Oral Answers to Questions
Damian Collins Excerpts(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tracey Crouch
I had the good fortune of bumping into a senior member of Celtic in Parliament earlier this week and we had a brief discussion on Celtic. Both my officials and those from the SGSA have already visited the rail seating area at Celtic to see it in operation. It has not been without its problems and has been closed twice already during the last season because of fan behaviour, but we continue to look at the development of rail seating at Celtic.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
As the Minister knows, a growing number of clubs are calling for safe standing to be reviewed and reintroduced. Does she think this should now be not the matter of a blanket ban, but a matter for safety authorities, the fans and local authorities, and decided on a case-by-case basis?
Tracey Crouch
The Government are committed to the current policy on all-seater stadiums. For this to be different, legislative change would be required. We will have a longer debate on this matter on 25 June, when I am sure we will be able to have a much more engaged discussion on it.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The serious violence strategy, published on 9 April, sets out our response to serious violence, which includes knife crime. We will legislate to tighten the law in this area, and the Crown Prosecution Service continues to work with law enforcement agencies to tackle knife crime and other forms of serious violence.
Damian Collins
Following Donald Trump’s speech to the National Rifle Association, does the Solicitor General agree that the streets of London would be far more dangerous for communities if criminals and gang members were armed with automatic weapons rather than knives? Does he agree that while longer sentences for knife offenders are important, we also need to do more to understand the underlying causes of knife crime and gang violence?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is right about the need to tackle the underlying reasons for knife crime, whether that is carried out by gangs or young people in isolation. That sort of work is far more valuable than attempts by the President of the United States to channel Sean Connery in “The Untouchables”.
Data Protection Bill [Lords]
Damian Collins ExcerptsWednesday 9th May 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Data Protection Act 2018 View all Data Protection Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 May 2018 - (9 May 2018)
Mr Whittingdale
Of course, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I am glad that he focused on local newspapers, because I referred to two changes. The first is the establishment of IPSO, which I believe in all serious respects is now compliant with what Lord Leveson wanted. The second is the complete change in the media landscape that has taken place in the last 10 years.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the number of local newspapers that have gone out of business. We are seeing more continue to do so. There is likely to be further consolidation within the newspaper industry and the economics are steadily moving against newspapers. That is a real threat to democracy, because newspapers employ journalists who cover proceedings in courts, council chambers and, indeed, in this place. The big media giants who now have the power and influence—Google, Facebook and Twitter—do not employ a single journalist, so my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to have established the examination into the funding and future of the press. It is about looking forward, and that is where the House should be concentrating its efforts. It should not be looking backwards and going over again the events of more than 10 years ago; the world has changed almost beyond recognition.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
My Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly)—I call him my hon. Friend—raised the recommendations of the Committee last year. One was that for IPSO to be considered compliant in any way with the spirit of Leveson, it should have a compulsory industry-funded arbitration scheme. While IPSO might not be perfect, does my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) agree that this is one of the most significant areas where IPSO has responded to pressure to try to make itself more compliant?
Mr Whittingdale
I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I would have found it far harder to make the argument that IPSO was basically now compliant with Lord Leveson had it not introduced the scheme that is now in place. That was the biggest difference between the system as designed by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset in the royal charter and IPSO, and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, has rightly been removed.
What we do in this debate is being watched around the world. This country is seen as a bastion of freedom and liberty, and a free press is an absolutely essential component of that. I say to those who are proposing these amendments: do not just listen to the newspaper industry, which is, as I say, united against this—that includes The Guardian, despite the efforts of Labour Front Benchers to somehow exclude them. Listen to the Index on Censorship, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists—campaigning organisations that are fighting oppression of the press around the world. They say that if this House brings in this kind of measure, it would send a terrible signal to those who believe in a free press. I therefore hope that the amendments will be rejected.
Damian Collins
The significance of the Bill and the importance of data and data protection to the economy and the whole of society is reflected in this debate. The fact that amendments have been tabled on Report through the work of three different departmental Select Committees shows how wide-ranging this issue is.
I principally want to talk about amendments 20 and 21, which stand in my name and those of other members of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and which are addressed by Government amendments, too. Before I do so, I want to add that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), made a very important point about the fact that some people—particularly those involved in immigration cases—may not have full access to the data rights enjoyed by others. If the Minister can provide any further clarification, I will be happy to give way before I move on.
Margot James
After the exchange I had with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), I wanted to confirm that the Home Office will certainly not destroy any data for which there is still a legitimate and ongoing need not just for the Home Office but for data subjects.
Damian Collins
I am grateful to the Minister for that further clarification.
Amendments 20 and 21 get to the heart of an issue that has been raised by a number of Members, which is the power of the Information Commissioner to act in data investigations. The Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and others have referenced the Cambridge Analytica data breach scandal, which is a very good example of why these additional powers are needed. We raised that in the Select Committee with the Secretary of State. The Information Commissioner raised it with us and it was raised on the Floor of the House on Second Reading.
The ability to fine companies for being in breach of data rules is important, but what is most significant is that we get hold of the data needed by investigators, so that we understand who is doing what, how they are doing it and how wide-ranging this is. It is crucial that the Information Commissioner has the enforcement powers she needs to complete those investigations.
In the case of Cambridge Analytica, an information notice was issued by the Information Commissioner to that company to comply with requests for data and information. Not only did Cambridge Analytica not comply, but Cambridge Analytica and Facebook knew that. That information notice expired at 5 o’clock on the evening of the day when that deadline was set; it was the beginning of the week. Before the notice had expired and a warrant could even be applied for, Facebook had sent in its own lawyers and data experts to try to recover data that was relevant to the Information Commissioner’s request.
