Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

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

[Margot James]

I will have plenty of time in Committee to debate with the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that we all agree that the Bill is important and timely.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that the Minister has not yet concluded her remarks, but it seems that she might do so before the moment of interruption. There are two outstanding motions on the Order Paper to be voted on following the decision on Second Reading: the programme motion and the money resolution. I note that, under Standing Order No. 83A(7) and Standing Order No. 52(1)(a), they are not subject to debate, but if there were any time left over between the conclusion of the Minister’s remarks and the moment of interruption, would it be possible to discuss those two motions?

[Mr Speaker]

No, but the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. The fact that he has done so has given me an opportunity to clarify the matter for the benefit of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

Before I do just that, may I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend, because I understand that she has just got engaged? I also understand that it was her birthday in the last few days, so double congratulations.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is Valentine’s day next week!

[Michael Ellis]

It is Valentine’s day next week as well. To answer the question, the national museums have a strong track record on this issue. Last year, the national collection was lent out to more than 1,300 venues, with long-term loans and partnership galleries, multi- object exhibitions and one-off star loans. To help encourage further loans, Arts Council England has provided £3.6 million to regional museums to help to improve their galleries to protect and display objects.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Margot James)]

We are all very happy for my hon. Friend.

Progress has continued to bring superfast broadband to Cornwall: access coverage is now 91%. A further 3% of premises in Cornwall will be covered by December 2019 through the current broadband contract between Cornwall Council and BT. I also draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the rights of her constituents under the universal service obligation.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Today Front-Bench Members will have to be particularly brief as there is heavy pressure on time and I am trying to accommodate a lot of colleagues.

[Kevin Brennan]

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

[Matt Hancock]

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

[Kevin Brennan]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I must say that I am surprised the Secretary of State did not call his app “Hancock-Disraeli”.

Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2018

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 General Committees

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the draft order. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) would have spoken in the Committee, but as she is not available, I hope that I can do some justice to what she might have wanted to say.

The debate on this statutory instrument is very timely because there is a strong level of interest in problems associated with gambling. Recently, the professional footballer Joey Barton, who is currently under suspension for betting on football matches—exactly what the draft order is meant to prevent from happening in the sports listed—said that gambling was “culturally ingrained” in the sport and that he thought that 50% of professional footballers bet on matches, in breach of the rules of the Football Association. I do not know whether Joey Barton did an academic study to find that out or whether he was telling an anecdote as a longstanding, albeit highly controversial, professional footballer, but it is quite a stark claim to make.

We are considering a draft order that adds to the list of organisations that the Gambling Commission can consult and share information with about problems that include potential fixing of football matches and other sporting events. In that context, to inform our consideration of whether the draft order would be an effective measure given the scale of what it is attempting to do, it would be quite useful to hear the Minister’s view of that claim by Joey Barton that that sort of thing is endemic and a real problem in our sporting world, particularly in football. Does the Minister think that such a flagrant breach of the rules is happening in the list of sports to be added to schedule 6 of the Gambling Act?

The work that the Gambling Commission and Sports Betting Intelligence Unit do is essential in collating intelligence and identifying suspicious betting patterns and behaviour. The Commission was set up to prevent gambling being a source of crime and disorder, and to ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way. It is there to shield those who fall victim, including children and vulnerable persons, from harm or exploitation. Only through that work being done thoroughly can we help prevent the numerous types of betting fraud. We support the Government’s taking steps to review and expand the range of partners and authorities with which the Gambling Commission can provide and share intelligence.

It is important that when given the opportunity, we stamp out corruption wherever we can, to protect the integrity of the sports that many of us love to watch and take part in, as the Minister quite rightly said. But it seems to us that a much wider look at problem gambling is needed beyond the scope of the draft order. That is an issue that the shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), has frequently highlighted. I hope that the Government will take up that leadership beyond the draft order.

I was glad to see when reading through the notes from the consultation that took place last year that the Department reached out to a number of key player associations, licensed gambling operators, sports governing bodies and academics. That sort of engagement is necessary to better reflect the current spectrum of sport governance bodies and ultimately to improve the flow and quality of intelligence. We would like the commission to expand and to interact with and consider governance bodies that represent less traditional sports. The digital age has significantly broadened the gambling sector: it is no longer just traditional sports such as horse racing that are the subject of gambling. There is nothing wrong with a little flutter on the gee-gees, which is a long tradition—my father enjoyed a 10-bob yankee every Saturday down at the bookies—but gambling has grown considerably.

When I was growing up, no one would have considered gambling on a football match beyond, perhaps, filling in the Littlewoods pools every week—or Zetters: other pools were available—yet, irony of ironies, just the other week I watched my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State make a speech in a venue with television screens about the intensification of gambling in the digital age, and as he was talking the screen behind him flashed up: “Chelsea to win 2-0: 8/1.” There is an immediacy to gambling that simply was not there before, and that presents a challenge. Online services have made it easier for people to place bets on a wider variety of sports and events 24 hours a day, so we are talking about a very different environment. A quick click reveals that most gaming sites encompass everything from the upcoming winter Olympics to futsal and ice hockey, and it would be prudent of the commission to consider further the diverse range of sports that are now available for gambling for listing in the future.

It is important to acknowledge that online operators are discovering that our rapidly growing digital economy is a lucrative target for online money launderers and other cyber-criminals. Gambling sites have seen a dramatic and sustained spike in attacks and suspicious activity just this year, so I hope that the draft order makes it easier for the Gambling Commission to continue its work to ensure that the highest standards of betting integrity are upheld.

Will the Minister clarify a couple of points? Were any of the bodies that were suggested for addition to part 3 of schedule 6 as part of the consultation not selected for addition? If that is the case, what were they, and why were they not included? People bet on a much wider range of sports these days, and it is in the public interest for us to know whether the Department feels that the governing bodies in some areas are not sufficiently up to speed to be included on the list. Why did the Secretary of State not take this opportunity to include a wider range of sports governing bodies, such as England Netball and British Cycling, which has been the subject of public debate and controversy in recent years? Would the Minister like to make the Committee aware of any concerns about those bodies or others that account for their non-inclusion?

