Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Knight Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I agree with the hon. Lady on those concerns. There is a lot more to do in cricket and across sport as a whole. I have met the county chairmen and Lord Patel, as well as having dialogue with the ECB. I believe progress is being made, but I agree completely with her: I want to see actions, not just words.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend share my disquiet that Lord Patel, Yorkshire’s new chair, has been forced to publicly call out a group of individuals for seeking to delay and derail vital reforms of the club in order to combat the scourge of racism? Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to support Lord Patel in his fight, the ECB should state that international cricket can return to Headingley but on the strict proviso that members back Lord Patel’s reforms, we see a dilution of the power of the Graves Trust, and that they ignore the siren calls of those who wish to retain the shameful status quo?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his and the Committee’s work in this area. The decision to bring internationals back to Yorkshire is for the ECB and I have to respect that, but I have met Lord Patel, even just yesterday, and personally I am somewhat comforted and assured about the progress being made in Yorkshire. Indeed, I have seen good progress being made in cricket overall, but I want to see a lot more. I reiterate that the decision is for the ECB, but I am sure that it will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments.

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Julian Knight Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. With your words of endorsement ringing in my ears, I will ensure that I am as brief as the subject can allow.

I am grateful to have been granted this statement to discuss the DCMS Committee’s report on the draft online safety Bill. This is an important piece of legislation that, if done right, will prevent a tremendous amount of harm to so many in our society. The ultimate aim for all of us involved in the production of the Bill is to make user-to-user and search service providers more accountable for decisions they make when designing their platforms and the systems and processes that govern them. The Committee I chair has a crucial role in ensuring that that is the ultimate outcome of this work. While I welcome large parts of the Bill’s content in draft form, there are some elements that do need work so that we do not miss the opportunity to make the internet a safer space for all, while protecting freedom of expression.

One such area of particular concern to the Committee is that the Bill in its current form lacks clarity on what falls within the parameters of illegal content and in its treatment of legal but nevertheless terribly harmful content. For example, the Committee was alarmed to hear in evidence so many examples of online abuse towards women and girls that would not be adequately covered by the Bill in its current form. We are all aware of frankly appalling images being shared online without the consent of those pictured, some of whom are underage. Many of these would be covered by the Bill, but not all.

Furthermore, the internet is awash with images that are often edited to cause harm and are clearly not within the scope of the Bill. My Committee’s report seeks to tackle this. We also have concerns about the less immediately obvious examples of abuse such as breadcrumbing—leading someone on virtually with a series of digital breadcrumbs on the way to illegal and harmful material. In such instances, the context of these communications is key. Some examples of online abuse that we have heard in our investigations are insidious—inch by inch, step by step, allowing people, often children and teenagers, to be lured in. In such instances, no one message, picture or like is technically illegal, but they none the less form part of a sequence of online child sexual exploitation and abuse. The Bill can and must stop this. For this reason, we propose reframing the definition of “illegal content” to include context.

The Committee was truly shocked by the repeated examples of cyber-flashing and deliberate manipulation of images such as tech-enabled nudifying of women and deepfake pornography, which currently go unchecked. The deliberate manipulation of images to circumnavigate content moderators is egregious in its own right. It is also a key hallmark of potential child exploitation. This Bill, if crafted correctly, can and must protect children from such acts and such tactics. In its current form, it does not adequately cover these examples of truly harmful content. As such, we propose that they should be included in the Bill and covered by the duties of care in it.

Another area that many Members are rightly deeply concerned by is the many examples of inherently harmful activity that are not illegal. We support the Joint Committee in its view about harmful actions such as cyber-flashing, and people with photosensitive epilepsy being targeted by trolls sending malicious flashing images with a deliberate intent to trigger a seizure: these offences, in all the senses that we would understand, must be included in the Bill.

Finally, I come to the issue of scrutiny. The current provisions in the Bill to provide Ofcom with a suite of powers to address such actions are unclear and impractical. We urge the Government to bake in best practice by providing greater clarity in the Bill on when and how these powers should be used to ensure that they are both practical and proportionate. We recommend that there should be compliance officers in the social media companies, paid for by those companies, baking in that best practice. That will, hopefully, also lead to the ending, or at least reduction, of unwarranted take-downs.

The present situation is deeply unsatisfactory. Effectively, social media companies are editors-in-chief of the content on their sites. There is no say, and no transparency. They act according to their terms and conditions, which they decide. That can lead—and has led in the past—to unwarranted take-downs, and the people who suffer those take-downs then have to appeal to the social media companies. This is not right. It is against freedom of speech. We need proper systems so that transparency and know-how on the ground can ensure that any such issues of take-down are set against clear parameters. That can, I believe, be regulated in the same way as financial services are effectively regulated—through a strong compliance regime.