The Information Commissioner found out about that live on “Channel 4 News” and then effectively sent a cease and desist note to Facebook, telling it to withdraw its people. She might very well not have been made aware of what Facebook was doing that evening, and data vital for her investigation could have been taken out of her grasp by parties to the investigation, which would have been completely wrong. Not only did that happen—thankfully, Facebook stood down—but a further five days expired before a warrant could be issued—before the right judge in the right court had the time to grant the warrant to enable her to complete her work. We live in a fast-moving world, and data is the fuel of that fast-moving world, so we cannot have 19th or even 20th-century legal responses. We must give our investigatory authorities the powers they need to be effective, which means seizing data on demand, without notice, as part of an investigation, and having the ability to see how data is used in the workplace or wider environment.
The Government are bringing forward amendments, which I think have the support of the House, that will give us one of the most effective enforcement regimes in the world. They will give us the power to do something we have not been able to do before, which is to go behind the curtain to see what tech companies, even major tech companies, are doing and make sure they comply with our data rules and regulations. Without that or an effective power to inspect, we would largely be in the position of having to take their word for it when they said they were complying with the GDPR. Particularly with companies such as Facebook that run closed systems—they have closed algorithms and their data is not open in any way—there are very good commercial reasons for doing so, but there are also consumer safety reasons. We must have the power to go in and check what they are doing, so the amendments are absolutely vital.
There are further concerns. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, was right to raise concerns about honesty and transparency in political advertising. Both the Information Commissioner and the Electoral Commission are examining the use of data in politics, as well as looking at who places the ads. It is already a breach of the law in the UK, as it is in other countries, for people outside our jurisdiction to run political advertising during election campaigns in this country.
In the case of Facebook, it is unacceptable that its ad check teams have not spotted such advertising and stopped it happening when someone is breaking the law. If this were about the financial services sector, we would not let a company say, “Well, we thought someone was breaking the law, but we weren’t told to do anything about it, so we didn’t”. We would expect such a company to spot it and to take effective action. We need to see a lot more progress on this, particularly in relation to the placement of micro-targeting ads and dark ads. The Institute of Practitioners in Advertising has called for a moratorium on the micro-targeting of political ads, which may be seen only by the person who receives an ad and the person who places it.
When the chief technology officer of Facebook, Mike Schroepfer, gave evidence to the Select Committee, I asked him whether, if someone set up a Facebook page to run ads during a campaign and micro-targeted individual voters before taking down the page at the end of the campaign and destroying the adverts, Facebook would have any record that that advertising had ever run, he said that he did not know. We have written to him and Mark Zuckerberg saying that we need to know, because unless we know, a bad actor could run ads in huge volumes, investing a huge amount of money in breach of electoral law, and if they did not declare it, there would be no record of that advertising ever having been placed.
Liam Byrne
The Chair of the Select Committee is doing a brilliant job with his investigation, but the argument must stretch further than simply political advertising. For example, when Voter Consultancy Ltd ran attack ads against Conservative Members, accusing some of them of being Brexit mutineers, it was running an imprint for a company that was actually filing dormant accounts at Companies House. There are real questions not just about political ads in the narrow traditional sense, but about how to get to the bottom of who is literally writing the cheques.
Damian Collins
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and that throws up two really important points.
The first point is that the Information Commissioner is also currently investigating this, which links to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about where the money comes from and who the data controllers are in these campaigns. Although Facebook is saying that it will in future change its guidelines so that people running political ads must have their identity and location verified, we know that it is very easy for bad actors to fake those things. It would be pretty easy for anyone in the House to set up a Facebook page or account using a dummy email address they have created that is not linked to a real person, but is a fake account. This is not necessarily as robust as it seems, so we need to know who is running these ads and what their motivation is for doing so.
Secondly, the Information Commissioner is also looking at the holding of political data. It is already an offence for people to harvest and collect data about people’s political opinions or to target them using it without their consent, and it is an offence for organisations that are not registered political parties even to hold such data. If political consultancies are scraping data off social media sites such as Facebook, combining it with other data that helps them to target voters and micro-targeting them with messaging during a political campaign or at any time, there is a question as to whether that is legal now, let alone under the protection of GDPR.
As a country and a society, we have been on a journey over the past few months and we now understand much more readily how much data is collected about us, how that data is used and how vulnerable that data can be to bad actors. Many Facebook users would not have understood that Facebook not only keeps information about what they do on Facebook, but gathers evidence about what non-Facebook users do on the internet and about what Facebook users do on other sites around the internet. It cannot even tell us what proportion of internet sites around the world it gathers such data from. Developers who create games and tools that people use on Facebook harvest data about those users, and it is then largely outside the control of Facebook and there is little it can do to monitor what happens to it. It can end up in the hands of a discredited and disgraced company like Cambridge Analytica.
These are serious issues. The Bill goes a long way towards providing the sort of enforcement powers we need to act against the bad actors, but they will not stop and neither will we. No doubt there will be further challenges in the future that will require a response from this House.
Brendan O'Hara
I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we are incredibly tight for time.
There is so much in the Bill that I would like to talk about, such as effective immigration control, delegated powers and collective redress, not to mention the achievement of adequacy, but I will concentrate on amendment 5, which appears in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
The amendment seeks to provide protection for individuals where automated decision making could have an adverse impact on their fundamental rights. It would require that, where human rights are or could be impacted by automated decisions, ultimately, there will always be a human decision maker at the end of the process. It would instil that vital protection of human rights in respect of the general processing of personal data. We believe strongly that automated decision making without human intervention should be subject to strict limitations to promote fairness, transparency and accountability, and to prevent discrimination. As it stands, the Bill provides insufficient safeguards.