The Government state in point 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum that the draft order

“will reduce overall costs for the Commission”.

I think the Minister provided some explanation by saying that legal fees would be reduced if governing bodies were listed in the draft order, because otherwise information could not be shared with them unless both they and the Gambling Commission got expensive legal advice. I think that was her explanation, but the Government must of course back up such assertions, so what is her estimate of the reduction in the commission’s costs?

The Government go on in the explanatory memorandum to state that the draft order is actually “deregulatory” because of that fact. I do not know whether that is something to do with the necessity of pretending that regulations are not regulations to meet the target of two in and one out, or whatever it is these days, but the draft order is a regulation and the Government say that it will save money. Since they chose to make that point in their own memorandum, the Committee should be told how much money the Gambling Commission is likely to save.

On a more technical point—this is a genuine query—can the Minister clarify, in relation to the draft order’s territorial application, the relevance of where some of the new bodies are established and the extent of their territorial reach? For example, World Rugby Ltd, which is a straight replacement on the list of the old International Rugby Board, is incorporated in Ireland as set out in the measure and has jurisdiction across the globe, including in Great Britain. European Professional Club Rugby is, again, a replacement body. It is established in Switzerland and covers Europe, again including Great Britain.

However, the Irish Rugby Football Union, which is included in the list, is of course established in Ireland only, and to the best of my knowledge it has jurisdiction there. Of course, part of its operation covers a part of the United Kingdom, because in Ireland rugby is played on a United Ireland basis; but paragraph 5 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“The extent of this instrument is Great Britain”

and

“The territorial application of this instrument is Great Britain.”

It specifically excludes Northern Ireland from the application of the measure. Can the Minister clarify the basis on which the Irish Rugby Football Union is included, therefore? I have nothing against it at all, but wonder why it is included among the new bodies to be added to part 3 of schedule 6 to the Gambling Act 2005.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch]

That is about integrity. Within the gambling review, there is a section on in-play betting, in particular the relationship between advertising and in-play betting. There is a slight nuance in my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are aware of some of the tone and content issues around in-play betting, but the gambling review is not looking specifically at that. The legislation would necessarily look at those issues. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the 2005 Act is a piece of Labour legislation, and I am merely updating it to include a new set of organisations to ensure we have the widest integrity set within sport.

That goes back to the comments from the hon. Member for Cardiff West. Strict rules and regulations are in place for betting on sport, and particularly on football matches. He mentioned recent press reports on Joey Barton and family members and so on, but is important to remember that while we have not seen any evidence around the 50% figure referred to, the Football Association takes such matters seriously. The Professional Players Federation should be commended for its work in educating professional athletes, including footballers.

The FA has banned players and people involved in football from betting on football competitions. The Gambling Commission also looks into such issues and has the power to deal with them. Those rules and regulations are in place, and we clearly need to keep an eye on what is happening.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned other sports and asked why not all governing bodies in this class have been added. That is because not all governing bodies recognised by the home Sports Councils have the standard of information management that would let the Gambling Commission share information routinely with them. The commission is working to engage those organisations about betting integrity considerations and to promote best practice. However, for this tranche, it was felt that not all sports organisations were necessarily applicable.

It is vital that the commission is regarded as an organisation that treats data with respect. Given that the hon. Gentleman has done much on the digital economy and data protection with the Secretary of State, I am sure he fully understands that point.

[Kevin Brennan]

I asked specifically about British Cycling, which I was particularly interested in. Was it not included because it is unable to meet those standards?

[Tracey Crouch]

I cannot answer that question at this point. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman when I know whether there is an answer.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the economic evaluation, an evaluation of the impact of updating schedule 6 was carried out. The measure is not expected to impose any burdens on sports governing bodies. It is estimated that each legal advice request costs about £6,700 if required for the Gambling Commission. That information was provided by the Gambling Commission, but that is only an estimate and every request varies. The burden is lightened by being added to schedule 6, so organisations can share without that legal check, which is the point the hon. Gentleman made.

On territorial extent, I am pleased that the UK is home to many international sports bodies. We have hosted some of the greatest sporting events, including in Cardiff, which hosted the champions league final last year. We should be proud of that. With that in mind, it is only right that all relevant international sports bodies such as the Tennis Integrity Unit, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee and the Commonwealth Games Federation are listed in schedule 6. Tackling corruption and protecting the integrity of sport requires a co-ordinated approach both domestically and internationally.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question about Northern Ireland, the Gambling Commission regulates gambling in Great Britain—it is entirely devolved in Northern Ireland. However, schedule 6 lists a number of international as well as domestic sporting bodies with which the Gambling Commission can share information to tackle corruption and protect the integrity of sport. The commission already shares information with sports bodies based in devolved Administrations, such as the Welsh Football Association. The update will also include World Rugby Ltd and the Rugby League European Federation, which are based in Ireland.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not want to labour the point too much, but my point is that it seems entirely understandable that international bodies that operate within Great Britain, such as the International Olympic Committee or whatever, might be part of the list. However, it seems odd that a body that operates entirely outside the jurisdiction of the Gambling Commission was included when the draft order specifically relates to Great Britain, not Northern Ireland. That is the point I was trying to make, but I will not labour it.

[Tracey Crouch]

Gambling is, in many respects, regulated and taxed at the point of consumption. We have to remember that it is about consumers and protecting the integrity of sport within these shores.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield raised some excellent points around tennis, which I know is a passion of his. I am pleased that the Tennis Integrity Unit is now coming on to the list. We will both remember the scandal that rocked tennis about 18 months ago, which I think exposed the vulnerability of younger players coming through the system, and in those sports he mentioned that do not give the highest level of prizes at the earliest part of the players’ journeys. The Sports Betting Intelligence Unit works incredibly well with operators and federations to keep a watch on those things. Having the Tennis Integrity Unit on board means that we can have much better oversight and control over the sports he referenced, particularly where individuals are concerned.

