Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Karen Bradley

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Does the Secretary of State feel bound by the 2015 Conservative party manifesto?

[Karen Bradley]

Yes.

[Mr Watson]

Ah, very good. That is interesting, because that manifesto promised to lift the number of women on sports’ governing bodies to 25% by 2017, but it is 2017 already, and we have not achieved that. Did the Secretary of State think that nobody would notice, or, like the Chancellor on national insurance, did she not bother to read the manifesto?

[Karen Bradley]

We will be at 30% in 2017, which exceeds the manifesto commitment, because of the Government’s work on reforming sports governance, and our work with governing bodies to make sure that we have the right diversity and representation on those bodies.

Sky/21st Century Fox: Merger

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Karen Bradley

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. She says that she will go ahead with what she indicated she was going to do last week. That might not sound like a big deal, but it is more than the Chancellor and the Prime Minister managed yesterday.

Labour Members welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is intervening. She will have noticed that 21st Century Fox is happy, too. In a letter to her last week, it said:

“We welcome a thorough and thoughtful review”.

I have no doubt that that welcome is sincere, and that 21st Century Fox is thrilled by her decision. On that basis, I hope that it will seek not to challenge or impede any element of Ofcom’s investigation. If it does, I trust that she will make a new referral to put it beyond doubt that Ofcom can investigate what it needs to investigate.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the “broadcasting standards” ground of her referral gives Ofcom the power to investigate any corporate governance issues affecting 21st Century Fox, including the phone hacking scandal, any cover-up of illegality at News International, the rehiring of people responsible for governance failures, and ongoing sexual harassment claims in the United States? Is it her view that Ofcom should examine those issues?

The Secretary of State referred to representations made by me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and others about adding “fit and proper” as a new public interest consideration, but she has regrettably chosen to reject them. I welcome Ofcom’s announcement that it will conduct a fit and proper assessment at the same time as considering the public interest test she has specified today, but I have two concerns about this. First, Ofcom has only 40 days to conduct the fit and proper assessment. Is the Secretary of State confident that it can get to the bottom of all these issues in such a short time? Secondly, the 2012 Ofcom report on James Murdoch, which found that his conduct

“repeatedly fell short of the conduct to be expected of him as a chief executive officer and chairman”,

contained this important caveat:

“The evidence available to date does not provide a reasonable basis to find that”

he

“knew of widespread wrongdoing or criminality at”

News of the World. The reason for that lack of evidence was that Ofcom did not have the power to gather the evidence it needed.

Just a few years ago, News Corporation, 21st Century Fox’s predecessor company, was involved in one of the biggest corporate scandals and one of the biggest corporate governance failures of modern times. Many of the questions about the failure of corporate governance failure within 21st Century Fox’s predecessor company, and much of the evidence of the role of James Murdoch within those failures, can be answered only by going ahead with part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Ofcom does not have the power to obtain documents and compel witnesses to appear before it. Is not the easiest way of getting to the bottom of the corporate governance questions that we all want answered to hold an inquiry in public, using powers under the Inquiries Act 2005, with terms of reference that have already been announced by a Conservative Prime Minister as a promise to the victims of phone hacking—namely Leveson part 2?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I will address his final point first—the issue of Leveson—as I did last time I was at the Dispatch Box on this matter. As he will know, the consultation we launched, which closed in January, is subject to judicial review. I am therefore unable to comment on the consultation, or any aspects of it, with regard to the Leveson inquiry. I hope he will understand that I cannot make further comment about that.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the decision to refer this merger, but it is important that I make a couple of points in relation to his questions. He asked whether the “broadcasting standards” element could include looking at corporate governance. I was clear in my original “minded to” letter and in the statement I made to the House on 6 March that corporate governance was one of the issues on which I was referring the matter to Ofcom, and therefore I would expect it to look at that. Clearly, however, Ofcom is an independent regulator. I have made the decision to refer to Ofcom, but it is for Ofcom to decide what evidence it wants to look at. It is open to look at whatever evidence it feels is appropriate to enable it to make its decision.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the fit and proper test. I very carefully considered the representations that were made, but it is important that it is the independent regulator that looks at fit and proper and the Government who have grounds on which to intervene under the Enterprise Act. Those two things have to be kept separate. The Government should not step into the area where, quite rightly, the regulator should sit.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether Ofcom has the time, resources and ability to gather the evidence that it needs. I have been assured by Ofcom that it has the time to do this and the ability to gather the evidence it needs, and I now look forward to letting it get on with the job.