I am talking about decisions that are made without human oversight, but that can have long-term, serious consequences for an individual’s health or financial, employment, residential or legal status. As it stands, the Bill will allow law enforcement agencies to make purely automated decisions. That is fraught with danger and we believe it to be at odds not just with the Data Protection Act 1998, but with article 22 of the GDPR, which gives individuals the right not to be subject to a purely automated decision. We understand that there is provision within the GDPR for states to opt out, but that opt-out does not apply if the data subject’s rights, freedoms or legitimate interests are undermined.
I urge the House to support amendment 5 and to make it explicit in the Bill that, where automated processing that could have long-term consequences for an individual’s health or financial, employment or legal status is carried out, a human being will have to decide whether it is reasonable and appropriate to continue. Not only will that human intervention provide transparency and accountability; it will ensure that the state does not infringe an individual’s fundamental rights and privacy—issues that are often subjective and are beyond the scope of an algorithm. We shall press the amendment to the vote this evening.
Cambridge Analytica: Data Privacy
Damian Collins Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to make a statement about the alleged breach of Facebook user data by Cambridge Analytica and the powers of the Information Commissioner to act in such cases.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
The revelation this weekend of a serious alleged privacy breach involving Facebook data is clearly very worrying. It is reported that a whistleblower told The Observer newspaper that Cambridge Analytica exploited the Facebook data of over 50 million people globally.
In our increasingly digital world, it is essential that people can have confidence that their personal data will be protected. The Information Commissioner, as the data regulator, is already investigating as part of a broader investigation into the use of personal data during political campaigns. The investigation is considering how political parties and campaigns, data analytics companies and social media platforms in the UK have used people’s personal information to micro-target voters. As part of the investigation, the commissioner is looking at whether Facebook data was acquired and used illegally. She has already issued 12 information notices to a range of organisations, using powers under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is imperative that when an organisation receives an information notice, it must comply in full. We expect all organisations involved to co-operate with this investigation in whatever way the Information Commissioner sees fit. I am sure that the House will understand that there is only so far I can go in discussing specific details of specific cases.
The appropriate use of data is important for good campaigning. Canvassing someone’s voting intention is as old as democracy itself. Indeed, we do it in the House every day. But it is important that the public are comfortable with how information is gathered, used and shared in modern political campaigns, and it is important that the Information Commissioner has the enforcement powers she needs. The Data Protection Bill, currently in Committee, will strengthen legislation around data protection and give her tougher powers to ensure that organisations comply. The Bill gives her the powers to levy significant fines for malpractice, of up to 4% of global turnover, on organisations that block the investigations by the Information Commissioner’s Office. It will enhance control, transparency and security of data for people and businesses across the country.
Because of the lessons learned in this investigation and the difficulties the Information Commissioner has had in getting appropriate engagement from the organisations involved, she has recently requested yet stronger enforcement powers. The power of compulsory audit is already in the Bill, and she has proposed additional criminal sanctions. She has also made the case that it has become clear that, in order to deal with complex investigations such as these, the power to compel testimony from individuals is now needed. We are considering those new proposals, and I have no doubt that the House will consider that as the Bill passes through the House.
Data, properly used, has massive value, and social media are a good thing, so we must not leap to the wrong conclusions and shut down all access. We need rules to ensure transparency, clarity and fairness, and that is what the Data Protection Bill will provide. After all, strong data protection laws give citizens confidence, and that is good for everyone.
Damian Collins
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Does he share my concern that an academic at the University of Cambridge, Aleksandr Kogan, was able to conduct surveys with 270,000 Facebook users, and from that was able to access the data of not just the people who completed those surveys but a greater number of accounts, totalling 50 million user profiles?
That information was then sold to Cambridge Analytica, despite Alexander Nix of Cambridge Analytica telling the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that it had never received such data when he gave evidence to us, which the Committee will seek to pursue with him. That data was then used in campaigns. Facebook knew of that data breach for more than two years and did nothing to act against Cambridge Analytica. It only suspended Cambridge Analytica from the platform when it became clear that The Observer was going to expose this in its feature yesterday.
My first specific question for the Secretary of State and his Department, and by extension the Information Commissioner, is: will someone be contacting Cambridge University to ask what oversight there was of what Dr Kogan and his team were doing there in gathering this data in the first place?
There is an ethical issue here: data gathered in consumer surveys is being used by data analytics companies for political campaigns. No one ever gave consent for this information to be used in political campaigns in this way, and I think many people will be shocked at the way in which their personal data can be harvested so effectively and used in this way—and not by a registered political party, but simply by a data analytics consultancy.
Can the Secretary of State give users some heart by confirming that someone simply ticking a box on a long form on Facebook does not sign away their rights? Can he confirm that no company has the right to ask someone to sign away their rights under data protection legislation in this country, that it would not be enforceable if a company tried to do so and that people’s rights are still protected?
Does the Secretary of State believe there should be a broader investigation into Cambridge Analytica as a company, which many people are concerned is using many different shadow companies and identities to campaign around the world? Many people have raised concerns and questions not just about the way the company is using data but about its ethics and leadership in all aspects of its life.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State addressed the powers of the Information Commissioner. We raised that issue with him in Committee last week, and the Information Commissioner has also raised it. This incident shows that someone in this country needs to have the legal authority to go behind the curtain and look at the way in which the tech platforms and other companies that use data are using that data, to make sure they comply with UK data protection law.
When the Data Protection Bill is passed, we want to be confident that it is being enforced, that the conditions are being met and that big, powerful companies like Facebook cannot avoid compliance with UK data protection law. I am pleased that the Secretary of State raised that. The Committee, and I am sure the whole House, will take note of that on Report.
Matt Hancock
I start by paying tribute to the work of the Select Committee, as I have done from this Dispatch Box before. It is doing an incredibly important piece of work. Because of the sensitivities of this, in terms of its political nature and the impact on political campaigning, it is excellent that a cross-party group of MPs is leading work on this, and I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House for their role in that. I remind them that they ultimately have the power of summons, if people are not giving them good enough answers.
