Covid-19 Update

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to everybody at the Henfield Medical Centre doing this incredible work. It is really uplifting being in a health centre. If Members have not been to a vaccination centre as a Member of this House, I would highly recommend it because it is such an uplifting experience. I am really glad that it is being carried out ever closer to home for people as we expand the number of vaccination sites, of which there are now more than 1,400 across England.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]]

The maximum sentence for a person lying on their locator form will be 10 years in prison. What will the minimum sanction be for that offence? The cost of the hotel, including testing and transport, will be £750 for 10 days. Can the Secretary of State give the House an absolute assurance that that represents good value for money to passengers and that there is no undue profiteering?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely. One of the things that we have been doing in our discussions with hotel groups and others is ensuring value for money as much as possible for passengers. Hence we have managed to get the costs down to £1,750 for an individual traveller in a room alone.

Covid-19 Vaccine Roll-out

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, today has been a celebration of progress we have been able to make, but there is a huge amount more to do, not just in the roll-out but in making sure we have the future vaccines that may be necessary, and the capacity in this country to manufacture and deliver the next generation of vaccine technologies. The advance in vaccine technology over the past 11 months globally has been extraordinary and it is critical that we in the UK have that future capability. That is something the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), the Minister with responsibility for vaccine roll-out, is concentrating on very clearly.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Thank goodness for science, thank goodness for international co-operation and thank goodness for our NHS. As a Member of Parliament representing the capital city of Wales, obviously I am very interested in how the different parts of the United Kingdom are going to get the vaccine. Can the Secretary of State tell us a bit more about the work his Department is doing with the devolved Administrations to make sure the vaccine is distributed quickly and fairly to all four nations of our UK?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, this is a UK project that is being done through the NHS in the four nations. The Welsh Government are playing their part. I spoke to Vaughan Gething, my Welsh opposite number, last night to ensure the roll-out was co-ordinated and the final details put in place. There are seven hospitals in Wales that are injecting the vaccine today. I want to thank everybody across Wales for their forbearance. This has been a tough time in Wales. There are still sacrifices to be made while we keep the virus under control until the vaccine can get rolled out through enough of the vulnerable population and we can return life more to normal.

Covid-19: R Rate and Lockdown Measures

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course, that is taken into account in the clinical decision on the order of priority for testing. My right hon Friend makes a very important point that I will ensure is taken away and looked at, to check this for people in those settings outside formal social care, which are often not Care Quality Commission registered but still have a much higher proportion of elderly people who are vulnerable to this disease in them. I will ensure that that is properly looked into and, if I may, I will write to the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee on that point.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that the Government are taking a safety-first approach, and yet Professor John Edmunds has expressed concern that if we relax, the infection will come back very fast. In Wales, there has been a more cautious approach to people being able to travel such long distances, as we saw the weekend before last in Dorset. What will the Secretary of State do if the R number drifts back above 1?

[Matt Hancock]

I do not want to see the R number go above 1. I spoke to Professor Edmunds at the weekend, as it happens. He said, quite rightly, that a cautious approach is needed, but there is scope to allow some opening up, according to our plan.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The Prime Minister was clear in his address to the nation; I have been clear in my statement today; and the guidance on gov.uk is absolutely clear on this point.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Many hon. Members are not here because they are being responsible and allowing some of us to represent them, so that we can observe proper social distancing. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) has asked me to raise the issue of irresponsible employers. She tells me that the Home Office in Sheffield is requiring workers to come in to do word processing and administrative work that could be done at home. Will the Secretary of State undertake to communicate my hon. Friend’s concerns to the Home Secretary, and if what my hon. Friend describes is the case, ask the Home Secretary to put a stop to it straightaway and set a good example?

[Matt Hancock]

I will ensure that that is looked into.

Coronavirus Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Coronavirus is the most serious public health emergency that has faced the world in a century. We are all targets, but the disease reserves its full cruelty for the weakest and the most vulnerable. To defeat it, we are proposing extraordinary measures of a kind never seen before in peacetime. Our goal is to protect life and to protect every part of the NHS. This Bill, jointly agreed with all four UK Governments, gives us the power to fight the virus with everything that we have.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Like many hon. Members, I have had a huge number of issues raised with me by NHS workers regarding the availability of personal protective equipment to frontline staff and testing. I know the Secretary of State wants to protect NHS staff through the Bill, so will he take the opportunity of Second Reading to update us, perhaps with any information he has from across the UK, about progress on these matters?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. If it is okay with you, Mr Speaker, I will answer that intervention and then get on with the point in the Bill. These issues are outwith the Bill, but they are incredibly important and very much part of the topic.

In terms of making sure that NHS staff, social care staff and those who need it clinically get the protective equipment they need—especially but not only the masks— we are undertaking enormous efforts to get that equipment out. The equipment is there; we have it. It is a distribution effort. I was not satisfied with the stories I heard of people running short, so we have brought in the military to help with the logistical effort. I want to hear from every single member of staff in the NHS or in social care who needs that equipment but does not have it, so we have also introduced a hotline and an email address, which is manned. I have had an update on that, and it has had a number of calls, which are all being responded to. In that way, we will find out where the gaps are, so that we can get this distribution out. It is a mammoth effort; we have been working on it for several weeks, but the increase in the use of the protective equipment in the last week has been very sharp, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the House will understand. The logistical effort is very significant.

We are expanding the amount of testing. We are buying tests, both ones made abroad and ones made here in the UK, because testing is absolutely vital to getting out of this situation. I want to get to a point where anybody who wants to get tested can get tested. At the moment, we are having to reserve the tests we have for patients, especially in intensive care, so that they can be properly treated according to whether or not they have coronavirus. Very soon, we are getting the tests out to frontline staff so that they can get back to work, where somebody in their household might have the symptoms and they are household-isolating. I understand absolutely the importance of testing. We are working on it incredibly hard. We were working on it all weekend, and we are making some progress.

Covid-19

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Just as we have introduced a national effort for ventilators, so we are introducing a national effort for volunteers, and my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is leading that drive.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

In answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) earlier, the Secretary of State made it clear that he wanted everybody to be tested at home if they had the symptoms. What is the difference between the number of new cases currently and the number of tests that are currently available per day?

[Matt Hancock]

Our estimate of the total number of new cases is significantly higher than the available number of tests right now, which is why we need to increase testing capacity so quickly.

Coronavirus

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I add my condolences to the family and loved ones of the patient who has died at New Cross Hospital. I want to thank the staff at the hospital who have acted in an exemplary way and to reassure other patients at the hospital that the steps that are necessary to ensure that the hospital is safe have, of course, been taken and that my hon. Friend’s constituents can be confident that her local NHS has risen to this task.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On the point about people who have booked holidays and cruises and who are perhaps doing the right thing by considering not going on them, I have to say that, even though they are insured, they are not always covered to do so unless they have been specifically told not to travel to that country. What are the Government doing to assist people in that sort of situation?

[Matt Hancock]

We constantly keep travel advice under review, and have made covid-19 a notifiable disease. Both those measures will help with the circumstances outlined by the hon. Gentleman.

Coronavirus

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course, that would be the obvious next step. I will not confirm that—we do not need it yet—but that is all part of the plan.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Irish authorities have already advised the Irish Rugby Football Union to call off the Six Nations game against Italy, which obviously affects the north, as it is a Northern Ireland team as well. England are due to play Italy in the Six Nations in a few weeks. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and with the sporting authorities about advising what to do in relation to the Six Nations championship and other sporting events?

[Matt Hancock]

Obviously, DDCMS is involved in the cross-Government decision making on these things. Our goal is to minimise social disruption—of which this is an important part for any rugby fan—subject to keeping the public safe. These are difficult balances to strike sometimes, and I will be discussing the matter with the new Secretary of State at DDCMS.

Wuhan Coronavirus

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

That is an excellent idea. We are open to all ideas of that kind and I will look directly into it.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and making this statement. I have a question about the use of this term “super-spreader”. In past outbreaks, people categorised in that way have often been demonised. Will he take this opportunity to explain to people that these so-called super-spreaders might have no idea they have contracted the virus and should in no way be blamed or demonised for spreading it?

[Matt Hancock]

This is a really good point, and I want to make two points on it. First, those who have contracted the virus are ill and deserve our sympathy and support. I know from the incredible way they have responded to the need to undertake contact tracing that all those in the UK who we have been working with because they have tested positive have acted in an exemplary way and done everything that society could have asked of them to make sure the virus is contained. I pay tribute to the way they have responded to public health officials and the NHS and thank them for doing that.

On a second connected point, anybody who thinks it appropriate, in response to this challenge, to demonise or abuse anybody from the British-Chinese community, or anybody of Chinese or east Asian origin, is completely wrong and is being counter-productive to the efforts being made across the country and the world to tackle this virus.

Access to Medical Cannabis

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We looked at observational trials, but the problem is that they do not build the evidence base that a full RCT does. A full RCT also allows some patients to get access while the trial is ongoing, so it is in fact a better proposal. It means that some patients can get the treatment now for the purposes of the trial, and then we can get a full evidence base for the long term, as was mentioned previously.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The law may be an ass, but it does not have to be applied in an asinine way, as it was in the case of Emma Appleby. Will the Secretary of State have words with the Home Secretary to make sure that it is not repeated? My constituent, Bailey Williams, is 16 years of age and suffers from the most severe form of epilepsy. He has multiple seizures every day. His parents, Rachel and Craig, are absolutely convinced that we need observational trials and more immediate action. I accept that this was unintended, but sadly the change in the law has made things worse, not better, for those parents. What will the Secretary of State do to turn that around quickly?

[Matt Hancock]

It is a source of deep frustration to me that the change in the law to normalise the use of medicinal cannabis has, exactly as the hon. Gentleman says, meant that, because a clinical decision is needed for a prescription, and because in many cases clinical decisions are not forthcoming, many parents who entirely understandably think that their child would benefit from medicinal cannabis now find that they cannot get a clinician to sign it off. That is at the root of the problems that we are trying to tackle today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We are enormously enthusiastic about the advances in robotics, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I would love to hear more about that laboratory. We put £1 billion of public and private funds into AI just two weeks ago, and there is a lot more to do to ensure that we remain world leaders in this amazing technology.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am sure the whole House will want to congratulate Cardiff City on their rightful return to the premier league.

When the Secretary of State was scouring the newspapers this morning searching for favourable headlines about himself, did he see the story in The Times relating to the fixed odds betting terminals decision and the need to reduce the maximum stake to £2? The intervention by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Ms McVey), has apparently blocked the Secretary of State from being able to make that announcement. Who is in charge of gambling policy in this country—him or the right hon. Member for Tatton?

[Matt Hancock]

Me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

What action does the Secretary of State think should be taken against an app that breaches key provisions of the Data Protection Act and the privacy and electronic communications regulations, and that is not GDPR—general data protection regulation—compliant?

[Matt Hancock]

I think that all apps should be compliant with the law, and I am delighted to say that the Matt Hancock app is.

[Kevin Brennan]

Exactly, because the app I am talking about does not just belong to the Secretary of State, but is named after him, and the general public need to be protected from their privacy being invaded by Matt Hancock, their personal information being shared with third parties by Matt Hancock and their private photos being accessed by Matt Hancock. Will he undertake to ensure that Matt Hancock complies fully with all data protection regulations in future, and explain why he thinks other people should abide by their legal obligations with regard to data protection if Matt Hancock does not?

Uber: Personal Data Theft

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

When Transport for London announced on 22 September that it would not renew Uber’s licence in London, Uber emailed its customers the very same day to ask them to protest against the decision. Does the Minister agree that if it could email all its customers then, it should do so now, and begin that communication with an apology?

I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. Can he give us a rough idea—I know he said he was looking into the precise figures—of how many customers and drivers in the UK had their personal information compromised by the hack and what kind of data was compromised? What was the first contact Uber had with the Government and when did it happen? When did he personally become aware of this security breach? In his view and that of the Government, has Uber broken current UK law? If Uber has not done so already, will the Minister or the Secretary of State call Uber into the Department immediately, or over the weekend if necessary, to explain itself and give more information about the breach?

Given the magnitude of the breach, has the Minister satisfied himself about the facts of the case, particularly given that if regulation requires strengthening, we can do it right now in the other place in the Data Protection Bill, as he has pointed out? I think that he said in his answer that he learned about the breach on Tuesday. Can he confirm that despite that, just yesterday in the House of Lords, the Government blocked the ability of consumer groups such as Which? to initiate action for victims of data breaches? Will he commit now—I think that he said he was prepared to make some movement—to reversing that position when the amendment comes before the House of Lords on Report, to show that we are on the side of consumers and employers, not huge corporations that are careless with our data?

[Matt Hancock]

I will try to address all the hon. Gentleman’s questions. We do not have sufficient confidence in the number that Uber has told us to go public on it, but we are working with the National Cyber Security Centre and the ICO to have more confidence in the figure. He will remember in the Equifax breach that the initial figure suggested went up. We want to get to the bottom of it and will publish further details within days, and if required I will be happy to come before the House to take further questions.

The hon. Gentleman asked when I personally knew about the breach. I knew about it when I was alerted by the media. As far as we are aware, the first notification to UK authorities—whether the Government, the ICO or the NCSC—was through the media. He asked whether Uber has done anything illegal under current UK law, which of course would be a matter for the courts, but I think there is a very high chance that it has.

The hon. Gentleman asked about taking action on behalf of data subjects following a data breach. I am strongly in favour of people being able to take action following a data breach, and we are legislating for that. The question debated yesterday in the other place was whether people should have to give their consent to action being taken on their behalf, and the whole principle behind the Data Protection Bill is to increase the level of consent required and people’s control over their own data. The proposed amendment pushed in the opposite direction, which is why we rejected it yesterday, but we will have the debate in this House, too.

Leaving the EU: Data Protection

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

First, let me apologise for my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) who has recently joined our team and would normally be speaking on these matters. He is currently fulfilling a prior obligation to speak at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. It is nice to have him on our team as we served together in the Cabinet Office in government, along with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), and we all look forward to serving in government again very soon in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

If I may, I will just correct the Minister, who inadvertently misinformed the House. Of course, Gibraltar is not part of the United Kingdom. It is an overseas territory. It is technically part of the European Union, although it is obviously excluded from the customs union and the common agricultural policy.

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Of course, Gibraltar is part of the UK family. I should have been clearer about that, but I am glad that we have cleared that up.

[Kevin Brennan]

As ever, the Minister is modest enough to accept when he makes a mistake and correct the record.

There are few debates that are more important than those concerning trade, especially in the context of the decision of the UK to exit the European Union with all the impact that that could have on the UK economy. As the Minister quite rightly said, in the 21st century there is nothing much more important to trade than data. As we have heard, 43% of EU tech companies are based in the United Kingdom and three quarters of the UK’s cross-border data flows are with other European Union countries. These data flows are essential for UK trade. Approximately half of all trade in services is enabled by digital technologies and the associated data flows.

