Points of Order

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Secretary of State if he could confirm that no one currently on a pension from Johnston Press would receive a shortfall in payments. He said to me that current pensioners would not be affected, but I am afraid that during the course of this discussion the National Union of Journalists has contradicted his account and said that some pensioners who retired under the age of 65 would indeed be affected. Is there a remedy by which the Secretary of State could check his facts and come back to the House before Hansard hits the presses tonight so that we can have an accurate account of the facts of the Johnston Press administration?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that every hon. and right hon. Member is responsible for the veracity of what he or she says in the House. The corollary of that is that if any Member has erred, and if it is a matter not of opinion but of indisputable fact, it is incumbent upon that Member to correct the record. I do not know whether the Secretary of State thinks he has erred, but there is recourse available, either now, if the facts of the case are clear, or after reflection. The Secretary of State is not under any obligation to come to the Dispatch Box, but if he wishes to do so, he can.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps I should simply say this. I, too, will check the record, but I recall saying that I gave my understanding of the current situation. I think that I also undertook to make sure that that was correct, and I shall do so.

[Tom Watson]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Very well. We cannot have an ongoing exchange on this, but the generosity of spirit for which I am renowned in all parts of the House gets the better of me, and I shall indulge the hon. Gentleman at this point.

[Tom Watson]

I have an account of exactly what the Secretary of State said. He said, “The hon. Gentleman asked me about current pensioners. As far as I understand it, they will not be affected. Anyone in receipt of their pension now will continue to be paid. The changes will affect those who are currently in employment and we believe 250 or so in total.” So if it is in fact the case that current pensioners will receive a shortfall, will he agree to come back to the House and put the matter right?

[Mr Speaker]

The shadow Secretary of State is nothing if not persistent. His terrier-like quality is well known to all throughout the House and to many beyond it. I do not think anything he has said is incompatible with what the Secretary of State said. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Secretary of State as saying, “As far as I understand it”. I think that what I gleaned from the Secretary of State is that he will go away and check whether what he said was correct. In the event that a correction is required, there are many witnesses to his willingness to correct the record. I think we will leave it there for now. I hope that honour is served. The shadow Secretary of State has made his point with considerable force and alacrity, and the Secretary of State has displayed his customary courtesy.

Centenary of the Armistice

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for what I thought was a solemn, dignified and thoughtful contribution to open the debate. I join him in paying tribute to the work of the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis).

It is genuinely a great honour to speak on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition to mark Armistice Day in this debate and the centenary of the end of what was then the greatest military conflict that the world had ever seen. It is both a privilege and a duty, shared by all of us, to honour the sacrifice of all those who served in that war.

Today, I want to talk of remembrance but also of reconciliation, of internationalism, conflict resolution and the lessons of war. I wish to touch on the work of some of the institutions that support our veterans and honour the memory of the fallen. Remembrance Day and the poppies that so many of us are wearing today have come to symbolise not just the sacrifices of the great war, but the sacrifices made in all wars by all who play a part in them.

I remember when I was a child, many of the veterans of the great war were still with us and the veterans of the second world war, my grandparents’ generation, did not seem old—although they seemed old to me at the time. Today, all of those who served between 1914 and 1918 have passed away. Even the number of second world war veterans is dwindling. Just over a decade ago, I was privileged to play a part, along with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and other Members of this House, in efforts to ensure that the last great British war veteran, the last Tommy, to pass away, was properly honoured whoever they might have been.

Harry Patch, the last surviving British soldier to have fought in the trenches, died in 2009. Claude Choules, the last English-born great war combat veteran, who served in the Royal Navy, died in 2011. Florence Green, the last surviving great war service veteran, died in 2012. With them, the great war passed irreversibly from living memory to history. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said in his intervention, it is the responsibility of all of us to continue to recognise the sacrifice that that generation made and to learn the lessons of history. No organisation has done more to recognise the sacrifice and the contribution of that first world war generation than the Royal British Legion.

The Legion was formed just after the war—the poppy of Flanders fields is its emblem—but it does not just commemorate; it also runs impressive modern campaigns relevant to today’s veterans, providing them with financial, emotional and psychological support. The Legion is desperately short of members. People think it is necessary to be a veteran to join, but it is not. In fact, it is a pleasure to see so many civilians in my constituency of West Bromwich East supporting this important organisation. As the Secretary of State alluded to, the legion’s commemoration this year is particularly important. We welcome the special khadi poppies that honour the 74,000 Indian soldiers who lost their lives fighting for Britain.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the contribution of soldiers from the Indian subcontinent, and for having signed the early-day motion for a national Sikh war memorial in central London. That is one of the reasons that he is held in such high regard within the global Sikh community, along with other right hon. and hon. Members of this House. Does he agree that it is wonderful to see many Sikh war memorials popping up in small towns across the country including in Gravesend, Coventry, the National Memorial Arboretum and now in Smethwick, and that those memorials are a symbol of people in those places displaying their pride?

[Tom Watson]

I do. My hon. Friend—the first turbaned Sikh on the Labour Benches in the House of Commons—stands up for the Sikh community and unites the House in our desire to show respect for the Sikhs who lost their lives in the great war.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very measured speech. During the remarkable service that we attended, I was thinking that my wife’s great uncle signed up at 17 years old in 1914 and was dead just before his 18th birthday in 1915 in the Battle of Loos. Many of my own family also served. We talk about remembrance a lot, but 28 years later this country was back at war again and my father was fighting for his life, to save democracy and to save freedom. Although we may not forget them, we also have to remember that we never want to repeat that process ever again.

[Tom Watson]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Later in my contribution I will touch on some of the lessons learned, and perhaps the mistakes that were made, after the Armistice was signed.

This year the Royal British Legion has also produced gold leaf poppies specifically to commemorate the centenary of the war. What is most remarkable about the Legion is not just the inspiring work its people do in the weeks that are leading up to Remembrance Sunday; it is the work they do all year round, reminding us all that remembrance is something we should do all year round.

Armistice Day has always been a bittersweet commemoration in this country: sweet because it marks the end of a war that scarred Europe and the world, the end of four years of industrialised killing, the like of which had never been seen before; sweet because for Britain and our allies it celebrates a victory against a war of aggression by Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire, so it was celebrated at the time. When the news of the Armistice came through, cheering crowds gathered in every town square. There was dancing and singing, and church bells rang out for the first time in four years. It is fitting that bell ringing—not just in this country, but around the world—is part of this year’s centenary commemorations. And yet it is far more bitter than sweet. Armistice Day is always a solemn event of reflection and remembrance, and it is treated as such in wreath-laying ceremonies at memorials all over the country that hon. and right hon. Members from across this House will be attending in their constituencies this weekend.

