Valedictory Debate

Debate between Margot James and Ian C. Lucas

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson); I will miss him at breakfast time.

My late father’s birthday was on 5 November. My father, Colin Lucas, and my mother, Alice Lucas, were profound influences on me and they taught me some very basic values. They taught me to tell the truth, to respect the law and always to listen to other people. I do that, and that has guided me in my parliamentary career.

I want to talk about the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I have been a member since 2015. Since 2017, it has shown Parliament at its best. It has worked across parties to produce work that I believe is world-leading. Twitter announced last week that it is stopping paid political advertising. I believe that that process was commenced by the DCMS Committee and its report on disinformation last year.

I am afraid that I am now going to change the tone of the debate, because I want to place on the record some information that I have concerning disinformation and the Government of the day. Sitting opposite me in this debate, I have seen many wonderful Conservative MPs for whom I have huge respect, people I have learned to respect since I came here in 2001. When I came to Parliament, I did not understand how Parliament worked so well on a cross-party basis. I know that now, and there are many, many noble, good and very skilled Conservative MPs. Unfortunately, they are not running the Government at this very serious time.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the serious position that exists on the cusp of a general election, because we have laws in place that are completely inadequate to deal with that general election. I want to quote the words of Dominic Cummings in correspondence that he sent to the Electoral Commission. He said:

“Overall it is clear that the entire regulatory structure around national elections including data is really bad. There are so many contradictions, gaps, logical lacunae that it is wide open to abuse…There has been no proper audit by anybody of how the rules could be exploited by an internal or foreign force to swing close elections. These problems were not fixed for the 2017 election, and I doubt they will be imminently. The system cannot cope with the fast-changing technology.”

The main adviser to the Prime Minister is telling us that the current legal structure for elections is unsound. We are going into a general election that is going to be fought online and we are already seeing the way in which that is affecting the campaign.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

The Information Commissioner’s Office is empowered under the Data Protection Act 2018 to produce a code of practice for political campaigning and it has produced a code. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the next Government should put that code of practice into statute?

[Ian C. Lucas]

Absolutely I agree. I fundamentally believe that we should implement all the recommendations of the ICO and the Electoral Commission, because the legal structure under which we are fighting the election is open to electoral fraud. That is the position in which we are going into the general election.

On electoral fraud, I want to refer to some correspondence that Dominic Cummings sent to another person in the referendum campaign in 2016. He was talking about breaking spending limits in the referendum, and that led to an offence for which Vote Leave was fined. Dominic Cummings said:

“We’ve now got all the money we can spend legally. You should NOT send us your 100k. However, there is another organisation that could spend your money. Would you be willing to send the 100k to some social media ninjas who could usefully spend it on behalf of this organisation? I am very confident it would be well spent in the final crucial 5 days. Obviously it would be entirely legal.”

The truth is that it was not legal at all, and Vote Leave was fined in connection with that campaign. As a result, the matter was referred to the police and has now been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, and the investigation is ongoing.

Furthermore, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Prime Minister were both aware of the fact that offences had been committed and were both heavily involved in Vote Leave. This document also has a statement from Dominic Cummings, which he wrote and sent to the Electoral Commission. He said:

“I never discussed VL’s donations to BL”—

the donations to BeLeave for which Vote Leave was fined—

“with either of them (before the referendum) and to the best of my knowledge neither did anybody else and they were wholly unaware of this issue until after the referendum.”

So, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were aware of Vote Leave’s offences, but they have not come clean to the House of Commons or to the DCMS Committee by producing that evidence. Furthermore, Dominic Cummings has refused to come to the DCMS Committee to speak about these matters. Even worse, the Prime Minister will not tell him to come to this House to speak to the Select Committee to explain himself and to give evidence. I have secured these documents through the Committee, and I am placing them on the public record, because they relate to something that should be known by the public before we vote in a general election. That information has been withheld from the British public, and it ought to be known.

What the British public also need to know is that, apart from the honourable Conservative Members facing me at the moment, we have a Government whose leadership includes a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who is in charge of electoral reform and who is not divulging his full knowledge of the 2016 referendum, his role in it, and the offences committed at the time. If this House is to regain the respect of the public, Select Committees need real powers to compel witnesses to attend. We should never again be frustrated by a Prime Minister who prevents a witness from giving evidence to a Committee.

It has been a real honour to be in this place. I have loved every minute. I love this House of Commons, and I will be sad to leave. We need to respect each other more in this House but—to go back to my mother and my father—we must have basic honesty. There is nothing complicated about that. Telling the truth and straight- forwardness are the principles that we should stick to, but I am afraid the Government do not have them at the moment.

WhatsApp Data Breach

Debate between Margot James and Ian C. Lucas

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

It is vital that we hold platforms—in this case, WhatsApp—to account for breaches that have occurred. If these breaches have resulted in UK users’ data being compromised, the ICO has the powers to investigate them thoroughly. It also has a sanctions regime, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) pointed out includes a potential fine of up to 4% of global turnover. The ICO has proved itself to be a forceful regulator, and I am sure it will be watching this space with great interest.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Although we know that data breaches have happened previously, the difficulty is that we have had no adequate response from Facebook since evidence of those data breaches came through. Is not the reality that we have to have legislation in place? We are now in an election period, with WhatsApp and closed Facebook groups being used, as we speak, in electoral campaigning, but the law has not changed since the DCMS Committee, on which I serve, raised these issues. We have yet another instance of shutting the door after the horse has bolted. We have to act, and the Cabinet Office and the Select Committee need, as a matter of urgency, to take forward steps relating to the electoral position, which is so vulnerable and about which we will learn nothing before polling day next Thursday.

