Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

The King is, of course, greatly enamoured of both wildlife and London zoo, and I am therefore delighted that he has given King’s consent to the Bill, but the actual royal patron—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is chuntering from a sedentary position. I will take an intervention from him if he will be good enough to make one.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is really a sort of point of order. I do not think it appropriate for anyone presenting a piece of legislation to claim the monarch’s support or otherwise. That is not what royal confirmation means.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously we want to ensure that we proceed effectively and properly, and I take his point and will adapt my remarks accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on bringing the Bill to this stage. Hopefully it will pass today and make its way through to become law. It is yet another private Member’s Bill that he has successfully shepherded through the House; I will have to get some tips from him on how to follow his lead and come higher in the ballot.

I recognise the important role that the Zoological Society of London plays as an international conservation charity. It restores wildlife in the UK and around the world, saves animals threatened with extinction, protects species and ecosystems, and conducts a lot of research internationally with partners. It also plays a fundamental role in inspiring the next generation of conservationists, which is obviously key.

We are here to talk about the impact that the Bill could have on the zoo, and that brings us to the animals. In January, the annual stocktake took place at London zoo, which is no mean feat, given that it is home to over 300 different species, from the endangered Galapagos giant tortoises—we heard about tortoises in an earlier debate—and Asiatic lions, to critically endangered Chinese giant salamanders and Sumatran tigers. It is very good news that three Asiatic lion cubs were born only a few weeks ago. That is a major boost to conservation, given that there are only around 600 to 700 such lions living in the wild. People will be reassured that the annual stocktake, which involves checking how many animals there are and that they are still in the zoo, is part of the licence requirements to which the zoo is subject in order to ensure public protection.

The kernel of this Bill is about safeguarding the future of ZSL and its important work. The society has been very clear about the effect of the current lease’s limitations, particularly on its ability to fundraise and create new partnerships that will enable it to enhance its work, including the support programmes that are available and the great community programmes that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East talked about, such as discretionary access and cheaper tickets for local people to come to the zoo and see what is on offer. The benefits that a longer lease would offer have also been set out by the society. As we consider extending the lease, it is obviously important that we capture those benefits and then hold the society to account on delivering them, should it be granted the lease.

At its core, it is about having the world’s first campus for nature, with a centre of research and innovation that is dedicated to protecting biodiversity and strengthening nature, but it is also about enhancing technology. I came across Matthew Gould when he was head of NHSX, where he did a lot of work in developing apps and technology in the NHS. Bringing that knowledge and insight to the zoo in order to have more immersive experiences would be highly commendable.

The zoo is also looking at accessibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East talked about the offers to local communities, but this is a world institution. It is one of the most visited attractions in the country, and I want my constituents in North West Norfolk, including children and people with special needs, to be able to benefit from such offers. There are obviously travel costs involved, but coming to see such a great facility is invaluable for them.

As it happens, my first date with my wife was at London zoo.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

You animal.

[James Wild]

Check out my surname. We had a lovely time, and obviously it paid off. My wife and I were at the zoo a few weeks ago with one of her friends and her young twins, and its ability to inspire is incredible. I watched those two little girls run off to look at the animals, and it was great. When my wife and I went on our first date, which was some time ago, we were a bit concerned about the state of the facilities. Some of the cages had signs to assure visitors that the animals were not in distress, even though they may have been pacing backwards and forwards. There was an urgent need for modernisation, and when I went back a few weeks ago I noted that some of the enclosures had been improved. I am thinking in particular of the penguin area, which is now a great facility and one of my favourite parts of the zoo.

A few Members have spoken about Guy the gorilla. I understand that his tooth decay was caused by him being fed sweets by people visiting the zoo, so it is very important that only zookeepers should feed the animals. It is important to get that on the record.

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting observation.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I bet Guy could get a dentist!

[James Wild]

From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman mentions dentistry. I could talk about the need for more dentists and dental vans in North West Norfolk, but that would obviously be beyond the scope of this debate—I will not encourage you to stand up to make me be quiet, Mr Deputy Speaker.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) has pointed out, this is an enabling power; there is no guarantee of an extension, with that coming back to the plans put forward by the ZSL to convince people that it is deserving of this extension. It will be held to account and so it will be able to go off to raise the funds to enhance this world-class facility.

To conclude, having opened in 1826, the zoo will soon be celebrating 200 years. This important Bill will help to ensure that it continues to play the crucial role it has had since then in protecting animals by providing better enclosures and better facilities for them, and ensuring that vital research continues, while remaining a leading visitor attraction where people can come to learn more about our wonderful world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I concur.

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for introducing this Bill on the ZSL and the maximum lease term that may be granted to it, which has now reached its concluding stages in the Commons. I also wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for casting his beady, expert eye over the Bill and for not moving his amendment, which led to a degree of shock and perhaps even gentle chaos. That should be seen as a tribute to his fearsome reputation for ruthless and relentless scrutiny. I would like to see that mantle of scrutiny taken up by my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). It was good to hear her particular expertise, as a former Environment Secretary. I thank them for their scrutiny of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

That surely has to be one of the best interventions on record. I apologise, but I must correct the record: I should have pronounced Guy the gorilla lyrically, like my hon. Friend.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

That is going in Hansard.

[Julia Lopez]

That is true. As we have heard, Guy the gorilla would at first respond only to French, having spent the six months preceding his arrival in a Parisian zoo. His statue remains much loved by the zoo’s visitors. We have heard about Goldie the eagle, but I add to this collection my admiration for Ricky the rockhopper penguin, whom I met when I was keeper for the day. I now find myself heading to google the quagga, which I had not heard of before. The touching account of the life of Jumbo the elephant brought a solitary tear to my eye. That was quickly wiped away by the tales from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk of how the wild animals of London zoo lit inside his heart his inner wild animal.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport recognises the immense value that the Zoological Society of London has within London and the nation at large and wishes to support all initiatives to ensure it has a strong future. Throughout its 195-year history, London zoo has solidified its reputation as an important and unique part of our capital’s heritage, culture and tourism offer. It is the capital’s 10th most-visited attraction and contributes more than £24 million annually to the local economy and more than £54 million to the national economy. It is also the world’s oldest scientific zoo, operating since 1828, and a world-leading force in wildlife conservation and biodiversity.

Charles Darwin, with his significant contributions to our understanding of science, became a fellow of the Zoological Society of London in 1839. During his time at London zoo, he studied the behaviour of animals and developed his revolutionary theories. Today, Darwin’s history is safeguarded in London zoo’s library, and the zoo also safeguards the pangolin, on which there has been extensive debate. The issue is close to my heart, as my niece and nephew held a successful pangolin bake sale when they were most in the news. They are, as we have discussed, the world’s most trafficked animal. Just to clarify for Members, that is because of their value as bush meat and as a delicacy, and their scales are used in traditional medicine and their skins are used for boots and belts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this important area. I can tell him that the commissioners have had meetings with Departments and with the children’s commissioner to work alongside Government to strengthen family relationships, parenting and marriage. The Church itself wants to play a more active role in this crucial area and is producing new resources to help parishes do so. I am sure he will know that, in his own constituency, St Andrew’s Church is already exemplifying much of this good work under the excellent leadership of the Reverend Tom Houston, who trained as a youth worker prior to ordination.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Same-sex couples are able to show love and be a good family as well, so why will the Church of England not recognise same-sex marriage?

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Member will know that this is an issue with which the General Synod continues to be involved through the living in love and faith process. We are working through these issues and the Church will have heard very clearly what he has said, and I can assure him that that work is being taken forward.

Budget Resolutions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). I was also entertained by the speech by the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), partly because, as ever, he had some good lines, but mostly because in a very long and indignant speech excoriating the Budget, he tried hard to disguise the fact that on its central proposal—the cut in national insurance—he and the Labour party will be in support of it, so I felt that some of that indignation may have been a touch performative.

I am happy to observe that the Chancellor has passed his first test. I often feel that Chancellors, like doctors, should start with the old medical rubric, “first do no harm”. That may seem a low bar, but we have all seen Budgets that failed to get over it. This one has, and for that we should all be grateful. Indeed, I go much further than that slightly grudging praise, because I am generally very positive about the measures in the Budget. There are one or two elements that I wish had been added to the Chancellor’s statement, but in general I praise him for his navigational skills in some choppy waters.

The evidence is there from the OBR that the economy is turning a corner. It makes the point that inflation has receded more quickly than it expected, which strengthens near-term growth prospects and should enable a faster recovery in living standards. Many people in this country have experienced a tough few years, but we can see the path to recovery and we are taking the first steps along it. And not just in the short term. The IMF is forecasting that we will have the highest growth of the big European economies over the next five years, including Germany and France. It is important to recognise that when so many people have a vested interest in rushing around and claiming we are all doomed.

In an era when political and economic debate has become partisan or borderline hysterical, it is time to be calm and realistic. The UK economy will start growing again in 2024. The inflation rate will come down to reasonable levels, and interest rates should fall. As a result, businesses will be more inclined to invest, and consumers more inclined to spend. That is all good for the economy, the day-to-day life of millions of families, and the general wellbeing of our society.

In the run-up to the Budget, in a spirit of helpfulness, I published an article with my hon. Friends the Members for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), which set out what such an approach would mean in practice. Our main taxation ask as one nation Conservatives was that any tax cuts be aimed at ordinary, hard-working people. I am glad that the Chancellor took the same view and concentrated the cuts on national insurance. Our other, more long-term ask was that we should set out on the road of simplifying the tax system, with the ultimate aim of taxing all income at the same rate, regardless of its source—be it earnings, benefits or dividends. That will, of course, be a very long journey, but there is an indication that the Chancellor is thinking about that; the idea to eventually remove the separate income tax that we call national insurance is a good indication that the direction of travel is correct.

It has taken many decades for the tax system to become as absurdly complicated as it is, so it will take years, if not decades, to make it significantly better. Moving in that direction is really important. A streamlined regime would have the dual benefit of reducing red tape and incentives to avoid tax. Such a regime would be demonstrably fairer and more progressive, and would reduce in-work poverty. Nigel Lawson used to have the admirable aim of abolishing a tax in every Budget. It will take some time before the public finances are in a shape to allow that to happen again, but even small steps in the right direction are a good sign.

I welcome one specific package of measures, namely the help for the creative industries set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the start of the debate. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been assiduous in trying to persuade the Treasury to recognise the economic importance of the creative industries, on top of their obvious cultural significance, and I am glad that the Chancellor was listening.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge that there has been cross-party support for the tax reliefs across the years. They were originally introduced by the Labour party and were expanded by the Government. Contrary to what the Minister said earlier, there has never been a vote on any of the individual tax reliefs.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I am glad that this is another Budget measure on which there can be cross-party consensus. That feeds into my general point that there are things that the Government are doing that should receive support from the Opposition Benches. The day after so much British success at the Oscars is the right time to welcome measures that will help to maintain the extraordinary success of this country in making films and high-end TV programmes that are seen around the world. That success, which will no doubt be helped by the extensions to tax relief announced in the Budget, has meant full production schedules in many studios around the country. I declare a constituency interest, because in Ashford we are in the early stages of building a new studio complex, helped by levelling-up funds. I want the industry to thrive in years to come, when those studios are occupied.

I also declare a cultural interest, because I want British independent films, as well as Hollywood blockbusters and series, made for streaming services. The enhanced tax credit for British independent films with a budget of under £15 million hits exactly the spot in the market that film-makers told the Committee is in need of help. That well-aimed subsidy will, I hope, ensure future successes along the lines of that enjoyed recently by “One Life”.

As I said, I am overwhelmingly positive about the Budget, but I wish to enter two caveats about issues that I hope can be addressed in future Budget. The first is about helping rural communities that want to decarbonise their heating. Four million people live in oil-heated homes in rural communities, and are off the gas grid. They want to do their bit for the environment, but they are disincentivised from adopting renewable liquid fuels. Those fuels have lower carbon emissions, but are taxed, while fossil-fuel heating oil is not. Scrapping the tax on renewable liquid fuels in the Budget would have reduced their cost and made them a viable alternative to fossil fuels; I hope that in future Budgets, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will look to do that.

