Budget Resolutions

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will keep this as brief as I can.

This Budget demonstrates the decisions that the Government have taken since 2010 that have allowed 800 jobs to be created every day for 14 years—and there is a self-respect that people get with a job. The furlough scheme protected 11.7 million of those jobs. Job creation and preservation means that we do not need to take away money from public services to deliver tax cuts to hard-working people. It also shows that the Conservatives can be trusted with public money, and will reverse high taxes on the individual, while spending record amounts on public services. 5.That is taking back control of our money.

The Budget included £2.45 billion for the NHS for 2025, which will help to cut waiting times. I visited Hereford County Hospital a fortnight ago. The chief executive proudly outlined some of the hospital’s achievements, including a new diagnostics centre and a planned training suite—part of the transformation to improve staff training in Hereford, as well as ensure better outcomes for patients. It was not a message of misery at all. However, the NHS should continue to focus on staff training. More training places have been created at the University of Worcester. Having highly trained staff increases performance and reduces the need for agency staff, which is the cost we should focus on. Perhaps the NHS needs golden handcuffs. Healthcare professionals work in a global market, so the taxpayer, who trains new entrants, ought to have some hope of payback post graduation, and entrants should be discouraged from relocating elsewhere, such as Canada.

Speaking of waiting lists, perhaps GPs should be paid according to the number of people they see. The system is currently based on the number of patients on the books. There is a guideline for the amount of time the GP should spend with each patient, but doctors understand that people sometimes need considerably longer. I do not think recommending that they see only 25 patients a day is the way forward. In Herefordshire, GPs believe they could be paid according to the number of people they see. I hope the Minister will pilot such a scheme to prove that waiting lists can be cut by primary care activity, although we will have to pay for that extra effort.

In 2023, the number of small boat arrivals was 36% less than the year before, and there was 17% less asylum applications, so the plan is working. We should be thinking about reducing the cost of border enforcement and the cost of processing asylum claims. In Leominster, the Talbot Hotel is no longer being used to house asylum seekers. I have written to the local authority stating my support for the compulsory purchase of that hotel and the Royal Oak to boost local tourism. We need to see our hotels filled with tourists who pay to visit.

We should look carefully at the issue of paying the French to stop the crossings. We have pledged millions to support that, but when the Rwanda scheme is under way, it should deter crossings; perhaps we will not need to pay the money to the French. We must ensure that the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is passed. I was dismayed to learn that Labour peers blocked the Bill. Some 64 migrants have died in the English channel since 2018. Every day that goes by is another day someone could die in the channel. If the Lords continue to block the Bill, the House should consider looking at elements of the Human Rights Act. I wonder how their Lordships will feel—or indeed how asylum applicants will feel—as migrants drown. Human rights are not much use if you are dead, so it is important that we deliver on the will of the people by stopping the boats. We do not need to leave the European Court of Human Rights, but we do need to say that we will no longer allow illegal channel crossers to be eligible for asylum. The ECHR can sling us out if it wants, but I do not believe that it will, just as it did not when we stopped prisoners voting. We need to protect innocent asylum seekers from being put at risk by people traffickers before more lives are lost.

On agriculture and the environment, English farmers are sore, but not in the same way as Welsh, Belgian, Dutch or French farmers, or all the EU farmers who blockade EU buildings and burn bales on the motorway. We need to support British farmers through tax breaks instead of grants. The recent announcement of a £427 million grant for farming is welcome, but tax breaks are a more efficient and better tool for food production. Such grants do not allow farmers to buy the second-hand machinery they want, but tax breaks do.

We could save more money by merging the Environment Agency and Natural England. Those organisations are responsible for a great deal of pressure on the mental health of farmers. We need to look at their scope and cut the number of suicides in agriculture. In my constituency, there have been six such suicides. On average, there are three suicides in the agricultural industry each week. That is far too high, so taking the pressure off farmers would be a tremendous step forward.

