Cambridge Analytica: Data Privacy

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to make a statement about the alleged breach of Facebook user data by Cambridge Analytica and the powers of the Information Commissioner to act in such cases.

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

The revelation this weekend of a serious alleged privacy breach involving Facebook data is clearly very worrying. It is reported that a whistleblower told The Observer newspaper that Cambridge Analytica exploited the Facebook data of over 50 million people globally.

In our increasingly digital world, it is essential that people can have confidence that their personal data will be protected. The Information Commissioner, as the data regulator, is already investigating as part of a broader investigation into the use of personal data during political campaigns. The investigation is considering how political parties and campaigns, data analytics companies and social media platforms in the UK have used people’s personal information to micro-target voters. As part of the investigation, the commissioner is looking at whether Facebook data was acquired and used illegally. She has already issued 12 information notices to a range of organisations, using powers under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is imperative that when an organisation receives an information notice, it must comply in full. We expect all organisations involved to co-operate with this investigation in whatever way the Information Commissioner sees fit. I am sure that the House will understand that there is only so far I can go in discussing specific details of specific cases.

The appropriate use of data is important for good campaigning. Canvassing someone’s voting intention is as old as democracy itself. Indeed, we do it in the House every day. But it is important that the public are comfortable with how information is gathered, used and shared in modern political campaigns, and it is important that the Information Commissioner has the enforcement powers she needs. The Data Protection Bill, currently in Committee, will strengthen legislation around data protection and give her tougher powers to ensure that organisations comply. The Bill gives her the powers to levy significant fines for malpractice, of up to 4% of global turnover, on organisations that block the investigations by the Information Commissioner’s Office. It will enhance control, transparency and security of data for people and businesses across the country.

Because of the lessons learned in this investigation and the difficulties the Information Commissioner has had in getting appropriate engagement from the organisations involved, she has recently requested yet stronger enforcement powers. The power of compulsory audit is already in the Bill, and she has proposed additional criminal sanctions. She has also made the case that it has become clear that, in order to deal with complex investigations such as these, the power to compel testimony from individuals is now needed. We are considering those new proposals, and I have no doubt that the House will consider that as the Bill passes through the House.

Data, properly used, has massive value, and social media are a good thing, so we must not leap to the wrong conclusions and shut down all access. We need rules to ensure transparency, clarity and fairness, and that is what the Data Protection Bill will provide. After all, strong data protection laws give citizens confidence, and that is good for everyone.

[Damian Collins]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Does he share my concern that an academic at the University of Cambridge, Aleksandr Kogan, was able to conduct surveys with 270,000 Facebook users, and from that was able to access the data of not just the people who completed those surveys but a greater number of accounts, totalling 50 million user profiles?

That information was then sold to Cambridge Analytica, despite Alexander Nix of Cambridge Analytica telling the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that it had never received such data when he gave evidence to us, which the Committee will seek to pursue with him. That data was then used in campaigns. Facebook knew of that data breach for more than two years and did nothing to act against Cambridge Analytica. It only suspended Cambridge Analytica from the platform when it became clear that The Observer was going to expose this in its feature yesterday.

My first specific question for the Secretary of State and his Department, and by extension the Information Commissioner, is: will someone be contacting Cambridge University to ask what oversight there was of what Dr Kogan and his team were doing there in gathering this data in the first place?

There is an ethical issue here: data gathered in consumer surveys is being used by data analytics companies for political campaigns. No one ever gave consent for this information to be used in political campaigns in this way, and I think many people will be shocked at the way in which their personal data can be harvested so effectively and used in this way—and not by a registered political party, but simply by a data analytics consultancy.

Can the Secretary of State give users some heart by confirming that someone simply ticking a box on a long form on Facebook does not sign away their rights? Can he confirm that no company has the right to ask someone to sign away their rights under data protection legislation in this country, that it would not be enforceable if a company tried to do so and that people’s rights are still protected?

Does the Secretary of State believe there should be a broader investigation into Cambridge Analytica as a company, which many people are concerned is using many different shadow companies and identities to campaign around the world? Many people have raised concerns and questions not just about the way the company is using data but about its ethics and leadership in all aspects of its life.

I am pleased that the Secretary of State addressed the powers of the Information Commissioner. We raised that issue with him in Committee last week, and the Information Commissioner has also raised it. This incident shows that someone in this country needs to have the legal authority to go behind the curtain and look at the way in which the tech platforms and other companies that use data are using that data, to make sure they comply with UK data protection law.

When the Data Protection Bill is passed, we want to be confident that it is being enforced, that the conditions are being met and that big, powerful companies like Facebook cannot avoid compliance with UK data protection law. I am pleased that the Secretary of State raised that. The Committee, and I am sure the whole House, will take note of that on Report.

[Matt Hancock]

I start by paying tribute to the work of the Select Committee, as I have done from this Dispatch Box before. It is doing an incredibly important piece of work. Because of the sensitivities of this, in terms of its political nature and the impact on political campaigning, it is excellent that a cross-party group of MPs is leading work on this, and I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House for their role in that. I remind them that they ultimately have the power of summons, if people are not giving them good enough answers.

I will ensure that we look into all the considerations my hon. Friend mentions. He raised a point about consent not just being given through a tick box, and this is directly addressed in the Data Protection Bill. Currently, because of the nature of the legislation—the 1998 Act is very old in digital terms—companies can get away with asking for a box to be ticked, even though many people do not read all the small print. The Data Protection Bill will replace the tick-box approach with a principles-based approach, which I think the whole House should support.

Finally, my hon. Friend asked about the powers of the Information Commissioner. He is absolutely right that we must, with the legislation before the House right now, ensure that we get the powers right so that the Information Commissioner can carry out an audit. Such a power is already in the Bill, but the question is whether there is a strong enough backstop for when people choose not to comply with an audit. At the moment, there is a very serious fine, but the question is whether the criminal penalties that can be imposed in some cases should be further strengthened. That detail is rightly being looked at in the discussions on the Data Protection Bill.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I too pay tribute to the Committee. I also pay tribute to The Guardian newspaper and Carole Cadwalladr for pursuing this with such utter relentlessness, despite the harassment that she has received. If true, these allegations provide an utter indictment of the permissive environment that this Government have created, which has allowed the data giants in this country to be both careless and carefree in their misuse of data. If they are true, 50 million data records have been misused in a way that means rights have been breached, but also in a way that could have affected the outcome of elections and referendums.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for considering amendments to the Data Protection Bill. Will he confirm that he will bring forward amendments for stronger powers for the Information Commissioner? If he does so, we will back him on them. Will he also now accept our amendments to set a deadline for modernising the e-commerce directive, which treats such companies under laws that were invented before they were even born? Will he think again about making it possible, in the way that we have set out, to bring class actions where data rights are breached so that they are actually accessible to people, and will he support our amendments to require disclosure of funding for the dark social ads that we know can influence elections and, indeed, referendums?

The final point for the Secretary of State to consider is whether the directors of Cambridge Analytica can still be judged fit and proper people to hold directorships. Will he confirm not only that the Information Commissioner will investigate this breach, but that the full weight of Companies House and the Serious Fraud Office are behind it, so that if these people need to be struck off, they are struck off forthwith?

