on Tuesday.

Of course it is right that Huawei should be banned from the UK’s mobile networks, but that is a decision that should have been taken long ago. As I said to the Foreign Secretary in January, had the Government acted in 2018 as the Australians did, our mobile operators’ 5G roll-out plans would have been in an infinitely healthier place. As it is, we will now pay the price for the Government’s ineptitude. We know it, the Secretary of State knows it and increasingly restive Tory Back Benchers know it, so how was it that the Prime Minister thought that China and Huawei could be trusted, or at least managed, in January, but not now in July? Was it that a Brexit Britain was too weak and isolated to upset the world’s second largest economic powerhouse, but that the Government have now been forced to acknowledge that they cannot sacrifice our national security even for Brexit?

Countering the intelligence threat posed by China will require more than just the phase-out of Huawei. It will involve a rethink of our investment in native companies. We must now also work to protect our 999 emergency services network from the fall-out of this decision. Will the Secretary of State outline how exactly he will do so?

We welcome this climbdown. What will the Secretary of State now do, after all the Government’s mistakes, to help us to catch up?

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the January 2020 advice. That advice was based on advice from the National Cyber Security Centre, which was working with GCHQ. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that those organisations are probably a better source to rely on than he is. As a result of that advice, we were absolutely clear-eyed about the threat from Chinese vendors; that is why we deemed Huawei and ZTE high-risk vendors, why we banned them from the core of the network, and why we imposed a cap and banned them from the most sensitive elements.

It is, though, a fact that the United States has imposed sanctions on Huawei. The consequence of these sanctions, as we have been advised by the NCSC, is that we can no longer rely upon Huawei equipment. It is therefore in the security interests of the United Kingdom to ban any further use of that equipment by ruling out further purchases of it. That is the right thing to do in the national interest. If the facts change, we change our policy, and that is exactly what we have done. We will then enshrine it in law through the telecoms security Bill.

The hon. Gentleman talked about investment in other companies, and those are important points. We are addressing that through the national security and investment Bill, which will also come before the House. Throughout all this, we have been completely clear-eyed about the threat posed by Chinese companies and taken appropriate steps in relation to it.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between John Nicolson and Oliver Dowden

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

The convention is that representatives of the NCSC appear only before the ISC, but when I spoke to the NCSC’s director this morning, I suggested—and he agreed—that he should appear before any appropriate Committee, such as, perhaps, the Defence or the Foreign Affairs Committee. We will seek maximum engagement before that, so that the Committee can have all the relevant information.

I have made my points about the Government’s position, and about the opportunity to debate these issues again. I do not know whether I have convinced my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, but I hope that he will consider withdrawing his amendment and allowing the House to discuss his proposal in due course when the telecoms security Bill is introduced, before the summer recess.

[John Nicolson]

I support amendment 1. I think that the Secretary of State took eight or nine interventions, and I was interested in his language. As a journalist, I know that when politicians talk about “moving towards”, it means that there is no end in sight, and that “like to” means “perhaps, but I am not going to give any commitment of any kind”. We could sense the feeling of disappointment on the Conservative Benches.

The Secretary of State said that he would never compromise safety and security, and then went on to detail all the ways in which he was compromising the nation’s safety and security. Huawei is not a normal company. Huawei is an arm of the Chinese state., which is exactly why our fellow members of Five Eyes are so frustrated by the Government’s behaviour. We are also being told repeatedly that only a certain percentage of the nation’s infrastructure will be surrendered, but, as I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), that suggests a misunderstanding of the whole nature of 5G.

I apologise for my hoarseness, Madam Deputy Speaker. Please excuse me while I drink the water with which I have been provided. I always think it is terribly unfair that Labour Front Benchers are given glasses while we are forced to rely on plastic—that is yet another example of anti-Scottish discrimination in this place—but I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah).

The distinction in 5G between core and edge collapses. There is no distinction: that is the point. It is meaningless twaddle to keep talking as if 5G were no different from current technology. I recognise, of course, that the Government are between a rock and a hard place, facing a decision between spiralling costs and high security, but here in the UK we have spent, and continue to spend, billions of pounds on the development, maintenance and renewal of 20th-century defence systems that simply are not fit to face the security challenges of the modern era. Those who pose the biggest threats that we now face— terrorism, climate change and, of course, cyber-attacks—will not be deterred by multi-billion-pound nuclear missiles in the Firth of Forth.