My second caveat is about the vexed issue of tax-free shopping. The abolition of VAT-free shopping, when other big EU countries allow it, clearly sets the UK at a disadvantage. The Treasury has argued that VAT-free shopping would cost the Exchequer billions of pounds, but other economists argue that the knock-on effects of greater tourism would more than make up for that. I hope that discussions continue about which set of economists is right, so that we can move to a more rational system that helps our tourism industry.

Putting aside those caveats, we should be grateful to the Chancellor for producing a sensible, pragmatic and positive Budget. The economy is recovering. It does not need shock treatment, and it certainly does not need the unfunded commitments made by Labour Members, even when they are trying so hard not to succumb to their basic impulses to tax and spend. The economy needs a continued steady hand to nurture the recovery, and under this Chancellor, I am confident that it will continue to improve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly support the measures in the Budget to help the creative industries, but I simply say to the Government that it does not work without guaranteeing a creative education for every child in all our schools; it does not work if kids in the Rhondda do not get an equal opportunity to think of a job in the creative industries, along with anybody else in this country; and it simply does not work if Ministers constantly deride creative industry and humanities degrees—we cannot have one thing without the other.

There are things that I feel desperately sad about; there is nothing in the Budget for the people of the Rhondda. Most of the changes to taxation and to child benefits will benefit people who earn far, far more than the average in the Rhondda. I am sorry but I have to say to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) that it is the Conservative party that is taxing more; it is giving with one hand and taking twice as much away with the other. It takes a particular skill to have the highest tax take for 70 years, rising every year of the Chancellor’s forecast, and the biggest fall in living standards and the prospect of swingeing cuts in public services still to come.

I want to talk about growth, because it has been anaemic for all 14 years the Conservatives have been in charge. If we want growth, first we have to take the whole nation with us. Failing to level up simply is not an option, which is why I feel so angry about the preposterous levelling-up process used by this Government. They made levelling up a competition between local authorities. Worse, they made the poorest local authorities in the land, which are already strapped for cash, compete with one another for tiny scraps of cash. The Government side-stepped any proper assessment of need, in many cases intentionally ignoring deprivation indices when considering where cash should go. Thus, the Prime Minister’s wealthy constituency gets £19 million, and last week £242 million of levelling-up funds went to Canary Wharf. The Government doled out cash to constituencies on the notorious Tory MPs at risk register, with £10 million here and £5 million there. It is shameless, it is degrading for MPs and it is utterly corrupt.

Fewer than one in five projects granted levelling-up cash through the Tories’ towns fund have been completed, even though the whole point was that these had to be shovel- ready projects that could be completed by the end of the relevant financial year; that works out at only 154 of 973 projects.

That takes me on to the Rhondda tunnel, as at least four Cabinet Ministers and more than a dozen junior Ministers have told me to put in a levelling-up bid for it. But every time I meet a Minister to discuss it, they get moved. Sometimes they get moved before I get to meet them. Sometimes I wonder whether they get moved because I am going to meet them. First we were told we could bid in round 2, but then we were told we could not. We were then told, “What about round 3?” Then we were told there was not going to be a round 3 because the Government had already allocated the cash to, guess what, Conservative constituencies. Then I was told that we should put together a special, bespoke bid of our own. Last week, I was told by a Minister that they had

“given up on levelling up.”

That is basically the message we have got. This is no way to run a whelk stall.

Secondly, we cannot achieve growth in the UK economy unless we have a fully functioning NHS. A significant number of the nearly 8 million people on the waiting list—it was 4.8 million before covid—are desperate to get back to work, but they are waiting for the surgery or treatment that makes that possible. Let me give the House an instance of that. In 2021, I was asked by the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid), the then Health Secretary, to co-chair a programme board to set a national strategy for acquired brain injury. I know that officials have tried their best, but, yet again, the Ministers have kept on changing—I am now on my fourth—and every deadline gets pushed back. So we still do not have a national strategy. If we could get proper neurorehabilitation for everyone who has a brain injury in the UK—about 1.4 million people—we could give more people with brain injury back a real quality of life and we could get more people with brain injuries into work, earning money rather than relying on the state. Sadly, the Department tells me there is not even money to pay for establishing how many people are living with a brain injury, let alone putting together a impactful strategy. That is a false economy in the end.

Thirdly, growth in our country depends on national infrastructure that works. Every time a train is cancelled or delayed, someone wastes another couple of hours and our economy becomes just a little bit less productive. How on earth did the country that invented the telephone, the television and the worldwide web end up spending millions of pounds every year on legacy IT systems just to keep the show on the road? Why is it only now that the Government are putting money into digitising the NHS properly? Why is wi-fi on our trains so completely hopeless? Why can the French do it better than us? Why have vast tracts of our country been trapped in mobile phone notspots? It is a shameful legacy, but that is the legacy of this Government. The right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) says the voters should just judge them on their record. Yes, I suspect that people will; in the words written on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast,

“thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am sorry, but the Government’s answer to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was a load of hot air that could have been written by ChatGPT, except ChatGPT would have done a better job of it. The truth of the matter is that the Government’s flagship on AI as it relates to creative industries, which is meant to be protecting the moral and economic rights of artists, musicians, and authors, while at the same time recognising the important advances that AI can bring, has sunk. Last June, the Secretary of State said that if the code of practice was not achieved, legislation could be considered. So, in the words of Paul Simon, when is she going to make a new plan, Stan?

[Lucy Frazer]

I would just point out that the Labour party has said absolutely nothing in relation to what it would do, so to stand up here and say that we have no plan is absolutely unacceptable. I can be absolutely clear that we do have a plan. We have worked very hard with the sectors. We have already set out in our White Paper the steps that we are taking on a very important aspect in relation to transparency. I will continue to work with the sector on all these areas to ensure that this extremely complex matter comes to a satisfactory conclusion for the creative industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner when it comes to the issue of football regulation, and it was good for me—

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

She didn’t say that.

[Stuart Andrew]

Do you know, I was told that the hon. Gentleman is a difficult man to ignore, but it is always worth trying.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Try harder!

[Stuart Andrew]

I am, don’t you worry.

Copper Wire Telecoms

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is always a delight to see you in your seat, Mr Mundell, chairing our proceedings with such grace and elegance. It is a great delight to commend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on getting this debate today. We have campaigned together on many issues over the years, not least on the death penalty around the world. I am always a bit worried about his constituency, because there seem to be so many murders in Shetland of late. I am sure it is good that the BBC is making so much programming in Shetland, but honestly, virtually everybody on the peninsula must have been subject to murder, involved in a murder, or interviewed by the police at some point—I do realise it is fictional.

[Mr Carmichael]

This is not known and not admitted, Mr Mundell. [Laughter.]

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Plea noted.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman made some very good points and I will come on to them in a moment.

It is good to have the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) here with us, who made some very important points. She referred to the debate tomorrow on the potential merger between Vodafone and Three. I will also not be there, because I shall be at Glenys Kinnock’s funeral. The Minister will have a different shadow tomorrow; my place will be taken admirably by another Chris from the shadow Front Bench, also from south Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). I somewhat disagree with the points that the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal made, but anyway, those will be elucidated tomorrow.

It was good to hear from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who referred to notspots, which I think she said covered 13% of her constituency, and the fact that 3% of people in the UK have no 4G signal. We are also 51st in the world for 5G signal. We are all aware that there are quite a lot of issues in terms of mobile and internet connectivity that apply to large sections of the United Kingdom. Somehow, we have not really managed to seize this with the energy that some other countries have managed.

[Carol Monaghan]

I apologise to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), because I meant to mention her point about mobile signals indoors. I think any of us who have tried to have a mobile phone call on the parliamentary estate will know that mobile signals indoors are temperamental at least. Older buildings can be difficult, because of the thickness of the walls. Modern buildings can make it difficult for mobile signals too, because of the amount of steel on the outside of them. Having a mobile signal outside does not necessarily mean there is a mobile signal inside.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I will come on to that point about the difference between inside and outside, which certainly applies to homes in the Rhondda. The point was also made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) was saying that the signal on the parliamentary estate was temperamental or that the MPs were—maybe it is a bit of both. The hon. Lady made other good points about the potential for criminality. This is not a point that I have heard elsewhere. The Minister may want to refer to it later.

One of the biggest problems with this debate is that the vast majority of people in this country would have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. In fact, I would guess that of the 650 MPs, barely 10% would know what we are talking about. That is a potential problem, because if the public does not know what we are talking about, there is a danger for other people to exploit that lack of understanding and knowledge. Several Members have referred to the fact that this is primarily an industry-led, rather than Government-led, project. They are quite right, but the Government have a significant responsibility in this area. Towards the end of my speech, I will come on to a few things that I think the Government may want to look at.

There are real, legitimate concerns. PSTN—if 650 MPs were asked to say what that acronym stood for, my guess is that we would be lucky if 10 of them knew the answer—stands for public switched telephone network, and I only know that because I am reading it out.

The complete lack of public understanding of the issue is significant. The industry is extremely diverse, with roughly 650 providers in England alone, let alone the rest of the UK. As has already been referred to, BT has decided to delay its digital voice roll-out, and instead of a national roll-out by the end of December 2025 there will be a region-by-region roll-out, which adds a degree of complexity to any kind of national understanding of this issue. Indeed, I would argue that there is even less clarity about what is happening now than there was back in 2022.

As has already been said, some devices rely on PSTN. Security alarms are one. I would guess that quite a few MPs have security alarms. I wonder how many of those alarms are reliant on PSTN; I have no idea.

[Helen Morgan]

I will just highlight that point by drawing on personal experience. New security alarms do not rely on the copper network, for that reason, but they are reliant on a mobile signal, so if there is no mobile signal, they will not work.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Indeed. That is a point I will come on to again later.

The hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to telecare devices, with 1.7 million people in the UK relying on them. I am not quite sure what percentage of those devices are still on PSTN, but I would guess that it is a pretty high. One of the problems that plagues the debates on this issue is that we do not have reliable data and statistics, so the Government should try to ensure that we do.

A significant number of traffic lights rely on PSTN. There was a time in Russia when people in the Russian Federation thought that a red light meant that they should drive very fast, which was a bit of a problem. Then there was a problem because all the traffic lights in Russia went off at 10 o’clock at night, which led to other problems. I do not know whether the British Government know how many British traffic lights rely on PSTN, but maybe the Minister will be able to enlighten us later.

Then there is closed circuit television, or CCTV. There is a wide variety of different systems of CCTV up and down the country. Many of those systems will now have transitioned, but some have not.

I feel very old-fashioned in saying this, but fax machines are another thing. I saw a fax machine a couple of weeks ago in a hospital, and it is extraordinary that some of our public institutions still rely on fax machines because other forms of data interoperability simply do not exist.

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) made it a mission to get rid of fax machines from the NHS, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that fax is still the single most secure way to communicate information, partly because of its ancient technology.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Indeed. However, I would argue that relying on legacy systems is dangerous for our public institutions, because we have to pay a lot of money to keep and maintain them, and they do not have a great deal of resilience. Of course we also know that if someone sends a handwritten letter, that may be more reliable than some other forms of communication. Anyway, the point is well made that we still have fax machines. Therefore, there is a wide variety of areas where we need to take cognisance of the impending danger if we go too fast down the route that we are discussing this morning.

Ofcom has also identified a series of different vulnerabilities—people who are more vulnerable than others in relation to age, disability, physical and mental health, and income. One of my biggest concerns as shadow Minister with responsibility for digital is that 18% of poorer homes in the UK have no internet to home at all—18%. That is a problem for levelling up; it is a problem when it comes to diversifying the economy; it is a problem in rural areas; it is a problem in inner-city areas; and there are problems in relation to buildings where it is difficult to get wayleaves. A whole series of issues combine to create a real, long-term problem for some of the most vulnerable families in the country. Some 7% of Welsh adults have no internet to home at all, so relying on VoIP to deliver emergency services with PSTN gone is problematic.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has faced emergency situations in various storms, and I think this debate partly stems from that experience. Of course, the law requires phone services to take all necessary measures to ensure uninterrupted access to emergency organisations, including during a power cut. That remains the case for VoIP services, which is why Ofcom provided guidance in 2018 on how service providers should do that. Virgin Media, for instance, will provide an emergency back-up line that relies on a battery-operated box in such circumstances. However, the way that all the service providers in the UK are meeting that responsibility remains unclear, which is why Ofcom started a monitoring programme in July 2022. It would be good to hear from Ofcom on how well that is proceeding.