Sky/21st Century Fox: Proposed Merger

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Karen Bradley

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of this statement and for writing to me on Friday setting out her intentions. I am also extremely grateful that she has come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity following notification of the bid. I understand that she is in quasi-judicial mode and what that means. I hope, however, that she will listen carefully to the concerns about the merger that are being expressed both inside and outside this Chamber. The company names may have changed since the previous bid for Sky was withdrawn in 2011, but we are still dealing with media plurality, misconduct and the Murdochs.

The Secretary of State said that she is minded to intervene first on media plurality grounds. The bid would put an even greater amount of UK media power in the hands of the Murdoch family. It would make the Murdoch empire even bigger—we might call it empire 2.0—and Ofcom should look at the whole group of Murdoch-owned and controlled companies in assessing whether the Sky takeover would threaten media plurality.

The second ground on which the Secretary of State says she is minded to intervene is commitment to broadcasting standards. We need to be satisfied that the merged company would comply with the broadcasting code, just as we need to be confident that it would not be used by Rupert Murdoch or his family to promote their political views and interests. However, the most troubling issues raised by the proposed merger are not about the content of James Murdoch’s programming; they are about the content of his character.

The Secretary of State rightly referred to failures of corporate governance during the phone hacking scandal, but it is unclear whether those failings strictly fall under the heading of broadcasting standards, even though they are central to whether the merger should be approved. A commitment to a broadcasting standards test is not a fit and proper person test. Will Ofcom’s assessment of 21st Century Fox’s commitment to broadcasting standards include in its scope the following facts? Six senior employees of News International have been convicted of phone hacking and another of perverting the course of justice. Over 30 police and public officials have been convicted of accepting corrupt payments from employees of News International that were approved at a high level. One News International journalist has been convicted of making unlawful payments and another of handling stolen property—namely, a mobile phone belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), from which private information was taken unlawfully by Sun journalists at the request of several Sun executives. The former editor and the former head of legal affairs at News of the World were held in contempt of Parliament for lying to a Select Committee during its investigation into phone hacking. The Standards and Privileges Committee cast further light on the culture of paying hush money to employees guilty of criminal offences to deter them from co-operating with the police and prosecution authorities. It therefore seems likely that a number of News Corporation employees gave false information under oath to the Leveson inquiry. News Corporation has admitted to another conspiracy to hack phones between 2005 and 2006 and a journalist has been convicted. News International has admitted phone hacking in several hundred claims so far and has made payments to victims and lawyers amounting to $600 million. And that is without mentioning the many outstanding civil claims against newspapers owned by News International, or the fact that allegations have been made in open court that James Murdoch was involved in the email deletion programme at News International that has made it more difficult to get to the truth. If those facts cannot be included in Ofcom’s assessment, the Opposition are ready to work with the Secretary of State to make sure that she can find a solution that deals with the gravity of wrongdoing in companies controlled by the Murdoch family.

Will the Secretary of State ask Ofcom to clarify whether it will conduct a full fit and proper person test before the merger is approved? Ofcom has already made an assessment of James Murdoch, in 2012, and found that, in relation to his time at News Group Newspapers during the period in which phone hacking took place, his conduct

“repeatedly fell short of the conduct to be expected of him as a chief executive officer and chairman.”

But Ofcom also said that

“the evidence available to date does not provide a reasonable basis to conclude that James Murdoch deliberately engaged in any wrongdoing.”

Why did Ofcom not have enough evidence to draw conclusions? Because the Leveson inquiry was not in a position to gather evidence.

If the Secretary of State is concerned about the past behaviour and corporate governance failures of News International, any case for not going ahead with part 2 of the Leveson inquiry collapses because the behaviour that she is so concerned about and that she wants to be investigated is precisely the behaviour that part 2 of Leveson is supposed to look into. We are still awaiting the results of the consultation on whether Leveson part 2 should go ahead, but I hope that the Secretary of State’s words indicate that she will show some courage by standing up to vested interests, doing the right thing and allowing the inquiry to proceed. She must not ask Ofcom to do its job with one hand tied behind its back.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response and assure him that Ofcom will not be doing any work with one hand tied behind its back.

I will address the Leveson inquiry and the consultation first. It is important to put it on the record that the consultation has closed but is subject to judicial review, which makes it difficult for me to make any further comment at this stage. On the evidence that Ofcom will look at, I make it clear that I am not ruling any evidence in or out. If I do decide to intervene, Ofcom will report to me on any matters it considers relevant. On the commitment to broadcasting standards, there is no exhaustive list of evidence—Ofcom can look at whatever it thinks right.

