Blagging: Leveson Inquiry

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the allegations of blagging at The Sunday Times and the relevance of these to the Leveson public inquiry.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)]

This morning we saw reports in the media of a potential fraud and data protection breach by a former private investigator. The allegations are of behaviour that appears totally unacceptable and potentially criminal. Investigation is therefore a matter for the police, and the House will understand that there is only so far that I can go in discussing the specific details and allegations.

More broadly, some people have already formed the conclusion that this revelation should require us to change policy on press regulation. Policy, of course, should always be based on all available information. It is worth noting that the activity described apparently stopped around 2010, before the establishment of the Leveson inquiry. Indeed, it was precisely because of such cases that the Leveson inquiry was set up. This sort of behaviour was covered by the terms of reference of that inquiry, and Mr Ford’s activities were raised as part of the inquiry.

As we discussed in the House last week, and again on Monday, there have been three detailed police investigations. A wide range of offences were examined; over 40 people were convicted, and many went to prison. Today’s revelations, if proven, are clearly already covered by the law and appear to be in contravention of section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998. As described, they would also appear to be in contravention of the new Data Protection Bill that is currently before the House.

What is more, the fact that this activity stopped in 2010 underlines the point that the world has changed. Practices such as these have been investigated. Newspapers today are in a very different position from when the alleged offences took place. That view is in fact strengthened by today’s example, because the behaviour that we have discovered today was from before the Leveson inquiry, and existing law is in place to deal with it. Criminal behaviour should be dealt with by the police and the courts, and anyone who has committed a criminal offence should face the full force of the law.

The future of a vibrant, free and independent press matters to us all. We are committed to protecting it. We want to see the highest standards, and we must face the challenges of today to ensure that Britain has high-quality journalism and high-quality discourse to underpin our democracy for the years to come.

[Tom Watson]

I refer to my entry in the register.

The world has not changed. The “one rogue blagger” defence—it has been uttered from the mouth of the Secretary of State. When he announced last week that he was dropping the Leveson inquiry, the Culture Secretary said he was doing so because the 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.]

He told us that the matter was closed—there was nothing more to see. Well, overnight, the BBC has reported allegations by another whistleblower, John Ford, who says that he was a blagger for The Sunday Times for 15 years—a newspaper that the Secretary of State did not even mention.

Mr Ford claimed that he obtained private bank and mortgage information about Cabinet members and public figures. He says that his activity for the paper was illegal, intrusive and ultimately wrong. In his evidence to the first half of the public inquiry, Times editor John Witherow, who then edited The Sunday Times, conceded that Ford had worked for the paper, but did not reveal that he had done so for over a decade. Today, The Sunday Times has disputed the new claims.

The second half of the Leveson inquiry could establish where the truth lies. That is what it was set up to do, but the Government are closing down the public inquiry before it has done its work, despite Sir Brian Leveson saying that he fundamentally disagrees with that decision, along with 130,000 concerned citizens who said it should go ahead and whom the Secretary of State has chosen to disregard. He is capitulating to the press barons, who want to use their raw power to close down a national public inquiry. In the light of the new allegations, will he reconsider his decision on the public inquiry into illegality in the press? If not, how will he assure the House and the public that these new allegations of criminal behaviour by The Sunday Times will be fully investigated? Is it not now clear to him that too many questions remain unanswered to justify the decision to break David Cameron’s solemn promise to the victims of press abuse?

[Matt Hancock]

I think I covered all those questions in my statement. As I mentioned, not only did the Leveson inquiry have terms of reference that covered this type of allegation, but this person was raised at the Leveson inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman implied, it is of course a matter for the police to follow up any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. He also asked whether we should therefore bring in an inquiry that is backward-looking and bring in rules that would help to undermine further the free press that we need, notably section 40. The answer to both those questions last week was clearly no, and this new evidence, of activity that it appears took place up to 2010—therefore, up to seven years ago—is not a reason to reopen decisions that were taken exactly on the basis that the world has changed. If anything, this evidence demonstrates further how much things have changed.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

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

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

I refer hon. Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and, at the risk of emptying the Chamber early this evening, I should start by reassuring the Minister that Labour will not be opposing this Bill on Second Reading. It is an important piece of legislation, and parts of it absolutely have to be incorporated into domestic law by May this year, and we do not intend to stand in its way.

But that is not to say that we are content with the Bill as it is. Many improvements have been made in the other place—many with cross-party support, and some, which I will discuss in more detail, against the wishes of the Government—but there are more changes that we need to make, and the Opposition will be pressing for them as the Bill proceeds through its Commons stages. I pay tribute to the work of peers on all sides, and in particular to my Labour colleagues, Lord Stevenson, Lord Kennedy, Lord Griffiths and Lord Grantchester, for their work on the Opposition Front Bench.

In 2016, I set up the independent Future of Work Commission to look at the challenges and opportunities created by the new technological revolution. Just as Harold Wilson spoke 54 years ago about the opportunities of the “white heat” of what was then cutting-edge technology, so we now need to make sure that we are seizing the opportunities that the new digital economy presents to us. That is where many of the jobs of the future lie—where the raw materials are not steel or minerals or plastics, but data. The commission concluded that, with the right policy framework around it, the new technologies of artificial intelligence, massive processing power and digital transfer can create as many jobs as they destroy and enhance many jobs that currently exist.

None of that is inevitable, however, because we are not doing enough to exploit the opportunities created by this new world of work. Britain is unprepared for the technological revolution. We think this demands strategic planning, as the policy choices we make now will shape how technological change will affect the work and lives of our citizens.

