Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by joining the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) in expressing the condolences of the House to his predecessor, Allan Rogers. He served as a Member of Parliament during my first nine years in this place. I remember him as an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament, and I am sure we all share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

It is a pleasure to return to the Dispatch Box to lead the House through Report stage of the Bill. We spent considerable time discussing it in Committee, but the hon. Gentleman was not in his post at that time. I welcome him to his position. He may regret that he missed out on Committee stage, which makes him keen to return to it today.

The Bill is an essential piece of legislation that will update the UK’s data laws, making them among the most effective in the world. We scrutinised it in depth in Committee. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government have tabled a number of amendments for the House to consider today, and he has done the same. The vast majority are technical, and the number sounds large because a lot are consequential on original amendments. One or two address new aspects, and I will be happy to speak to those as we go through them during this afternoon’s debate. Nevertheless, they represent important additions to the Bill.

The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who is sitting next to me, has drawn the House’s attention to the fact that amending the Bill to allow the Department for Work and Pensions access to financial data will make a significant contribution to identifying fraud. I would have thought that the Opposition would welcome that. It is not a new measure; it was contained in the fraud plan that the Government published back in May 2022. The Government have been examining that measure, and we have always made it clear that we would bring it forward at an appropriate parliamentary time when a vehicle was available. This is a data Bill, and the measure is specific to it. We estimate that it will result in a saving to the taxpayer of around £500 million by the end of 2028-29. I am surprised that the Opposition should question that.

As I said, the Bill has been considered at length in Committee. It is important that we consider it on Report, in order that it achieve the next stage of its progress through Parliament. On that basis, I reject the motion.

Question put.

--- Later in debate ---

1.37 pm

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 48—Processing of personal data revealing political opinions.

Government new clause 7—Searches in response to data subjects’ requests.

Government new clause 8—Notices from the Information Commissioner.

Government new clause 9—Court procedure in connection with subject access requests.

Government new clause 10—Approval of a supplementary code.

Government new clause 11—Designation of a supplementary code.

Government new clause 12—List of recognised supplementary codes.

Government new clause 13—Change to conditions for approval or designation.

Government new clause 14—Revision of a recognised supplementary code.

Government new clause 15—Applications for approval and re-approval.

Government new clause 16—Fees for approval, re-approval and continued approval.

Government new clause 17—Request for withdrawal of approval.

Government new clause 18—Removal of designation.

Government new clause 19—Registration of additional services.

Government new clause 20—Supplementary notes.

Government new clause 21—Addition of services to supplementary notes.

Government new clause 22—Duty to remove services from the DVS register.

Government new clause 23—Duty to remove supplementary notes from the DVS register.

Government new clause 24—Duty to remove services from supplementary notes.

Government new clause 25—Index of defined terms for Part 2.

Government new clause 26—Powers relating to verification of identity or status.

Government new clause 27—Interface bodies.

Government new clause 28—The FCA and financial services interfaces.

Government new clause 29—The FCA and financial services interfaces: supplementary.

Government new clause 30—The FCA and financial services interfaces: penalties and levies.

Government new clause 31—Liability and damages.

Government new clause 32—Other data provision.

Government new clause 33—Duty to notify the Commissioner of personal data breach: time periods.

Government new clause 34—Power to require information for social security purposes.

Government new clause 35—Retention of information by providers of internet services in connection with death of child.

Government new clause 36—Retention of biometric data and recordable offences.

Government new clause 37—Retention of pseudonymised biometric data.

Government new clause 38—Retention of biometric data from INTERPOL.

Government new clause 39—National Underground Asset Register.

Government new clause 40—Information in relation to apparatus.

Government new clause 41—Pre-commencement consultation.

Government new clause 42—Transfer of certain functions of Secretary of State.

New clause 1—Processing of data in relation to a case-file prepared by the police service for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision—

“(1) The 2018 Act is amended in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) In the 2018 Act, after section 40 insert—

“40A Processing of data in relation to a case-file prepared by the police service for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision

(1) This section applies to a set of processing operations consisting of the preparation of a case-file by the police service for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision, the making of a charging decision by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the return of the case-file by the Crown Prosecution Service to the police service after a charging decision has been made.

(2) The police service is not obliged to comply with the first data protection principle except insofar as that principle requires processing to be fair, or the third data protection principle, in preparing a case-file for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision.

(3) The Crown Prosecution Service is not obliged to comply with the first data protection principle except insofar as that principle requires processing to be fair, or the third data protection principle, in making a charging decision on a case-file submitted for that purpose by the police service.

(4) If the Crown Prosecution Service decides that a charge will not be pursued when it makes a charging decision on a case-file submitted for that purpose by the police service it must take all steps reasonably required to destroy and delete all copies of the case-file in its possession.

(5) If the Crown Prosecution Service decides that a charge will be pursued when it makes a charging decision on a case-file submitted for that purpose by the police service it must return the case-file to the police service and take all steps reasonably required to destroy and delete all copies of the case-file in its possession.

(6) Where the Crown Prosecution Service decides that a charge will be pursued when it makes a charging decision on a case-file submitted for that purpose by the police service and returns the case-file to the police service under subsection (5), the police service must comply with the first data protection principle and the third data protection principle in relation to any subsequent processing of the data contained in the case-file.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

(a) The police service means—

(i) constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment, or

(ii) subject to section 126 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (prison staff not to be regarded as in police service), any other service whose members have the powers or privileges of a constable.

(b) The preparation of, or preparing, a case-file by the police service for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision includes the submission of the file.

(c) A case-file includes all information obtained by the police service for the purpose of preparing a case-file for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision.””

This new clause adjusts Section 40 of the Data Protection Act 2018 to exempt the police service and the Crown Prosecution Service from the first and third data protection principles contained within the 2018 Act so that they can share unredacted data with one another when making a charging decision.

New clause 2—Common standards and timeline for implementation—

“(1) Within one month of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations require those appointed as decision-makers to create, publish and update as required open and common standards for access to customer data and business data.

(2) Standards created by virtue of subsection (1) must be interoperable with those created as a consequence of Part 2 of the Retail Banking Market Investigation Order 2017, made by the Competition and Markets Authority.

(3) Regulations under section 66 and 68 must ensure interoperability of customer data and business data with standards created by virtue of subsection (1).

(4) Within one month of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a list of the sectors to which regulations under section 66 and section 68 will apply within three years of the passage of the Act, and the date by which those regulations will take effect in each case.”

This new clause, which is intended to be placed in Part 3 (Customer data and business data) of the Bill, would require interoperability across all sectors of the economy in smart data standards, including the Open Banking standards already in effect, and the publication of a timeline for implementation.

New clause 3—Provision about representation of data subjects—

“(1) Section 190 of the Data Protection Act 2018 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), leave out “After the report under section 189(1) is laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State may” and insert “The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of the Data Protection and Digital Information Act 2024,”.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to exercise powers under s190 DPA2018 to allow organisations to raise data breach complaints on behalf of data subjects generally, in the absence of a particular subject who wishes to bring forward a claim about misuse of their own personal data.

New clause 4—Review of notification of changes of circumstances legislation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must commission a review of the operation of the Social Security (Notification of Changes of Circumstances) Regulations 2010.

(2) In conducting the review, the designated reviewer must—

(a) consider the current operation and effectiveness of the legislation;

(b) identify any gaps in its operation and provisions;

(c) consider and publish recommendations as to how the scope of the legislation could be expanded to include non-public sector, voluntary and private sector holders of personal data.

(3) In undertaking the review, the reviewer must consult—

(a) specialists in data sharing;

(b) people and organisations who campaign for the interests of people affected by the legislation;

(c) people and organisations who use the legislation;

(d) any other persons and organisations the review considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before each House of Parliament within six months of this Act coming into force.”

This new clause requires a review of the operation of the “Tell Us Once” programme, which seeks to provide simpler mechanisms for citizens to pass information regarding births and deaths to government, and consideration of whether the progress of “Tell Us Once” could be extended to non-public sector holders of data.

New clause 5—Definition of “biometric data”—

“Article 9 of the UK GDPR is amended by the omission, in paragraph 1, of the words “for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person”.”

This new clause would amend the UK General Data Protection Regulation to extend the protections currently in place for biometric data for identification to include biometric data for the purpose of classification.

New clause 43—Right to use non-digital verification services—

“(1) This section applies when an organisation—

(a) requires an individual to use a verification service, and

(b) uses a digital verification service for that purpose.

(2) The organisation—

(a) must make a non-digital alternative method of verification available to any individual required to use a verification service, and

(b) must provide information about digital and non-digital methods of verification to those individuals before verification is required.”

This new clause, which is intended for insertion into Part 2 of the Bill (Digital verification services), creates the right for data subjects to use non-digital identity verification services as an alternative to digital verification services, thereby preventing digital verification from becoming mandatory in certain settings.

New clause 44—Transfer of functions to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office—

“The functions of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner are transferred to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.”

New clause 45—Interoperability of data and collection of comparable healthcare statistics across the UK—

“(1) The Health and Social Care Act 2012 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 250, insert the following section—

“250A Interoperability of data and collection of comparable healthcare statistics across the UK

(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an information standard specifying binding data interoperability requirements which apply across the whole of the United Kingdom.

(2) An information standard prepared and published under this section—

(a) must include guidance about the implementation of the standard;

(b) may apply to any public body which exercises functions in connection with the provision of health services anywhere in the United Kingdom.

(3) A public body to which an information standard prepared and published under this section applies must have regard to the standard.

(4) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament each year on progress on the implementation of an information standard prepared in accordance with this section.

(5) For the purposes of this section—

“health services” has the same meaning as in section 250 of this Act, except that for “in England” there is substituted “anywhere in the United Kingdom”, and “the health service” in parts of the United Kingdom other than England has the meaning given by the relevant statute of that part of the United Kingdom;

“public body” has the same meaning as in section 250 of this Act.”

(3) In section 254 (Powers to direct NHS England to establish information systems), after subsection (2), insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State must give a direction under subsection (1) directing NHS England to collect and publish information about healthcare performance and outcomes in all parts of the United Kingdom in a way which enables comparison between different parts of the United Kingdom.

(2B) Before giving a direction by virtue of subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the bodies responsible for the collection and publication of official statistics in each part of the United Kingdom,

(b) Scottish Ministers,

(c) Welsh Ministers, and

(d) Northern Ireland departments.

(2C) The Secretary of State may not give a direction by virtue of subsection (2A) unless a copy of the direction has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.

(2D) Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland departments must arrange for the information relating to the health services for which they have responsibility described in the direction given by virtue of subsection (2A) to be made available to NHS England in accordance with the direction.

(2E) For the purposes of a direction given by virtue of subsection (2A), the definition of “health and social care body” given in section 259(11) applies as if for “England” there were substituted “the United Kingdom”.””

New clause 46—Assessment of impact of Act on EU adequacy—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the impact of the Act on EU adequacy, and lay a report of that assessment before both Houses of Parliament.

(2) The report must assess the impact on—

(a) data risk, and

(b) small and medium-sized businesses.

(3) The report must quantify the impact of the Act in financial terms.”

New clause 47—Review of the impact of the Act on anonymisation and the identifiability of data subjects—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the report of an assessment of the impact of the measures in the Act on anonymisation and the identifiability of data subjects.

(2) The report must include a comparison between the rights afforded to data subjects under this Act with those afforded to data subjects by the EU General Data Protection Regulation.”

Amendment 278, in clause 5, page 6, line 15, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

This amendment and Amendment 279 would remove the power for the Secretary of State to create pre-defined and pre-authorised “recognised legitimate interests”, for data processing. Instead, the current test would continue to apply in which personal data can only be processed in pursuit of a legitimate interest, as balanced with individual rights and freedoms.

Amendment 279, page 6, line 23, leave out subsections (4), (5) and (6).

See explanatory statement to Amendment 278.

Amendment 230, page 7, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—

“8. The Secretary of State may not make regulations under paragraph 6 unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before both Houses of Parliament for the 60-day period.

8A. The Secretary of State must consider any representations made during the 60-day period in respect of anything in the draft regulations laid under paragraph 8.

8B. If, after the end of the 60-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to proceed to make the regulations, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the regulations (incorporating any changes the Secretary of State considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 8A).

8C. Draft regulations laid under paragraph 8B must, before the end of the 40-day period, have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

8D. In this Article—

“the 40-day period” means the period of 40 days beginning on the day on which the draft regulations mentioned in paragraph 8 are laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House of Parliament on the same day, the later of the days on which it is laid);

“the 60-day period” means the period of 60 days beginning on the day on which the draft regulations mentioned in paragraph 8B are laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House of Parliament on the same day, the later of the days on which it is laid).

8E. When calculating the 40-day period or the 60-day period for the purposes of paragraph 8D, ignore any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.”

This amendment would make regulations made in respect of recognised legitimate interest subject to a super-affirmative Parliamentary procedure.

Amendment 11, page 7, line 12, at end insert—

““internal administrative purposes” , in relation to special category data, means the conditions set out for lawful processing in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 2018.”

This amendment clarifies that the processing of special category data in employment must follow established principles for reasonable processing, as defined by paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Government amendment 252.

Amendment 222, page 10, line 8, leave out clause 8.

Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 10, leave out line 31.

This amendment would mean that the resources available to the controller could not be taken into account when determining whether a request is vexatious or excessive.

Amendment 2, page 11, line 34, at end insert—

“(6A) When informing the data subject of the reasons for not taking action on the request in accordance with subsection (6), the controller must provide evidence of why the request has been treated as vexatious or excessive.”

This amendment would require the data controller to provide evidence of why a request has been considered vexatious or excessive if the controller is refusing to take action on the request.

Government amendment 17.

Amendment 223, page 15, line 22, leave out clause 10.

Amendment 224, page 18, line 7, leave out clause 12.

Amendment 236, in clause 12, page 18, line 21, at end insert—

“(c) a data subject is an identified or identifiable individual who is affected by a significant decision, irrespective of the direct presence of their personal data in the decision-making process.”

This amendment would clarify that a “data subject” includes identifiable individuals who are subject to data-based and automated decision-making, whether or not their personal data is directly present in the decision-making process.

Amendment 232, page 19, line 12, leave out “solely” and insert “predominantly”.

This amendment would mean safeguards for data subjects’ rights, freedoms and legitimate interests would have to be in place in cases where a significant decision in relation to a data subject was taken based predominantly, rather than solely, on automated processing.

Amendment 5, page 19, line 12, after “solely” insert “or partly”.

This amendment would mean that the protections provided for by the new Article 22C would apply where a decision is based either solely or partly on automated processing, not only where it is based solely on such processing.

Amendment 233, page 19, line 18, at end insert

“including the reasons for the processing.”

This amendment would require data controllers to provide the data subject with the reasons for the processing of their data in cases where a significant decision in relation to a data subject was taken based on automated processing.

Amendment 225, page 19, line 18, at end insert—

“(aa) require the controller to inform the data subject when a decision described in paragraph 1 has been taken in relation to the data subject;”.

Amendment 221, page 20, line 3, at end insert—

“7. When exercising the power to make regulations under this Article, the Secretary

of State must have regard to the following statement of principles:

Digital information principles at work

1. People should have access to a fair, inclusive and trustworthy digital environment

at work.

2. Algorithmic systems should be designed and used to achieve better outcomes:

to make work better, not worse, and not for surveillance. Workers and their

representatives should be involved in this process.

3. People should be protected from unsafe, unaccountable and ineffective

algorithmic systems at work. Impacts on individuals and groups must be assessed

in advance and monitored, with reasonable and proportionate steps taken.

4. Algorithmic systems should not harm workers’ mental or physical health, or

integrity.

5. Workers and their representatives should always know when an algorithmic

system is being used, how and why it is being used, and what impacts it may

have on them or their work.

6. Workers and their representatives should be involved in meaningful consultation

before and during use of an algorithmic system that may significantly impact

work or people.

7. Workers should have control over their own data and digital information collected

about them at work.

8. Workers and their representatives should always have an opportunity for human

contact, review and redress when an algorithmic system is used at work where

it may significantly impact work or people. This includes a right to a written

explanation when a decision is made.

9. Workers and their representatives should be able to use their data and digital

technologies for contact and association to improve work quality and conditions.

10. Workers should be supported to build the information, literacy and skills needed

to fulfil their capabilities through work transitions.”

This amendment would insert into new Article 22D of the UK GDPR a requirement for the Secretary of State to have regard to the statement of digital information principles at work when making regulations about automated decision-making.

Amendment 4, in clause 15, page 25, line 4, at end insert

“(including in the cases specified in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 35)”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 1, would provide a definition of what constitutes “high risk processing” for the purposes of applying Articles 27A, 27B and 27C, which require data controllers to designate, and specify the duties of, a “senior responsible individual” with responsibility for such processing.