In May 2022, the Electronic Communications Resilience and Response Group published a post-incident report after the storms in 2021-22. It was rather, I would say, blasé. It seemed to suggest that we could now cope better and that there would be greater resilience in future, but I think the points already made by several Members were very well made. In December 2022, Ofcom produced its “Connected Nations” report, which similarly suggested that we had learnt a lot of lessons from the storms, but I am not convinced that we are in a strong enough place.

I fully accept that, as a couple of hon. Members have said, there are significant advantages to transitioning. First, the copper wire is not going to last forever. Secondly, there is an affordability issue for the for the operators—keeping two systems going is more expensive. I would like every home in the land to have at least a superfast broadband connection. We were aware during covid in particular that many children were unable to do their homework because they basically relied on a mobile phone for their internet connection, and I do not think that will really work for the future.

Other countries have been much more assertive, aggressive and determined to transition. The Netherlands and Estonia have completed the process. Singapore completed it in 2020. Japan will complete it by next year. Spain had already done 80% by 2020, and Portugal had done 60% by 2020. By contrast, the UK managed only 2% by 2020. We are laggards in this. I am not going to excoriate the Minister for being slow and tardy—I see he is waggling his head in a sort of Eeyore way—but I am going to make this point to him: Estonia took three years to do it. Estonia is a much smaller country, so perhaps it was simpler to do it there. The Netherlands took 15 years. One could argue that we are going too fast to be able to ensure that we have met all the problems.

What should we do? First, I think we should pause this process now. We should take stock. The right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal made the good point that we should learn lessons from other countries. We should find out how Estonia managed to do it in three years, how Singapore managed to do it by 2020, and what resilience programming they have. How do they make sure that, if there is a power cut—in particular, one that lasts more than a couple of hours—how do they make sure that people are safe and protected? I do not want that pause to be endless; six months is enough, but I think we should take stock and the Government should come back to us with a clear plan of how we can move forward.

Secondly, we need to identify vulnerable customers and communities, because this does not play out equally in every part of the country. Thirdly—this point has been made by several hon. Members—we really need to improve mobile connectivity. I repeated that point at least 20 times as an MP, but in the words of Browning:

“Hark, the dominant’s persistence till it must be answered to!”

Ofcom says there is full connectivity in the town of Porth where I live in the Rhondda, both indoors and outdoors. That is a complete and utter fiction; I cannot get a mobile signal inside my house, other than through VoIP, and that is not just the case in my house, but in nearly every other house in Porth. Ofcom needs to go back to the drawing board and start again on providing accurate information on mobile connectivity.

We must also do more on enabling shared networks and shared masts. It took us far too long to get the electronic communications code through, and I understand that it still has not been fully implemented, though maybe the Government will be able to update us on that. I worry that it does not quite do the trick for enabling mobile connectivity in the rural areas we are talking about. In the Rhondda, sheep can be seen from virtually every house if one looks carefully enough, so we feel rural; though it is quite a dense community mostly living in the valley floor. We in the valleys community share with many other rural areas across the whole country the same anxieties about being able to develop economically, socially and culturally, and to take part in the full opportunities that a digital world offers when we cannot have reliable mobile connectivity.

Since I might not see you again in the Chair before Christmas, Mr Mundell, I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Thank you, that is gratefully received. I call the Minister, and remind him that we want to leave a few minutes at the end for Mr Carmichael to wind up.

[The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I share the pleasure of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), in seeing you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. Let me start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate on a very important issue, and I am grateful to all those who have contributed and made some important points. The debate has ranged far and wide; we have encompassed the subject of the debate taking place this afternoon in this place, and indeed the debate in the Chamber tomorrow afternoon. This has been a good rehearsal of some of the issues.

This country is on a journey towards a digital economy. The Government have set an ambition that we should be one of the most technologically advanced economies in the world, and we are transitioning very rapidly away from the old analogue past through the roll-out of gigabit broadband. Indeed, I suspect that this afternoon the Government will be pressed to go further on that. We are making real progress, and we will report the latest figures for Project Gigabit on Friday morning. I was delighted to visit the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) not long ago, when we peered into a broadband cabinet in Orford.

As we move towards the most modern technology, we leave behind the infrastructure of the past, which includes the eventual closure of the analogue telephone network. The Opposition spokesman pointed out that it is perhaps not universally known as the PSTN, but it is a term that people will become more familiar with. It represents ageing technology—the first automated exchange was invented in the late 19th century, and the analogue network as we know it has existed since the 1980s. It has done a great job for us, but it is not fit for purpose today. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain: spare parts are difficult to find, the number of outages is increasing and the engineers who work on it are retiring. Not moving away from that to a more modern, resilient network would in itself create risk. The question is how we accomplish the change in a way that is secure, efficient and protects those who still rely on the PSTN network for connectivity. It is vital for Government, industry and Ofcom to work together to make sure the transition is achieved successfully.

As has been recognised by several speakers, the process was decided and initiated by the telecoms industry. The Government did not ask it to do so, nor have they determined the timelines or parameters for the switch-off. However, as the hon. Member for Rhondda points out, the Government have a responsibility to ensure the protection of all citizens, so they and Ofcom are working together to monitor the progress of the migration.

We have a particular interest in the groups in society who rely on their landline the most and might find it difficult to migrate to a new technology. They will include elderly citizens, people with mental or physical impairments or those who suffer from other vulnerabilities. We looked for very strong assurances that the needs of those people would be recognised and protected during any migration that took place.

Despite the assurances that we were given by communications operators, we have recently become aware of serious incidents of telecare users finding that their devices have failed when trying to activate them. That is completely unacceptable. The safety of vulnerable people has to be our top priority. As soon as we learned of those incidents, the Secretary of State and I met the relevant communication provider and requested that it carry out an urgent investigation to identify all vulnerable customers and make sure that their devices are fully operable.

In addition, we have asked the companies to pause forced migrations from PSTN networks and have asked Ofcom what more it can do to monitor the migration process. We have invited all communications providers to attend a roundtable tomorrow to ask them to sign up to a charter of commitments to protect vulnerable consumers through the transition. That will cover the need to protect vulnerable consumers—particularly telecare users—as well as the need to go further than Ofcom guidance on power resilience for the most vulnerable consumers and to agree a cross-sector definition of vulnerability.

I have also had meetings in the last 24 hours with Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to discuss what more can be done to protect vulnerable consumers and to facilitate data sharing between local authorities, telecoms firms and telecare providers so that we can locate every single one of the people reliant on those devices.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The Minister might want to speak to the devolved Administrations as well, because many of those responsibilities are devolved.

Broadband: Rural Communities

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is universally acknowledged that you are the snappiest dresser in the House, Mr Dowd, so it is great to see you in your place here today. I feel very odd—in the past few weeks, I have been to both the cinema and the theatre with the Minister and I am now in a debate with him for the second time today. There is to be another debate today, though I cannot be there. I do feel as if I am spending more time with the Minister than is good for my marriage. I do not think he will break with any precedent by answering any questions today, but we will try.

I commend the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on securing this debate. This is the second time we have debated this precise issue, but it is important to keep on fighting the battle. He may have caught the Minister and me smiling or laughing a bit because the hon. Gentleman referred to Ofcom and network coverage issues and both I am the Minister made the same point during the earlier debate—that, quite often, Ofcom’s version of reality is so different from the experience of ordinary people that it really is time that Ofcom and the providers looked much more carefully at how they present what they purport to be evidence of coverage.

Likewise, the Minister will no doubt say—he announced it this morning—that he is putting the PSTN switchover on pause, which is a good idea. He referred to several other matters where the Government are taking action because there are very legitimate concerns about how the switchover will affect the provision of quite a lot of services. Indeed, following this morning’s debate, the Minister will be delighted to know that I have tabled questions to ask him how many traffic lights in the UK depend on PSTN. I look forward to hearing his answers.

The hon. Member for West Dorset referred to Stoke Abbott, which was thus described in 1906:

“as pretty a village as any in Dorset.”

I was delighted to be in Bridport a few weeks ago with his predecessor, Oliver Letwin, who has a slightly different view of the present Government from him, I think.

It is always good to have the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We missed him this morning; I believe he was at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. He made an important point about livestock: most farmers must have some kind of digital connectivity simply to do their job. They cannot pretend to be Gabriel Oak and Bathsheba Everdene from “Far from the Madding Crowd”; to make a living in agriculture, one must have a modern farm.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) is absolutely doughty on these issues. I feel as if I have lived in her kitchen now, because this is the second time I have heard the stories about her hubs and her platelets or whatever it is that she had to have installed. She was determined to find some positive news, but mostly came out with negative news. There are real problems for anyone who wants to be able to deliver. As she herself said, no one will lay fibre 5 miles down a lane to a single house, so other options must be available. She referred to satellite. Obviously, we want to see much greater technical innovation in this field so that no one is left out.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) complained about the Government’s lackadaisical attitude. I have heard him make some of his speech before, but there is no danger in repetition—that is the only way one ever gets anything done in politics, so I commend him for that.

The hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) is a wonderful swimmer, as I know because I recruited her to the parliamentary swimming team, and she had a list of people who had been kind of given preferential treatment. If someone in a community needs to have more than superfast broadband in order to do their job but the whole community does not get the same, that can be a problem.

[Mrs Drummond]

Let me just qualify that: only two public servants, who I did not mention, got fast broadband. The ones I mentioned did not get fast broadband. I was explaining that they were equally important. I did not mention the ones who got fast broadband for obvious reasons—I think they are quite embarrassed about getting fast broadband before their neighbours. There are huge numbers of very important people who also need it.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

If I got anything faster than anyone else on my street, I think my neighbours would lynch me.

[Dave Doogan]

It would be a good excuse.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

No, it is not a good excuse and that is not a very good argument to make.

I concur with the point made by the hon. Member for Meon Valley about the head of Openreach. It is important that major corporations, which broadly speaking have not far off a monopoly position in the UK, respond to Members of Parliament as swiftly and directly as possible and do not simply pass the buck. The hon. Lady also made a very good point about the need for better co-operation between all the different operators in this field, because now, with all the “old-nets”—I fully support competition within the market—there is a danger, which I will discuss a little later, that if there is not co-operation there will be a complete and utter muddle.

I think I have heard some of the speech by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) before, too, and again I commend him for repetition; it is not something ever to complain about in politics. He made two really important points. The first was that being isolated is a dangerous place to be in the modern world. If we think about an elderly person who relies on mobile connectivity to connect to her relatives, who might be on the other side of the world, or to healthcare providers, that is evident, and the point is extremely well made. He also made a point about hill farmers. Funnily enough, when I had a farm in the Rhondda, which was on a hill, I had the best connectivity I have ever had, but that was purely and simply because the mast was almost immediately opposite my house.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) made a very important point about Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or DVLA services no longer being available in post offices. Soon, my constituency will no longer have a bank at all—no bank whatsoever. Of course lots of people are using digital banking services today, but sometimes it is necessary for someone to go physically to a bank, to prove their identity and so on. Banks will need to go a considerable further distance to make some things available online that currently people cannot do online; because of the distances involved in travelling in rural areas, the present situation is simply problematic. However, even if that happens, people need full access to a broadband connection; otherwise, they are simply unable to continue their business.

I think that Vintage Ghetto is the hon. Lady’s business, or perhaps one of her businesses; I do not know. Vintage Ghetto has some very fine things online, if anybody wants to go shopping before Christmas. However, I simply note that it will be difficult for people to pursue that kind of business, which many people in rural areas now do, without having a really strong broadband connection.

Finally, there was the contribution by the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan). I would have laid a bet that he would refer to what the Scottish Government have done and condemn the Westminster Government for not doing what the Scottish Government have done. I could point out that the Welsh Government have often intervened in the same way in Wales to address some of the problems that we have in rural areas. However, the truth is that we need a whole-UK answer to all these issues, and I will give some of the reasons why in a moment.