Millions of men never came home—nearly 1 million British dead alone, lying alongside hundreds of thousands from what was then the British empire. Millions more returned with physical or psychological injuries, and with memories of the friends and comrades they left behind in the trenches of Flanders and the Somme, in Turkey and Palestine, in the Atlantic and the North sea. Of 14,000 parishes in England and Wales, only 50 saw all their soldiers come home, and every single community in Scotland and Ireland lost at least someone. Many places lost far more. The small village of Wadhurst in East Sussex lost 25 men in a single day in 1915, and 149 men altogether over the course of the war, from a total of just 3,500.

The so-called Pals battalions, made up of men from a particular local area, especially from our industrial towns and cities, serving alongside each other, often suffered losses whose impact on their communities is almost unthinkable and unimaginable today.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving an extraordinarily powerful tribute. Will he take into account the sacrifices in communities in Cheltenham, where, for example, in one street, Queen Street, of the 31 men who went to fight, a full 21 were killed—in one street alone? Does that not give an idea of the sense of the sacrifice and the extent to which communities were truly hollowed out by this ghastly episode?

[Tom Watson]

It does. The hon. Gentleman honours them by raising their memory in the House today, and I thank him for it.

[Paula Sherriff]

On Saturday, I attended a Dewsbury Sacrifices event. One thousand and fifty-three local men perished during the first world war, and Dewsbury Sacrifices has taken it upon itself to build a profile of every single one of those men. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming what it is doing?

[Tom Watson]

I do join my hon. Friend in that. In remembering them and knowing their lives, we honour their sacrifice. These events are taking place up and down the country.

To take just one of many more examples, on 1 July 1916, the opening day of the battle of the Somme, 235 of the Accrington Pals—the 11th (Service) Battalion East Lancashire Regiment—were killed, and 315 wounded, in the space of just 25 minutes. The fighting continued right up until literally the last few seconds before the Armistice was signed. More men died in 1918 than in any previous year of the war. The last British serviceman to be killed, Private George Edwin Ellison, died just one and a half hours before the Armistice, on the outskirts of Mons in Belgium, almost exactly the same place where British forces had first seen action in 1914. Indeed, George Ellison’s grave now faces that of John Parr, the first British soldier killed during the conflict. Between the deaths of John Parr in August 1914 and George Ellison in November 1918, 1.1 million British service personnel lost their lives—more than in any other conflict before or since.

Almost every city and town and village in Britain has a war memorial listing those who never returned from the great war. Thanks to the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the brave men and women who lost their lives during the war are remembered with gravestones and memorials across the world. I know the whole House would like to thank the gardeners and staff of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, who do so much to ensure that our service personnel are honoured in fitting resting places. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Yet perhaps the bitterest element of this bittersweet commemoration, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, is that almost all of those war memorials have another plaque or another set of carvings listing those who never returned from the second world war, less than three decades later. The Armistice Day hopes of Lloyd George were dashed. Whatever else we might want to say about what was described as the war to end all wars, it turned out not to be the war to end all wars.

The great war was perhaps the last war in which people signed up to fight out of deference and patriotic fervour. We have all seen the photos of lines of young men, some of them perhaps lying about their age, desperate to join up and see action before the end of a war they believed would be over by Christmas. But in quite a short time, those deferential and patriotic sentiments were not enough to meet the needs of the military in a war on this scale, which is why conscription had to be introduced in 1916. The horrors of the western front made many in Britain doubt whether the war was worth it.

It was not only in this country that the success of the war effort relied on popular support. Russia’s experience on the eastern front, the gradual breakdown of its economy and the Russian people’s discontent with its leadership was a direct cause of the Russian revolution, which shaped global politics for the rest of the century and beyond. The mutinies of 1917 crippled the effectiveness of the French army. America’s entry into the war, which contributed so much to the allied victory, might not have been possible at all without the popular outrage generated by the German U-boat campaign sinking US civilian shipping, and the final German collapse owed much to the suffering of its population under the British naval blockade.

Leaders and generals do not operate in isolation, cold-bloodedly moving around blocks of troops, disconnected from the societies from which those troops are drawn. Political leaders have to earn and secure support for any military action, not just at the start but on an ongoing basis. That lesson has had to be learned again and again, from Algeria to Vietnam to Iraq.

The great war changed Britain forever in so many ways. This year we have also been celebrating the centenary of many women getting the vote—another momentous event in the momentous year of 1918. The achievement of women’s suffrage had many causes. The movement long preceded the great war, and achieving the vote was just one step on a path towards equality that still stretches before us. But the contribution of women to that war effort, in filling roles previously reserved for the men now fighting overseas, helped to solidify the argument that women were just as capable as men and had just as much right to political representation, making progress faster than it might otherwise have been.

In some ways—I realise that this could be controversial—Britain was lucky in 1918. Unlike France and Belgium, it was not scarred with bomb craters and ruined towns. Unlike Russia, it had no revolution or civil war. Unlike Germany, it had no reparations to pay or territory to concede. But its people bore the scars of war on their bodies and in their minds. They deserved and needed what Lloyd George promised them—a land fit for heroes. Instead, they got nearly two decades of economic slump, unemployment, poverty, poor housing and the great depression.

Both then and now, Britain has not always treated its service personnel with the respect they deserve. As a Defence Minister, I met Gertie, the daughter of Private Harry Farr, and her daughter, Janet Booth. They campaigned tirelessly for a pardon for their father and grandfather, who was shot at dawn for cowardice. Harry Farr was no coward. It was the dignity of his family and their tireless campaign that led to the pardons for the “shot at dawn” generation.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

As vice-president of the Greenford branch of the Royal British Legion, I am sure I speak for the whole House when I express gratitude for my hon. Friend’s words about the Royal British Legion.

Harry Farr was one of 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers executed for what was then called cowardice or lack of moral fibre. I would like to thank publicly my hon. Friend, who was then the Minister, on behalf of my constituent Joannie Farr, one of Harry Farr’s granddaughters, for the pardon that he was so instrumental in gaining, along with Des Browne, now Lord Browne. Will he put it on the record once and for all that if, God forbid, we ever face such a situation again, we will look to offer compassion, not condemnation, to young men who buckle and sometimes crack in the face of horrors that we in this House cannot begin to imagine?