Government amendments 18 to 44.

Amendment 12, in page 32, line 7, leave out clause 17.

This amendment keeps the current requirement on police in the Data Protection Act 2018 to justify why they have accessed an individual’s personal data.

Amendment 1, in clause 18, page 32, line 18, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

“(c) omit paragraph 2,

(ca) in paragraph 3—

(i) for “data protection” substitute “high risk processing”,

(ii) in sub-paragraph (a), for “natural persons” substitute “individuals”,

(iii) in sub-paragraph (a) for “natural person” substitute “individual” in both places where it occurs,

(cb) omit paragraphs 4 and 5,”.

This amendment would leave paragraph 3 of Article 35 of the UK GDPR in place (with amendments reflecting amendments made by the Bill elsewhere in the Article), thereby ensuring that there is a definition of “high risk processing” on the face of the Regulation.

Amendment 226, page 39, line 38, leave out clause 26.

Amendment 227, page 43, line 2, leave out clause 27.

Amendment 228, page 46, line 32, leave out clause 28.

Government amendment 45.

Amendment 235, page 57, line 29, leave out clause 34.

This amendment would leave in place the existing regime, which refers to “manifestly unfounded” or excessive requests to the Information Commissioner, rather than the proposed change to “vexatious” or excessive requests.

Government amendments 46 and 47.

Amendment 237, in clause 48, page 77, line 4, leave out “individual” and insert “person”.

This amendment and Amendments 238 to 240 are intended to enable the digital verification services covered by the Bill to include verification of organisations as well as individuals.

Amendment 238, page 77, line 5, leave out “individual” and insert “person”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 237.

Amendment 239, page 77, line 6, leave out “individual” and insert “person”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 237.

Amendment 240, page 77, line 7, leave out “individual” and insert “person”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 237.

Amendment 241, page 77, line 8, at end insert (on new line)—

“and the facts which may be so ascertained, verified or confirmed may include the fact that an individual has a claimed connection with a legal person.”

This amendment would ensure that the verification services covered by the Bill will include verification that an individual has a claimed connection with a legal person.

Government amendments 48 to 50.

Amendment 280, in clause 49, page 77, line 13, at end insert—

“(2A) The DVS trust framework must include a description of how the provision of digital verification services is expected to uphold the Identity Assurance Principles.

(2B) Schedule (Identity Assurance Principles) describes each Identity Assurance Principle and its effect.”

Amendment 281, page 77, line 13, at end insert—

“(2A) The DVS trust framework must allow valid attributes to be protected by zero-knowledge proof and other decentralised technologies, without restriction upon how and by whom those proofs may be held or processed.”

Government amendments 51 to 66.

Amendment 248, in clause 52, page 79, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) A determination under subsection (1) may specify an amount which is tiered to the size of the person and its role as specified in the DVS trust framework.”

This amendment would enable fees for application for registration in the DVS register to be determined on the basis of the size and role of the organisation applying to be registered.

Amendment 243, page 79, line 8, after “may”, insert “not”.

This amendment would provide that the fee for application for registration in the DVS register could not exceed the administrative costs of determining the application.

Government amendment 67.

Amendment 244, page 79, line 13, after “may”, insert “not”.

This amendment would provide that the fee for continued registration in the DVS register could not exceed the administrative costs of that registration.

Government amendment 68.

Amendment 245, page 79, line 21, at end insert—

“(10) The fees payable under this section must be reviewed every two years by the National Audit Office.”

This amendment would provide that the fees payable for DVS registration must be reviewed every two years by the NAO.

Government amendments 69 to 77.

Amendment 247, in clause 54, page 80, line 38, after “person”, insert “or by other parties”.

This amendment would enable others, for example independent experts, to make representations about a decision to remove a person from the DVS register, as well as the person themselves.

Amendment 246, page 81, line 7, at end insert—

“(11) The Secretary of State may not exercise the power granted by subsection (1) until the Secretary of State has consulted on proposals for how a decision to remove a person from the DVS register will be reached, including—

(a) how information will be collected from persons impacted by a decision to remove the person from the register, and from others;

(b) how complaints will be managed;

(c) how evidence will be reviewed;

(d) what the burden of proof will be on which a decision will be based.”

This amendment would provide that the power to remove a person from the DVS register could not be exercised until the Secretary of State had consulted on the detail of how a decision to remove would be reached.

Government amendments 78 to 80.

Amendment 249, in clause 62, page 86, line 17, at end insert—

“(3A) A notice under this section must give the recipient of the notice an opportunity to consult the Secretary of State on the content of the notice before providing the information required by the notice.”

This amendment would provide an option for consultation between the Secretary of State and the recipient of an information notice before the information required by the notice has to be provided.

Government amendment 81.

Amendment 242, in clause 63, page 87, line 21, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make arrangements for a person to exercise the Secretary of State’s functions under this Part of the Bill, so that an independent regulator would perform the relevant functions and not the Secretary of State.

Amendment 250, in clause 64, page 87, line 34, at end insert—

“(1A) A report under subsection (1) must include a report on any arrangements made under section 63 for a third party to exercise functions under this Part.”

This amendment would require information about arrangements for a third party to exercise functions under this Part of the Bill to be included in the annual reports on the operation of the Part.

Government amendments 82 to 196.

Amendment 6, in clause 83, page 107, leave out from line 26 to the end of line 34 on page 108.

This amendment would leave out the proposed new regulation 6B of the PEC Regulations, which would enable consent to be given, or an objection to be made, to cookies automatically.

Amendment 217, page 109, line 20, leave out clause 86.

This amendment would leave out the clause which would enable the sending of direct marketing electronic mail on a “soft opt-in” basis.

Amendment 218, page 110, line 1, leave out clause 87.

This amendment would remove the clause which would enable direct marketing for the purposes of democratic engagement. See also Amendment 220.

Government amendments 253 to 255.

Amendment 219, page 111, line 6, leave out clause 88.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 218.

Government amendments 256 to 265.

Amendment 7, in clause 89, page 114, line 12, at end insert—

“(2A) A provider of a public electronic communications service or network is not required to intercept or examine the content of any communication in order to comply with their duty under this regulation.”

This amendment would clarify that a public electronic communications service or network is not required to intercept or examine the content of any communication in order to comply with their duty to notify the Commissioner of unlawful direct marketing.

Amendment 8, page 117, line 3, at end insert—

“(5) In regulation 1—

(a) at the start, insert “(1)”;

(b) after “shall”, insert “save for regulation 26A”;

(c) at end, insert—

“(2) Regulation 26A comes into force six months after the Commissioner has published guidance under regulation 26C (Guidance in relation to regulation 26A).””

This amendment would provide for the new regulation 26A, Duty to notify Commissioner of unlawful direct marketing, not to come into force until six months after the Commissioner has published guidance in relation to that duty.

Government amendment 197.

Amendment 251, in clause 101, page 127, line 3, leave out “and deaths” and insert “, deaths and deed polls”.

This amendment would require deed poll information to be kept to the same standard as records of births and deaths.

Amendment 9, page 127, line 24, at end insert—

“(2A) After section 25, insert—

“25A Review of form in which registers are to be kept

(1) The Secretary of State must commission a review of the provisions of this Act and of related legislation, with a view to the creation of a single digital register of births and deaths.

(2) The review must consider and make recommendations on the effect of the creation of a single digital register on—

(a) fraud,

(b) data collection, and

(c) ease of registration.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before each House of Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.””

This amendment would insert a new section into the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 requiring a review of relevant legislation, with consideration of creating a single digital register for registered births and registered deaths and recommendations on the effects of such a change on reducing fraud, improving data collection and streamlining digital registration.

Government amendment 198.

Amendment 229, in clause 112, page 135, line 8, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

Amendment 10, in clause 113, page 136, line 35, leave out

“which allows or confirms the unique identification of that individual”.

This amendment would amend the definition of “biometric data” for the purpose of the oversight of law enforcement biometrics databases so as to extend the protections currently in place for biometric data for identification to include biometric data for the purpose of classification.

Government amendments 199 to 207.

Government new schedule 1—Power to require information for social security purposes.

Government new schedule 2—National Underground Asset Register: monetary penalties.

New schedule 3—Identity Assurance Principles—

“Part 1

Definitions

1 These Principles are limited to the processing of Identity Assurance Data (IdA Data) in an Identity Assurance Service (e.g. establishing and verifying identity of a Service User; conducting a transaction that uses a user identity; maintaining audit requirements in relation a transaction associated with the use of a service that needs identity verification etc.). They do not cover, for example, any data used to deliver a service, or to measure its quality.

2 In the context of the application of the Identity Assurance Principles to an Identity Assurance Service, “Identity Assurance Data” (“IdA Data”) means any recorded information that is connected with a “Service User” including—

“Audit Data.” This includes any recorded information that is connected with any log or audit associated with an Identity Assurance Service.

“General Data.” This means any other recorded information which is not personal data, audit data or relationship data, but is still connected with a “Service User”.

“Personal Data.” This takes its meaning from the Data Protection Act 2018 or subsequent legislation (e.g. any recorded information that relates to a “Service User” who is also an identified or identifiable living individual).

“Relationship Data.” This means any recorded information that describes (or infers) a relationship between a “Service User”, “Identity Provider” or “Service Provider” with another “Service User”, “Identity Provider” or “Service Provider” and includes any cookie or program whose purpose is to supply a means through which relationship data are collected.

3 Other terms used in relation to the Principles are defined as follows—

“save-line2Identity Assurance Service.” This includes relevant applications of the technology (e.g. hardware, software, database, documentation) in the possession or control of any “Service User”, “Identity Provider” or “Service Provider” that is used to facilitate identity assurance activities; it also includes any IdA Data processed by that technology or by an Identity Provider or by a Service Provider in the context of the Service; and any IdA Data processed by the underlying infrastructure for the purpose of delivering the IdA service or associated billing, management, audit and fraud prevention.

“Identity Provider.” This means the certified individual or certified organisation that provides an Identity Assurance Service (e.g. establishing an identity, verification of identity); it includes any agent of a certified Identity Provider that processes IdA data in connection with that Identity Assurance Service.

“Participant.” This means any “Identity Provider”, “Service Provider” or “Service User” in an Identity Assurance Service. A “Participant” includes any agent by definition.

“Processing.” In the context of IdA data means “collecting, using, disclosing, retaining, transmitting, copying, comparing, corroborating, correlating, aggregating, accessing” the data and includes any other operation performed on IdA data.

“Provider.” Includes both “Identity Provider” and/or “Service Provider”.

“Service Provider.” This means the certified individual or certified organisation that provides a service that uses an Identity Provider in order to verify identity of the Service User; it includes any agent of the Service Provider that processes IdA data from an Identity Assurance Service.

“Service User.” This means the person (i.e. an organisation (incorporated or not)) or an individual (dead or alive) who has established (or is establishing) an identity with an Identity Provider; it includes an agent (e.g. a solicitor, family member) who acts on behalf of a Service User with proper authority (e.g. a public guardian, or a Director of a company, or someone who possesses power of attorney). The person may be living or deceased (the identity may still need to be used once its owner is dead, for example by an executor).

“Third Party.” This means any person (i.e. any organisation or individual) who is not a “Participant” (e.g. the police or a Regulator).

Part 2

The Nine Identity Assurance Principles

Any exemptions from these Principles must be specified via the “Exceptional Circumstances Principle”. (See Principle 9).

1 User Control Principle

Statement of Principle: “I can exercise control over identity assurance activities affecting me and these can only take place if I consent or approve them.”

1.1 An Identity Provider or Service Provider must ensure any collection, use or disclosure of IdA data in, or from, an Identity Assurance Service is approved by each particular Service User who is connected with the IdA data.

1.2 There should be no compulsion to use the Identity Assurance Service and Service Providers should offer alternative mechanisms to access their services. Failing to do so would undermine the consensual nature of the service.

2 Transparency Principle

Statement of Principle: “Identity assurance can only take place in ways I understand and when I am fully informed.”

2.1 Each Identity Provider or Service Provider must be able to justify to Service Users why their IdA data are processed. Ensuring transparency of activity and effective oversight through auditing and other activities inspires public trust and confidence in how their details are used.

2.2 Each Service User must be offered a clear description about the processing of IdA data in advance of any processing. Identity Providers must be transparent with users about their particular models for service provision.

2.3 The information provided includes a clear explanation of why any specific information has to be provided by the Service User (e.g. in order that a particular level of identity assurance can be obtained) and identifies any obligation on the part of the Service User (e.g. in relation to the User’s role in securing his/her own identity information).

2.4 The Service User will be able to identify which Service Provider they are using at any given time.

2.5 Any subsequent and significant change to the processing arrangements that have been previously described to a Service User requires the prior consent or approval of that Service User before it comes into effect.

2.6 All procedures, including those involved with security, should be made publicly available at the appropriate time, unless such transparency presents a security or privacy risk. For example, the standards of encryption can be identified without jeopardy to the encryption keys being used.

3 Multiplicity Principle

Statement of Principle: “I can use and choose as many different identifiers or identity providers as I want to.”

3.1 A Service User is free to use any number of identifiers that each uniquely identifies the individual or business concerned.

3.2 A Service User can use any of his identities established with an Identity Provider with any Service Provider.

3.3 A Service User shall not be obliged to use any Identity Provider or Service Provider not chosen by that Service User; however, a Service Provider can require the Service User to provide a specific level of Identity Assurance, appropriate to the Service User’s request to a Service Provider.

3.4 A Service User can choose any number of Identity Providers and where possible can choose between Service Providers in order to meet his or her diverse needs. Where a Service User chooses to register with more than one Identity Provider, Identity Providers and Service Providers must not link the Service User’s different accounts or gain information about their use of other Providers.

3.5 A Service User can terminate, suspend or change Identity Provider and where possible can choose between Service Providers at any time.

3.6 A Service Provider does not know the identity of the Identity Provider used by a Service User to verify an identity in relation to a specific service. The Service Provider knows that the Identity Provider can be trusted because the Identity Provider has been certified, as set out in GPG43 – Requirements for Secure Delivery of Online Public Services (RSDOPS).

4 Data Minimisation Principle

Statement of Principle: “My interactions only use the minimum data necessary to meet my needs.”

4.1 Identity Assurance should only be used where a need has been established and only to the appropriate minimum level of assurance.

4.2 Identity Assurance data processed by an Identity Provider or a Service Provider to facilitate a request of a Service User must be the minimum necessary in order to fulfil that request in a secure and auditable manner.

4.3 When a Service User stops using a particular Identity Provider, their data should be deleted. Data should be retained only where required for specific targeted fraud, security or other criminal investigation purposes.

5 Data Quality Principle

Statement of Principle: “My interactions only use the minimum data necessary to meet my needs.”

5.1 Service Providers should enable Service Users (or authorised persons, such as the holder of a Power of Attorney) to be able to update their own personal data, at a time at their choosing, free of charge and in a simple and easy manner.

5.2 Identity Providers and Service Providers must take account of the appropriate level of identity assurance required before allowing any updating of personal data.

6 Service User Access and Portability Principle

Statement of Principle: “I have to be provided with copies of all of my data on request; I can move/remove my data whenever I want.”

6.1 Each Identity Provider or Service Provider must allow, promptly, on request and free of charge, each Service User access to any IdA data that relates to that Service User.

6.2 It shall be unlawful to make it a condition of doing anything in relation to a Service User to request or require that Service User to request IdA data.

6.3 The Service User must be able to require an Identity Provider to transfer his personal data, to a second Identity Provider in a standard electronic format, free of charge and without impediment or delay.

7 Certification Principle

Statement of Principle: “I can have confidence in the Identity Assurance Service because all the participants have to be certified against common governance requirements.”

7.1 As a baseline control, all Identity Providers and Service Providers will be certified against a shared standard. This is one important way of building trust and confidence in the service.

7.2 As part of the certification process, Identity Providers and Service Providers are obliged to co-operate with the independent Third Party and accept their impartial determination and to ensure that contractual arrangements—

• reinforce the application of the Identity Assurance Principles

• contain a reference to the independent Third Party as a mechanism for dispute resolution.

7.3 In the context of personal data, certification procedures include the use of Privacy Impact Assessments, Security Risk Assessments, Privacy by Design concepts and, in the context of information security, a commitment to using appropriate technical measures (e.g. encryption) and ever improving security management. Wherever possible, such certification processes and security procedures reliant on technical devices should be made publicly available at the appropriate time.

7.4 All Identity Providers and Service Providers will take all reasonable steps to ensure that a Third Party cannot capture IdA data that confirms (or infers) the existence of relationship between any Participant. No relationships between parties or records should be established without the consent of the Service User.

7.5 Certification can be revoked if there is significant non-compliance with any Identity Assurance Principle.

8 Dispute Resolution Principle

Statement of Principle: “If I have a dispute, I can go to an independent Third Party for a resolution.”