I am delighted by the 8.5% increase for pensions to match the triple lock. We need clever pension policy that covers not just old age, but care. We need to think about the way we pay the state pension and ensure that it is not taxed. We need to look at the furnished holiday lets tax breaks too, because holiday lets cause a great deal of unrest in the countryside. We understand insurance, pensions, care and funding, but do not seem to be able to manage the whole lot when we put them together. We need to do better as we get older to deliver on all our ambitions to help our children, to save money in case we need long-term care, and to deliver peace of mind to pensioners worrying about those challenges.

On transport, the Government’s recent reallocation of funds from High Speed 2 has been a resounding success; it is an example of the Government’s plan working. In Herefordshire alone, we have received £106 million in additional funding for road resurfacing, and £101 million for local transport. That funding has been reallocated from HS2, which people could be forgiven for forgetting that I voted against in 2013. This shows how public funds can be used strategically to deliver public goods without increasing the tax burden.

I have had my allocation of time. The Government have done a great deal of good, reversing the damage that covid did. Inflation, the cost of living and national insurance are down. Only electricity suppliers, such as Scottish Power, continue to prey on people; I hope Ofgem will investigate that. If we are united and stick together, we can show that our plan is working, and that there is a brighter future for us all.

Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman]

Part and parcel of this is not just the attraction for people to come and see animals, but importantly, the work done by the scientists to ensure that species breed and grow not only in the zoo but across the world, protecting animals in their natural environment.

Moving on to the main purpose of the Bill and of gathering everyone here today, the Crown Estate Act 1961 currently governs the lease of ZSL’s Regent’s Park site. The Act caps the lease at a maximum of 60 years, which presents a number of difficulties. Through this Bill, the maximum lease tenure will increase to 150 years, in a 90-year extension. In 2018, a similar Bill was introduced to extend the lease for Kew gardens: another area of London that we know and love. At present, having only 60 years on the leasehold has a detrimental impact on the zoo’s ability to fundraise, create new partnerships, expand support programmes for the local community and, importantly, invest substantially in the regeneration of the existing site. With extremely high running costs, rising energy bills, which cannot be compromised due to a need for sustained climates for the animals, including protected species, and its status as an organisation that receives no Government grant at all, it is vital that the zoo is able to secure as much funding as possible and plan for the future wherever possible. To continue with only a 60-year lease would make the zoo financially impossible to sustain.

Looking back to 1826, when the zoo was founded, the average life expectancy peaked at about 40 years, thus making a 60-year lease comparatively longer and therefore quite a respectable length. Thankfully, with the advancements in modern medicine, a better understanding of health and evolution, our average life expectancy has soared to more than double, averaging around 80 years, making a 60-year lease far more redundant. Thus, in terms of tackling the complex challenges facing global wildlife, it is simply not long enough.

The knock-on effects of extending the lease will no doubt transform the site. More certainty in the lease length will enable ZSL to find global investment partners willing to fund state-of-the-art laboratories and drastically improve the current buildings that act as the animals’ habitat. One hundred and forty scientists currently work in a dilapidated building—I recommend individuals go and see it for themselves—which is inhibiting their research considerably. Unsurprisingly, we need to provide new, fully equipped areas where they can conduct vital studies that will benefit the animals, as well as other institutes, through the Living Planet Index, which I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, London Zoo currently houses 16 species that are extinct in the wild and more than 100 that are seriously endangered. Extending the lease would give it the space, research and developed understanding to increase those numbers and prevent us from losing any more of these wonderful animals.

This is a brief Bill, as I am sure colleagues will be grateful to hear. Clause 1 sets out the extension from 60 to 150 years. Clause 2 outlines the logistics: the Bill will extend to all four countries of the UK, and the Act will come into force two months after it is passed.