The hon. Members for Cardiff West and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North made the point that betting has changed. The reality is that betting in sport has increased with the advent of new technologies. Many sports are played in the UK and the wider world. To go back to another point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West, I do not think it would be proportionate to simply list all those sports in schedule 6. The approach we are taking in the UK is primarily risk based, which has informed the sports bodies being presented for inclusion. That obviously includes tennis. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North also raised issues around integrity and protection.

It is important to remember that millions of bets are placed on sport every day, and a huge amount of work goes on behind the scenes to ensure that the integrity of betting on sport is maintained. The draft order that the Committee is considering will make sure that we update all the regulations to ensure that the sports that we love maintain that high level of integrity.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2018.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I think that my hon. Friend’s tie is fantastic. I am very happy to pay tribute to his local library. We are seeing a range of models up and down the country delivering a range of outcomes appropriate to the needs of different communities, and Dorset is no exception.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

My tie is very plain, Mr Speaker.

I can announce to the House that over 100 libraries closed this year. Libraries are genuine engines of social mobility. Why are the Government content with that situation, because the Minister seems to be? Does he agree with the editor of Public Library News, who recently stated:

“The example of other countries shows that the decline of the library in this country is not a natural thing: this is a man-made disaster, brought on by short-sighted but long-term cuts”?

He is right, is he not? And merry Christmas.

[John Glen]

Merry Christmas to the hon. Gentleman, and to you, Mr Speaker. The reality is that different library services tackle the provision they deliver for their local communities in different ways. There are clearly challenges in the libraries sector. I am working hard with the libraries taskforce, and with librarians across the country, to look at ways of delivering better services, and I will continue to do that. In many communities we are seeing more volunteers enthusiastically engaging with library provisions in order to deliver better services.

City of Culture 2021: Swansea Bid

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech in support of Swansea for the city of culture. He told us that his constituency stretches down very close to the boundary of Swansea in the town of Ystradgynlais, and reminded us of the city’s history, including, in particular, the fact that Swansea was among the cities that suffered heavily during the blitz in the second world war. Often that is not widely recalled; Swansea really suffered at that time.

We had a wonderful contribution from my very good friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is a passionate campaigner on many subjects—a successful one, who I am sure hopes to be successful on this occasion. Her description of Swansea made it sound rather like the garden of Eden.

[Carolyn Harris]

It is.

[Kevin Brennan]

I hope she is not suggesting that original sin was invented there, but her description certainly conveyed the beauty of the city and its environs very well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) lives in a beautiful constituency at the edge of Swansea. I know it is beautiful because my sister, Colleen, lives there. I recommend anyone who has never visited the Gower to do so, because it is one of the most beautiful places in Wales, Britain or, in fact, the world. My hon. Friend’s talents know no bounds. I knew already that she had won nine caps for rugby, for Wales, and I knew that she had recently won the House of Commons darts competition; but I did not realise she was such an avid paddle boarder. We all look forward to coming down to Swansea to watch her undertake that pastime. She mentioned Joe’s ice cream: other ice creams are available—but not many, if any, are as good as Joe’s, and she was right to highlight that wonderful Swansea institution. She rightly challenged the Government about the tidal lagoon project. Although the Minister is a man of great influence and power, we do not expect him to make the announcement today in the debate—unless he is feeling so inclined—but I encourage him to encourage his colleagues to get on with it. We heard about the importance of Swansea’s industrial heritage, but Swansea has a wonderful future, and is the best place in Britain to build a tidal lagoon. I hope that the Government will announce their support for the scheme in the near future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) mentioned the Welsh language and its importance to the city of Swansea and to the city of culture bid. Perhaps we should mention its Welsh name, Abertawe, as the bid is a bilingual one, and it is right that even here in the UK Parliament, where we use English, we should use that name.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke passionately about the influence and impact that Swansea’s becoming city of culture could have on the image of Wales. He is right to emphasise that issue. When I joined Cardiff Council in 1991 we set up a body called Cardiff Marketing and we did some studies of what image of Cardiff and Wales people had. Many people living in London thought Cardiff was about six hours away by train and full of coal mines—an utterly inaccurate picture. Swansea is, by car, a mere 45 minutes beyond Cardiff, and the journey would be much shorter by rail if the Government would get on with the electrification of the line beyond Cardiff to Swansea. That would have the kind of impact that my hon. Friend was calling for, if the title of city of culture were to be used to promote economic development and a better image. He quoted Dylan Thomas, and actually corrected his grammar to “Do not go gently”, whereas Thomas did not use the adverb, and said “Do not go gentle” in the poem. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his superior grammar, despite his slight slip of the tongue later in his remarks.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies)—I want to call him my hon. Friend; I have known him for many years—who rightly mentioned John Charles. There would have been a big lacuna in the debate if he had not. The “gentle giant” was probably the greatest ever Welsh sportsman—and there have been many great Welsh sportspeople, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gower. John Charles was probably the greatest, and if it had not been for his being kicked off the park during the 1958 World cup and therefore being unavailable for the quarter final against Brazil, when Wales was beaten one-nil after a goal was scored by an unknown 17-year-old called Pelé, Wales probably would have won the cup.

I want to make a few of my own remarks about Swansea and the city of culture bid. The scheme was set up in 2009 by the Labour Government. They established a UK city of culture competition, with the aim of making creativity and culture part of the answer in difficult economic times, rather than a luxury for the small number of people who could afford them. I think it has been a successful programme, and I am pleased that the current Government are carrying on with it. I commend them for doing so. It allows cities and groups of towns to show what culture means to them, instead of being told what it is through a top-down check list. The city and its residents are rightly at the heart of the process. As we have heard, in Swansea’s case it is not just the city but a whole nation that is behind the bid.