8.1 A Service User who, after a reasonable time, cannot, or is unable, to resolve a complaint or problem directly with an Identity Provider or Service Provider can call upon an independent Third Party to seek resolution of the issue. This could happen for example where there is a disagreement between the Service User and the Identity Provider about the accuracy of data.

8.2 The independent Third Party can resolve the same or similar complaints affecting a group of Service Users.

8.3 The independent Third Party can co-operate with other regulators in order to resolve problems and can raise relevant issues of importance concerning the Identity Assurance Service.

8.4 An adjudication/recommendation of the independent Third Party should be published. The independent Third Party must operate transparently, but detailed case histories should only be published subject to appropriate review and consent.

8.5 There can be more than one independent Third Party.

8.6 The independent Third Party can recommend changes to standards or certification procedures or that an Identity Provider or Service Provider should lose their certification.

9 Exceptional Circumstances Principle

Statement of Principle: “Any exception has to be approved by Parliament and is subject to independent scrutiny.”

9.1 Any exemption from the application of any of the above Principles to IdA data shall only be lawful if it is linked to a statutory framework that legitimises all Identity Assurance Services, or an Identity Assurance Service in the context of a specific service. In the absence of such a legal framework then alternative measures must be taken to ensure, transparency, scrutiny and accountability for any exceptions.

9.2 Any exemption from the application of any of the above Principles that relates to the processing of personal data must also be necessary and justifiable in terms of one of the criteria in Article 8(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights: namely in the interests of national security; public safety or the economic well-being of the country; for the prevention of disorder or crime; for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

9.3 Any subsequent processing of personal data by any Third Party who has obtained such data in exceptional circumstances (as identified by Article 8(2) above) must be the minimum necessary to achieve that (or another) exceptional circumstance.

9.4 Any exceptional circumstance involving the processing of personal data must be subject to a Privacy Impact Assessment by all relevant “data controllers” (where “data controller” takes its meaning from the Data Protection Act).

9.5 Any exemption from the application of any of the above Principles in relation to IdA data shall remain subject to the Dispute Resolution Principle.”

Amendment 220, in schedule 1, page 141, leave out from line 21 to the end of line 36 on page 144.

This amendment would remove from the new Annex 1 of the UK GDPR provisions which would enable direct marketing for the purposes of democratic engagement. See also Amendment 218.

Government amendments 266 to 277.

Government amendments 208 to 211.

Amendment 15, in schedule 5, page 154, line 2, at end insert—

“(g) the views of the Information Commission on suitability of international transfer of data to the country or organisation.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek the views of the Information Commission on whether a country or organisation has met the data protection test for international data transfer.

Amendment 14, page 154, line 25, at end insert—

“5. In relation to special category data, the Information Commissioner must assess whether the data protection test is met for data transfer to a third country or international organisation.”

This amendment requires the Information Commission to assess suitability for international transfer of special category data to a third country or international organisation.

Amendment 13, page 154, line 30, leave out “ongoing” and insert “annual”.

This amendment mandates that a country’s suitability for international transfer of data is monitored on an annual basis.

Amendment 16, in schedule 6, page 162, line 36, at end insert—

“(g) the views of the Information Commission on suitability of international transfer of data to the country or organisation.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek the views of the Information Commission on whether a country or organisation has met the data protection test for international data transfer in relation to law enforcement processing.

Government amendment 212.

Amendment 231, in schedule 13, page 202, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) A person may not be appointed under sub-paragraph (2) unless the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee of the House of Commons has endorsed the proposed appointment.”

This amendment would ensure that non-executive members of the Information Commission may not be appointed unless the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has endorsed the Secretary of State’s proposed appointee.

Government amendments 213 to 216.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The current one-size-fits-all, top-down approach to data protection that we inherited from the European Union has led to public confusion, which has impeded the effective use of personal data to drive growth and competition, and to support key innovations. The Bill seizes on a post-Brexit opportunity to build on our existing foundations and create an innovative, flexible and risk-based data protection regime. This bespoke model will unlock the immense possibilities of data use to improve the lives of everyone in the UK, and help make the UK the most innovative society in the world through science and technology.

I want to make it absolutely clear that the Bill will continue to maintain the highest standards of data protection that the British people rightly expect, but it will also help those who use our data to make our lives healthier, safer and more prosperous. That is because we have convened industry leaders and experts to co-design the Bill at every step of the way. We have held numerous roundtables with both industry experts in the field and campaigning groups. The outcome, I believe, is that the legislation will ensure our regulation reflects the way real people live their lives and run their businesses.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early. Oxford West and Abingdon has a huge number of spin-offs and scientific businesses that have expressed concern that any material deviation on standards, particularly European Union data adequacy, would entangle them in more red tape, rather than remove it. He says he has spoken to industry leaders. Have he and his Department assessed the risk of any deviation? Is there any associated cost to businesses from any potential deviation? Who is going to bear that cost?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I share the hon. Lady’s appreciation of the importance of data adequacy with the European Union. It is not the case that we have to replicate every aspect of GDPR to be assessed as adequate by the European Union for the purposes of data exchange. Indeed, a number of other countries have data adequacy, even though they do not have precisely the same framework of data protection legislation.

In drawing up the measures in the Bill, we have been very clear that we do not wish to put data adequacy at risk, and we are confident that nothing in the Bill does so. That is not only my view; it is the view of the expert witnesses who gave evidence in Committee. It is also the view of the Information Commissioner, who has been closely involved in all the measures before us today. I recognise the concern, but I do not believe it has any grounds.

[Layla Moran]

The Minister says, “We do not wish”. Is that a guarantee from the Dispatch Box that there will be absolutely no deviation that causes a material difference for businesses on EU data adequacy? Can he give that guarantee?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I can guarantee that there is nothing in the Government’s proposals that we believe puts data adequacy at risk. That is not just our view; it is the view of all those we have consulted, including the Information Commissioner. He was previously the information commissioner in New Zealand, which has its own data protection laws but is, nevertheless, recognised as adequate by the EU. He is very familiar with the process required to achieve and keep data adequacy, and it is his view, as well as ours, that the Bill achieves that objective.

We believe the Government amendments will strengthen the fundamental elements of the Bill and reflect the Government’s commitment to unleashing the power of data across our economy and society. I have already thanked all the external stakeholders who have worked with us to ensure that the Bill functions at its best. Taken together, we believe these amendments will benefit the economy by £10.6 billion over the next 10 years. That is more than double the estimated impact of the Bill when it was introduced in the spring.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that no services will rely on digital identity checks?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will come on to that, because we have tabled a few amendments on digital verification and the accreditation of digital identity.

We are proposing a voluntary framework. We believe that using digital identity has many advantages, and those will become greater as the technology improves, but there is no compulsory or mandatory element to the use of digital identity. I understand why the hon. Lady raises that point, and I am happy to give her that assurance.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on to the specifics of the Government amendments, may I ask him about something they do not yet cover? The Bill does not address the availability of data to researchers so that they can assist in the process of, for example, identifying patterns in online safety. He will know that there was considerable discussion of this during the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023, when a succession of Ministers said that we might return to the subject in this Bill. Will he update the House on how that is going? When might we expect to see amendments to deal with this important area?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It is true that we do not have Government amendments to that effect, but it is a central part of the Bill that we have already debated in Committee. Making data more available to researchers is, indeed, an objective of the Bill, and I share my right hon. and learned Friend’s view that it will produce great value. If he thinks more needs to be done in specific areas, I would be very happy to talk to him further or to respond in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Is any consideration given to the fact that that information could be used by bad actors? If people are able to find out where particular cables or pipes are, they also have the ability to find weakness in the system, which could have implications for us all.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. There would need to be a legitimate purpose for accessing such information and I am happy to supply her with further detail about precisely how that works.

The hon. Lady intervenes at an appropriate point, because I was about to say that the provision will allow the National Underground Asset Register service to operate in England and Wales. We intend to bring forward equivalent provisions as the Bill progresses in the other House, subject to the usual agreements, to allow the service to operate in Northern Ireland, but the Scottish Road Works Commissioner currently maintains its own register. It has helped us in the development of the NUAR, so the hon. Lady may like to talk to the Scottish Road Works Commissioner on that point.

I turn to the use of data for the purposes of democratic engagement, which is an issue of considerable interest to Members of the House. The Bill includes provisions to facilitate the responsible use of personal data by elected representatives, registered political parties and others for the purposes of “democratic engagement”. We have tabled further related amendments for consideration today, including adding a fuller definition of what constitutes “democratic engagement activities” to help the reader understand that term wherever it appears in the legislation.

The amendments provide for former MPs to continue to process personal data following a successful recall petition, to enable them to complete urgent casework or hand over casework to a successor, as they do following the Dissolution of Parliament. For consistency, related amendments are made to the definitions used in provisions relating to direct marketing for the purposes of democratic engagement.

Finally, hon. Members may be aware that the Data Protection Act 2018 currently permits registered political parties to process sensitive political opinions data without consent for the purposes of their political activities. The exemption does not however currently apply to elected representatives, candidates, recall petitioners and permitted participants in referendums. The amendment addresses that anomaly and allows those individuals to benefit from the same exemption as registered political parties.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Is the Minister prepared to look at how the proposals in the Bill and the amendments align with relevant legislation passed in the Scottish Government? A number of framework Bills to govern the operation of potential future referendums on a variety of subjects have been passed, particularly the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020. It is important that there is alignment with the definitions used in the Bill, such as that for “a permitted participant”. Will he commit to looking at that and, if necessary, make changes to the Bill at a later stage in its progress, in discussion with the Scottish Government?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am happy to look at that, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I hope the changes we are making to the Bill will provide greater legal certainty for MPs and others who undertake the processing of personal data for the purposes of democratic engagement.

The Bill starts and ends with reducing burdens on businesses and, above all, on small businesses, which account for over 99% of UK firms. In the future, organisations will need to keep records of their processing activities only when those activities are likely to result in a high risk to individuals. Some organisations have queried whether that means they will have to keep records in relation to all their activities if only some of their processing activities are high risk. That is not the Government’s intention. To maximise the benefits to business and other organisations, the amendments make it absolutely clear that organisations have to keep records only in relation to their high-risk processing activities.

The Online Safety Act 2023 took crucial steps to shield our children, and it is also important that we support grieving families who are seeking answers after tragic events where a child has taken their own life, by removing obstacles to accessing social media information that could be relevant to the coroner’s investigations.

[Layla Moran]

We welcome such measures, but is the Minister aware of the case of Breck Bednar, who was groomed and then murdered? His family is campaigning not just for new clause 35 but for measures that go further. In that case, the coroner would have wanted access to Breck’s online life but, as it currently stands, new clause 35 does not provide what the family needs without a change to widen the scope of the amendment to the Online Safety Act. Will the Minister look at that? I think it will just require a tweak in some of the wording.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I understand the concerns of the hon. Lady. We want to do all that we can to support the bereaved parents of children who have lost their lives. As it stands, the amendment will require Ofcom, following notification from a coroner, to issue information notices to specified providers of online services, requiring them to hold data they may have relating to a deceased child’s use of online services, in circumstances where the coroner suspects the child has taken their own life, which could later be required by a coroner as relevant to an inquest.

We will continue to work with bereaved families and Members of the other place who have raised concerns. During the passage of the Online Safety Act, my noble colleague Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay made it clear that we are aware of the importance of data preservation to bereaved parents, coroners and others involved in investigations. It is very important that we get this right. I hear what the hon. Lady says and give her an assurance that we will continue to work across Government, with the Ministry of Justice and others, in ensuring that we do so.

The hon. Member for Rhondda made reference to proposed new schedule 1, relating to improving our ability to identify and tackle fraud in the welfare system. I am grateful for the support of the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). In 2022-23, the Department for Work and Pensions overpaid £8.3 billion in fraud and error. A major area of loss is the under-declaration of financial assets, which we cannot currently tackle through existing powers. Given the need to address the scale of fraud and error in the welfare system, we need to modernise and strengthen the legal framework, to allow the Department for Work and Pensions to keep pace with change and stand up to future fraud challenges.

As I indicated earlier, the fraud plan, published in 2022, contains a provision outlining the DWP’s intention to bring forward new powers that would boost access to data held by third parties. The amendment will enable the DWP to access data held by third parties at scale where the information signals potential fraud or error. That will allow the DWP to detect fraud and error more proactively and protect taxpayers’ money from falling into the hands of fraudsters.

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

My reading of the proposed new schedule is that it gives the Department the power to look into the bank accounts of people claiming the state pension. Am I right about that?

[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 ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not the case that the DWP intends to focus on the state pension—and that is confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby. This is specifically about ensuring that means-related benefit claimants are eligible for the benefits for which they are currently claiming. In doing that, the identification and the avoidance of fraud will save the taxpayer a considerable amount of money.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I think everybody in the House understands the importance of getting this right. We all want to stop fraud in the state system. That being said, this is the only time that I am aware of where the state seeks the right to put people under surveillance without prior suspicion, and therefore such a power has to be restricted very carefully indeed. As we are not going to have time to debate this properly today, is my right hon. Friend open to having further discussion on this issue when the Bill goes to the Lords, so that we can seek further restrictions? I do not mean to undermine the effectiveness of the action; I just want to make it more targeted.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his contribution, and I share his principled concern that the powers of the state should be limited to those that are absolutely necessary. Those who are in receipt of benefits funded by the taxpayer have an obligation to meet the terms of those benefits, and this provision is one way of ensuring that they do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby has already said that he would be very happy to discuss this matter with my right hon. Friend further, and I am happy to do the same if that is helpful to him.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Can the Minister give us an example of the circumstances in which the Department would need to look into the bank accounts of people claiming state pensions in order to tackle the fraud problem? Why is the state pension within the scope of this amendment?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Government have made it clear that there is no intention to focus on claimants of the state pension. That is an undertaking that has been given. I am sure that Ministers from the DWP would be happy to give further evidence to the right hon. Gentleman, who may well wish to look at this further in his Committee.

Finally, I wish to touch on the framework around smart data, which is contained in part 3 of the Bill. The smart data powers will extend the Government’s ability to introduce smart data schemes, building on the success of open banking, which is the UK’s most developed data sharing scheme, with more than 7 million active users. The amendments will support the Government’s ability to meet their commitment, first, to provide open banking with a long-term regulatory framework, and, secondly, to establish an open data scheme for road fuel prices. It will also more generally strengthen the toolkit available to Government to deliver future smart data schemes.

The amendments ensure that the range of data and activities essential to smart data schemes are better captured and more accurately defined. That includes types of financial data and payment activities that are integral to open banking. The amendments, as I say, are complicated and technical and therefore I will not go into further detail.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will give way to my hon. Friend as I know that he has taken a particular interest, and is very knowledgeable, in this area.

[John Penrose]

The Minister is very kind. I just wanted to pick up on his last point about smart data. He is right to say that the provisions are incredibly important and potentially extremely valuable to the economy. Can he just clarify a couple of points? I want to be clear on Government new clause 27 about interface bodies. Does that apply to the kinds of new data standards that will be required under smart data? If it does, can he please clarify how he will make sure that we do not end up with multiple different standards for each sector of our economy? It is absolutely in everybody’s interests that the standards are interoperable and, to the greatest possible extent, common between sectors so that they can talk to each other?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I do have a note on interface bodies, which I am happy to include for the benefit of my hon. Friend. However, he will be aware that this is a technical and complicated area. If he wants to pursue a further discussion, I would of course be happy to oblige. I can tell him that the amendments will ensure that smart data schemes can replicate and build on the open banking model by allowing the Government to require interface bodies to be set up by members of the scheme. Interface bodies will play a similar role to that of the open banking implementation entity, developing common standards on arrangements for data sharing. Learning from the lessons and successes of the open banking regime, regulations will be able to specify the responsibilities and requirements for interface bodies and ensure appropriate accountability to regulators. I hope that that goes some way to addressing the point that he makes, but I would be happy to discuss it further with him in due course.

I believe these amendments will generally improve the functioning of the Bill and address some specific concerns that I have identified. On that basis, I commend them to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With the leave of the House, I call the Minister to wind up the 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 Stephen Timms]

My understanding was that the level of fraud among state pension claims was indeed extremely small. The Minister said earlier that the Government should take powers only where they are absolutely necessary; I think he is now saying that they are not necessary in the case of people claiming a state pension. Is he confident that that bit of this power—to look into the bank account of anybody claiming a state pension—is absolutely necessary?

[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.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

For the benefit of all Members, we are before the knife, so we will have to go through a sequence of procedures. It would help me, the Clerk and the Minister if we had a degree of silence. This will take a little time, and we need to be able to concentrate.

New Clause 48

Processing of personal data revealing political opinions

“(1) Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (special categories of personal data) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).