[Matt Hancock]

I add my praise for the Guardian journalists who have done the work published this weekend. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on many of the issues he raises. It is best to proceed on this with the cross-party consensus that we have on many such areas. I am not sure about the argument that we have dragged our feet, given that this Government have brought forward the Data Protection Bill, and that this Government supported the general data protection regulation very strongly at European level. We are, indeed, already taking action to put right some of the things that need to be strengthened because of the development of technology.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the e-commerce directive. With Brexit, we will of course be leaving the e-commerce directive, so it is not a question of updating it, but of what to put in its place. We will be leaving the digital single market, and we have an opportunity to make sure that we get that piece of legislation right for the modern age—supporting innovation, growth and the use of modern technology, but doing so in a way that commands the confidence of citizens.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the directors of Cambridge Analytica. We will of course ensure that people are operating within the law. The question of whether they are fit and proper persons is for a different Department, but I am certainly very happy to talk about that to my ministerial colleagues.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that this news should cause us all great concern. Is not the difficulty that it has been apparent for a long time that the obtaining of data and the use that can be made of it, whether for commercial or political purposes, are a gold mine for those who wish to breach the law, and the sanctions that can be visited on those who do it are entirely inadequate? I am perfectly aware that the Government are amending the legislation, but I do not think the penalties we are enacting for those who behave in this fashion are anything like draconian enough. The financial incentives to break the law are far too great and the penalties are proportionately insufficient. Ultimately, we will have to be much tougher if we are to stop this sort of behaviour.

[Matt Hancock]

I have some sympathy with the argument my right hon. and learned Friend makes. A fine of 4% of global turnover is a significant one for an organisation for which data processing is only part of a broader business. Where data processing is the whole business, one could argue that it is less proportionate. We are therefore considering the Information Commissioner’s request. Of course, this is not just about the 4% of global turnover; the criminal offence in clause 145 of the Data Protection Bill carries the highest possible fines, as well as criminal records in England and Wales, for providing false information in response to an information notice, so there already are stronger sanctions for specific actions. The point he makes is one that has been made recently by the Information Commissioner and, therefore, one that is worth listening to.

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

Like most people across the House, I was shocked to read the revelations in The Observer. This story is yet more evidence that the online political advertising market is growing exponentially and becoming more and more difficult to police. We are seeing Russian authorities purchasing political ads with extensive micro-targeting based on ill-gotten or unlawful user data. If left unregulated, this market will continue to be prone to deception and lacking in transparency. Urgent action is clearly required, so what plans do the Government have to take the required action?

Of course Cambridge Analytica and Facebook should be brought back to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to explain their previous evidence, which is alleged to be simply false.

[Gavin Newlands]

I am pleased to hear that.

Lastly, there have been reports that the Conservative party has been in talks with Cambridge Analytica for some time. If that is true, how long have they been in talks and what did the party know about its dealings with Facebook? Do the Government plan to hold an inquiry? If so, is the Secretary of State worried about a conflict of interest, given the Conservative party’s plans to use Cambridge Analytica for its own benefit?

[Matt Hancock]

I have answered the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s set of questions. I broadly agree with him that this is a serious and worrying incident. We need to ensure that the Bill that is before the House puts in place enforcement powers behind the ability to audit that the Information Commissioner will get from the Bill. On the questions about the Conservative party, as far as I understand it, the Conservative party has no such dealings with Cambridge Analytica and, therefore, no conflict arises.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I have been the victim of false news stories being micro-targeted at Facebook accounts in my constituency to deliberately undermine me and cause hate. I thank the Secretary of State for prioritising the Data Protection Bill and delivering the general data protection regulation to make sure that our law is clear and enforceable. How does he intend to work with Governments in other countries to ensure that there is no wild west or evil east when it comes to the use of personal data?

[Matt Hancock]

I have said that the wild west of digital companies that flout rules and think that the best thing to do is move fast and break things, without thought for the impact on democracy and society, is over. The Data Protection Bill is part of a suite of actions that we are taking to ensure that we have the freedoms that we cherish online, but not the freedom to harm others. That affects many different areas, brought together under our digital charter, and getting the rules right in that space is an important part of our response.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I, too, pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and The Guardian. Dr Kogan was able to pass the information to Cambridge Analytica. The Secretary of State will know about the reports that Dr Kogan also had teaching posts and grants for social media research from a Russian university, and that Cambridge Analytica did some work for a Russian firm that is currently on the US sanctions list. Has the Secretary of State investigated the veracity of the reports? Has he or a Home Office Minister been in touch directly with Facebook to ask them what further data breaches might have taken place and to ask them to investigate? If they will not provide that information, does he agree with my colleagues’ request that powers should be taken to ensure that we can get it?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course we have been in contact with Facebook about that. It is very early stages in terms of the specific allegations that were made at the weekend, but this is part of a longer dialogue about ensuring that Facebook treats the problems with the seriousness that they deserve. The focus today is on Facebook, but in the autumn, we came to the House to discuss Uber’s attitude to data breaches. I do not want to have to come to the House again and again to talk about breaches by big data companies. That is why we need to update the law and get that in place as soon as possible.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

If evidence emerges via the work of the Information Commissioner, the Electoral Commission, the Select Committee, The Guardian or anyone else that any organisation misused people’s data to interfere in a UK election or referendum, will the Secretary of State guarantee that a full public inquiry is established to find out what happened and what the implications were?

[Matt Hancock]

There is no evidence yet of successful interference in a UK election or referendum, but we remain vigilant.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Given the important role that Cambridge Analytica played in the EU referendum and given the links made by the fantastic journalism in The Observer and elsewhere with the Kremlin’s wider campaign of undermining and interfering in our and America’s politics, will the Secretary of State assure the House that all the inquiries and investigations that we have discussed here today get the full co-operation and support of the British intelligence and security services?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows that I have long called for a comprehensive forward-looking review of data sharing and abuse, so that our citizens can have the data rights they deserve. The Data Protection Bill does not achieve that. It does not define property rights or market power in data, or algorithmic abuse. Facebook is on the wrong side of history on this and its share price is crashing as a result of the great work of the journalist Carole Cadwalladr. Will the Secretary of State take action or go down as the last dinosaur in an age of data ethics?

[Matt Hancock]

Few Governments are doing more to get the rules right in this space. The Data Protection Bill has a full suite of data protection provisions, including the GDPR from European law, to give people power over their data and consent about how it is used. I recommend that the hon. Lady read the Bill and get on board. If she has specific improvements to suggest, we are willing, as we have been throughout the passage of the Bill, to listen and consider them, as we have done with the proposals made by the Information Commissioner and the Select Committee, because we want to ensure that we get the legislation right.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In the years before the 2008 crash, we were told that the people who were running the City of London were the masters of the universe and we could not touch them. We are seeing the same sort of arrogance from the large internet companies, such as Facebook. The way they are using data, and researching how to use data, is completely unregulated. Other areas of research that affect people’s lives are highly regulated. The Data Protection Bill does not go far enough to protect people’s data and the research that goes into manipulating it.

[Mr Speaker]

I exhort the Secretary of State to imagine that at the end of the hon. Gentleman’s peroration there was in fact a question mark.

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s statement—or question, Mr Speaker. I agree with him that the attitude of the social media giants has been, “Government should get out of the way, because we are doing things differently and better.” It may be a good thing for 95% of us that we are better connected and can use social media in positive ways, as many Members do, but there are serious risks and downsides that need to be addressed properly and appropriately. They are best addressed through legislation where necessary. The parallels he makes are telling.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

This is not simply a matter of Cambridge Analytica using data allegedly handed over by a social media provider; this is a matter of Facebook behaving as though its users are raw material to be exploited. Its apparent willingness to do this has been increasingly linked to concerns about the integrity of our democracy. Surely, now is the time to require social media providers to conform to a compulsory code of conduct?