I will ensure that we look into all the considerations my hon. Friend mentions. He raised a point about consent not just being given through a tick box, and this is directly addressed in the Data Protection Bill. Currently, because of the nature of the legislation—the 1998 Act is very old in digital terms—companies can get away with asking for a box to be ticked, even though many people do not read all the small print. The Data Protection Bill will replace the tick-box approach with a principles-based approach, which I think the whole House should support.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked about the powers of the Information Commissioner. He is absolutely right that we must, with the legislation before the House right now, ensure that we get the powers right so that the Information Commissioner can carry out an audit. Such a power is already in the Bill, but the question is whether there is a strong enough backstop for when people choose not to comply with an audit. At the moment, there is a very serious fine, but the question is whether the criminal penalties that can be imposed in some cases should be further strengthened. That detail is rightly being looked at in the discussions on the Data Protection Bill.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Like most people across the House, I was shocked to read the revelations in The Observer. This story is yet more evidence that the online political advertising market is growing exponentially and becoming more and more difficult to police. We are seeing Russian authorities purchasing political ads with extensive micro-targeting based on ill-gotten or unlawful user data. If left unregulated, this market will continue to be prone to deception and lacking in transparency. Urgent action is clearly required, so what plans do the Government have to take the required action?
Of course Cambridge Analytica and Facebook should be brought back to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to explain their previous evidence, which is alleged to be simply false.
Gavin Newlands
I am pleased to hear that.
Lastly, there have been reports that the Conservative party has been in talks with Cambridge Analytica for some time. If that is true, how long have they been in talks and what did the party know about its dealings with Facebook? Do the Government plan to hold an inquiry? If so, is the Secretary of State worried about a conflict of interest, given the Conservative party’s plans to use Cambridge Analytica for its own benefit?
Blagging: Leveson Inquiry
Damian Collins Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Hancock
Of course I respect the constitutional settlement. Action is necessary as a result of these revelations, and it is action for the police into allegations of what appear to be criminal activities.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right to say that criminality is a matter for the police, but does he feel that the Information Commissioner, who has the right to investigate breaches of personal data, has all the power she needs? Is he listening to her calls to further strengthen her powers through the Data Protection Bill?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. We have a good working relationship with the Information Commissioner. Her powers are being strengthened by the Data Protection Bill, and I am sure that the level to which and the ways in which they are strengthened will be properly scrutinised as the Bill goes through Committee and further stages.
Leveson Inquiry
Damian Collins Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
The case of the victims of press intrusion is, of course, an incredibly important consideration when making these judgments, but I make the judgments on the basis not of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but of the national interest. The issues faced by the victims have been looked into, in the inquiry and in the three police investigations. The issues for the future of our media include this, but are much broader than it.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) stands at the Dispatch Box and talks about the future of our media, but the Opposition’s proposals would lead to a press that is fettered and not free. We do not love every story that is written about us in the press, but the idea that the solution lies in shackling our free press with the punitive costs of any complainant is completely wrong. We all know where he is coming from on the issue of press freedom, because he is tied up with its opponents. Democratic countries face huge challenges in making sure that we have robust but fair discussions in our public life, and the approach proposed by the Opposition would make that even harder.
The hon. Gentleman talks about keeping promises. We are keeping promises that were made to our constituents, who elected us on a manifesto commitment to support a free press. He talks about the need to look into the past, but there have been investigations and inquiries costing many millions of pounds. My judgment is that it would be neither proportionate nor in the national interest to follow that with millions of pounds more.
The message should go out loud and clear from this House that we support every single local newspaper in this country, and that we support these publications, big or small. That is why we are proposing real and meaningful solutions for a vibrant, free and independent press, and we will face up to the challenges that we see before us today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will come around to supporting us in that to ensure that we have a strong, democratic discourse over the years and decades to come.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s predecessor promised the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that we would receive a full response to our submission to the Government’s consultation on press regulation, but we have yet to receive it. Can he give me an assurance that we will receive a full response in good time for his appearance before us on 14 March?
Sky/Fox Update
Damian Collins Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
I think that is the most cheerful response I have had from the hon. Gentleman, so I thank him for that. I will try to answer his questions in as much detail as possible. He asked a number of questions about the process. I am clear that we will follow due process; we will follow our statutory responsibilities and respect the quasi-judicial nature of the decision. My predecessor acted with great solidity and integrity in that regard, and I intend to do the same. In my previous role as Minister for Digital, I was outside the Chinese walls that the Department has on this subject, and therefore not involved in the internal discussions of the earlier stages. I will therefore follow the process by considering the CMA’s final report, once it is published, and all the relevant evidence and information, and then I will make the decision.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Leveson. Although we will no doubt have debates on the future sustainability of the press in the coming months, this is a separate process under existing law in which I have a quasi-judicial role; it is not intertwined with the debates that we will have on the primary legislation that was just passed by the other place and received its First Reading in this House this week. Those two questions are separate. The question before us today is one in which I will operate fully in my quasi-judicial role, as I am required to do by law.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Secretary of State rightly raised Disney’s proposed takeover of Fox. If Disney wholly acquired Sky, Sky would of course be completely separate from the Murdoch family trust and in the ownership of a completely different company. However, does he believe that the Fox takeover of Sky must first be considered on its own merits, and that the future acquisition of Fox by Disney is a separate matter?
Matt Hancock
The CMA’s report does address the fact that the proposed takeover by Disney is uncertain, and it sets out some details of potential options, given that uncertainty. Anybody can make written representations in the next three weeks, based on that interim report, and I will consider the question when I see the full report in the months to come.