We specifically recommend that the Government reframe the language relating to freedom-of-expression considerations to incorporate a “must balance” test, to enable Ofcom, and the compliance officers whose introduction we propose, to assess whether providers have duly balanced their freedom-of-expression obligations with their decision making, thereby preventing unjustified take-downs of material.

Our Committee has made clear that it strongly disagrees with the recommendation of the now defunct Joint Committee—which did amazing work in this area—that a permanent Joint Committee be established as

“a solution to the lack of transparency and…oversight”.

We disagree with that proposal for a range of reasons, but not least because it would set a precedent which could be written into any other Bill and could then effectively circumnavigate the Select Committee system. I think the Select Committee system is the jewel in the crown of this House, and I say that not just because I have a personal interest in it. This, I think, is something we can do ourselves. If there is a need for pre-legislative scrutiny, Select Committees should be able to deal with it, but in any event the Government are free to set up a framework of pre-legislative scrutiny which may be on a one-off or ad hoc basis. That has happened before after a period of time in the case of other Acts that have passed through this place.

I welcome wholeheartedly the aims of this Bill and much of its content. I hope and expect the Department to be in listening mode—I know that the Minister personally is absolutely committed to that—so that we can all work together to ensure that the aim and the reality of the Bill are aligned, and we can make the internet a safer and a better place that is more in tune with what I would describe as the health of our society.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) and the other members of the Committee for their hard work in delivering this important report. Having previously been a member of the Committee, I am all too well aware of the challenges to online safety, particularly in the context of defining or contextualising what constitutes a “harm”. The Labour party has long called for tougher penalties for tech companies which fail to comply with their responsibilities to users; a change in culture is clearly urgently required for those companies, which have been left unaccountable for far too long.

The report has also highlighted a number of issues, or omissions, in the Government’s current draft bill, and I am keen to hear the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on those. First, the report recommends that providers should have designated compliance officers to ensure good governance. This is not the first time that that recommendation has been made, but the proposal has been discounted until now. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have been too slow in pushing social media companies to act?

Secondly, the Secretary of State, in her evidence to the Joint Committee assessing the draft online safety bill, referred to legal advice that she had received, including advice on a foundational duty of care. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital for the Government to publish that legal advice ahead of the response to the DCMS Committee’s report, so that their reply can be understood in the context of the advice that they have received? I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree—especially given events that have unfolded in relation to other matters this week—that it is simply not acceptable for the Government to conceal important advice from the public domain.

[Julian Knight]

I thank the hon. Member for her kind question, but also for her acknowledgment of the ongoing work of the Select Committee, on which she played a fantastic role during her time with us.

The hon. Member references compliance officers, and the key, of course, is to make the regime pre-emptive rather than reactive. I think that actually helps freedom of expression, basically because if we in effect have this baked into the system, there is less chance of take-downs as a result.

When it comes to social media companies and the Government’s interaction with them, there is an idea that the Government have in effect run scared of social media and the huge lobby. These are the new masters of the universe—the new oil companies, the new banking institutions—and they have huge and enormous powers. I think it is therefore beholden on the Government to draw from every part of this House in order to come up with a framework that can best bring them in to be good citizens in our society. I am hopeful of the time when Nick Clegg is not perhaps as welcome in putting his views, but is in that regard perhaps the same as Members in this place. I do concur to some degree with the hon. Member, but every Government in the world is also facing this huge issue.

On publishing legal advice, I do believe wholeheartedly in complete transparency. I think that part of the process of being cross-party and getting this Bill right actually should be absolute transparency when it comes to such matters.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend and his entire Committee on this report into what he correctly describes in the report as a very “complex” Bill. Given its complexity, does he agree with me that it is very important that the Government response both to his Committee’s report and, indeed, to the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill is not just substantive, but timely and reaches all of us well in advance of Second Reading of the Bill, so that we can all consider properly the Government’s responses?

[Julian Knight]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, and I do concur in that respect. We have waited a very long time for this Bill, and we have to get it right. I think we have waited too long for the Bill, but that is the past—that is done. What we cannot do now is rush things to such an extent that we cannot take everyone’s views on board, and therefore I would concur. Basically, this has to be a structure that survives, potentially for decades to come, and is built on as we see challenges going forward, so I concur with my right hon. and learned Friend.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement. I am very glad to hear him acknowledge the importance of protecting freedom of expression, but there is also the issue of anti-discrimination law. On a number of occasions in this Chamber, I have raised the problem that Twitter’s hateful conduct policy and its moderation policy often discriminate against women by taking down women’s tweets when they state biological facts and failing to take down abusive and violent tweets directed at women. The reason for that being that Twitter does not have sex as a protected characteristic in its hateful conduct policy. This was raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in a report a couple of years ago, in which we recommended that Twitter should include sex as a protected characteristic in its hateful conduct policy.