Since 2009, the programme has had a tremendously positive impact in Derry/Londonderry, as we have heard, and currently in Hull. When Derry/Londonderry was city of culture, it became clear how much the city had changed since the time of the troubles, and it was an important way of changing its image. Hull residents have told us that since it was given city of culture status, people are even more ready than they were to gather together as a community, and that they feel even prouder of their city than they were before it won the prize. In both cases, becoming the UK city of culture has drawn attention to and encouraged parts of cities that were already flourishing, but that were not always seen beyond their own borders, in other parts of the United Kingdom.

It is clear, then, why a number of cities are bidding for the title in 2021. All the shortlisted contenders are strong. The House will understand why, speaking from the Front Bench, I cannot back a particular city’s bid, even though I am a Welsh MP. I think that I have never disagreed with my neighbour and very good hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens). She made her own interjection in the debate—I will say no more than that.

It is clear that Swansea is an excellent candidate to be city of culture. We have heard a lot about the poet Dylan Thomas who, as well as his poetry, is known for his colourful personality. I remember learning “The Hunchback in the Park” at school:

“A solitary mister

Propped between trees and water

From the opening of the garden lock

That lets the trees and water enter

Until the Sunday sombre bell at dark”.

As a lover of poetry, I think it would be wonderful for Swansea if it could win the title of city of culture, and Dylan Thomas could be even more widely recognised. Scotland has its Burns night, and I always think that we should have a Dylan Thomas night in Wales to recognise our greatest poet in the English language.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if Swansea were to win the city of culture 2021, people would be able to plan visits to Swansea, based around Dylan Thomas and other cultural icons? High Speed 2 will reduce the journey time from London to Manchester by half, down to one hour and eight minutes, and at the same time we are pressing to reduce the journey time to Cardiff and Swansea through electrification. Alongside fears that there will be a displacement of investment towards the HS2 corridor instead of to south Wales, does my hon. Friend agree that winning the title of city of culture would be a major influence in buoying up the local economy across south Wales and Wales, at a time of uncertainty?

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I agree with that.

We have already heard the famous quote by Dylan Thomas about Swansea as an “ugly, lovely town”. Well, he was right, it is lovely, and perhaps once it was ugly. Now, however, it is a beautiful city, not an “ugly, lovely town”, and today people can visit wonderful cultural institutions in Swansea, such as the Dylan Thomas Centre that we heard about earlier, which opened in 2014 to commemorate the centenary of his birth. They can also visit 5 Cwmdonkin Drive, and that is a short walk from Cwmdonkin park—the subject of the poem that I recited earlier—where there is a blue plaque and a permanent exhibition to commemorate him.

It is not only Welsh writers who have an association with Swansea. We have not yet heard mention of Kingsley Amis, who spent many years as a lecturer at University College, Swansea. He wrote “Lucky Jim” and “That Uncertain Feeling”—that was later made into a film with Peter Sellers called “Only Two Can Play”—while living in the Uplands in Swansea. It is a town with a real literary and cultural background. My very good friend, the artist Paul Edwards, is from Swansea. It is full of theatres, castles and galleries and has a vibrant cultural life.

As we have heard, Swansea University goes from strength to strength. I recently visited the new campus at Jersey Marine, and the Morgan Academy, which was set up in memory of the late, great Rhodri Morgan, who was my predecessor as MP for Cardiff West and the former First Minister of Wales. Given all that, it is clear that Swansea’s cultural life is truly worth celebrating, and its bid is very strong.

I would like briefly to mention the European capital of culture, because I think that relates to today’s debate. I have asked the Government for a list of meetings that were held in 2017 on that issue, given the recent announcement by the European Commission that Britain’s bid for European capital of culture will be withdrawn. Unfortunately, in answer to my parliamentary question, the Government referred me to a public list of meetings that goes only until June this year, and I think that we need a more serious response to explain what happened with the European city of culture. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a passing reference to that, and say a bit more about why the UK Government, and the bidding cities, which were spending money up until the last moment on their bids, were so blindsided by the announcement that the European capital of culture competition would not be going forward in the UK. I hope that the Minister will confirm—I am sure he will—that the competition for UK capital of culture will be going forward, and that the bidding cities have not been wasting their time and money.

We have heard a lot about the kind of impact that being city of culture can have. It does not magically create culture where it does not exist, but it celebrates and encourages great work that is already being done but is often under-publicised. As such, Swansea is already a city of culture, regardless of whether the bid is successful. I hope that the UK city of culture competition continues to thrive, and champions the cultural activities that make cities and towns across the UK such wonderful places that we can be proud of.

Dr Elsie Inglis and Women’s Contribution to World War One

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing today’s debate. We have heard some wonderful contributions, starting with his own, followed by a speech from the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) made a good point about the statistics on the representation of women in public art; perhaps the Minister could reflect on that. Given what we have heard today, the representation of women in our public art is pitiful, and much needs to be done to rectify that, including collecting statistics. Indeed, another matter that the Minister could fruitfully give some thought to after the debate is the number of women artists represented in the Government’s art collection.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) reminded us of the role of women in the great war, but after being admonished by you, Mr Davies, he did not stray too far into the issues relating to the miners’ strike. I think the historical thread he was trying to draw out was understood by all concerned: women have made a huge contribution not only during national and international conflict, but during industrial conflict in this country.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) appropriately reminded us of the complexity of politics in Ireland at the time of the great war, embodied in the person he spoke about, Winnie Carney. That complexity is at last being much more openly acknowledged, as is the contribution that Irish men and women from all over Ireland made during the great war, prior to the Easter rising and the civil war that followed the great war. It is right that that should be much more openly acknowledged and debated in the UK and Ireland.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said that the women are part of a “glorious thread woven through British history”, and I entirely endorse that remark, which sums up in a single phrase what we are discussing this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) spoke about Mary Barbour, a huge figure in the “Red Clydeside” movement at the time of the great war and thereafter. Indeed, as well as the rent strike, she organised the women’s peace crusade. When discussing the great war we should also talk about the complexities and the controversy in relation to the way that that war broke out and was fought.

