Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Philip Davies

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We published chapter 2 less than a month ago. There is further work to do, because that sets out a whole series of areas in which we are going to take action, and I am already working on pushing it faster.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I know that the Secretary of State has a track record of evidence-free, nanny-state policies from his time in DCMS. Can we expect more of the same in his new Department, or is he going to try out some Conservative principles, such as individual freedom, and individual and parental responsibility?

[Matt Hancock]

I am delighted to see that the teamwork between my hon. Friend and I is going to continue. You might be surprised to know, Mr Speaker, that there are some things on which my hon. Friend and I agree. One is the importance of individuals taking responsibility—a critical part of public health and tackling obesity—supported by an enabling state.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Philip Davies

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

That issue has been raised, and we have looked at it. Working with the Gambling Commission, we want to ensure that we get the rules in this space right.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

When is the Secretary of State going to ban 16-year-olds from playing the national lottery and buying scratchcards on the national lottery, or is he more worried about who is winning the money than who is losing the money?

[Matt Hancock]

We put that issue into the review, and I am sure that my hon. Friend’s consideration will be taken into account, along with others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Philip Davies

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of yesterday’s article in The Daily Telegraph by Adrian Parkinson, who led the campaign against FOBTs for the Campaign for Fairer Gambling? In it, he said that the campaign was

“greased in hyperbole, spin, misconstrued evidence and, worst of all, commercial jealousy”,

that there is no justification at all for a £2 maximum stake, and that

“the Government has fallen for the spin and hyperbole—hook, line and sinker.”

[Matt Hancock]

I did see the article, not least because my hon. Friend sent it to me via WhatsApp, and it is safe to say that I did not agree with all of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Philip Davies

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I know that the issue of fixed odds betting terminals raises strong emotions in the House and around the country, and it is very important that we approach it properly. Especially coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who is widely respected across the House and was a member of the Government when the expansion of FOBTs happened, that is a telling statement.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is not like the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) to give the House an ill-informed rant, but that is what we heard. I notice that the Secretary of State did not actually answer the question on the Order Paper, which is about the cost to the public purse of a reduction in the stake. Will he indicate what the cost to the Exchequer would be of the lack of tax receipts, increased unemployment benefit to pay to all the people who would be put out of work by a substantial reduction and the lack of business rates? Will he total up all those amounts and tell us how much it would actually cost the Government if they went for a drastic reduction in the stake?

[Matt Hancock]

Impact assessments on the question of FOBTs were of course published alongside the Government consultation in October. All the consequences of any changes in this area—we are committed to reducing the maximum stake on FOBTs—will be worked through, and that is part of the work we are doing right now to determine the appropriate response.

Sky/Fox Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Philip Davies

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

It was enjoyable to hear a rendition of the right hon. Gentleman’s greatest hit on Leveson, but on the points relevant to today’s statement and the decision on this deal, I intend fully to exercise my quasi-judicial decision-making role by taking into account all relevant considerations, based on the CMA’s final report. It is in that straightforward and reasonable way that I intend to proceed.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I say to the Secretary of State that this is personal? This is basically about lefties—particularly the Labour party—who do not like Murdoch. If this involved any other media organisation, the shadow Secretary of State and the Labour party would have nothing at all to say. This is personal, and the Secretary of State should bear that in mind. After all, Ofcom is there to make sure that Sky News is impartial in its coverage, and I am sure that Ofcom can be trusted to deliver on that. In the light of this provisional judgment, can we now expect the CMA to call for the BBC to be broken up, given its dominance over news output in the UK?

[Matt Hancock]

The report does go into detail on the different level of media dominance of different parties and sets that out clearly, but obviously I will take forward the views of the CMA’s final report when it is published. My hon. Friend—like the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale)—has the opportunity to let the CMA know his views in writing in the next three weeks.

BBC Pay

Debate between Matt Hancock and Philip Davies

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to the leadership that the right hon. and learned Lady has shown on this issue in government and since, because making sure that an equality of opportunity pervades our country is important, and that means gender equality, too. She has rightly been an outspoken voice in favour of gender pay equality and equality across the board. On the EHRC, this is about its actions. It has a duty to act, and now it is indeed acting, and that is a question of judgment as much as resources.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment?

The BBC has been run like an old boys’ club for far too long, not least with Lord Hall’s appointment of James Purnell to a very highly paid job without that even being advertising to anyone else. I am sure that there was a far better qualified woman who would have wanted it, although I do not believe anyone on the Opposition Benches complained about that at the time. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not that women at the BBC are paid too little, but that many men at the BBC are paid too much and it is those salaries that should be levelled down? Does the Secretary of State also agree with Carrie Gracie that in this regard the BBC has been acting illegally?

[Matt Hancock]

I will leave that last point to the EHRC. On my first day in this job, I did not expect to be lobbied in favour of women’s rights by my hon. Friend, but I am glad to see progress pervading even our own Back Benches, and he certainly has a point. This is not just about levelling up women’s pay and paying women more; it is about equal pay and appropriate levels of pay in an organisation that is funded by licence fee payers who want to have a television, whether they like it or not.