[Matt Hancock]

Indeed. A compulsory code of conduct in some areas is in the Bill, especially with respect to the treatment of children. We have a statutory code of conduct in the Digital Economy Act 2017. This whole area is one where we have to ensure that the liberal values, to support freedom but not the freedom to harm others, that we apply through legislation to many other parts of our lives are brought to bear on the online world as well. That is what I mean when I say that the wild west is over.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

In the Data Protection Public Bill Committee last week, the Government rejected Opposition amendments that would give full effect to the European requirement for consumer groups such as Which? to be able to bring class actions on behalf of large groups of consumers who have been subject to a data breach. The Government initially ignored that and then tabled an amendment for that to be done on an opt-in basis. Given the revelations about Cambridge Analytica and the fact that none of us knows whether we are included in the 50 million Facebook profiles that have been hacked, will the Government reconsider their position and move to an opt-out basis in line with European Union law?

[Matt Hancock]

European Union laws allow for opt-in or opt-out. The Bill is about strengthening people’s consent. To say that names will be taken forward as part of a legal action without their consent unless they opt out is against the spirit of the rest of the Bill. Having said that, we have listened to the debate in the other place and here, and we have said that within 20 months of the Bill coming into force we will review how the opt-in system is working, because we want this to be based on the evidence.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

The chairman of the Electoral Commission, Sir John Holmes, openly warned at the end of last year that a perfect storm is putting our democratic processes in peril. He called for urgent steps to deliver transparency around political advertising. Will the Secretary of State now answer that call as a priority?

[Matt Hancock]

The question raised by the Electoral Commission is a priority that we are considering, and we will have answers in due course.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Andy Wigmore, who was director of communications for Leave.EU has described the services provided by Cambridge Analytica as “our most potent weapon” in the referendum. They are calculated to be worth in the region of hundreds of thousands of pounds. They were a donation-in-kind, not a penny of which was reported to the Electoral Commission. I wrote to the Electoral Commission about this last year, and I am pleased to say that it has launched an investigation. Does the Secretary of State agree that if it turns out that Cambridge Analytica has been in flagrant breach of our electoral rules, that would place a pretty huge question mark over the referendum result?

[Matt Hancock]

We have not seen any evidence of the impact of these things calling into question the outcome of any electoral event, whether an election or the referendum. What we need to do is make sure that these investigations take their course.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The difficulty is that Facebook holds all the evidence, and we cannot have access to it. We know that Facebook approached probably everyone in this House before the last two general elections, indicating that it wanted to help us to win our seats. Will the Secretary of State join those of us who are very concerned about this issue and ask Facebook to come clean about all the information that it has, where it got it from and how it used it?

[Matt Hancock]

There are increased powers of transparency in the Bill. Most importantly, the Bill has in it the power for the Information Commissioner to audit and therefore to demand information to undertake such investigations. Making sure that the Bill gets on to the statute book is the single best way that we can make progress on stopping flagrant breaches in the future.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

People across the nations using Facebook will be feeling betrayed by these revelations. They will feel that there must be an investigation and that lawbreakers must be brought to account. Given the Minister’s assurances over Tory party involvement, will he guarantee that all political involvement uncovered in this scandal with Cambridge Analytica will be investigated transparently?

[Matt Hancock]

My instinct is absolutely yes. Of course, that is a matter for the Information Commissioner, rightly, because she is independent of political parties. The final answer on that is for her, but the hon. Gentleman can see where my instincts lie.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

In recent months, having listened to evidence in this area that has been given to us on the Select Committee, it is becoming clear that we have had a lot of half-truths and mistruths, to give the most positive description. The impact on elections and referendums is, to my mind, becoming clearer. We cannot prove it yet, but it is becoming clearer in that the data companies are not giving us evidence on what they do with the information and they are not coming clean on how they use it. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that British people have confidence that their information is being used within the law and that our elections are absolutely fair, transparent and well reported?

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with the hon. Lady very strongly on the premise of her question. The first thing that we will do is listen very carefully to the report of the Select Committee, which as I said at the start, is doing excellent work in this area. We insist that all companies comply properly with what the Select Committee says, and I think that it has plenty more work to do, as we are just discovering. We will not rest until we put this right, because, frankly, the quality of the liberal democracy that we live in depends on having a high-quality political discourse. That means making sure that online, as well as offline, we can have exchanges that are robust but based on reasonableness and an objective truth.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The allegations from the weekend that were uncovered by a brave journalist involved Facebook—it involved Facebook because that is the one that has been caught. Will the Minister assure the House that he will be calling every large company that may be attempting to subvert our democracy into his office to ask them whether they have been involved in any of these data breaches and whether they will come clean, so that we can be confident that our data are protected?

[Matt Hancock]

I hope that they have heard that, and I think it would be very sensible if they did.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister spoke of the importance of our liberal democratic values. Is he aware of the very concerning attempts by Facebook to block the whistleblower in this case and of allegations that Cambridge Analytica has attempted to block the broadcast of a Channel 4 exposé into this tonight, using a law firm?

[Matt Hancock]

Of all the different things that have surprised me and shocked me in this revelation, the decision by Facebook to take down the whistleblower’s Facebook account, and the removal of their WhatsApp account and the Instagram account, was the most surprising—[Hon. Members: “Use a stronger word!”] I thought it was outrageous, and I will say why. Facebook has some serious questions to answer. It will tell its side of the story, but it has some serious questions to answer. To answer this by blocking an account, when at the same time, as we know in this House, it does not act fast enough to block other accounts of obviously outrageous behaviour—[Interruption.] Well, I will tell you what, it shows us that when it needs to, it can block things incredibly quickly, and it will have to do a lot more of that.

Embedded Technology: Cultural Sector

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Written Statements

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

I am delighted to announce the publication of “Culture is Digital”. A link to the report can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/culture-is-digital.

The UK’s future will be at the nexus of our artistic and cultural creativity and our technical brilliance. The UK has a proud history of both cultural and technological excellence: from its world class museums, historic buildings, monuments, theatres and festivals to being a pioneer of computing and its role in the development of artificial intelligence which have changed the world. Today, the UK ranks second globally in terms of the soft power it projects through its cultural offering with cultural organisations and practitioners contributing £27 billion to the economy. Meanwhile the digital sector contributes £117 billion to the economy and remains one of the fastest growing segments of the economy.

Aligning with the aim of the Government’s industrial strategy to build on the UK’s strengths, and capitalise on the opportunities before us, our “Cultural is Digital” report looks to build on the twin UK strengths of creative and technology skills, focusing on the use of digital technology to drive our creative sector’s global status and engage audiences with new creative experiences.

“Culture is Digital” focuses on three themes: how cultural organisations can better use technology and data to serve audiences; improving the digital skills of the sector; and a future strategy section on the need to engage with new technology and for there to be many more collaborations between technology and cultural organisations of all sizes.

The cultural and technology sectors have together come forward with 12 policy commitments within the report to help mainline technology within the cultural sector. This report marks a staging process in the overall goal of embedding technology and digital skills in the cultural sector, and Government will continue to monitor progress and offer support. By delivering on each of the elements of this report, I believe we will cement our position as a world-leading cultural power and thrill even more audiences.

[HCWS519]

Blagging: Leveson Inquiry

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Watson]

I refer to my entry in the register.

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Hancock]

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

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I was Justice Secretary when we set up the Leveson inquiry and when we promised the second stage of the inquiry, so my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to discover that I share some of Sir Brian Leveson and other people’s disappointment that the second-stage inquiry was postponed. Does my right hon. Friend really think that there is no longer sufficient public interest in new allegations of this kind or in knowing which newspapers were bribing which policemen because it was as long ago as seven years? Does he think that the best newspapers in this country would accept that judgment for a moment if it was applied to any other sector of the economy? We have public inquiries in hand at the moment looking into much older things—allegations of sexual abuse, the haemophilia tragedy, and others—so will he not wait until we have a new allegation that is post-2011 before at least thinking again a bit about his decision?