I remind colleagues of the important contributions that London Zoo and ZSL have made to our world over the past 200 years. The iconic naturalist Charles Darwin conducted many of his studies at the site, so it could be assumed that without London Zoo we would not have an understanding of the theory of evolution. Another significant character to come out of the zoo, I am told, is my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. I am sure that without his zoological background, his adept manner of dealing with the animal-like behaviour in Parliament would be very different.

I will leave the Committee with a final thought from the legendary Sir David Attenborough, which further highlights the essential need for the Crown Estate Act 1961 to be amended to enable a lease extension of up to 150 years and ensure the continuation of this renowned establishment:

“ZSL’s work is vital in driving forward the vision of a world where wildlife thrives…from tiny dart frogs to majestic tigers and everything in between.”

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I will be very brief. In 1985, I worked at London Zoo, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned. I was paid 75p in luncheon vouchers, which is why it does not appear on my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I worked in the aquarium. The trouble with the aquarium was that it was under the hill where the goats and the bears lived. That was fine, except that the bears would escape and fish in the filters. The warning we were given was, “If you come round the corner and see a bear, run away and shut the door, because they’re very, very dangerous.”

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the need for proper progress and proper development. I believe that Ken Livingstone was one of the trustees of London Zoo at the time, when the zoo was going through a process of evolution: it was moving away from totemic species such as lions and tigers, and experiences such as elephant rides, and towards protecting the environment and endangered species and dealing with habitat loss. It was a fascinating process.

My question to the Minister is whether 150 years is enough. Human life expectancy has changed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East says, but that is not true for animals—and it is the animals that need to be thought about. It is the zookeepers who give up their Christmas day to make sure that animals are properly looked after, and it is the animals that are endangered. It is not really about us, the people who enjoy this wonderful facility; it is about our duty of care, not only to our creatures but to the wonderful people who look after them.

I believe that 150 years is nothing, particularly as ZSL started in 1826. If I am right that we need longer, I hope that we can amend the Bill on Report. If 150 years is satisfactory, we will be back in 190 years’ time, or whenever, to ensure that the lease is correct. It strikes me that, as the lease is granted by the Department, it does not have to be limited to 150 years. With the best interests of the zoo at heart, I hope that the zoo will fix that.

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for introducing this very important private Member’s Bill on the maximum lease term that may be granted to the Zoological Society of London. I thank him also for abbreviating that—I shall do the same, which will make my speech substantially shorter. His proposal has very strong support from the Government. I am very glad that the Jubilee line sped him here in time, and I thank the Lord that a bear did not eat my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire and that he can be here too.

Hacker House

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman]

I have already said to the Chair of the Select Committee, who is no longer in his place, that we will write to him with more information on that. All I can say now is that the review will leave no stone unturned.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. I am sure he will also thank you, Mr Speaker, for choosing this UQ from the 44 that were submitted. Can my hon. Friend tell the House how long ago this took place and for how long we have had a Labour Mayor of London who could have investigated this before now?

[Matt Warman]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for providing me with my Dispatch Box debut, as my hon. Friend alluded to. He is right to refer to the fact that this matter concerns a company that was founded in 2016 and that the Government did not hide anything—we put out press releases. Perhaps the Mayor of London does not check the gov.uk website as often as we might like.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I will come on to what has changed in the many years since 2013, not least of which is the fact that we now have a full-blown independent press regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which did not exist back then.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. First, IPSO is not a press regulator, because it does not comply with the requirements to be a regulator; it is merely a complaints handler. Secondly, he may have inadvertently misled the House, because it is not necessary to join IMPRESS as he said earlier on. It is necessary for regulators to comply with the rules, which is slightly different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 18, which my friend the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has so eloquently described. I would like to bring three words to the House’s attention: fairness, justice and honour. I say this not as a politician—although I hope that we would all hold those things in high regard—but because they were the things that originally attracted me to a career in journalism. That career involved challenging the establishment, questioning power and holding politicians, big business and powerful vested interests in the media to account. Standing here today, I do not believe that any good ethical journalist or publication in this country has anything to fear from revisiting the Leveson 2 inquiry. Indeed, I feel that they have much to gain.