From my inquiries, it seems that Twitter thinks it is above the domestic law of the United Kingdom when it comes to anti-discrimination law, and it seems to be praying in aid a loophole in the Equality Act 2010. I am not sure it is right about that legally, but does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, if there is a loophole in the Equality Act that is letting Twitter off the hook when it comes to our anti-discrimination law, the Online Safety Bill would be a good opportunity to close that loophole, so that Twitter and other service providers are all subject to the anti-discrimination law of the United Kingdom?

[Julian Knight]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her comments, and I have a great deal of sympathy for what she says. I am well aware that she receives unwarranted and vile abuse at times for expressing her views, and I think that is abhorrent in many respects. It highlights in many regards the point I made earlier about the social media companies being their own editors-in-chief and effectively having their own content policies. That will be the case going forward, but there needs to be oversight of those so that they are compliant with the new law as it stands. One of our recommendations is:

“We have proposed several amendments to the definition and scope of harms covered by the regime that would bring the Bill into line with the UK’s obligations to freedom of expression under international human rights law.”

I hope that that recommendation would cover many of the aspects to which the hon. and learned Lady is referring.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

A few years ago, on social media, there was a picture of my young son being beheaded in an ISIS-type scenario. It was not really my son in the picture, but the image represented my son. The excellent Chairman of the Select Committee is right to say how powerful Select Committees are. Would anything that the Government are doing in the Bill have prevented that picture from being put online, or have helped us find out who did that?

[Julian Knight]

I have heard of this before from my hon. Friend. I am grateful for the opportunity to express my deepest sympathy, shock and anger at the vile, disgusting behaviour that he and his family faced. The short answer to his question is: yes, if the Bill is got right. That picture is a type of deepfake. The harassment aspect is illegal; a case would have to be built around the harassment aspect, so he would almost have to take this offline, rather than deal with it as an online matter. The way to deal with it online would be by baking in resources such as compliance officers, and by writing it into the Bill that posting and manipulating an image that is meant to do harm should be considered an online harm, and therefore something for which social media companies could be called to account. If the Bill is crafted correctly, the egregious and disgusting use of vile images of that kind would, I hope, be curtailed.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I confirm that all Members across the Committee are in firm agreement with the recommendations in the report. Does he believe that the Government should take particular note of recommendation 19 on designated compliance officers, and recommendation 28, which says that the Government should scrap plans to introduce a permanent joint committee to oversee online safety and digital regulation? The latter idea seems to have come out of nowhere; perhaps it was written on the back of a fag packet or came from a weekend tweet—I do not know. Should the Government not abandon that daft idea, and recognise that it is the proper duty of the Select Committee to undertake that scrutiny?

[Julian Knight]

For me, one of the attractions of compliance officers is that the idea is based on the regime we have for financial services, which has been one of the most successfully regulated industries, certainly over the past 15 years since the financial crash. The role of the compliance officer has been key to that. One good thing about the proposal is that it is the social media companies that would pay. Whenever social media companies see any form of potential illegality, they push it to arm’s length; they push it to the police, and expect the police to pick up the pieces. The police do not have the resources to chase these things down, so only exemplars get pulled up by the police. The companies should be responsible, and should pay for their own policing.

Of course I agree with the point about recommendation 28. I would like to think that the debate on that has shifted over time. The Secretary of State was obviously expressing a genuine view. I completely understand that view, and why it was expressed at that juncture. However, the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill has perhaps run away with the suggestion a little bit, and in so doing, has perhaps encroached on the good governance of this place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answers. Recent reports have stated that the draft Online Safety Bill is neither clear enough nor robust enough to tackle some forms of illegal and harmful content. Responsibility for some of the most serious forms of child sexual exploitation may be evaded. Will the Chair of the Committee provide reassurances that tackling all forms of illegal, harmful and exploitative content will be prioritised in the Bill, so that we can protect young children, and many others who are vulnerable?

[Julian Knight]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to highlight that point. There is an issue about content that is deliberately manipulated in order to avoid moderation. Effectively, it is content that just manages to evade the algorithms, but is there as a signpost to abuse, or is a means of taking people off one platform and on to another that is not a tier-1 platform and that may be less regulated. It is crucial that that is clamped down on as soon as possible, so that we can protect children in the way that he and I—and, I am sure, all Members of the House—wish to do.