Broadband is not just important in rural areas but absolutely vital—for building or growing a business; for running a farm or, for that matter, diversifying an agricultural business, for instance by allowing tourism; for doing homework or, for that matter, doing university study; for providing healthcare and local services; and, frankly, for growing up, by allowing children to talk to their friends online, play a video game or download a film.

Members have talked a lot about the haves and the have-nots in this field. Members may not be aware that the phrase “haves and have-nots” originally comes from “Don Quixote”. It is when Sancho Panza says:

“There are two kinds of people in this world, my grandmother used to say—the haves and the have-nots. And she stuck to the haves. And today, Señor Don Quixote, people are more interested in having than in knowing. An ass covered with gold makes a better impression than a horse with a packsaddle.”

I quote that extract because one of my concerns about the way that we are developing in relation to broadband and digital connectivity in this country is that we get a bit too focused on the “having” rather than on the “using”. Indeed, my biggest concern as an MP who represents one of the poorest constituencies not only in the UK but in Europe, is the affordability issue.

I have raised this issue in a previous debate and I know that the Minister has similar concerns. There are social tariffs. They are almost unknown to most of the people who might be able to take them up. One local council—maybe several councils now, but certainly Sunderland City Council wrote to everybody in its area about social tariffs. The council had the information on who qualifies for universal credit and who therefore qualifies for a social tariff, so it wrote to everybody concerned and that drove up the take-up of social tariffs. However, when 18% of poorer homes in the country—in my patch, I suspect the percentage is even higher—do not have any internet to home at all, even when superfast broadband or gigabit capability is available, that is going to be a long-term problem for levelling up, for all the reasons that the hon. Member for West Dorset gave earlier. It is not levelling up if people simply cannot afford to take something up.

Secondly, as several Members have said, many people are not taking up better connectivity, either because it is too expensive or because they simply do not understand what the benefit might be to them. When we and the industry bang on about gigabit-capable, megabits per second, superfast or fast broadband and all the rest of it, that is not a sell to an ordinary household. People want to know what they will be able to do that they could not do previously and therefore why they need it. There is a real marketing problem across the whole of the UK that we need to address if we really are to drive up take-up, otherwise the danger is that all the companies will be making massive investments but getting no return. That is when the whole situation may get into trouble.

I worry about the exclusion of certain areas and categories of people. I have asked the Minister this before and I ask him again: how are we doing on new contracts for Project Gigabit? When I asked him the last time we met, he said that more were going to be let in the next few months. It would be interesting to know precisely how that is going.

My other concern is this: competition is a really good thing, but not if it turns every street into the wild west. In just the last few weeks, in my own patch—particularly in Tonypandy, CF40—lots of different companies have been digging up the roads again and again. People are sick of it. It is happening not just in Kingston upon Hull but in lots of different places in the country. I worry that the system, through Ofcom’s powers, is not strong enough to ensure that there is proper co-operation. One complaint I had said:

“You will have seen road closures without relevant permissions being granted, poor reinstatement of pavements, mud-laden streets, poor communications with residents and tardy workmanship.”

I am fully in favour of companies such as Ogi rolling out gigabit-capable broadband in my patch, but I also want to see rational co-operation between the different organisations.

Finally, the Minister will know that the Government’s digital strategy is now more than a decade old. In fact, the online version has references to websites and programmes that no longer exist, so I think it is time for a new Government digital strategy. After the Government responded to the House of Lords digital exclusion report, Baroness Stowell, who is a Conservative Member of the House of Lords, said that the failure to come up with a new Government digital strategy

“suggests a reluctance to dedicate political attention and departmental resource to this matter”,

and the Communications and Digital Committee in the House of Lords said:

“The Government’s contention that digital exclusion is a priority is not credible.”

I therefore hope that the Government will announce today that they will start consultation on a new Government digital strategy.

I will end with some questions. I have asked these questions before, but the Minister did not answer them. Have I run out of time?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

indicates assent.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I have run out of time. I asked them last time: perhaps the Minister will answer them this time.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, particularly the opening part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I shall endeavour not to delay the House for too much longer, because I am aware that debates are backing up—like a queue of buses or something.

I want to address one or two points that other Members raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) raised a particular issue in her constituency. Again, 72.7% are currently able to receive gigabit broadband in her constituency. A small number of premises are definitely lacking both decent broadband and mobile coverage, and obviously they will be our priority. We will take away the point she raised about Trooli, and BDUK will be in touch with her, once it has looked into that.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has indeed raised that particular issue before, and I will endeavour to ensure that we get specific answers for him. Equally, a small number of premises in the constituency of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke)—again, a constituency I know very well—are also currently outside. The vast majority in each of these cases will, we hope, be covered by either the commercial sector or Project Gigabit, although there will still be some hardest-to-reach premises, for which we will look at the alternatives.

I want to touch on the position in Scotland, to respond to the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan)—who I do not think is back with us yet—and put it on the record that, while R100 is administered by the Scottish Government, Project Gigabit, although funded from the UK Government, is delivered through the Scottish Government. It has taken longer than we would have liked. However, I am in touch with my opposite number in the Scottish Government and can tell the House that, of the £5 billion that the Government are putting into Project Gigabit, an estimated £450 million is to go to the Scottish Government, and we currently have a market engagement exercise under way.

Hon. Members have also rightly touched on the importance of mobile coverage and the efforts made to extend 4G coverage. As the hon. Member for Rhondda observed, the complaint that has been heard—that Ofcom’s estimate of the existing extent of mobile coverage does not match people’s actual experience—is one that we are very much aware of. We have raised it with Ofcom, and we very much wish to improve the accuracy of the existing statistics.

The hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Opposition, raised three issues, on which I agree with him completely. I would like to make it clear that we are disappointed that the take-up of social tariffs has not been greater, and we are working particularly with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to try to draw attention to their availability.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

One thing that I have suggested to Ministers in that Department is that DWP could simply include a reference to social tariffs in any letter to anyone in receipt of universal credit or any other benefits.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I think that is a perfectly sensible suggestion. Indeed, it is one that I hope the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), might already be pursuing; if not, I will draw it to her attention.

The wider issue of take-up is terribly important because, to get expressions of interest and bids from the out-net to obtain contracts under Project Gigabit will depend on being able to attract customers to take that up when it becomes available, and we are looking at other ways in which we can promote take-up.

Finally, the hon. Member for Rhondda raised an issue that features quite a lot in my postbag, which is telegraph poles. I understand the frustration of people who may have existing broadband suppliers but then see another competitor wishing to install telegraph poles. We are talking to Ofcom and local authorities about that. I hope that I have managed to address most of the points raised. It is always a pleasure debating the hon. Gentleman. I suspect this will be the last time I shall do so in my present capacity—

[Sir Chris Bryant]

No!

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am very touched. That is because my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) will be returning after Christmas.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Draft Data Protection (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 General Committees

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a great delight to sit under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. You and I have many things in common, not least our determination to see that fewer people suffer from melanoma and that more get the proper treatment that they deserve. I know that has been a long-standing campaign of yours.

First, I will just correct the Minister. He mentioned these regulations being subject to the agreement of the Committee today. There is no such thing as the agreement of the Committee today, because even if every single member of the Committee voted that we disagreed with the motion, it would go through none the less as all it does is ask whether the Committee has “considered” the regulations. On a minor point, this is one of my arguments regarding the problems with Henry VIII powers and the extensive use of secondary legislation, all of which is unamendable.

To get back to the bit where I agree with the Minister, these regulations do indeed amend the existing UK data protection regime so that references in relation to data controllers and Ministers, and to “fundamental rights and freedoms”, pertain to the European convention on human rights—enshrined by the Human Rights Act 1988—as opposed to the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. This may of course feel like a great deal of dancing upon the head of a pin, in that we are changing one European Court for another—I am sure that has been a very useful waste of British legislative time over these years. As the Minister says, the Government are making this change under section 14 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, which allows the Government to revoke secondary retained EU law and replace it with such provisions as they consider appropriate.

I do have a few questions. Paragraph 2.2 of the explanatory memorandum refers to

“an alternative source of fundamental rights and freedoms, namely those under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which have been enshrined in the UK’s domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998.”

The regulations themselves, however, refer directly only to the Human Rights Act, thereby making me worry as to the true intentions of the Government in relation to the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Why is there a difference between what is in the memorandum and what is in the regulations?

Secondly, can we presume from this that the Government—as the Minister’s helpful, mischievous friend at the back, the hon. Member for Amber Valley, pointed out earlier—have no plans to leave the European convention on human rights? I know the Minister has been a very outspoken critic of Russia and of Belarus. I am sure he would personally hate for the UK to be joining a small group of Belarus and Russia as the countries that have left the European convention. Or should we presume that the Government do intend to resile from the convention? That seems to be the implication of the difference between the memorandum and the regulations.

What further amendment to the data protection regime would be necessary if we were to leave the European convention on human rights? The Minister said that we would have to convene again. Is that right, or would we simply be able to rely on the Human Rights Act 1998 as it stands?

The next set of questions relate to the fact that we are changing essentially from one Court to another. The ECHR has often taken a much more permissive approach than the European Court of Justice to mass surveillance by Governments and other organisations. Is this an attempt from the Government to move to a situation where they are intending to extend mass surveillance of, for instance, bank accounts, including the bank accounts of people with state pensions in the UK, as was agreed to by hon. Members last week in the debate on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill? Have the Government made an assessment of the difference between the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice towards such mass surveillance issues?

Under the Human Rights Act, UK courts will obviously be adhering to their understanding of what the European Court of Human Rights has held on these views, particularly in relation to the two key human rights of privacy and freedom of expression—articles 8 and 10. The truth, however, is that the UK courts will only effectively keep pace with the European Court of Human Rights. They will not recognise rights in contexts where the case law has not yet been developed. What analysis have the Government done of the case law, which might therefore be applied by UK courts in interpreting the Human Rights Act?

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend referred a moment ago to the enormous new power that the Government put into their legislation last week that will allow them to look into the bank accounts of anyone claiming a state pension. In last week’s debate, he said that the House of Commons Library had confirmed that that is indeed the implication of the amendment that was agreed, and the Library has also confirmed that to me today. However, journalists speaking to the Department for Work and Pensions were told that that is not what that amendment does. Does my hon. Friend have an update on whether the Government are in fact taking that power for themselves?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am afraid I am unable to update my right hon. Friend—he is updating me—but perhaps the Minister will be able to update us. I know that he is not a Department for Work and Pensions Minister but none the less it is his Bill that is going off to the House of Lords now. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham knows, we have significant concerns about the extent of the power the Government are taking and the set of circumstances in which they would want to use it. I have a sneaking worry that these regulations are aimed at helping them to take more substantive power and a bigger step, but perhaps the Minister will relieve my anguished breast on these matters.

My final question concerns the UK’s data adequacy, because it is obviously in the interests of UK businesses to have stability and certainty about where data protection law is going and that we have full data adequacy not only with the United States of America, which has been arranged through the new bridge agreement that we supported, but with the EU. I think the Minister agrees, notwithstanding the points he made about Brexit freedoms and all that stuff.

The EU made the decision to grant UK data adequacy in June 2021 for a period of four years, after which it will be renewed only if the European Commission considers that the UK continues to ensure an adequate level of data protection. What assessment have the Government made of how the regulations will impact on a future decision by the European Commission on data adequacy? For instance, if the Human Rights Act embraced the kinds of decisions previously made by the European Court of Human Rights and allowed a much more permissive approach than the European Court of Justice towards mass surveillance, that could thrust us into a situation where UK courts effectively allowed far more generous mass surveillance by Government and other organisations than the EU would allow. Would that not threaten the UK’s data adequacy arrangements? Nevertheless, despite those points, we are broadly happy to support the measure and I am sure that the Minister will want to reassure me.

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Bill be re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

First, I wish to briefly refer to the death yesterday morning of my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Rhondda, Allan Rogers. I know that many Members found him a good colleague to work with, and I believe that he spent many hours on the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. I sometimes think that the people who do such Bills on behalf of all of us deserve a medal. I am sure the whole House sends its best regards and deepest condolences to his family.