[Tom Watson]

I can, and we should. I thank my hon. Friend for the work he did on the campaign to ensure that Gertie’s dying wish was met.

I am proud of my role in righting what I saw as the injustice of the 306 soldiers that my hon. Friend mentions. Many of them had clearly been suffering from what was then called shellshock and what would now be called post-traumatic stress disorder. Their families were not entitled to a military pension and often faced great hardship. Granting them a pardon did not change what was done to them, but it eased the stigma felt by their loved ones over the generations. Anybody who has ever visited the National Memorial Arboretum to see the commemoration to those who were shot at dawn cannot fail to be moved.

We should pay tribute to the work of the National Memorial Arboretum in the west midlands, which allows so many to pay their respects to the men and women of our armed forces. As a young Minister, newly in post, I remember feeling my heart in my mouth when I had to give what is called a ministerial direction to underwrite the cost of the magnificent armed forces memorial that was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in October 2007 to honour the sacrifice of those who, in more than 50 operations and conflicts since the second world war, lost their lives in service. Today, we understand the impact of war better than we did 100 years ago.

With a smaller professional military, we do not have to face the challenge of reintegrating millions of ex-service personnel into the civilian economy. However, we do owe a duty of care to veterans and their families that lasts beyond the last echo of gunfire. That has to include physical and mental health support, as well as efforts to ensure that they have the skills they need to find civilian employment.

Both the great war and what came after it show us the need for internationalism. It was rival nationalisms that caused the war—rival imperial ambitions, rival insecurities and the escalation of responses to perceived threats until it was easier for the great powers to go to war than for them to back down from it. There can be no greater failure of diplomacy than the resort to armed conflict, even if armed conflict sometimes is the right response to a failure of diplomacy.

One of the causes of the failure of the Armistice to hold was the disastrously punitive terms imposed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles in 1919 and its insistence on German war guilt, which both crippled its economy and fed the resentment that the Nazis were able to harness so effectively. As Marshal Foch prophetically said, Versailles was

“not a peace treaty, it is an armistice for twenty years.”

After the great war, the world failed to build a sustainable peace.

The post-war League of Nations was a well-intentioned attempt to stop such a thing happening again, but it proved inadequate to the task of responding to the nationalism, fascism and territorial ambition of Hitler and Mussolini, Soviet expansionism, or indeed America First isolationism. The failure of the League of Nations showed the need for stronger international institutions, and since the second world war, for all their flaws, institutions including the United Nations, NATO and the European Union have helped us to avoid any repeat of war on a global scale, even if they have been unable to prevent myriad smaller conflicts.

Building lasting, sustainable peace is not easy, but it requires a commitment to internationalism, development, diplomacy and the fostering of economic ties between nations. Where necessary, it requires conflict resolution, but also a strong defence posture and a willingness to countenance military intervention as a last resort, not as a first step, as well as a framework of international laws and justice. Too many of these were absent in the aftermath of the great war, and the whole world paid a terrible price for the fragility of the Armistice.

If ever there is a time to forgive and reunite, it is 11 November 2018. This year, of all the articles written on the great war, the one that moved me the most was that written by Lord Michael Ashcroft, who made the case that courage is something displayed by service personnel on both sides of war and conflict. We should never forget that. He made a strong case for reconciliation in his tribute to the courage of Manfred von Richthofen, the Red Baron.

There was some controversy last month when the Government revealed their plans to invite the German Head of State to the Cenotaph. However, it strikes me that in this year—100 years after men and women of courage gave their lives fighting for their countries—we should, in the spirit of reconciliation and peace, honour the valour and sacrifice of our opponents in the great war by inviting the German President to share in our remembrance. The Secretary of State was absolutely right to make that commitment.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and to colleagues for their thoughtful and humane interventions. We owe so much to all those who served and to all those who gave their lives in the great war that ended on 11 November 1918. One hundred years later, they still have much to teach us. As the Bishop of Lambeth said in his address to us in that very moving service: “War starts in the hearts and minds and souls of men and women like us. And peace, too, starts in the hearts and minds and souls of men and women like us.” Let us not just speak of peace, but let each and every one of us be the peacemakers.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to make a statement on the Government’s new approach to fixed odds betting terminals.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)]

The Government do not have a new approach to fixed odds betting terminals. The reduction in stakes for fixed odds betting terminals is an important change and it is the right thing to do, but there are several factors to consider in determining the date from when it should take effect. The most important, of course, is to do this as soon as possible to prevent further harm. The Government were urged in an early-day motion in June this year and by the all-party group on fixed odds betting terminals not to wait until April 2020 to do so, and we have not done so. But it was also right to consider planning to reduce the effect of job losses for those working in betting shops on the high street and allow time for that planning to take effect.

It also has to be recognised that, right though this change is, money for public services coming from the use of FOBTs has to be replaced, or public services will have less funding. The Chancellor has decided to do that with an increase in remote gaming duty, and it is right that that increase happens at the same time as the FOBT stake change. There also needs to be a proper period of notice after the setting of that new rate before the change to remote gaming duty takes effect. The Government have therefore concluded that October 2019 is the best date to make both changes.

However, the Government have always made it clear that the issue of problem gambling is complex and cannot be addressed through these measures alone, so work has been continuing to strengthen protections around gaming machines, online gambling, gambling advertising and treatment for problem gamblers. The Gambling Commission launched a consultation on protections around online gambling last month. This examined stronger age verification rules and proposals to require operators to set limits on consumer spending until affordability checks have been conducted. There will be tough new guidance from the Committee of Advertising Practice on protecting vulnerable people, with further guidance on protecting children and young people introduced before the end of the year. Public Health England will carry out a review of the evidence on the public health impacts of gambling-related harm and, as part of the next licence competition, the age limit for playing national lottery games will be reviewed to take into account developments in the market and the risk of harm to young people.

While we want a healthy gambling industry that contributes to the economy, we also need one that does all it can to protect players. This is a significant change that will help to stop extreme losses by those who can least afford it, and we are taking decisive action to ensure that we have a responsible gambling industry that protects the most vulnerable in our society.

[Tom Watson]

It was a very good day for both sides of this House back in May when the Minister for Sport and Civil Society, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), announced this document and that the Government would reduce fixed odds betting terminal stakes. Everyone on both sides of the House was led to believe that that cut would take place in April 2019, at the start of the new tax year. Why was that? Because in answer to a written parliamentary question, the Minister herself said that the enabling statutory instrument would be taken this autumn and verbally confirmed, in a minuted meeting of the all-party group on FOBTs, that that would be the case.