I think we all in this House accept that, as we leave the European Union, we need to make sure that we still have unhindered flows of data between the EU and the UK; anything else would do huge damage to our economy. As the House of Lords European Union Committee report on “Brexit: the EU data protection package” concluded,

“any arrangement that resulted in greater friction around data transfers between the UK and the EU post-Brexit could hinder police and security cooperation. It could also present a non-tariff barrier to trade, particularly in services, putting companies operating out of the UK at a competitive disadvantage.”

So it is vital that we get this Bill right.

We will be seeking more information from the Government than was forthcoming in the Bill’s passage through the other place on how we will allow continuous data flows once Britain is no longer a member of the EU and, in the EU’s terms, a “third country”. Data is the raw material of the digital economy. Businesses, individuals, Government agencies and others need to exchange and process data, but to do that safely, we need proper protections so that it cannot be stolen, used without our consent or misused. If we are to build a strong digital economy, we need strong foundations, because trade is built on trust. Consumers, particularly children and vulnerable adults, need to be better supported and protected. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who will be doing much of the heavy lifting on the Bill as it proceeds through Committee, has talked about the need for a new Bill of data and digital rights—a broad set of regulatory structures for data capitalism.

We hope that our proposals are more ambitious than the Government’s digital charter and less reliant on voluntary codes of conduct, which can be ignored by big social media and data giants. Instead, we believe we need a statutory code of enforceable rights offering people proper control over their own data, appropriate remedies when their data is misused and proportionate sanctions to deter unlawful data processing. Rights for children need to be at the core of this. Children make up one third of internet users worldwide, and one in five in the UK, so we welcome the improvements made by Baroness Kidron’s amendment on age-appropriate design, but we want to work with the Government to do more to ensure that children are properly served by the Bill.

We believe that a right of privacy is key to any strong regime of rights. It is easy for individuals to have their privacy invaded as a result of sharing data on the internet, so we will be pushing for the incorporation of article 8 of the charter of fundamental rights, with all the appropriate safeguards and balancing tests. We hope that the Government will see the benefit of this to a future adequacy decision with the EU.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend has had a number of letters from people who are concerned about their privacy and their rights in relation to privacy.

[Tom Watson]

Yes, indeed. Privacy in the age of the net, with huge data flows and information in abundance, is the debate of the age. There is no doubt that this House will be discussing privacy in the years to come, beyond this Bill and beyond further regulation. In this particular Bill, however, we must ensure that privacy is not just entrusted to the delegated powers of the Minister and that it is a fundamental right that our citizens can start to develop.

Parliament is also considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which, in combination with this Bill, risks eliminating the GDPR as a check on the misuse of ministerial authority to undermine data privacy rights. It gives Ministers power to make secondary legislation to amend any retained EU law, which would include those governing data protection rights. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as currently drafted, eliminates the important data protection rights of article 8, which would otherwise constrain Ministers’ ability to erode fundamental data privacy protections. So we want to make it explicit in the Bill that those protections cannot be eroded. Strong rights need strong enforcement and a proper mechanism to enable enforcement to take place. This is all the more vital where the data rights of children are involved. We therefore want to see the Bill amended to ensure that consumer groups that operate in the privacy field can act on behalf of data subjects without a particular complaint—a right of collective, not just individual, redress.

The Government have chosen not to implement article 80(2) of the GDPR, which gives greater ability for civil society and other representative bodies to act on behalf of citizens and mirrors consumer rights in goods and services. A super-complainant system would help to protect anonymity and create a stronger enforcement framework. Collective redress and representative action led by a recognised body would also help individuals to enforce their rights to data protection when their data is exposed, stolen or misused as part of a large data breach that affects multiple people. It would create a stronger enforcement framework, which would build and reinforce trust without overburdening existing institutions.

I want to turn to two amendments—improvements—made in the other place that the Government have already said they wish to overturn. Indeed, as soon as the votes had taken place, the Secretary of State tweeted that they were votes against press freedom—even though they were also votes in favour of a policy agreed by all parties in 2012, and for which he himself, the former Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister had previously voted. So it was no great surprise when the Secretary of State made his announcement last week about ditching Leveson part 2 and binning section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. His tweet, as I think he will recognise, somewhat pre-empted his consultation response. However, we live in a country where Parliament is sovereign, so the decision is not entirely up to him. It is up to us in this House. We can decide whether to keep the promises made by David Cameron—and by all parties—to the victims of phone hacking and other press abuse in 2012, or to break them.

[Chris Bryant]

Was there not also a promise, in a sense, to Brian Leveson? The guarantee was that a single inquiry was to be carried out. I am sure that my hon. Friend has seen the correspondence in which Leveson himself says that he fundamentally disagrees with the Government’s position because the only regard in which he thinks the terms of reference should be changed is that they should be increased, so that we could see whether the Independent Press Standards Organisation was indeed any different from the Press Complaints Commission at all.