Our core job as Members of Parliament is the scrutiny of legislation, teasing out whether a proposal will do what it says, whether it is necessary and proportionate, and whether it has public support. The Government have had total control of the Order Paper since 1902, so we can do that job properly only if the Government get their act together and play ball. That is what enables the line-by-line consideration of the laws that bind us. It is what makes us a functioning democracy. We need to send the Bill back to Committee because we simply cannot do that job properly today.

Let us recall how we got here. A first version of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill was introduced by the previous Member for Mid Bedfordshire on 18 July 2022. It was such a mess that it never even made it to Second Reading. Nadine Dorries was sacked in September last year, and six months later the Bill was sacked as well, to be replaced by a new and improved No. 2 Bill, which had its Second Reading on 17 April and completed its Committee stage on 24 May. That was 190 days ago.

I do not know what has prompted all the delay. Was it the general chaos in Government? Perhaps the Government do not fully understand the term “with immediate effect”. I like the Minister, and I have known and worked with him on many different issues for many years. I had a meeting with him and his officials on Thursday 16 November. He told me then that on Report the Government would table only a few minor and technical amendments to the Bill, which he hoped everyone would be able to agree fairly easily.

On the last available day, 182 days after Committee, the Government brought out 240 amendments. Some are indeed minor and technical, but many are very significant. They strike to the heart of the independence of the new Information Commission, they alter the rights of the public in making subject access requests, and they amend our system in a way that may or may not enhance our data adequacy with the US and the European Union and therefore British businesses’ ability to rely on UK legislation to trade overseas. In some instances, they give very extensive new powers to Ministers, and they introduce completely new topics that have never been previously mooted, debated or scrutinised by Parliament in relation to this Bill, which already has more baubles on it than the proverbial Christmas tree. The end result is that we have 156 pages of amendments to consider today in a single debate.

Yes, we could have tabled amendments to the Government amendments, but they would not have been selectable, and we would not have been able to vote on them. So the way the Government have acted, whether knowingly, recklessly or incompetently, means that the Commons cannot carry out line-by-line consideration of what will amount to more than 90 pages of new laws, 38 new clauses and two new schedules, one of which is 19 pages long. Some measures will barely get a minute’s consideration today. That is not scrutiny; it is a blank cheque.

Yesterday, I made a generous offer to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who is sitting on the Front Bench and whom I also like. We recognise that some of the issues need to be addressed, so we said: “Recommit the Bill so we can help you get this right in the Commons, and we will commit to have it out of Committee in a fortnight. It could go to the Lords with all parties’ support by Christmas.”

Let me repeat: this is no way to scrutinise a Bill, particularly one that gives the Government sweeping powers and limits the rights of our fellow citizens, the public. Sadly, it is part of a growing trend, but “legislate at speed, repent at leisure” should not be our motto. Some will say something that is commonly said these days: “Let it go through to the Lords so they can amend it.” But I am sick of abdicating responsibility for getting legislation right. It is our responsibility. We should not send Bills through that are, at best, half-considered. We are the elected representatives. We cannot just pass the parcel to the Lords. We need to do our job properly. We cannot do that today without recommitting the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

We are making changes to the way that counter-terrorism policing can retain biometrics shared via Interpol. It will now be able to retain biometric data in national security-related cases for as long as the relevant Interpol notice remains in force, rather than needing to submit a national security determination, which can present significant operational challenges for counter-terrorism policing. That will bring the UK into line with the rules under which all Interpol members retain and use those same biometrics. Our amendment was requested and is welcomed by counter-terrorism policing, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the Office of the Biometrics Commissioner and the security services, and I thank them for their co-operation on this aspect of the Bill.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Broadly speaking, we support this measure. What negotiations and discussions has the Minister had about red notices under Interpol and the abuse of them, for instance by the Russian state? We have concerns about decent people being maltreated by the Russian state through the use of red notices. Are those concerns conflicted by the measure that the Government are introducing?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I strongly share his view about the need to act against abuse of legal procedures by the Russian state. As he will appreciate, this aspect of the Bill emanated from the Home Office. However, I have no doubt that my colleagues in the Home Office will have heard the perfectly valid point he makes. I hope that they will be able to provide him with further information about it, and I will draw the matter to their attention.

I wish to say just a few more words about the biometric material received from our international partners, as a tool in protecting the public from harm. Sometimes, counter-terrorism police receive biometrics from international partners with identifiable information. Under current laws, they are not allowed to retain these biometrics unless they were taken in the past three years. That can make it harder for our counter-terrorism police to carry out their job effectively. That is why we are making changes to allow the police to take proactive steps to pseudonymise biometric data received from international partners—obviously, that means holding the material without including information that identifies the person—and hold indefinitely under existing provisions in the Counter-Terrorism Act information that identifies the person it relates to. Again, those changes have been requested by counter-terrorism police and will support them to better protect the British public.

The national underground asset register, or NUAR, is a digital map that will improve both the efficiency and safety of underground works, by providing secure access to privately and publicly owned location data about the pipes and cables beneath our feet. This will underpin the Government’s priority to get the economy growing by expediting projects such as new roads, new houses and broadband roll-out—the hon. Gentleman and I also share a considerable interest in that.

The NUAR will bring together valuable data from more than 700 public and private sector organisations about the location of underground utilities assets. This will deliver £490 million per year of economic growth, through increased efficiency, reduced asset strikes and reduced disruptions for citizens and businesses. Once operational, the running of the register will be funded by those who benefit most. The Government’s amendments include powers to, through regulations, levy charges on apparatus owners and request relevant information. The introduction of reasonable charges payable by those who benefit from the service, rather than the taxpayer, will ensure that the NUAR is a sustainable service for the future. Other amendments will ensure that there is the ability to realise the full potential of this data for other high-value uses, while respecting the rights of asset owners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The purpose of the proposed new schedule is narrowly focused. It will ensure that where benefit claimants may also have considerable financial assets, that is flagged with the DWP for further examination, but it does not allow people to go through the contents of people’s bank accounts. It is an alarm system where financial institutions that hold accounts of benefit claimants can match those against financial assets, so where it appears fraud might be taking place, they can refer that to the Department.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

But it does include the state pension, doesn’t it?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am surprised that the Opposition regard this as something to question. Obviously, they are entitled to seek further information, but I would hope that they share the wish to identify where fraud is taking place and take action against it. This is about claimants of benefits, including universal credit—

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Pensions?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The state pension will not currently be an area of focus for the use of these powers.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The House of Commons Library makes it absolutely clear that the Bill, if taken forward in the way that the Government are proposing at the moment, does allow the Government to look at people in receipt of state pensions. That is the case, is it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

As I am feeling generous, I shall start with the nice bits where we agree with the Government. First, we completely agree with the changes to the Information Commissioner’s Office, strengthening the ICO’s enforcement powers, restructuring the ICO and providing a clearer framework of objectives. As the Minister knows, we have always been keen to strengthen the independence of the ICO and we were concerned that the Government were taking new interventionist powers—that is quite a theme in this Bill—in clause 33, so we welcome Government amendment 45, which achieves a much better balance between democratic oversight and ICO independence, so we thank the Minister for that.

Labour also welcomes part 2 of the Bill, as amended in Committee, establishing a digital verification framework. My concern, however, is that the Government have underestimated the sheer technicality of such an endeavour, hence the last-minute requirement for tens of Government amendments to this part of the Bill, which I note the Minister keeps on referring to as being very technical and therefore best to be debated in another place at another time with officials present. Under Government amendment 52, for example, different rules will be established for different digital verification services, and I am not quite sure whether that will stand the test of the House of Lords.

We warmly welcome and support part 3 of the Bill, which has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and the Minister, and its provisions on smart data. Indeed, we and many industry specialists have been urging the Government to go much faster in this particular area. The potential for introducing smart data schemes is vast, empowering consumers to make financial decisions that better suit them, enabling innovation and delivering better products and services. Most notably, that has already happened in relation to financial services. Many people will not know that that is what they are using when they use a software that is accessing several different bank accounts, but that is what they are doing.

In the autumn statement, the Government pledged to kickstart a smart data big bang. One area where smart data has been most effective is in open finance—it is right that we expand these provisions into new areas to have a greater social impact—but, to quote the Financial Conduct Authority, it should be implemented there

“in a proportionate phased manner, ideally driven by consideration of credible consumer propositions and use-cases.”

Furthermore, the FCA does not think that a big bang approach to open finance is feasible or desirable. Nevertheless, many of the Government amendments to the suite of smart data provisions are technical, and indicate a move in the right direction. In particular, we hope that, with smart data enabling greater access by consumers to information about green options and net zero, we will be able to help the whole of the UK to move towards net zero.

I want to say a few words on part 4, on cookies and nuisance calls. We share a lot of the Government’s intentions on tackling those issues and the births and deaths register. As a former registrar, I would like to see tombstoning—the process of fraudulently adopting for oneself the name of a child who has died—brought to an end. That practice is enabled partly because the deaths register does not actually register the death of an individual named on the births register, which I hope will at some point be possible.

Despite the Government’s having sat on the Bill for almost 18 months, with extensive consultations, drafts, amendments and carry-over motions, there are still big practical holes in these measures that need to be addressed. Labour supports the Government’s ambitions to tackle nuisance calls, which are a blight on people’s lives—we all know that. However, I fear that clause 89, which establishes a duty to notify the ICO of unlawful direct marketing, will make little or no difference without the addition of Labour amendments 7 and 8, which would implement those obligations on electronic communications companies when the guidance from the ICO on their practical application has been clearly established. As the Bill stands, that is little more than wishful thinking.

Unfortunately, the story is the same on tackling cookies. We have a bunch of half-baked measures that simply do not deliver as the public will expect them to and the Government would like them to. We all support reducing cookie fatigue; I am sure that every hon. Member happily clicks “Accept all” whenever cookies comes up—[Interruption.] Well, some Members are much more assiduous than I am in that regard. But the wise Members of the House know perfectly well that the problem is that it undermines the whole purpose of cookies. We all support tackling it because clicking a new cookie banner every time we load a web page is a waste of everybody’s time and is deeply annoying.

However, the Government’s proposed regulation 6B gives the Secretary of State a blank cheque to make provisions as they see fit, without proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is why we are unhappy with it and have tabled amendment 6, which would remove those powers from the Bill as they are simply not ready to enter the statute book. Yet again I make the point that the Bill repeatedly and regularly gives new powers to the Secretary of State. Sure, they would be implemented by secondary legislation—but as we all know, secondary legislation is unamendable and therefore subject to much less scrutiny. These are areas in which the state is taking significant powers over the public and private individuals.

Let me deal with some of the Labour party’s amendments. First, I take subject access requests. The Government have repeatedly been in the wrong place on those, I am afraid, ever since the introduction of the first iteration of the DPDI Bill under Nadine Dorries, when they tried to charge people for access to their own data. Fortunately, that has now gone the way of Nadine Dorries. [Interruption.] I note that the Minister smiled at that point. We still have concerns about the Government’s plans to change the thresholds for refusing subject access requests from “manifestly unfounded or excessive” to “vexatious or excessive”. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, Reset, the TUC and Which? have all outlined their opposition to the change, which threatens to hollow out what the Government themselves admit is a “critical transparency mechanism”.

We have tabled two simple amendments. Amendment 2 would establish an obligation on any data controller refusing a subject access request to provide evidence of why a request has been considered vexatious or excessive. Organisations should not be allowed to just declare that a request is vexatious or excessive and so ascribe a motive to the data subject in order to refuse to provide their data, perhaps simply because of the inconvenience to the organisation.

The Government will try to tell me that safeguards are in place and that the data subject can make appropriate complaints to the organisation and the ICO if they believe that their request has been wrongly refused. But if we take the provisions set out in clause 9 to extend the time limits on subject access requests, add the advantage for companies of dither and delay when considering procedural complaints, and then add the additional burden on a data subject of having to seek out the ICO and produce evidence and an explanation of their request as well as the alleged misapplication of the vexatious or excessive standard, we see that people could easily be waiting years and years before having the right to access their own data. I cannot believe that, in the end, that is in the interests of good government or that it is really what the Government want.