On Monday this week, the Chancellor announced that the cut in stakes would be further delayed by six months. This is extremely disappointing, not least because the Secretary of State’s predecessor also implied to the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) that April would be the date.

Research shows that half of people struggling with problem gambling have had thoughts of suicide. The bookmakers will pocket an estimated £900 million because of this delay. This amounts to a betrayal of the promise made by the Secretary of State’s two predecessors and of the Government’s own three-year review, which was meticulously conducted by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford. When the Government themselves have admitted the social blight of FOBTs, it seems incomprehensible and inconceivable that they would delay a policy supported by many people on both sides of the House and in both Chambers.

Has the Minister resigned? If not, why is she not here answering this urgent question or sitting by the Secretary of State on the Front Bench? She has presumably had time to freshen up since travelling on the red eye from the US.

When did the Secretary of State read the report on gaming machines and social responsibility measures? He failed to answer the question earlier in oral questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). Had he read it when he indicated to the DCMS Select Committee that the policy could be delayed? What discussions did he have with the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford before he decided to delay the policy? On what dates—I have informed his office of this question—did he meet the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), a well-known advocate for the industry, to discuss FOBTs?

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford did the right thing in announcing this policy, and the House supported her, as did those working to eradicate gambling addiction. In capitulating to the gambling industry, the Secretary of State has not just let the victims of gambling addiction down; he has let his own team down, and ultimately he has let himself down.

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) is doing an outstanding job as the Sports and Civil Society Minister, and the hon. Gentleman is right that she deserves a large part of the credit for the substantive change the Government are making—a decision, by the way, that the last Labour Government did not make and which now falls to us to make. He asks why she is not answering the urgent question. The urgent question is about a change in Government policy. As I have explained to him, there is no change in Government policy, and anyway I take responsibility for policy made in this Department. The Government collectively make decisions on these matters, as in the case of the decision I have explained to the House.

The issue of the timing is important, so let me try to explain it again. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government announced in May that their intention was to reduce FOBT stakes from £100 to £2. As I have made very clear, that was the right decision to make, but they did not set out at that time the point at which the change would be implemented. He says that everybody knew it would be in May 2019. That is his argument to the House today. I remind him of the text of early-day motion 1440, dated 20 June 2018—after the announcement in May—and which has 48 signatures on it:

“That this House…notes with equal concern that the stake is not due to be reduced until April 2020”.

In addition, we heard representations—understandably —from the all-party group saying that April 2020 would be too late. We agree, hence the decision taken is not to make this change in April 2020, but to make it earlier. I have heard language twisted to various uses in this place, but the idea that a move from April 2020 to October 2019 is a delay is going a little far. It is not a delay. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that SMEs have an important role to play in the great opportunities supplied by big data and AI, just as large companies do.

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Welcome back, Mr Speaker, and congratulations to the Secretary of State on his new position. As the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has said, Facebook broke the law and allowed illegal data breaches during the EU referendum. The Minister has alluded to the numerous investigations by multiple regulators and police authorities, so is it not now the time, in the public and national interest, to have a Mueller-style inquiry into the conduct of the EU referendum that also examines the role played by the Russian state?

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman raises very serious issues. There is no doubt that the law as it stands has been updated, and the ICO has much-increased powers and will be encouraged to use them. There is no doubt that these serious matters concerning the European referendum will be investigated, but it is really not a matter for my Department.

[Tom Watson]

I am afraid that it is partly a matter for the Minister’s Department, and we will continue to press her and her colleagues on this.

Google’s YouTube is now the No. 1 source of consumption of free music and video. It is estimated to have made £160 billion off the back of content and data created by others. Nearly every sector of our creative industries believes that it abuses its market power through the take-it-or-leave-it rip-off deals that it offers to creators. Is the Minister concerned about this, and if so, what is she going to do about it?

[Margot James]

I am indeed concerned about the rights of independent creative artists, and about their power vis-à-vis the huge power of Google and YouTube. I was disappointed that the recent European vote on the matter was so swayed by Google that it went, in my view, against the interests of artists, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be looking carefully at what more we can do to protect artists and their rights over their own output.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)]

Diversity in the tech sector is vital. In addition to the digital skills partnership, which is bringing government and industry together to solve these problems, we are also backing the tech talent charter, which is driving diversity, especially regarding gender, across the sector.

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State will know, 300 newspapers have closed in the past decade and there are 6,000 fewer local journalists than there were in 2007. That is hardly surprising, given that two companies, Facebook and Google, control nearly 60% of global online advertising revenues, using content created by local journalists, playing their role in our democratic system. Does he think that that duopoly is healthy for journalism and local democracy in the UK?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. The position he sets out and the problem he raises is one of the most serious we face, certainly within my Department and, arguably, beyond. He will appreciate that I want to understand this issue properly before I start to set out any decisions. This is an issue where cross-party discussions are useful and I hope we will be able to have those discussions together—perhaps even live, rather than on Twitter. It would also be helpful to have the conclusions of the Cairncross review, of which he will be aware. I met Frances Cairncross yesterday to talk through some of her preliminary thoughts on the way in which her investigations are proceeding, and I look forward very much to what she has to say on the issues he has raised.

[Tom Watson]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I know he is new to his brief, but I was hoping that his Front-Bench team could provide more reassurance on the protection of voters and consumers, and show more interest in protecting the music industry and local newspapers. The problem seems to be that the Government as a whole are either unwilling or unable to deal with the market dominance of the big tech giants. The Opposition believe that these companies are running rings around Governments, legislators and regulators. There is no better example of that than Mark Zuckerberg’s cowardly refusal to appear before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Even Rupert Murdoch did that. Does the Secretary of State agree that the time is now right for a new single, powerful regulator to take on the big tech giants and redress this huge imbalance of market power?

[Jeremy Wright]

Well, the other aspect that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned but about which I know he shares my concern is the range of online harms, on which we can realistically expect more assistance from the tech companies than we currently get. We need to think about a whole range of areas. The truth is that the tech economy has changed dramatically, as has the online companies’ power. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I want to make sure that whatever the actions this Government and this country take, they are properly thought through. That is for two reasons: first, they will be substantially attacked, and the hon. Gentleman knows that; and secondly, I very much hope that they will be an example to the world, and that will be so only if we have thought them through properly and designed them carefully, so that they are robust under scrutiny. He has my reassurance that that is exactly the process with which I intend to engage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)]

We will certainly review the white space option. Fixed wireless solutions are already widely available in those hard-to-reach areas, but the universal service obligation will deliver high-speed broadband connectivity through wired or wireless technologies.