[Tom Watson]

A characteristically articulate question, there. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I am coming on to that point in my speech now.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 legislates for the part of the Leveson system that would provide access to justice for ordinary citizens, while offering protection to journalists and newspapers that signed up to any Leveson-compliant self-regulatory body. I want to take on one argument that I think is a complete red herring. Some elements of the media do not like IMPRESS —the only self-regulator that has so far been given royal charter recognition. They are, to coin a phrase, unimpressed with it. They would prefer not to be regulated by it, and they pretend that section 40 would force them to be members of it. But that is not accurate. There is absolutely nothing preventing those elements of the press that dislike IMPRESS from setting up an alternative self-regulator and seeking royal charter recognition for it. They could seek recognition for IPSO, but it continues to fall short of the criteria applied by the Press Recognition Panel. The fact that they choose not to do so suggests that IMPRESS is not really the problem. So we will seek to retain the amendment on section 40.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Watson]

I was anticipating an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he can convince me that those senior editors who gave evidence to Leveson will not be eating their words when further revelations are made in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his earlier and quite proper reference to his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. IMPRESS is there, and it has been funded by Max Mosley, who has been exposed as a racist and as someone who indulges in orgies and who has been waging a war against the press. The free press does not want to be regulated by a state-approved regulator. That is fundamental to the freedoms we enjoy in our society. Clauses 168 and 169 effectively impose IMPRESS as the only body that has sought and received royal charter approval, yet it is funded by this deeply unsavoury figure, from whom I believe the hon. Gentleman has now dissociated himself.

[Tom Watson]

I do not believe that Max Mosley now holds the views ascribed to him. This is what happens when people take on press barons and the billionaires who back them. That is what is going on here. The hon. Gentleman, the Minister and everyone in this House knows that the press barons do not want this regulation. Some years ago, probably before the hon. Gentleman was elected to this House, I remember that MPs were frightened of speaking out about media abuse lest they receive retribution, so I will not take any lessons when people who stand up for media reform see their characters traduced and destroyed in the press.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Tom Watson]

I will make some progress.

In his statement to the House last week, the Secretary of State said that Sir Brian

“agrees that the inquiry should not proceed under the current terms of reference but believes that it should continue in an amended form.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2018; Vol. 636, c. 966.]

I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Oh, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With a name like Lindsay, who knows? [Laughter.]

[Tom Watson]

I am not rising to that. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I got the distinct impression from the Secretary of State’s presentation that Brian Leveson supported his proposals. That was something of an understatement. In fact, Sir Brian says that he disagrees “fundamentally” with the Government’s position, stating:

“I have no doubt that there is still a legitimate expectation on behalf of the public and, in particular, the alleged victims of phone hacking and other unlawful conduct, that there will be a full public examination of the circumstances that allowed that behaviour to develop and clear reassurances that nothing of the same scale could occur again: that is what they were promised”.

Sir Brian is clear that this breaks a promise to the victims, and it does so by using a very clever sleight of hand. The Secretary of State told the House that 12% of direct respondents to the consultation were in favour of continuing the inquiry, with 66% against. How did the Government get to that landslide verdict? Scandalously, they disregarded the 200,000 people who signed an online petition in favour of continuing the inquiry, but they included thousands of pro forma newspaper coupons that various papers encouraged their readers to send in. Sir Brian said to the Government:

“I would not personally count the responses in the way in which you have.”

[Matt Hancock]

As the hon. Gentleman may or may not know, it is entirely standard to count in that way. The same was done on the questions of equal marriage and of BBC charter reform, because there is a material difference between clicking a button to sign a preformed digital signature and writing in separately. This is how things have been in other big consultations. It is entirely normal, and the full details were set out last Thursday.

[Tom Watson]

The Secretary of State is obviously living in the analogue age if he thinks that he can accept a coupon from The Sun but ignore 200,000 citizens expressing their concern about the inquiry.

I have only one question for the Secretary of State. Will the Government be able to detail what they will do if evidence of wrongdoing is revealed, in particular if editors misled or were partial in their evidence to the original inquiry? We still need Leveson 2, and Sir Brian agrees.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making excellent work of exposing the Government on this point, but things go a stage further than this. Abandoning Leveson against the wishes of Lord Leveson is a constitutional provocation, because it puts party interest above due process. If that is going to happen with one inquiry, why will it not happen with Grenfell or contaminated blood? What will stop the Government doing things that are in their own interests, not those of victims?

[Tom Watson]

My hon. Friend makes an important and fair point that I hope the analogue Minister will reflect on.

Rather than protecting the public from the abuse of their data, committed by or on behalf of newspaper publishers, the Government have capitulated to the media. In his letter, Sir Brian said that

“the press is in a unique position because there is no other… body in a position to hold the very real exercise of power by the press to account and to expose its wrongdoing to the public”

In short, the press has no predators. As this Bill makes its way into law, we will be voting to redress that imbalance and to keep our promises.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Leveson Inquiry

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

As I have said through you before, Mr Speaker, timing is everything in politics. If I am looking a little breathless and fatigued this morning, it is because I have been carrying a heavy load in the past hour, lifting weights in the gym and visualising Paul Dacre. For the increasing number of colleagues who do not read the Daily Mail any more, I refer them to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I shall take the Mosley issue head on. If I had thought for one moment that he held the views contained in that leaflet of 57 years ago, I would not have given him the time of day. He is, however, a man who, in the face of great family tragedy and overwhelming media intimidation, chose to use his limited resources to support the weak against the strong.

On this issue, I would like to thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, not just in the last half hour but over and over again, year after year. This announcement, conveniently timed to be buried under a flurry of snow, is a disappointment, a breach of trust and a bitter blow to the victims of press intrusion, but it is not in any way a surprise. We now know for certain what we have suspected all the time. When a Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, joined the other party leaders to say that he would keep his promises to the victims of phone hacking, he and his party were acting not out of conviction but out of weakness. For a brief period of time, and for the first time ever, our political parties had more to gain politically by standing up to the tabloid media than by bowing down to them. When every Conservative MP who was then in Parliament backed this policy, including the current Prime Minister and the present Secretary of State, they did not really mean it. They were waiting for the wind to change and for the fuss to die down. They were waiting for a time when they could, as quietly as possible, break their promises, and today that time has finally come.