I am glad to be here on behalf of the Labour Front Bench and pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate during the period of the first world war centenary commemorations. As we have heard, the story of Dr Elsie Inglis is remarkable. Her work in setting up women’s medical units on the western front so soon after the outbreak of the war, and her later involvement in arranging women’s despatch units to attend to other areas of fighting, is an incredible story. As a result of her work, there were 14 Scottish women’s hospitals along the frontline, where almost 1,500 women served, often in atrocious conditions, serving an estimated 20,000 allied soldiers.

Today we have heard of Dr Inglis’ drive and her initiative and compassion, all of which led her to use her skills to help others. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South said that when she was told by the War Office to,

“go home and sit still”,

she turned to France for support to make her goal a reality. She also turned to the sisterhood and solidarity of the women’s suffrage organisations, which were crucial to her success, as they raised the equivalent of £53 million in today’s money in support of her cause. She is a fine example for us all to follow. Do not follow the Government’s advice at all times is one message I take from her example. We are grateful today for her service and her sacrifice, and indeed her belligerence, independence and stubbornness, which led her to carry on despite the opposition from her own Government. This month’s celebrations in Edinburgh are a fitting tribute to her work and I wish all the best for the service at St Giles’ Cathedral taking place tomorrow, which hon. Members have mentioned.

Earlier this year we had the opportunity to pay tribute in the Chamber to those who fought in Passchendaele. During that debate I was glad to be able to pay particular tribute, as a Member of Parliament representing a Welsh constituency, to the Welch Regiment, the South Wales Borderers and the Royal Welch Fusiliers, who all fought alongside each other in the 38th Division, and to the Welsh Guards who fought in the third battle of Ypres. In Wales we particularly remember the poignant death of the poet Ellis Evans, better known as Hedd Wyn, who was killed before he was able to claim his prize of the chair at the National Eisteddfod during the war; he was killed at Passchendaele. As ever, we remain in remembrance of their great sacrifice for the freedom and future of our country. In addition to paying tribute to the local forces as part of that debate, many Members talked of the brave work of women across the country, as well as from their particular constituencies, during the great war.

Across the UK women served at home and abroad to ensure the success of the allied forces. Many, like Dr Elsie Inglis, left for the western front to care for the wounded. In the munitions factories, as we have heard, many working-class women undertook hazardous manufacturing work. In fact, in the second world war, my father’s sister, my Auntie Mary, worked in the Currans munitions factory in Cardiff. In the first world war there were 11 munitions factories in Wales alone, and by the end of the war 80% of the workforce in those factories were women. It is a myth that women were not in paid work before the first world war. Many, like my own relatives, worked in service before getting married. Many of the women who worked in the munitions factories transferred their aprons working in service to work in overalls in the munitions factories. In that dangerous and dirty work, they found both a way to contribute to the war effort on the home front, and for many, for the first time, a way to earn a significant and stable independent income.

The percentage of women in paid work increased from 24% at the outset of the first world war to 37% by 1918. In 1917, 20,000 women joined the Women’s Land Army across the UK. In my constituency, the Green Farm became what is now the very large housing estate of Ely. That subject is quite topical in some ways, as the estate was part of the drive to build homes fit for heroes after the first world war. As a farm during the war, it was predominantly run by female farmhands. One of the workers, Agnes Greatorex, who left domestic service to work there, said:

“Every morning, we would get up at five o'clock and milk a hundred cows. We would then take the milk to Glan Ely Hospital,”

where many of the injured soldiers returning from the war were looked after. For many, such work was taken on in addition to the weight of domestic work. Although many men went to fight, women often became the breadwinner at home, bearing the brunt of the increased emotional and domestic labour of running a house and caring for a family. We should also remember that others served at home, but not in the armed forces. Like my grandfather, Edward Evans, they were not allowed to be conscripted in wartime because they worked in the coalmines, but they made their contribution serving at home. My grandmother, Gwellian Evans, worked in service and then domestically supported her husband.

Women such as Dr Elsie Inglis and Agnes Greatorex are a part our history, and we owe them a huge debt. I should also mention some prominent women from Wales. Gwendoline and Margaret Davies are better known as philanthropists in the arts, but they worked with the French Red Cross in canteens and organised convalescent hospitals and transit camps on the frontline. Annie Brewer, a military nurse from Newport, spent the war in France and won many medals for her courage. One citation applauded her

“coolness and total disregard of danger, lavishing her attention on men wounded under fire”.

That sums up some of the incredibly brave contribution made by women on the frontline during the war.

A poster during the first world war depicted a woman wearing overalls and said:

“On her their lives depend.”

Our tributes today make that same message abundantly clear. It is no coincidence that the centenary commemoration of women’s suffrage closely follows that of the first world war. As we know, the suffragettes largely suspended their organising during the war in order to concentrate on the war effort. In the end, the crucial contribution of women to the war helped change the perception of women in the UK, and in November 1918 women over the age of 30 were given the right to vote.

Given Dr Inglis’ commitment to women’s suffrage, it is particularly poignant that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South reminded us, she died a year before the passage of the Representation of the People Act. It is a great injustice that despite her historic sacrifice for our country, she never had the opportunity to cast a vote in an election to this place.