BBC Pay
Damian Collins Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Hancock
I share the hon. Lady’s outrage at what we have discovered, and I underline that we have discovered it only because of the transparency measures that were brought in by this House, led by my predecessors, during the royal charter process. She asks specifically about editorial guidelines. They are a matter for the BBC. It is understandable that it might say that people with a strong view should separate that view from their impartial delivery of news, but I would ask whether they observe that in every case, as well as cases about just the BBC.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment.
The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee decided this morning to invite the director-general to come and account for the BBC’s actions on gender pay since the publication of salaries last summer. It is important to see what progress it has made as well as what more needs to be made. Does the Secretary of State agree that this case underlines why we were right to insist on full disclosure of top pay, and not just for executives, but for on-screen talent?
Matt Hancock
I strongly agree with the Chair of the Select Committee, and I welcome his Committee’s scrutiny of this. The BBC resisted the transparency measures, and we are starting to see why.
Russian Interference in UK Politics
Damian Collins Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and I congratulate him on securing the debate. At the end of his remarks, he rightly raised important issues around the prioritisation of this issue for the intelligence services and the Government’s co-operation with the Mueller inquiry, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about those questions later.
This debate feels very timely. On Tuesday, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee held our first oral evidence session on fake news and disinformation, looking in particular at Russian activity in Catalonia around the referendum. My staff tweeted a link from my Twitter account to where people could watch the Committee hearing. According to an article in The Times today, a Russian-language bot account then responded to my tweet sharing the link to the hearings with the threat that we should be careful because we can all be wiped out in a single stroke—I do not know whether that was just the Select Committee or the entire nation, but, nevertheless, it was interesting.
On a previous occasion, when I happened to share a link to a discussion I had had with Hugo Rifkind, based on the facts of the US Senate investigation into Russian activity during the presidential election, the official Twitter account of the Russian embassy in London compared me to Joseph Goebbels in seeking to spread big lies about what Russia is doing. Let us not be under any illusion that Russia is, not just anecdotally but in a systematic way, using information as a weapon of war and seeking to intervene in the democratic processes of other countries. It is doing that to undermine people’s confidence in public institutions and to cause division and hatred, and it is part of its strategy of breaking down multilateralism and co-operation between countries in western Europe. That is what Russia is doing.
In the short time that I have available, I want to focus specifically on the role of the social media companies and the way in which they are responding to the different investigations taking place in the UK. My Select Committee wrote to Facebook asking it not only to give evidence of paid-for advertising through its service during the referendum and the last general election, but to identify activity by fake accounts across the platform. Much of the activity in America was based on pages being set up to promote links to sites where fake news and disinformation were shared and fake events organised. It is important that we understand the breadth of what is being done.
Facebook’s response so far—certainly its charge that a tiny amount of money is being spent in this country—is not based on an analysis of what is going on across its platform; it is based simply on looking at the accounts identified as part of the American investigation. Those accounts were given to Facebook by the US intelligence services. Facebook had never proactively looked on its site for evidence of this activity. At the moment, its position in this country is that it is refusing to conduct that research itself. As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said, it must be possible for it to look at the geographical location of accounts, the characteristics of the accounts from where information is shared—
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It must be able to understand how to target users with information based on what it thinks they are interested in and where that information is coming from. It could conduct its own preliminary research to look for the characteristics of fake accounts and disinformation accounts linked to Russian agencies that are based on its platform. At the moment, it is refusing to do that.
Liam Byrne
Facebook’s last quarterly profits were nearly $4 billion. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it could afford to conduct the research if the will were there to do so?
Damian Collins
I absolutely agree. I noticed on a recent investor call that Mark Zuckerberg warned Facebook investors that dealing with these issues would have a direct impact on the bottom line. I am glad that he said that, but I would like to see him using that money. I do not see any evidence of the company putting resource into trying to tackle this issue.
At the moment, Facebook’s position in the UK is that it was only responding to questions put to it by the Electoral Commission. That has a much narrower focus because of the Electoral Commission’s exact remit. Facebook is not answering questions put to it by the Select Committee asking for more evidence of Russian-linked activity across the site, including in pages, group accounts and profiles, not just restricted to paid-for advertising. We have a right to receive information from Facebook, and it could conduct such research. It proactively conducted its own research looking at the activity of fake accounts during the French presidential election. That led to the deletion of more than 30,000 accounts, pages and profiles. Facebook did that itself. If it can do it in France, it can do it in the UK too, but currently it will not.
If Facebook’s position is that it will respond only to official intelligence directing it towards fake activity, then we need to be working to do that too. Our intelligence services need to be on the lookout, if that is the only trigger open to us to get Facebook to act.
Tom Tugendhat
Sadly, my hon. Friend was not at this week’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, where the national security adviser said that such activity was not the main priority, and, indeed, just spoke generally about security threats. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be absolutely one of the top priorities?
Damian Collins
Absolutely. It must be a major priority. We have to realise that Russia is engaged in a multi-layered strategy to cause instability in the west, and that fake news and disinformation is one of the tools it uses.
It was interesting to hear in the Select Committee this week that during the Catalan referendum, Russian news agencies RT and Sputnik were the fourth largest source of information, all of it supporting the separatist cause.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I grew up in cold war Germany. As I have said, these things have been going for decades. When our political group referred to Russia funding German terrorism, we were seen as paranoid fantasists, yet when the wall came down our fears were reconfirmed when the Stasi files were opened. There must be national recognition across the board, and people need to see this as a real threat.
Damian Collins
Absolutely. People must see it as a real threat.
It is not enough for the tech companies just to sit back and say, “We won’t do anything unless you come to us with the evidence. We’re not prepared to conduct our own research on our site about how people are using it and why they are using it.”