(2) After paragraph 21 insert—

‘Democratic engagement

21A (1) This condition is met where—

(a) the personal data processed is personal data revealing political opinions,

(b) the data subject is aged 14 or over, and

(c) the processing falls within sub-paragraph (2),

subject to the exceptions in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).

(2) Processing falls within this sub-paragraph if—

(a) the processing—

(i) is carried out by an elected representative or a person acting with the authority of such a representative, and

(ii) is necessary for the purposes of discharging the elected representative’s functions or for the purposes of the elected representative’s democratic engagement activities,

(b) the processing—

(i) is carried out by a registered political party, and

(ii) is necessary for the purposes of the party’s election activities or democratic engagement activities,

(c) the processing—

(i) is carried out by a candidate for election as an elected representative or a person acting with the authority of such a candidate, and

(ii) is necessary for the purposes of the candidate’s campaign for election,

(d) the processing—

(i) is carried out by a permitted participant in relation to a referendum or a person acting with the authority of such a person, and

(ii) is necessary for the purposes of the permitted participant’s campaigning in connection with the referendum, or

(e) the processing—

(i) is carried out by an accredited campaigner in relation to a recall petition or a person acting with the authority of such a person, and

(ii) is necessary for the purposes of the accredited campaigner’s campaigning in connection with the recall petition.

(3) Processing does not meet the condition in sub-paragraph (1) if it is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to an individual.

(4) Processing does not meet the condition in sub-paragraph (1) if—

(a) an individual who is the data subject (or one of the data subjects) has given notice in writing to the controller requiring the controller not to process personal data in respect of which the individual is the data subject (and has not given notice in writing withdrawing that requirement),

(b) the notice gave the controller a reasonable period in which to stop processing such data, and

(c) that period has ended.

(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b)—

(a) “democratic engagement activities” means activities whose purpose is to support or promote democratic engagement;

(b) “democratic engagement” means engagement by the public, a section of the public or a particular person with, or with an aspect of, an electoral system or other democratic process in the United Kingdom, either generally or in connection with a particular matter, whether by participating in the system or process or engaging with it in another way;

(c) examples of democratic engagement activities include activities whose purpose is—

(i) to promote the registration of individuals as electors;

(ii) to increase the number of electors participating in elections for elected representatives, referendums or processes for recall petitions in which they are entitled to participate;

(iii) to support an elected representative or registered political party in discharging functions, or carrying on other activities, described in sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b);

(iv) to support a person to become a candidate for election as an elected representative;

(v) to support a campaign or campaigning referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(c), (d) or (e);

(vi) to raise funds to support activities whose purpose is described in sub-paragraphs (i) to (v);

(d) examples of activities that may be democratic engagement activities include—

(i) gathering opinions, whether by carrying out a survey or by other means;

(ii) communicating with electors.

(6) In this paragraph—

“accredited campaigner” has the meaning given in Part 5 of Schedule 3 to the Recall of MPs Act 2015;

“candidate” , in relation to election as an elected representative, has the meaning given by the provision listed in the relevant entry in the second column of the table in sub-paragraph (7);

“elected representative” means a person listed in the first column of the table in sub-paragraph (7) and see also sub-paragraphs (8) to (10);

“election activities” , in relation to a registered political party, means—

(a) campaigning in connection with an election for an elected representative, and

(b) activities whose purpose is to enhance the standing of the party, or of a candidate standing for election in its name, with electors;

“elector” means a person who is entitled to vote in an election for an elected representative or in a referendum;

“permitted participant” has the same meaning as in Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (referendums) (see section 105 of that Act);

“recall petition” has the same meaning as in the Recall of MPs Act 2015 (see section 1(2) of that Act);

“referendum” means a referendum or other poll held on one or more questions specified in, or in accordance with, an enactment;

“registered political party” means a person or organisation included in a register maintained under section 23 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000;

“successful” , in relation to a recall petition, has the same meaning as in the Recall of MPs Act 2015 (see section 14 of that Act).

(7) This is the table referred to in the definitions of “candidate” and “elected representative” in sub-paragraph (6)—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Bill will deliver tangible benefits to British consumers and businesses alike, which would not have been possible if Britain had still been a member of the European Union. It delivers a more flexible and less burdensome data protection regime that maintains high standards of privacy protection while promoting growth and boosting innovation. It does so with the support of the Information Commissioner, and without jeopardising the UK’s European Union data adequacy.

I would like to thank all Members who contributed during the passage of the Bill, and all those who have helped get it right. I now commend it to the House on its onward passage to the other place.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Media Bill

John Whittingdale Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Sir John Whittingdale)]

May I start by thanking all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate? It has been wide ranging and remarkably consensual with one small exception. Nevertheless, there has been much support for what the Government are seeking to do in this Bill from right across the House. That is perhaps in part because it has been a long time in the preparation, but I think that it is all the better for that. The Government decided to publish the Bill in draft form, and we have consulted very widely since that time.

We are extremely grateful to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and to the Lords Communication and Digital Committee. We have also held extensive discussions with broadcasters, platforms and all those who have an interest including—just to reassure the Father of the House—with Colin Browne of the Voice of the Listener & Viewer, whom I met recently. We intend to continue to engage with all those with an interest in the Bill to make absolutely sure that we have got it right.

A number of hon. Members, in the course of their contributions, remarked on the extraordinary transformation that has occurred in the media landscape over the past few years. It is absolutely the case that things such as EPGs and linear television are becoming less and less part of everyday behaviour, particularly for young people who access television content. It has meant that there has had to be a succession of Bills to update the legislation to take account of the changes. I have to admit that I was a member of the Broadcasting Bill Standing Committee in 1996. I led for the Opposition in the Committee on the Communications Act 2003, and I am delighted that I shall be taking this Bill through Committee in the next few weeks.

I particularly welcome the offer from the shadow Secretary of State to work with us in taking the Bill through and I look forward to working with her and the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) in Committee as I think that there are areas where we share a common objective. We are also keen to work with all members of the Committee to ensure that we get this right.

As I say, there has been a remarkable transformation in the media landscape. We are particularly grateful for the recommendations, and I want to touch on one or two made particularly by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have always had a high regard for that Committee, having spent 10 years chairing it. As ever, the report produced by the Committee was extremely valuable and we were delighted that we were able to accept a large number of the recommendations.

There were one or two recommendations on which we took a different view. In particular, one that has been raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), was the distinction between “significant” and “appropriate”. A number Members have recommended that we should use the words “significant prominence”, rather than “appropriate prominence”. The Government have taken a different view, which can be summed up as, “Significant can indeed be appropriate, but appropriate is not necessarily significant.”

S4C is an example of that. In Wales, it is very important that it should be highly visible, and therefore significant prominence in Wales is appropriate. On the other hand, it would not necessarily be appropriate for S4C to have significant prominence outside Wales. It should obviously be findable, but it has a different position outside Wales. The Government remain of the view that “appropriate” is a more fitting term than “significant”.

[Dr Coffey]

I am very conscious of what my right hon. Friend says, but “appropriate” is so wishy-washy and it is clear that promoting S4C in parts of England is not what people are talking about. It is leaving the decision to Ofcom and judges, as opposed to the very clear signal from Parliament that we want our public service broadcasters to be high up the list right across the country, including on the platforms we discussed earlier.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

As I say, in a large number of cases the appropriate position would be a significant one, but we think there needs to be a degree of flexibility to take account of regional differences, and therefore that Ofcom is perhaps better placed to look at each individual example and decide the appropriate level.

I come to Channel 4, which has featured a lot in the course of the debate. Channel 4, set up by a Conservative Government, has played an extremely valuable role in the broadcasting landscape. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe who rightly said that when Channel 4 was created, the independent production sector did not really exist at all. The indie sector was created by Channel 4 and the fact that Channel 4, as a broadcaster, commissioned all its content from the indie sector.

As a result, we now have one of the most successful independent production sectors in the world, which to some extent does not now need the support of Channel 4; it is making content for all the broadcasters, in this country and beyond. Nevertheless, it is the Government’s decision that, to provide Channel 4 with a more sustainable revenue base moving forward, we should allow it to acquire an in-house production capacity if it so chooses. We talked to the independent production sector at length and felt it was appropriate that in those circumstances we should increase the independent production quota to 35%, in order to provide some underpinning of the independent production sector. We hope that that will ensure the continued sustainability of the independent production sector at the same time as giving a Channel 4 an additional ability to diversify its sources of revenue.

There have been a number of contributions from north of the border during this debate, particularly around Gaelic broadcasting. One measure in the Bill for the first time makes the provision of services in the minority languages across the United Kingdom part of the public service remit. That did not exist before. It is for Ofcom to decide an appropriate level of provision, but there is now a requirement that there should be such provision.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but should there not be something a bit stronger and more stringent in the Bill than a decision by Ofcom further down the road, and should it not be written into law, as several Members have asked?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Well, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that clause 1 makes clear that there should be a significant quantity of

“audiovisual content that is in, or mainly in, a recognised regional or minority language”.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Just to correct the Minister, it does not say “significant quantity”; it says “sufficient quantity”, but there is no definition of “sufficient”. We are concerned about the fact that that word has not been defined. We want a reasonable amount of Gaelic content to be available.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I apologise to the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right: it does say a

“sufficient quantity of audiovisual content”.

That will be a matter for Ofcom to rule on. MG Alba already gets support—

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful to the Minister, who I appreciate is trying to be helpful. What we are asking for specifically is that protection in law be given to Gaelic in the way it is given to other languages, such as Welsh. I hope that that can be done with cross-party consensus, which is what we have done over the course of the past few decades in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s wish to see continuing provision both for the Welsh language and indeed for Gaelic. I would, however, draw a contrast. Some have suggested that there should be some kind of equity in the support given to the Welsh language and to Gaelic. Of course, S4C receives funding from the licence fee, but that is in recognition of the fact that there are nearly 1 million Welsh speakers in the United Kingdom. MG Alba gets some support from the Scottish Government, which is welcome, but there are approaching 100,000 people in Scotland who speak Gaelic, so there is a big contrast between the two.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

There is a reason there have been so few Gaelic speakers over the centuries: Acts of Parliament, from the Education (Scotland) Act 1872 onwards—and even before. The point is that we are looking for redress and hope, not for more of the same. I mean that in a good spirit; I hope it does not come across otherwise, because I know that the Minister is not that type of person. I am trying to communicate to him the urgency of the real need, expressed by a number of Members, for that kind of support.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am afraid that all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government recognise the importance of continuing support. We expect the BBC to continue providing a channel in Gaelic, in the form of BBC Alba, and we welcome the fact that MG Alba produces content through an arrangement with the BBC and with the support of the Scottish Government. We have now, for the first time, put into the public service remit the requirement to provide

“a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content”.

That is a significant step forward, even if it does not go quite as far as SNP Members would like.

The provisions covering radio have been rightly welcomed and described by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who is an acknowledged expert in this area. We have worked closely with the radio sector, and I think that the audio review identified the need to ensure the protection of radio services as more and more people adopt smart speakers.

A number of hon. Members raised local television, of which the Government remain supportive. However, at the moment, local television is not available through apps, so including it in the provisions for prominence was not appropriate, but we will of course keep the situation under review, should it evolve in future. The Government are consulting on the future of local television.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) raised a specific point about the regulation of video-on-demand streaming services. The Government completely share her wish to see adequate protection for children. Having sufficient protections in place will be part of the new requirements on the major streaming services. She is right to praise the BBFC. I have worked with the BBFC for many years, going right back to James Ferman, who for 25 years was its director. It is absolutely true that the BBFC is recognised as expert in this field. I very much welcome that a number of streamers have chosen to adopt the BBFC to carry out their age ratings, including Netflix and Amazon.

The Government’s objective, however, is to ensure that protection is in place, rather than necessarily to specify that it has to be done by the BBFC. It will be left to Ofcom to oversee that, and it already has a lot of experience in this area. It enforces the broadcasting code, which also requires age-appropriate broadcasting. As my hon. Friend rightly said, that was traditionally via the watershed, although that is now changing with the move to on-demand TV. Ofcom also undertakes other protections such as parental controls and so on, so it is not just age rating. I entirely share her view that the BBFC does an excellent job, and I hope that all services will consider using it when reaching decisions, but the Government are not at the point of wishing to mandate that at this time.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I utterly appreciate what my right hon. Friend is saying, and I can see why the Government and Ofcom do not want to be overly prescriptive about how this regulation is done, as long as the content is well understood. Will he just reflect on the fact that this set of labels is well understood by the public? Everyone knows what a U is, and everyone knows what an 18 is. In that sense, it would be an effective vehicle to establish that people understand the content.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

In determining whether the requirements are met, Ofcom will have to take into account whether the rating is easily understood by viewers. Even if that is not necessarily the BBFC’s triangles and particular age ratings, it will nevertheless need to meet those requirements and ensure that viewers can easily see what is an appropriate age for that particular content. I am a viewer of Disney+ along with the other services, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Disney+ has some content that is highly appropriate for children, but it has other content that is perhaps less so.

I move on to the repeal of section 40, which is of concern to a number of Members. I very much welcome the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who served with me on the Select Committee when we carried out the inquiries into phone hacking. I hope I am not being too immodest in saying that the Committee was responsible for exposing phone hacking, and none of the events that followed would have occurred had the Select Committee not persisted in our summoning of representatives of News International, as it was at that time, and pursuing that inquiry. It led to the police investigations and ultimately to the establishment of the Leveson inquiry.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) was right to set out the historical background to the establishment of the Leveson inquiry. However, the one thing that he did not cover, which I recall very well, is that the intention behind section 40 was to put pressure on one or two newspapers that might have been standing out against seeking the approval of the recognised regulator. What nobody anticipated when section 40 was established was that every single national publication would say that they were not willing to comply with that requirement. It was not just the tabloids or the red tops; it was The Guardian, The Independent and the Financial Times. No national newspaper was willing to comply with the Government’s proposals under the royal charter, and that did change things, because it made the system unworkable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) —to whom I am grateful for taking over the APPG on media freedom—is right to point out that campaigning organisations for press freedom such as Reporters Without Borders were equally critical of the Government’s proposals on section 40 and have been campaigning for its repeal. The Government reached the conclusion that the system had not worked and should be repealed, and we therefore put that in the Conservative party manifesto of 2017. It was repeated in the Conservative party manifesto of 2019, and I am delighted that we will now put that commitment into effect by repealing section 40.

I have seldom agreed with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but on this occasion, I thought he made one or two extremely good points. He is absolutely right to highlight the digital divide. We are very conscious that as more and more people access TV content through streaming services and via the internet, there is a group who have not done so. Several Members asked whether the Government can make a commitment to the continuation of Freeview beyond 2034. The Government would not consider switching off digital terrestrial television unless we had reached the point where the overwhelming majority were no longer using it to access TV. We are very conscious of that group in the population who still rely on traditional Freeview, and that will be in our thoughts.

The right hon. Member was also right to pay tribute to news reporting from around the world and to point out that it does not get enough attention. I was delighted to be able to attend the Society of Editors’ media freedom awards recently, where Sky received two awards for its reporter Stuart Ramsay’s reports from Myanmar about the civil war raging there. That is a terrible conflict that does not get enough attention. The right hon. Member is right that it is important that both PSBs and other providers continue to bring us reports from right around the world about things that we would otherwise be unaware of.

Lastly, I welcome the right hon. Member’s stressing the importance of local newspapers. I have been deeply concerned about the decline of local newspapers for many years. I am delighted that the BBC’s local democracy reporting service, which was established following the last charter, continues to support local newspapers, and we continue to look for other ways to support them.

This has been an excellent debate. I look forward to working with all Members and the Opposition as we take the Bill into Committee. I am delighted to commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Media Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Media Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14 December 2023.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mark Fletcher.)

Question agreed to.

Media Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Media Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Fletcher.)

Question agreed to.

Media Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Media Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the charging of fees under the Act; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mark Fletcher.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of AI on under-represented groups in the creative industries.

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I will endeavour to be succinct. AI offers huge benefits and opportunities to the creative sector, but it also brings challenges. The Government have engaged extensively with the creative industries and others about it and will continue to do so.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank the Minister for his succinct response, but, as he knows, the Select Committee has called for the Government to abandon the proposed copyright exemptions for text and data mining, which the chief executive officer of UK Music succinctly described as a

“green light to music laundering”.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not undermine artists and musicians by exempting AI data mining from copyright restrictions?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, there are ongoing discussions between creative rights owners and the platforms and others through the Intellectual Property Office, but it has made clear that, unless permitted under licence or on exception, making copies under text and data mining will constitute copyright infringement.