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

One in five children in their last year of primary school are obese. What plans does the Secretary of State have to restrict further junk food advertising on television?

[Matt Hancock]

We are working with all stakeholders—the Department of Health and Social Care as well as the public service broadcasters—to take this question forward. Of course, it is not just a matter of advertising. To tackle obesity in this nation, we need a full spectrum approach that looks at all matters. Possibly some of the most important measures are those that encourage reformulation so that everybody benefits from eating healthier food.

[Tom Watson]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but as a former Digital Minister, he will know that children now spend more of their time online than watching TV. If he does not create a level playing field on advertising, will revenues not just flood from TV to targeted advertising on YouTube, a company that is less regulated and has proved itself many times over to be less responsible and less transparent than ITV and Channel 4? What is the Minister going to do about online junk food advertising?

[Matt Hancock]

As I said in my previous response, we need a full spectrum response. It is akin to the debate we had earlier about gambling advertising. This is not just a matter of TV. Increasingly, people are watching things through all the technologies available. We have to make sure that the response is appropriate to that.

Proposed Media Mergers

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, for which I had a little more time to read than usual; I suspect that was a benefit of the usual delays caused by Heathrow airport. [Interruption.] I had to get that gag in.

This is a saga which we have been living through for 18 months. In December 2016, when 21st Century Fox announced its bid for Sky, the world looked very different: the Tories were riding high in the polls; the Prime Minister was popular, even among her own Back Benchers; we had a different Culture Secretary; and I was six stone heavier. I do not think that even the Murdochs would have anticipated the changes that have happened since then.

To her credit, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), took her time over the bid. She ensured that it was subject to the full gaze of regulatory scrutiny and did not just provide the rubber stamp that Fox hoped for. During that time, Fox found itself not only covering scandals but embroiled in scandals, with sexual harassment allegations and high-profile dismissals at Fox News. A rival bidder, Comcast, has come forward. The approval of both bids today means that this is not the end of the story.

The Murdochs will be relieved that the old order is at least starting to reassert itself. Even before today, the new Secretary of State was doing what they asked of him, dumping the promises made to the victims of phone hacking by announcing that Leveson 2 would not go forward. Why is that relevant to this announcement? Well, the information that Leveson 2 would have revealed about corporate governance failure on an industrial scale is entirely relevant to the question of whether the merger would be good or bad for Sky’s adherence to broadcasting standards. Let us remind ourselves that the most recent allegations in the civil litigation against News Group Newspapers claim that senior executives at the top of the empire were not just culpably ignorant, but knowingly complicit about criminal conduct going on at News Group papers. Leveson 2 would have looked at that. The European Commission raided the London offices of 21st Century Fox just a few weeks ago as part of an investigation into violations of EU anti-trust rules. The Murdochs will be grateful that the Secretary of State is less curious than the officials who raided that building.

We on the Labour Benches understand that there are many commercial and technical elements of this bid to consider, but for us the priority has been to safeguard the future of Sky News. From Kay Burley to Adam Boulton, Sky News has some of the best presenters on TV and has always been a beacon for independent and rigorous journalism. Our priority is protecting that and ensuring that Sky News thrives going forward. The Secretary of State has given his approval for the Fox bid today subject to Fox’s proposed remedy that Sky News be divested to Disney or a suitable alternative. We have serious concerns about that, including how we ensure the long-term future of Sky News as a UK-based independent organisation under this option. Were the Fox-Disney deal to fail, it could leave Sky News isolated from Sky and owned by a foreign company with few news interests in the UK. It is hard to see how that would be in the public interest. Does the Secretary of State really think that this proposal of divestment is in the best interests of Sky News, or would it become isolated and at sea? He made it clear that he had no concerns about the broadcasting standards. Is he concerned that the civil cases that are currently being brought against Murdoch papers such as The Sun will reveal corporate maladministration that could have altered his decision?

Fox made many undertakings to get to this stage. Will the Secretary of State take personal political responsibility if Fox’s bid is successful and the guarantees that it made are broken, bearing in mind that the CMA opinion, expressed earlier this year, was that this deal was against the public interest? With Comcast now in the ring, the future for Sky is uncertain. A bidding war is on the horizon. That might be good for shareholders, but it is the Minister’s duty to protect the interests of the public. Sky is a gem of British broadcasting and is respected worldwide. Its future and global reputation for excellence is at stake in this process, so it is right that, if there is any doubt about whether the proposed solution is workable, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that this merger is blocked.

[Matt Hancock]

As I said in the statement, the analysis that I announced today and have put in the Libraries of the House follows a scrupulous process of scrutiny not just by me and Ofcom, but by the CMA. No matter how long debates over Heathrow took, I am sure that the shadow spokesman has not yet had the chance to read the full 410 pages of the CMA report. It goes into great detail in answering several of the questions that he raised. When it comes to the question of Leveson, it does take into account everything that was disclosed during the Leveson process and, of course, that which was made public by the many court cases since and it has looked over this area rigorously. The CMA concludes that what matters most in the broadcasting standards test is that which is most recent, so while it does take past behaviour into account, it ensures that that which is most recent is also weighted. The behaviour that was described and found under the Leveson inquiry was some time ago, as we have debated already.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman very strongly about the value of Sky News. This is very important to the UK broadcasting environment. I agree that we must be confident that the proposed solution and undertakings that have been given are robust. That is what I will be seeking to nail down over the next fortnight before consulting formally on those undertakings.

I am seeking to strengthen the undertakings that were given to the CMA and that have been repeated to me. When I am confident that those undertakings will ensure the long-term sustainable future for high-quality independent broadcasting at Sky News, as we know it now, I will be prepared to consult on those undertakings, take them and live by that decision.

Gaming Machines

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Good morning to you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I refer hon. Members to my entry in the register.

At the outset, let me warmly congratulate the Minister on her decision today. I am not going to be mealy-mouthed about it: we are absolutely delighted that the Government have decided to deliver a Labour party manifesto pledge. Today, we have had this on FOBTs and yesterday we had the railways taken back into public ownership—it is just a shame we could not make it three with the Leveson inquiry earlier in the week. I genuinely believe this is a great moment; it is the right decision and I applaud the Minister for making it. Having been in government, I know how tricky it is to reach a consensus on these complex regulatory issues, and she deserves recognition from those in all parts of the House for getting this through. We should also recognise that this is a victory for the many people in this House who have led this campaign, particularly my friend, colleague and fellow deputy leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who has fought tirelessly for this, alongside other Members, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), whom I also regard as a friend.