I do not believe that individual users of these platforms understand the way in which they can be targeted and the reason they receive the information that they receive. That creates confusing echo chambers, where people are not exposed to a plurality of views but systematically targeted—not just with fake news but with hyper-partisan content. It is being done for propaganda reasons and political reasons by foreign actors. If we do not see that as a threat to the democratic institutions of this country, and a threat to the western way of life, we are deluding ourselves.
The tech companies need to be doing a lot more. I have focused a lot on Facebook, but the same issues apply to Twitter. Twitter has also analysed accounts and information given to it by the US intelligence services. More academic work has been done on analysing those accounts because Twitter is a more open platform and it is possible to do that; in the case of Facebook, which is closed, it is not. The reason much of the interest has been in activity on Twitter is just that it is a more open platform, not because Twitter is being used in such a way and Facebook is not. The tech companies need to do more, and it has to be a higher priority for the intelligence services too.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am not seeking to defend the Putin regime. There is much in Russia that is not perfect. I was a member of the Council of Europe delegation to the presidential elections, and I know it is not a perfect democracy, but let us keep a sense of proportion. So much progress has been made, and Russia is an infinitely freer and better place than it was under the Soviet Union. It is not perfect, it is not pleasant and it is not our sort of democracy, so I do not defend the Putin regime, but I want to get a sense of proportion in this debate.
Let us look at the evidence from the Oxford Internet Institute, which is part of Oxford University. It investigated more than 100 Russian-linked Twitter accounts and their activity in the run-up to our EU referendum. The results of the investigation are worth noting. It found that
“(1) Russian Twitter accounts shared to the public, contributed relatively little to the overall Brexit conversation, (2) Russian news content was not widely shared among Twitter users, and (3) only a tiny portion of the YouTube content was of a clear Russian origin.”
The fact is that the majority of the UK population—to a significant extent—is not on Twitter.
Damian Collins
I am familiar with the study that my hon. Friend is referring to, but I would just say that it is very narrowly focused. There is also evidence of more than 13,000 bot accounts on Twitter that were believed to be linked to Russia and were deleted very shortly after the referendum. There is a lot that we do not know about this matter, and we need the tech companies to co-operate with us fully so that we understand the scale of it.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee, and of course we must keep a sense of proportion. I am quoting from a well-established institute and I want to give another point of view in this debate, which I think is fair enough.
I mentioned that the majority of the UK population is not on Twitter. Of the Twitter users, the majority do not even log in daily. Facebook did an investigation into the notorious Russian “troll factory” called the Internet Research Agency and found that its advertisements reached fewer than 200 people in Britain during the referendum campaign. If that is the best Russia can do to overturn our long-established parliamentary democracy, I think we can probably rest at ease.
Matt Hancock
Absolutely, and I will come on to express that in some pretty firm terms later in my speech. The point is that we have not yet seen evidence of successful attempts, but we remain vigilant none the less. I can assure the House that the whole of Government are alert to the threat and that we are working across Government on it.
Damian Collins
Aside from the evidence that has been published out of the American inquiry, do the Government have evidence of intent, whether or not that activity was successful as they define it?
Matt Hancock
As several Members pointed out in the debate, there is already evidence of activity in the public domain. The question is about the scale of that activity and whether it is significant or not significant. As I say, there is not yet evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes.
TV Licence Fee
Damian Collins Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Campbell
Indeed, but why has that not been happening for years? Why did the BBC have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into revealing presenters’ salaries? When we discovered those salaries, there was outrage at the disparity between men and women, but was the BBC asked when it would lower the salaries of male presenters? No, it was asked when it would raise the salaries of female presenters. The BBC has a lot of questions to answer. I hope that it is moving, slowly but inexorably, towards greater transparency. If so, that is a very good thing.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
May I introduce a note of hope? As the hon. Gentleman knows, the BBC now makes a declaration of talent pay, following a recommendation made by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, accepted by the Government and included in the charter. That shows that when we clearly voice the reform we want, it is possible to get it.
Mr Campbell
I am glad that has happened. Some of us have been campaigning on the issue for many years, so I am glad that there has been some success.
I have raised commissioning many times, privately and publicly, within the BBC and externally. As hon. Members are probably aware, there is a commissioning process in the BBC’s regions, under which independent media companies—small or large—are entitled to apply for commissions; so are people who work for the BBC, many of whose applications are successful. I have endeavoured to find out whether having worked for the BBC for some time gives people an unfair advantage because they know their way around the system—how the sound people work, how the video cameras work and so on—but once again I have found it difficult to get answers. Why do private companies find it difficult to get on commissioning shortlists, while internal BBC companies and individuals seem to get on them frequently? Can we have more openness and transparency about that? Will the BBC explain it? When I have complained to the BBC about the nature of commissioning, I have been told repeatedly that it has a robust and transparent internal process.
Mr Campbell
I agree totally. If a political party in this House were in receipt of public money from a variety of sources for commissioning opinion polls and so on, and the BBC said, “We would like to question you about your spending of public money, because there seems to be a lack of transparency,” just imagine its response if the party replied that it had robust internal mechanisms to ensure that the money was spent appropriately! Yet that is what the BBC tells me about its internal commissioning process and the complaints engendered by it: “Leave it to us; we know how to spend public money, and we have very efficient internal employees to ensure that it is accounted for.” That is not good enough.
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case on commissioning, but does he accept that, apart from news programmes, all BBC programmes, whether new or repeats, require competition in the commissioning process? In fact, since the changes in the royal charter, the highest profile recommissioning case has been that of “Songs of Praise”, which the BBC has lost to a commercial competitor.