[Matt Hancock]

I respect my right hon. and learned Friend’s view. Indeed, it was an honour to serve with him in government. But the question that faces us is: what is the right thing to do now to ensure that we have high-quality democratic discourse, when the press face such great challenges, and to tackle fake news, deliberate disinformation, clickbait and the impact of the internet, which was hardly covered by this inquiry? We are taking that work forward. As I mentioned in my statement, allegations of behaviour such as this were covered and looked into by the original inquiry, and there were extensive police investigations. If it comes to another police case into these allegations, the existing law is there to cover it.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Clearly these new reports are worrying and only add to the serious concerns that many of us across the House have about the behaviour of the press. Scottish National party Members have always said that individuals should be able to seek redress when they feel they have been the victim of press malpractice, and it benefits every one of us to have a media that is both transparent and accountable.

I repeat that if Leveson 2 is to be set up, the Scottish Government must be consulted and Scotland’s distinct legal system recognised. In those circumstances, we would support efforts to establish a new UK-wide press inquiry. What action, if any, is the Secretary of State proposing to take on these new allegations? Can he guarantee that if an inquiry is established, it would happen only after consultation with the Scottish Government and would take into account and respect Scotland’s distinct legal system?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course I respect the constitutional settlement. Action is necessary as a result of these revelations, and it is action for the police into allegations of what appear to be criminal activities.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right to say that criminality is a matter for the police, but does he feel that the Information Commissioner, who has the right to investigate breaches of personal data, has all the power she needs? Is he listening to her calls to further strengthen her powers through the Data Protection Bill?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course. We have a good working relationship with the Information Commissioner. Her powers are being strengthened by the Data Protection Bill, and I am sure that the level to which and the ways in which they are strengthened will be properly scrutinised as the Bill goes through Committee and further stages.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I urge the Secretary of State to stop trying to hide behind the Leveson inquiry, because the man who was responsible for that inquiry says he fundamentally disagrees with him. In the remarkable letter he wrote to the Secretary of State, he said:

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

That is the point. Of course the police can look into specific instances, but the question Sir Brian is posing is: what was the culture that allowed those practices to happen, and how can we have reassurance that that culture has changed? How can we have that reassurance without a Leveson 2 inquiry?

[Matt Hancock]

Not only has there already been a Leveson inquiry into those areas, but the culture has clearly changed, and the fact that these practices ended in 2010 underlines the fact that they are historical. What we now have to address is how we ensure that there is high-quality journalism in the years to come, rather than revisiting the time when the right hon. Gentleman was at the height of his powers.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that revelations of blagging by private investigators employed by newspapers have been known about ever since Operation Motorman and the subsequent report by the Information Commissioner, which was more than 10 years ago and led to prosecutions and convictions? He is absolutely right that newspapers today face real challenges, and it is those that we should be looking into through the inquiry that the Government have set up, rather than revisiting events of a decade ago.

[Matt Hancock]

It was a great pleasure to serve in government with my right hon. Friend, who preceded me in this job. He has great wisdom in this area and understands the challenges faced in having a high-quality media with high-quality journalism that must behave appropriately and ensuring that people have redress, such as in the low-cost arbitration system that now exists. He put a lot of work into putting all of that into place, and I pay tribute to him and agree with what he said.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The thing is, we heard time and time again that it was just one rogue reporter and one rogue newspaper, and then that it was just one rogue company. We now learn, because of civil actions that people have had to put their homes in danger to be able to take, and because of revelations last night, that it was very extensive, including The Sunday Times, which thus far has always denied any involvement in this kind of activity. Last week, the Secretary of State said that he hoped there would be improvements to the press complaints system. What improvements would he like to see?

[Matt Hancock]

I want the low-cost arbitration system that has been put in place by the Independent Press Standards Organisation to work. At the moment, we have not seen a full case go through it. It has just been put in place, in November, and I want to see it work better. I want to make sure that when wrong decisions are made, there is a proper acknowledgment of and apology for that.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Those who believe in a truly free press should not accept IPSO, and those who do not believe in a truly free press cannot accept it either. In the light of these criminal confessions, which only The Guardian and the BBC reported, does my right hon. Friend agree that implementing section 40 would be more in the spirit of building a country that works for everyone than the current system, whereby only the very rich can challenge the press?

[Matt Hancock]

I have a lot of time for my hon. Friend. Making sure the country works for everyone means making sure we have a press that can investigate people and cannot be put off such investigations by the threat of costs, even if everything they report is accurate. Therefore, I think that section 40 is not appropriate, but it is important that we have proper redress through IPSO, which has recently brought in a new system, and, as I said in my previous response, I would like to see that working.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) will go about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step as a result of enjoying the approbation of no less a figure than the Secretary of State.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that as well as being criminal, the behaviour described by John Ford would be actionable in civil law? If section 40 were enforced, it would be of considerable benefit to any member of the public who was a potential claimant, particularly if the publisher of The Sunday Times were held to be vicariously liable for the criminal and civilly actionable behaviour.

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. and learned Lady has demonstrated just how much this is a matter for the courts and potentially criminal. She raises the issue of civil action. That is how in this country we deal with misdoing such as this that is potentially criminal.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the allegations published are true, they would be criminal acts and could be prosecuted today, without any recourse to either Leveson 2 or indeed any other inquiry? If there is a concern about access to funds, might Mr Mosley and his supporters fund such an action?

[Matt Hancock]

Certainly the allegations we have read about are potentially criminal, and dealing with that is a matter not for Ministers but, rightly, for the police.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

Hundreds of thousands of the British people, Lord Leveson and now the revelations from Mr Ford have made it clear that this matter is not closed, which might lead the public to ask: what is there to hide? Why will the Secretary of State not just let Leveson 2 take place, so that he can once and for all put a line under it and show that, as he attests, the world has indeed moved on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Because I am concentrating on what we need for the future, not on what happened more than seven years ago.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

The Sunday Times blagging revelations are deeply disquieting, but they are historical. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and the victims of press intrusion, in particular those who face it in times of bereavement, that the new model of regulation introduced since the Leveson inquiry makes such activities much less likely and that there are proper sanctions in place?

[Matt Hancock]

Not only is that what is in place, but it is what must be in place. Ensuring that that happens and that, at the same time, the free press is protected and standards are protected is extremely important.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The Secretary of State tells us that the world has changed. May I remind him that when the Press Council was set up we were assured the world had changed, and then when the Press Complaints Commission was set up we were assured the world had changed? We do not know it has changed; we do not know that this action stopped with the Leveson inquiry. Perhaps the only way we would know was if we had Leveson 2. Will he reconsider having Leveson 2?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady tries to argue that things are not different from seven years ago. The challenges facing the press are different, but the polity is also different. We have legislative changes in the rules for the police—we have a new police code of ethics—and on the press side, we have a wholly new regulator. The idea that things are the same as they were is undermined by the fact that this is historical activity, not recent activity.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

A free and independent press, especially local press, is a pillar of our democracy. It is vital that the press adhere to the highest ethical and journalistic standards and that any criminal allegations are fully investigated, and it is also vital that that freedom is preserved and respected. It is a difficult balance to strike, but will my right hon. Friend reassure me that it is exactly that difficult balance that he and his predecessors have consistently sought to strike?