Despite public opposition to the measures, the Government are also now going further by introducing at this stage amendments that further water down subject access request protections. Government new clauses 7 and 9, which the Minister did not refer to—in fact, he only mentioned, I think, a bare tenth of the amendments he wants us to agree this afternoon—limit a data subject’s entitlement to their own data to the controller’s ability to conduct a “reasonable and proportionate” search. But what is reasonable and proportionate? Who determines what has been a reasonable and proportionate search? The new clauses drive a coach and horses through the rights of people to access their own data and to know who is doing what with their information. That is why Labour does not support the changes.

I come to one of the most important issues for us: high-risk processing, which, as the term suggests, is of most concern when it comes to the rights of individuals. I was pleased but perplexed to see that the Government tabled amendments to new clause 30 that added further clarity about the changed provisions to record keeping for the purposes of high-risk processing. I was pleased because it is right that safeguards should be in place when data processing is deemed to be of high risk, but I was perplexed because the Government do not define high-risk processing in the Bill—in fact, they have removed the existing standard for high-risk processing from existing GDPR, thereby leaving a legislative lacuna for the ICO to fill in. That should not be up to the ICO. I know that the ICO himself thinks that it should not be up to him, but a matter for primary legislation.

Our amendment 1 retains a statutory definition of high-risk processing as recommended by the ICO in his response to the Bill, published in May. He said:

“the detail in Article 35 (3) was a helpful and clear legislative backstop.”

That is why he supports what we are suggesting. Our amendment 4 would also clarify those individual rights even further, by again providing the necessary definition of what constitutes high risk, within the new provisions concerning the responsibilities of senior responsible individuals for data processing set out in clause 15.

I turn to automated decision making, which has the potential to deliver increasingly personalised and efficient services, to increase productivity, and to reduce administrative hurdles. While most of the world is making it harder to make decisions exclusively using ADM, clause 12 in the Bill extends the potential for automated decision making in the UK. Yet countless research projects have shown that automated decision making and machine decision making are not as impartial or blind as they sound. Algorithms can harbour and enhance inbuilt prejudices and injustices. Of course we cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the technology will not be implemented or that we can legislate it out of use; we should be smart about ADM and try to unlock its potential while mitigating its potential dangers. Where people’s livelihoods are at risk or where decisions are going to have a significant impact, it is essential that extra protections are in place allowing individuals to contest decisions and secure human review as a fundamental backstop.

Our amendment 5 strikes a better balance by extending the safeguarding provisions to include significant decisions that are based both partly and solely on automated processing; I am very hopeful that the Government will accept our amendment. That means greater safeguards for anybody subject to an automated decision-making process, however that decision is made. It cannot just be a matter of “the computer says no.”

I think the Minister is slightly surprised that we are concerned about democratic engagement, but I will explain. The Bill introduces several changes to electoral practices under the guise of what the Government call “democratic engagement”, most notably through clauses 86 and 87. The former means that any political party or elected representative could engage in direct marketing relying on a soft opt-in procedure, while clause 87 allows the Secretary of State to make any future exemptions and changes to direct marketing rules for the very unspecified purposes of “democratic engagement”.

The Ada Lovelace Institute and the Internet Advertising Bureau have raised concerns about that, and in Committee Labour asked the Minister what the Government had in mind. He rather gave the game away when he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), to whom I pay tribute for the way she took the Bill through the Committee:

“A future government may want to encourage democratic engagement in the run up to an election by temporarily ‘switching off’ some of the direct marketing rules.”

Switching off the rules ahead of an election—does anyone else smell a rat?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

He does not—great.

Finally, new schedule 1 would grant the Secretary of State the power to require banks or other financial institutions to provide the bank account data—unspecified—of any recipient of benefits to identify

“cases which merit further consideration to establish whether relevant benefits are being paid or have been paid in accordance with the enactments and rules of law relating to those benefits.”

It is a very broad and, I would argue, poorly delineated power. My understanding from the Commons Library, although I note that the Minister was unable to answer the question properly, is that it includes the bank accounts of anyone in the UK in receipt, or having been in receipt, of state pension, universal credit, working tax credit, child tax credit, child benefit, pension credit, jobseeker’s allowance or personal independence payment.

The Minister says that the Government do not intend to go down some of those routes at the moment, but why, in that case, are they seeking that power? They could have come to us with a much more tightly written piece of legislation, and we would have been able to help them draft it properly. The proposed new schedule would mean that millions of bank accounts could be trawled without the Department for Work and Pensions, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) referred to, even suspecting anything untoward before it asked for the information. The 19-page new schedule, which was tabled on the last day for consideration, would grant powers to the Government without our having any opportunity to scrutinise it line by line, assess its implications or hear evidence from expert witnesses.

We should of course be tackling fraud. The Government have completely lost control of fraud in recent years, with benefit fraud and error skyrocketing to £8.3 billion in the last financial year. The Minister seemed to think that it was a good thing that he could cite that figure. The year before, it was even higher—a record £8.7 billion. On the Conservative party’s watch, the percentage of benefit expenditure lost to fraud has more than trebled since Labour was last in power.

Let me be absolutely clear: Labour will pursue the fraudsters, the conmen and the claimants who try to take money from the public purse fraudulently or illegally. That includes those who have defrauded the taxpayer over personal protective equipment contracts, or have not declared their full income to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. My constituents in the Rhondda know that defrauding the taxpayer is one of the worst forms of theft. It is theft from all of us. It undermines confidence in the system that so many rely on. It angers people when they abide by the rules and they see others swinging the lead and getting away with it.

I back 100% any attempt to tackle fraud in the system, and we will work with the Government to get the legislation right, but this is not the way to do it, because it is not proper scrutiny. The Minister with responsibility for this matter, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who is present in the Chamber, is not even speaking in the debate. The Government are asking us to take a lot on trust, as we saw from the questions put earlier to the Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure, so I have some more questions for him that I hope he will be able to answer.

As I understand it, the Government did a test project on this in 2017—all of six years ago—so what on earth have they been doing all this while? When was the new schedule first drafted, and why did the Minister not mention it in the discussions that he and I had two weeks ago? How many bank accounts does it potentially apply to? The Government already have powers to seek bank details where they suspect fraud, so precisely how will the new power be used? I have been told that the Government will not use the power until 2027. Is that right? If so, how on earth did they come to the figure of a £600 million saving—that was the figure that they gave yesterday, but I note that the Minister said £500 million earlier—in the first five years?

What will the cost be to the banks and financial institutions? What kind of information will the Government seek? Will it include details of where people have shopped, banked or travelled, or what they have spent their money on? The Government say that they will introduce a set of criteria specifying the power. When will that be introduced, how wide in scope will it be, what assessments will accompany it, and will it be subject to parliamentary scrutiny?

There is clearly significant potential to use data to identify fraud and error. That is something that Labour is determined to do, but it is vital that new measures are used fairly and proportionately. The Department for Work and Pensions says that its ability to test for unfair impacts across protected characteristics is limited, and the National Audit Office has also warned that machine learning risks bias towards certain vulnerable people or groups with protected characteristics. Without proper safeguards in place, the changes could have significant adverse effects on the most vulnerable people in society.

On behalf of the whole Labour party, I reiterate the offer that I made to the Government yesterday. We need to get this right. We will work with Ministers to get it right, and I very much hope that we can organise meetings after today, if the Bill passes, to ensure that the debates in the Lords are well informed and that we get to a much better understanding of what the Government intend and how we can get this right. If we get it wrong, we will undermine trust in the whole data system and in Government.

Broadly speaking, Labour supports the changes in the Bill that give greater clarity and flexibility to researchers, tech platforms and public service providers, with common-sense changes to data protection where it is overly rigid, but the Government do not need to water down essential protections for data subjects to do that. Our amendments set out clearly where we diverge from the Government and how Labour would do things differently.

By maintaining subject access request protections, establishing a definition of high-risk processing on the face of the Bill, and defending the public from automated decision making that encroaches too significantly on people’s lives, a Bill with Labour’s amendments would unlock the new potential for data that improves public services, protects workers from data power imbalances and delivers cutting-edge scientific research, while also building trust for consumers and citizens. That is the data protection regime the UK needs and that is the protection a Labour Government would have delivered.

[Mr David Davis]

Before I speak to my new clause, I want to address one or two of the things that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), just raised. By not accepting his motion to recommit the Bill to a Committee, we have in effect delegated large parts of the work on this important Bill to the House of Lords. I say directly to the Whip on the Treasury Bench that, when the Bill comes back to the Commons in ping-pong, I recommend that the Whips Office allows considerable time for us to debate the changes that the Lords makes. At the end of the day, this House is responsible to our constituents and these issues will have a direct impact on them, so we ought to have a strong say over what is done with respect to this Bill.

New clause 43 in my name is entitled “Right to use non-digital verification services”. Digitisation has had tremendous benefits for society. Administrative tasks that once took weeks or even years can now be done in seconds, thanks to technology, but that technology has come with considerable risks as well as problems of access. The internet is an equaliser in many ways; I can access websites and services in East Yorkshire in the same way that we do here. I can send and receive money, contact friends and family, organise families, do work, and do all sorts of other things that we could not once do.

However, the reality is more nuanced. Some people lack the technological literacy or simply the hardware to get online and make the most of what is out there—think of elderly people, the homeless and those living on the breadline. As with many things, those groups risk being left behind by the onward march of technology through no fault of their own. Indeed, some people do not want to go fully online. Many people who are perfectly au fait with the latest gadgets are none the less deeply concerned about the security of their data, and who can blame them?

My bank account has been accessed from Israel in the past. My online emails have been broken into during political battles of one sort or another. These things are risky. I hope nobody in the Chamber has forgotten the Edward Snowden revelations about the National Security Agency and GCHQ, which revealed a vast network of covert surveillance and data gathering by Government agencies from ordinary online activity, and the sharing of private information without consent. More recently, we have heard how Government agencies monitored people’s social media posts during the pandemic, and data trading by private companies is an enormous and lucrative industry.

What is more, as time passes and the rise of artificial intelligence takes hold, the ability to make use of central databases is becoming formidable. It is beyond imagination, so people are properly cautious about what data they share and how they share it. For some people—this is where the issue is directly relevant to this Bill—that caution will mean avoiding the use of digital identity verification, and for others that digital verification is simply inaccessible. The Bill therefore creates two serious problems by its underlying assumptions.

Already it is becoming extremely difficult for people to live anything approaching a normal life if they are not fully wired into the online network. If they cannot even verify who they are without that access, what are they supposed to do? That is why I want to create a right to offline verification and, in effect, offline identification. We saw earlier this year what can happen when someone is excluded from basic services, with the planned closure of Nigel Farage’s bank account. That case was not related to identification, but it made clear how much of an impact such exclusion can have on someone’s life. Those who cannot or do not wish to verify their identity digitally could end up in the same position as Farage and many others who have seen their access to banking restricted for unfair reasons.

The rise of online banking, although a great convenience for many, must not mean certain others being left out. We are talking about fairly fundamental rights here. Those people who, by inclination or otherwise, find it preferable or easier to stick to old-fashioned ways must not be excluded from society. My amendment would require that all services requiring identity verification offer a non-digital alternative, ensuring that everyone, regardless of who they are, will have the same access.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the six amendments that I have tabled to the Bill. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting amendment 11, which I will press to a vote. It is an extremely important amendment that I hope will unite Members across the House, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for confirming his party’s support for it.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I add mine and that of the Labour party, too.

[Kate Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that.

I have been contacted by many people and organisations about issues with the Bill. The British Medical Association and the National AIDS Trust have serious concerns, which I share, about the sharing of healthcare data and the failure to consider the negative impact of losing public trust in how the healthcare system manages data.

The Bill is an opportunity to adapt the UK’s data laws to strengthen accountability and data processing, but it currently fails to do so. It provides multiple Henry VIII powers that will enable future Secretaries of State to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and write their own rules. It undermines the independence of the Information Commissioner’s Office in a way that provides less protection to individuals and gives more power to the Government to restrict and interfere with the role of the commissioner.

The Government’s last-minute amendments to their own Bill, to change the rules on direct marketing in elections and give themselves extensive access to the bank accounts of benefit claimants, risk alienating people even further. I hope the House tells Ministers that it is entirely improper—in fact, it is completely unacceptable—for the Government to make those amendments, which require full parliamentary scrutiny, at this late stage.