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

Let me start by putting on record my thanks and the Government’s thanks for the work that the Select Committee has done. We are grateful for the time and attention that its members have given to this important issue.

There is no question but that large social media firms have not been prioritising safety and preventing harm, even in relation to children. They have been prioritising profit instead of people, and the time has come for Parliament to act. The legislation we have tabled is groundbreaking; we will be one of the first countries, if not the first country, in the world to take such a step. The measures in the Bill, even as drafted, are very strong, with fines of up to 10% of global revenue capable of being levied, and personal liability for some senior executives in certain circumstances.

I thank the Select Committee Chairman for his comments about freedom of expression, which are of course important. There are duties in the Bill as drafted requiring social media firms to have regard to freedom of expression and, particularly, to protect journalistic and democratic content. We are interested in exploring with the Select Committee how we can go further in those areas, and I look forward to appearing before it in a week or two.

Let me finish by saying that we are very much in listening mode; we have been digesting the reports of the Select Committee and the Joint Committee very carefully. It is our intention to bring forward an updated Bill in this Session so that it can have its Second Reading. In preparing that updated Bill, we will continue to work closely with the Committees and to listen carefully to the views of Members of this House, including those expressed in the session today and in the debate we had a week or two ago. There is a great deal of wisdom on both sides of the House that we can learn from, and it is our intention to do that as we bring forward this groundbreaking piece of legislation designed to protect our fellow citizens but particularly children.

[Julian Knight]

I thank the Minister for his comments. He is very engaged in the process and shows due respect to the Joint Committee and the Select Committee both in terms of our work and through his engagement. That is very welcome and is a reminder of times past.

I welcome the Government’s listening mode. The message from both sides of the House must be that we can all contribute as much as possible and that this should not be about party lines. This legislation is too important to get bogged down in issues such as that, because it is about the protection of our society, our democracy, our children and our mental health.

English Football League Governance: Derby County FC

Julian Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The right hon. Lady makes her point with power and eloquence, and I echo her sentiments. As I said in my opening comments, I hope the English Football League, the other clubs involved in this saga and the administrators are listening to our proceedings this afternoon and to the message she just gave, which probably commands support across the House. I hope they listen and act accordingly.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

A little over a year ago, the sports Minister and I were in almost daily communication about the EFL’s financial crisis. Through that communication and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s actions and public hearings, we dragged the Premier League kicking and screaming into a £250 million deal to bail out the EFL. In the light of that action, does my hon. Friend agree that it is beholden on the EFL, which has benefited from financial help in the past, to show decency and understanding to Derby County football club—a former league champion club—in this, its hour of need? What is more, we need to speed up the football review and get legislation on the statute book. We all know there is limited time to bring forward legislation, but this is clearly an urgent priority, so will my hon. Friend commit today to give us a timetable for when legislation will come forward?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee echoes the sentiments so powerfully expressed by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) a few moments ago. There is a significant burden on the English Football League and on the other clubs involved to get this matter sorted out urgently, and I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments in that regard.

On the timing, a number of details clearly need to be worked through. The fan-led review’s recommendations were very detailed, and primary legislation will be required. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government need to work through a number of pressing legislative priorities. I cannot make a commitment on behalf of my colleague the sports Minister—it would be wrong to commit a fellow Minister in respect of his portfolio—but I will ask him to speak to my hon. Friend, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), to discuss the timing.

BBC Funding

Julian Knight Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I have no idea how anyone could make the leap from “let’s have a debate and a discussion in the House about how the future funding looks” to “privatisation”. It’s just—I have no further comment.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Speaking strictly personally, I welcome the freeze, and the overt commitment to wean the BBC off the licence fee. As Lord Grade said on the “Today” programme this morning, nearly £160 is nothing to Gary Lineker, but it is a lot to our constituents. I and the House would like more details please about whether the licence fee will stop in 2028, or be phased out. The latter, in my view, gives the best chance of preserving the BBC’s status in our national culture. How will moving to alternative funding models work given, first of all, the paucity of broadband coverage, with old technology such as Freeview being embedded in the system? Will the central Government funding that has been mooted stand up legally, and also measure the key issue of impartiality?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and support on the freeze, but I take issue with the point about paucity of broadband. Some 97% of homes in the UK have superfast broadband—[Interruption.] As I said, 97% of homes have superfast broadband, and we are rolling out gigabit. As I said in my statement, someone in a house in Cumbria can download five videos—five movies—in five different rooms in the house. We do not have a paucity. On whether the licence fee will be phased out and what a future funding model will look like, those discussions and analyses have not even begun, but all Members of the House should, and will, be part of those discussions. I imagine that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be doing very important work on the issue moving forward, in terms of establishing a future funding model, and that work will continue in the future.