We already knew what the Conservatives really thought, when successive Secretaries of State refused to implement section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the part of the Leveson system that would provide access to justice for ordinary citizens while offering protection to journalists and newspapers that signed up to any Leveson-compliant self-regulatory body. The papers, absurdly, caricatured it as state regulation, and pointed instead to the independence of their alternative, non-Leveson-compliant regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation. The Government were too scared to make the case for their own policy, and finally, today, they are formally capitulating.

The Government are also capitulating on the question of whether to complete the investigation into how phone hacking happened and what is happening now. Underlying the phone hacking scandal, we saw one of the biggest corporate scandals and one of the biggest corporate governance failures of modern times. The Secretary of State says that the terms of reference of Leveson 2 have largely been met, but I do not agree. Here are some of the things that Leveson 2 was supposed to investigate: to inquire into the extent of illegality at News International; to inquire into the way the police investigated allegations relating to News International and other newspaper groups; to inquire into whether the police received corrupt payments and were complicit in suppressing the proper investigation of complaints; and to inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures at News International and other organisations. None of those questions has been answered, and by betraying the victims of phone hacking in this statement today, the Secretary of State is trying to ensure that they never will be. I ask him this question: if it is revealed that the criminality that took place at the News of the World extended to other newspapers, will he reconsider his position?

The last thing the Murdoch empire, the Rothermere empire, the Barclay brothers’ empire or the Mirror Group wanted was an inquiry into their dirty laundry, with powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to obtain documents and compel witnesses to appear in public. The last thing any of the newspapers wanted was more attention being paid to their methods at a time when it may well be revealed very soon that other papers, not necessarily the ones at the centre of the scandal in 2011, were also involved in criminality. They have been lobbying hard for today’s outcome. They will give the Secretary of State—a man who enjoys favourable headlines—plaudits in tomorrow’s leader columns. We already know that Paul Dacre, Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers approve of his statement—after all, they helped to write it. The Secretary of State could have chosen to do the right thing, but instead he chose not to stand up to the tabloid-style newspapers that are propping up the Prime Minister and this Government, and that could pull the rug from under them whenever they choose.

Let me close with the words of the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, to the Leveson inquiry in June 2012:

“I will never forget meeting with the Dowler family in Downing Street to run through the terms of this Inquiry with them and to hear what they had been through and how it had redoubled, trebled the pain and agony they’d been through over losing Milly. I’ll never forget that, and that’s the test of all this. It’s not ‘do the politicians or the press feel happy with what we get?’ It’s ‘are we really protecting people who have been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves by this process?’ That’s what the test is.”

The Secretary of State will prosper politically from his statement today, but he has failed that test.

[Matt Hancock]

The case of the victims of press intrusion is, of course, an incredibly important consideration when making these judgments, but I make the judgments on the basis not of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but of the national interest. The issues faced by the victims have been looked into, in the inquiry and in the three police investigations. The issues for the future of our media include this, but are much broader than it.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) stands at the Dispatch Box and talks about the future of our media, but the Opposition’s proposals would lead to a press that is fettered and not free. We do not love every story that is written about us in the press, but the idea that the solution lies in shackling our free press with the punitive costs of any complainant is completely wrong. We all know where he is coming from on the issue of press freedom, because he is tied up with its opponents. Democratic countries face huge challenges in making sure that we have robust but fair discussions in our public life, and the approach proposed by the Opposition would make that even harder.

The hon. Gentleman talks about keeping promises. We are keeping promises that were made to our constituents, who elected us on a manifesto commitment to support a free press. He talks about the need to look into the past, but there have been investigations and inquiries costing many millions of pounds. My judgment is that it would be neither proportionate nor in the national interest to follow that with millions of pounds more.

The message should go out loud and clear from this House that we support every single local newspaper in this country, and that we support these publications, big or small. That is why we are proposing real and meaningful solutions for a vibrant, free and independent press, and we will face up to the challenges that we see before us today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will come around to supporting us in that to ensure that we have a strong, democratic discourse over the years and decades to come.

Sky/Fox Update

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This proposed merger has gone on for longer than the Murdochs ever expected, and for that I want to pay tribute to the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). She could have done what the Murdoch family expected by clearing a path for the bid to go ahead, but she took her quasi-judicial responsibility seriously. I hope that the new Secretary of State will have as strong a regard for his responsibilities and for the public interest as his predecessor. I can assure him that if he does the right thing, he will have the support of the Opposition.

The CMA says that if the Sky/Fox merger went ahead as proposed, it would be against the public interest. It would result in the Murdoch family having too much control over news providers in the UK, and too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda. Does the Secretary of State accept that assessment?

The CMA says that it is not concerned about the proposed merger on broadcasting standards grounds, but in order to reach a proper assessment of that we need to look at corporate governance issues through part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. The Government have not yet published their response to the consultation on that, so can the Secretary of State tell the House when they intend to do so, and will he give us plenty of notice?

The previous Secretary of State said last June that she was minded not to accept undertakings offered by Fox and Sky that were intended to safeguard the editorial independence of Sky News, which they put forward to mitigate Ofcom’s media plurality concerns. Does the new Secretary of State share his predecessor’s view of those undertakings? In November, Sky threatened to shut down Sky News if it proved to be a plurality obstacle in its bid. Will the Secretary of State reject any attempt by the Murdochs to blackmail him or the regulator by threatening Sky staff?