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman raises a subject that is top of my priority list at the moment. My Department works with the Cabinet Office on making our electoral laws fit for the internet age. As he made clear, there is a huge requirement in terms of updating, and I have read the Select Committee report, which is extremely alarming. The ICO is undertaking a number of investigations into matters of concern around our democracy and the security of our democracy. I advise all Members to have a good look at the ICO website, where they should find a draft political code of practice—which the ICO has developed under the powers handed to it under the Data Protection Act last year—with advice to political parties on how they use social media platforms and the data available to them from those platforms. It is a very serious matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Margot James and Ian C. Lucas

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I am indeed aware of that, Mr Speaker, but it is crucial that Governments stick to timetables when delivering an essential utility that is a fundamental part of public need. I will of course be happy to discuss this when I am next in communication with Scottish Government Ministers, who should be held to account for the unacceptable delay in even getting started on this vital work.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The Government’s shift to fibre investment is very welcome, although the levels of fibre in this country for delivering essential infrastructure are very low. North Wales has put forward an impressive bid to support our strong local economy. Will the Minister look closely at the bid and accelerate investment in fibre?

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to catch up on fibre. The Government have exciting plans and funding to accelerate fibre roll-out, with a £200 million programme, which was announced in the last Budget, starting this April and a further £300 million before 2022. I will look at the north Wales proposal with great interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Margot James and Ian C. Lucas

Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I absolutely sympathise with my hon. Friend’s point of view. I have had discussions with Google on this very point. I think it is safe to say that we have a difference of view, but I remain optimistic that the search engines will comply with their own terms and conditions in the end.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that it is also important to focus on the supply of tickets, and that we must ask artists and promoters to ensure that they work with venues to restrict the supply of tickets to sites such as Viagogo?

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We have taken a lot of action that is resulting in an improvement in the situation and a reduction in the availability of tickets on these very questionable sites.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Margot James and Ian C. Lucas

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The creative industries in Scotland are one of the most successful areas of Scottish business, but there is real concern about the regulatory regime that Ofcom presides over and about what the future relationship with the European Union will look like. What discussions has the Minister had concerning that regulatory regime?

[Margot James]

My ministerial colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will have had discussions, and I will ask one of them to notify the hon. Gentleman of their outcome.

Draft Pubs Code (Fees, Costs and Financial Penalties) Regulations 2016

Debate between Margot James and Ian C. Lucas

Monday 18th July 2016 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Margot James)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Pubs Code (Fees, Costs and Financial Penalties) Regulations 2016.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. The regulations, like the Pubs Code etc. Regulations 2016, which were debated last week, are made in exercise of powers under part 4 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which regulates the dealings between pub-owning businesses and their tied tenants in England and Wales. The regulations are much shorter and less complex than last week’s regulations, and I will deal with them as briefly as possible. They have two purposes: to set fees and cost limits for arbitrations and market rent only disputes referred to the adjudicator; and to set a maximum penalty that the adjudicator may impose for a code breach following an investigation. I will take each area in turn.

On fees, the regulations set out the applicable fees payable by a tenant for referrals of pubs code breaches to the Pubs Code Adjudicator for arbitration, and by a tenant or pub-owning business for referrals of market rent-only disputes. They also make provision about the maximum amount that a tenant may be required to pay a pub-owning business following arbitration by the Pubs Code Adjudicator. Finally, the regulations regulate payments to be made by large pub-owning businesses—defined in the 2015 Act as those owning 500 or more tied pubs—and their tied pub tenants by way of fees and costs in relation to market rent only disputes and arbitrations of pubs code disputes.

The fees and costs provisions largely mirror the arbitration or mediation arrangements in the existing industry voluntary code and have therefore not generated much comment. The financial penalties are not an aspect of that voluntary code and may be imposed by the adjudicator only after an investigation. Financial penalties are just one form of enforcement available to the adjudicator following an investigation. Under the Act, he may make recommendations about what a pub-owning business should do to comply with the pubs code and the time by which it should do that. He may also require the business to publish information relating to the investigation.

Where the adjudicator imposes a financial penalty, the regulations specify what the maximum penalty should be. The adjudicator has complete discretion as to whether he imposes a financial penalty and in what amount, up to the maximum stipulated. The nature and effect of the breaches will inform the exercise of that discretion. Accordingly, we expect the maximum penalty to be applied only in extreme cases, for very serious breaches of the code. Where the maximum penalty is awarded, its purpose is clearly to have a marked and serious effect on the pub-owning business. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the maximum should be 1% of the UK turnover of the whole group to which the pub-owning business belongs, not just the turnover of the part of the group that owns tied pubs.

In summary, the regulations make provisions in respect of fees, costs and financial penalties that are fair and proportionate to the intended purpose. I commend them to the Committee.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

May I compliment the hon. Lady on her presentation, congratulate her on her appointment and wish her all the best in Victoria Street? That is an excellent place for a Minister to be—I was there once. There is even someone behind her, supporting her, who was there when I was too.

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and know that I have a number of sources of advice if I require any, as I am sure I will over the coming months.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Margot James and Ian C. Lucas

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

13. What plans she has for the future regulation of CCTV cameras.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

17. What proposals she has for regulation of the use of CCTV cameras by police services and local authorities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

In our coalition programme for government, as part of our work on safeguarding civil liberties we have stated that we will further regulate CCTV. We will introduce detailed proposals in due course.