[Matt Hancock]

That is right—as well as always facing the challenges that are in front of us now. The idea that we should put at risk hundreds more local newspapers, over and above the 200 that have shut since 2005, is anathema to me, because it is so important that our local press is supported. People who support the implementation of section 40 support ending the ability of the local press to investigate people locally and, ultimately, are undermining those businesses.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

If the allegations by John Ford are proved to be true, it means not only that there has been a serious abuse of power by major newspapers for over a decade, but that John Witherow—then the editor of The Sunday Times, and now the editor of The Times—was only partially truthful in his evidence to the Leveson inquiry. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the full truth is finally revealed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

As the hon. Lady knows, if the allegations are to be investigated, that is a matter for the police. They will therefore look into these allegations, and that is the right place for that to happen.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I should declare that among the allegations printed in The Guardian, it is alleged that Mr Ford worked for The Telegraph, my former employer. Is it not itself a demonstration of how much the culture has changed that our newspapers are reporting on these historical allegations and, furthermore, that we have a regulator that provides the low-cost arbitration that would give victims the redress the Opposition claim they need so desperately?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is spot-on. There is a group of people in this House right now who are interested in the past, and there is a group interested in the future, and I am firmly interested in making sure we have decent, high-quality journalism for the future.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The Father of the House is completely right that the press would not allow other institutions or organisations to be judged against such a low bar. Why is the Secretary of State satisfied that the press are not being judged against the sort of bar that they would judge other people against?

[Matt Hancock]

These are allegations of criminal behaviour that are printed in a newspaper—a newspaper that supported the approach we took on Thursday—so they are being printed in the media and discussed in this House. Allegations of criminal behaviour should of course be dealt with properly by the police in the normal way.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Leveson 2 would not only be very costly and lengthy, but might undermine the freedom of our press, be disproportionate and, given that newspapers’ circulation has been declining while digital media consumption has been increasing, be too narrow?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is quite right: we have to make sure that we have in place vibrant high-quality journalism and a free press that can hold the powerful to account. Some people may not like that, but it is an incredibly important part of having high-quality political discourse and, ultimately, liberal democracy as we know it. That is what we are focused on.

My hon. Friend mentions the costs, which I had not even come on to. The potential cost of another Leveson inquiry is estimated to be about £5 million. I think that that is money better spent ensuring there is a sustainable future for high-quality journalism.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State says it is not desirable to look at the events of the past because the Department is focusing its efforts on fake news and clickbait. Why can we not do both?

[Matt Hancock]

We have already had a full investigation, through Leveson, of what happened. The question now is what we do next.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Not only is the Secretary of State’s fig-leaf excuse that the world has changed wrong, but it ignores the fact that the delay in part 2 was always built into the inquiry to allow police investigations to take place. The Sunday Times revelations show that evidence is there to be investigated. Does not his wilful refusal to allow the inquiry to proceed just make it look as though he and the media have something to hide?

[Matt Hancock]

No. The hon. Gentleman says that this morning’s evidence shows that there needs to be further investigation. This is of course why we have the police to investigate and, if necessary, the courts to ensure that justice is done.

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

The Secretary of State stated at the start that policy must “be based on all available information”, but how can that possibly happen if there is no second stage of the inquiry, as has been recommended, so will he stop contradicting himself and get on with the job?

[Matt Hancock]

It is very hard to add anything more to the fact that there will be an investigation if the police deem the allegations of what appears to be criminal behaviour to be criminal behaviour. The point is that that is a matter for the police in this country, not for Ministers.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talks about these being historical events, but of course the victims of the latest hack found out about it only yesterday, and may not even know about it at the moment, so that is not very historical. Sir Brian Leveson wrote a letter to the Secretary of State saying that matters had not yet been fully considered and that we needed the second part of the inquiry. Why does he think he knows better than Sir Brian Leveson?

[Matt Hancock]

I have of course considered all the relevant evidence, including the representations from Sir Brian, and my judgment is that we need to concentrate on making sure we have sustainable, high-quality journalism in the future. The hon. Gentleman says that these matters are current, not historical, but the activities alleged in newspapers and by the BBC this morning are ones that they say ended in 2010, which means they are indeed historical.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State not understand why I and my colleagues find it slightly odd that he should decline an inquiry on the basis that these things happened before 2010? By that logic, we would never have had the Iraq inquiry, the child abuse inquiry or the Bloody Sunday inquiry. By definition, inquiries examine events that have happened in the past.

[Matt Hancock]

We have had an inquiry that investigated what happened in the past. It cost millions of pounds: a total of £48 million was spent, including on the police investigations. There were three separate police investigations and over 40 convictions. The issue of the gentleman mentioned this morning was raised in the Leveson inquiry. The idea that we need to have a new inquiry is actually undermined by today’s revelations, rather than supported. What matters is that we look forward to making sure that we have high-quality journalism and sustainable business models for it in the future.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Matt Hancock Excerpts

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

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

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

This House has a noble track record of working with rather than against technology. Whether it was the Electric Lighting Act 1882, which paved the way for electricity in the 19th century, or the Television Act 1954, which opened up our airwaves to commercial TV broadcasters in the 20th century, we have always helped pioneers to overcome obstacles and to use technology to make life better. The Data Protection Bill will do this, too. It will give people more power and control over their online lives while supporting innovation and entrepreneurship in the digital age, helping to make Britain fit for the future.

The Bill will deliver real benefits across the country, helping our businesses to compete and trade abroad. Strong data protection laws give consumers confidence in the products and services that they buy, and that is good for business, not bad. The Bill provides a full data protection framework as we leave the EU, consistent with the general data protection regulation in EU law. In October, the House debated how our data protection landscape will look after we leave the EU. Members on both sides agreed that the unhindered flow of data between the UK and the EU is vital and in the interests of both. Through today’s Bill, we can make that a reality.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his opening remarks about the importance of the House supporting technology. He will know that data drives our economy and society in ways that people can find difficult to follow. The internet of things will increase exponentially the data trail we all leave, but the digital charter suggests only that private companies follow best practice. Does he not recognise the importance of data rights? Why is he not bringing forward a Bill of data rights?

[Matt Hancock]

I absolutely do, and the Bill does bring forward the right to the protection of personal data, as I will set out. It is incredibly important to ensure that such rights keep pace with the sort of modern technologies that the hon. Lady—she is extremely well informed on these topics—refers to, such as the internet of things. The Bill will directly address the issue she raises by strengthening citizens’ rights in this new digital era, and I will detail the new rights later.

As digital becomes default in our society, people are trusting businesses and public services with more personal and sensitive data than ever before, including through their personal use of the internet and the internet of things, yet without trust that that data will be properly handled, the digital economy simply cannot succeed. Trust underpins a strong economy, and trust in data underpins a strong digital economy. The Bill will strengthen trust in the use of data by enhancing the control, transparency and security of data for people and businesses across the UK. I will speak to each of these three in turn.

First, on control, the Bill delivers on our commitment in the digital charter to empower citizens to take control of their data—after all, data belongs to citizens even when it is held by others—and sets new standards for protecting data while giving new rights to remove or delete it. Everyone will have the right to make sure that the data held about them is fair and accurate, and held in a way that aligns with rigorous principles.

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

Is it really accurate to say that everyone will have that right, given the immigration exemption?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course. Everyone who is a British citizen will have the right to make sure that data about them is held fairly and accurately, and in alignment with rigorous principles. The hon. and learned Lady raises obliquely the point that the Bill contains important exemptions, including those to allow MPs to act on behalf of constituents as part of their casework, and to ensure that we can properly police our borders. I will come to that in more detail later. Nevertheless, at the heart of the Bill is citizens’ ability to control the data that companies and other organisations hold about them.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Further to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), will the Secretary of State explain the legal basis for the immigration exemption from the general data protection regulation?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course. Exemptions from the GDPR are allowed so that necessary activities can be carried out, including that of making sure that a minority of individuals cannot abuse data protection law with the sole intent of undermining immigration controls. That is provided for in the necessary exemptions. I know that this point was debated extensively in the other place, but we firmly believe not only that it is important to ensure that we can control our borders through immigration controls, but that this is provided for in the GDPR.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Secretary of State says that the immigration exemption is covered by the GDPR, but is he aware of legal opinion saying that the text of parts 1 and 4 of schedule 2 does not in fact reflect the stated permissible exemptions under article 23 of the GDPR? That is independent legal opinion, not mine.