[Alex Sobel]

Does the Minister agree that the nature of AI systems is such that, when they are trained on creative works, both conscious and unconscious biases in music, films and art against certain groups in our society will be reinforced in generative outputs? The Government are seeking a code of conduct on copyright and AI; will they use this opportunity to address that issue and ensure that AI companies take responsibility for protecting against that type of harm? Is he considering an AI Bill, even though it was not announced in the King’s Speech?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

There is a great deal of work going on around AI to develop a framework of regulation, as was originally set out in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman’s point about algorithmic bias is a serious one; it is being studied by the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, and obviously we will look very carefully at that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

People working in the creative industries have been completely let down by the Tories, including on real concerns about the impact of AI. The Government have not responded to the consultation on their own AI White Paper or the report on AI and the creative industries. They have not got to grips with the issue at all. Creative people need to know whether they will be properly rewarded for their incredible talents, now and in the future. When will the Government set out a proper plan to protect creators?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Lady is new to her role and so may have missed the creative sector vision, which was published about six months ago and set out an investment totalling some £50 billion going into the creative industries over the next five years. A great deal of work is taking place on the impact of AI on creative industries, and we are hoping to say more about that before the end of the year.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

That is just not good enough. Thanks to the resilience and hard work of those in the creative industries, they are growing faster than many others, but it is people who make the best joy and the best culture, not AI. We are all better off when we draw on everyone’s talents. That is how we grow the creative industries—with people from more diverse backgrounds in more jobs. Tackling AI is a fundamental part of that. To pick an example for the Minister, talent in the north represents just 15% of employment in the creative industries under the Tories, so what are the Government doing to protect and increase that in the age of AI?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

With the Secretary of State, I was able to spend Monday in Manchester for the creative industries conference, where we met representatives from right across the sectors, including those from the AI sector. AI is already benefiting the creative industries to a considerable amount and represents real opportunities for them.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to support the horseracing sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on Government support for the tourism industry in Devon and Cornwall.

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I was pleased to visit south Devon in August and to meet members of the Great South West tourism partnership. I am also pleased that Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly have recently been accredited as a local visitor economy partnership and that Devon is working with VisitEngland towards potential accreditation.

[Kevin Foster]

As the Minister knows, the tourism sector in our region is iconic, but any rises in business rate bills that local hospitality businesses are required to pay could see many struggle. While it is for the Chancellor to set out tax changes, can he outline what representations he is making to the Chancellor to freeze the business rate multiplier and extend the 75% relief for hospitality for a further year?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I discussed a range of issues affecting tourism in Devon with the Great South West tourism partnership. We covered a lot of ground, and I know that those issues are of great importance to the tourism sector. Of course, we are in regular dialogue with the Treasury, but it is a matter for the Chancellor, as my hon. Friend says.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

5. Whether she has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs on support for journalists working in conflict zones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

8. What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Education to increase the uptake of music among children.

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

In June 2022, we published the new national plan for music education, which aims to level up music opportunities for all children and young people regardless of circumstance, needs or geography. Since publication, we have worked with the Department for Education to progress delivery of the music hub investment programme and the music progression fund.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I recently welcomed Bath young carers from the Bath Philharmonia to perform music in Parliament, and it was a wonderful evening. Sadly, too few young people have the opportunity to learn an instrument, or to perform or enjoy music, and the number of GCSE music entrants has fallen by 12.5%. The Minister mentioned the new national plan for music education. Will he update us on how many schools have implemented that plan, and will we get regular updates about any increase in the number of GCSE music entrants?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am sorry that I was unable to hear the visiting group from the hon. Lady’s constituency, but I am delighted that it came. As I have said, we are investing £25 million in the provision of musical instruments through music hubs. I can tell her that the proportion of pupils studying for a music qualification at key stage 4 over the past years has remained stable at about 7% to 8%.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I have to say that the Bath young carers played wonderfully, and I really enjoyed listening to them.

Ofsted recently stated that there remains a

“divide between children and young people whose families can afford to pay for music tuition and those who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds.”

I share the concern just expressed about the impact this is having. The money promised for musical instruments in June 2022, which the Minister has just mentioned, has still not been distributed to schools, and it now sounds as though that money is not going to arrive until autumn 2024. Will that delay not just mean that more children are not able to learn to play an instrument? What action can the Minister take to speed it up?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I can tell the hon. Lady that the Government remain committed to investment through the music hub investment programme, and I am happy to give her a specific answer to the question she raises about the allocation of that money in writing. The Government are working very closely with the DFE on this, and we also look forward to producing a cultural education plan in early 2024.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

10. What steps she is taking to help support preparations for UEFA Euro 2028.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

11. Whether she has had recent discussions with representatives of the creative industries in Scotland on the impact of the UK’s exit from the EU on those industries.

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I and my officials regularly meet representatives of the creative industries in Scotland, and we were pleased to be joined by representatives from Creative Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Creative Industries Council earlier this week. We will continue to work closely with colleagues in Scotland to ensure that the UK’s creative industries remain world leading following the UK’s exit from the European Union.

[Gavin Newlands]

Notwithstanding the Minister’s answer, polling by the Independent Society of Musicians has shown that almost half of musicians in the music industry have had less work in the EU post Brexit, and 40% have had to cancel work in the EU due to the increased cost of travelling and working in the EU. How can the Minister continue to pretend that Brexit has not harmed musicians, when the costs are so enormous and have been explained to this Government many, many times?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

We are continuing to work to make it easier for musicians from this country to tour in Europe, and we have managed to establish arrangements with 24 out of 27 member states that now allow visa and work permit-free routes for UK performers for short-term touring. We continue to engage in discussions with countries individually to make further improvements.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The post-Brexit tightening of immigration rules and the Brexit-caused cost of living crisis are having a disproportionate impact on the creative sector, as the UK Government continue to squeeze public services. In advance of the autumn statement next week, what representations are the Secretary of State and the Department making to the Chancellor to ensure that the creative sector is adequately funded and protected, so that Scotland can receive the Barnett consequentials from that in order to continue to support our wonderful and, as the Minister says, world-leading creative industry?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The Chancellor has been very generous to the creative industries and I hope that he will continue to be so. However, I would point out to the hon. Lady that Creative Scotland benefits from a grant in aid budget of around £63 million, and I would have thought that she might welcome the fact that in the last March Budget the UK Government announced £8.6 million in support for two of Edinburgh’s world-leading festivals.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)]

T2. Following the successful artificial intelligence summit, can my right hon. Friend update us on his conversations with the media industry to make sure that safeguards are in place while we also reap important jobs for the future?

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

Rapid development of AI poses major questions for many industries, including our vital press sector. We are hosting roundtables with broadcasters and news publishers to discuss the risks and opportunities of AI to journalism, and we intend to continue the conversation with the sector over the coming months.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

T4. UK- inbound tourism has lost the equivalent of 15,000 jobs following the 83% fall in EU student groups visiting our country because of post-Brexit passport and visa requirements. I was heartened to read in the Financial Times about the proposed deal that the Prime Minister wants to strike with France following his summit with President Macron. Are any other deals like that in the pipeline?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

T7. Citizens across the EU now benefit from increased transparency in how big tech companies target them with adverts and propaganda thanks to the Digital Services Act. Of course, we have missed out because of Brexit. What will the Government do to provide increased transparency and tackle bad-faith actors using big tech to target our citizens?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The online advertising taskforce has come forward with a number of measures, and we are looking both to legislate in this area in due course and to introduce non-statutory measures. We are committed to protecting vulnerable people from inappropriate advertising, and to tackling fraudulent advertising.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The inclusion of five additional sports in the Los Angeles Olympics programme could provide extra medal prospects for Team GB, especially as our women are current European flag champions, the England, Scotland and Wales women’s lacrosse teams are in the top 10, and we have two men and one woman in the top 10 for squash. However, to ensure success, funding for the 2028 Olympics needs to be secured before Paris next year, so what discussions is the Minister having with the new lottery provider and the Treasury to ensure that UK sport is adequately funded for those sports and others for LA28?

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Local newspapers are under threat. When the community news project was introduced in 2018 for newspapers such as the Cambridge News, it was widely welcomed. The project was supported by tech giant Meta, but it has now withdrawn funding. Will the Minister join me and others in calling for it to rethink its decision?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I met representatives of Meta earlier in the week, and I did make clear to them the Government’s disappointment at the withdrawal of the community news project. We are looking to ensure that newspapers are properly compensated by the tech giants, and measures to ensure that are contained in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

After the tremendous success of the Commonwealth games in Birmingham in 2021, I was delighted to hear last week that our fantastic mayor Andy Street has secured a £9 million legacy fund from the Commonwealth games for communities to participate in grassroots projects. Does my right hon. Friend agreed that this is a fantastic opportunity for organisations in constituencies such as mine and across the west midlands bid for the fund in order to promote physical and mental activities in local communities?

Football Regulation

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) on securing this debate. As he mentioned at the start of his remarks, it was the intention of the Minister for Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), to respond to the debate, but he has had to return to his constituency urgently for reasons that I think colleagues will fully understand.

In his remarks, the hon. Gentleman highlighted the deep concern that he and many of the fans he represents have expressed regarding football ownership. I pay tribute to his commitment, and to theirs; having listened to his description, we understand how difficult it must have been for those fans over the past few years. We are very much aware of the passion and interest that many hon. Members feel about the long-term sustainability and governance of English football, and their commitment to their local clubs. I thank the hon. Members for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for their contributions to this debate. In particular, as a Member of Parliament for Essex, I am very much aware of the difficulties faced by Southend United, and my hon. Friend has been a fantastic champion for the fans of that club.

The presence of those hon. Members in this debate demonstrates how important football clubs are to the lives of people in this country. In 2011, when I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—quite a considerable time ago now—we conducted an inquiry into football governance. It is somewhat depressing that, 12 years later, we are still debating many of the same issues. However, I hope that the inclusion of the football governance Bill in the King’s Speech yesterday will reassure the hon. Member for Reading East and others that this Government are intent on delivering and safeguarding the future of football clubs for the benefit of communities and fans.

The hon. Gentleman has talked about his own local club, steeped in the fabric of its community. It has been relegated, suffered sporting sanctions and faced financial penalties because of reckless decisions made by owners and terrible mismanagement. We have also heard about poor and non-existent governance practices, with fans being prevented from influencing key decisions that affect them and having to petition local councils, in some cases to protect stadiums. All such incidents threaten the long-term health and sustainability of all clubs, not just Reading.

We have heard about how English football clubs make significant contributions, and also about what happens when the community is let down by irresponsible owners in charge of football clubs. No employee, be they a player or, indeed, someone in the club shop, should fear not being paid. It is the local communities and fans that are the lifeblood of these clubs, and they bear the brunt and fallout of bad ownership decisions. They see where the structures are not working for the good of the game, and they can articulate most clearly how these are set right.

My colleagues in the ministerial team have prioritised engaging with fans and listening to their concerns, and I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for leading the fan-led review of football governance. This has been of immense value in developing the White Paper and during the period of the consultation we held earlier this year. I would like to thank the Football Supporters Association for its support; its contribution has been extremely valuable.

Too many clubs have been brought to the brink with unsuitable owners taking over, stripping them of their assets and refusing to fund them any more. We are committed to breaking this cycle of inappropriate ownership, financial instability and poor governance practices. That is why the inclusion of the Bill in yesterday’s King’s Speech is so important. The Bill will establish an independent football regulator, which will put fans back at the heart of football and help to deliver a sustainable future for all clubs. It will strengthen the governance and financial resilience of football clubs to protect the national game and clubs linked with communities and fans. Crucially, the regulator will address systemic financial issues in football, while providing the certainty and sustainability required to drive future investment and growth. This will ensure that English football remains the global success story and tackles the harms that exist.

The Bill will give fans more of a voice in the running of their clubs by setting a minimum standard of fan engagement. Clubs will need to meet this, and will be required to comply with the FA on its new rules for club heritage. It will give fans a veto over changes to the badge and home shirt colours, in addition to the strong existing protections for club names. Most clubs have a strong relationship with their fans and consciously engage them in decisions about club heritage, but not all do. For instance, fans of Cardiff City and Hull City will understand the importance of these measures after they recently had to battle to bring back or to keep their club’s colours and badge. Likewise, the new system will create strengthened owners and directors tests to make sure a club’s custodians—their owners and directors—are suitable.

[Mr Betts]

I think the consultation with fans is absolutely at the heart of this. It was at the heart of the fan-led review, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for that. For the fans, it will be really important that the legislation specifies how fans groups will be appointed as part of the consultation, and it should not be left to the owners of clubs to decide which fans they want to talk to and which they do not, because that is at the heart of the current problems in many clubs.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I just remind the Minister that at 7 o’clock the Whip will once more move the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I do understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). Certainly, we would not wish to have a system in which the directors decided who they do and do not wish to talk to. It will be part of the licensing requirements that fans are involved. I am sure we will wish to explore that further during the passage of the Bill, but it is certainly the intention that that is one of the conditions for licensing.

We have seen other examples of fans fighting back against their owners to save their clubs at Blackpool, Charlton Athletic and, as we have heard tonight, Reading. That should not have had to happen.

[Matt Rodda]

Does the Minister agree that part of the issue here is about the test for ownership? It was interesting in Reading’s case that Dai Yongge was refused as a potential owner for Hull City when it was in the premiership —unlike Reading, which was in the championship at the time. The English Football League allowed him to become the owner of Reading. There is an issue there and a question about the fit and proper test for owners.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern on that point, particularly given the record of the owner of his particular club. The Bill will insert as one of the duties of the new football regulator the requirement to conduct an owners and directors test, to make sure that clubs and fans are protected from irresponsible owners. I am sure that we will want to explore that matter in greater detail when the Bill comes to be debated in this House.

The Bill will also require clubs to seek the regulator’s approval for any sale or relocation of the stadium and to demonstrate how they have consulted their fans as part of that. To give another example, at Derby County we saw the issues caused by the decision to sell the club stadium to a separate company owned by the club’s owner. More recently, as the hon. Gentleman has graphically described, we have seen fans at Reading petition the council to list the ground as an asset of community value, to make sure that it cannot be sold quickly and without warning by the current owner. The stadium that the club plays in not only has significant value to fans, but can be a club’s most valuable asset.

In addition, the regulator will prevent clubs from joining breakaway leagues. As Members will be aware, in 2021 fans were faced with the prospect of a breakaway European super league that was fundamentally uncompetitive and threatened to undermine the footballing pyramid. Fans will no longer face the prospect of seeing their club sign up to such ill-thought-out proposals. Ultimately, we want a thriving footballing pyramid and more money must flow through the game to make that happen.

On financial distribution, it remains our firm belief that the best solution is a football-led solution, but if one is not found, the regulator will have a backstop power to intervene and force a solution. I hope a resolution on that point will be found soon, and I urge both sides to reach a deal as soon as possible. It is in the game’s interests to avoid the risk of further financial uncertainty.

In short, through this legislation we are protecting the fundamentals of the game we love while ensuring a more sustainable future with fans at its heart for generations to come. Meanwhile, alongside the introduction of legislation, the Government will take the time to explore the extent to which preparatory work can be done ahead of the regulator being established in law.

I fully recognise the plight of Reading football club, as the hon. Gentleman described, and I understand his wish that measures should be brought in as soon as possible. I am afraid that I cannot commit to a pilot at this stage, but I can tell him that the experience of Reading FC and other clubs will continue to inform policy development and decisions about how the regulator is set up. Likewise, any sale that takes place in advance of the regulator is a matter for the football authorities’ existing rules and checks on owners and directors, but I urge hon. Members who are concerned on that point to encourage clubs and their leaderships to engage with the team in the Department as we take the policy forward.

If the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns, I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, will be happy to talk to him further. I thank him for bringing the matter before the House. I think we all look forward to the introduction of the Bill and the establishment of a regulator in due course. I certainly share his view that that needs to happen quickly, and before a general election.

Question put and agreed to.

BBC Commissioning: Oversight

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing the debate and on raising what are important matters. I know that he has campaigned on this issue for many years. I have read his previous debates and parliamentary questions on the subject, and he has been assiduous. In a number of areas, I have considerable sympathy with him. I have been overseeing the BBC for a very long time in one capacity or another, and a number of the issues he raised are ones on which I, too, campaigned.

There are three issues on which we have made great progress, and for which I would like to take some credit, but I absolutely recognise the hon. Gentleman’s role. All the issues relate to the area of commissioning. The first is the National Audit Office’s access to the BBC. The extent to which the NAO was able to examine the BBC’s financial accounts was limited for quite a long time. As he knows, the BBC argued strongly that the NAO should not be given full access, with a succession of what I regarded as somewhat spurious excuses, such as that it would somehow interfere with the BBC’s independence from the Government. Well, the BBC is independent of the Government, but that does not mean that the BBC should not be held to account for the fact that it spends a very large amount of public money in the form of the licence fee. I am glad that, in the charter, we ensured that the NAO had full access to the BBC accounts.