We know people already do not trust the Government with NHS health data. The Bill must not erode public trust even more. We have seen concerns about data with GP surgeries and the recent decision to award Palantir the contract for the NHS’s federated data platform. A 2019 YouGov survey showed that only 30% of people trust the Government to use data about them ethically. I imagine that figure is much lower now. How do the Government plan to establish trust with the millions of people on pension credit, state pension, universal credit, child benefit and others whose bank accounts—millions of bank accounts—they will be able to access under the Bill? As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) and others have asked, legislative powers already exist where benefit fraud is suspected, so why is the amendment necessary?

My amendment 11 seeks to ensure that special category data, such as that relating to a person’s health, is adequately protected in workplace settings. As the Bill is currently worded, it could allow employers to share an employee’s personal data within their organisation without a justifiable reason. The health data of all workers will be at risk if the amendment falls. We must ensure that employees’ personal data, including health data, is adequately protected in workplace settings and not shared with individuals who do not need to process it.

The National AIDS Trust is concerned that the Bill’s current wording could mean that people’s HIV status can be shared without their consent in the workplace, using the justification that it is “necessary for administrative purposes”. That could put people living with HIV at risk of harassment and discrimination in the workplace. The sharing of individuals’ HIV status can lead to people living with HIV experiencing further discrimination and increase their risk of harassment or even violence.

I am concerned about the removal of checks on the police processing of an individual’s personal data. We must have such checks. The House has heard of previous incidents involving people living with HIV whose HIV status was shared without their consent by police officers, both internally within their police station and in the wider communities they serve. Ensuring that police officers must justify why they have accessed an individual’s personal data is vital for evidence in cases of police misconduct, including where a person’s HIV status is shared inappropriately by the police or when not relevant to an investigation into criminal activity.

The Bill is not robust enough on the transfer of data internationally. We need to ensure that there is a mandated annual review of the data protection test for each country so that the data protection regime is secure, and that people’s personal data, such as their LGBTQ+ identity or HIV status, will not be shared inappropriately. LGBTQ+ identities are criminalised in many countries, and the transfer of personal data to those countries could put an individual, their partner or their family members at real risk of harm.

I have tabled six amendments, which would clarify what an “administrative purpose” is when organisations process employees’ personal data; retain the duty on police forces to justify why they have accessed an individual’s personal data; ensure that third countries’ data protection tests are reviewed annually; and ensure that the Secretary of State seeks the views of the Information Commissioner when assessing other countries’ suitability for the international transfer of data. I urge all Members to vote for amendment 11, and I urge the Government and the other place to take on board all the points raised in today’s debate and in amendments 12 to 16 in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

covering “seven sectors”. That is wonderful—absolutely super—but I ask, “Which seven sectors, and when?” If the Minister is able to clarify that, or at the very least say when the Government are going to publish the timetable naming the sectors and the dates on which each sector will be ready, he will be doing international investors in our country and our existing successful, world-leading organisations—

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on this, but quite a lot of steps need to be taken here. For instance, we might need to mandate standards on smart meters in order to be able to take advantage of these measures. We have not been given any kind of plans so far—unless he has seen something.

[John Penrose]

I wish I had seen something, because then I would be able to pull my amendment or inform the House. I have not seen something, and I think such a plan is essential, not just for Members in the Chamber this afternoon, but for all those investors, business leaders and app developers. That would allow them to work out the critical path, whatever the minimum viable products might be and everything else that is going to be necessary, and by what date, for the sectors they are aiming for. So the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he says, and it is vital that if the Minister cannot come up with the timetable this afternoon, he can at least come up with a timetable for the timetable, so that we all know when the thing will be available and the rest of the open banking industry can work out how it is going to become an “open everything” industry and in what order, and by what time.

So this is fairly straightforward. There are promising signs, both in the autumn statement and in the Government’s new clause 27, but further details need to be tied down before they can be genuinely useful. I am assuming, hoping and praying that the Minister will be able to provide some of those reassurances and details when he makes his closing remarks, and I will therefore be able to count this as a probing amendment and push it no further. I am devoutly hoping that he will be able to make that an easier moment for me when he gets to his feet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I believe that these matters are important, if sometimes very complicated and technical. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) was absolutely right to stress how fundamentally important they are, and they will become more so.

I also thank the shadow Minister for identifying the areas where we are in agreement. We had a good Committee stage with his colleague, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), where we agreed on the overall objectives of the Bill. It is welcome that the shadow Minister has supported us, particularly on the amendment that we moved this afternoon on the powers of the Information Commissioner’s Office, the provisions relating to digital verification services, and smart data. There were, however, some areas on which we will not agree.

Let me begin by addressing the main amendments that the hon. Gentleman has moved. Amendment 1 relates to high-risk processing. It is the case that one of the main aims of the Bill is to remove some of the UK GDPR’s unnecessary compliance burdens. That is why organisations will be required to designate only senior responsible individuals to carry out risk assessments and keep records of processing when their activities pose high risks to individuals. The amendments that the hon. Gentleman is proposing would reintroduce a prescriptive list of high-risk processing activities drawn from article 35 of the UK GDPR. We find that some of the language in article 35 is unclear and confusing, which is partly why we removed it in the first place. We think organisations should have the ability to make a judgment of risk based on the specific nature, scale and context of their own processing activities. We do not need to provide prescriptive examples of high-risk processing in the legislation, because any list could quickly become out of date. Instead, to help data controllers, clause 18 of the Bill requires the ICO to produce a document with examples of what the commissioner considers to be high-risk processing.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

But the Minister has already indicated that, basically, he will come forward with exactly the same list as is in the legislation that the Government are amending. All that is happening is that, in the Bill, the Information Commissioner will be doing what the Government or the House could be doing, and this is the one area where the Government disagree with the Information Commissioner.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

As I say, the Government do not believe that it is necessary to have a prescriptive list in the Bill. We feel that it is better that individuals make a judgment based on their assessment of the risk, with the guidance of the Information Commissioner.

Moving to the shadow Minister’s second amendment, the Government agree that controllers should not be able to refuse a request without proper thought or consideration. That is why the existing responsibilities of controllers to facilitate requests from data subjects as the default has not changed and why the new article 12A also ensures that the burden of proof for a request meeting the vexatious or excessive threshold remains with the controller. The Government believe that is sufficient, and stipulating that evidence must be provided each time a request is refused may not be appropriate in all circumstances and would likely bring further burdens for controllers. On that basis, we oppose that amendment.

On amendment 5, the safeguards set out in reformed article 22 of the UK GDPR ensure that individuals are able to seek human intervention when significant decisions about them are taken solely through automated means with no meaningful human involvement.

Partly automated decisions already involve meaningful human involvement, so there is no need to extend the safeguards in article 22 to all forms of automated decision making. In such instances, other data protection requirements continue to apply and offer relevant protections to data subjects, as set out in the broader UK data protection regime. Those protections include lawfulness, fairness, transparency and accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

What I am saying is that the Government’s intention is to use the power only when there is clear evidence or suggestion that fraud is taking place on a significant scale. The Government simply want to retain the option to amend that should future evidence emerge; that is why the issue has been left open.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The trouble is that this is not about amending. The Government describe the relevant benefits in part 5 of proposed new schedule 3B, within new schedule 1, which is clear that pensions are included. The Minister has effectively said at the Dispatch Box that the Government do not need to tackle fraud in relation to pensions; perhaps it would be a good idea for us to all sit down and have a meeting to work out a more sensible set of measures to tackle fraud where it is necessary, rather than giving unending powers to the Government.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I agree, to the extent that levels of fraud in state pensions being currently nearly zero, the power is not needed in that case. However, the Government wish to retain an option should the position change in the future. But I am happy to take the hon. Gentleman up on his request on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, with whom he has already engaged. I am sure that the right hon. Member for East Ham will want to examine the issue further in the Work and Pensions Committee, which he chairs. It will undoubtedly also be subject to further discussions in the other place. We are certainly open to further discussion.

The right hon. Member for East Ham also raised the question of commencement. I can tell him that the test and learn phase will begin in 2025, with a steady roll-out to full-scale delivery by 2030. I am sure that he will want to examine these matters further.

The amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) focuses on digital exclusion. The Bill provides for the use of secure and inclusive digital identities across the economy. It does not force businesses or individuals to use them. Individual choice is integral to our approach. As the Bill makes clear, digital verification services can be provided only at the request of the individual. Where people want to use a digital verification service, the Government are committed to ensuring that available products and services are secure and privacy-focused. That is to be achieved through the high standards set out in the trust framework.

The trust framework also outlines how services can improve inclusion, and requires services to publish an annual inclusion monitoring report. There are businesses that operate only in the digital sphere, such as some online banks and energy companies, as I think has been acknowledged. We feel that to oblige them to offer manual document checking would place obligations on businesses that go beyond the Government’s commitment to do only what is necessary to enable the digital market to grow.

On amendment 224 from the Scottish National party, solely automated decision making that produces legal or similarly significant effects on individuals was not entirely prohibited previously under the UK’s data protection legal framework. The rules governing article 22 are confusing and complex, so clause 12 clarifies and simplifies the rules related to solely automated decision making, and will reduce barriers to responsible data use, help to drive innovation, and maintain high standards of data protection. The reforms do not water down any of the protections to data subjects offered under the broader UK data protection regime—that is, UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

On the other amendment tabled by the SNP, amendment 229, effective independent oversight of surveillance camera systems is crucial to public trust. The oversight framework is complex and confusing for the police and public because of substantial duplication between the surveillance camera commissioner functions and the code, which covers police and local authorities in England and Wales only, and the ICO and data protection legislation. The Bill addresses that, following public consultation, through abolishing the surveillance camera commissioner and code.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow North would negate that by retaining the code and transferring the surveillance camera commissioner functions to the investigatory powers commissioner. It would also blur the lines between overt and covert surveillance, which the investigatory powers commissioner oversees. Those two types of surveillance have distinct legislation and oversight, mainly because covert surveillance is generally considered to be significantly more intrusive.

On amendment 222, it is important to be clear that the ability to refuse or charge a reasonable fee for a request already exists, and clause 8 does not place new restrictions on reasonable requests from data subjects. The Government believe that it is proportionate to allow controllers to refuse or charge a reasonable fee for vexatious or excessive requests, and a clearer provision enables controllers to focus time and resources on responding to reasonable requests instead.

Amendments 278 and 279, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, would remove the new lawful ground of recognised legitimate interests, which the Bill will add to article 6 of UK GDPR. Amendment 230 accepts that there is merit in retaining the recognised legitimate interests list, but would make any additions to it subject to a super-affirmative parliamentary procedure. It is true that the Bill removes the need for non-public-sector organisations to do a detailed legitimate interests assessment in relation to a small number of processing activities. Those include activities relating for example to the safeguarding of children, crime prevention and responding to emergencies. We heard from stakeholders that the need to do an assessment and the fear of getting it wrong could sometimes delay or deter those important processing activities from taking place. Future Governments would not be able to add new activities to the list lightly; clause 5 of the Bill already makes it clear that the Secretary of State must carefully consider the rights and interests of people, and in particular the special protection needed for children, before adding anything new to the list. Any new regulations would also need to be approved via the affirmative resolution procedure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil has tabled a large number of other amendments, which are complicated in nature. I have written to him in some detail setting out the Government’s response to each of those, but if he wishes to pursue further any of the points contained therein I would be very happy to have further discussions with him.

I would like to comment on the amendments by several of my colleagues that I wish I was in a position to be able to support. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) has been assiduous in pursuing her point both in the Bill Committee and in this debate. The problem she identifies is without question a very real one, and she set out in some detail how it is massively increasing the burden on the police, which clearly we would wish to reduce wherever possible.

I have had meetings with Home Office Ministers, as my hon. Friend has, and they absolutely identify that problem and share her wish. While we welcome her intent, the problem is that we do not think that her amendment as drafted would achieve her aims of removing the burden of redaction. To do so would require the amendment and exception of more principles than those identified in the amendment. Indeed, it would require the amendment of more laws than just the Data Protection Act 2018.

The Government are absolutely committed to reducing the burden on the police, but it is obviously important that, if we do so, we do it right, and that the solution works comprehensively. We are therefore actively working on ways to better address the issue, including through improved process, new technology, guidance and legislation. I am very happy to continue to work with her on achieving the aim that we all share and so too, I know, are colleagues in the Home Office.