Mr Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I come back to this one: whenever we complain about a commissioning process, it would be infinitely preferable if the BBC opened up its system. If it has a fully accountable and transparent system for assessing the commissioning process, we will be able to see it. We can analyse it, we can look at it and we can say, “Is that value for money for the licence fee payer, or is there something else at work?” I do not know that there is something else at work, but I know that there have been complaints and that there needs to be greater transparency.
In short, and to conclude, the BBC used to be a wonderfully independent and impartial public service broadcaster. I want to see it return to those days, because I think that it has fallen short in recent days—I had a debate in this Chamber only recently along similar lines. We need to keep pressing the BBC. We also need a wider debate: were we to move away from the licence fee, what would be a better way of doing things? I fully concede there are no simple, easy solutions, but we need accountability and transparency for almost £4 billion of public money.
Peter Heaton-Jones
There is sometimes a tendency, I think, for BBC managers not to be front and centre or, when they are, if they appear on a programme like “Feedback” or “Points of View”, the defensive attitude is the one that comes to the fore. What we need sometimes, just sometimes, is for the BBC to say, “We got this wrong. We didn’t do it right and we’re gonna do it differently next time”. I do not see enough of that.
When I worked for the BBC as an editor, and then again as a programme presenter, my manager would come to me once a week with a spreadsheet of the complaints I had received. He used to say, “As long as I’m getting about equal numbers of complaints, Peter, from either side in politics, you’re probably getting it about right.” That is probably as good a yardstick as any. The BBC does get stick from all sides.
The BBC is an organisation that gets a lot of our money and we need more analysis of how it chooses to spend it. There is one particular area of the BBC that I know best, and that is radio, particularly local radio, as that is where I worked. After all, I have the perfect face for radio. As has been mentioned, regional telly and local radio—in my area, BBC Radio Devon and “Spotlight”—do a fantastic job of covering news, which no other broadcaster would be able to do without that public service funding input. That is why I welcome the recent announcements by the BBC director-general at the Gillard awards, which celebrate local radio broadcasting. The first of the two main decisions he announced was that the £10 million of funding cuts he had asked the BBC to find from local radio will not now have to happen. He has found that funding from other sources, and I welcome that. Secondly, the national shared evening programme that local radio has had to have for three years now will be scrapped and local services restored. That is an example of the BBC listening, doing the right thing and saying, “We understand we have all this money and that we’ve got to spend it in a way that benefits the majority of licence fee payers”.
The alternatives do not stack up. Subscription or advertising would be extraordinarily retrograde steps. If we allow the BBC to take advertising, not only do we immediately raise questions about impartiality and neutrality but, frankly, come midnight most nights we will have a live roulette wheel, which is exactly what we have on ITV most nights.
On subscription services, I have been undertaking a text conversation with a constituent of mine in North Devon ever since I said I would be taking part in this debate. He said, “Netflix costs me half as much as the BBC and has five times the content”. Here is what Netflix does not have: radio, regional broadcasting, news and current affairs, and huge educational programmes. It does not put computers into schools or cover live sport. It does not have the huge community events that bring the country together, like Children in Need, which raised £50 million last Friday. That is what Netflix does not give us.
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On advertising revenue, does he agree that, as brands have a finite amount of money to spend, if the BBC were fully commercial and accepted advertising it would be the biggest commercial hammer blow to independent television and radio in this country?
Peter Heaton-Jones
That is another perfectly good reason why we should not move to, or even consider, an advertising model for the funding of the BBC.
I will conclude with the animated conversation I was having with my constituent. Two programmes in particular have been mentioned in the debate—“The Blue Planet” and “Peaky Blinders”—and my constituent said he could watch them both on Netflix. Yes, but someone has to make them in the first place and, in my opinion, the only way they will ever be made is through a public service broadcaster being funded in the way the BBC is.
We are in a position where there is quite rightly debate about the funding of the BBC. It is right that we are having that discussion but, I believe, having worked for the organisation for 17 years and having looked closely at some of the alternatives, that the licence fee is the least worst option. That phrase was used earlier and it is absolutely right. If we try to move beyond that, we find ourselves opening up a hornet’s nest that could lead, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, to advertising or subscription, to a model that will not be the one we want the BBC to be.
I will say a couple of things in conclusion. I pay tribute to the Government and to the arrangement they have reached with the BBC for its charter renewal settlement. It is absolutely right that the BBC has been given a guarantee of income, and that it will rise with inflation. That is good and positive. The Government need to look further, as I know they are doing, at ways in which those who find it hard to pay the licence fee are able to do so, and I look forward to their working with the BBC on that. I have a great deal of sympathy with the concern that has been raised about some of the tactics used by those who collect the licence fee, about some of the letters that are far too threatening in the first instance. If someone does not have a television, that is their right, and they should not get threatening letters through the post because of it.
The licence fee and the BBC are, however, intrinsically linked and there is no viable funding alternative for our public service broadcaster. The BBC is a brilliant organisation but it has to be paid for and the licence fee is, in my estimation, the best way to do that. The BBC is known colloquially as Auntie. We have to hug Auntie close. She may be slightly eccentric but she needs to be fed. If we do not feed her, we will soon regret it, and we will miss her when she has gone.
Kevin Brennan
That may explain why the hon. Gentleman’s wife agreed with the decision not to have a TV licence.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) made an excellent speech and highlighted her previous career both in the BBC and in commercial local radio. I completely agreed with the point she made about BBC local radio. In fact, as you will be aware, Mrs Moon, there is a programme late at night on BBC Radio Wales presented by Chris Needs, which I think ought to be funded by the NHS or social services, because it draws in people late at night who might be lonely and have no one else to talk to. It is an extraordinary service to the nation. Sometimes we forget about the role of radio in bringing comfort and companionship to lonely people.