The second matter is on the commissioning of programming. Previously, the BBC produced 50% of its content in-house. It was subject to a quota for indie productions of 25%, and then there was something known in the trade as the window of creative competition, or WoCC, which was the remaining 25% that could be opened up to either BBC in-house production or the independent sector. We reached the agreement that the BBC should move towards opening up the entirety of its schedule to competition from BBC production and independent production. The BBC is on track to achieve 100%, I think by 2027, which has provided a huge boost to the independent production sector. It was very strongly welcomed at the time by the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, the body representing independent producers. Opening this up does mean that the BBC’s public money, through the licence fee, is being used to commission programmes from private companies. That obviously needs to be done in a transparent and accountable fashion, which is one of the requirements of the charter, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry quoted.

The third area, which we also addressed in the last charter renewal—I, too, have campaigned on this issue and the hon. Gentleman also raised it—is transparency over the payment of public money in the form of salaries to high-earning BBC employees. Initially, the BBC resisted very strongly, believing that it would make it harder for them to recruit and that it would somehow give an unfair advantage to their competitors, but eventually, the BBC agreed to this at a higher threshold than was ultimately introduced. Actually, the Prime Minister who appointed me to oversee the task, David Cameron, agreed to that higher threshold, but when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) became Prime Minister, she insisted on bringing it back down to £150,000. It has risen in line with inflation, so I think the figure for the publication of salaries is now £178,000.

The publication had an unforeseen consequence, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned. When I insisted on the publication of information about individuals earning high salaries, for the reasons that he gave, I did so on the basis that I thought it right that the licence fee payer should know where large amounts of the money were going. We did not realise that it would also expose the shocking gender pay gap between the salaries of men and women doing essentially the same jobs at the BBC. It had the consequence of making the BBC address that issue as well, and that was a very good demonstration of why transparency is so important.

The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the way in which the BBC has to publish the names of its employees directly earning money over a certain threshold, but a number of people obtain payment from the Government through the intermediary of a private production company—a number of individuals have set that up. I agree with him that it is not entirely satisfactory that one person who earns a large amount of money from the BBC has their name published, and another does not, just because the way in which the BBC pays them is done through a slightly different route. I hope that is something we will continue to look at. I raised the issue when I was chairing the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, and I have raised it since, and I hope the BBC will continue to look at ways in which it can increase transparency, which is the right way forward.

The charter increased the level of independent oversight of the BBC by bringing in Ofcom as an independent regulator. We have a system whereby complaints about the BBC go first to the BBC, but can then be escalated to Ofcom. The Government does not get involved in that process. I think that is right, and for that reason, I cannot directly respond to some of the hon. Gentleman’s specific complaints. Those are for the BBC to examine. I agree that he has raised some important matters that I hope the BBC will look at, and indeed that Ofcom could investigate as well.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware, as is written into the charter, that the Government said there would be a review of the governance arrangements—called the mid-term review—that needs to be completed by 2024. We will publish the outcome of that very soon actually. While I cannot reveal that at this stage, I can say that one of the areas that has been raised with the Government a number of times, and which the hon. Gentleman raised again today, is the way in which the BBC has dealt with complaints and the fact that so few have been upheld. The Government’s view is that that process needs to be strengthened. We will have more to say about how we believe it can be strengthened—the BBC has agreed that it should be strengthened—when we publish the mid-term review.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s attendance and for what he has just shared. A perception arising from some issues that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) raised is that some people in the BBC are too popular to be criticised, too successful to be touched, and too important in the ratings game to have issues raised about their conduct. Some of the points that my hon. Friend made touch on questionable, if not corruptible, practices around commissioning and around individuals and their behaviour. The Minister is right that Ofcom is there for when the BBC has completed its investigations, but Ofcom looks very particularly at regulatory matters. He mentioned the ongoing review, but can he give us any assurance that there will be a level of stringent and independent oversight in the BBC and through its management structure, so that when such issues are raised, which touch on malpractice or questionable practice around the allocation of financing and the commissioning of resources, the public and we all know there is integrity in the process of investigating them?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree that nobody who is in receipt of public money or who holds a senior position in a publicly owned and publicly funded organisation should be exempt from scrutiny to make sure that they are carrying out their functions properly, and that any concerns around that need to be investigated.

As for whether anybody is too popular or too senior to be examined or held to account, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the highest-paid BBC employee is Gary Lineker, and there has been quite a lot of controversy over some of his remarks. That is absolutely right and, as a consequence, the BBC has recently carried out a further consideration of their social media guidelines for highly paid staff and has brought those into play, partially as a result of some of those controversies. That matter is very different from the kind of issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. They relate to allegations that have been received about possible corrupt behaviour, and, obviously, that would also need to be investigated. The particular show that he referred to is presented by the fourth highest-paid person at the BBC. That, again, is another reason why a large amount of public money is spent, and we need to be satisfied.

As I said, this is not a matter that the Government can or should investigate, but there are independent bodies that do so. The first port of call I suggest the Gentleman might talk to is the BBC board member for Northern Ireland, Mr Michael Smyth. He was recently appointed and has taken up his post. Part of his role is to oversee the BBC’s activities in Northern Ireland, as well as to act as a member of the board as a whole. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will draw his concerns to Mr Smyth’s attention, and also take advantage of the BBC first complaints process.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the individual who runs the editorial standards and guidelines committee, but there are also independent board members who sit on that committee. He could certainly draw his concerns to their attention. Ultimately, as we have discussed, the NAO has full access under the charter. If there are concerns about the way in which public money has been spent, that, too, is a matter that the NAO could investigate.

I do not in any way suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not raised some serious concerns; I hope they will be examined to his satisfaction. I think he is best placed to pursue them through the routes that I have suggested, but I am grateful to him for raising these matters this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill

John Whittingdale Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I come to this debate slightly late, as I am actually responding to a debate that took place almost a year ago to the day. In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) made his points powerfully but succinctly: he had just 16 minutes to speak. The Minister at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), had one minute to respond. I will therefore set the context of the debate and answer a number of the points I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would have made if he had had longer when he moved the Second Reading of his Bill.

Just over 100 years ago, on 18 October 1922, the BBC came into being as the British Broadcasting Company. It was an arrangement between the Post Office and a group of radio set manufacturers to provide radio content and promote the sale of wireless sets. It was funded through a 10 shilling licence fee. In 1927, the BBC received its first royal charter, becoming the British Broadcasting Corporation, with a mission to inform, educate and entertain. Since then, the BBC has continued to evolve and to play a hugely important role in British life, as it has touched the lives of almost everyone in the UK and made a unique contribution to our cultural heritage.

In December 1932, the BBC launched its Empire Service. Days later, the service broadcast the first Christmas day message by a British monarch when King George V addressed the empire live from Sandringham. In 1940, Winston Churchill delivered his first radio broadcast as Prime Minister. In 1946, the first combined radio and TV licence fee was introduced, at a cost of £2, which then became the TV licence in 1971.

In 1985, Live Aid was broadcast to an estimated 400 million viewers, and in 2007, iPlayer pioneered a whole new way to watch BBC content on demand via the internet. A year later, that was followed by BBC Sounds, which is a streaming media and audio download service hosting a range of content including live radio broadcasts, audio on demand and podcasts. As was noted in the brief debate we had a year ago by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), last year the BBC’s coverage of the funeral of Her late Majesty the Queen was watched by 22.4 million people across BBC channels at peak viewing time.

The BBC, now just over 100 years old, continues to be a great national institution. It is an invaluable source of education, information and entertainment, particularly for the most vulnerable and isolated people in our society, including older people. It is respected globally and reaches hundreds of millions of people across the world every week. No other country in the world has anything quite like it.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

If the BBC is as wonderful and magnificent as my right hon. Friend is telling us, and it provides such wonderful value for money, as the BBC keeps telling us, why does it need the criminal law to force people to pay for it?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, that is a point I intend to address in some substance a little later on. He makes an argument that many have made, and I understand it. The quality of the content of the BBC is considerable, although I—like everybody in this House, I suspect—occasionally have reason to question it. It is, in my view, still the finest broadcaster in the world, but that is a separate issue from the question of how we pay for it, which is the issue at stake in the Bill.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)]

Does the Minister recall that in 2014, while serving on the Committee considering the Deregulation Bill, I managed to insert a new clause that would have led to the decriminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence? Does he also recall that during charter renewal, the then Chancellor, George Osborne, negotiated away decriminalisation in return for the BBC taking on the payment of the concessional over-75 TV licences?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I recall it very well because I was the Secretary of State at the time, so I was quite involved in that particular negotiation.

To return to the point of the licence fee, the licence fee pays for, overwhelmingly, the BBC’s non-commercial activities. It raises something like £3.74 billion in public funding every year, with which the BBC has to deliver its mission and public purposes. A television licence is required to watch, record or receive television as it is broadcast live on any channel or online service.

In a subsequent licence fee settlement, which was in my second incarnation, it was set to be frozen for two years and then to be uprated in line with inflation. The original charter agreement reached a settlement with the BBC where it was agreed that a licence should be required to watch not just live transmission of linear television services but live or on-demand content on BBC iPlayer, meaning that the so-called iPlayer loophole was closed.

[Andrew Bridgen]

As the Minister was then Secretary of State, he will recall that the BBC wanted people to need a licence to watch all other media online, including the Sky player, the ITV player and the Channel 4 player. Does he remember that we had to defeat that?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It has always been the case that the licence fee is required to watch live TV. It does not extend to the other things, however much some people might suggest it should. That has led to an issue that I will go on to talk about: the challenge to the existing model as people change the way they consume television.

It is worth noting that the licence fee is not just used to fund the BBC. It is also used for other strategic public service objectives, including the funding of the Welsh language broadcaster S4C. I spent yesterday in Cardiff, where I was able to visit S4C; I visited the set of “Pobol y Cwm”, for any Welsh speakers in the Chamber today. I can vouch that S4C does an important job in sustaining the Welsh language and is thoroughly deserving of public funding through the licence fee, which is why the Government agreed in the last licence fee settlement to a significant increase in that funding.

The licence fee represents a significant intervention in the broadcasting market, providing a predictable and steady source of revenue for the BBC. The Government are currently committed to maintaining the licence fee funding model for the duration of this 11-year charter period, which runs until 2027. But as I have already suggested—I will come on to this point at greater length—the BBC funding model is facing major challenges, and it is necessary to look at ways to ensure that it remains sustainable in the longer term.

The licence fee does not represent the only intervention by the Government in the broadcasting sector. There are a number of other ways in which we support a dynamic and successful broadcasting sector and, in particular, public service broadcasting. We have six public service broadcasters: the BBC, ITV, STV, Channel 4, S4C and Channel Five. Only two of those—the BBC and S4C—receive direct public funding from the licence fee. All six broadcasters benefit from regulatory advantages such as prominence and guaranteed access to spectrum. With these benefits come obligations with respect to the content that they show and how it is made.

The UK’s public broadcasting system was originally born of necessity when there was limited analogue capacity of spectrum, but more recently—over the past 50 years—the role has become clearer. The six broadcasters complement the free market, producing the type of content that would otherwise be under-served, such as local news that addresses communities across the country, current affairs programmes and original, distinctively British programming that shapes our culture and reflects our values. It is not limited to traditional broadcast television; BBC Bitesize, for example, provides an important resource for young people and schools across the UK. The UK’s public service broadcasters complement their commercial competitors by raising standards across the industry, investing in skills, boosting growth and taking creative risks.

Broadcasters, including the public service broadcasters, are facing a number of challenges due to changing technology. Just as the advent of cable and satellite revolutionised public service broadcasting, internet-delivered services are revolutionising broadcasting now, creating new distribution models with their own gatekeepers. It is telling, for example, that 74% of households with a TV set now choose to connect it to the internet. That has provided viewers with an enormous amount of choice in what they watch and how they watch it.

In particular, the trend away from linear viewing and towards on-demand viewing is continuing. According to Ofcom, in the first quarter of 2023, approximately two thirds of UK households were subscribing to a subscription-video-on-demand service. The weekly reach of broadcast TV fell from 83% in 2021 to 79% in 2022, which is the biggest ever annual drop. This ongoing shift away from traditional, linear, scheduled TV viewing to on-demand via the internet offers viewers an enormous extra range of choice, but it is also putting pressure on the traditional funding models and on public service broadcasters. One way in which the Government intend to address that is through the introduction of the media Bill, which I hope we will hear more about in the King’s Speech. The purpose of that Bill will be to ensure that the public service broadcasters remain visible at the top of the programme guides, whatever form of TV distribution viewers choose to use, because we believe it is important that the public service broadcasters are sustained.

I come to the specific issue my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raises in his Bill: TV licences for the over-75s. Both decriminalisation of the licence fee and the exemption for the over 75s have been debated at length many times in this Chamber. I understand that they remain controversial and that many people remain critical of the fact that the BBC now enforces the payment of the licence fee for over-75s who do not qualify as a result of receiving a means-tested benefit.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Minister will probably recall that I have tabled a number of written questions on enforcement action taken by the BBC, and it seems that no enforcement action has been taken against the over-75s. The Minister says in his responses that any enforcement action should be undertaken with the utmost sensitivity. I can show him letters that my constituents get from the BBC that do not show the utmost sensitivity. Another conversation needs to be had about how this has all been handled.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman is right on both points. He is right that enforcement action has largely not been taken by the BBC against over-75s who have not acquired a television licence—certainly no prosecutions have yet followed. He is also right to cite our stricture to the BBC that it should approach this matter with sensitivity. Like him, “sensitivity” is not the first word I would choose to describe the general tone of communications about TV licence fee collection.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is no defence. We deal with the actual law here; we do not deal with what might or might not happen. Under the law, an 80-year-old pensioner living on a tiny state pension could be sent to prison because she refuses to pay for the untold millions paid to Gary Lineker with her licence fee. There is no point in the Minister’s saying, “This is not enforced.” If this law is an ass, it should be repealed. Parliament should not have on its statute book a law whereby someone can be sent to prison for not paying a licence fee for an entertainment channel—this is ridiculous.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I would slightly disagree with my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] The law does not say that someone can be sent to prison for not paying their licence fee. If they are convicted of failing to have a TV licence, they can be fined. Where they then refuse to pay the fine, custodial sentences can, as has happened in some cases, be imposed. Criminalisation is a matter we have debated before, but it is still one of great controversy. We have looked at it on a number of occasions and I am happy to keep it under review.

Let me go back to the issue of the licence fee for the over-75s. As the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) suggested, in the 2015 funding settlement the Government agreed that responsibility for the over-75s concession should transfer to the BBC. The Government and the BBC agreed to make that change alongside a number of other elements of the licence fee settlement, such as the closure of the iPlayer loophole, to which I have already referred, and an agreement to increase the licence fee in line with inflation from there on. It was also agreed that the transfer would be phased in over two years so that the BBC had time to adjust to meet the additional cost of maintaining that. It was debated extensively at the time of the passage through Parliament of the Digital Economy Act 2017.

The result is that responsibility for the over-75s concession now rests with the BBC. The Government made it plain that we hoped and expected that the BBC would maintain the concession, but the BBC chose to restrict it to those in receipt of pension credit. The Government remain disappointed about that decision. I recognise, however, that even that concession represents quite a considerable cost to the BBC, and how the BBC budgets, and the extent to which it feels able to maintain the concession, is a matter for the BBC.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for responding in such detail on these issues. He referred to the agreement that the licence fee would be able to go up in line with inflation. Does that mean that, from April next year, the £159 licence fee will increase with inflation or remain the same? If it goes up with inflation, how much will that mean in cash terms?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

In the licence fee settlement, which is written into the charter, I froze the licence fee for two years and then said that it should return to increasing in line with inflation, but by precisely how much it will increase and when are matters on which the Government will be able to provide my hon. Friend with further information relatively soon—that is not yet determined. The requirement is written into the charter, as I said.

The Government recognise the importance of television to people of all ages, particularly older people who value television as a source of entertainment and companionship and as a way to stay connected. We remain committed to ensuring economic security for people at every stage of their life. We believe that the BBC has a duty to ensure that it uses its substantial licence fee income to support older people. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) suggested, the BBC has informed the Government that no enforcement action has been taken against over-75s at this stage.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) asked about inflation and the income that the BBC needs, which is, of course, leading to the end of the benefit for over-75s, but the one factor that I hope the Minister will not ignore in all this is the number of new houses being built. It seems to me that the Government and main Opposition parties are determined to build more and more houses—the Labour party has proposed building 1.5 million—and when all these houses are built, it will mean more income for the BBC. I hope that house building targets will be taken into consideration when it comes to how much money the BBC needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I can assure my hon. Friend that those will be taken into account. He is right that that is a factor that increases the income of the BBC. However, it has to be balanced against other factors, about which I will say a little more, that result from a change in the way in which people access television, which is leading to a reduction in the number of people paying the licence fee.