With respect to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), as I indicated, we absolutely share his enthusiasm for smart data and ensuring that the powers within the Bill are implemented in a timely manner, with interoperability at their core. While I agree that we can only fully realise the benefits of smart data schemes if they enable interoperability, different sectors will have different levels of existing digital infrastructure and capability. Thus, we could inadvertently hinder the success of future schemes if we mandated the use of one universal set of standards based, for instance, on those used in open banking.

The Government will ensure that interoperability is central to the development of smart data schemes. To support our thinking, we are working with industry and regulators in the Smart Data Council to identify the technical infrastructure that needs to be replicated. With regard to the timeline—or even the timeline for a timeline—that my hon. Friend asked for, I recognise that it is important to build investor, industry and consumer confidence by outlining the Government’s planned timeline.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the Chancellor’s comments in the autumn statement, where we set out plans to kick-start the smart data big bang, and our ambition for using those powers across seven sectors. At this stage I am afraid I am not able to accept his amendment, but it is our intention to set out those plans in more detail in the coming months. I know the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and I will be happy to work with him to do so.

The aim of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) was to clarify that, when special category data of employees such as health data is transferred between members of a group of undertakings for internal administrative purposes on grounds of legitimate interests, the conditions and safeguards outlined in schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act should apply to that processing. The Government agree with the sentiment of her amendment, but consider that it is unnecessary. The current legal framework already requires controllers to identify an exemption under article 9 of the UK GDPR if they are processing special category data. Those exemptions are supplemented by the conditions and safeguards outlined in schedule 1. Under those provisions, employers can process special category data where processing is necessary to comply with obligations under employment law. We do not therefore consider the amendment necessary.

Finally, I turn to new clause 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). The Government are absolutely committed to improving the availability of comparable UK-wide data. He, too, has been assiduous in promoting that cause, and we are very happy to work with him. We are extremely supportive of the principle underlying his amendment. He is right to point out that people have the right to know the extent of Labour’s failings with the NHS in Wales, as he pointed out, and his new clause sends an important message on our commitment to better data. I can commit to working at pace with him and the UK Statistics Authority to look at ways in which we may be able to implement the intentions of his amendment and bring forward legislative changes following those discussions.

On that basis, I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I, too, would like to thank the Clerks for their help. They are always enormously helpful, especially to Opposition Members, and sometimes to Government Members as well. I would like to commend my close friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who took the Bill through Committee for our side. I think the Minister suggested that it was rather more fun having her up against him than me, which was very cruel and unkind of him.

We support the Bill, although I suspect that regulatory divergence is a bit of a chimera, and that regulatory convergence in this field will give UK businesses greater stability and certainty, but that is for another day. I also worry about the extensive powers that Ministers are giving themselves, and the suggestion that they will switch off the rules on direct marketing in the run-up to a general election. Then there is new schedule 1. I repeat the offer I have made several times, which is that we stand ready to knock that into far better shape, whether in meetings we have privately or through our colleagues in the House of Lords. I feel ashamed to say it, but I hope the Lords are able to do the line-by-line scrutiny that we have been prevented from doing today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. In my role I get the great opportunity to go to many exciting events—

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Which is your favourite?

[Stuart Andrew]

Well, Eurovision of course. I always make sure that I take the opportunity to meet fans and see the experience that they are having at these events, so that we learn from them and ensure that we are addressing any issues that come up. That is why we will be working with all operational partners to ensure that every match is a good one for people to enjoy.

Proposed Merger of Three UK and Vodafone

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir George. I see we have three Knights Bachelor here today. I do not know what the collective noun is for Knights Bachelor; the obvious answer would be a round table. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on introducing this debate on an important issue that will affect not justó 27 million consumers, but the whole country. There is an important debate to be had. I was glad he paid tribute to Unite the union. It is not my trade union, but it has done a great deal of work in this field.

[Navendu Mishra]

You can join!

[Sir Chris Bryant]

No, I am in the GMB, if we are doing announcements. It was also good to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley). The latter made an interesting point about Teddy Roosevelt, who largely got elected on the back of resurrecting the old Sherman Anti-Trust Act, to break up the powerful railroad conglomerates in the United States of America. I have always thought that anti-trust legislation could be used to protect consumers; it is vital part of our artillery in Government.

It is always good to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It amazes me what he knows about; he knows about everything. He is a one-man Opposition, entirely on his own. He made a really important point about rural access to telephony. My constituency in the Rhondda is semi-rural. It feels quite congested, with lots of people living closely on top of each other, largely in terraced housing in the valleys, but everybody lives within a mile of a farm or a field, normally with sheep or cows in it. Some of our mobile telephone connection rates are shocking. Ofcom’s declared figures for all mobile operators show 100% connection. It certainly does not feel like that when I am walking up or down Hannah Street; it is impossible to ring anybody. I am painfully aware of the issues he raised. Today, mobile phone connection can be the difference between life and death. For many poorer families, it is their only means of telecommunication. It is how they apply for a job or register for a bank account. It is how most people run so many parts of their lives. That makes this an important debate.

In essence, there are two, slightly separate questions. The first is: what is good for consumers, the industry and the market? That is a matter primarily for the Competition and Markets Authority, although I shall mention a few things that I hope it will bear in mind when it comes to make its decision. Then there is the separate matter of the security of the UK’s mobile infrastructure from potentially hostile actors. That is a matter for the UK Government through the investment security unit in the Cabinet Office.

I turn to the competition issues first. As others have said, it will always be a matter of concern when two operators merge, taking the number from four to three, and especially so when that creates an operator with 27 million customers; it would be the largest in the field. That intrinsically implies that there will be less competition in the market, and that consumers might face higher charges. Indeed, Which? has made the obvious point:

“Reducing the number of network providers from four to three risks reducing the choices available to consumers, raising prices and lowering the quality of services available.”

To make a point in line with that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, prices really do matter to every family in our constituencies these days. I note that this year, tariff rates rose in EE’s case by 14.4%, in O2’s by 17.3%, in Vodafone and Three’s by 14.4%, and in BT Mobile’s by 14.4%. That is an awful lot of instances of 14.4%. That does not feel like a very competitive market to me.

Prices for lower-use mobile customers are even worse and much more worrying. Ofcom found a 13% year-on-year real-terms increase in the price of pay-monthly, SIM-only mobile services in 2022. The Labour party and I worry that those increases have contributed to inflation and the cost of living crisis. Yet a smartphone is no longer a luxury; many children do their homework on smartphones, and people fill in job applications on them, or run their companies from them. Both Three and Vodafone have increased prices above inflation recently, which might be an indication of their plans for the future. However, the price rises happened while the companies remain separate. I therefore urge the CMA to carefully consider the likely effect on both companies’ 27 million existing customers.

Vodafone and Three argue completely the opposite of what has been said in this debate, and I will deal with that. They claim that since the other two mobile network operators are much larger, the merger might, counterintuitively, help competition by introducing a genuine third mobile network operator of similar size. They also argue that the concern about competition in the mobile phone market is exaggerated, as the separate mobile virtual network operators market, made up of end providers such as Tesco Mobile, which do not own infrastructure but buy access from the mobile network operators, is very competitive, and has low barriers to entry. Again, Vodafone and Three claim that having a third player in addition to EE and O2, which can offer mobile virtual network operator carriage, is good for competition. They also argue that they need to merge in order to invest sufficiently in 5G, and have the stated aim of making £11 billion in investment over a decade.

[Navendu Mishra]

The information my hon. Friend is sharing is important. On the point that Vodafone and Three make about the merger creating a new outlet for virtual carriers—I think they are called MVNOs—Vodafone already supplies a number of MVNOs, including Asda Mobile, VOXI, which I think is its own brand, Lebara and several others. That does not make any sense at all. Surely consolidating the number of suppliers in the market will result in even higher price rises than the 14.4% he quoted.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has been reading my notes, but that was one of the points I was going to make. Those are issues that the CMA will have to look at very closely with an eye to making sure that consumers are protected.

As has already been pointed out, the idea of an £11 billion investment in 5G would be great if it were a bankable commitment, because I want to see the roll-out of high-quality 5G services across the whole country. As I have already said, that is essential if we are to have levelling up across the country, including in places such as the Rhondda.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), pointed out that mergers in other markets have not always led to increased investment; if anything, there has been a tendency in the other direction. I hope that the CMA will look at that. It is worth bearing in mind that the EU’s competition directorate blocked CK Hutchison’s plan to acquire O2 from Telefónica in 2016. The CMA may well want to look at the reasoning behind that decision, as some of the issues may still pertain today.

In any case, competition is not just about having three players competing for business. In practice, many consumers have little or no choice of operator because of local coverage issues. If the main player has only two other companies looking over its shoulder, it may too readily come to pricing decisions that extract maximum income for the company rather than provide enhanced value for the consumer. Again, I hope that the CMA will consider all those matters carefully.

There is one other market-related issue that I hope the CMA will consider: the trained workforce. Vodafone states that the merger is expected to result in

“£700 million of annual cost and capex synergies by the fifth…year post-completion”.

I want to know what that means for jobs. The market has regularly complained about shortages in its workforce. It is difficult to see how the merged company could make those significant savings without significant job losses, but until now it has been rather coy about that. Understandably, staff at the two companies and their union, Unite, are concerned about job losses, and we stand four-square behind those concerns. It would be an own goal for the UK telecoms industry to lose significant numbers of workers from its skilled workforce at this time. Far from helping to develop infrastructure in the UK, that could hinder it.

Let me turn to security issues. The merger will require the approval of the investment security unit, which was moved from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Cabinet Office. In effect, that means that, in relation to security issues, approval will be a decision for the Prime Minister. I do not want to exaggerate the security issues, but it is worth bearing in mind that the new company would have to handle extremely sensitive material regarding 27 million customers, as well as contracts for the NHS, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence, as has already been said.

Those contracts are currently with Vodafone, not with Three. In the case of the Ministry of Defence, for instance, Vodafone was recently awarded a contract to provide video conferencing and recording services to UK military courts in cases relating to sexual offences. That is an important matter that we should consider carefully. Does it make sense to give such a role to a company, CK Hutchison Holdings—the owner of Three—that is a Hong Kong-based and Cayman Islands-registered conglomerate that was formed only in 2015?

My questions for the Minister are as follows. What assessment have the Government made of the relationship between CK Hutchison and the Chinese state? If the merger were to go ahead, how would the Government seek to guarantee the security of national and personal data? Would they, for instance, consider carving out Government contracts from the deal? Under the provisions of the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 and the Government’s designated vendor direction, all telecoms operators are meant to strip Huawei from 5G by the end of 2027. What progress has been made on that, and what in particular has been done at Three and Vodafone? What impact do the Government feel that the Chinese security law in relation to Hong Kong has on Three and CK Hutchison Holdings?

On the security issues, can the Minister tell us what stage the decision is at? Will any Government decision, and the reasoning behind it, be published? Will Parliament be engaged in the process in any way? The Minister will know that the Intelligence and Security Committee has expressed its concerns about the process. The Committee said:

“The fact that the Government does not want there to be any meaningful scrutiny of sensitive investment deals…is of serious concern.”

It went on:

“Effective Parliamentary oversight is not some kind of ‘optional extra’ – it is a vital safeguard in any functioning Parliamentary democracy”.

That is particularly important for us to consider given that the Chinese state has sanctioned several Members of Parliament, including, incidentally, the Security Minister.

Given the recent stories about the Chinese state’s attempts to infiltrate Westminster and serious concerns regarding Chinese involvement in other parts of our national infrastructure, how will the Government ensure that the merger, if it goes ahead, does not undermine national and personal security? How will the Government ensure that all ministerial meetings with CK Hutchison Holdings and its subsidiaries are published in full and in good time, in case there is any inappropriate lobbying?

I want to say one final thing, because we are partly talking about China. Next week will see the 1,000th day of the incarceration of Jimmy Lai, who is a British national. The House will not be sitting, but I think all Members would want to put on the record that we believe he has been incorrectly and inappropriately held in custody. We would like to see him free.