The hon. Lady also advocated flexibility around the TV licence. I understand the point she makes, but there is a danger that if we unpick the simplicity of the licence concept we could get into difficulties. It is already costly to collect. The more we complicate it, the more difficult it will probably be to collect, and that might undermine the whole principle in a way that she would not intend. We should beware of unintended consequences to a suggestion that she makes with the best of intentions.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) rightly condemned both the far left and the far right for their attacks on journalism and on individual BBC journalists. I endorse everything he said. He told us that he had watched “Pobol y Cwm”, the Welsh language soap opera that appears on S4C. He might be aware that the news on S4C is produced by the BBC. It is not parochial news only about Wales; it is an international news programme produced in the Welsh language by the BBC. It does not seek in any way to present the news in a narrow parochial way.
The hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) described his childhood trauma at being the only Julian brought up on his estate. He said that to abolish the BBC would be an act of “cultural vandalism”. I completely endorse that phrase and those remarks. He said there had been a tendency towards “despite Brexit” coverage on the BBC around the time of the referendum, but there was a time when one could not turn on the BBC without Nigel Farage’s visage appearing at every turn. It is a debatable point whether the BBC has been unfair on that particular topic. However, the hon. Gentleman made a good point about Ofcom’s oversight, which I agree is to be welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the value of the back catalogue in potentially raising more funds for the BBC. That is a valid point, but licence fee payers have already paid for the back catalogue, so people would be charged twice if they were asked to pay again to access the back catalogue. There is a fine line to be drawn between making public service broadcasting available to people in this country who have already paid for it through the licence fee, and being able to commercialise it in an appropriate manner, perhaps on an international basis.
Damian Collins
There is some BBC content that has gone off the iPlayer because the original transmission was too long ago, but that can be watched through paying a subscription to Netflix or Amazon Prime, or through going out and buying a DVD. The principle that older content from the back catalogue that is not being broadcast must be paid for has always been there. In a new technological age, should there not be a “BBC Plus” subscription service that allows someone to buy that content directly from the BBC, as they would a DVD, rather than via an intermediary such as Netflix?
Kevin Brennan
I do not deny that, but I must say that I hugely enjoy being able to access things such as the BBC “In Concert” series from the 1970s via YouTube. There is, of course, an element of advertising to watch that content, albeit a very small one in the case of YouTube. I am arguing only that the right balance needs to be drawn. The hon. Gentleman is right that the BBC needs to raise funds through other means than the licence fee, and some initiatives have been happening in recent years. For example, the BBC is a 50% owner of UKTV, which includes the channel Dave, on which I have appeared from time to time on “Unspun with Matt Forde”—I may be declaring an interest by saying that. My point is that sometimes people do not realise the extent to which the BBC seeks to raise funds—over £1 billion, as was mentioned in the debate.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has been a long-term critic of the BBC. He made similar points the last time we debated the BBC, in this room not so long ago. He knows that I agree with him on the issue of transparency, particularly with regard to salaries. I think it has been proved that that information is in the public interest and should have been revealed. I commend the Culture, Media and Sport Committee for recommending that that should happen, and I agree with the Government’s decision to include it in the charter review. In an intervention, it was pointed out that the BBC had lost “Songs of Praise” during the commissioning process. It reminded me of the great Welsh hymn, Mrs Moon, “Cwm Rhondda”, with the words:
“Songs of praises, songs of praises
I will ever give to thee.”
“Songs of Praise” has unfortunately been lost to the BBC, but it will still air on Sunday evenings for us all to see.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) spoke about how he had worked for the BBC in his previous career. I have to say, for an allegedly lefty organisation, the BBC seems to produce an awful lot of Conservative Members of Parliament, as evidenced by the line-up in today’s debate. They are all excellent Members of Parliament; clearly a BBC career is not a hindrance to a career in politics on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Gentleman said that in his judgment, and from his experience working on the opposite side of the world, the licence fee system is the best system and we should maintain it.
I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition this evening. I will not repeat much of what has been said during the debate, because hon. Members spoke very well. We on the Opposition Front Bench understand the concerns that have been expressed in these e-petitions. It is probably true that if we were to design a public service broadcaster from scratch in today’s media environment, we would probably not come up with a licence fee system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North pointed out in response to an intervention, it is rather like what Winston Churchill said about democracy: it is the worst system, except for all the others. It seems to me that the charge against the licence fee probably boils down to people saying that it works in practice, but not in theory. That is the wrong way round, in a sense; it is things that work in theory but not in practice that we should be concerned about. The fact that the BBC licence fee is a bad idea in theory does not mean that we should abolish it. It is actually a practical and pragmatic way to fund our main public service broadcaster, in a world where other public service broadcasters are funded by alternative means.
We should remember what the licence fee supports and pays for. The BBC is the most used media provider among people of all ages, and in all parts of the United Kingdom. As well as creating content, it creates jobs and often serves as a creative centre of gravity in the communities in which it is based. I have to say to my colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), that the extra funding that has gone into Scotland provides a real opportunity. I moaned about it, because we in Wales did not get as much as Scotland out of that particular deal. We will always have those arguments, but it presents a real opportunity to create the kind of centre of excellence that we have created in Wales—for example, in Cardiff around the drama village. There was not a very good drama service there a few years ago.
Oral Answers to Questions
Damian Collins Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
The Prime Minister has been clear—as she set out on Monday night, with more details provided by the National Cyber Security Centre on Tuesday—that we know what the Russians are doing and we are not going to let them get away with it.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that companies such as Facebook and Twitter should respond to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s request to supply any evidence of Russian-backed activity or fake news interfering with British politics to Parliament so that we can scrutinise it?
Matt Hancock
Yes. This is an incredibly important issue and the Select Committee is taking a lead to ensure that evidence is brought to light. We will of course investigate all the evidence we see and take action where appropriate.