The right hon. Member for Doncaster North talked about going with David Cameron and Nick Clegg to speak to the victims of hacking, and about the promise that was made to them. I respect the fact that this Parliament should not be held by promises made by another Parliament, but it would say a lot about this House if we were to hold to that promise. It would disappoint the public who are watching us today, hoping that we will live up to those standards of fairness, justice and honour, if we did not do so. That promise was about redressing the balance of power between the vested interests of the press and the ordinary public in this country. The ordinary public deserve the right of redress, and they deserve to have the confidence that everything has been done to safeguard their rights.

We have heard from the Secretary of State that time has moved on and that we live in a different culture, but the fact that we have moved on should not prevent us from learning the lessons of the past. If history teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that if we do not learn the lessons of the past, we will repeat our mistakes in the future. Today, we have an opportunity to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes that led to the hacking of phones, to the intrusion into the lives of innocent members of the public and to the hounding of people who were already suffering, such as the family of Madeleine McCann.

More than that, this is an opportunity to reassure members of the public who, as we have heard time and again over the past few years, feel detached from politics. They feel that we have somehow let them down and that we are not listening to them, but this is an opportunity to tell them that we are listening and that we hear their outrage at the way in which members of the public have been treated by the press—not all the press, but certain elements of it. I also understand the pressures on the press, as a former journalist and the wife of a journalist. I lived through my late husband’s employer announcing redundancies five years in a row, every year at Christmas. That is the reality of life in the modern media, but that is an economic pressure. It is not a pressure brought about by any ethical standard. It is the modern reality of the changes in technology that the industry is learning to deal with.

The Secretary of State said that we had moved on and that the culture had changed, but I would like to remind him of the Kerslake inquiry, and of the behaviour in Manchester that we have heard about. Unfortunately, the truth is that there are unethical individuals in every walk of life and in every profession. However, every other profession in this country—dentistry, medicine, the law—has a regulatory body that is underpinned by statute and that holds its members to a standard. Why should newspapers be exempt? I say that not as somebody who wants any restriction on freedom of the press; I believe that the fourth estate is a fundamental pillar of a free and democratic society. But it also has to be answerable, because freedom of the press should not mean freedom to intrude, to harass or to manufacture stories about individuals; it should mean freedom to be responsible and to be held to account, by the law and by the politicians who make the law.

Friends, the victims of the hacking scandal will be watching today to see whether we live up to the promise that was made to them by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, by David Cameron and by Nick Clegg. I appeal to Members, please do not be found wanting.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

May I say what a sad day this is? I pay tribute to the Government Chief Whip, who has worked exceptionally hard to try to protect the Government, which is particularly difficult, given that in 2013, 530 MPs voted for section 40 and only 13 voted against it. That vote was for the Courts and Crime Act 2013, which enshrined in law the low-cost access to justice that Lord Justice Leveson had agreed was necessary. That was first suggested by Lord Justice Leveson and then agreed to almost unanimously by all parties in Parliament. However, it was never commenced. Successive Secretaries of State have refused to commence the cost-shifting provisions that are so necessary for access to justice.

Section 40 is not about punishing newspapers that do not sign up to IMPRESS; it is about ensuring low-cost access to justice for vulnerable victims of press abuse. The first part of the Leveson inquiry uncovered the horrific scale of abuse, which was endemic in the press, and there have been many court cases and convictions since. Section 40 ensures that publishers that are members of an independently approved regulator that provides low-cost arbitration do not face expensive court costs. It also ensures that victims of press abuse who have been attacked by publications that are not members of an independently approved regulator can access justice via the courts without having to be extremely wealthy.

There are myths about section 40. The first myth is that it would damage the freedom of the press. That is not true. The press recognition panel is independent and was created by royal charter. The charter enshrines press freedom in law. Criterion 8 states that any regulator

“must take into account the importance of freedom of speech, the interests of the public… the need for journalists to protect confidential sources of information, and the rights of individuals.”