Effective modern data protection laws that set down strong rights and protections are vital if the public are to have any trust in the use of personal information within the digital economy, the delivery of public services and the fight against crime. Ensuring that the public can trust that their data is handled safely, whether in the public or private sector, is important for us all. We need to get the Data Protection Bill right—as the Minister pointed out, the Bill has been introduced in the other place and is there as we speak—to implement the new European Union rules on data protection contained in the general data protection regulation. If we do not get it right, people will not benefit to the fullest extent from the new digital services that are coming online all the time. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased that the Opposition welcome the Bill. We deeply regret that the Government opposed our previous attempts to strengthen data protection at the time of the passage of the Digital Economy Act 2017, just a few short months ago, but better late than never. In scrutinising the Data Protection Bill, we will ensure that it is not too little, too late.

So far, the Government have talked the talk about their commitment to unhindered, uninterrupted data flows post-Brexit, but the Data Protection Bill does not really set out fully how they plan to deliver on that promise. Even if the Bill succeeds in bringing UK law into line with the EU’s data protection framework by the deadline of 25 May 2018, it does not necessarily mean that the Bill provides for the future. On leaving the EU, the Government will need to satisfy the European Commission that the UK’s data protection framework provides an “adequate level of protection”. The Government and the Minister today seem to be saying that achieving a positive adequacy decision will be easy, but it might not be as easy as the Minister indicated.

Under article 45 of the general data protection regulation, the European Commission is required to consider a number of issues including, among other things, existing surveillance practices. As Lord Stevenson said in the other place on Tuesday, several commentators have indicated that the current activities of British intelligence services could

“jeopardise a positive adequacy decision”

since data protection rules

“do not offer an equivalent standard of protection to that available in the rest of the EU.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2017; Vol. 785, c. 129.]

Lord Stevenson asked the Government how they might square this circle, but unfortunately received no answer. I understand we will have the intense and unusual pleasure of a second contribution from the Minister in this debate—I foreshadow that by indicating to the House that I will also seek permission to respond on behalf of the Opposition in a similar fashion—so perhaps he could answer that question during his closing remarks.

The Government seem to have lost sight of the need to ensure continuity during the transition period and beyond. They must have measures in place to reassure all those businesses that have taken advantage of the UK as the gateway to Europe that they will pass the adequacy test and ensure that stability and certainty. Given that we need a new data protection regime for sharing data across the channel and the Irish sea, we may as well get this new regime right for consumers as well as businesses. At a time of increasing concern about the misuse of personal data by certain companies, is not there a need for a far more stringent regulatory structure than that contained in the Data Protection Bill?

Colleagues in the other place have already remarked that the tech giants that dominate the digital economy and the market for data have, for too long, got away with portraying themselves as purely neutral platforms. They are not, as each of their business models—not to mention their share value—is predicated on the data flows that they generate and monetise. It has become a cliché, but in a very real sense data is the new oil in the economy.

We should also speak about children in the context of data protection. The Minister did not mention this part of the Government’s plans in his remarks, but I hope he refers to it when he sums up. Children and young people are at the leading edge of the online world, with 75% of 10 to 12-year-olds and 96% of 13 to 18-year-olds using social media sites, with Facebook ranked at the top. Sadly, this has resulted in children and teens being treated as data assets by business, with their personal data stolen and sold without informed consent on a regular basis. That cannot be right. The Data Protection Bill represents an opportunity to right this wrong, but the current drafting of the Bill does not give us much cause for hope in that area.

The Government have chosen to derogate from the general data protection regulation, as the Minister mentioned, by setting the minimum age for a child consenting to the processing of personal data at 13 years of age, rather than 16. Why have they chosen to derogate in that fashion? As John Carr, a member of the executive board of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, which was set up under the last Labour Government, has noted, perhaps the age of 13 was chosen because when Ireland—where the big social media companies are based—decided on 13 years of age, the UK’s decision was all but irrelevant. Does the Minister agree with that? If that is not the case, what is his explanation for why the Government chose to make this derogation? They claimed in their statement of intent published in August:

“Child online safety is one of the top priorities for this government”.

If so, 16 would have been a better age, as Sonia Livingstone, professor of social psychology in the department of media and communications at the London School of Economics, has argued.

Some people might argue that a lower minimum age is good for younger people’s participation in the digital world, but evidence from the regulator, Ofcom, shows quite clearly that fewer than half of 12 to 15-year-olds can identify an online-sponsored result, let alone understand how companies exploit their personal data. If the Government insist on staying the course with regard to this derogation, they must at the very least guarantee to the House today that they will ensure a significant increase in media education and digital literacy among young people. I hope that the Minister will refer to that in his response. This returns us to the responsibilities of social media and other online businesses.

While we may debate where the minimum age of consent should be fixed, the fact that the Bill does not place any requirements on these companies to prevent under-age access to their services is a glaring oversight, especially from a Government who claim that child online safety is one of their top priorities. The Leader of the House so memorably described Jane Austen in this Chamber not so long ago as

“one of our greatest living authors”—[Official Report, 20 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 1004.]

To paraphrase Jane Austen, it is a truth universally acknowledged that the Government are making a complete Horlicks of the article 50 negotiations, as we saw again just this morning. At least, they have now taken up our policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Just on a point of English language, it is clearly not a truth universally acknowledged, because I do not acknowledge it.

[Kevin Brennan]

Well, at least the Minister did not claim that Jane Austen was our greatest living author—I will give him credit for that.

I give the Minister and the Government credit for taking up our policy of having a transitional period with regard to Brexit to give themselves a little more time. The price of getting data protection wrong would obviously be enormous, because so many companies rely on transmitting data across the single market.

For many years, we have talked of the four freedoms—the free movement of goods, services, capital and people—but there is a fifth freedom, because, in reality, we have created one of the world’s leading regimes for data transfer, which has allowed our tech companies to grow, flourish and prosper. It would be a disaster if any division, dithering or incompetence around the Brexit negotiations now imperilled that achievement.

The Government have set themselves a very tight schedule for passing the Bill into law before the end of April 2018. As I have indicated, the Opposition will support the main principles of the Bill, but there is a great deal of work still to be done, with several areas needing to be scrutinised, and the Government need to be prepared to amend the Bill to rectify some of the inadequacies I have indicated during my remarks.

All of us in this place owe it to the public, and especially to children, to get this legislation right. We cannot afford to fail just because of the dysfunctionality at the heart of the Government, and I hope the Minister will not be complacent on that score.

BBC Transparency

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Thursday 7th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am so sorry to have kept you away from the debate on the withdrawal from the European Union—a subject that I know is very close to your heart.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing this important and over-subscribed debate about transparency in and of the BBC. He gave a number of examples of concerns with the BBC, many of which relate to specific accusations within BBC Northern Ireland. I am sure that the BBC has heard his concerns loud and clear; he was certainly transparent about his frustration. I understand that the BBC has offered to meet him, and I encourage him to take up that offer, but I also encourage the BBC to respond in substance to his concerns.

As many Members have said, the BBC is one of our most treasured institutions. I declare no financial interest, but I do declare that I love the BBC and think it is a very important British institution. It is an engine for creativity and growth, and I am proud of its role here and around the world.

The BBC receives £4 billion of public funding every year through the TV licence fee, which is a tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said, the BBC, as a public service broadcaster funded by the public, must be as open and transparent as possible. The public rightly expect the BBC to be scrutinised effectively and to know how it spends our money—and I say “our” not as a Minister, but as a licence fee payer.

I strongly support the transparency that has been brought to the BBC through the charter settlement. It will improve the BBC and bring it into line with other public services, other parts of Government and, indeed, our politics, which has got radically more transparent in recent years. Improving efficiency and transparency was central to the charter review, and we have insisted on a whole series of changes in the charter to address these issues.

I agree with those who said we were right to introduce that transparency. Alongside it was effective, modern governance. It will be the responsibility of the new BBC board to deliver further transparency and greater efficiencies across overheads, including what needs to be done to lower the pay bill, where appropriate. The National Audit Office has become the BBC’s financial auditor for the very first time, as it is for the rest of the public sector. It will be able to do value-for-money studies on the BBC’s commercial subsidiaries, which return profits to the BBC, thereby generating public money. Of course, Ofcom is now independently regulating the BBC. A point that was brought up and has strong cross-party agreement is that it is important that an independent regulator regulates the BBC.

I was surprised at the comments of the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan), and by the Labour Front Bench’s opposition to seeing more diversity and distinctiveness at the BBC: we have had complaints by the Labour party about our calls for more diversity in the BBC. Of course I have a view on the level of diversity in the BBC, and I just wish the Labour party would join in. Where I do agree is that the BBC needs to look at pay across the piece, at all levels. I had much more sympathy with the point made powerfully by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) about the powers to insist on transparency for the BBC in other areas of diversity.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Bone. I think the Minister might have inadvertently misled the House by saying that the Labour Front Bench, during the course of the debate, had opposed levels of diversity within the BBC.

[Matt Hancock]

I did not say that it did so during the debate. It did when the deputy leader of the Labour party, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, wrote to us attacking our insistence on more diversity at the BBC. Maybe the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) needs to have a word with his colleague and try to bring him into line. We are in favour of more diversity. At the moment, the Labour party is not, and I suggest it does something about that.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

That was a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) satisfied?

[Kevin Brennan]

indicated dissent.

[Matt Hancock]

I think the hon. Gentleman needs to go and sort that out with his colleague. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made—

Local and Regional News

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Thursday 30th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

I think it is more likely that he has bought the NUJ rather than joined it, having looked at his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Nevertheless, we miss him. I hope that the Minister, who I know is very friendly with the right hon. Gentleman, will send him our warm regards and our regret that he was unable to join us. I am sure he is very fruitfully engaged elsewhere, rather than being here in this debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon in our House of Commons.

I should also thank the Minister for kindly gracing us with his presence, albeit slightly late. I am sure there was a very good reason why he was not able to be here. As a man known for his humility, I am sure he will explain that to the Chamber when he gets up to address us after I sit down.

[Mike Gapes in the Chair]

Since other Members have given us the benefit of their experience, I will do the same. I started off after university as a news editor of a local community paper in my home town of Cwmbran. It was a fairly humble publication called Cwmbran Checkpoint, but nevertheless we did a lot of journalism of the kind that Members have talked about—reporting on local council meetings, holding the local council to account and publishing stories of local interest.

Of course, the media have been transformed in the 30 or so years since I performed that humble role—much more humble than that of the right hon. Member for Tatton, obviously. We had golf ball typewriters, we laid out the text using wax rollers and we had Letraset to make headlines. It was very different back then in the analogue world—the Minister is far too young to know anything about that, but he can read about it in the history books. It was a very different world than we have now. Hon. Members have rightly pointed out that the technological revolution that has taken place over the last few decades has transformed media and had a big impact on local media in particular.

We have all agreed this afternoon that regional and local media are crucial to the strength of our communities and the health of our democracy. It is, therefore, a pleasure to speak in this debate in the week celebrating Local News Matters. Whether on paper or on screen, local news has a wide readership, reaching 40 million people a week. People continue to trust local journalists, perhaps a bit more than they trust national journalists. In some ways, perhaps there is an analogy with politics: people are generally in favour of their local MP but not necessarily in favour of politicians in general. The same impact is seen sometimes in local journalism.

I am sure that every hon. Member—we have heard from many this afternoon—is able to name local papers, news websites, radio stations and even, these days, local TV stations in their constituencies that help create a sense of local pride and identity, and inform residents about local issues. In my city of Cardiff, there are many outlets, including Radio Cardiff, Wales Online, the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo, not to mention the local BBC productions and Welsh-language publications such as Y Dinesydd, all of which make an important contribution at a local level.

However, as we have heard, research by the Press Gazette suggests that local and regional news provision is reducing. Since 2005, 200 newspapers have ceased circulation and the number of journalists has more than halved. We can all wax lyrical about our constituency’s local news provision and its contribution to our local communities, but the reason we are having this debate is that the future of those outlets is far from secure. There are fewer local papers, fewer local journalists and fewer local editorial teams, being run by an ever smaller number of conglomerates. As we have heard in the debate, about three quarters of the local press is owned by a mere four companies.

It is not just about the number of papers and reporters. There is also the issue of independence and the resources available to journalists and editors to hold authorities to account at a local level. Research by Cardiff University that followed the trends in local journalism in Port Talbot from 1970 to 2015 found that over time, as hon. Members have mentioned, fewer and fewer stories were informed by journalists attending meetings in person, while the use of managed media sources, such as press releases, rose to more than 50%. Journalists increasingly quoted high status sources, with less input from members of the public. Naturally, that affects the ability of local media to scrutinise those who make decisions about their communities.

I do not think anyone is suggesting that we can turn the clock back to the days when I and others started out—to an analogue age when local newspapers were pretty much the only source of local information. Modern technology, starting a long time ago with TV and radio and now with online media sources, social media and so on, offers huge opportunities for the democratisation of news and the diversification of views, but also for the potential proliferation of fake news, as hon. Members have mentioned. Even though we cannot turn the clock back, we need to ensure that current and future technological developments are working to benefit everyone.

Local and regional news provision is transferring from one format to another, but local and regional services on TV and radio need support too. The National Union of Journalists has been mentioned several times in the debate. It undertook a survey of the closures of BBC district offices covering local TV and radio. I would like to share the results of that with the House today. Pointing out that the BBC is due to announce another round of cuts to the regions in the near future of perhaps £15 million out of a budget of £150 million, the survey’s results show that, over the past 10 years, more than 20 district offices have closed, and that, once the district office closes, the designated reporter is often close to follow. In many towns, the nearest BBC reporter is now over an hour’s drive away, which makes localised news coverage increasingly difficult.

For example, 10 years ago, BBC Radio Gloucestershire had three reporters: one for Gloucester and Forest of Dean, one for Cheltenham and Tewkesbury and another for Stroud and the Cotswolds. Now, only one reporter covers all six constituencies in that area, and the post has been vacant since the end of September. There is no longer a day reporter covering drive-time stories. Instead, there is only an early reporter working from a satellite car for the breakfast show and a late reporter covering stories for the next day. Likewise, 10 years ago in Lancashire, there were four district studios. Now there is only one, and only two full-time and two part-time reporters. The Newcastle, Durham, and Sunderland offices all closed in 2011, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is fully aware.

News services that have moved or begun online often have issues too. Companies are struggling to replace lost print revenue with new profits generated online. A News Media Association survey found that 81% of media organisations’ revenue comes from print readership and only 12% from digital. However, the industry continues to close its newspapers in favour of digital formats. When one visits a modern local newsroom, as I am sure many hon. Members here today have done, one is struck by the extent to which stories and deadlines are driven by online clicks, with advertising revenue related to those trends. That sparks fear of a genuine danger that clickbait journalism will be encouraged and will replace real local reporting. It would be a genuine shame if all our local news outlets eventually mirrored the Mail Online sidebar of shame in their approach to reporting. That is the fear and the potential danger of that approach.