[Matt Hancock]

Of course, there are always legal opinions about everything, and our legal opinion is that that is consistent—that is the basis on which we are proceeding. As I am sure the vast majority of Members would agree, it is important that we control our borders.

The Bill provides new data rights, including a stronger right to be forgotten.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I welcome the element of the Bill about the right to be forgotten. I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is carrying out an inquiry into fake news, during which this whole issue of data—who owns it, who holds it and who knows what about whom—has come under the spotlight. Can he say how the Bill might help to control that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I can.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Before he does, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course.

[Bill Wiggin]

Will the provisions apply to Wikipedia as well?

[Matt Hancock]

I will happily respond to both points. Under the Bill, data must be deleted unless there are legitimate grounds for retaining it. The details of what is meant by legitimate grounds will be set out in recitals and then guidance from the Information Commissioner. This is one area in which the right to be forgotten, which has been long dreamt of and thought about, is now being legislated for, and the precise details of where it applies will be set out in guidance, as the Bill states only that there need to be legitimate grounds for retaining data.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Can we be certain that this right to be forgotten will not impede freedom of speech? I am thinking of Max Mosley, of course, and the information that came out on what he said in 1961, which is relevant and pertinent to current debates. We should do nothing that limits the right of a free press.

[Matt Hancock]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about not limiting the rights of the free press. He might be aware of amendments that were made in the other place on exactly that issue and that are supported by a number of Members of this House, including, notably, some who are also supported by Max Mosley. I think that we should remove those two provisions. The ability of our press properly to scrutinise is important and should not be undermined in the ways proposed, but I will come to that in more detail later.

The right to be forgotten is an important element of making sure that data is held appropriately and when there are legitimate grounds. The Bill also allows for data portability—a person’s right to transfer their data from one provider to another.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State is describing, the Bill puts into UK law the EU’s general data protection regulation, which is the right thing to do. I am confident that he would agree that we need to ensure that our data protection rules stay in line with the EU regulation as things develop. Does it trouble him that we will have less influence over the future content of the EU’s rules once we have left it?

[Matt Hancock]

I agree that this is a strong set of data protection standards. We intend to stay aligned with the EU standards, not least because they are extraterritorial, which means that anyone wanting to do any business or transactions with EU citizens would have to follow them anyway. There is therefore a very strong case for alignment in this area. Indeed, we have set out that we want the Information Commissioner to remain engaged with the future development of technical standards because we expect the GDPR effectively to become a standard that is increasingly followed around the world by companies that want to engage with the EU, and because we believe that high data protection standards go hand in hand with the capability to innovate and provide for customers. The Prime Minister was, of course, clear about the detail on Friday.

[Sir Edward Davey]

I am afraid that the Secretary of State has not answered the question asked by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). Is it not true that UK companies will be bound by rules that the EU will decide? Those rules will affect a huge amount of business, but we will have no influence over them after we leave the EU?

[Matt Hancock]

I thought I had answered the question—the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) was nodding, so I thought I had at least had a crack at it. As the Prime Minister set out on Friday, and as we set out for the first time last August, we will seek, through the Information Commissioner’s Office, to remain engaged in those technical discussions about the future of the rules. As was proposed in the Conservative party manifesto, the Bill also gives young people the right to have data about them removed once they are 18 years old.

The second element is transparency, which is absolutely vital. All citizens should be able to know what is happening to their data and how it is being used. The Bill requires data controllers to give people information about who controls data, the purpose of processing it, and how long it will be stored. That is especially crucial in a world in which emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence are making increasingly important ethical decisions. The Bill therefore provides powers for the restriction of automated decision making and safeguards for those whose data is used. Our new centre for data ethics and innovation will advise on those safeguards, so that we can promote innovation and respond quickly to changes in technology with clear and transparent guidelines that are based on openness and consent.

The third principle is security. The Bill enhances requirements relating to the security of data and strengthens enforcement for those who do not comply. Data security and innovation go hand in hand, and this move will benefit customers and all responsible businesses. The Data Protection Act 1998 has served us well and placed the UK at the forefront of global data protection standards, but the world has changed since 1998, and the Bill updates the position to make our laws fit for purpose in an increasingly digital economy and society. It modernises many of the offences under the Act and creates new offences to help us to deal with emerging challenges.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State is being very generous in taking interventions. He has probably heard from the National Association of Local Councils, which represents parish and town councils. It has asked that an external data protection officer will not have to be appointed at every council level. There would be a cost of some £3.5 million to the smallest but most relevant authorities, so will the Secretary of State be sympathetic to its request for relief from that onerous responsibility?

[Matt Hancock]

I have received representations not only from the National Association of Local Councils, but from the Suffolk Association of Local Councils and many of my own parish councils—including Moulton Parish Council—which do an admirable job in telling me about the pressures facing parish councils throughout the country. I pay tribute to them for their efforts, and for the length of their representations to me.

Of course it is important for parish councils, and other local councils, to follow high-quality data protection standards. The Information Commissioner’s Office has provided extensive guidance to help organisations to prepare for their new responsibilities, and I urge councils to look at it.

The responsibilities of data protection officers—this is relevant to the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman—can be implemented in different ways. For instance, several parish councils can choose to share a single data protection officer, provided that he or she is easily accessible from each establishment. The system does not require the hiring of one person per organisation. Organisations have already been set up to provide this service, and the service itself is important. In the case of a small organisation, such as a very small business or a parish council on a low budget, it is still important for data to be handled and protected carefully, because small organisations too can hold very sensitive personal information. I am extremely sympathetic to the plight of small businesses that must deal with regulation—especially as I come from a small business background myself—but I am also convinced that it is good practice to follow high-quality data protection standards and that it is good for organisations to do so.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is being very generous.

I knew that some small businesses in my constituency were concerned about the impact of the GDPR, so I telephoned the Information Commissioner’s Office to find out what support was available to them. The only answer that the office could give to every question that I asked about how the GDPR would affect small businesses was “Go to the website.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should expect better from a telephone line that is funded by the taxpayer?

[Matt Hancock]

I am glad that there is a telephone line. I am sure that the Information Commissioner will be watching the debate and will hear the plea for clear guidance on how small organisations in particular should implement data protection standards, whether they are small councils or small businesses. However, the Information Commissioner’s Office has already provided clearer guidance, as well as the telephone line. It is obviously listening, with the aim of getting the guidance right and ensuring that, in lay terms, meeting the new standards is straightforward. This issue came up in the other place as well. It is important for us to get the implementation right, especially in the case of small organisations.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has referred to the right to be forgotten. May I suggest that there might be another right, namely the right to be remembered correctly? All too often, in response to freedom of information requests about, for instance, national security, the Government have imposed a blanket ban on the publication of any information—even many years after the individual concerned has died, when it is pretty difficult to see why there should still be a national security issue. I wonder whether it would not be a good idea for us to have some means of extracting such information in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

The Bill does not change the freedom of information regime. However, it does establish a data protection regime relating to intelligence services and national security, about which I shall say more shortly, and which will no doubt be scrutinised by the House. The specific issue of the release of records is not in the scope of the Bill, because it is about the protection of live data rather than the release of records. The 30-year rule has, in the main, been changed to a 20-year rule, but of course there are national security opt-outs, some of which are incredibly important.