Just this weekend, “friends” of the Secretary of State were quoted in the newspapers as hinting at the outcome of a separate Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport review of gambling stakes and prizes. Will he undertake, in his quasi-judicial role, not to speak to his “friends” about his views on the takeover, and to discourage them from talking to the press about them?

When the Prime Minister took office 18 months ago, she stood on the steps of Downing Street and spoke directly to the country, saying:

“When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you”.

This ambitious, thrusting new Secretary of State now has the opportunity to put her words into action. He can stand up to the rich and powerful, stand up to the Murdochs and act in the public interest. I hope that he will do the right thing.

[Matt Hancock]

I think that is the most cheerful response I have had from the hon. Gentleman, so I thank him for that. I will try to answer his questions in as much detail as possible. He asked a number of questions about the process. I am clear that we will follow due process; we will follow our statutory responsibilities and respect the quasi-judicial nature of the decision. My predecessor acted with great solidity and integrity in that regard, and I intend to do the same. In my previous role as Minister for Digital, I was outside the Chinese walls that the Department has on this subject, and therefore not involved in the internal discussions of the earlier stages. I will therefore follow the process by considering the CMA’s final report, once it is published, and all the relevant evidence and information, and then I will make the decision.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Leveson. Although we will no doubt have debates on the future sustainability of the press in the coming months, this is a separate process under existing law in which I have a quasi-judicial role; it is not intertwined with the debates that we will have on the primary legislation that was just passed by the other place and received its First Reading in this House this week. Those two questions are separate. The question before us today is one in which I will operate fully in my quasi-judicial role, as I am required to do by law.

BBC Pay

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. May I start by offering my congratulations to the outgoing Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), on her new role? I also congratulate the new Secretary of State, who, unlike Carrie Gracie, has not turned down a £45,000 pay rise this week. He tweeted yesterday about how humble he was—something he has become well known for in recent years—but I know how important this promotion will be for his fragile self-esteem.

We still live in a society in which confident men who believe in their own self-worth tend to rise to the top, or stay in position despite failure after failure, while talented women are more easily undervalued or forced out—but enough about the Prime Minister’s reshuffle. Carrie Gracie’s resignation as the BBC’s China editor highlights the issue of unequal pay in the BBC, in broadcasting and in society more generally, and we all have a role to play in stamping that out. Lord Hall said last year that he is determined to close the gender pay gap at the BBC, but this story shows that there is still a very long way to go.

Carrie Gracie says in her public letter that she told her bosses when she took the job of China editor that she expected pay equality with her male peers and that she believed she had secured it. Does the Secretary of State believe that the corporation is, as Carrie says, in breach of equality legislation? How can employees of less transparent media companies know whether their employers are complying with equality law? The BBC is accountable to the public and we know more about the pay gap there than we do about the pay gap in other organisations. Is the Secretary of State confident that female staff in other broadcasters and media companies are paid as highly as their male colleagues? Will he call them in to encourage them to be as transparent as the BBC? What will he do to ensure that this story is used not just to criticise our national broadcaster, as other media organisations might wish, but to highlight pay inequality across the board? The people involved in this story are at the top of their profession and earn significant sums, but we need to be at least as concerned about pay equality and fair pay for BBC employees and contractors on the lowest pay, some of whom are on as little as £16,000 a year. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that low-paid workers are not forgotten? Will he ensure that those paid by independent production companies or through BBC Studios are not exempt from pay transparency? Does he agree, finally, that when it comes to unequal pay, we all have to say, “Time’s up.”?

[Matt Hancock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; it is good to be shadowed once more by him. He is quite a shadow, and I am sure we will all enjoy his stand-up in the exchanges ahead.

There is a very strong degree of cross-party unanimity on this subject, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the measures that we have taken to introduce more transparency. As well as introducing transparency measures for the BBC, we introduced wider transparency measures on the gender pay gap for all large organisations. I think that that answers many of his questions about other organisations, but other public organisations have strong duties, and I will take his point about that very seriously. When it comes to investigating individual cases and policing the Equality Act 2010, that is a job for the EHRC. We welcome the fact that it is taking action in this case now, and it must take action wherever it sees that as appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

We look at administration issues all the time. This was reviewed recently and I am sure it will be a key part of the conversation as we take forward the next licence discussion.

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

I would like to announce to the House that the Commonwealth games have just been awarded to Birmingham. As you know, Mr Speaker, the lottery provides vital support for sport, which is why it is so disturbing that this week the National Audit Office published a report saying that since 2009, lottery income for good causes has risen by just 2%, while the shareholder profits of the lottery licence holder, Camelot, have risen by 122%. Does the Minister think that those ratios seem fair? Will grassroots sport and the Commonwealth games be secure for lottery funding in the future?

[Tracey Crouch]

The cheek of the hon. Gentleman! We did all hard work on the Commonwealth games, along with Mayor Andy Street. It was announced formally at 9.30 this morning in Birmingham. I was pleased to sign the host city contract and I am pleased that we will hold the Commonwealth games in 2022. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will benefit from that, as will we all. Turning to the substance of his question, the Secretary of State and I are not unsympathetic to the points he made.

Gaming Machines and Social Responsibility

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 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 gaming machines and social responsibility.

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

I am pleased to inform the House that this morning I published a consultation on proposals for changes to gaming machines and social responsibility measures across the gambling industry. The consultation will run for 12 weeks, during which the general public, industry and all other interested parties will be able to voice their views on the questions raised. I appreciate that some might not understand why we have to run a consultation, but this is the right process by which to proceed if we are to address this issue thoroughly and properly.