Before I close on the topic of women in the first world war, it is right to consider how these issues continue to play out today. Women’s work—their physical, professional and emotional labour—remains often underappreciated and underpaid. Of course, women play a vital frontline role in our armed forces today. We have come a long way since 1918, but it remains all too common that the contributions of women are underplayed, so I am pleased that this debate today has shone a spotlight on the accomplishments and sacrifices of so many historic women, from extraordinary actions to daily perseverance. I warmly welcome the WomensWork100 programme, which will launch in 2018 through the First World War Centenary Partnership. I thank all the organisations involved for their hard work throughout the commemoration period, in particular the Imperial War Museum.

Our armed forces communities continue to protect us, and I am proud of and humbled by the sacrifices they still make today. At home, the UK armed forces, supported by the entire armed forces community of families, reservists, veterans and cadets, continue to support responses to terrorist incidents and to protect our aerospace. Abroad, they are currently involved in more than 30 operations in 20 countries, from supporting the European Union and UN peacekeeping missions in South Sudan, to responding to the continuing threat posed by Daesh. As we take this time today to remember the contributions and sacrifices made during the first world war, we should also remember the sacrifices that have been made every year since then and are still being made by the brave men and women of the armed forces community. We should also redouble our efforts—all of us; men and women—to work for peace.

Uber: Personal Data Theft

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Matt Hancock]

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

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

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

TV Licence Fee

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on leading this debate and the Petitions Committee on organising it.

This debate is on an extraordinarily important issue that we need to discuss, for the very reason that many tens of thousands of our constituents have signed these two petitions, which is as good a reason as any to debate it.

Before I go any further, I must declare an interest, as many colleagues have done in the past. I worked for the BBC for 17 years, so I probably hold the record among colleagues here for longest service with the BBC. That was from 1986 to 1997, and then from 2000 to 2006. There was a gap, and I shall come on to that gap in a minute, because it feeds into what I want to say about one of the alternative methods of funding the BBC as opposed to the licence fee. That was where I worked at the time.

Having said that, it is vital that we discuss what the petitioners say in the two petitions. I will just look at the wording of a couple of the sentences. Petition 170931 says that the BBC licence fee should be abolished, and states:

“It should be included through your provider for free.”

The difficulty with that phrase is that it completely misses the point that someone has to pay for the BBC. What it seems to suggest is that the petitioners believe that their provider—whether Sky, BT or Virgin—should somehow pay the licence fee, even though the petitioners still want to watch BBC services. Those services have to be paid for; I do not think that anyone will find a model that works whereby Sky, BT or Virgin will pay the BBC licence fee.

Petition 200239 says of the licence fee:

“It is unfair that one should hold one to watch Freeview channels.”

However, the Freeview channels include BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, CBBC, CBeebies, the BBC News channel and the BBC Parliament channel which, of course, is worth the entire licence fee on its own.

How do people believe that those BBC Freeview channels will be paid for? They still seem to want to watch them but without thinking that we need to fund them. I have scratched my head for some time; I am not the brightest guy in the world, but I cannot see how that would work.

The two petitions are our starting point; I believe that there are two very important issues that we need to consider: first, how the BBC is funded and, secondly, what the BBC spends its money on. The hon. Member for Warrington North quite rightly began to look at alternative models around the world for how public service broadcasters are financed. I have looked into those models. I have worked for one of them; that is where the mystery three-year gap comes in, which I am sure the Chamber is agog to discover more about. In my view, there is not another model of public service broadcast funding around the world that works as well as the BBC licence fee. In Germany, as has been mentioned, there is a broadcasting levy on every household. It is an incredibly blunt instrument and incredibly regressive. In Finland, the model is funded through personal taxation, and the same could be said of it.

However, I want to discuss the Australian model, which is where I worked for those missing three years; I worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in both Sydney and Melbourne. The system under which the ABC is funded in Australia is something that we must avoid at all costs. The funding comes out of direct taxation, then every three years the ABC goes cap in hand to the Government and says, “Can we have some money, please?” To me, that seems to be a one-way route to bias, and to too much political interference and meddling with the output of a public service broadcasting organisation.

I worked for the ABC when we had to do that cap-in-hand exercise. It is not a pretty thing to watch. They say there are two things that people should not know how they are made—laws and sausages. The funding of the ABC is the third thing; nobody wants to be involved with that. We talk about political interference, which brings me to the issue of bias, because petition 200239 specifically mentions the question of bias. In fact, it says that there should be alternative methods of funding the BBC

“particularly as it is commonly felt there is a high level of bias.”

I start to twitch rather nervously at the conflation of those two concepts—how the BBC is funded and the issue of whether or not it is biased. I do so for this reason: the BBC should not be biased, however it is funded. We should not question a method of funding just because we believe that the BBC might or might not be biased. The BBC, as a public service broadcaster, should not be biased.

Let me give hon. Members, looking at the clock, “The Six Minutes Past Six News”. The headline is, “Having worked as a journalist at the BBC for 17 years, I know that the BBC is not biased.” It is not institutionally biased and it does not deliberately set out to give one editorial line over another. I know that for two reasons. First, in all the years I worked at the BBC—first, as a junior journalist—not once did a senior editorial manager put any pressure on me to take a particular line in a news story, to include a particular guest on an interview programme or to write a news story in a particular way. Not once did any of those things happen. Secondly, years later I had moved up the greasy pole, and I am living proof of the BBC axiom that someone always gets promoted to just beyond the level of their ability. When I was at that level, not once did I dream of saying to any of the reporters working for me, “I want you to cover this story in a particular way”.

There is no bias institutionally in the BBC. I have sympathy for the view that has been expressed here that there is perhaps a cultural problem with the slightly narrow pool from which the BBC recruits its talent and its journalists. The BBC absolutely needs to be more diverse, and to look far more closely at where it recruits its journalists, reporters and editors, as they are from a slightly elite group. It is getting better, but it is not good enough.