[Chris Bryant]

Of course there should be national security opt-outs, and when we were changing the rule from 30 to 20 years, I was one of the Ministers who ensured that they were strong. My anxiety is, however, that all too often the security services impose a complete blanket ban, which means that we as a nation are not properly able to understand what happened in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. If we were better informed about that, we might be able to make better decisions for our own national security in the future.

[Matt Hancock]

I do not wish to labour the point. I too was the Minister responsible for national security releases. All I can say is that that is not within the scope of the Bill, and I think the system works effectively.

As recommended by Dame Fiona Caldicott, the National Data Guardian for Health and Care, the Bill creates a new offence of the unlawful re-identification of de-identified personal data. It offers new safeguards for children, including a new code on age-appropriate website design. Currently, the law on parental consent for children on social media is complicated, but in most cases it applies to children up to 12 years old. The Bill provides for consent to be required in the case of children aged up to 13, so that parents have more control but the law is still practical.

The Bill also sets out clearer frameworks for data security—for example, by giving everyone a right to know when their data has been breached. We are strengthening the enforcement powers of the Information Commissioner to reflect a world in which data is held and used in much more sophisticated ways than ever before. Under the Bill, the commissioner can issue substantial penalties of up to 4% of global turnover. When she finds criminality, she can also prosecute. With greater control, greater transparency and greater security for our data, the Bill will help to give us a statute book that is fit for the digital age as we leave the EU.

Let me now touch on some specific areas in a little more detail. This is a forensic Bill with 208 clauses. It covers a vast area of British life, including financial services, sport, the protection of equality and much more. It also includes provisions that will support Members of this House in the work that we do, and it will make it easier for us to take up casework on behalf of our constituents.

The Bill provides for three parallel schemes to protect personal data. First, on general data, which accounts for the vast majority of data processing across all sectors of the economy and the public sector, this part of the Bill works in tandem with the EU’s GDPR, which we have discussed. We know that small businesses need advice on this, and it is important to get right the advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office. It says in my notes that the ICO has a small business helpline, but we have already heard about that in the debate.

[Rebecca Pow]

I have been contacted by a number of businesses in Taunton Deane that are concerned about the work already placed on them to comply with data protection legislation. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Bill will not give them a further workload, that it will indeed help those needing to trade in future across Europe and that it should, overall, be a benefit?

[Matt Hancock]

That is right. The Bill is structured to be consistent with the EU law elements of GDPR, which automatically apply from 25 May this year, to ensure that the non-EU elements of data protection, with respect to general data processing, national security data and law enforcement data, provide for a full spectrum framework for data protection once we leave the EU. The Bill is designed in such a way that it is as simple as possible for businesses to comply with the data protection standards that will be directly enforced from 25 May anyway. That is why from the point of view of small businesses, it is important that we get this Bill through by 25 May, and we have a fully functioning data protection framework. However, I certainly take on board, and am sympathetic to, the concerns my hon. Friend raises about small businesses and the need to ensure our data system is innovative in the future, and that people can comply with the rules. I hope that satisfies her on the concerns of small businesses in her constituency, as well as those of small councils and indeed small charities, which have to comply as well.

The schemes are designed to make sure the police can keep using and sharing personal data to prevent and investigate crime, to bring offenders to justice and to keep communities safe. Likewise, the Bill makes provisions for the personal data processed by our intelligence agencies, so they can continue to protect our country at a time of heightened terrorist threat. The intelligence services will be part of this new framework under the supervision of the Information Commissioner.

We also want to support the hard-hitting investigative journalism that holds the powerful to account and that we have touched on already—and it is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) engaging with the digital economy on his smartphone; I am delighted that he welcomes at least some elements of the 21st century. On this point, I want briefly to comment on the proposed clauses inserted by the Lords. I set out our response to the consultation on the future of the Leveson inquiry last week, so I will not set out the arguments again in full this afternoon, but I will say this: the amendments are simply not the answer to today’s problems faced by the media. It has been six years since the Leveson inquiry reported; since then, we have seen the completion of three detailed police investigations, extensive reforms to police practices and some of the most significant changes to press self-regulation in recent times. Meanwhile, the media are facing critical challenges that threaten their sustainability, including fake news, declining circulations and in gaining revenue from online content.

On top of that, the amendments undermine our devolution settlement. The new clauses seek to legislate on a UK-wide basis, despite press regulation being a reserved matter for the devolved Administrations. I hope Scottish National party Members, and indeed all Members, will join me in voting these amendments down.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is not sounding any more convincing than he did in his statement on Thursday. Failure to proceed with part two of Leveson and section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is a disgusting and cowardly betrayal of the victims of media harassment. It does not even leave those victims in the same position as before, because since Leveson the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 has hobbled the ability of claimants in privacy and defamation actions to access no-win, no-fee representation. Therefore, section 40 is now the only way to ensure access to justice, which is as helpful to small publishers as it is to citizens. Why does the Secretary of State not put their interests before those of big newspaper groups, instead of currying favour for himself and his weak Government?

[Matt Hancock]

We debated this at length on Thursday and discussed the fact that it is vital that we look to what is needed for the media now, to ensure that instead of having a set of proposals that were designed several years ago and that would lead to any claimant being able to claim costs no matter the merits of their case, we have measures that enable our press to be sustainable for the future.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I support the Secretary of State in proposing that these amendments be removed. Like many in this place, I have been on the wrong end of fake news and misrepresentation many times, so I do not do so out of personal interest. I think there is a wider public interest: a free press is an extremely important part of a democracy. The press will not always get it right, but we need to be very careful about the amendments from the Lords.

[Matt Hancock]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend.

This Bill is an essential piece of legislation that makes the UK’s data laws among the most effective in the world. This House must never shy away from supporting new technology. The Electric Lighting Act 1882 was considered so important that the House sat on a Saturday to get it through. I hope that will not be necessary this time, but I do hope that the House will adopt similar enthusiasm in backing this Bill. Doing so would support our entrepreneurs in harnessing the value of data, while giving citizens confidence when they go online.

I was pleased a few weeks ago that the Opposition Front-Bench teams in the other place agreed that the Bill was a positive and necessary step. I hope the whole House will agree tonight, and I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

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

[Tom Watson]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who gave an excellent speech a few minutes ago, I will focus my remarks on the data protection aspects of the Bill. The Minister will have seen the press report this morning on research carried out by the Federation of Small Businesses showing that fewer than one in 10 small businesses is fully prepared for the obligations that this legislation imposes on them, and just under one in five has not yet heard of the GDPR. These obligations all take effect at the end of May—in less than three months’ time—so whatever the merits of this Bill, there is clearly a huge amount of work to be done in drawing the attention of those affected to what it means.

Ministers have made some changes to the Bill during its passage through the other place since we last discussed it in this Chamber on 12 October. In that debate, I and others made the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) made earlier—that leaving article 8 of the European charter of fundamental rights outside UK law poses a serious threat to our achieving a data adequacy determination from the European Commission in future. I therefore welcome the addition of what is now clause 2, which partly addresses that. However, I do not think it goes far enough, so I will be supporting my hon. Friend’s proposal that article 8 should be added to our statute book. Lord Stevenson tabled an amendment in the other place that said:

“The protection of personal data may not be lawfully restricted or limited unless such restrictions and limitations are consistent with the principle of proportionality.”

That is an important additional protection that ought to be in the Bill. I hope that we will be able to debate that amendment in Committee.