During this process, we have seen how some parts of the gambling industry have stood in defiance of Ministers, civil servants, parliamentarians, clinicians and other professionals, and have sought to delay at every turn common-sense decisions that would have given comfort to those who have been afflicted by these machines. There is a lesson in this: if the UK is to retain its reputation for innovative, light-touch regulation and responsible gambling, the wider industry needs to start taking its responsibilities and obligations to players seriously. Any Government, whatever their political hue, will be deeply concerned about the situation we find ourselves in: we have 430,000 gambling addicts; 2 million vulnerable players at risk of developing an addiction; and 25,000 young people who gamble every week. It is incumbent on the industry now to show the Government and Parliament its progress on how it shoulders these responsibilities and uses its £13.8 billion a year yield to deal with harms created by gambling. Across the industry we have global leaders in innovative online gambling products who are seeking solutions to these issues through investment and technology. However, too many household name companies have belligerently denied the facts in front of their noses, so our message today is clear: clean up your act or a future Labour Government will do it for you.

In that spirt of unity and cross-party co-operation, I would like to make a few suggestions to the Minister, if I may—[Interruption.] I say that genuinely; there is no need to laugh. We understand there are concerns about revenue reduction, and the Minister has suggested she will increase remote gaming duty to cover this. Would it not be more appropriate to close the loophole that allows British online gambling companies based in Gibraltar to avoid paying tax? Secondly, the Government have chosen not to implement a statutory levy for research, education and treatment at this point, but there was a significant call for that, including from some gambling industry leaders. So will she think again on it, in order to guarantee that resources are available for treatment? Thirdly, we all want addicts to access the most appropriate treatment, so will the Government please start to collect proper data in that area? I have asked a number of questions to Ministers about how many addicts are receiving treatment on the NHS and how much treatment costs the NHS, but we have been told time and time again that the Departments do not hold or collect that data. I am sure we all agree that if we are to understand and better treat this problem, we need better data.

Fourthly, some of the largest companies affected by this decision have argued for restrictions on betting advertising for football in particular. Given that that is also the No. 1 concern expressed by parents, it seems to me that the Government have been hasty in ignoring it.

Finally, our view is that the 2005 Act is no longer fit for purpose. We need a new gambling Act that is fit for the digital age. How draconian that new Act might be is dependent on how the industry chooses to engage with Parliament. We call on the innovative and responsible new leaders of the gambling industry to show us that they take their obligations seriously, and to work with us to alleviate problem gambling.

In conclusion, cutting the maximum stake on FOBTs is a big step in the right direction, but it is just one part of the puzzle. In praising Ministers, I urge the Government to use the new spirit of consensus to introduce a new gambling Act, fit for the purposes of the digital age.

[Tracey Crouch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Rather than talk about Labour manifestos, perhaps I should remind the House that it was Labour legislation that caused this issue. However, I will be generous and say that I think it was an unintended consequence of the liberalisation of the gambling industry. I was a staffer in Parliament at that time and clearly remember the significant interest in casinos and supercasinos; much of the discussion about gaming machines was lost in that debate.

The hon. Gentleman raised several key points, starting with the closing of loopholes for operators in Gibraltar. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminds me that it was his private Member’s Bill on offshore gambling that started the process that led to our changing the legislation to require Gibraltar-based operators to pay their gambling taxes to the Exchequer, so I feel we have already dealt with that issue. While I am referring to the Secretary of State, may I acknowledge his work to progress the response to the review? His support on this issue has been phenomenal and I am incredibly grateful for the work he has done.

We have taken the decision not to introduce a statutory levy at this point. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the comments I have made at various events, when I have referred to this situation as the last-chance saloon. We hope that the work we are doing to reduce FOBT stakes will reduce the vulnerability and the harm, but that is not to say that we do not need to improve treatment services. We are working incredibly hard with the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England to gather together the evidence that the hon. Gentleman cites, so that we can get the right treatment services in the right places. We recognise, as do colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, that treatment services are currently limited, and have perhaps been the Cinderella service in the addictions sphere. We are working on that and have had some great advice from across the clinical spectrum on what we need to do.

On advertising, I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and those of others who have raised the issue. Since the publication of the review we have made excellent progress on strengthening the rules on gambling advertising, including the publication by the Committee of Advertising Practice of tough new guidance on how to protect the vulnerable. From June, a responsible gambling message will appear on-screen throughout all TV gambling adverts, not just at the end, and the Gambling Commission has already consulted on expanding the sanctions for breaching the advertising code. There is much more to come, including the advertising campaign to which I referred, as well as the work to look into how we can protect children that will be done later this year. We are also going to have some research on the effect of marketing and advertising on children and young people. Although we may not have made that tough decision now, it is certainly not a closed issue.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

If that is the hon. Lady’s concern, she should vote with the Government this afternoon. She should listen to the journalist who uncovered the thousands of victims of sexual abuse in Rotherham, and who said that with statutory regulation under section 40 it would have been effectively impossible for him to do his job. We do not propose statutory regulation of the press, because we want the press to be free, but also to be able to make public stories that are sometimes uncomfortable to print.

The pressure is on the press because of new online publications. That is important, because if we as a nation lose high-quality journalism, we will lose the capability to hold the powerful to account on behalf of victims of all sorts of abuses of power. Clickbait, fake news and malicious disinformation threaten high-quality journalism. Why does this matter? Because a foundation of any successful democracy is a sound basis for democratic discourse, and that is under threat from these new forces that require urgent attention. A weaker press would mean poorer coverage of courts, of council chambers and of corruption. Why are we acting in the way in which we propose to act today? Because I believe that it will ensure that the press are fairer, while safeguarding their essential freedom. Fundamentally, the sustainability of our media underpins the sustainability of our democracy, and our efforts must be focused on that.

Let us not sleepwalk into a society in which high-quality journalism has been decimated and our democracy is damaged as a result. We all benefit—every single one of us benefits—from what a free press gives our country and our democracy, whether or not the coverage is good for us as individuals: the scrutiny, the uncovering of wrongs, and the catalyst for debate. Protecting those benefits is today’s challenge. Now is the time to look forward, not back, and to come together to build a vibrant, free and fair press that holds the powerful to account and rises to the challenges of our times.

I oppose amendment 62B, and I urge every Member in the House to do the same.