The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in his Bill would be to decriminalise TV licence evasion for the over-75s. It would be very difficult to make it a criminal offence not to pay the licence fee up to a certain age, after which it would no longer be a criminal offence. Our view is that the law needs to apply equally to offenders, regardless of their age. It is right that our justice system is fair and just to all people, regardless of their characteristics.

The more general issue of decriminalisation is one that we have considered on a number of occasions. In fact, when I was Secretary of State in 2015, I came into the job supporting decriminalisation, because I shared the views expressed by a number of my hon. Friends. We commissioned a review of the matter, conducted by Mr Perry, which came out firmly against decriminalisation. Subsequently, in February 2020, when I was a Minister in the Department for a second time, a further consultation received a large number of responses—over 150,000—the majority of which were against decriminalisation.

The reasons for that were several. The BBC argued strongly that it would lead to an increase in evasion, which it estimated would cost it in the order of £300 million. It was also pointed out that if it became a civil offence, and people were taken to court for failure to pay as a civil matter, that could lead to significantly higher fines and costs, if they were found guilty. It highlighted significant impacts in terms of the cost and implementation. The current system works relatively efficiently in the magistrates courts, but moving it over to be a civil matter would result in a considerable increase in costs.

For those reasons, the Government decided that we would keep decriminalisation under review, but we would not proceed to decriminalise at that time. It is more important that we address the whole issue around the future of the licence fee, which is becoming harder and harder to sustain.

[Justin Madders]

It seems to me that we are effectively in a situation where the BBC has decided to decriminalise for over-75s but has just not declared that that is the position. That certainly seems to be the case from its actions, at the very least. We are in a slightly bogus situation where the law says one thing and the BBC continues to send out letters indicating that it will enforce that, when it has no intention of doing so. Given the distress of people when they receive those letters, it is important for us to get clarity from the BBC about its position.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

If people fail to pay their licence fee, it is a matter for criminal prosecution, but as the BBC is responsible for the collection of the licence fee, it is a matter of choice as to whether or not it wishes to prosecute. In response to our request that it addresses the matter with sensitivity, the BBC has assured us that it has not, to date, sought to prosecute anyone over 75.

I want to say a little more about the challenge to the licence fee going forward. When it was reviewed in 2015, it was recognised that there were a number of drawbacks. In some ways, it is a flat-rate charge for which there is no means-tested assistance, and therefore it is highly regressive. At that time, it was concluded that there was no better system of funding the BBC and that it was the most appropriate. For that reason, it was agreed that the licence fee would continue for the remaining period of the current charter.

As the media landscape has changed in the way that I have described, that has had a consequence. Despite the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about housebuilding, the number of TV licences held has declined by 1.9 million since 2017-18. That is because, probably for the first time, a large number of people are genuinely saying that they do not watch live television and that they are perfectly adequately entertained by watching streaming services, on demand and catch-up TV. Under the current rules for the licence fee, they are not required to have a licence.

On top of that decline of 1.9 million, estimated TV licence evasion has now risen to its highest level since 1995, standing at about 10.3%. If the trends taking place continue, that represents a significant challenge to the sustainability of the licence fee, and that comes on top of the concerns about the fairness of the model and, indeed, about whether it is right to continue to enforce it through a criminal sanction.

Already we have seen the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee suggest that the drawbacks to the current licence fee model are becoming more salient. It called for a comprehensive review of the licence fee system. In response, the Government have established the BBC future funding review, with the purpose of examining the options for alternative means of funding the BBC after the end of the current settlement.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister, as always, is making a very coherent argument. Would he agree with me that, not least for reasons of impartiality, it would be completely unacceptable for the BBC’s income to be paid by a Government out of general taxation?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It has always been said that if the BBC were funded directly from the Treasury out of general taxation, that would make it susceptible to political pressure, and it would reduce the distance of the arm’s length relationship between the BBC and the Government. There may be some truth in that. I have never entirely bought the argument that the licence fee protects it from political interference. It just means that the opportunity is slightly less regular in that it must wait until the next licence fee settlement.

However, the relationship between the Government and the BBC, particularly over the funding settlement, is one of negotiation, and it is right that the Government should ultimately decide the level of licence fee. There have been suggestions by some—I do not believe my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley would be among them—that the licence fee should be set by some independent committee or by Ofcom, and that the Government should not have a say. That is not something that I believe would be right. I think the Government have a duty to take account of the pressures on household budgets more widely, and the Government are also accountable for that decision. Therefore, I see no chance of that aspect changing, but there are options that will become available over time for alternative means of funding.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will give way, perhaps for the last time.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the Minister for his generosity. Does he share my concern that the BBC is actually using the licence fee to fund some controversial projects, which might dissuade people from supporting the BBC by paying the licence fee? I am thinking, for instance, of BBC Verify, whereby the BBC has effectively set itself up as a Ministry of Truth, recently with rather disastrous results.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will take advantage of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention to make two points. First, he will be aware—and it is a cast-iron principle—that the Government do not interfere in the editorial decisions of the BBC. It is not for Government to tell the BBC what they can and cannot broadcast, but that does not mean that the Government do not have views.

Secondly, I will take this opportunity to say from the Dispatch Box that the Government are very disappointed at the attitude taken by the BBC to the coverage of events in Israel and Gaza. The BBC’s refusal to describe this as a terrorist act is something the Government profoundly disagree with. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, while reiterating that we do not tell the BBC what to do, has made it clear that the Government’s view is that the BBC should describe it as what it is: terrorism. The suggestion that, in doing so, the BBC would somehow be in breach of the Ofcom broadcasting code is clearly not the case. Ofcom has made it clear that it is an editorial matter for the BBC. There are plenty of previous examples where the BBC has called terrorism “terrorism”, and our view remains that it should do so in this case.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

rose—

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who has not yet had a chance to speak.

[James Sunderland]

Given that the Government are effectively choosing to enforce the licence fee in law by not decriminalising over-75s, does the Minister agree that the BBC has an equivalent duty to raise its own standards of impartiality and to justify the licence fee?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The issue of impartiality is central to the BBC’s reputation, and it is in the top line of the public purposes of the BBC contained in the charter. It is a matter that the Government have kept under review. When the charter was set back in 2017, it was agreed that there should be a mid-term review of its delivery by the BBC and, in particular, the governance arrangements, which include impartiality. We have since had a number of internal BBC reviews. In particular, there was the review conducted by the senior independent board member, Nick Serota, which agreed to strengthening the impartiality requirements.

However, the Government have considered what more could and needs to be done. In the next few weeks we will also publish the outcome of the mid-term review, which will look at this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell is completely right that the BBC’s reputation for impartiality is paramount, in justifying the need to pay the licence fee and in protecting its reputation, and not just in this country but around the world. We will say more about that in due course.

For the reasons I have described, I do think that in future the licence fee will become harder to maintain and that we now need to start thinking about the alternatives. That is linked to the way in which people receive television. There will probably come a time when television is delivered exclusively via the internet. That will first require everybody to have access to ultrafast broadband in order to receive it—that is another of my present responsibilities—and the technology will need to develop a little more, but we already have internet protocol television becoming more widely spread. Of course, once we get to that moment, subscription becomes viable. We cannot currently have subscription services on Freeview, but we can on the internet, which is why an awful lot of people who have access to that choose to subscribe to Netflix, Disney, Amazon and the rest.

These issues will therefore become more important and more possible as we move towards that future, but we have not got there yet. However, the Government have started to think about those options through the future funding review. Therefore, while I am afraid that we are not in a position to support the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch does touch on extremely relevant points where we think more thought will need to be given in time. I thank him for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter today.

Proposed Merger of Three UK and Vodafone

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing the debate. It has been an interesting discussion. At times, I felt like I was listening to a display of Marxist economic analysis, but some important points have been raised. Unfortunately, I will not be able to address a lot of them in detail, because they relate to either the Competition and Markets Authority or national security. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) was correct to direct a lot of his concerns, particularly with respect to the impact on competition, to the CMA, which will obviously have to examine the potential merger. There is also a national security mechanism in place, as he will be aware.

I will make a few more remarks about that, but it gives me an opportunity to say something about the importance of mobile connectivity and 5G technology, which has enormous potential to transform public services and make our workplaces more effective, connecting healthcare workers, vehicles, traffic flows and so forth. We reckon that widespread adoption of 5G could bring £159 billion in productivity benefits across sectors by 2035. The Prime Minister has set out the UK’s ambition to be the leading science and technology superpower by 2030. If we are to achieve that aim, connectivity will play a critical role. To reach that point, we will rely heavily on investment by the mobile companies, and we are in regular dialogue with them.

As the hon. Member for Stockport knows, the deal that is on the table between Vodafone UK and Three UK will be subject to regulatory approvals. The debate has concentrated a lot on the potential national security implications, which I will talk about, and the impacts on competition. In general, the Government welcome investments into the UK that will support growth and jobs, meet our legal and regulatory requirements, and not compromise our national security, but as everybody who has participated in the debate has stressed, the security of critical national infrastructure is of prime importance.

The Government have a strong record on putting in place much tougher measures through such things as the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and the telecoms security legislation. Hon. Members will be aware of the actions that have been taken around Huawei and of the removal of its technology from the core network. The hon. Member for Rhondda referred to the target of achieving that by the end of 2027. I can tell him that we are on track, and only this week I announced further incentives to establish the open radio access network, which will increase the diversification of our telecoms supply market.

On competition, it is obviously a matter for the Competition and Markets Authority to assess the impact on both the market and consumers. The Government do not have a role in the decision, which will be taken by the Competition and Markets Authority. It is long established in competition policy that these matters are determined by an independent regulator.

The hon. Member for Stockport and others expressed concern about the potential impact on jobs. That is essentially a commercial matter for the company. Yes, Vodafone has announced the loss of 11,000 jobs globally over the next three years, and obviously that is a matter of regret. Those are difficult decisions, but they are commercial decisions for the company. There is no reason to believe that the merger will add to that number. Again, that will be taken into account in the examination of the case for the merger.

The hon. Gentleman referred to analysis by Unite the union on what happened when a similar merger took place in Australia. However, every market is different. We cannot extrapolate from what happened in Australia, where there were different timings, a different state of the market and different network providers, to reach conclusions about the impact here.

On price rises, we recognise that this is a difficult time for many people, who face significant challenges with the cost of living. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the mobile operators, including Three and Vodafone; they have done a lot to try to support consumers through these difficult times, not just during the rise in the cost of living, but throughout the pandemic, in particular by bringing forward social tariffs for those on low incomes, donating millions of gigabits of data to the National Databank and providing devices through the National Device Bank. That has offered real assistance to those finding it hardest to deal with the cost of connectivity, which, as has been recognised during this debate and previous ones, is no longer a luxury but an essential of modern life.

There are now 27 providers of social tariffs, with millions of households eligible. I would like to see greater take-up, and we are pursuing that by publicising eligibility for social tariffs to potential claimants. Strong competition in the mobile market has managed to keep prices in this country relatively low compared with many others, such as Italy, Germany, Spain, France and the USA. Consumers are beginning to see the benefits that 5G can offer.

I was intrigued that most speakers in the debate did not mention the state of coverage in their constituencies. That is possibly because it is estimated that 100% coverage has been achieved in Stockport, in Liverpool, Riverside, in Glasgow North West and in Birkenhead. That is not quite the case in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rhondda, but we are making good progress. He may dispute this, but the figures I have are that 92% of premises have 5G coverage from at least one mobile operator and that 72% of the land mass has coverage.

The one contributor to the debate who understandably and correctly raised his concern about the lack of coverage was the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We missed him the other day in a debate on broadband, but it is certainly the case that his constituency has a long way to go. The shared rural network programme we are undertaking will particularly benefit Northern Ireland, because the challenges there are especially great. I am happy to talk to him about what more we can do to roll out both broadband and mobile coverage in his constituency, but that means that we are beginning to see the benefits that 5G can offer, in particular given our ambition to achieve stand-alone 5G, which represents a big leap forward from non-stand-alone 5G. That will require considerable investment, which must be paid for.

We set out in the UK wireless infrastructure strategy our ambition for nationwide coverage of stand-alone 5G in all populated areas by 2030. That will extend high-quality 5G well beyond cities and larger towns to all populated areas of the UK. That will require investment of billions of pounds from the operators, at a difficult time, with rising inflation and energy costs. We have set out a number of measures to help operators to deliver that ambition. For example, Ofcom is reviewing the approach to setting spectrum licence fees, and we are working with it to update the net neutrality guidelines. Recently, I was able to announce the launch of our 5G innovation regions programme, which will invest up to £40 million to help local and regional authorities to realise the benefits of 5G and advanced wireless connectivity.

I will briefly return to the main concerns that were raised. The competition aspects are not ones over which the Government have any influence; they will be determined by the CMA. Obviously, the concerns raised during the debate will be on the record; hon. Members’ questions were entirely properly put, and the CMA will undoubtedly take them into account.

As I said, there is now an established procedure with respect to national security implications. The hon. Member for Rhondda was right to point to the role of the investment security unit, which now falls under the Cabinet Office, but several hon. Members—in particular the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Strangford—raised concerns about the lack of parliamentary involvement in the decision. National security issues have always been kept confidential, out of necessity, but we recognise that there needs to be some parliamentary oversight of economic security measures.

For that reason, in March this year the Government agreed a memorandum of understanding with the then BEIS Committee—now the Business and Trade Committee—setting out arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of the operation of the NSI Act and the investment security unit. The memorandum establishes arrangements to allow the Committee to access the information it needs to fulfil its scrutiny role, and sets out key principles for how and when the Government and the Committee expect information to be shared and protected. The memorandum acknowledges that the Committee has a wealth of experience in scrutinising the operation of the Act, and we are keen to give it the information that it needs to carry out its work. The Intelligence and Security Committee has a separate role in monitoring the work of the intelligence agencies, and it is up to the ISC to look at whatever aspects of the work of the agencies it chooses.

I am sorry that I am unable to go into detail on a number of the issues raised by hon. Members, but I will at least recognise that the debate has provided an opportunity for them to be put on the record. I am sure that the questions raised, which are legitimate ones, will be properly taken into account when the merger is examined by the CMA, if it triggers the process under the National Security and Investment Act. I thank Members for their participation.

Access to Broadband Services

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) for obtaining the debate and setting the subject out in an extremely constructive fashion, which I think has been maintained throughout. I welcome the contributions from all Members present. As has been observed, we have been on a tour of the nations of the United Kingdom, although I must say that I miss the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who would normally be with us. As a result, we have not heard the voice of Northern Ireland, but we have covered the rest of the UK comprehensively.

A number of points were made in detail about the situation in the constituencies of hon. Members, and as much as I can I will respond to some of the points raised. I will make a few general comments to begin. I add my own congratulations to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) on his recent wedding, and indeed to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant)—although I am not quite sure that it is the same degree of congratulation—on shadowing me on the Opposition Front Bench. Nevertheless, my congratulations to him on his promotion.

As has been said throughout this debate, and as is certainly recognised by the Government, broadband is now an essential part of life. It will go on being so as more and more services are provided online. That does not mean to say that we must neglect those who do not have access—that still remains important. I will say a word about digital exclusion, which was mentioned, but broadband is an essential. The Government have set ambitious targets, and I agree with the observation of the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) that the appetite for broadband speed will go on increasing. That is why the Government shifted from originally having a target of superfast roll-out, which is relatively modest compared with the gigabit ambition of 1,000 megabits per second. That is about futureproofing. It is about ensuring that as more and more technologies and services become available, the connection is already in place to allow people to take advantage of it and for the economy to grow as a result.

Project Gigabit, which has been the main focus of this debate, is a £5 billion investment to support nationwide gigabit-capable broadband. As has been mentioned, we have set a target of 85% coverage by 2025 and nationwide coverage by 2030. In response to the requests made by the hon. Members for Rhondda and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for targets, we have set those two targets, but BDUK will respond in due course to the Public Accounts Committee in setting out a delivery programme, so there will be more detail on how we get there and how progress will be made. We have already made astonishing progress. Consider that in January 2019, gigabit coverage was 6%, and now—four years later—it is at 77%. That is an astonishing achievement. However, in a sense, the more we are successful in extending coverage, first, the more vocal are the complaints from the people who do not have it, which is perfectly understandable—

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will the Minister provide further advice on the process of approving a pre-registered package request under the gigabit broadband voucher scheme? My understanding is that there is an element of uncertainty about that.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will come on to say a word about the gigabit broadband voucher scheme. To some extent, the Project Gigabit procurements have taken over from it, but if the right hon. Lady has a specific question, perhaps she would let me have the details, and I will be happy to supply an answer.