Be it in print or on screen, the trends that I and others have outlined are of course long term and have been developing over decades. I mentioned the NUJ’s survey of the closure of BBC district offices. Other public service broadcasters are also crucial to regional and local news. The Welsh language TV channel, S4C—Sianel Pedwar Cymru—focuses on Welsh issues and consistently features local news and views from around the country. Again, rather than wholeheartedly supporting the channel, the Government’s policies are creating uncertainty about its future. In my letter to the Minister on St David’s day, I asked the Government at least to freeze S4C’s funding until the independent review of the channel is completed, and to announce the review’s terms of reference. Instead, they have offered only a six-month freeze and further talks mid-year, and they still have not launched the review. I am afraid the UK Government are dragging their feet on setting up the review, and we want to know why. S4C and Welsh audiences deserve better.

This gives me the opportunity the right to put the Minister right on his somewhat ludicrous rewriting of the history of the establishment of S4C, which we have heard him rehearse several times in the Chamber recently. Yes, it was established under Mrs Thatcher’s Government, but only after a long and bitter campaign by Labour and Plaid Cymru, which forced them to withdraw proposals that would have breached their own manifesto.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

Oh, give over!

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister says, “Oh, give over!” from a sedentary position. Given that he has decided to challenge my assertion, let me read him the Cabinet note from 18 September 1980. The then Home Secretary, Willie Whitelaw, said

“that the Government would withdraw its plans to share Welsh language programme, between two television channels. Instead the programmes would, for an experimental period of three years, be broadcast on one channel, as had been proposed in the Party Manifesto. He still thought that the previous plans were preferable but he had agreed to change them in response to representations, put to him by Lord Cledwyn and others, of the views of informed and responsible opinion in Wales.”

Lord Cledwyn was, of course, Cledwyn Hughes, the former Labour Welsh Secretary. I forgive the Minister, because he probably was not even born at the time of that great struggle, but it is wrong for him to glibly assert that S4C was established without a bitter fight, which some of us remember well.

[Kevin Brennan]

There was, and I acknowledge Plaid Cymru’s contribution to that campaign. It is only right to put the historical record straight, rather than allow the hares that the Minister set running—

[Matt Hancock]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

My dream has come true!

[Matt Hancock]

I am always very happy to contribute to the hon. Gentleman’s dreams. To deal with this one right now, I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the Conservative Government’s establishment of S4C and has accepted that, in fact, it was introduced by a Conservative Government. We, as Conservatives, welcome the cross-party support for it.

[Kevin Brennan]

Let me quote from another document from 1980. Wyn Roberts, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Welsh Office, said:

“I travelled home yesterday with Lord Garonwy Roberts who told me that the Shadow Cabinet last week”—

that was the Labour shadow Cabinet—

“decided to put forward an amendment to the Broadcasting Bill in the Lords to concentrate all Welsh language programmes on the Fourth Channel…If the Lords were to carry the amdmt. it would clearly weaken our position very considerably.”

It was that pressure that led to the Government having to fulfil their commitment, which they wanted to renege on at the time.

I will not test your patience any further, Mr Gapes. As a former history teacher—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

I apologise for my earlier interruptions, Mr Gapes, but I wanted to correct that one point before I started my full response to this very thoughtful and interesting debate. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for securing this important debate on the future of local and regional news providers.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not want to labour the point too much, but while the Minister is in the mood for apologising, perhaps he could apologise to the House for being late to the debate.

[Matt Hancock]

Of course I am very sorry. I am glad that we managed to begin appropriately at the start of the debate.

The many Members who contributed to the debate have a clear direction of travel, which is to underline the importance of journalism and local media—especially newspapers, but also broadcast and online media. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said, quoting Harry Evans, journalism is a public service. The point that was made about devolution meaning that there is need for more, rather than less, local scrutiny, which journalism obviously helps to provide, is important in this context. More decisions are being taken at a local level, and it is really important to ensure that they get appropriate scrutiny.

I thank the hon. Lady for raising a point during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill about the importance of ensuring that whistleblowers and journalists are protected from the tightening-up of the enforcement of data protection rules. The Digital Economy Bill is a very positive step, in terms of data protection. The hon. Lady and a couple of other Members rightly raised the important matter of ensuring that the law is explicit, rather than implicit, in the protection of journalism and journalists, and I am very grateful to her for bringing that to my attention.

As MPs, we all understand the importance of local newspapers in bringing communities together and providing a local voice to communities, as well as holding us and others in positions of responsibility to account. I am going to follow the trend in this debate. In my constituency, I am fortunate that the local press is widespread. There are 13 local titles that cover my patch, including the East Anglian Daily Times; Eastern Daily Press; Newmarket Journal; Newmarket Weekly News; Haverhill Echo; Haverhill Weekly News; Thetford and Brandon Times; Brandon Life; Ely News; Bury Free Press; Bury Mercury; and Cambridge Evening News, which just covers the corner of my constituency. That is just the press. I also have local radio stations, local BBC radio and TV, ITV, and Heart FM. So there is no shortage of high-quality local journalism in West Suffolk, but absolutely there is pressure, which is what has been highlighted by this debate.

Everybody has had a chance to mention their local newspapers. Mr Gapes, I am sure that if you were to speak, you would mention the Ilford Recorder, too. It is appropriate that the debate is this week because this is Local News Matters week, spearheaded by the NUJ. I welcome its report, published earlier this week, into this matter, some of which was referred to by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and which highlights the importance of local news to communities across the country. Many important points were in the review, including how we get investment into good quality local journalism. One of the new ways to do that has been the initiative by the BBC to put in place 150 local democracy reporters.

Questions were raised about how the reporters were going to operate, and there was a lot of work and consultation by the BBC to develop criteria for the local democracy reporters, including making sure that they had a previous track record in public service journalism, with content provided in lots of different ways, and that the operation could work locally in practice. I heard the point about additionality clearly, and it is important that the 150 local democracy reporters are genuinely additional. I am sure that the BBC has also heard that point. Alongside that, the NewsBank will allow BBC video and audio material to be available shortly after transmission. Local newspapers have complained that they cannot use BBC material that is freely available on their websites to enhance their own material, but the NewsBank will enhance the online offering.

A data journalism hub will be created, with staff seconded from the local news industry to make data journalism available to news organisations across the media industry. The first wave of recruitment will start in the spring. So the BBC is playing its part, and I am glad that that has been welcomed. We should thank my predecessor as Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who at the time of the charter review ensured that that happened.

We are about to bring in a different initiative: business rates relief for local newspapers to help with cost pressures. In our manifesto we committed to consult on a business rates relief for local papers. In the Budget in March last year we announced that that would be introduced from 1 April this year, so it will start in a couple of days’ time on Saturday. Local newspapers in England with an office space will be eligible for a business rates discount. I am eager to see the impact of the scheme. I urge any of the titles that we have discussed today, and other local papers, to take advantage of it.

On the concentration of ownership, plurality of media ownership is an important consideration. Legislation was introduced to relax the cross-media ownership requirements, allowing local newspapers to be involved in local TV as part of our attempt to ensure that local newspapers are sustainable. Local TV has a role to play. Some £25 million of funding was set aside in the previous BBC funding agreement to set up local TV. Some stations, such as London Live and Notts TV, have close links with local newspapers, and a Kent local TV service is forthcoming. STV in Scotland has taken advantage of the local TV licences and is launching its STV2 services to bring together a network of its current services with localised news content as well. We have to look at local media and journalism in the round.

Commercial radio was also mentioned. Obviously, commercial radio is incredibly important and in many areas is thriving. It reaches a very high proportion of people. We are currently consulting on reducing some of the burdens on commercial radio. I was involved in a commercial radio station, Oxygen 107.9, when I was a student—I was minority sports correspondent. It attempted to be a commercial radio station, but in fact it folded shortly after I left. It was more fun making the radio than it was listening to it. At least, that is what our advertisers must have thought.

Community radio has an important part to play. Several hon. Members mentioned its importance and we have taken action on it. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland raised the question of community radio being able to raise money from advertising. Two years ago, in April 2015, we increased to £15,000 the amount that a community radio station can make without the limits on that being in place. There is a reason why there is a limit. Community radio station licences are genuinely for community purposes. We would not want them to be used for commercial radio squeezing out community providers. We increased the limit to £15,000, and I hope community radio stations will take advantage of the fact that they can now raise £15,000 of advertising revenue before any of the other limits kick in.

I want to stress some additional facts. The fact that 58% of people do not have access to a daily local press was raised, but if we take local press in print and online into account, 95% of the country is covered, according to NMA industry figures. Although clearly under stress, there is availability of local reporting, whether in print or online, right across the country. The challenge of new technology is to find a way to ensure that it provides a sustainable business model for local journalism. We cannot hold back the tide of technology. The key is how we can harness it in a way that provides for a sustainable business model, and allows citizens to access their news more readily than they could before when there was only print available. That is the big challenge we face.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also asked about treating newspapers as assets of community value. The legislation on such assets, however, refers only to the land and buildings. That might potentially cover the physical assets of a local newspaper, but her point is that there is more to the assets of a local newspaper than the physical asset. I will therefore have a conversation with Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government, the lead Department, to see whether we can make any progress. We will have to look into the practical questions, but I understand her thrust.

Many other very good points were made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) not only enlightened us with his experience, stressing again the importance of plurality and that the BBC proposals need to be an enhancement of and addition to what is already on offer, but raised the issue of fake news. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is investigating fake news and I very much look forward to the results of its inquiry. In Government, we are well aware of it, as one might imagine, and it engages many interested parties, but we will wait for the report of the ongoing Select Committee inquiry before we come forward with anything.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) was clear about the importance not only of English-language but of Welsh-language newspapers. That is a good point to take into account. As she said, democracies need watchdogs with a powerful bark—whether that bark is in English or Welsh, it must provide for the local audience.

Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 31st January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I think it may be the first time I have done so, and that makes it even more pleasurable.

As the hon. Member for Torbay will know from the extremely able presentation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) on Second Reading, we support the Bill. We will not vote against it today in Committee and we wish him well with it. It is a great opportunity—one that I have never had—to get a private Member’s Bill into law. I hope that the Bill, with the fair wind that the Government are giving it, will make its way into law in due course, once it has been through both Houses. However, it is our duty as Her Majesty’s official Opposition to scrutinise any Bill, and particularly a private Member’s Bill that has Government support—one that was, indeed, drafted by them; so I have some questions for the hon. Member for Torbay, and possibly for the Minister, if he is inclined to contribute. He may bring insights about some of the thinking behind the Bill. However, I am sure that there will be questions that the hon. Member for Torbay can handle for himself.

I shall say frankly that I am raising issues raised with the Opposition by the Community Media Association. The hon. Member for Torbay will be aware of its thoughts. It wanted amendments to be tabled, but I do not think that they were ready in time. However, after today’s clause stand part debate they may prove unnecessary; or the association may want to ask for them to be tabled later in the Bill’s progress.

The hon. Member for Torbay is right about the fact that discussions often arise about whether the words “may” or “must” should be used in a measure—or sometimes it is “will”. We sometimes spend many happy hours debating that in Committee; but in this instance the Community Media Association may be more concerned about including the words “must not” in clause 1. The first point that the association makes is that it might have been better if the clause instructed the Secretary of State not to make an order in relation to small-scale radio multiplex services, except where the description is of services to be provided primarily for the good of members of the public or a particular community, rather than for commercial reasons.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

For the record, where in clause 1 is the provision that the hon. Gentleman is referring to? The Bill is essentially one clause; when he says amendment is needed to clause 1, a little more erudition would be useful.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not want to be ruled out of order; often the Minister seeks to run Committees as if he were chairing them. I think that my remarks so far have been perfectly in order.

[The Chair]

For the benefit of the Committee let me say that so far the shadow Minister’s comments have been in order; but I do not think that the Minister was trying to say they were not. He may want briefly to clarify. Let us move on.

[Matt Hancock]

I am sorry; I am unintentionally taking more time than I meant to. I wanted to know what, in clause 1, the hon. Gentleman was referring to.

[Kevin Brennan]

As you will understand, Mr Pritchard, I do not want to refer to an amendment that has not been tabled. You will have noticed that I have not done so; but I have alluded to the view that an amendment could be tabled to clause 1. If that non-existent amendment had been tabled and you had ruled it in order it might be inserted, for example, after subsection (4)(c) of the new section that the clause would add to the Communications Act 2003. In that fictitious world that might be where it would be.

An order under the Bill could

“require small-scale radio multiplex services to be provided on a non-commercial basis”

but the Community Media Association’s view is that that is not a sufficient guarantee that the services will be operated primarily for public and community benefit. The association feels that there is a risk that, where a small-scale radio multiplex service is run on a commercial basis, charges to small-scale and community radio content providers could remain excessive, and opportunities to reduce their costs through the sale of spare capacity could be lost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

To come back briefly, the hon. Gentleman referred to some things that the Minister was going to do in the consultation. He said he thought that that was what the Government were going to do. Perhaps the Minister will intervene and confirm that so that it is on the record from the horse’s mouth.

[Matt Hancock]

I will be brief because it is not my day; the Bill is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. The Government support the Bill and I support everything that my hon. Friend has said. We have heard arguments both on Second Reading and in Committee in favour of having small independent commercial operations being able to take advantage of this Bill, as well as making sure there is enough protection to allow community stations that are not profit-making to make use of it. We will take all of those arguments into account. The Bill does not set the final position on restrictions for holding small-scale DAB licences and does not contain stipulations about licence ownership or operating on a commercial basis.

[The Chair]

Order. It is easily to forget that an intervention has been made on the shadow Minister, but this is an intervention rather than a contribution to the debate.

[Kevin Brennan]

I can fix that by saying I will now sit down.

[Matt Hancock]

I apologise. I thought I was being called to speak rather than to intervene. Having put all that on the record in my long intervention, there is nothing further that I need to say.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am afraid that the Minister’s laconic attitude towards this is not helpful at all. He has just said that the appointments were made on merit and that had he gone through with the recommended appointment it would have been an example of tokenism. That is an absolute insult to the candidate, who, as he well knows, was perfectly well qualified and was recommended for appointment on merit.

When are we going to get an end to the uncertainty about Channel 4? The Secretary of State has been in place for 150 days. The sector is in absolute despair about the lack of a decision from the Government. When will we get an answer?

[Matt Hancock]

The sector is going from strength to strength. I strongly support it in doing so. We will continue our support for Channel 4, for appointments based on merit and for the great British TV sector.

Sky: 21st Century Fox Takeover Bid

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on 21st Century Fox’s bid to take over the remaining 61% of Sky.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

As the House will know, Sky announced on Friday that it had received an approach from 21st Century Fox to acquire the 61% share of Sky that it does not yet already own. The announcement made it clear that the independent directors of Sky and 21st Century Fox have reached an agreement on price. However, the offer is subject to further discussion, and Sky has advised that there is no certainty at this stage that an offer will be made. The terms of any deal will obviously need to be agreed by the non-21st Century Fox shareholders of Sky. The announcement also said that under the takeover code, 21st Century Fox is required to set out its intentions by 6 January 2017.