There is another reason—I say this only slightly tongue in cheek—why I am sure that the BBC is not institutionally biased and does not deliberately set out to give a party line. That would suggest the BBC is capable of a level of organisation that, in my experience, it is not. I can tell Members from personal experience that it is nigh-on impossible to get one programme in the news department to talk to another, even on the simplest of issues, let alone, as a large corporation that puts out hundreds of hours of news broadcasting daily, be capable of organising itself to put out a particular editorial line. Oh no, it is not; of course not.

I have a story for you, Mrs Moon. When I was in charge of a programme at Radio 5 Live, I needed a particular piece of music to illustrate a news story. I was told by the BBC’s internal systems that it would take three days and cost my programme budget £15 to borrow that CD from the BBC’s gramophone library. I sent a reporter to the HMV store on Oxford Street and we bought the CD for £9.99. That is not an organisation that is able to arrange institutional bias. It does not do that. When people, like the petitioners, accuse the BBC of bias, what they have seen is a politician they agree with being given a hard time or a politician they disagree with merely being given the right to reply. That is not bias. There is another word for it: journalism. That is what the BBC does extraordinarily well. It does journalism, and we need to protect it, because that costs money. As has been said by other right hon. and hon. Members, the BBC gets an awful lot of that money—£3.78 billion this year—from the licence fee. If we add to that this year’s commercial revenue of about £1.16 billion—do the maths—that is nearly—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Nearly £5 billion.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—he did do the maths. That is a lot of money, and the BBC needs to be held to account for it. I do not, for one minute, stand here and say that everything about the BBC is perfect. We absolutely need more transparency and more accountability, and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) made that point extraordinarily well. It frustrates me that the BBC seems to show an extraordinarily defensive attitude whenever complaints are made about it. Whenever a member of the public or, indeed, a Member of this House, raises a perfectly reasonable concern about something the BBC has done—how it has covered a story or how it has spent public money, for example—its first thought is defence: “Fold the arms and try to pretend it didn’t happen”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. The debate has been excellent, with a significant degree of cross-party consensus on the licence fee and the BBC. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and her Committee on presenting this debate for our discussion today.

My hon. Friend made an excellent speech at the outset of the debate, for which many Members have rightly paid tribute to her. She set out very clearly the terms of the debate and told us how other countries fund their public services. She pointed out right at the outset an issue that the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), raised later in an intervention, which is that there is a limited pool of advertising available if the BBC were to move to an advertising model. She also pointed out how the licence fee helps to preserve the independence of the BBC, although it is expensive to collect.

I disagree with my hon. Friend on one point, though. She was rather harsh about CNN in her remarks. In fact, CNN makes some excellent programmes here in the UK, including one of its new shows, which is on at lunchtime, called “CNN Talk”. I recommend it to hon. Members—I think it is on on a Friday. No, I am not on it and I am not being paid for saying that. I simply want to point out that the BBC exerts a positive gravitational pull on other organisations such as CNN in this country. It gives them the incentive to produce good programmes such as “CNN Talk”, which is a new programme that links up well with social media and is about British politics. We should welcome such quality programming being made here in the UK. It is significant to compare that with Fox News, which had to withdraw from the United Kingdom because it could not meet the standards that Ofcom requires for impartiality in our news programming, whereas channels such as CNN and CNN International were able to do so.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) told us how much he loves “Mrs Brown’s Boys” as well as “Blue Planet”. I was mentioned on “Michael McIntyre’s Big Show” on the BBC on Saturday night—fame at last. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the growing use of pundits and political commentators in programmes, and I absolutely agree with him: why not simply ask us politicians on a bit more to give our opinions if people really want to know what is going on in politics?

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) does not watch the BBC any more, which is a pity because I always enjoy watching him—along with dozens of other people—on the BBC Parliament channel. He is also missing out on the excellent rugby coverage on BBC Alba, the Gaelic language television service that covers the PRO14 rugby very well indeed. I frequently watch that. I hope he chips in towards the cost of his parents’ TV licence, since he seems to go round there fairly frequently to watch the BBC safely outside his own home.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Parliament channel, and certainly many people in Scotland watch that. It is another advantage my wife sees in not having a licence fee, because she is not subject to having to watch BBC Parliament to catch me on it, so it certainly frees up a lot more time for her as well.

[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.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as I said, achieving high standards and quality costs money? I congratulate the Welsh on securing 95% of the funding received from fees in Wales, compared with barely 55% in Scotland. That anomaly is a real hurdle, which cannot be overcome without funding.

[Kevin Brennan]

If the shoe were on the other foot, the hon. Gentleman would say, “It’s because we have an SNP Government in Scotland. That’s why we’re doing so well.” I am not going to say that we are doing so well in BBC funding in Wales because we have a Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff, because that would be quite wrong. The BBC is independent and would not respond to that kind of political pressure.

There are excellent hubs around the country, whether it is Media City in Salford, in Greater Manchester, or the drama village that I mentioned in my own city of Cardiff. Those hubs create tremendous opportunities for people across the UK, with around £450 million going into small creative and independent businesses each year. With the creative industries urging further development of creative clusters across the country, the BBC provides a positive example, and a catalyst for the kind of success that the creative cluster approach can have. Through the diverse range of public service broadcasters that we have in this country, people can see others like themselves creating content, and telling stories they can identify with and relate to.

The stability of the licence fee model means that, as hon. Members have pointed out, the BBC does not have to rely on ratings for advertising, and is therefore freer to make content that is difficult for other broadcasters to produce. It is an advantage of our system that each of our public service broadcasters is funded differently, because it means that they are each distinctive, meet different challenges, and make different types of content. Some 95% of the licence fee goes towards creating content for licence fee payers, and only 5% is used for running the organisation of the BBC itself. Some 82% of households feel that the BBC informs, educates and entertains them successfully.