As I have said, Ofcom has sufficient powers and can investigate anything it thinks appropriate. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising his points, which I am sure will be considered by Ofcom. Ofcom has a fit and proper person test for broadcasting licences. That test is different from the one that will be considered for the merger, but the same evidence may be relevant to both.

Finally, my letter sets out a number of matters that I consider relevant and as warranting further investigation, which includes facts that led to the Leveson inquiry, such as on corporate governance at News of the World. It will be open to Ofcom to look at all relevant areas, and I will not rule out any areas if I decide to intervene.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Karen Bradley

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has committed to securing funding until 2020, which is after the UK will leave the European Union. I am working closely with the industry and across Government to make sure that we get the right deal for Britain so that we have the support needed to ensure that our creative industries flourish.

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

When I look at the stylish men and women on the Government Front Bench, I think that each and every one of them—except, perhaps, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson)—could be models on the catwalk at London fashion week. The fashion industry is concerned that, as the UK leaves the EU, we will lose the right to protect original designs, which would have serious knock-on effects for trade showcases, including fashion week. Will the Secretary of State tell us what the Government are doing to make sure that our designers’ intellectual property rights are protected post-Brexit?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very timely question not only because fashion week is coming up, but because the Minister of State and I met the fashion industry only on Monday to discuss exactly those points. I reassure him and the fashion industry that, because the great repeal Bill will bring European rules into UK law, therefore making sure that there is no cliff edge, those rights will be protected.

Sky: 21st Century Fox Takeover Bid

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Karen Bradley

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend has significant interest in this area, having been an exceptionally good predecessor for me, but will, I know, understand the position I am in and that I cannot comment.

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

We have seen this bid before. I know that Christmas is a time for TV repeats, but this one was not a hit the first time round and is no more popular now. More than 135,000 people have already signed an online petition calling for the bid to be referred to Ofcom. The reasons for their concern are the same as those that caused the previous bid to be abandoned in 2011. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be outrageous if the bid were pushed through over the Christmas holidays when Parliament is not sitting? Is she not even slightly embarrassed that on the one hand she is currently consulting to shelve part 2 of the Leveson inquiry, which would look at unlawful or improper conduct and management failings in parts of the Murdoch empire, and on the other is being asked to rule on whether that empire should be expanded?

Last week, the Minister for Digital and Culture told the House categorically that the Prime Minister had not discussed the bid at her recent New York meeting with Rupert Murdoch. Will the Secretary of State repeat that assurance? How does she know? Will she tell us what was discussed, because after all, Leveson recommended that those meetings be minuted?

Yesterday Rupert Murdoch wrote to The Guardian to say:

“I have made it a principle all my life never to ask for anything from any prime minister.”

Let us just pause to take that in for a moment. Members will recall John Major’s testimony to the Leveson inquiry, in which he recalled Rupert Murdoch asking him to change his party’s policy on Europe and warning that if the Conservatives would not change their European policies,

“his papers could not and would not support the Conservative Government.”

Does the Secretary of State believe Rupert Murdoch or the former Conservative Prime Minister, and what implication does the contradiction between them have for the application of the fit and proper person test?

[Karen Bradley]

I repeat that I cannot comment on the merits of the bid. I can say that, as and when a formal notification is made, there will be 10 days for me to make a decision as to whether to refer the proposed merger.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the Leveson process. I remind him that we have opened an open public consultation on that, which I hope he has responded to—I am sure he has. At the end of the consultation I will look at the responses as a separate matter.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the meeting the Prime Minister held in September. She had a pre-arranged meeting with Wall Street Journal editors. Mr Murdoch dropped in to that meeting. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the proposed takeover was not discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Karen Bradley

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend represents a constituency with 97% superfast coverage, which I am sure he welcomes. He is right to highlight our announcement in the autumn statement of additional funding to boost the UK’s digital infrastructure. We will announce further details about the fund in due course.

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

Happy Christmas to you and your family, Mr Speaker, and to the staff of the House.

In the light of recent data security breaches, does the Secretary of State have confidence in the operational security of the National Lottery, and that Camelot is operating within its regulatory obligations?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that we should all be very aware and alert to our cyber-security, and that we should take advice issued by cyber-security experts with regard to updating passwords and so on. I met the National Lottery and continue to work with it to ensure that it is cyber-secure.

[Mr Watson]

Can the Secretary of State give the House her absolute assurance that Britain’s national lottery is safe? Will she commit to come back to the Dispatch Box if there are any further revelations of security breaches at Camelot?