Criterion 17 states that such a regulator’s board

“should not have the power to prevent publication of any material, by anyone, or at any time”.

The only way to change the charter would be by a 66% super-majority in both Houses, plus the unanimous agreement of the press recognition panel’s board. This is not state regulation of the press, or even state regulation of the press regulators; it is the creation of an independent body that will apply Leveson’s criteria for a press regulator to potential self-funded press regulators.

The second myth is that it would threaten the existence of local newspapers. Again, that is not true. New clause 20 would protect all local newspapers that have a turnover of less than £100 million and exempt them from section 40. Local newspapers were generally omitted from the criticisms of Leveson 1, and they are rightly protected from costs shifting, which they might be unable to afford.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that condition B would still leave 85% of local newspapers covered by the cost-shifting provisions, directly threatening their ability to conduct the investigative journalism that so many of them do so well?

[Bill Wiggin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he is saying is that businesses with a turnover of over £100 million should be protected, which I think is probably not quite right.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend find it odd that the lesser-off papers, as I think he phrased it, get away with some things and the better-off papers do not? Is that not discriminatory and completely against British justice?

[Bill Wiggin]

No, it is not, because it is designed to ensure that victims get access to justice. My hon. Friend will find the local papers that may come under section 40 are owned by large companies. The exemption is designed for the charitable sector, which I will come to in just a moment.

One myth is that The Guardian would not be covered. The Daily Mail claimed that The Guardian would be exempt from the section 40 provisions, which is not true. The Guardian would not be covered by condition A, which is necessary to protect the not-for-profit publications that cannot afford cost-shifting—that is the sector my hon. Friend is interested in protecting. The Guardian would be covered because it declares dividends to its members, so it would not be exempted as the Daily Mail suggested.

The next myth about section 40 is that newspapers would have to sign up to IMPRESS, which again is simply not true. The press are at liberty to create their own regulator, which would simply have to fulfil all 29 of Leveson’s criteria in order to become approved. Becoming approved does not require any sort of Government or political approval. It is entirely independent, and there is nothing to stop IPSO applying to become an approved regulator, except that it does not want to provide the low-cost access to justice that is so necessary. IPSO is a press protector, not a press regulator. I say that because it has introduced what it calls a compulsory low-cost arbitration scheme, but that is not right. IPSO’s scheme is voluntary, and the Financial Times, MailOnline and other newspapers not regulated by IPSO have not signed up. Newspapers may leave the scheme whenever they choose. Although I am delighted that IPSO has admitted that low-cost arbitration is necessary, to add to the express view of both Houses and the recommendation of Lord Leveson, this version of it is not right.

If we choose not to vote for section 40 today, we will once again be trusting the newspapers to reform themselves. They say we should trust them and that IPSO is reforming, coincidentally at exactly the same time as we vote on this important new clause. The newspapers have shown again and again that they cannot be trusted, and we must vote to ensure that all victims have access to low-cost justice, which is so necessary. Lord Leveson, both Houses of Parliament and, now, IPSO have all agreed this is necessary. Section 40 has been on the statute book for five years, and it is now time it was commenced.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Time is tight, so I will be brief. I rise to speak in support of new clause 18 because the Scottish National party has been clear throughout that all individuals should be able to seek redress when they feel they have been the victim of press malpractice. It benefits each and every one of us to have a media that is both transparent and accountable.

The Scottish National party is committed to ensuring that the practices that led to the Leveson inquiry never happen again. We have been equally clear, however, that if there is to be a second part of the Leveson inquiry, the distinct Scottish legal context must be taken into account and the Scottish Government must be consulted on the scope and scale of any future inquiry.