The Secretary of State has powers to intervene in certain media mergers on public interest grounds, as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. Government guidance on the operation of the public interest merger provisions under the Act indicates how the intervention regime will operate in practice and the approach that the Secretary of State is likely to adopt in considering cases. Any transaction will be looked at on its merits, on a case-by-case basis. The guidance makes it clear that the Secretary of State will aim to take an initial decision on whether to intervene within 10 working days of formal notification of the merger to the competition authorities, or of the transaction being brought to her attention. No such formal notification has yet been received.

The role of the Secretary of State is a quasi-judicial one, and it is important that she acts independently and is not subject to improper influence. It would be inappropriate for me or the Secretary of State to comment further on the proposed bid under the Act. In the light of Friday’s statement and given the role of the Secretary of State, the Department is putting in place procedures to ensure that her decision-making process is scrupulously fair and impartial should a decision be necessary. This will include guidance for other Ministers and officials on dealing with the parties to the bid or any other interested parties. We are of course aware of the wider interest of Parliament in these matters, and we will keep the House updated as appropriate within the legal framework.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for his response. Late on Friday, a new bid for Sky was revealed. Five years ago, an equivalent bid was abandoned, after Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation were engulfed in the phone hacking storm. At that time the House was united behind a substantive motion calling on Rupert Murdoch to withdraw his bid. The concerns back in 2011 were not only about the serious wrongdoing being uncovered in the phone hacking scandal but about the concentration of media power and ownership in fewer and fewer hands. I have re-read the motion—which we all supported, on both sides of the House—and nowhere does it say that we should sit quietly for five years and come back when we have forgotten all about it. We have not forgotten about it, and we also have not forgotten that when the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street this summer she said to the people of this country:

“When we take the big calls we will think not of the powerful, but you.”

This is a big call, so we need to know whose side the Government are on.

Ofcom’s original assessment was that the deal may

“operate against the public interest”.

Will the Minister commit the Government, here and now, to issuing a public interest intervention notice and referring the bid to Ofcom? Remember that, back in 2012, Ofcom’s assessment was that the chief executive officer of Fox, James Murdoch,

“repeatedly fell short of the exercise of responsibility to be expected of him as CEO and chairman.”

The Prime Minister met Rupert Murdoch in New York in September. Was the bid discussed then? Did she give him any assurances about the bid, or discuss his future support for her and/or for her Government?

I understand that, as the Minister said, this is a quasi-judicial decision, and that the words he says today will be scrutinised by some of the highest-paid lawyers on at least two continents. Nevertheless, will he assure us that the Secretary of State is prepared to stand up to powerful interests and ensure that this deal is properly and independently scrutinised?

[Matt Hancock]

I am grateful for the acknowledgment by the Opposition Front-Bench team that, owing to the quasi-judicial nature of the decision, procedures have to be followed properly. That is what we fully intend to do. Formal notification of this proposal has not been received, and the Secretary of State cannot make a decision prior to that. As I said, the rules are that she should aim to take such a decision within 10 days of formal notification.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Programme motion No. 3: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Of course I will. I have discussed that precise issue with the National Deaf Children’s Society, and I will continue to work on it.

Government amendments 23 and 24 are detailed technical amendments concerning the installation of electronic communications apparatus on tidal land owned by the Crown.

I hope that, following my explanations and the commitments I have given, Members will withdraw their amendments and new clauses.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 10, 32 and 7, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends, the Government new clauses, which the Minister has outlined, and new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), whom the Minister mentioned. I will also refer to some of the other amendments in the group.

In Committee, Labour Members, and indeed the hon. Lady, made it clear that we could not see how age verification could operate without a backstop power to block sites that failed to comply. In Committee, the Minister resisted that strongly. He said:

“The powers are not a silver bullet; sites that were actively trying to avoid the Bill’s other enforcement measures would also be able to actively avoid these measures. It is questionable how much additional enforcement power they would bring, given those downsides.”

He went on to say:

“I think the Bill has ended up with the correct balance.” —[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2016; c. 209.]

Clearly, the Secretary of State disagreed with him on that. She has now overruled her junior Minister by tabling new clauses 28 and 29 in her name, as we can see on the amendment paper. The new clauses tabled by the Secretary of State, who unfortunately is no longer in her place, represent significant changes at quite a late stage in the passage of the Bill in the Commons, confirming our contention that the Bill as published was not ready to leave home when it was allowed to do so.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful for that intervention. All I can say is that I have just given the Secretary of State credit for the change, as the hon. Lady suggests I should.

The new clauses introduce significant changes at this late stage in the consideration of the Bill. We support blocking, but concerns have been raised in the press that the new clauses go beyond a backstop power to block sites to under-18s and could be used in practice to extend internet censorship to adults. The Government need to be clear whether that is the intention of the new clauses.

[Matt Hancock]

I have also seen those reports. I think that they misread the Bill. That is neither our intention, nor our understanding of the working of the new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I am a former teacher—from the analogue age, I hasten to add—and I have no doubt that many teachers who started their careers around the same time as I did would fall into that category.

Statutory online education could work in tandem, as I have said, but protecting our children is a major challenge and it cannot happen without education. That is why I was disappointed that the Minister chose not to support our proposal. I believe that it represents the other side of the coin to what the Government are trying to achieve through age verification. We contend that our measures are necessary, and we will therefore divide the House on this matter if we have to.

Our new clause 32 would oblige the age verification regulator to ensure that all age verification providers—the companies that put the tools on websites to ensure compliance—were approved by the regulator. It would also oblige those providers to perform a data protection impact assessment and to make it publicly available, as well as to perform an array of other duties. The new clause is designed to address concerns about the practicality of age verification checks. It would ensure that only minimal data were required, that those data were kept secure and that individuals’ liberty and privacy were protected.

We have not been reassured by the Minister’s comments, either in Committee or today, that the fact that age verification software is improving is enough. We should be able to guarantee the privacy of an individual before the verification tool comes into force. We are not asking anything unreasonable of the regulator or of the age verification providers. The principles of privacy, anonymity and proportionality should underpin the age verification tool, but as far as I am aware, they have not as yet featured in any draft guidance, codes of practice or documents accompanying the Bill.

If anyone thinks I am being partisan, I can tell them that the Information Commissioner agrees with me on this. In its response to the Department’s consultation on age verification for pornography, the Information Commissioner’s Office stated:

“The Commissioner’s concern is that any solution implemented must be compliant with the requirements of the DPA and PECR.”

That refers to the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 that sit alongside it.

[Matt Hancock]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I will finish the quote, then I will give way. The Information Commissioner’s response went on:

“The concept of ‘privacy by design’ would seem particularly relevant in the context of age verification—that is, designing a system that appropriately respects individuals’ privacy whilst achieving the stated aim. In practical terms, this would mean only collecting and recording the minimum data required in the circumstances, having assessed what that minimum was. It would also mean ensuring that the purposes for which any data is used are carefully and restrictively defined, and that any activities keep to those restricted purposes. In the context of preventing children from accessing online commercial pornography, there is a clear attribute which needs to be proven in each case—that is, whether an individual’s age is above the required threshold. Any solution considered needs to be focussed on proving the existence or absence of that attribute, to the exclusion of other more detailed information”—

[Interruption.] I will go on for a lot longer if the Minister keeps making gestures at me. The quote concludes:

“Any solution considered needs to be focussed on proving the existence or absence of that attribute, to the exclusion of other more detailed information (such as actual date of birth).”

[Matt Hancock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I just want to clear up this point. When this question was asked while I was on my feet, I responded by saying that the Data Protection Act, as cited by the ICO, is the legal framework for delivering this. The further quotes that the hon. Gentleman read out outline how the Act would operate in this case. In a sense, therefore, those quotes prove the point that the required legislation for ensuring protection of data already exists in the Data Protection Act and other measures.

[Kevin Brennan]

We will see whether the Information Commissioner agrees. She made it clear that she would have

“significant concerns about any method of age verification that requires the collection and retention of documents such as a copy of passports, driving licences or other documents (of those above the age threshold) which are vulnerable to misuse and/or attractive to disreputable third parties.”

The Minister gave no real reason in his intervention about why he does not support new clause 32, which would provide that reassurance.

The risks of creating databases that potentially contain people’s names, locations, credit card details—you name it—alongside their pornographic preferences are clear. Our priority here is the protection of children and that is agreed across the House, but one consequence of the recent hack that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) was the number of suicides. We should take things seriously and proceed with caution before creating anything that would result in the storing of data that could be leaked, hacked or commercialised that would otherwise be completely private and legitimate. That is the reasoning behind our reasonable, straightforward new clause, which the Minister rejects. It would place a series of duties on the age verification regulator to ensure that adequate privacy standards were applied, that any data obtained or stored were not for commercial use and that security was given due and proper consideration.

New clause 7 would mean that mobile phone service providers give all consumers the opportunity to place a financial cap on their monthly bill and that a mobile phone service cannot be provided until the service provider has put in place a cap of the agreed amount if the consumer has made an express request. Again, the Minister’s arguments, both in Committee and today, were nowhere near sufficient. The new clause would be welcomed by the many who have found that when they receive an email or check their bank balance at the end of the month, their mobile phone bill has come in much higher than expected. Mobile tariffs are complex, particularly on data, and few of us actually understand how much data we need for an average month. Consumers of all kinds can find that they use much more data than they expected.

Citizens Advice provided an example that reveals the problems. One of its clients changed his shift pattern and started using his mobile phone to watch films. He then received a text message saying that he had gone over his monthly allowance. He did not think too much about it until he received a bill for more than £2,000 at the end of the month. Unsurprisingly, his service was subsequently cut off. Research suggests that as many as one in five consumers find it difficult to keep track of how much they spend on data. The average unexpectedly high bill is often double the cost of the original monthly fee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I rise to answer the points made so far, but I hope there will be time afterwards for others who still want to speak. We have had a broad debate on the amendments relating to copyright, broadcasting, ticketing, data and intellectual property, and I will speak as quickly as I can and take as many interventions as I can. There are a total of 36 proposed new clauses and amendments, and I propose to address each in turn in broadly the same order.

On copyright, new clause 15 proposes that the Government take a power to have a code of conduct on search engines to dictate how they should work to prevent copyright infringement. This new clause was also proposed in Committee, and I would like to update the House on the progress. Since then, the Intellectual Property Minister, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, has chaired a further round-table among search engine and creative industries representatives. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) said, that group is now making some progress towards agreeing an outline code of practice, but much more needs to be done. Following the round-table, a revised draft code will be prepared by the IPO for consideration by the group before its next meeting on 10 January. Our position on online platforms is that they must act responsibly and work with rights holders to help enforce IP rights. We are clear on the importance of getting things right and do not rule out legislation, but given the progress being made it is not necessarily the right time for legislative intervention.

We also discussed new clause 30 in Committee, where I set out the range of criminal provisions that apply to the sale and use of devices that infringe copyright. This matter relates to the IPTV devices that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, the former Secretary of State, spoke about so powerfully. Following a number of investigations across the country, there are pending prosecutions relying on a number of offences. I am sympathetic to the intent behind the new clause, but it does not in and of itself offer any greater legislative protection to rights owners than the existing offences that target this type of behaviour. If the existing legal provisions are shown to be deficient when the pending prosecutions have concluded, we will bring forward proposals for legislation.

New clause 16 is another of the helpful proposals from the shadow Front-Bench team to deliver on a Conservative party manifesto commitment—this time on e-book lending. I am grateful for the degree of support that our manifesto has received from all parts of the House during the Bill’s passage.

[Kevin Brennan]

Then why don’t you implement it?

[Matt Hancock]

Just you wait. We of course agree that authors should be recognised for e-lending by ensuring appropriate compensation for them in an enhanced public lending right. I need to correct an omission. I belatedly declare a potential interest which I should have mentioned in Committee—at least, I hope that I can declare an interest, as I have a book that is available for borrowing in this way, although I have no idea whether it has ever been borrowed. As I said in Committee, we have been carefully considering the options for delivering the manifesto commitment. We had to wait for the conclusion of a court case, which ended earlier this month, before setting out the proposals, but I can confirm today that we intend to legislate to extend the public lending right to include the remote lending of e-books. It is important that we get that right and ensure that any changes are compatible with the copyright directive. We will therefore bring forward legislation as soon as possible.

Turning to broadcasting and subtitling for video on demand, new clause 6 was also considered in Committee. As I said then, we are keen to address this shortcoming and want to ensure that the requirements that are placed on on-demand programme service providers are appropriate and proportionate. Since then, we have discussed how best to increase the use of subtitles in video on demand with charities, broadcasters, Ofcom and others and have worked further on the best way to address the concerns that the new clause intends to address. Through working collaboratively with all interested parties, I hope to reach a resolution in the other place that results in an increase in the provision of access services for video on-demand services.

Let me turn to new clause 8, on TV licence fee concessions, a subject we discussed at length in Committee. Government Members are clear that we support the free TV licence for the over-75s, we committed in our manifesto to keeping it and we are glad that it is protected as part of the BBC charter and licence fee settlement, which has been debated extensively in this House and is delivering on our manifesto commitment. The new clause attempts to unpick that settlement and, in so doing, undermine the stability of the BBC. This funding settlement, which the new clause would undermine, was described by the director general of the BBC as a “strong deal” for the BBC and one that “gives us financial stability”.

Digital Economy Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Committee Debate: 11th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Hancock]

I stress that I bought my tickets to see Paul Simon completely off my own bat, as a fan. My wife and I are enormously looking forward to going. I am prepared to pay the very high price because it will be such an amazing concert, but it would be far better if I could pay the face value or something close to it. I went online immediately the tickets were released and a huge number had gone already. Secondary ticketing sites were the only way that I could get the tickets. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty, I was bent over my laptop pressing the button trying to get the tickets as quickly as possible. I only say that to explain to the Committee that I feel the pain of all those who end up having to pay far more than face value because of automated bots.

The Committee will know that we asked Professor Michael Waterson to review secondary ticketing. His very good independent report makes a number of points relevant to the new clause. The offences set out in the Computer Misuse Act 1990 have broad application and the Waterson review concludes that unauthorised use of a computerised ticketing system to avoid ticket volume constraints may give rise to breaches of that Act. Such breaches need to be reported, investigated and case law then established.

Having said that, I recognise the very clear sense in the debate that there remains a problem to be solved. I reiterate the words of the Secretary of State, who said last week that

“the advice has always been that the Computer Misuse Act applied. I want to look carefully at that and see how best we can get to a robust position on this matter”.

She proposed to convene a meeting of all interested parties. If we can get it scheduled, we will have that meeting within a month; if not, I commit to holding it before Christmas.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is welcome to have a deadline, but would it not be better if that meeting took place before Report, so that the Commons has an opportunity to consider the points made at it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams]

I rise briefly to speak to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. I understand that it seeks to clarify a rule that already exists. As has been mentioned previously, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on music. Earlier in the year, we held a dinner with representatives from the industry and services such as Spotify and Apple Music. The intention of the dinner was better to understand the growing music-streaming market and what measures are needed to help it flourish further for the benefit of creators, fans and those services. I was taken by the agreement across the room about the existence of a value gap between rights holders and some digital services, and the need to ensure fairness in the way music rights are valued and negotiated.