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Last week, colleagues asked, “What is so special about the second part of the Leveson public inquiry?” Leveson part 2 is that rare thing: an inquiry into a national scandal that the newspapers are not calling for. If any other industry were subject to serious allegations of illegality, corruption and corporate governance failure, our national newspapers would be in the vanguard of calls for a public inquiry. That is not happening here. Here, the tabloid press are on the one hand warning about a chilling effect on investigative journalism, and on the other arguing that they should not be subject to any further investigation.

We believe that this new amendment addresses the legitimate concerns of local newspaper editors in specifically excluding local and regional publishers. I accept that it is a concession, and Labour Members respect that. The Secretary of State seemed to become confused earlier when making the case for section 40. Section 40 has gone, and I can clearly state that if the amendment is passed, we will not seek to push the case; we recognise that there is no majority in the House for it.

[John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend go a little further? Is he saying that the Labour party has dropped section 40 for good in the case of all newspapers, and that—whether in opposition or in government—we will never bring back punitive damages for newspapers in order to get them to sign up to a state-sponsored regulator?

[Tom Watson]

I am saying that, although my hon. Friend stood on a manifesto commitment to push section 40, I can envisage no circumstances in which I would move that motion. I cannot speak for the rest of the House.

What the amendment would do is ensure that we proceed with an inquiry which was solemnly promised to the victims of phone hacking by those on all sides, and which Sir Brian Leveson believes should go ahead. Prior to Leveson, the only newspaper that admitted hacking was the News of the World. Since then, in recent court cases, The Sun has settled with claimants at a cost of millions rather than face a full public verdict. The Mirror Group never admitted hacking during Leveson, but, years later, it has. Even The Sunday Times is alleged to have used a blagger for 15 years, yet that was never properly explained to the first part of the Leveson inquiry. Leveson part 2 will achieve something new: the answers that the civil and criminal trials have not and will not get at. Newspapers cannot settle their way out of the conclusions of a national public inquiry that will examine not just illegality, but improper and abusive conduct.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is somehow the tabloid press that is objecting and campaigning against Leveson 2. However, it was The Guardian that said, back in March, that Leveson 2 would be

“like a driver learning to steer by looking in the rear-view mirror at the road behind rather than the one ahead.”

Does the hon. Gentleman not see that that illustrates the fundamental weakness of expecting Leveson 2 to address the question of where the media should go from here to improve behaviour in future?

[Tom Watson]

It is true that The Guardian was very critical of section 40, and, indeed, its pioneering former editor, Alan Rusbridger, spoke out against it, but he has said today that there is no real reason that people could give for opposing Leveson 2. I have spoken to a number of local and regional editors in recent months, and they have privately said that they have great concerns about section 40, but regard Leveson 2 as a problem for national tabloid newspapers—which is why the amendment explicitly rules out local and regional papers.

[Mike Wood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Watson]

I am afraid that other Members want to speak, and we have a limited amount of time. I tried to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question as comprehensively as possible.

I think that the Lords have listened to the Democratic Unionist party, and have adjusted the amendment to meet their concerns. Although DUP Members are not in the Chamber today, I know that they will follow the debate closely before we vote. I am not one of those who do not respect their position. They are representing the needs of their constituents, and they do that well. Last week we did not manage to convince them, but I hope the new amendment shows that their concerns have been heard loud and clear. I think that of all the parties in the House, the DUP prides itself on its commitment to the United Kingdom. We ask DUP Members today to give all UK citizens justice by voting for the amendment.

During the Bill’s passage, we have been told that the press has cleaned up its act. Indeed, the Secretary of State has talked about a new culture in the papers since Leveson 1. Let me quote from a letter written by Figen Murray, whose son Martyn Hett was murdered by a terrorist in the Manchester Arena bombing last year. While she was at the Etihad stadium waiting for news—still not knowing whether her son was alive—her youngest daughters stayed safe at home. During that time, there were seven or eight journalists at their door, and journalists calling their phone. Figen Murray says:

“What upset me most about the media intrusion we have had was the fact that my youngest daughter...heard from a journalist on our doorstep that her brother died. You cannot unhear what you hear. She was a child and this was absolutely not fair, fiercely unethical and cruel.”

I ask colleagues to put themselves in that position. You are a teenager, and you find out that your brother has been killed by a terrorist bomb from a journalist who turns up at your door while your parents are out searching for him. It is unimaginable.

Martyn’s mother goes on:

“Whilst a lot of noise is being made that press behaviour has improved since the Leveson Inquiry, I totally disagree. As a family we have had first hand experience that this is not the case.”

In case after case, we have seen not just new evidence of wrongdoing that was never disclosed to part 1 of Leveson, but new wrongdoing, new abuses, and new victims. That is why Leveson 2 must proceed.

Let me say finally that we cannot possibly have time to consider this last-minute, far-reaching, highly irregular manuscript amendment today. It appears, ironically, to give greater powers to this Secretary of State and all subsequent Secretaries of State to interfere with self-regulation of the press. Whatever we disagree about on Leveson, no one wants this; that was the whole point of the royal charter system. So I say to colleagues today—in fact I am begging them—that this may be our last chance to deliver on that promise to the victims. The whole House supported a Leveson inquiry in two parts, and Sir Brian Leveson himself says that the inquiry’s work is not done. All I ask today is that colleagues think about the promises we all made; let’s keep our word and keep this amendment in the Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Watson]

The hon. Gentleman is a great man and I admire his courage and fortitude in reading that manifesto, which Conservative Front Benchers and I have always considered to be a dynamic document. That is why Conservative Front Benchers are no longer in favour of foxhunting and the dementia tax. I implore the hon. Gentleman to view it not as a rule book, but as guidance.

[Mr Bone]

I will end soon because others want to speak. I just wanted to make the point that I voted against the manifesto on a three-line Whip last week, but my argument and that of others lost. Should I be bound by that? I am going to think about it and make my mind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grogan]

I will not because there is little time. I am a great fan of the BBC, but it was involved in the Cliff Richard case, yet it is exempted from the inquiry by another clause.

The Kerslake report has been mentioned at length. I have read it not seven, but a couple of times. It is damning about many practices that happened after the Manchester bombing. By the way, it praises the only journalistic organisations that it mentions. It praises the Manchester Evening News, and it praises the BBC for having only one reporter approach any victim. However, it is very damning. It may have been freelancers or people who work for the main news organisations who abused their position—it does not name them.