[Karen Bradley]

I repeat that I met Camelot and am working with it to ensure that it is as secure as it possibly can be, and that it takes all possible cyber-security measures. I am sure the hon. Gentleman and I will discuss these matters over the Dispatch Box. I wish him—and you, Mr Speaker—a very happy Christmas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Karen Bradley

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady will know that this Government are committed to promoting creative industries across the whole of the north of England, which is why Hull is the city of culture next year, we have the “Great Exhibition of the North” in Newcastle and Gateshead in 2018 and we have a legacy fund of £15 million, on top of the money for that exhibition, to promote the creative industries across the whole of the north of England. Bradford has many great creative industries, particularly in tech and gaming, and I want to make sure we do all we can to foster the economic climate in which they can thrive.

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

In the post-Brexit economy, the creative industries will be more important than ever. Those 2 million jobs the Secretary of State mentioned, in music, TV production, film, video games, art, design, publishing, dance, drama and literature, are one of our strongest hands as we find a new trading place in the world. When I checked the Government website this morning, I noticed that the Secretary of State attends a Brexit Cabinet Sub-Committee but not the main Brexit Committee, which means the creative industries have no voice at the top table. May I help the Secretary of State in some way? Would she like me to write to the Prime Minister about this, because the creative industries need a voice at that table?

[Karen Bradley]

It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to offer to help, but I think he would agree that there is no higher table than the Cabinet, and I can assure him that the creative industries are fully represented at that top table. It is also worth pointing out that I have held round-table meetings with the creative industries, and the Creative Industries Council last week had a specific session looking at the work it has done to examine not only the threats there are from Brexit, but its many, many opportunities. This is a global industry in which the UK is a world leader, and he should take comfort from the fact that the Prime Minister mentioned the creative industries specifically in her conference speech as one of those strengths that we want to build on, here in the UK and in the rest of the world.

Press Matters

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Karen Bradley

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

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

What a sad day this is. I am at least grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of her statement an hour ago—947 days after all parties reached an agreement to implement in full the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry.

The Prime Minister herself set the test for the process on 14 June 2012 when she said to the inquiry:

“I will never forget meeting with the Dowler family in Downing Street to run through the terms of this Inquiry with them and to hear what they had been through and how it had redoubled, trebled the pain and agony they’d been through over losing Milly.”

She went on to say that the test should be

“are we really protecting people who have been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves by this process. That’s what the test is.”

The Government reassured victims that if they spoke out at Leveson, the Government would act on his recommendations. Today, the Culture Secretary has announced that we must wait another 10 weeks while the reforms are discussed all over again in the context of a wider consultation on the press. The Opposition believe that they have been discussed and debated enough and should have been implemented years ago. The victims of press intrusion cannot wait a day longer for this Government to honour David Cameron’s promises to pass the then Home Secretary’s self-defined test. For the Culture Secretary to stand here today and announce a consultation into the press nearly 1,000 days after those reforms were agreed by party leaders is deeply regrettable.

As the Culture Secretary said, it is more than five years since the previous Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and announced an inquiry into press practices and ethics. A lot has happened since then. We have had the Hillsborough inquiry and its findings on misleading police statements to Government officials and subsequently newspapers. We had the urgent question on Orgreave just this morning. We have had the case of Mazher Mahmood, the fake sheikh who perverted the course of justice to secure his scoops and in so doing left scores of previous convictions unsafe. Senior police officers have had to resign over phone hacking. We have had more information emerge about the brutal murder of Daniel Morgan, a private investigator who was threatening to reveal police corruption to the press. Over 30 police and public officials have been jailed for bribery.

Leveson 2 was meant to look at the relationship that existed between newspapers and police. Despite the exposure of criminality, it is impossible for the Minister to credibly conclude that we have learned enough about corruption to halt Leveson 2 before it starts. After all, one of the terms of reference for the second part of Leveson is

“To inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures at News International and other newspaper organisations, and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to any failure to investigate wrongdoing”.

In other words, Leveson 2 is the investigation into how the cover-up of phone hacking was conducted. In effect, the Culture Secretary is today announcing a consultation on whether the cover-up should be covered up. It is my view that the events of the past five years make Leveson 2 more urgent, not less. Leveson was created so that a Minster would not have to worry what pressure she was put under by newspaper editors. What the Secretary of State is doing today is abandoning that principle. She is taking back the power from an independent judge, and in so doing she opens up the Executive to accusations that they have succumbed to the vested interests of media barons—it is an age-old story and she is carrying the can.