The Government’s response to the EU’s digital platforms consultation, published at the beginning of the year, stated:

“Clarification of terms used in the Directive would, we believe, help to address these concerns.”

I hope the Minister and the Government remain committed to that view and the intention behind the new clause to clarify existing law.

[Matt Hancock]

As we have debated, the Bill sends a clear message about copyright infringement, not least because we are increasing the penalty for online copyright infringement from two to 10 years. Of course, I know about the concern in the music industry and elsewhere that online intermediaries need to do more to share revenues fairly with creators. That is what this new clause seeks to tackle, and I agree with that concern.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned the interaction of the Bill with EU law. The change proposed by the new clause is already the position in European Court of Justice case law, and we support that position in the UK. That provides some clarification to the existing position.

Let me answer the specific questions. First, we are heavily engaged in the digital single market negotiations and the discussions ongoing in Europe. While we are a member of the EU, we will continue to do that. The issue of the value gap, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is important, and the development of ECJ case law in that direction has been helpful.

That brings me to Brexit because, as the e-commerce directive is EU single-market legislation, we will have to consider what the best future system will be as we exit the European Union. We will have to consider how the e-commerce regulations as a whole should work in the future. That will be part of the debate about leaving the European Union. For the time being, ECJ case law supports the intentions in the new clause, and I would be wary about making piecemeal changes to the regime. I acknowledge the need, through the Brexit negotiations and the process of setting domestic law where there is currently European law, to take into account the important considerations that have been raised.

[Kevin Brennan]

The new clause was a probing amendment, and I thank the Minister for his response. It is important to have the Government’s response on the record.

We debate this issue in the context of the UK music industry’s growth: over a four-year period, it has grown by 17%. During that same period, there has been a massive shift from consumers owning music towards the streaming of music. The value of subscription streaming services has jumped from £168 million in 2014 to £251 million in 2015. So there is a model, if you like, in the market, which can produce value for the industry, but it is being undermined by the value gap that is created by the different treatment of these different types of services.

I accept that the Minister has put on the record the Government’s current position and said that there will be a positive engagement with this issue. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

E-book lending

‘In section 43(2) of the Digital Economy Act 2010, leave out from “limited time” to “and loan.”’

This new clause aims to extend public lending rights to remote offsite e-book lending.—(Kevin Brennan.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to move that the new clause be read a Second time.

This new clause would enable the consideration of public lending right for remote e-lending from libraries. That would be achieved by amending section 43(2) of the Digital Economy Act 2010, which sets remote loans outside the definition of lending under public lending right.

I do not know whether the Minister, like me, is a bit of a dinosaur and prefers his books to come in physical form—I am currently reading Bruce Springsteen’s autobiography, which I recommend, as well as Ed Balls’s book on politics, which is also very good. However, in this Digital Economy Bill we should acknowledge the increasing role of e-books and their impact on the income of authors. The spirit of the Bill is that we should better reflect how technology has changed our economy, so it is important that we go further in some places to acknowledge where technological change has outpaced legislation in relation to the arts.

Our approach here should be informed by the fact that we have the Digital Economy Act 2010. At the time that it was passed, some opportunities were missed. We should keep that in mind as we discuss this Bill and make sure that we do not allow those opportunities to pass by again as the Bill completes its stages in the House of Commons and afterwards in the other place.

The Digital Economy Act 2010 made some progress but it failed to forecast how our relationship with books would change. In particular, the 2010 Act touched on the subject of e-books, but its wording ignored the main way libraries would end up lending e-books: remotely, over an internet connection. Of course, remote lending is a natural continuation of the function of e-books. One of the main benefits of e-books is that they escape physical constraints such as location and storage.

However, under current legislation, authors receive no payment when a public library loans their book remotely, which is different from any other form of book loan. Last year, 2.3 million remote loans were made, but they were not counted at all towards authors’ payments because the 2010 Act allowed only for on-site loans of e-books, of which there was a negligible number—who will go to a library when they can borrow the book remotely? That is the whole point of e-books. There is no reason in principle why the distinction should exist; that is what the philosophy of this Bill is supposed to be. Nevertheless, as a result, the public lending right—a right for authors established in 1979—has not been honoured, due to the failure of the 2010 Act to keep up with technological change.

I hope that we can take the opportunity today to avoid repeating that mistake. The Society of Authors, the Association of Illustrators, and the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society all support the new clause. Public lending right is designed to balance the social need for free public access to books against an author’s right to be remunerated for the use of their work. Indeed, public lending right provides a significant and much-valued part of many authors’ incomes, particularly those authors whose books are sold mainly to libraries and those whose books are no longer in print.

The recent opinion of the Advocate General, relating to a case on rental and lending in respect of copyright works that is currently before the Court of Justice of the European Union, asserted that the lending of electronic books is the modern equivalent of the lending of printed books. I am aware that the Government expressed a desire to reflect this technological change in their March 2013 response to the independent review of e-lending in public libraries in England, but for some reason—perhaps the Minister can tell us why—they have neglected to take the opportunity presented by this Bill to put the matter right.

Furthermore, figures from March this year show that 343 libraries in the UK have been shut down in the past six years, with another 111 closures planned for 2016, which will result in the loss of almost 8,000 jobs. So it is particularly nonsensical not to apply PLR to remote e-book lending, given that it is becoming increasingly hard to visit a physical library. PLR is a legal right and a keystone of a society in which authors receive reward for their considerable cultural contribution. While we can all benefit from technological change and new ways of accessing creative works, it is important that the obligation to remunerate authors fairly is acknowledged and honoured.

Having acknowledged this loophole and the difficulties it causes, it is vital that the Bill addresses the issue, so that right-holders are treated equitably. Will the Minister take action on this issue and accept the new clause—and if not, why?

[Matt Hancock]

I wholeheartedly support the hon. Member for Cardiff West in his analysis of the increasing range of digital services at libraries across the country and the importance of those digital services to the communities they serve. I also agree with what he said about the increasing range of e-books and the importance of e-book lending. I am touched by his care for our delivering on the Conservative party manifesto and can tell him that we will deliver on this one too.

Libraries are increasingly providing remote e-book lending, so readers have the opportunity to borrow physical and audio books. Over the last year, 2 million e-book loans were made, which shows how important this is. We have been carefully looking at options for how to implement the manifesto commitment and appropriately compensate authors for remote e-lending, including by extending the PLR to e-books. In doing so, we have engaged with representatives of authors, libraries, agents, publishers and booksellers as well as the Public Lending Right Office. The collaborative input is very valuable and helps to ensure that we achieve an outcome that will be supported by all.

Like the hon. Member for Cardiff West, I am a mixed book reader. I am reading “Down and Out in London and Paris”—a well-thumbed hard copy. I am reading “King Lear” on an e-book, although I would say it is more studying than reading, because it is quite hard work. I bought a Kindle book at the weekend. I fully appreciate all types of books: hard copy and soft, hardback and soft.

The hon. Gentleman will understand how keen we are to implement our manifesto commitment. However, we want to take the time to get it right. Furthermore, we need to ensure that the measure is compatible with the copyright directive while we remain within the European Union. In doing so, we are also paying close attention to a relevant court case, again in the European Court of Justice, where we expect a ruling later this year that will have a bearing on how any clause to bring this into place would be drafted.

For those reasons, we are taking our time to get this right. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his new clause.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will, but I do not think that there is any real need for the Minister not to commit carrying the measure out in the Bill. It simply extends what is already available. If someone borrowed an e-book by turning up at a library, the author would receive their public lending right, but if they did so remotely through the same library service, the author would not. Clearly that is an unacceptable injustice and anomaly.

The Minister has said that the Government need to take their time. It was March 2013 when they said in their response to the independent review that they intended to reflect that technology change. Three years and eight months later, we have a Bill in Committee in the House of Commons and still the Government say they need to take their time to get it right. This Bill is the right time to get it right. I hope the Minister will reflect further on the raft of amendments to this defective Bill that will be introduced in the House of Lords if we do not put this right in the House of Commons. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19

Personal data breaches

‘(1) The Data Protection Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 24 insert—

“24A Personal data breaches: notification to the Commissioner

(1) In this section, section 24B and section 24C, “personal data breach” means unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data or accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.

(2) Subject to subsections (3), (4)(c) and (4)(d), if a personal data breach occurs, the data controller in respect of the personal data concerned in that breach shall, without undue delay, notify the breach to the Commissioner.

(3) The notification referred to in subsection (2) is not required to the extent that the personal data concerned in the personal data breach are exempt from the seventh data protection principle.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) prescribe matters which a notification under subsection (2) must contain;

(b) prescribe the period within which, following detection of a personal data breach, a notification under subsection (2) must be given;

(c) provide that subsection (2) shall not apply to certain data controllers;

(d) provide that subsection (2) shall not apply to personal data breaches of a particular description or descriptions.

24B Personal data breaches: notification to the data subject

‘(1) Subject to subsections (2), (3), (4), (6)(b) and (6)(c), if a personal data breach is likely to adversely affect the personal data or privacy of a data subject, the data controller in respect of the personal data concerned in that breach shall also, without undue delay, notify the breach to the data subject concerned, insofar as it is reasonably practicable to do so.

(2) The notification referred to in subsection (1) is not required to the extent that the personal data concerned in the personal data breach are exempt from the seventh data protection principle.

(3) The notification referred to in subsection (1) is not required to the extent that the personal data concerned in the personal data breach are exempt from section 7(1).

(4) The notification referred to in subsection (1) is not required if the data controller has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner—

(a) that the data controller has implemented appropriate measures which render the data unintelligible to any person who is not authorised to access it, and

(b) that those measures were applied to the data concerned in that personal data breach.

(5) If the data controller has not notified the data subject in compliance with subsection (1), the Commissioner may, having considered the likely adverse effects of the personal data breach, require the data controller to do so.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) prescribe matters which a notification under subsection (1) must contain;

(b) provide that subsection (1) shall not apply to certain data controllers;

(c) provide that subsection (1) shall not apply to personal data breaches of a particular description or descriptions.

24C Personal data breaches: audit

‘(1) Data controllers shall maintain an inventory of personal data breaches comprising—

(a) the facts surrounding the breach,

(b) the effects of that breach, and

(c) remedial action taken

which shall be sufficient to enable the Commissioner to verify compliance with the provisions of sections 24A and 24B. The inventory shall only include information necessary for this purpose.

(2) The Commissioner may audit the compliance of data controllers with the provisions of sections 24A, 24B and 24C(1).

(3) In section 40 (Enforcement notices)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after “data protection principles,” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;

(ii) for “principle or principles” substitute “principle, principles, section or sections”;

(b) in subsection 6(a) after “principles” insert “or the section or sections”.

(4) In section 41 (Cancellation of enforcement notice”)—

(a) in subsection (1) after “principles” insert “or the section or sections”;

(b) in subsection (2) after “principles” insert “or the section or sections”.

(5) In section 41A (Assessment notices)—

(a) in subsection (1) after “data protection principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;

(b) in subsection (10)(b) after “data protection principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”.

(6) In section 41C (Code of practice about assessment notices)—

(a) in subsection (4)(a) after “principles” insert “and sections 24A, 24B and 24C”;

(b) in subsection (4)(b) after “principles” insert “or sections”.

(7) In section 43 (Information notices)—

(a) in subsection 43(1)—

(i) after “data protection principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;

(ii) after “the principles” insert “or those sections”;

(b) in subsection 43(2)(b) after “principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”.

(8) In section 55A (Power of Commissioner to impose monetary penalty)—

(a) after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) The Commissioner may also serve a data controller with a monetary penalty notice if the Commissioner is satisfied that there has been a serious contravention of section 24A, 24B or 24C by the data controller.”;

(b) in subsection (3A) after “subsection (1)” insert “or (1A)”;

(c) in subsection (4) omit “determined by the Commissioner and”;

(d) in subsection (5)—

(i) after “The amount” insert “specified in a monetary penalty notice served under subsection (1) shall be”;

(ii) after “Commissioner” insert “and”;

(e) after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) The amount specified in a monetary penalty notice served under subsection (1A) shall be £1,000.

(5B) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (5A) to change the amount specified therein.”

(9) In section 55B (Monetary penalty notices: procedural rights)—

(a) in subsection (3)(a) omit “and”;

(b) after subsection (3)(a) insert—

(aa) specify the provision of this Act of which the Commissioner is satisfied there has been a serious contravention, and”;

(c) after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) A data controller may discharge liability for a monetary penalty in respect of a contravention of section 24A, 24B or 24C if he pays to the Commissioner the amount of £800 before the time within which the data controller may make representations to the Commissioner has expired.

(3B) A notice of intent served in respect of a contravention of section 24A, 24B or 24C must include a statement informing the data controller of the opportunity to discharge liability for the monetary penalty.

(3C) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (3A) to change the amount specified therein, save that the amount specified in subsection (3A) must be less than the amount specified in section 55A(5A).”;

(d) in subsection (5) after “served” insert “under section 55A(1)”;

(e) after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) A person on whom a monetary penalty notice is served under section 55A(1A) may appeal to the Tribunal against the issue of the monetary penalty notice.”

(10) In section 55C(2)(b) (Guidance about monetary penalty notices) at the end insert “specified in a monetary penalty notice served under section 55A(1)”.

(12) In section 67 (Orders, regulations and rules)—

(a) in subsection (4)—

(i) after “order” insert “or regulations”;

(ii) after “section 22(1),” insert “section 24A(4)(c) or (d), 24B(6)(b) or(c),”;

(b) in subsection (5)—

(i) after subsection (c) insert “(ca) regulations under section 24A(4)(a) or (b) or section 24B(6)(a),”;

(ii) for “(ca) regulations under section 55A(5) or (7) or 55B(3)(b),” substitute “(cb) regulations under section 55A(5), (5B) or (7) or 55B(3)(b) or (3C),”.

(13) In section 71 (Index of defined expressions) after “personal data |section 1(1)” insert “personal data breach |section 24A(1)”.

(14) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 9—

(a) after paragraph 1(1)(a) insert—

“(aa) that a data controller has contravened or is contravening any provision of section 24A, 24B or 24C, or”;

(b) in paragraph 1(1B) after “principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;

(c) in paragraph (3)(d)(ii) after “principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;

(d) in paragraph (3)(f) after “principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C.””

This new clause seeks to create a general obligation on data controllers to notify the Information Commissioner and data subjects in the event of a breach of personal data security. The proposed obligation is similar to that imposed on electronic communication service providers by the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.—(Louise Haigh.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Digital Economy Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Hancock]

It was going so well and we were having such a rational debate until that sudden outburst. Let me respond to the points that were made. I am proud to support clause 76, which safeguards the TV licence and delivers on our manifesto commitment to maintain free TV licences in this Parliament. Until that speech right at the end, we heard an awful lot of bluster but saw little light, so I will remind the Committee of a few facts.