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and I raised that on Second Reading and again in Committee, and we put on record our dismay at the wholly inappropriate, indeed lazy, amendments made in the other place that sought to impose a blanket, one-size-fits-all, Truro-to-Thurso policy without any cognisance of the devolution settlement or of the fact that matters of press regulation and criminal justice are wholly devolved to the Parliament in Holyrood. I do not think it unreasonable to expect the House of Lords to know that both criminal justice and press regulation, and all the associated issues of the culture, practice and ethics of the press, fall under devolved competence, and that any blanket UK-wide proposal could only negatively impact on devolution.

Scottish National party Members have said repeatedly that, as long as the Scottish Government are consulted and the Scottish legal system is taken into account, we would be happy to support a Leveson inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not because time is so short.

Let me move on to new clause 20, the Max Mosley amendment. A man more cynical than I am might think that £540,000 donated to a certain political party might have had some influence on the desire to support IMPRESS—on the desire to support the creation of a known racist, a man who went on anti-Semitic rallies with his father. A party suffering from accusations of anti-Semitism wishes to be in bed with a man who gave it £540,000 to pursue his cause, which is to make IMPRESS the regulator of our free press, in the pocket of one of the most disreputable figures in this nation. IPSO has made leaps and bounds to ensure that it is a proper self-regulator. It is a self-regulator free from the taint of state approval, state authorisation and state regulation—

[Bill Wiggin]

And from responsibility.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The freedoms and liberties that we hold so dear should be preserved, even when they are inconvenient to us. The House may not have heard what my hon. Friend next to me just said. Baldwin’s line was that the press had the “prerogative of the harlot”—power without responsibility. That was his line, but I would rather have a free press in that condition than a Government-approved, propagandised press that took away all our ancient liberties. These new clauses must be wiped out and cut from the legislative book. We must preserve our freedoms.

Blagging: Leveson Inquiry

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I want the low-cost arbitration system that has been put in place by the Independent Press Standards Organisation to work. At the moment, we have not seen a full case go through it. It has just been put in place, in November, and I want to see it work better. I want to make sure that when wrong decisions are made, there is a proper acknowledgment of and apology for that.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Those who believe in a truly free press should not accept IPSO, and those who do not believe in a truly free press cannot accept it either. In the light of these criminal confessions, which only The Guardian and the BBC reported, does my right hon. Friend agree that implementing section 40 would be more in the spirit of building a country that works for everyone than the current system, whereby only the very rich can challenge the press?

[Matt Hancock]

I have a lot of time for my hon. Friend. Making sure the country works for everyone means making sure we have a press that can investigate people and cannot be put off such investigations by the threat of costs, even if everything they report is accurate. Therefore, I think that section 40 is not appropriate, but it is important that we have proper redress through IPSO, which has recently brought in a new system, and, as I said in my previous response, I would like to see that working.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Bill Wiggin Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I can.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Before he does, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course.

[Bill Wiggin]

Will the provisions apply to Wikipedia as well?

[Matt Hancock]

I will happily respond to both points. Under the Bill, data must be deleted unless there are legitimate grounds for retaining it. The details of what is meant by legitimate grounds will be set out in recitals and then guidance from the Information Commissioner. This is one area in which the right to be forgotten, which has been long dreamt of and thought about, is now being legislated for, and the precise details of where it applies will be set out in guidance, as the Bill states only that there need to be legitimate grounds for retaining data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will start with a little anecdote about my local paper and IPSO. On 9 November, just four days after the Paradise papers story broke, the Hereford Times published the headline, “Tory MP dragged into offshore row”. It clearly implied a connection between me, a law firm I have never had anything to do with, and tax avoidance, which, equally, I have had nothing to do with. To make matters worse, the editor then chose to publish letters the next week from readers who believed that I was part of the Paradise papers. Amazingly, IPSO ruled that that was not misleading or inaccurate in any way. Even though the article contained factual inaccuracies that I had pointed out, IPSO’s complaints committee simply ignored them. IPSO is a press protector, not a press regulator. MPs can speak out against it in the public domain, but normal people have no such voice, so we need this excellent Bill, which I look forward to supporting, largely because of the amendments from Earl Attlee.