As hon. Members know, the Government announced a review of gaming machines and social responsibility measures in October 2016. I am grateful to all those who responded, including individual former addicts, faith groups, local authorities and the bookmakers. The objective of the review was to ensure we have the right balance between a sector that can grow and contribute to the economy and one that is socially responsible and doing all it should to protect consumers and communities.

Although our consultation sets out a package of measures to protect vulnerable people from harm, the main area of interest has been the stake for B2 gaming machines, known as fixed odds betting terminals. We believe that the current regulation of FOBTs is inappropriate to achieve our stated objective of protecting consumers and wider communities. We are therefore consulting on regulatory changes to the maximum stake, looking at options between £50 and £2, to reduce the potential for large losses and therefore the harmful impact on the player, their families, and the wider community.

We are aware that the factors that influence the extent of harm to the player are wider than one product or a limited set of parameters such as stakes and prizes, and include factors around the player, the environment and the product. We are therefore also consulting on corresponding social responsibility measures, on player protections in the online sector and on a package of measures on gambling advertising. Within this package, we want the industry, the regulator and charities to continue to drive the social responsibility agenda, to ensure that all is being done to protect players and that those in trouble can access the treatment and support they need. The consultation will close on 23 January 2018, following which the Government will consider their final proposals and make an announcement in due course.

[Tom Watson]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.

First, I praise the Minister for the manner in which she has conducted this review. She has kept me and other Members of the House informed throughout the entire process and has shown exemplary attention to detail. It is a shame, therefore, that she does not have a completely free hand in this policy, because we think the outcome could have been very different.

The Government’s response, after a year-long process of delay after delay, and hundreds of submissions from industry, local government, charities, campaigners and Church groups, among others, is deeply disappointing. Instead of taking firm and reasonable action to counter the well known problems with FOBTs, the Government have simply kicked the process further into the long grass and announced another consultation extending beyond the Budget.

Look at the public policy challenge the House faces: 430,000 people are addicted to gambling—up a third in three years—and a further 2 million problem gamblers are at risk of developing an addiction. Some £1.8 billion is lost on FOBTs each year—an increase of 79% over the past eight years. The gambling industry’s yield—the amount it wins in bets—has increased to £13.8 billion, up from £8.3 billion in 2009, yet it paid only £10 million for education and treatment services this year, through a voluntary levy. Worst of all, there are 450,000 children who gamble at least once a week. This situation requires action now.

There is an old maxim that the bookies always win, and they have won again today. Their shares are up and their lobbyists were grinning from ear to ear in their TV interviews this morning. We have consistently said to the Government that our gambling laws are no longer fit for purpose. There has been an explosion of online and digital-platform gambling that the Gambling Act 2005 could not have anticipated. We have offered to work with the Government on a cross-party basis to make our laws fit for the digital age. The report published today could have been a significant starting point for the process, because even by the most conservative estimates, the associated harms and costs of gambling addiction are believed to total more than £1 billion a year—and I bet the true figure is far higher. The impact is felt not only through the losses that gamblers accrue but through NHS and treatment costs, in our communities as families struggle and break down, and in our police forces, which deal with the resultant crime.

What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office on how to measure gambling-related crime? Does she know how many people have received counselling or treatment for gambling addiction in the past 12 months, since her review has taken place? Does she know how much treatment for gambling addiction costs the NHS each year? She has said from the Dispatch Box on several occasions that the gambling industry has not done enough to fund research, education and treatment of gambling and gambling-related harm, but she has again failed to bring the industry to heel. She could have introduced a compulsory levy, and we would have supported her on that. This is a missed opportunity to settle the issue of FOBTs once and for all. Quite frankly, we expected more. The Government had a strong hand to play, but this is a busted flush.

[Tracey Crouch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind words at the start of his speech. I am pleased to see his conversion on this issue. He was of course a Minister in the Government who passed the legislation that liberalised gambling and caused the harm that many people have suffered as a consequence of FOBTs. It is this Government who are taking action.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the fact that we have announced a consultation, but the fact is that in 2005 the Labour Government rushed through the Gambling Act without paying proper attention to the issues with these machines, which then led to their proliferation. FOBTs did not exist in 1997, when the Labour party came to power. It is this Government who have recognised the harm that has been caused and who are taking action. There will be a consultation; it is due process, and I expect people to contribute to that process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Of which the Secretary of State was courteous enough to notify me in advance, and I am very content with that—it is in the interests of the House, as it also is that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), should have some modest latitude in his interrogation.

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

Does the Secretary of State believe our gambling laws are fit for purpose?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The comprehensive character of what the Secretary of State had to say was such that I excluded the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), and he might be feeling discriminated against, which would be a sadness. So before we hear from the hon. Member for West Bromwich East, we shall hear from Mr Knight—let’s hear it man.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Tom Watson.

[Tom Watson]

Mr Speaker, surprise is everything in politics: does the Secretary of State believe our gambling laws are fit for purpose?

[Karen Bradley]

Gosh; I am completely caught off guard. The hon. Gentleman knows that we made a call for evidence on the matter of gambling as part of the triennial review last year, and we will be publishing the results of that shortly.

[Tom Watson]

From that answer, I feel that our cosy consensus over the future of Sky and Fox might be breaking apart, because Labour Members believe that recent research has shown that Britain has a hidden epidemic of gambling addiction. Moreover, research over the summer has shown that our children are exposed to gambling advertising more than ever before. Let me try to rebuild our spirit of partnership and say to the Secretary of State that if she brings forward a new gambling Bill fit for the digital age, we will support her in that. If she does not, a future Labour Government will have to do so.