I will not go on much longer, you will be pleased to know, Mrs Moon, but I want to say one or two things about children’s content. We have already seen concerns about what can happen when a funding gap appears in a particular part of the broadcasting landscape. In recent years that has happened in children’s television, as was mentioned in the debate. The relaxation of the obligations on producing children’s TV has meant that spend on TV content for children has seen an almost 50% drop this century. As a result, children in the UK today are watching significantly less home-grown content. When the Digital Economy Act 2017 was passing through Parliament, Labour pressed for an amendment to give Ofcom the power to assign the commercial public service broadcasters, such as Channel 4, Channel 5 and ITV, quotas on children’s content. As I understand it, Ofcom is currently consulting on that topic, and I look forward to hearing its findings.

That experience should serve as a warning of what could happen to public service broadcasters at large if we neglect the importance of continuing to fund the BBC in an appropriate way. We need to future-proof these precious public assets. I have quoted this before, but as Joni Mitchell once said:

“You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”

That is certainly true of the BBC.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I could not have put it better than my hon. Friend has done.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Of course, the people with the greatest interest in careers in the creative industries are the workforce. In those industries, those people are often rights holders as well as workers, so why are the Government continuing to deny membership of the Creative Industries Council to the trade unions? Will the Secretary of State make a pledge now to rectify that glaring omission immediately?

[Karen Bradley]

Membership of the Creative Industries Council is determined by the membership of the council. It is not a Government decision. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, if he has been speaking to the council, that because of the sector deal, any decisions about future membership have been deferred until the deal has been finalised.

Music: Contribution to the UK Economy

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Friday 3rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)]

I am delighted to respond to this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for securing it. The Minister for Digital, who has responsibility for the music industry, is disappointed that he cannot be here to respond in person. Given the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the music scene in his constituency, I am sure the Minister for Digital will be delighted to visit.

The hon. Gentleman forgot to mention one of the greatest bands ever to come out of Manchester: the Stone Roses. I also hope the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) was listening to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith). It is about time that MP4 became MP5.

I echo the thanks of the hon. Member for St Helens North to UK Music, its chair Andy Heath, its current and former CEOs, Michael Dugher, Jo Dipple and Feargal Sharkey, and all its member organisations for their sterling work over the past 10 years. The Government have consistently championed the British music industry and the incredible talent that makes the sector such a great success story for the UK.

As the hon. Gentleman said, UK Music’s excellent “Measuring Music” report shows that in 2016 music contributed more than £4 billion to the UK economy, up 6% on the previous 12 months. The report also highlights that the number of jobs in music grew more quickly than across the rest of the jobs market to more than 140,000, and that exports were up 13% to £2.5 billion across the whole sector. As the House has already heard, UK Music’s equally excellent report “Wish You Were Here”—incidentally, the title of one of the albums in my all-time top five—demonstrates that music tourism is also enjoying a massive boom, with the total number of music tourists from the UK and abroad increasing by 20% in 2016 to 12.5 million, generating a £4 billion total spend.

The contribution of the music industry is not simply economic; it also plays a vital role in the UK’s cultural landscape. Music is one of the things that make our country great, and it provides many people’s first introduction to all things British. Our artists are providing billions of people with the daily soundtrack to their life, and of course the talent does not end with the singers and musicians. We cannot overlook the outstanding producers, sound and lighting engineers, songwriters, composers and arrangers, promoters, stage managers, roadies and many others who are all part of the UK’s vibrant music ecosystem.

What we need to do as a Government is continue to create and support an environment in which our music industry is able to thrive. Over the past seven years, the Government have shown their commitment to the industry in a number of ways. Between 2012 and 2016, we have invested more than £460 million in a wide range of music and cultural education programmes. Further to this, we have committed to investing £75 million a year in music education hubs between 2016 and 2020. Orchestras and large musical groups are eligible to benefit from the orchestra tax relief, which was introduced in April 2016. The music export growth scheme is making almost £3 million of grant funding available to help support the launch of UK artists to international markets. That was developed in partnership with the British Phonographic Industry and will be funded by the Department for International Trade, between 2016 and 2020. BRIT award winners Catfish and the Bottlemen, MOBO-winning singer/saxophonist YolanDa Brown and Mercury prize winners Young Fathers are just some of the those to benefit.

The Live Music Act 2012 has made it much easier for promoters to organise live music events, and we made changes to the permitted development rights, making it easier for well-established music and cultural venues to operate. The rehearsal room scheme, originally set up by my Department and UK Music, and now overseen by the latter, created 14 music rehearsal spaces in areas of England experiencing multiple deprivation. Funding of £440,000 provided instruments and equipment, and contributed to the cost of necessary works, such as sound proofing.

The Government have taken a number of steps to bolster the enforcement of copyright including: increasing the maximum custodial sentence for criminal online copyright infringement offences; providing £3.6 million to the educational aspects of the Creative Content UK programme; and brokering a voluntary code of conduct between rights holders and search engines to reduce the number of infringing websites in search results.

Grassroots music venues, supported by their grassroots-equivalent recording studios and rehearsal rooms, are where so many of our world-class musicians take their first steps on the road to success. The Government believe that this vital and vibrant part of the music ecosystem must be allowed to prosper. We have already reformed entertainment licensing and made changes to planning requirements, making it easier for small venues to operate. We are currently exploring a range of issues with industry and government stakeholders, including: working more closely across government to better support the sector; the “agent of change” principle; the impact of business rate rises on grassroots music; the availability of suitable space; and Form 696, which I will come on to deal with in a moment.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the Live Music Act. As she knows, that started as a private Member’s Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) mentioned the private Member’s Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar). If the Government are considering any kind of change, will they consider taking up his Bill?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I did not jump up immediately to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is not in order for the Opposition spokesman sitting at the Dispatch Box to intervene or take part in an Adjournment debate such as this. However, this is a good-natured debate and he is not causing trouble, so on this occasion I am not going to prevent the Minister from hearing what he said. But, for the record, it is not in order for him to take part in the debate.