There is no civil servant closer to the Labour party than Bob Kerslake. When there is a problem, Bob Kerslake is sent to sort it out. It is therefore interesting that, in his recent report, which was published on Tuesday 27 March, he recommends not Leveson 2, but strengthening the IPSO code.

It was a little grudging, but I think that the deputy Leader of the Opposition said today that he cannot envisage circumstances in which we would go back to the absurd idea of imposing punitive damages on newspapers. He said that he could not speak for others, but he is the deputy Leader of the party, so I presume that he is speaking for the party.

[Tom Watson]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. He stood on two manifestos—for the 2015 general election as well as that of 2017. When I campaigned for him, he heralded our work on setting up Leveson. I regard section 40 as gone—I hope that gives him the reassurance that he seeks.

[John Grogan]

That is very helpful. When my hon. Friend, as well as my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), were in high positions in government, some of us on the Back Benches talked about the concentration of media power, and we did not do enough about it.

[Tom Watson]

rose—

[John Grogan]

I will not give way because I am being urged to conclude. We should not look back in anger at all those frustrations, but plan a progressive media policy for the future and we should not subcontract that to a judge.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

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

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I absolutely will. This is the sort of thing that I am trying to put right. It is about making sure that the system is right now: rather than going over the past—there is an enormous amount of evidence of what happened in the past—this is about making sure that we look to the future.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned Northern Ireland and the review I have committed to in Northern Ireland will take place at the same time as the review under new clause 23 for the UK that is before the House.

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) about the special review for Northern Ireland, may I ask the Secretary of State in reference to the Hurst case—the former Army intelligence officer whose computers were hacked by newspaper journalists working for newspapers in England about his activities protecting our state in Northern Ireland—whether his review will also examine such criminal activity?

[Matt Hancock]

If there are allegations of criminal activity—the hon. Gentleman has just made such an allegation—then that is a matter for the courts.

[Tom Watson]

A newspaper group has admitted liability for criminally hacking the computers of a former Army intelligence officer.

[Matt Hancock]

In a way, the hon. Gentleman has summed up my case. My case is that we want a press that is free and that is fair. Statutes already exist to ensure that, when there are cases of wrongdoing, people can be brought to account through the courts. That already exists, and we now also have a system of compulsory, low-cost arbitration to make sure everybody can get recourse.

I am focused on ensuring that we have high-quality political discourse and a press that can survive and thrive, with high-quality journalists who can hold the powerful to account, and on ensuring that we face the challenges of today rather than those of yesterday. That is what we want to work towards, and new clauses 18, 20 and 21 would make it harder to find solutions to today’s real problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Watson]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to thank all the individuals and organisations that submitted evidence and participated in the discussions about what we all know to be a fiendishly complicated Bill. I am grateful to the Clerks, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for making the passage of the Bill possible.

Given that this is a fiendishly complicated Bill, we put forward our best team on the Public Bill Committee. I particularly thank my Labour Front-Bench colleagues—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh)—who are both the brightest of their generation. I would also like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), and Members of other Opposition parties, who made great contributions to the Bill. The contributions in today’s debate from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) were intelligent, wise and moving.

Our position has always been that we do not oppose the Bill. We recognise that it contains a number of measures that need to be passed into law by the end of this month, and we have never had any interest in standing in the way of the broad thrust of the Bill or most of its contents. However, we have had a number of specific concerns, and we have sought to improve some parts of the Bill. We have little time to dwell on those issues, but I would like to mention a couple.

We believe that the proposals for a data bill of rights were strong and had merit. They would have created a statutory code of enforceable rights, including the right of the individual to access all their data held or controlled by organisations and large social media companies. With our SNP colleagues, we have also debated how the Home Office will receive a wide exemption when processing the data of newcomers to this country. Given its recent record, the Home Office is not a Department to which we want to give new sweeping powers over personal data. Keeping this exemption is a continuation of the hostile environment, and we should be ashamed that it remains in the Bill.

Our biggest disappointment, however, is that we did not convince enough Members to commence part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. The victims were solemnly promised that this inquiry would be completed, and today this House has let them down. However, we consider this unfinished business, and I have to say to the Secretary of State that when he is in the twilight of his political career—careers in this place always end in such a way—he will come to regret his decision to side so stridently with the press barons against the victims.

To conclude, the Bill is necessary, but there have been missed opportunities. There has been a missed opportunity to correct the sins of the past on Leveson, and also a failure to look at how we should begin to deal with the future of data capitalism and its impact on people in the new digital age. I hope that the Government will continue to engage on these issues in the coming weeks and months, and we will continue to press them on the subject of citizens’ data rights.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I know that—exceptionally—the shadow Secretary of State would like to echo the tributes articulated by the Secretary of State.

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

You are very kind, Mr Speaker. I would like to associate myself and the Labour party with the Secretary of State’s tributes, particularly to the very brave PC Keith Palmer, who gave his life protecting us in this place, and the five others who died in that terrible attack a year ago today.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to support the broadcasting of sport on terrestrial television channels.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As I said earlier, we have changed the national planning policy framework, we have a £30 million rural development programme with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to improve connectivity, and we have a broadband voucher scheme that will provide subsidy for small and medium-sized enterprises and for communities, so that they can connect in an ultrafast way.

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

When it comes to personal data theft, the Secretary of State said that

“the Leveson inquiry looked into everything in this area, and it was followed by three police investigations…We looked into these things as a society. We had a comprehensive Leveson inquiry.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2018; Vol. 636, c. 974.]

Will he tell me which of the inquiries and investigations that he says were comprehensive surfaced the evidence of the illegal data theft of the personal information of Dr David Kelly, who was very distressed when subsequently a journalist from The Sunday Times turned up unannounced at his home, just a week before he took his own life?

[Matt Hancock]

The point that I have made repeatedly about the Leveson inquiry is that it was broad and police investigations followed it. The question we face now is what to do in future. I am determined to make sure that we get the answer to that question right.

[Tom Watson]

In his non-answer, the Secretary of State has shown that the previous inquiries were not comprehensive. There are still questions to answer, including allegations that at least one senior editor misled the first part of the Leveson inquiry and possibly even perjured himself. In caving in to the press barons, the Secretary of State betrays not just the victims of phone hacking but the promises of the previous Prime Minister. Will he at least have the decency today to admit that he was wrong to tell the House that previous inquiries were comprehensive and got to all the facts of criminal behaviour in our national newspapers?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course they were comprehensive. If the hon. Gentleman’s accusations of perjury, which he is alleging today, are true, then we have rules in place to deal with them. If there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, it should be brought forward, and that is the proper way to proceed.