[Karen Bradley]

The Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a supporter—and I think at times a member—were the Government who brought in the Gambling Act 2005. We are now conducting the triennial review of the Act and it is important that we look at all the available evidence. I note that he made a statement over the summer about the sponsorship of football shirts, saying that a future Labour Government, should there be one, would ban the sponsorship of football shirts by gambling companies. I see the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) in the Chamber. I think that the supporters of Stoke City would be quite concerned if they were to discover that their stadium could no longer be called the bet365 stadium and that the company could no longer be a shirt sponsor. They might wonder where they would be able to purchase players from. And I just wonder what West Brom is doing in terms of its sponsorship at the moment.

Sky/Fox Merger

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

The Secretary of State has taken her responsibilities seriously, and I give her credit for that. I give her credit, too, for listening to the evidence before her, including new evidence submitted after she had announced her initial decision, and for changing her mind. I also want to praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who has run a very effective campaign in this area. Dare I say it, but I think he leads the race for Back Bencher of the year for his campaign?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision—or, I should say, the fact that she says she is minded to make such a decision—to refer the bid on broadcasting standards grounds, as well as on media plurality grounds. This is the first time that a Minister in the current Government has ever stood in the way of what the Murdochs want—and, frankly, not before time. So well done, and as they say in the Black country, “She’s a good ’un.”

The Secretary of State has done everything we asked her to do—or almost everything. Her statement does in my view, however, reflect a failure on the part of Ofcom. In its first report, as she said, Ofcom said that there were

“no broadcasting standards concerns that may justify a reference”.

It has now admitted that there are, as she said, “non-fanciful concerns”. On that basis, she had to refer the bid, and she has done so. It should have been obvious to Ofcom, as it certainly was to all Labour Members, that concerns about the Murdochs were more than fanciful.

After all, the Murdochs have a long history of regulatory non-compliance and of corporate governance failure. Just last week, Fox recognised its own failure to comply with broadcasting standards when it pulled Fox News, which has breached Ofcom’s rules again and again, from the UK. Ofcom could have gone further, too, on the “fit and proper” test. It decided that a post-merger Sky would pass, despite clear evidence of impropriety and failure of corporate governance both at 21st Century Fox and at News Corporation.

Such failures include the phone hacking scandal, which still has loose ends that are yet to be tied up. Just last week, News Group settled 17 cases related to allegations of criminality at The Sun newspaper, ensuring that James Murdoch will not have to appear in court later this year. Those 17 cases are just the first tranche of 91 new claims of phone hacking and illegality in obtaining information against The Sun and News of the World. This story is far from over, even if we will read little about it in the pages of the Murdochs’ newspapers, and all these cases are claims against a company that claimed for over a decade that there was no problem and that tried to move heaven and earth to prevent abuses from being uncovered. This is alongside the ongoing sexual and racial harassment scandal at Fox News, which is part of 21st Century Fox’s empire.

As I have said, the Secretary of State has done almost everything we asked her to do. The one thing we still want, and we have said this time and again, is that we need to get properly to the bottom of the scandals at the Murdoch empire—part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. She has now shot her fox with the Murdochs. She has burned her boats, and they already do not like her—I know what that is like—but that liberates her. Go on, Secretary of State, do the right thing: go ahead with Leveson 2.

[Karen Bradley]

I am a little unsure about whether I have been damned with faint praise. I do not know that I will ever again hear such good words from the hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box.

I want to repeat the point I made in my statement: I have made this decision on the basis of the evidence. I take my quasi-judicial role very seriously. I have looked at the evidence before me and considered Ofcom’s response to the further evidence that we put to it, and that is why I have made this announcement. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the “fit and proper” duty that he mentioned is a duty on the independent regulator. It is a responsibility of Ofcom as an ongoing duty. It will not end at any point but will be there for Ofcom to continue to consider for any holder of a broadcasting licence.

On the matter of Leveson, I will shortly come to the House with the responses to the consultation about it that we have carried out. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps understand that this summer has been fairly busy, with the need to review significant amounts of evidence.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to join me in condemning the campaign that has been run by some very left-wing activists. Some people spent the summer walking around my constituency wearing masks with my face and carrying big electronic A-boards. They not only pursued me around town, but actually went and found my family, who live outside my constituency, and protested there. I am taking this decision on the basis of evidence, not of any campaign of intimidation and harassment, and I hope he will join me in condemning those activities.

[Tom Watson]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think there is a procedure for responding.

[Tom Watson]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

We do not normally take points of order in the middle of statements, but I am in a generous mood, and I will hear the hon. Gentleman if he is characteristically brief.

[Tom Watson]

I will be brief, Sir. I am very sorry to hear the allegations that the Secretary of State has made, and I promise her that I will go away and look at the evidence. If Labour party members are involved in this, we will deal with them. Let me say to her that I have been as sickened as she has been by the way in which our colleagues in this House have been targeted for doing their jobs. A heavier load is carried by our female colleagues, so let me make it clear: you can either be a misogynist or you can be a member of the Labour party, but you cannot be both. If she gives me the evidence, we will deal with this.