First, transferring the responsibility for the free TV licences to the BBC as part of the funding settlement was agreed with the BBC and is what it says on the tin: it is part of a funding settlement. The question of who pays is part of the funding of the BBC. In July last year, Tony Hall, the Director General of the BBC, said:

"I think we have a deal here which is a strong deal for the BBC. It gives us financial stability."

I suggest that anybody who votes against clause 76 votes against financial stability of the BBC and is ultimately voting to put the free TV licence at risk. I will be saying to all 8,853 of my constituents who get a free TV licence that we are safeguarding the free TV licence.

In the run-up to the 2015 general election, during which we committed to protecting the TV licence in this Parliament, who was it that wanted to do away with it? Who was it? A certain Mr Ed Balls, who is now more famous for being on the TV than for talking about TV policy. When he was questioned about whether the universal free TV licence should stay, while he was saying that the universal winter fuel payments should not, he said:

“I think you have to be pragmatic”

about the TV licence. It was the Labour party that put the free TV licence at risk and we are proud that we supported it in our manifesto.

The director-general did not stop there. He also said:

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

Unfortunately for those who seek to cause a fuss about this, their view on funding seems to go against the view of the director-general of the BBC.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matt Hancock]

I will give way if the hon. Gentleman can explain why he disagrees with the director-general of the BBC.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister does not understand parliamentary procedure. That is not a reason to give way. He should give way to allow me to ask him a question, to avoid my having to make a speech. My question—a straightforward question, which does not require anything but a straightforward answer—is on what principle he thinks that this is the right move.

[Matt Hancock]

On the principle that the BBC is responsible for the funding of the BBC according to the licence fee negotiations agreed with the Government. This is a funding decision, and funding issues are for the BBC.

I have given the Opposition a couple of quotations from the head of the BBC about why he agrees with the policy. Let me give them another quotation:

“The Labour party welcomes the fact that the charter provides the BBC with the funding and security it needs as it prepares to enter its second century of broadcasting.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 699.]

Not my words, but those of the boss of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). Well, I agree with her boss—he was absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I am sure the Information Commissioner will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s plea. There is such logic and force behind it that I am sure it will be taken into account.

[Kevin Brennan]

We very much support the concession that the Minister made following the evidence session and the amendments tabled. Does he think that anything more could be done where the origin of these calls is overseas, as with very many of them?

[Matt Hancock]

I propose after consultation to bring in measures to ensure that the liability is on the individual. That will significantly strengthen the hand of the regulator here, alongside the code of practice, but I am open to working with the hon. Gentleman and others to see what else we can do for calls that originate from overseas. I entirely understand the problem. Ultimately, we are trying to stop as much spamming as possible, while allowing people to communicate and use modern means of communication.

Digital Economy Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Hancock]

I am delighted to respond to these points. I take this opportunity to commend the Opposition Front Benchers and, in particular, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, for how she proved, earlier in Committee, how it is possible to put points with great clarity and precision, such that on Thursday we rose early—somehow that seems unlikely today.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matt Hancock]

No. The Government are committed to repealing section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, following public consultation which ended this year and concluded that section 73 is no longer relevant. Amendments 63, 64 and 94 seek to ensure that the repeal will be brought into force rapidly following Royal Assent and amendment 189 would provide for the Government to produce a report on the implications and a consultation on the future of television content distribution and public service broadcasters. I should say that after today’s Committee session I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty will be known as “the IP king”. He has been the most ardent defender of intellectual property and its protection and he made very strong arguments.

On the case for a report and a consultation, Opposition Front Benchers asked the Government to face up to the challenges of new technology and its impact on public sector broadcasting and more broadly, and it is absolutely true that there is a huge impact of technology, both in distribution methods and in software, in terms of how we are watching content. Indeed, I understand that in China more films are watched on a hand-held than on a fixed device, and the trend is in the same direction here. This is clearly a very big issue and I am glad that all members of the Committee are alive to it.

I would say, though, that in response to amendment 189, we did just hold a public consultation precisely on the balance of payments between television platforms and the public sector broadcasters which considered the regulatory framework. It considered these questions and came forward with the proposal to repeal section 73. So I gently say to Opposition Front Benchers that, although I can see the point of the amendment, the report that they seek and the consultation that they are asking for by way of what I accept is a probing amendment is what we delivered through that consultation earlier in the year. The changes that we are seeking to make in legislation are a conclusion of exactly the sort of consultation that they have been looking for. The consultation was published on 5 July. I am glad that its conclusions have cross-party support.

We strongly support public service broadcasting in the UK. We believe that it has a long, vital and sustainable future and we will ensure that it does. I cannot give a clearer commitment to public service broadcasting. Even through these changes in technology, the evidence on viewer habits shows that public service broadcasting remains valued and valuable, and we support it.

I turn to some of the detailed questions. I was asked about the TPS regulatory regime. That was also considered as part of the consultation. We decided that different regulatory regimes are still appropriate, given the differing technical requirements of different TV platforms. There is a big change: an amalgamation of different delivery platforms for broadcasting from the old cable, terrestrial and satellite, and increasingly things are moving to broadband and fibre.

Following our discussion last week, I note that today TalkTalk has announced a full roll-out of full fibre to the whole of York, so there is progress in the full fibre drive that we are looking for in this country. However, there remain different technologies, so we think that it is still appropriate to have different regulatory regimes for them, although clearly the interoperability between them is important. I hope that that explanation addresses the point.

[Kevin Brennan]

Does the Minister have any concerns, or did the review reveal any concerns, about the point that I made about the opaqueness of the kind of deal now done under the TPS regime? That makes it impossible to judge whether it is truly fairer to public service broadcasters.

[Matt Hancock]

I will come to that and answer it alongside the question about the impact of removing section 73 where there are must-offer obligations. In truth, there are a huge number of commercial deals between the public service broadcasters and those that carry the PSB content to a wider distribution network. Whether it is through the TPS regime or the regime that we are discussing, many PSB broadcasters have contractual arrangements for their non-PSB content. That happens perfectly reasonably, whether it is through that regulatory regime or through a non-PSB deal delivered using non-satellite transmission.

We do not expect PSB content to be withdrawn because of the existence of contractual arrangements for PSB content replacing section 73. Indeed, there are contractual arrangements for lots of non-PSB content, so I do not see why those contracts cannot be entered into, but the issue does lead to the question whether there should be a transitional regime to ensure that there is no interregnum.

In the event of a PSB and a platform failing to agree terms for the carriage of a service, it is for Ofcom to consider whether the proposal of the PSB was compliant with the must-offer obligations in its licence. Were Ofcom to conclude that it was not, it would expect the PSB to submit a revised offer to the platform. Until now, Ofcom has not had to intervene, because no disputes have arisen presenting any real risk of refusal to supply by PSBs or to carry by platform operators.

The timing question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty and by the Opposition. The consultation report included an assessment of the implications of repealing section 73, and there was recognition of the potential impacts on the underlying rights market, meaning that the Government have decided that a further technical consultation should be run by the Intellectual Property Office.

I assure the Committee that the Government have every intention of bringing into force the repeal of section 73 rapidly; we plan to do it before the start of summer recess 2017. Repealing section 73 immediately could impact rights that have previously been exempt from remuneration in relation to the underlying copyright content in cable retransmissions, such as those held by scriptwriters or musicians whose intellectual property forms part of the relevant broadcast content. Our approach is to ensure an orderly transition.

Some respondents to the original consultation said that there could be disputes between the cable platform and the underlying rights holders when trying to agree terms and that a transitional period may be helpful. The Intellectual Property Office is currently running a brief technical consultation, as has been mentioned, to examine the extent of those issues and to assess whether any transitional measures are required.

I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the consultation, but in terms of whether a transitional period would be required, the IPO’s consultation seeks views on options ranging from no transitional period to a transitional period of up to two years following Royal Assent. Even if the full transitional period is decided on as a result of that consultation, and assuming that the Bill receives Royal Assent in spring 2017, we expect the repeal of section 73 to come fully into force by spring 2019 at the latest.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister talked about bringing the repeal into force rapidly before the summer recess in 2017, and then issued further caveats and talked about 2019. Will he clarify that for the Committee?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. We will bring the repeal into force before the start of the summer recess in 2017. There may then be a transitional period, depending on the current IPO consultation, but the maximum transitional period, should there be one, will be two years. I added two years on to the summer recess of 2017 to get to what the Government call spring 2019—it will probably be the warmer end of spring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

It is a four-week consultation and it started yesterday, so it has three weeks and six days to run, if my maths are right.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that timetable as he envisages it. In addition to that, during the course of my remarks I talked about the possibility of a dispute arising between a public service broadcaster and a platform following the repeal of section 73. What is the Minister’s view on how that sort of dispute could be resolved without consumers being affected?

[Matt Hancock]

That could easily be resolved by a contractual agreement, as the two parties in such cases have in many other examples. For example, Channel 4 has a PSB element and non-PSB channels. The non-PSB channels are not covered by section 73, so the PSB element of Channel 4’s broadcasting will be in a similar position to its non-PSB element in future. Since those contractual arrangements exist between the parties covered by section 73, I see no reason why they cannot pretty quickly put in place similar contractual arrangements, not least because the decision to repeal section 73 was taken some months ago and the companies have had some time to prepare.

The final point raised was about the impact of the repeal on Virgin Media’s broadband roll-out. I see absolutely no link between the two. I am delighted that Virgin Media is looking at a broader, full-fibre roll-out, in the same way that TalkTalk has announced further progress today. Nobody at Virgin Media has raised this link with me, and given that Virgin Media is owned by one of the most well-capitalised companies in the world, I cannot see any crossover between the two—and I think it is disingenuous to suggest there is. With that, I hope hon. Members will withdraw the amendments so we can proceed.

[Kevin Brennan]

As I made clear, it is not our intention to put our amendments to a vote at this stage. The debate was extremely interesting, important and useful, despite the Minister’s seeming resentment of having debates that go into the detail of the Bill and despite his remarks about rising early. He should be careful about making such remarks, given that he was late for the first sitting of the Committee.

There is an important issue at stake here: in our proceedings, the Government get their way because they have a majority, but the Opposition have their say. That is the constitutional principle on which we are all here and it is the role that we play. The Minister’s continual grumpiness about that is not helping his cause. I thought it was a useful debate that has revealed and drawn out more clearly some of the Government’s thinking on the timetabling of the repeal of section 73. We are not going to put our amendments to a vote at this stage, but these are matters we might revisit later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Terrific! I am delighted to respond. As we know, clause 28 will repeal section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, which currently provides that copyright in a broadcast of public service broadcasting services, and any work in the broadcast, that is retransmitted by cable is not infringed when the broadcast is receivable in the area of the retransmission. In effect, that means that cable TV platforms are not required to provide copyright fees in relation to core public service broadcasting channels. The provision was brought in at the onset of the cable industry in the UK to provide for the industry to compete with terrestrial by providing PSB content. However, that was a long time ago and technology, as everyone has noticed, has moved on a long way.

Last year we consulted on the repeal of section 73, and I am glad that there is cross-party agreement on it. The conclusion that the Government reached, and which has been agreed to by the Committee, is that the section is no longer relevant. There are a wide variety of platforms that ensure that virtually everyone in the UK is able to receive public service broadcasts and, following the completion of the digital switchover in 2012, digital TV services are now available to more than 99% of customers, whether through terrestrial, satellite, cable or fibre platforms. The cable market has moved from a large number of local providers in the 1980s, when section 73 was introduced, to one big one, and it has also gone up massively in scale, from hundreds of thousands to more than 4 million subscribers.

We are satisfied that the objective of ensuring that PSB services are available throughout the UK has been met. Therefore, section 73 is no longer required. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty pointed out earlier, this also closes a loophole, because live streaming services based on the internet are broadcasting TV programmes and relying on section 73 to exploit PSB content by retransmitting channels and selling advertising around the service without any of the benefit flowing to the PSBs. I think we all agree that is wrong, so I am glad there is cross-party support for the change.

Let me respond to some of the questions that were put, looking first at new clause 14. I am a strong believer in the listed events system. Major events such as the Olympic games and the FA cup final draw huge audiences. The listed events regime has worked well. The status of these events, as listed events, boosts them and their broadcast to the nation brings us together. I am delighted that the SNP supports the listed events regime as well. I fear I am going to have to resist the SNP’s suggestion that we should use the listed events regime to ensure that Scotland is always in the World cup finals, in the same way that we cannot legislate for the tide never to come in or the sun never to set, but it is very important and it is close to people’s hearts.

The right to broadcast listed events must be offered to qualifying channels, defined as those that are received without payment by at least 95% of the UK population. Ofcom is responsible for publishing the list of channels that satisfy those criteria. We have no evidence to suggest that recent developments, with more online viewing, will put the BBC or other PSBs at immediate risk of failing to meet these qualifying criteria. I know that concern has been raised, but I have discussed it with the BBC and Ofcom, I have gone into the details, and I am not convinced there is a risk in the near term at all.

[Kevin Brennan]

I did say that, because of the criteria’s increasingly outdated nature, the 95% threshold will probably not be met by any TV channel at some stage during this Parliament. Is the Minister telling the Committee that that is categorically wrong?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes; I disagree with that analysis. Were that to become the problem, then we would need to act, because we support the listed events regime. However, we do not agree with the analysis that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, not only because of the measurement on the existing, most restrictive definition of the 95%, but because the definition of qualifying channels are those that are received without payment. There are many ways to receive a channel without payment, including online, so viewers moving from terrestrial TV to online does not necessarily—and in my view does not—remove them from that 95%.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister has made the point, and I thank him for making it categorically: he believes that that will not happen during this Parliament. However, he also said that if it were to happen, the Government would have to act. Is that not the very reason why he should support the new clause? It would give legislative backing to the Government to produce a report to examine what ought to be done in those circumstances.

[Matt Hancock]

No, because I do not think that is going to happen. The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of what we should do if the legislative underpinning of the regime were to collapse. He came up with a specific proposal. I think that the proposal is itself flawed because it was to switch the measure from channels received without payment to those that are viewed, and that changes its nature significantly: from channels that are received, so can be viewed by somebody, to those channels that are viewed, which would be far more restrictive in terms of the channels that could then provide listed events. It is not a surprise to me that it is incumbents who want to make that argument because they are the ones that are watched, as opposed to those that can be watched.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister alluded at the end to the fact that we are not making that proposal in our new clause. We were rehearsing that argument during discussion of the new clause. Obviously he does not agree with it, but it is important to put on the record that that particular proposal is not in the new clause. It asks for a report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Again, my happiness is secondary really, but my problem with the proposition being put forward is that trying to define sub-menus and user interfaces in regulation, especially statutory regulation, is incredibly hard. The technological landscape is shifting quickly. It is best left to the Ofcom guidance to answer such questions. We looked into the matter in some detail in the consultation, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his support for the new clause.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister is saying that it is up to Ofcom to decide, but is not the point that what we are trying to do here is exactly what Ofcom is proposing?