Draft Online Safety Bill Report

Julian Knight Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this debate, which is clearly sparking enormous interest. I welcome the majority of the Joint Committee’s recommendations. Indeed, they very much build on the work already carried out by the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport over recent years. When the big tech giants were in their infancy, the Select Committee, which I am proud to chair today, was already leading on some of this work. The Select Committee has been scrutinising the online harms White Paper over the past year and is continuing to do so, and it will be coming up with its own recommendations shortly. The Joint Committee’s report even acknowledges the ongoing work of the Select Committee by stating

“the DCMS Committee has maintained its interest on the issue through the work of its Sub-committee”

—its standing Sub-Committee—

“on Online Harms and Disinformation”.

Let me add to my hon. Friend’s speech by identifying some points with which I agree, but which go above and beyond what he actually said. First, I support the Joint Committee’s work on journalistic content, and its recommendation that existing protections relating to journalistic content and content of democratic importance should be replaced by a single statutory requirement for proportionate systems and processes to protect

“content where there are reasonable grounds to believe it will be in the public interest”.

I also welcome some of the work that the Joint Committee has done in exploring age assurances, building on the work already done by the Select Committee. In particular, it rightly makes several recommendations for Ofcom to establish minimum standards for age assurance technology and governance linked to risk profiles to ensure that third-party and provider-designed assurance technologies are privacy-enhancing and rights-protecting, and that in commissioning such services, providers are restricted in respect of the data for which they can ask.

It is right that the Joint Committee acknowledges the serious threats that misinformation poses to society. In recent months we have witnessed the rise in fake news from the anti-vaccine campaigns as it has hit our social media feeds. I therefore support the recommendation that there should be

“content-neutral safety by design requirements, set out as minimum standards in mandatory codes of practice.”

However, the recommendation that a permanent Joint Committee be established as

“a solution to the lack of transparency and…oversight”

concerns me, and my Committee, for a range of reasons. First, it would go against a long-standing parliamentary convention. Never before has a Joint Committee been established merely to provide post-legislative scrutiny. I know some Members have suggested that a Joint Committee on online harms would have terms of reference mirroring those of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Intelligence and Security Committee, but the Joint Committee on Human Rights was certainly never enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, and the responsibility of the Intelligence and Security Committee is to provide oversight for policies, expenditure, and operations adopted by MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.

We fear that the creation of such a standing Joint Committee would not only go against parliamentary convention, but would set a bad precedent for many decades to come. If some particularly complex legislation comes to the House in the future, will we just keep on setting up Joint Committees to provide post-legislative scrutiny? Of course we will not—we would be very foolish to do so—but this recommendation sets a precedent for it to happen. When I asked about the cost of establishing the Joint Committee, I was told that it would be £500,000 a year. Moreover, the work is already being done by an elected Committee of the House and a Committee in the other place.

What is the point of establishing another Committee merely to replicate the work that the Select Committee is already doing? If our Committee does need to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of legislation that is particularly complex and groundbreaking, we have a Sub-Committee for the purpose. We recognise the importance of this legislation and this area, and we will continue to scrutinise it through our Sub-Committee and through Standing Order No.152.

I raised this matter with the Leader of the House in my capacity as the Select Committee Chair, and I am grateful to him for his response, in which he said:

“Business Managers and I are of the view that this scrutiny can be arranged through current Standing Orders and that it should not require legislation, nor extraordinary powers, to achieve.”

I know from my conversations with Opposition Front Benchers that they strongly support retaining such scrutiny within current parliamentary procedures, rather than innovating in a way that could be damaging in the long term.

I welcome many aspects of this report, which builds on the Select Committee’s own report, but fine tuning is needed before the Bill comes to the House. My Committee stands ready to issue those fine-tuning exercises, and will do so in the coming days.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Knight Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Julian Knight, the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Select Committee system is the jewel in the crown of Parliament and well capable of providing the right scrutiny. Those are not my words but those of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. With that in mind, in the upcoming Online Safety Bill will the Secretary of State proceed with utmost caution over the proposed permanent standing Joint Committee, which would curtail her own powers and those of Ministers across Government, and if the precedent were followed to its logical conclusion, it could lead to the dilution of the Select Committee system? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

[Ms Dorries]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his question. The Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the jewel in the crown, as is the scrutiny of all Select Committees, but the Online Safety Bill is groundbreaking and novel and will legislate in an area in which we have never legislated or enforced before. I am quite sure that the place for the debate about whether or not there will be additional layers of scrutiny will be when the Bill comes before the House.