I am afraid that the Secretary of State leaves us no choice but to ask her some searching questions. First, did the Prime Minister discuss the Leveson process at her private meeting with Rupert Murdoch in New York last month? Secondly, when the Secretary of State spoke to Lord Leveson earlier today, did he approve this hurried consultation? Does he agree with her analysis? Will she allow him to make a public statement? Finally, has she spoken to the parents of Milly Dowler and to other victims of press intrusion? What is their view of these proposals? Do they think this passes the Prime Minister’s test? Are we really protecting people who have been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves?

[Karen Bradley]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box, but I disagree with much of what he has just said. Let me start by being clear about victims of press intrusion: the first people I met in this job regarding press regulation were the victims of phone hacking—I did so with Hacked Off. I have been determined throughout my time in this role to make sure that I meet as many victims as possible; I did the same in my previous role in the Home Office and I continue to do it, because if we do not listen to people and what they have been through, we cannot possibly imagine it and legislate in an appropriate way. But what is clear to me, and I think to him, is that we all want effective, robust press regulation, so we have to look at the situation we find ourselves in today, not five years ago, to make sure we can achieve that. In his list of things that had happened, he actually set out all the reasons why we need to take a step back and to consider the position, so I invite responses from all interested bodies—from all people affected by this. I am sure that we will get many, many responses to the consultation and I welcome them. We need to look at this in terms of the situation and the press regulation we have today, to make sure we get the right, appropriate, robust, effective press regulation, so that, as he said, we do all we can to protect people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I will look at all the consultation responses and will make a decision based on the evidence.

[Mr Watson]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Broadcasting

Debate between Lord Watson of Wyre Forest and Karen Bradley

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Watson]

It is certainly not the most ideal of circumstances to face when negotiating for survival. We do not think that there was a meaningful public consultation and we had hoped that those days were behind us. We feel strongly that that situation cannot be allowed to happen again. This was the second time that the Government had approached their deliberations with the BBC by placing a gun to its head. In 2010, the coalition Government forced the BBC to take on the cost of paying for the World Service. The Government approached the negotiations in 2010 and 2015 with the subtlety of a ram raider approaching a jewellery shop. Their approach was described as a “smash and grab raid”.

We expect the Secretary of State to reassure us that the next licence fee settlement will be agreed in a transparent manner and according to a clear timetable. It must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and put out to public consultation, so that whoever is in power cannot railroad a settlement through again. Please will the Secretary of State give a guarantee to the House that such a system will be put in place? We will work with her to achieve that.

I am sure that some people believe that asking the BBC to pay £700 million a year for free licences was clever politics, but I think it was political irresponsibility, verging on negligence. The BBC is not an arm of the Government. It should not be asked to meet the cost of Government policies and it should not be asked to implement changes to the Government’s social security policy.

[Karen Bradley]

It is worth putting on record that the BBC licence fee has been frozen for the last six years. The Government have agreed to increase the licence fee in line with inflation, which will result in additional income for the BBC of £18 billion in the period up to 2021. That is more than enough compensation for the money the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The issue of licences for over-75s was dealt with outside the charter arrangements. This is a fair settlement that gives the BBC good funding and the licence fee payer good value for money.

[Mr Watson]

It is certainly a settlement. The BBC has accepted it as a settlement, and that is why we will not oppose the motion, but it is not unreasonable for us to press the Secretary of State on why an instrument of social security policy is being passed to the BBC. We are considering carefully whether we can challenge the measure in the Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, because the extra cost imposed on the BBC is the equivalent of a 20% budget cut. I know the deal has been struck and different income streams have been negotiated within it, but the manner in which it has been done is distinctly unfair. The Government are passing responsibility for social security cuts that they should take on to a British institution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Watson]

That is a very insightful point about something that we can work together to monitor.

I was talking about employing people from every social background. The BBC has a duty to reflect the nation it serves. That means informing and entertaining licence fee payers, as is set out in the charter, but the BBC must also do more to encourage and support British talent regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability or social background. It is well placed to do that because, almost uniquely, it has a strong and visible presence across the country. There are BBC studios in Birmingham, Bristol and Belfast. The BBC has offices in Leeds, Nottingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff and many more places too numerous to list. It has a duty to reach out to the communities on its doorstep.

The BBC has significantly expanded its apprenticeship programme. I commend director-general Tony Hall for that but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) points out, there is far more we can do. According to research carried out in 2015 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, over nine in 10 jobs in the creative economy are done by people in more advantaged socio-economic groups, compared with 66% of jobs in the wider economy. That has to change.

[Karen Bradley]

indicated assent.

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

indicated assent.