[Matt Hancock]

No, because it is for Ofcom to issue guidance on linear EPGs. Ofcom is required as a duty to make the system work. Rather than going further down this route, having considered it, we do not want to be over-prescriptive, given the technological changes that are happening. With that, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendment and then vote that clause 28 stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

We will, of course, be voting on any new clauses not today but later in our proceedings. Does Mr Brennan have any remarks to make?

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, briefly. As you say, Mr Streeter, we will come to the new clauses later in the Bill. I do not think that it will necessarily be our intention at this point—we will cogitate further—to push them to a vote, but there are issues here to which we might want to refer on Report. One of my colleagues has pointed out that the Minister did not answer a question about Sky. Rather than making another speech, does he want to intervene during my brief remarks?

[Matt Hancock]

As I said in the discussion of the previous set of amendments, Sky is subject to a different regulatory regime. There are conditional access charges for satellite within that regime, which must be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory for all channels. We considered that as part of the balance of payments consultation and came to the conclusion that it did not need to be changed, because of the requirement set out in the DPS code.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Minister for saving us time with that helpful intervention.

[Kevin Brennan]

We discussed this issue, and the nature of that regime, earlier today. My observation was that the situation was extremely opaque, which is why we proposed earlier amendments to the Bill to suggest that the whole area should be reviewed—for that very reason. My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point. It will be worth reading his remarks, and those made earlier today by Government and Opposition Committee members, on that point.

When we discussed new clause 14, which deals with listed sporting events, I worried that there is a degree of complacency in the Government. People will have heard what the Minister said about the issue, and we will be interested to hear what others have to say about his response. We should lay down a marker to say that we do not think that the Government are really listening or hearing what we are saying about this subject, and they are not sufficiently attuned to the dangers to listed sporting events. I know that the Minister is a keen and successful sportsman in his jockeying activities, on which I congratulate him. I am sure that he would want to see—

[Matt Hancock]

Not the Grand National, though.

[Kevin Brennan]

National hunt or flat? I cannot remember.

[Matt Hancock]

Flat.

[Kevin Brennan]

He is a flat racing jockey—and, from what I have seen, a very good one—but he should be concerned about the possible future of events such as the Grand National, which, as he rightly said, bring the country together and are meaningful and important cultural events as well as sporting ones.

On new clause 17 and PSB prominence, again, the Minister says that he has not seen compelling evidence of harm, but I think that we supplied him with plenty of compelling evidence of the potential for harm, which is what the Bill is about. It should be about the digital future, as we have said. I take his point about extreme micromanagement—that is valid—but we are not talking about that; we are talking about setting clear parameters to ensure that public service broadcasting prominence remains across all platforms. Although we are unlikely to press the new clause to a vote later, we reserve the right to return to these issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Digital Economy Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

What a pleasure it is finally to stand to respond to the long interventions and speeches from Labour Members. It is a joy to hear that at least some of them understand and believe in property rights. Conservative Members certainly do.

The discussion has turned into a debate not only on amendments 92 and 93 and new clauses 3 and 33 but essentially on clause stand part. I therefore hope that Committee members will understand if I explain the whole clause in my response.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister is seeking to chair the Committee now as well as being the Minister.

[The Chair]

And he is doing it extremely well but it will be my decision.

[Matt Hancock]

It is a team effort.

The amendments are to clause 26, which increases the maximum sentence for online copyright infringement from two to 10 years, which is equal to the sentence for physical copyright infringement. The case for this has been made powerfully by Government and Opposition Members and it is an important change. Whether online or offline or a combination of the two, copyright infringement is IP theft and it is right that the maximum sentence is the same.

This sends a clear message that copyright infringement of either kind will not be tolerated and affirms that creators who produce the content that we all enjoy are valued. Furthermore, enforcement agencies will now have proportionate sanctions to tackle this serious criminality, whether offline or online.

We recognise that the maximum sentence of 10 years, even if only for the most serious cases, must be carefully targeted. Consequently, clause 26 also makes changes to the existing offence of online copyright infringement to make it clearer when that offence is committed and who should be considered liable. The amendments speak to some of those points.

The concept of prejudicial effect in the existing legislation will be replaced with a requirement that the infringer intends to make a monetary gain for themselves or knows or has reason to believe their actions will expose the rights holder to a loss or risk of loss in money. I will come to the debate around definition of that in more detail.

The point of this clarification is to act as a safeguard to ensure that the increased maximum penalty is applied only to serious criminals who deserve it and will not apply to those who share material accidently or without knowledge of the consequences.

Turning to the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West, or at least the ones that were pertinent—

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Streeter. Am I right in saying that as the Chair of the Committee, had I made any points that were not pertinent, you would have ruled me out of order?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

We are getting to the crux of the matter: the words the Minister uses are very important. All joking and jibing aside, which he enjoys, there is a serious reason for laying these matters firmly on the record in Committee—that is our serious purpose here and our constitutional role. He said, “is not expected to be caught by this offence”. I fear that that is not really strong enough in response to my points. We need to understand whether it is possible for individual consumers to be captured by it. If so, the Minister should tell the Committee.

[Matt Hancock]

As I said, it is for the courts to decide about criminal infringement on a case-by-case basis, but I am making clear that that is unlikely and not the expected outcome in the case of a person who accidentally shares a single file without the appropriate licence. The reason I do not go further and make it absolute is to ensure that the court can make a fair judgment on this, rather than be bound. I want to go further, because there is another important point here about the impact of this on activities that are currently lawful. We do not expect things that are currently lawful to be caught by this change. This is a change in the scope of the sentence rather than in the definition of the offence. I want to make that very clear.

On the second point that the hon. Member for Cardiff West made about the legal distinction between “owners of copyright” and “owners of the rights”, “owners of copyright” relates to the offence of communicating to the public, whereas “owners of the rights” relates to the performer’s right of making available. This is a legal distinction: they are two separate offences but there is no substantive difference in the meaning of the two. The reason has to do with the legal drafting of the offence rather than the lay understanding of the meaning of the two.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of trolls. I want to be clear that while we understand that some people may receive threatening letters from so-called trolls, we are not aware of any successful court case by these so-called trolls in this area. We do not endorse such aggressive tactics and we understand that this tactic is not widespread, but we will keep it under review.

Going more broadly into the debate that we have just enjoyed, since 2002, when the maximum custodial sentence for copyright infringement was changed, this has clearly been wrong. I am glad that there is all-party agreement on the change to 10 years, but in addition to increasing the maximum sentence, we have recast the relevant offences to include an additional element to the offences, which must be proved before an offence is made out, namely that the infringer intends to make a monetary gain for themselves or another person, or knows or has reason to believe that their actions will cause loss to the rights holder or a risk of loss in money. Amendments 92 and 93 would remove this additional element, but there are several reasons why it should be retained. We should remember that serious incidents of online copyright infringement or infringement of a performer’s making available right already fall within the scope of criminal law, as I mentioned.

It is right that the courts should be able to apply serious sanctions where they are warranted and apply the equivalent sanction to that available for physical copyright infringement, but it is our view that it is important to include the words, “risk of loss” to capture cases where the loss has not yet materialised. We believe that these same scenarios would fall within the current drafting of the offences, which relies on the prejudicial effect, but we have tightened the notion of prejudicial effect following consultation, to be more precise and targeted in the wording being examined today. I hope that satisfies the understandable request by the hon. Member for Cardiff West for clarity to be put on the record as to the intent of clause 26.

I now wish to turn to new clause 3 on search engines. We had a serious debate on the impact of search engines. We come from a position of being strong believers in the protection of property rights, and we want to ensure that the UK retains one of the best IP regimes in the world. Without content, there is no IP to protect, so I pay tribute to the BPI’s work: to support take-downs and to make the eloquent case for stronger IP protection. I also pay tribute to Get it Right from a Genuine Site, which does important work in making sure that culturally it is unreasonable—and seen as unreasonable—to take IP without paying for it.

I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) who made an important point on newspaper articles that appear in search engines. We support fair remuneration and we encourage content providers and online platforms to work together on this. This is an issue that has been raised with me directly, and it is pertinent to the debate. We want to encourage investment in new content, and we support returns for investigative journalism and other kinds of journalism, and I hope we come to a resolution on fair remuneration between content providers and online platforms, in the first instance. However, my hon. Friend’s intervention is noted.

In relation to clause 3, as the Committee knows from the discussion, the Minister for Intellectual Property, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, has been working closely with search engines and representatives of the creative industries. We are fulfilling our manifesto commitment to ensure that there is a fair return, and the group is currently considering a voluntary code of practice. I agree with the thrust of the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty, who put the case strongly. Our intention is for the voluntary negotiations and the voluntary code of practice to come to a successful fruition, and the people involved in those negotiations will doubtless have heard the argument and understood the strength of feeling on this Committee. Given this ongoing work and the existing remedies for removing or blocking infringement content, I hope that hon. Members will agree that now is not the right time for a broad reserve power.

[Kevin Brennan]

Surely now, when we have a legislative vehicle in front of us that could not have been better designed for this very purpose, is exactly the right time. Committee members would have a right to be annoyed if, in making this broad assertion that now is not the right time, the Minister were subsequently to concede on this point at a later stage in the Bill’s progress, in another place and in an unelected House. Will he tell us truthfully what the Government’s intentions are on this point?

[Matt Hancock]

I care about the substance of getting this Bill through right. There are, of course, important parts of parliamentary process both here and in the other place. Given that the round-table discussions are ongoing, including a meeting next week, now is not the right time for the broad reserve power.

New clause 33 seeks to expand the criminal liability to include the supply of IPTV boxes for criminal infringement. As hon. Members will understand from the tone of my remarks, as a strong believer in property right protection, I understand the concern. The hon. Member for Cardiff West referred to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the fact that the Minister for Intellectual Property had committed to making sure that we looked at this, and we have done so. This activity is already covered by criminal law under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2015. The City of London police force is investigating cases. It seized over 500 set-top boxes earlier this year and arrested a man for fraud and IP offences.

There is a danger in the digital world of legislating for a specific technology as opposed to legislating for the offence in a technology-neutral way. I strongly prefer the latter. As the law is already in existence in the two Acts that I mentioned, the best thing to do is to prosecute under the existing Acts, rather than try to chase a particular technology, which may well be out of date. Our strategy for tackling IP crime includes a specific commitment to developing an understanding of the challenges posed by IPTV. We now need an approach that tackles the problem, rather than just current IPTV set top-box technology, which will no doubt be superseded in due course by future technologies. The existing criminal offences provide a legislative framework that is broad enough to protect our creative industries. However, I will of course keep this area under review.

I hope Members have been reassured of the work we are doing to make sure we apply the existing criminal law and make sure that intellectual property is protected. I concur with all the remarks made by Committee members about the importance of the creative industries, the importance of supporting content providers and the importance of intellectual property. I hope that with these explanations, the hon. Member for Cardiff West will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[The Chair]

Before I call Mr Brennan, it may help the Committee to know that it is not my intention to allow a wider debate on clause 26. We have had a good old canter around the course.

[Kevin Brennan]

Thank you, Mr Streeter, for letting us know your decision—not influenced at all, I am sure, by the efforts of the Minister to chair the Committee as well as leading for the Government. I will take into account in my response that you are including clause stand part in this part of our debate.

I made it clear at the outset that amendments 92 and 93 were probing amendments and I am very grateful for Minister’s explanation of the meaning and intention of the wording. As I have made clear, it is not our intention to push the amendments to a Division, but I think we need to cogitate a little further before Report and the latter stages of the Bill and perform a more careful exegesis of what the Minister said when he used the phrase “not expected”.

[Matt Hancock]

I can go yet further on that. The reason this is rightly done on a case-by-case basis is that we are talking about an existing offence. It is important to remember that. We are not making something illegitimate which is currently legitimate; we are adding to what is required to make out an offence. We are not making something that is currently legitimate now illegitimate. That is why it is reasonable to proceed on that basis, with the language that I used.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful for the further clarification and for the Minister engaging in the discussion. We will think further about what he has said. I think it has been a very helpful exploration of the issue. I am not sure that he is right when he receives advice that the trolling issue is not widespread, which was the phrase he used. Obviously we can dig into that a bit further as we progress with scrutinising the Bill, but I welcome the fact that he said he would keep that under review. This is a very real issue and the fact that there may not be many prosecutions around it is often related to the fact that such activity is not necessarily illegal—the point I made in my contribution. Nevertheless, it can bring great distress to vulnerable individuals. We all know that the issue of vulnerable individuals being targeted by unscrupulous individuals, organisations and networks online is growing.

[Matt Hancock]

The challenge, though, is to ensure that reasonable protection of intellectual property is not ruled out by stopping any such speculative activity. There is a genuine policy challenge in how to support the protection of intellectual property. We are not aware of any successful legal cases by the trolls. People should therefore be reassured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

In a nutshell, that is the reason for new clause 3, and I am sure that was exactly the thinking of the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty when he tabled it.

It might help if the Minister indicated when he expects the talks to conclude. He says he hopes there will be a positive outcome to them and that this is not the right time for new clause 3. He likes to talk softly; if new clause 3 were incorporated into the Bill, he could carry a big stick while talking softly about this matter. If he is not prepared to amend the Bill, perhaps he could tell the Committee when he believes the talks should conclude, as that would help to focus minds a bit. Perhaps he could put it on record that he is not happy to allow the talks to drift on and on inconclusively, as they have for many years.

We are not satisfied with the Minister’s response on new clause 3, and I repeat that it is my belief that at some point during the progress of the Bill the Government will concede on that point. It would be a terrible shame if they did not concede to the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty—one of their own elected Members here in the Commons, who has tabled a sensible amendment—but did so in another place, giving the credit, yet again, to the unelected House for being a wonderful House in revising legislation. There is plenty of expertise right here in the Committee and in this House, among elected Members who know about the subject and know that this is the right thing to do. I urge the Minister to change his mind about new clause 3, if not now, perhaps on Report, when we will no doubt return to the issue.

Finally, I hope it is helpful to you, Mr Streeter, to be aware that it is not my intention to divide the Committee on new clause 33. As for the Minister’s response, I think I referred to the shortcomings of the current offence. I did not say we did not think that people could currently be prosecuted, under the Fraud Act 2006 or the Serious Crime Act 2015; in fact, I specifically mentioned those Acts—it might have been while the Minister was searching for something online. I also mentioned why the Acts were inadequate, and the Minister did not respond. First, they require a great deal of expertise in the area on the part of the police, which is not necessarily a resource that is sufficient to meet the growing size of the problem. Secondly, by amending the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, my new clause would have not just allowed but compelled trading standards to get involved and would have allowed the body to take action.

It would be useful to hear from the Minister why he does not think it a good idea that trading standards should be brought into play in that way, rather than simply relying on a police force that is under pressure and has many things to investigate—an ever-growing problem. Is it the Government’s position that is it wrong that trading standards would be the right body to involve? It would be extremely useful if the Minister felt able to clarify that. He said that he would keep the matter under review. I welcome that, and I hope he will be able to tell us more about the issue at a later stage, but if he told us at this stage why trading standards is not the right body to involve, that would be helpful.