Touring Musicians: EU Visas and Permits

Julian Knight Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ms Harman]

We need to take all the steps in the right direction that we can, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the debate today.

There is time and cost involved. I recommend to the Minister that she download and look at some of the forms that are required. I have only four of them here, but they are of mind-boggling complexity, and they are all different—that is the point. People cannot just get the hang of doing one of them and then do it again; they have to be done differently for every country, every time. That means plans being curtailed and opportunities being lost, and that is without even mentioning the dreaded cabotage rules that prevent a lorry needed to carry instruments or equipment from making more than three stops before returning back to the UK. That does not fit with how touring bands or orchestras work in just one country, let alone if they are touring a number of countries.

Some 85% of the European concert trucking industry is based here in the UK. Those firms will be put out of business or have to relocate to Europe unless this matter is sorted.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

The industry was based in the UK, but, according to the information that I have, a lot of it has already gone to Holland. Although touring is not taking place at scale, the planning that goes into touring is taking place right now. It is necessary to get the rules changed now, and not when we discover we do not have an industry left.

[Ms Harman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Time is not on our side. We all recognise this is an immensely skilled and professional industry that we should protect, and it should not have to move. Our musicians and those who work to support them are highly committed, resourceful and skilled. They say there is a problem that they cannot solve and they need Government action. The Government must reach agreements with all EU countries for consistent regimes so that our musicians can once again tour freely in the EU. As the hon. Gentleman said, they should do it quickly. Plans are being made in the EU that leave out our sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I will luxuriate in my seven minutes. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. It does not seem long ago that we came into this place and swore oaths next to each other. Here we are, only a few years later, two old lags—if I may be so bold.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Speak for yourself!

[Julian Knight]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) and the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for securing the debate. I concur entirely with her speech, which was conciliatory and thoughtful. I hope that the Minister takes that tone away from the debate: it is not a party political matter, but a matter of looking after our constituents, our wider cultural impact and, frankly, global Britain. Without these industries, we are not global Britain anymore.

I will make some brief observations. We have heard about the enormous flurry of paperwork and the unworkable and patchwork system that is in place. The Select Committee has been aware of the issue for a long time. We invited Lord Frost to appear before us at the start of the year, but he refused. It was only after pinning the Prime Minister down in the Liaison Committee on 24 March that he said Lord Frost will appear and we will get this sorted. Lord Frost eventually appeared in June or July after avoiding the Committee for a long time, but in that whole time, there have been only four official bilateral meetings, one of which was on the morning of his appearance by some strange coincidence—that is one every two months.

I know that conversations have taken place, however, and that the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), was, after initially trying to get her head around the issue, committed to it. She told us some good stories about how she would track people down at conference and try to have conversations, but there was always a feeling that there was a road block in the shape of Lord Frost.

It seemed that the issue was being drawn into the general feeling of antagonism between us and the EU, which was unnecessary. This is not a confected row to bring about a Jim Hacker sausage moment in politics in terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. That should have nothing to do with this issue, which is about people’s livelihoods and our place in the world.

It is utterly farcical that we are 20 miles away from Europe and yet, in the case of at least six nations, we have the same rights of travel and access for brilliant creatives—not just musicians but whole swathes of people across industries—as people coming from the Cook Islands on the other side of the world. That is a ridiculous situation.

I say to the Minister that she is pushing at an open door. Provided that we keep the issue out of the mess that is going on with Northern Ireland, which I believe we can, there is an enormous willingness across the EU to talk to us bilaterally, because they also want our talent there—they miss it. We have such a fantastic reservoir of talent. They want people to be there and to enjoy that cultural exchange. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) spoke about opera. I was talking to a lady who is one of the world’s leading lights at the Vienna opera house. She is struggling to get work there. This is a person of such huge, global talent that she is called upon everywhere.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes such an important point. We forget just how significant the status of British artists is in the opera field—not only the leading stars, such as he refers to, but the young singers who cut their teeth in the repertoire houses in Germany and the festivals in Europe. They are losing out because of an inflexibility and a lack of joined-up Government between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Cabinet Office, and that has to change.

[Julian Knight]

My hon. Friend is singing from the same song sheet as I am. There is perhaps a misperception—we often talk about this on the Select Committee—of the importance of DCMS to our economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome referenced it, but to put it into real figures the DCMS sector is worth 23% of the economy. The Government are around 40% to 45% of the economy—it depends on where one is in the United Kingdom. DCMS is 0.5% of Government spending. When it has a few million quid, it has to go the Treasury—it is in the same building—and say, “Please can we do this?”