Let me describe the Hereford Times a little bit. It is owned by Newsquest, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gannett Company UK, the UK branch of Gannett Company—a US media giant. In 2015, Newsquest reported a loss of £24,349,000. Meanwhile, Gannett reported revenues of £2.89 billion and a net income of over £146 million. On 11 August 2017, Chris Morley from the National Union of Journalists described Newsquest as

“exporting tens of millions of pounds profit to its US masters”.

In October 2016, the NUJ said, after its pay survey, that Newsquest was one of the stingiest employers, despite Gannett paying its top five executives over £15 million between them. I am pleased to say that I do not believe that John Wilson, the rather hopeless editor of the Hereford Times, was one of them.

Moving on to Leveson 2, Baroness Hollins’ amendment provides for an inquiry with similar terms of reference to part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. I am obviously extremely disappointed that the Government last week chose to abandon Lord Leveson’s recommendations. The inquiry was always one inquiry in two parts, not two inquiries, and it should not stop halfway through. Sir Brian Leveson was absolutely clear in his letter to the Secretary of State that he does not want the inquiry to stop halfway. However, there is no justification for spending millions on part 2 if we are simply to abandon the recommendations of part 1. We must carry out the recommendations of part 1 and then continue with the second half of the inquiry.

An amendment put forward by Earl Attlee in the other place adds provisions similar to those in section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The Secretary of State last week suggested that the current system of press regulation was sufficient and that implementing section 40 would damage the freedom of the press and hurt vulnerable local papers, but he is wrong on all those counts. In response to the idea that the current system of regulation is sufficient, I point out that IPSO cannot be “largely compliant.” It is not possible to be largely pregnant—someone is either pregnant or not. As per the Secretary of State’s statement, a regulator either follows all 29 criteria or it does not. IPSO does not, and therefore it is not the method of press regulation that Leveson recommended and that has already been passed into law. The Secretary of State suggests that we do not need further regulation. Why would we regulate energy providers, communications providers and even exam providers, but simply decide to trust newspapers that have criminal convictions? That is plainly barmy.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is ironic that the press is not to be regulated, when broadcasters are, via Ofcom?

[Bill Wiggin]

Either we regulate or we do not, but we cannot do bits. That is why it is important that the Bill passes into law as it is. I agree with the hon. Lady.

The second accusation is that Earl Attlee’s amendments would damage the freedom of the press. The Press Recognition Panel is entirely independent of the Government and the press. It is funded by the Government, but so are the courts, and no one would accuse the judiciary of being influenced by the Government. In addition, the PRP’s charter is as good as unamendable, as amendment requires a 66% supermajority in both Houses and, crucially, the unanimous agreement of the PRP board, so any Government who chose to change press regulation would find it far easier to do so through primary legislation. It is fiction to think the PRP is anything other than independent.

Finally, it has been suggested that Earl Attlee’s amendments would harm local newspapers financially. Section 40 is not about punishing newspapers; it is about creating a fair and low-cost arbitration process that is good for local newspapers and for vulnerable individuals. Lord Leveson envisaged his proposals protecting local newspapers from rich and powerful litigants, and he certainly did not intend for newspapers to refuse to join a regulator.

Section 40 is not only desirable but necessary. IPSO will never agree to apply to become an approved regulator unless it is forced to, and section 40 would ensure that it happened. These measures already received the full support of both Houses in proceedings on the Crime and Courts Act. We must now implement them. The challenge goes out to the Opposition parties: there is support on both sides of the House for section 40, but if there are not sufficient Members here to vote for it, the Government will have their way. I hope we will make sure that this House does not bend the knee to the power of the press barons, but remembers its role to speak up for the vulnerable—the people who have no money, and who need a proper, fair and low-cost arbitration system.