We have had a fairly comprehensive debate. I do not think I need to add much on clause stand part, apart from that the latest data, published by the IPO, demonstrate the need for Government action. The research found that 15% of internet users—6.7 million people—still access copyright-infringing content, so it is absolutely right that the Government should act. I hope that the Minister feels able to add a bit more, in light of what I have said.

[Matt Hancock]

Very briefly, I mentioned that one of the meetings in the negotiations with search engines is next week. We expect the meetings to conclude over the next few weeks, and that is why the timing is appropriate.

[Kevin Brennan]

Perhaps I am speaking against what I said earlier, but if the Government do not give way on that point and the talks conclude unsatisfactorily before Christmas, while the Bill is still before Parliament, will they consider amending the Bill at a later stage?

[Matt Hancock]

I do not want to get into answering conditionals that are dependent on some future action. I have made the case for why now is not the right time and I have given the hon. Gentleman the timeframe over which discussions are taking place.

The hon. Gentleman made the case against new clause 33 very well. These are criminal activities, and it is the police’s role to police them. There are increased resources for the police in this area and I look forward to their taking it on. Our principle is not to legislate for specific offences based on an individual technology when offences already exist that can be used to prosecute the illegal activity.

For instance, many IP TV boxes are sold without any software on them; some have it inbuilt and some do not, and the ones that do not can be used for legitimate and illegitimate purposes. It is far better to have an in principle criminal measure on the statute book and to prosecute with that. Everybody can see the united strength of purpose to ensure that such IP theft does not go unpunished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

That would be an excellent idea, if the Culture, Media and Sport Committee chose to take it up. That is what Select Committees are for; I know the hon. Gentleman does not like them, but I think they are excellent at scrutinising the Government and everything that is going on. With that response, I ask the hon. Member for Cardiff West to withdraw his amendment.

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 27

Registered designs: infringement: marking product with internet link

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Digital Economy Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 20th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Hancock]

The aim is that even though the regulator may be different in those two cases, the result would be the same. I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. The Bill will do that without having double regulation. As we discussed earlier with regard to a different part of the Bill, having double regulation in the same area can lead to confusion and worse outcomes, rather than clarity and better outcomes.

A service that falls within part 4A of the Communications Act 2003—that is to say, one that is outwith the proposals —must not contain any specially restricted material, unless that material is made available in a manner that secures that persons under the age of 18 will not normally see or hear it. Specially restricted material includes R18 material and other material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of 18. Our intention is that such other material should include material that the BBFC would describe as 18 sex works. I think that answers precisely the point that the hon. Lady was making.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

This is a genuine inquiry: did the Minister consider not having double regulation but awarding regulatory oversight of all this to a single regime, possibly the BBFC, thereby taking it away from Ofcom? If he considered that idea, why did he reject it?

[Matt Hancock]

Partly because the regulation of areas currently covered by Ofcom is considered to be working well, so I did not want to throw that regime up in the air. I did want to deal with the additions and make provisions additional to the existing regime.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister’s response prompts the question: if that is the case, why did he not give the responsibility to Ofcom?

[Matt Hancock]

Because I think the BBFC is best at making the very nuanced distinctions between different types of material and their regulation that are required. The way it has landed, with the two regulators sitting side by side, but with the aim that the result of the regulation is the same, is the better way of doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

It is sometimes said that Parliament skates over matters and does not get under the skin of things, but in the discussion we have just had Committee members displayed a great deal of analysis, experience and wisdom, and our debate on the Bill has been enriched by it. I am very grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who made very good contributions to help us get this right.

Exactly as the hon. Lady the Member for Sheffield, Heeley said, getting this right involves walking a tightrope between making sure that there is adequate enforcement and appropriate access for those for whom it is legally perfectly reasonable to access adult content. We must get that balance right. With that mind, we have drafted the clauses, particularly clause 22, to allow the regulator to operate with some freedom, because we also need to make sure that, over time, this remains a good system and is not overly prescriptive. It was ironic that in a speech about privacy, the hon. Lady started to speculate about which MPs enjoyed watching porn. I am definitely not going to do that.

The truth is that age verification technology is developing all the time. Online personal identity techniques are developing all the time, and indeed, the British Government are one of the leading lights in developing identity-verification software that also minimises the data needs for that verification and does not rely on especially large state databases to do that, and therefore does it in a relatively libertarian way, if I can put it that way. Providing for verification of identity or of age, because age without named identity is what is really being sought here, but is difficult to achieve, is an incredibly important issue. A huge amount of resource is going into that globally to get it right, and it ties closely to cyber security and the data protection requirements of any data.

The UK Data Protection Act has a broad consensus behind it and follows the simple principle that within an institution data can be shared, but data must not be shared between institutions. The institution that holds the data is responsible for their safekeeping and significant fines may be imposed for their inadvertent loss. The forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation increases those fines. Rather than reinventing data protection law for the purposes of age verification in this one case, it is better to rest on the long-established case law of data protection on which the Information Commissioner is the lead.

We had a very informed debate on the role of search engines. The regulator will be able to consider whether a search engine is an ancillary service provider. Although we do not specify it, I would expect ISPs to be regarded as ancillary service providers, but that will be for the regulator.

On the name of payment providers who are already engaged, rather than enforced engagement, we already have engagement from Visa, MasterCard, UK Cards Association and the Electronic Money Association, and clearly there a lot more organisations that can and should be engaged.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is interesting that the Minister feels able to say that he would expect ISPs to be regarded as an ancillary service provider, but he did not use the same terminology when talking about search engines. To press him on that, would he expect search engines in some cases, or may be in all cases, to be considered as ancillary service providers?

[Matt Hancock]

I do not draw any distinction between the two, but the decision is for the regulator. The legislation provides that they could be, and it depends on the circumstances whether they would be. Of course, obviously, they play different roles.

[Kevin Brennan]

Just to clarify, I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying that in making no distinction, he would be able to apply the word “expect” to search engines as well as to ISPs. That is what I was probing him to find out.

[Matt Hancock]

I am choosing not to use that word because I want to leave it to the regulator, rather than leaving an implication that it should move one way or the other. The regulator should define what is an ASP according to the legislation.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister is therefore making a distinction between the two. In one case he clearly has an expectation that it will happen, and in the other case he does not. The Committee will be interested to know why he is making that distinction, which he denies he is making, because it is important to our understanding the reluctance in the Bill to involve search engines in some of these regulations.

[Matt Hancock]

They should be treated the same in that the same provisions in the Bill should be applied to each, but each performs a different role and ISPs are inevitably more closely connected to the provision of content because the content goes through an ISP, whereas a search engine may or may not be the route through which content is found. For implementation, it is clear that that is for the regulator to decide within the provisions set out in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

The clause gives discretion to the regulator. If the regulator went after the big porn sites first, it would not have the vires to distinguish and go after those who do the most harm earliest. It is important that it has the ability to make the legislation work in practice.

[Kevin Brennan]

That sounds pretty thin. It is almost like saying that the police would be acting in an ultra vires manner if they did not go after murderers ahead of shoplifters in terms of devoting their resources to their duties. Is that really the reason why this provision is in the Bill? If it is, it is a novel innovation by the Minister that is not often seen in legislation setting up a service.

[Matt Hancock]

As I have just mentioned in the discussion on the previous clause, some of the biggest sites on the internet have more than 2 billion visits a year. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley said, many sites are involved. Allowing discretion for a targeted approach is important. The clause also allows the regulator to

“carry out, commission or support…research…for the purposes of exercising, or considering whether to exercise”

the powers. That is important, too, because we want the regulator to have the power to conduct research to inform its views. Both those things are important parts of the execution of age verification.

Digital Economy Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 20th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Hancock]

We have been very accommodating on the timings. Not only did we remove the Tuesday afternoon sitting at the request of the Labour party, but we added another sitting at the end. We cancelled the sitting last Thursday afternoon at the request of the Labour party, despite the fact that we wanted it to happen. In fact, the amount of scrutiny in Committee will be less than we originally proposed, at the request of the Labour party. We will not have any truck with that one.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

How many amendments has the Minister tabled?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I obviously agree.

[Kevin Brennan]

I note that the Minister has not answered my question, and I am not sure that he even knows how many amendments he has tabled. Of course it is appropriate to table amendments, but it is not appropriate to introduce a Bill that is so unready that the Government have already tabled more than 130 amendments. That is not good practice, and he knows very well that it is not; I do not know why he is contesting that fact. We want to proceed with the business, but we put our point on the record. I hope that he and his officials take note.

[Matt Hancock]

People reading the transcript will notice that we have eaten up another five minutes discussing the process.

[Kevin Brennan]

You were two minutes late when we started.

[Matt Hancock]

No. I want to get on to the scrutiny of the Bill, but I will take on board the Labour party’s point that it does not think amendments are a good idea. I think the whole point of the parliamentary process is to make amendments. With that, I hope that we can get on with the Bill.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. If the Minister thinks that that is the attitude he should adopt in Committee to the Opposition when they are making a legitimate point about how ready the Bill can be for scrutiny if he has to introduce more than 130 amendments, he has got a lot to learn about how this place works. I put it clearly on the record that we think it is vital that amendments to a Bill are discussed, but the purpose of Committee is mainly is to ensure that the Opposition have that opportunity.

Digital Economy Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

Q I remember one of your predecessors in a predecessor company, Mr Butler, explaining to me why they were digging my street up in the 1990s. They basically said, “We are installing a straw to suck money out of people’s houses”, which I think is the best explanation I ever received of what was involved. On the electronic communications code, how can you assure us that its reform will actually benefit consumers principally and not just allow you to keep more of the money that you suck out of people’s houses?

Daniel Butler: The reforms that are envisaged will transform the economics of roll-out. The figures discussed in the previous session were a 40% reduction in the cost of roll-out. The primary way in which that benefits consumers is that that allows us to build to more premises on a commercial basis.

Virgin Media currently plans to build to 4 million premises by 2020. Wayleaves are a considerable line item on the balance sheet for that investment, and also it takes a lot of time to get agreement, so anything we can do to reduce the cost and improve the efficiency of getting those will have the consumer benefit of allowing us to connect up more premises. I mentioned that Government could be more ambitious in this regard. In effect, the Government’s reforms will deal with the worst abuses of the systems—that is communications providers’ exposure to ransom rents—but Ministers and the Secretary of State increasingly talk about broadband being equivalent to a utility and the reforms do not quite go that far. Water companies have the most advantageous wayleave regimes under their statutes. They do not pay what is called in the valuation jargon “consideration” and, as are result, they pay 60% less—these are Government’s figures—than communications providers.

[Matt Hancock]

I think the explanations coming from the witnesses are excellent. I did not have any other questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Q Do you agree that those areas in addition that you are looking for are essentially administrative rather than legal changes? That is to say, the Government need to move in that direction, I would argue that they are moving in the direction that you set out, but you would not put that in a Bill; you need to make it happen.

Mike Bracken: Yes. Absolutely, Minister. Too often, there was an assumption that those things would need regulatory or Bill backing. My experience was pretty much 100% that that was not the case; these are largely about administrative and operational management of data across Whitehall and across Departments. Clearly, there are some areas, security being an obvious one, where you need more legal oversight, but primarily it is not so much about a Bill.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q First, I agree with what Jeni said about Citymapper; it has changed my life, it is absolutely fantastic—I actually use the bus now. However, either witness, will the Bill in any way help to avoid another care.data type of scandal?

Jeni Tennison: I will go back to what I was saying around transparency and public trust. For me, the important part of any dealing with private, personal data has to be that we drive towards trust by being open about what is being done with those data, by being transparent about how they are being used, what decisions are being made with them, whom they are being shared with and under what circumstances. Those principles of having openness around the handling of personal data are what will drive public trust in their use. We are in a very difficult space here between trying to balance the right to privacy of an individual with the public good we can get from the use of data. It is a fuzzy and difficult one, one we are going to be working through for many years, but having transparency and openness about it enables us to have an informed debate about where we are making that balance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes that comment far better than I could.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

14. What proportion of new over-18 apprenticeships have been taken by people in existing employment since May 2010.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

Apprenticeships are designed to help people develop the skills they need to enter an occupation, and to reskill and progress within a job. The 2011 apprenticeship pay survey found that 77% of apprentices had some experience of work with the same employer before the start of their apprenticeship.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister undertake to make clear in all statements about apprenticeships how many are new starts in employment, and how many are existing employment? Will he confirm that a lot of the increase in the number of apprenticeships has come from converting the previous Train to Gain scheme into apprenticeships?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is very important not only for people to enter the workplace, but to improve their skills within it. For instance, 99% of those on management apprenticeships had some previous experience of work in the company, which is to be expected. It is about getting people out of unemployment, but also ensuring that their skills improve while they are in a job.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any proposed exceptions will be the subject of secondary legislation and will therefore be debated. Each separate element of a statutory instrument can be debated—that is the function of the secondary legislation procedure.

Amendment 75 would require the Secretary of State to take into account any feasibility study undertaken of which organisation is best placed to issue licences authorising the use of orphan works.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Hancock]

On this point?

[Kevin Brennan]

On the point being debated, yes.

[Matthew Hancock]

I give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

It is usual to give way during this stage. What does the Minister think is the maximum number of exceptions that ought to be included within one statutory instrument, given that he has been unable to give the assurance sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) that each exception will be treated separately if secondary legislation is used? Also, will he confirm that in all cases the affirmative procedure will be used?

[Matthew Hancock]

I give the assurance on the second point: the normal procedures will be used. The normal procedures will govern what goes into one statutory instrument and then, as we all know, debate on a statutory instrument covers all elements of the instrument. That is the procedure for a statutory instrument that is debated.

Amendment 75 proposes that account be taken of any feasibility study before the Government lay regulations on the orphan works scheme—that is, I think, the essence of the amendment. In principle, we understand the need for studies and consideration of such important questions, but we do not think that such a requirement is appropriate in primary legislation. If the proposal is that the conclusions of a feasibility study should automatically and immediately have legislative effect, we have to ask what would happen if the recommendations of a commissioned study could not, for good and legitimate reasons, be accepted. However, I can assure the House that the Government will carefully consider which bodies or body should be responsible for licensing orphan works, including whether they have the necessary independence, expertise, resources and processes.

Although there is some work still to do on deciding which organisation should be responsible, it is unlikely to be a new body. We looked at the arrangements in other jurisdictions: in Canada, the copyright board has that responsibility; in Hungary, the intellectual property office has it. Jurisdictions overseas locate the role in different parts of Government, according to where the appropriate expertise is found. There could be a role for collecting societies to license orphan works of a type where a collecting society already operates in that sector, but many of the orphan works held by museums and archives, for example, are not of types that are currently collectively licensed; such works include unpublished diaries, old photographs and oral history recordings.

In the light of those reassurances and given that the regulations cannot be laid until the work is completed, I ask the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) not to press amendment 75 and the House to support Government amendments 23 and 24.