There is an idea within Government, and has been, I would say, for many years, that these industries are mendicants, always asking for hand-outs. That may be true of the Royal Opera House, but our creative sectors are the model of leanness and competitiveness. They have learned to survive without hand-outs over a long period. My view—this may be where I depart from Opposition Members—is that that has been of enormous benefit to their long-term health and robustness, but they cannot deal with the red tape and the lack of access and ability to work. I am a free-marketarian. This is not a free market because of circumstance and perhaps a lack of focus and will in certain parts of Government, though not within DCMS.

We have allowed a situation to occur where we are helping to damage industries in which we have a competitive advantage. There is an economic law of competitive cost advantage. The reason why we are really good is because we have the English language and a great history of creativity. We should invest in areas where we have a competitive cost advantage. We no longer have one in many industries, but we do in this one. Without the music industry and film production, the UK economy, pre pandemic, would have been in recession for four of the previous six years. That is why it is vital that we get this moving, because we will discover the damage that has been done only when it is too late.

There also may be a bit of sniffiness about the industry. We all remember during the pandemic the quickly withdrawn advert showing a ballerina whose next job was as an IT consultant. I am not dissing IT consultants, but being a ballerina is fantastic, top of the tree, and something that we should be proud of in this country. There are Members in the Chamber who really want to work with the Minister and see this happen, because we care about our constituents and our country, and we know that these are areas in which we can have genuine advantage and push ourselves forward. We have effectively given them a no-deal Brexit. We now need to mend that by dealing with the cabotage through the EU and having bilaterals to get this sorted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Knight Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady will be aware that we have frank conversations at international level with our counterparts around the world on issues such as human rights and, indeed, gay rights, and we will continue to have those conversations. I would also like to focus on the power of sport to highlight inclusion and diversity and to bring us together. I will focus on the positive things that sport can do over the major sporting events in the coming year, as will, I am sure, the whole House.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Inclusivity applies not just to the LGBTQ+ community, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) rightly highlighted, but to people of south Asian and, in fact, all minority heritage. With that in mind, does my hon. Friend share my consternation that the former chair of Yorkshire county cricket club had not even read the seminal Fletcher report on the lack of inclusivity at the county? Does he agree that the response to Mr Rafiq’s brave testimony given in this House must be not only to clear out the Augean stables at Yorkshire but to ensure that the institutionally racist blocking of minority-community talent is stopped forever? We need a Kick It Out for cricket, right now.

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes some very important points. I applaud his Select Committee’s work this week in giving Azeem Rafiq a platform to make the comments that he made. It was difficult to hear because it was harrowing testimony. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Fletcher report, which is pretty old, was clearly not acted on and should have been. I assure him that we have had frank conversations over the past couple of weeks with the England and Wales Cricket Board and others involved in cricket. I have had reassurance that the ECB takes the issue seriously and will act, and Tom Harrison has promised me that, with every fibre of his being, he will take action. But he and I know that we will judge the ECB on its deeds, not its words, and if it fails to act appropriately, we will not hesitate to intervene further.

Walter Smith OBE: Contribution to Scottish Football

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) for securing this debate today about a true Scottish footballing great, and for the moving contributions that he and many others have made today. I know that many others would have liked to contribute, but are not able to be in the Chamber today. I also send my condolences to Walter Smith’s wife, Ethel, and the rest of his family and close friends and pay tribute to an absolutely incredible ambassador for football in this country. The fact that a diehard Celtic fan has tabled this debate to celebrate a Rangers legend is testament to Walter Smith’s legacy, his reach across football and so much more.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

That legacy is not just about Rangers and Celtic, but Everton. What a fantastic manager Walter was at Everton. On this side of the House, we wish to say to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) that Walter cut across all divides. He was just a very good man and a very good manager. I think that is a lesson to us all in this place and beyond. We should celebrate his life and perhaps in future we should just understand, given how he cut across all divides, that we are all one in that respect. He was a great football manager. From my friends at Everton football club, I know he was an absolutely delightful man in many respects.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments; I could not agree more. While Walter is best known for his managerial career, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned, he did play more than 100 times for Dundee United. Aside from a brief spell in Dallas, he played his entire career in the Scottish league. His greatest impact though, as we have heard, is when he made that all-important transition to management. Over more than two decades, he took charge of teams at the very top of the elite game in this country. As we have heard, there was his incredible performance at Glasgow Rangers, where he won 10 titles, multiple Scottish cups and Scottish league cups, including the domestic treble in 1993. He also completed a record-equalling ninth league title in a row near the end of his first spell at the club—a record that still stands to this day. To have established such dominance at the top of the Scottish game, given the ever-changing nature of our domestic leagues, is a true testament to his managerial prowess.