As I said, the main thrust of achieving the extension of coverage has been through the commercial roll-out, which has resulted from the competition that we have encouraged. Over 100 providers are now investing over £40 billion to roll out gigabit-capable broadband. We continue to believe that an active, competitive market—I will say a word about Broadway in a second—delivers the best results for consumers.

There will always be areas of the country where commercial roll-out is not viable, and it is in the first instance to address those elements that Project Gigabit was established. It includes local procurements, regional and cross-regional procurements, and the gigabit broadband voucher scheme. A large number of companies are now involved, and we are signing procurement contracts regularly. We have so far awarded 12 Project Gigabit contracts to improve digital connectivity in Cornwall, Cumbria, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and Northumberland, and we have a further 24 local and regional procurements under way. I was delighted a few weeks ago to visit Orford in Suffolk, where £100 million is being spent under Project Gigabit to extend coverage to another 80,000 premises. In Norfolk, £114 million is being spent to extend coverage to 62,000 premises. That is being mirrored across the country. As I said earlier, however, we are conscious that that will still leave some people outside the scope of those procurement packages, and they will obviously continue to press for coverage to be extended to them. As we extend coverage, the remaining premises will be, almost by definition, in harder-to-reach areas, so reaching them may require more innovative and inventive solutions, but the 100% target is a real target and we are confident that it can be achieved.

I want to say a little about Scotland, because the debate was obtained by the hon. Member for Stirling. As he will know, 71% of premises in Scotland can now access a gigabit connection, and 96% can access a superfast connection of 30 megabits per second. I am pleased to tell him that 93% of premises in his constituency now have access to superfast speeds, and 56% can access a gigabit-capable connection, which I think is a little higher than the figure that he quoted from the House of Commons Library. The figure I have been given is 56%, which I hope is correct and perhaps a little more up to date—demonstrating that we are extending the degree of coverage by the day. Considering that in January 2019 the figure for his constituency was 1%, I hope he will recognise that that is a significant achievement.

We are working closely with the Scottish Government on the issue. I recently had a call with Scottish Government Minister Richard Lochhead to discuss the programme being conducted by the Scottish Government through the R100 initiative. R100 was perhaps ambitious, in that it set a target of 100% coverage by 2021. Obviously, that has not been achieved and some procurements still have to take place, but we are anxious to work along with the Scottish Government and the testing of the market for those procurement contracts is now under way. Stirling has also benefited from the gigabit voucher scheme, with 120,000 vouchers issued so far under the scheme and its previous iterations.

[Emma Hardy]

Before the Minister’s speech concludes, will he address the specific problems we are facing in Hull? Can I push him again to agree to meet me and the other local MPs to discuss these issues in more detail, so that we can hopefully find a way to get Ofcom to take this problem more seriously?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will come to the particular points that the hon. Lady raised and, indeed, points raised by other Members during the debate, so I am not trying to duck those at all.

Wales has featured strongly in the debate. As hon. Members from Wales will know, we are launching a cross-regional procurement, covering north-west Wales, mid-Wales and south-east Wales, and are looking to have a further procurement next summer for south-west Wales, and I will say a little bit more about that.

I turn to some of the specific contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) has been extremely persistent in making the case for her constituency. She will be aware—indeed, she referred to the fact—that a contract worth £104 million has been made with CityFibre, which will benefit around 76,000 premises in Hampshire, a number of which will be in the Meon Valley. I know she wants a date for when that will be achieved, but we have signed that contract, and I will ensure that BDUK continues to keep her updated with any progress. The signing of the contract is good news and hopefully her constituents will be able to benefit very soon.

My hon. Friend mentioned digital exclusion. As I said, I absolutely share her recognition of the importance of ensuring that people who may struggle to take advantage of digital technology are able to do so. We work with the Department for Education to ensure that essential digital skills for adults are made available through a number of different programmes and with the Department for Work and Pensions in supporting claimants with digital skills. She is absolutely right to press us on that point, and I will continue to keep in close touch with my colleagues in Government about that.

On the specific issue that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) raised, competition is absolutely at the heart of the Government’s approach. We believe that it delivers for consumers, but I understand the frustration that she expresses. It is clearly not the intention that there should be three separate telegraph poles and cables alongside them, and we are conscious that the installation of such infrastructure is disruptive to people.

We have made it easier for operators to install equipment, but it is not the case that local communities no longer have any say. While individuals cannot impose conditions, local authorities can. They have to be notified of the intention to deploy infrastructure, and they can set conditions under which the operator has to comply when carrying out an installation. If those conditions are not complied with, the local authority needs to notify Ofcom, and Ofcom has the power to intervene. When it comes to the hon. Lady’s case in Hull, if operators are not abiding by the code of practice or the conditions that have been set, that is a matter that I would encourage her local authority or, indeed, the hon. Lady herself to take up with Ofcom because there are powers available.

[Emma Hardy]

Any conditions that are set do not appear to be mandatory—that is my understanding. This is the situation from both Hull City Council and East Riding of Yorkshire Council; my constituency covers both.

On the issue of Ofcom, I have to say that I have not found it at all effective in this area and I do not believe it is carrying out its full duties as a regulator in taking this matter seriously and taking action. I would welcome the Government getting behind this call to say to Ofcom that it needs to act and take the issue more seriously. I am so pleased that the Minister has agreed that it is simply unacceptable to have three different companies digging up the same street in the space of a year, putting their own poles in.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Ofcom has powers to intervene if conditions are not being properly complied with. If the hon. Lady is dissatisfied with Ofcom’s response, I encourage her to contact them directly and come back to me, by all means, if she finds Ofcom is not responding in the way she would like.

As for the cases raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), we are very much aware of the situation regarding the B4RN offer but, as he will be aware, BDUK has just signed the Project Gigabit contract in Cumbria, which is worth £180 million. It will extend coverage to 59,000 more premises in Cumbria and 10,000 of those are in his constituency. That is a significant increase. Obviously, there will still be some still outside that, and I hear what he says about the B4RN offer. However, an agreement was never reached with B4RN over its proposals. We will continue to talk to the hon. Gentleman about any concerns and I share his wish to ensure that the premises outside the procurement contract that has been signed still have the prospect in due course of accessing Gigabit. I invite the hon. Gentleman to continue to talk to the Department and to Fibrus about that.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion rightly raised the procurement contract for south-west Wales and pressed us to not drag our feet—I think that was the expression he used. We have no intention of doing that, but BDUK will let him know as soon as a successful supplier has been identified and will ensure that he is kept up to date. He also raised an important point about the public switched telephone network. I can assure him that nobody will have their existing connection cut off if they do not have access to broadband. I am very conscious of that.

The hon. Member for Llanelli made the point, which I think I have already covered, about setting out a timetable and targets. I agreed with a lot of what she said about the importance of ensuring that there is universal coverage and about the indispensability of broadband.

I want to come back on the point about affordability, which I am glad the hon. Member for Rhondda raised because it is important. We recognise that for some people broadband is an essential of life but nevertheless a significant cost to their budget. That is why we have been keen to get the agreement of all the operators to put in place social tariffs, which are now available for 99% of consumers. The challenge has been that take-up has not been anything like what we would like to see, with something like 200,000 out of a possible 4 million consumers taking advantage of social tariffs. I had a meeting this morning with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to discuss how we could ensure that all consumers are aware. We are also talking to the operators about ensuring they publicise it as well. All I can say to those on low incomes who are worried about the cost is that they do not need to wait for a Labour Government, if one should ever appear, because this Government are taking the issue up and tackling it now.

Thank you for the opportunity, Sir Christopher, and I thank the hon. Member for Stirling. It has been a very valuable debate.

Project Gigabit Progress Update: June 2023

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2023 Written Statements

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

On 30 June 2023 we published, at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/project-gigabit-progress-update-june-2023 Building Digital UK’s (BDUK) latest progress update on Project Gigabit, the Government’s £5 billion mission to deliver lightning-fast, reliable broadband across the UK.

In this update, we report on the six latest contracts to be signed in Cambridgeshire, the New Forest, North Shropshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Hampshire with a total value of up to £425 million, covering up to 284,000 premises.

In total, we now have 30 live procurements and contracts in place, amounting to £1.4 billion of funding available to the market to extend gigabit-capable networks into hard-to-reach parts of the country.

We also provide an update on the development of our first cross-regional procurement, which has been designed as an alternative approach to reach premises in areas where there is insufficient market appetite to support a local or regional procurement.

The report also highlights our progress across the Union, with procurements planned to launch in the summer in Wales and in the autumn in Northern Ireland. The public review for Scotland has concluded, and the Scottish Government have committed to launch procurements by the end of the year.

On top of our Project Gigabit procurements, more than 117,000 vouchers have been issued so far under the gigabit broadband voucher scheme and its previous iterations. To date, 89,000 of these vouchers have been used to connect premises to a gigabit-capable connection. Two case studies included in the report provide an overview of the benefits of the voucher scheme, highlighting examples of successful projects on the Isle of Jura and in Elvington, North Yorkshire.

Finally, we report on the launch of an £8 million fund to provide satellite connectivity to a cohort of 35,000 of the very hardest-to-reach premises. This announcement follows the launch of alpha trials in December 2022.

I will place a copy of the latest Project Gigabit progress update in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS903]

Public Broadcasting in Scotland

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for obtaining the debate and for the work that he and his colleagues have done on the Scottish Affairs Committee report. I know that the then and—when she returns from her maternity leave—future Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), was happy to give evidence to the Committee and will be interested to see the report’s conclusions. I thank all the other members of the Committee for their contributions as well.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire was right that Scottish broadcasting is in pretty good shape, as indeed is broadcasting across the United Kingdom. We continue to have some of the finest broadcasters in the world—not just the BBC, but Channel 4 and those in the commercial sector—and independent production is going from strength to strength. I particularly welcome the growth of independent producers in areas of the UK outside London and the south-east—Scotland, in particular. As was acknowledged, the public service broadcasters are strengthening their presence in Scotland, such as with the establishment of Channel 4’s Glasgow hub and the continuing success of STV in Scotland.

Saying that broadcasting is in good shape does not mean that there are not some serious issues that we need to consider, particularly as we look to the future. The hon. Gentleman did a good job of summarising some of them. As he knows, the Government published the Media Bill in draft in March. It has taken some time to reach that point—indeed, I recall Ofcom making recommendations for legislation on prominence when I was Secretary of State, and there have been other recommendations since. That was an important recommendation; we absolutely agree that if public service broadcasting is to thrive into the future, it needs to be prominently displayed, regardless of the means people choose to obtain their TV content.

We are moving into an era in which more and more people rely on smart TV devices. It is therefore only right that we replicate the existing prominence requirements on the electronic programme guide on traditional sets. We should also reflect smart TVs, Fire TV sticks and other means that are used. That does not just relate to television; the hon. Gentleman did not go into detail on this, but we believe it is important to apply similar requirements to radio, too. The Media Bill will also address that.

The hon. Gentleman raised a concern about the relationship between STV and Amazon, which has arisen relatively recently. I was concerned to learn about that, because, like him, I had understood that the relationship was reasonably good. One of our reasons for publishing the Media Bill in draft is to enable us to consider whether further measures are necessary. We have an opportunity to debate the provisions in the Bill, and I look forward to giving evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I will also be talking to Amazon and, I hope, Simon Pitts from STV. I am very happy to look further at the concerns that have been raised to find an appropriate solution.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) spoke about plurality and prominence. Although the PSBs hold the top positions, one or two other news broadcasters now appear on the schedule. I am surprised that he does not welcome plurality. He also seemed concerned about the appearance of one or two Members of this House on one or two channels, although he glossed over the show presented by the former leader of his party on RT. I do not think he particularly complained about that at the time.

[John Nicolson]

Oh, I did.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I take it back if the hon. Gentleman did, but he is still there.

One of the reasons the Media Bill is important is that the take-up of smart TV will continue at pace. I suspect I am one of only a very small number whose television set receives only internet protocol television—I do not have DTT or a freeview application in my TV—and I have to say that IPTV is extremely impressive. As we move forward with more and more access to gigabit broadband under the Government’s Project Gigabit scheme and the commercial roll-out, more and more people will move in that direction.

That prompts a longer-term question about whether DTT will remain the main means of accessing television. It is too soon to say. What the Government have said is that we foresee DTT continuing until at least 2034, but we will be looking in due course at what should happen after that. Giving that assurance until 2034 should give confidence. Obviously, the debate about what happens beyond that time will continue, and we will see how the market develops.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Is there a reason why the Government will not go further and give longer-term security until 2040, as some campaign groups have called for?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I think 2034 is still a long way off, and this technology is developing fast. Obviously, as we look at the roll-out and at consumer behaviour, that will influence our decision as to how much further to go. The roll-out is happening fast: Scotland is already approaching 70% gigabit coverage, and we anticipate that within a few years every part of the United Kingdom will have access to gigabit coverage. I was pleased to announce earlier this week that the Government will support the provision of gigabit coverage under Project Gigabit to the inhabitants of Papa Stour, a remote part of the Shetland islands, who will in future be able to obtain gigabit coverage from a low Earth orbit satellite as a result of Government investment in this area. No matter what part of the United Kingdom or how remote the area, it is our ambition that everybody should be able to enjoy gigabit coverage in due course. That may affect decisions as to how we continue to ensure that they have access to high-quality television content.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire concentrated a lot on the issue of listed events. This has always been a “but”. Under the Broadcasting Act 1996, we have a small number of events that are seen to be iconic, which bring all the nations of the United Kingdom together and should remain free to air. The obvious ones are things like the Olympic games, the grand national and the Derby. It is not the case that England football matches are listed. The reason people can watch them on television is that the free to air broadcasters have obtained those rights, but they do not have any exclusive ability to bid for them; others could, too. What are listed events are the FIFA World cup finals, women’s World cup finals, UEFA championship finals and UEFA women’s championship finals. If—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe will happen in due course—Scotland reaches the finals in one of those competitions, that will be free to air under the listed events regime. Until then, the Scottish team will have the same rights as the English team and those of other nations of the UK in terms of the football authorities’ ability to decide who they should sell their rights to.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister is right that we mentioned the events as an example of something that could be done, without any real expectation that that would be delivered, because we understand the complexities and exclusivity of the listed events schedule. The point we are making is that it is a matter of scale. Scotland has 5.2 million people, whereas England has 55 million to 60 million, so the rights have greater value when it comes to England than Scotland. We are looking for a little more support, encouragement and understanding of our particular issues, given the difference in scale of the populations, and for that little bit of input from Government to help us to resolve this. That is our plea on this issue.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Of course we are happy to keep it under review. I suspect the hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that the determination whether an event should be included in the listed events regime has considerable financial consequences for the sport involved. We have to strike a balance between giving as many people as possible the opportunity to watch that particular sporting event and the wish to obtain the revenue to put it back into the sport, which is possible from the sale of sporting broadcast rights to whoever is willing to pay the most. That is generally something that I have felt the sporting authorities are well placed to do. A significant proportion of the Scottish FA’s income comes from the sale of broadcast rights to a subscription service. Of course it needs to be kept under review. Although broadcasting is a reserved matter, sport is not. The Scottish Government might like to consider that, and if they have views we will be happy to hear them.

At the moment, we do not intend to change the listed events. As the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said, we are currently examining whether the digital rights should be packaged with the linear broadcasting rights so that they come under the same rules, and we will come forward with conclusions on that matter in due course. I understand the frustration, but Scottish football benefits considerably from the sale of broadcast rights. It is also important to talk to the Scottish FA. I urge the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire to talk to the Scottish Government. I am happy to continue the dialogue with him.

Turning to that dialogue, mention was made of the establishment of the inter-ministerial group. Two days ago, I was happy to have a call with the Scottish Government Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development, Christina McKelvie. We confirmed that the inter-ministerial group is being established to cover the creative industries. I look forward to working through that with her. The purpose of my call was to give her advance notice of the Government’s package of measures that was announced yesterday—the creative industries sector vision—which contains really good news for Scotland. We hope that through the extension of the creative industries clusters programme the existing clusters will be increased by six. There is already one in Edinburgh; I am sure that there will be considerable interest from across Scotland, as there will be from elsewhere.

There is also the CoSTAR—convergent screen technologies and performance in real-time—package for research and development for some of the latest screen technologies. Four new R&D labs are being established. One of the preferred bidders is in Dundee. There are also various other measures, including the tripling of funding for the music export growth scheme. I know that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has a distinguished record in music. Whether MP4 would qualify under the music export growth scheme I am not entirely convinced. Nevertheless, I know that as a great music supporter he will welcome that.

This has been an important debate. I want to see broadcasting thrive in all nations of the United Kingdom. The situation in Scotland is good at present, but that is not to say that there are not important issues, which we have had the opportunity to debate this afternoon. I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and look forward to continuing to work with him and with Members across the House to ensure that Scotland and the rest of the UK continue to have some of the most successful broadcasters in the world.