[Karen Bradley]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Fox-Sky Merger

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Mr Speaker, good morning to you. As this is the last day before the recess, I thank you and your staff for the welcome you have given my new colleagues who were elected in the general election.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I am grateful to her for returning to the House before the recess to update us on progress—even if there is not much progress to update us on. The last day of term is sometimes called “Take out the trash day”. Well, this appears to be “Keep the trash in the office day”. Nevertheless, this is one piece of Government indecision that we welcome. It is right that the Secretary of State has taken her quasi-judicial responsibilities seriously. She will be aware that, whatever decisions she makes, there is a strong possibility of judicial review by one side or the other. No doubt that has influenced her decision to tread carefully and slowly, and we respect her for that.

The lawyers at 21st Century Fox have already written a somewhat intimidating letter to the Secretary of State, trying to bounce her into a decision. We know that that aggression is the Murdochs’ modus operandi; we have been on the receiving end of it in this House, and we urge the Secretary of State to keep standing firm. In particular, there is absolutely no need for the Secretary of State to announce a decision during the summer recess. Parliament must have the opportunity to scrutinise any decision she makes. It is not her job to operate to 21st Century Fox’s corporate timetable; it has to abide by the parliamentary timetable. She should demonstrate to the company that she, as an elected representative of the people, is in charge, not 21st Century Fox.

Last time the Secretary of State came to this House, she said that she was minded to refer the bid to a phase 2 investigation on grounds of media plurality, as she said again this morning, but that she was not minded to refer on grounds of broadcasting standards. She then said that she had invited representations on both grounds by last Friday. It is right that a phase 2 investigation on media plurality grounds goes ahead, but the broadcasting standards investigation should go ahead too. Compelling arguments for that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). Does the Secretary of State agree that that is as distinguished a cross-party alliance as anyone can imagine? Does she also agree that it is absurd that Ofcom is currently refusing to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North so that he can share his concerns with it?

The truth is that the Murdochs have a history of regulatory non-compliance and of corporate governance failure, and that calls their commitment to broadcasting standards into serious question. Ofcom itself says that there are significant concerns about Fox’s approach to ensuring Fox News content compliance with the broadcasting code. We saw in the phone hacking scandal that senior employees and executives at News International failed to comply with the criminal law, with acceptable standards of journalistic conduct, and, frankly, with basic human decency. We see the ongoing sexual and racist harassment at Fox News in the United States, where very senior employees behaved appallingly over decades and nothing was done—evidence of what Ofcom calls “significant corporate failure”.

Of course, the best way to get to the bottom of this corporate failure would be to proceed with the inquiry that has already been promised and that is specifically intended to look into it—part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Will the Secretary of State undertake today to get on and just do it? I note that, although the Conservative manifesto promised not to go ahead with Leveson 2, a recent parliamentary answer to me indicated that the Government are still considering the consultation on it. I hope that this is another of the Prime Minister’s many dropped manifesto commitments. It is not too late for the Secretary of State to do the right thing, and if she does go ahead with Leveson 2, she will have our full support.

The influence of the Murdochs on this Government is still a matter of serious concern. Only this week, in a letter to me, the First Secretary of State refused to deny that Rupert Murdoch had asked the Prime Minister to put the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) back into the Cabinet. I expected the allegation to be denied. It was not denied. We will be drawing our own conclusions from that. I have consistently—persistently—asked the Secretary of State to publish the minutes of the meeting between the Prime Minister and Rupert Murdoch in the US in 2016. Will she commit to do that now?

The Secretary of State now has the opportunity to demonstrate that we live in a democracy, not a Murdochracy. Will she now undertake to prove who is in charge by not making any decision until the House returns in September?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions and I will attempt to address as many as I can in the time that we have; there were a number of questions there—I am sure he would agree.

I think it is worth my repeating that I am acting in a quasi-judicial basis under the Enterprise Act. We are also reflecting, in our behaviour as a Government, the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson in his part 1 report, where he was very clear about the way in which Government should operate in relation to media mergers. We have been cognisant of those recommendations throughout.

One of the things that I am required to do under the Enterprise Act is to act without undue delay, in the interests of all parties. That is why I am here today to say that nothing I have seen so far has changed my mind, but I am going to look at all the representations that I have received, which are in the tens of thousands. Many of them are identical, I have to say, but they all need to be looked at, and I will do so in order to see what evidence they provide.

I was also clear that the Ofcom report on the commitment to broadcasting standards test was clear. It was unequivocal. There were no grounds on which I could refer. I am therefore looking at whether new, substantive evidence comes to light following my statement. I will ensure that I consider all the representations. However, in the interests of all parties, I will have to make sufficiently speedy progress in making a decision to ensure that we can deal with these matters in line with the Enterprise Act. That may mean I have to make a decision before Parliament returns, which is why I am in the Chamber today being as open and transparent as I can be. I want to ensure that I am as clear as I can be with Parliament and with colleagues about the situation.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), whose letter I had sight of this morning. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman has asked for a meeting with Ofcom to discuss its report on the fit and proper test, and I am surprised that Ofcom is not able to meet him to do so. The fit and proper test is not part of what I have to look at—the test under the Enterprise Act is different: it is about the commitment to broadcasting standards, not the fit and proper test. Ofcom has to undertake an assessment of whether a company is fit and proper on an ongoing basis. I am surprised that it is not willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman and other parliamentarians, but I am sure it will have heard my comments on that matter in the House.

All Ministers’ meetings with journalists are minuted—sorry; recorded—and the meetings that they have had are in the public domain.

I will be as open and as transparent as I possibly can be, which is why I am in the Chamber today. I had hoped it would be possible to announce a firmer decision today, but the quantity and volume of the representations received mean that that simply has not been possible.