Smith is also remembered for his activities further south; as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) just mentioned, he was at Everton for four notable years. Some may recall he then briefly spent time in the dugout with another Scottish great, Sir Alex Ferguson, at Manchester United. Everton may have regretted that move across the M62 though, after an example of Smith’s eye for talent, which I have heard a lot about, benefited his new side. Smith had spotted a certain Wayne Rooney when he was just 14 years old and scoring regularly for the under-19s. Some 559 appearances and 253 goals a few years later, it is clear that Smith was on to something. That is just one example of his scouting and coaching prowess. Former Everton and Rangers captain David Weir once claimed that Smith had a “sixth sense” when it came to the needs of his players.

During Smith’s spell at Man U, he was credited with playing a key role in the development of no less than one Cristiano Ronaldo, helping him emerge arguably into one of the best players who has ever played the game. Smith’s success in club football was rewarded ultimately with the men’s Scottish national team job in 2004.

Smith did not just produce one-off performances. Scotland rose a remarkable 70 places in the FIFA world rankings during his time at Hampden—a truly incredible feat. It is not just what he achieved with Scotland, which of course was remarkable, but how he did it. That has been a very clear theme in what we have been hearing this evening. In appointing Tommy Burns, a rival from his time as Celtic manager, as his assistant, he helped to unite a nation of football fans.

Smith would, I am sure, have been delighted with the progress of the national team on Friday, after they confirmed a place in the World cup qualifying play-offs with the 2-0 victory in Moldova. I am sure that hon. Members, particularly on a certain side of the House, will join me in wishing Steve Clarke and his exciting young squad the very best of luck for the play-off campaign.

Off the pitch, it was fair to say Smith did not suffer fools gladly. It has been interesting to do some background reading on Walter, and it is probably true to say that he would occasionally have used some unparliamentary language that I am not allowed to repeat this evening, tempted though I am.

As we have heard again and again, Smith was not just a great football manager, but a great man. That was illustrated by the awarding of an OBE for services to association football in 1997. He clearly made a huge impact on all those he worked with, and will be remembered fondly by his colleagues and supporters at club and national level. He is yet another example of the positive influence that our sportspeople and sport can have on the many lives that sport can touch.

I would like to sign off this debate with another thanks to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for enabling the House to celebrate an incredible life. It is one that made such an important contribution to the national game in this country, and to many millions of Rangers fans and beyond. Rangers chairman, Douglas Park, summed him up perfectly when he said that

“he was much more than just a football manager. Walter was a friend to many, a leader, an ambassador and most of all a legend.”

I could not agree more.

Perhaps most importantly, a message to Ethel and Walter’s family is what a remarkable legacy it is that Walter has left because, even this evening, he has managed to unite the House of Commons. Thank you, Walter.

Racism in Cricket

Julian Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I think we should avoid making party political points on an occasion such as this. We should be standing together, as we have been doing, to resolutely condemn racism and to tackle it wherever it is found. That means ensuring that the ECB investigation is independent and transparent, it means supporting the work of the independent commission chaired by Cindy Butts, and it means supporting the EHRC in any work that it does. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks about the board of the cricket club. They bear collective responsibility and I do not see how they can continue.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I wish to thank the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for bringing this urgent question to the House. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like many cricket lovers in this country, I feel a fool. I thought my sport was more colour-blind than most, but it most certainly is not. At Yorkshire, it is clearly institutionally racist, and Lord Patel has the mother of all jobs in turning that once venerable club around. I would like to chide the club about the report, because, despite publicly promising to issue it to myself and to the Government, it has not yet done so. That report needs to be in our hands today.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is more than a Yorkshire problem, and that it is a national problem within cricket? Although I agree that the likes of the ECB must now have a permanent place on the board at Yorkshire to ensure that it is guided to a better place, I think that we also need substantially better whistleblowing procedures in the sport. We also need the likes of Ebony Rainford-Brent and Michael Holding, who are an inspiration not just to cricket but to wider sports and to our society, to be front and centre in cricket’s battle against racism. It is going to be a tough fight, but I truly believe that the whole House will agree that it is one that must be won, out in the open so that we can all see exactly what is going on.

[Mr Speaker]

I say gently to the Minister that I totally agree that if information is being withheld from a Select Committee that is carrying out its duty, that is a major matter. I hope it will be resolved today on behalf of the Committee.