There is some confusion in the Government about all this. The Secretary of State set out how important it is that we keep our UK data regulation aligned with the regulation in the European Union because of the importance to the UK economy of personal data transfers between the UK and the EU. He is absolutely right about that. However, in recent months, the Foreign Secretary and the International Trade Secretary have suggested from time to time that it would be a good thing if the UK could deviate from EU rules on data protection. Last July, for example, the International Trade Secretary said in the United States—I am quoting from a report in the Financial Times—that the UK was more in line with US calls for information to be allowed to flow freely across borders while Germany and other EU countries insist on localisation. He was getting a bit confused about two different things, but he is clearly suggesting in that remark, as in others, that it could be a good thing for the UK to deviate from EU data protection rules. In fact—the Secretary of State is absolutely right about this—it would be a disaster for the UK to deviate from EU data protection regulation, because if the EU were to judge our data protection rules to be inadequate, a large chunk of the UK economy would immediately be without any lawful basis. That could affect exactly the kind of innovative company to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge drew attention—a games company with players all over Europe who, as a part of playing the game, need to be able to send personal data between their country and the European Union.

[Matt Hancock]

The right hon. Gentleman has made this point in these debates several times, and I want to reassure him on the Government’s precise position. I stated this in my remarks, not speaking from notes, but let me read to him what the Prime Minister said in her speech on Friday:

“we will be seeking more than just an adequacy arrangement and want to see an appropriate ongoing role for the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office. This will ensure UK businesses are effectively represented under the EU’s new ‘one stop shop’ mechanism for resolving data protection disputes.”

So there you have it.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and I welcome that commitment on the part of the Prime Minister.

The problem is, however, that the International Trade Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have been saying different. That led to techUK, the industry body, writing to the International Trade Secretary last month to highlight the dangers. This was reported by that reliable publication, The Daily Telegraph, on 19 February, with the headline: “Tech industry warns Ministers not to drop EU security laws”. The report began:

“The British tech industry has issued a stark warning to leading Brexiteer ministers that diverging from EU data protection standards after Brexit will ‘undermine’ the UK’s status as Europe’s leading tech hub.”

The Secretary of State is absolutely right not to have gone down the same road as his right hon. Friends, and I very much welcome what the Prime Minister said about all this on Friday. However, there is clearly a problem in the Cabinet. I gather that after sending that letter, techUK received a reassuring response from the Department, and then a few days later a non-executive director at the Department for International Trade was quoted as saying, “Complying with EU standards on data is not the only solution.” But the truth is that for a large part of the UK economy, it is the only solution. We need to be absolutely clear about this. I am delighted that the Secretary of State is clear about it. Of course, that is why he is bringing this Bill before us and why he has altered it in line with what a number of us said in October.

[Matt Hancock]

I hate to take the wind out of the right hon. Gentleman’s sails, but it was unusual to receive that letter from techUK, because rarely as a Minister have I been lobbied so strongly in support of my own position.

[Stephen Timms]

I am glad that the Secretary of State has been lobbied in support of his own position, but he needs to watch his back against Ministers who lack the clarity that he has expressed—particularly the International Trade Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, who continue to say that there is merit in divergence. There is no merit in divergence at all. Significant numbers of tech start-ups are already going to Berlin rather than basing themselves in the UK because of the uncertainty about this issue. The more uncertainty there is, fanned by some members of the Cabinet, the greater the economic damage to the UK.

This is a very clear example of the situation we are going to find ourselves in more and more when we have left the European Union. It will be asserted that because of our economic interests, in this case, we should comply with rules drawn up by the European Union—in this case, the general data protection regulation—but we will no longer have a vote about what those rules should be. We will become a rule-taker. I welcome the commitment that the Prime Minister has made to a place for the UK’s Information Commissioner on the European data protection board. That will be helpful. It means that we will at least get a voice in these discussions when the rules are being drawn up—but we will not get a vote. We will be less influential in EU data protection laws than we have been as members of the European Union. We need to recognise that our influence, including over laws that we are going to have to implement ourselves, will be less in future than it has been up to now.

I would very much welcome the Minister telling us—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge made this point as well—how, in future, we are going to make adequacy determinations about other countries’ data protection laws. Are we going to adopt the EU list and say that those 12 countries are adequate and others are not, or are we going to have our own processes? How is it going to be done?

I echo the concerns expressed by a number of Members about the threats to our future data adequacy determination that come from the immigration exemption and the national security exemption. Those were not well defended by Ministers in the debates in the other place, and the justification for them is not clear. As others have said, they leave us open to criticisms of our data protection regulations that could threaten our future adequacy determinations. I am very keen to hear the Minister’s response to those concerns in particular.

Points of Order

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. I understand that she has also notified the Secretary of State. The contents of a ministerial statement are the responsibility of the Minister. If the Secretary of State feels that he has been in any way inaccurate in his description of Sir Brian Leveson’s views, I have no doubt that he will take steps to put the record straight. He is not obliged to say anything here, although he can if he so wishes.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Not yet; I am dealing with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman can behave with a statesmanlike reserve befitting his very high office and onerous responsibilities.

As the correspondence has now been made available, it is a matter on which all Members may take their own view. I think it partly comes down to a question of interpretation and of emphasis, and I know where the hon. Lady is coming from on this subject. I am not entirely unaware of what Sir Brian has said about these matters. Meanwhile, the hon. Lady has succeeded in putting her view on the record. I call the Secretary of State, who is in his place and was a moment ago literally leaping towards the Dispatch Box with a breezy air of confident insistence.

[Matt Hancock]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I very clearly and carefully described my position and Sir Brian’s. Now that his letter is in the public domain, I think it is all very straightforward.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry, but I was in here and listened very carefully, and I—and, I think, the majority of Members of this House—certainly got the very distinct impression that Sir Brian Leveson was agreeing with the Secretary of State, whereas one could only describe his reaction to having been described in such a way as incandescent fury. In future, would it not be helpful if, when a Secretary of State makes a statement of this nature—particularly one citing another person and praying them in aid—he published that person’s correspondence at exactly the same point as making the statement?

Data Protection Bill

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Written Statements

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

The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:

In my view, the provisions of the Data Protection Bill are compatible with the convention rights.

[HCWS501]

Leveson Inquiry

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Leveson inquiry and its implementation, and the freedom of the press.

Over many centuries in Britain, our press has held the powerful to account and been free to report and investigate without fear or favour. These principles underpin our democracy and are integral to our freedom as a nation. Today, in a world of the internet and clickbait, our press face critical challenges that threaten their livelihood and sustainability, with declining circulations and a changing media landscape. It is in this context that we approach the Leveson inquiry, which was set up seven years ago in 2011 and reported six years ago in 2012 in response to events over a decade ago.

The Leveson inquiry was a diligent and thorough examination of the culture, practices and ethics of our press in response to illegal and improper press intrusion. There were far too many cases of terrible behaviour, and, having met some of the victims, I understand the impact this had.

From the start, I want to thank Sir Brian for his work. The inquiry lasted over a year and heard evidence from more than 300 people, including journalists, editors and victims. Three major police investigations examined a wide range of offences, and more than 40 people were convicted. The inquiry and investigations were comprehensive, and since it was set up the terms of reference for a part 2 of the inquiry have largely been met. There have also been extensive reforms to policing practices and significant changes to press self-regulation.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has been established and now regulates 95% of national newspapers by circulation. It has taken significant steps to demonstrate its independence as a regulator, and in 2016 Sir Joseph Pilling concluded that IPSO had largely complied with Leveson’s recommendations. There have been further improvements since, and I hope there will be more to come. In November last year, for instance, IPSO introduced a new system of low-cost arbitration. It has processed more than 40,000 complaints in its first three years of operation, and it has ordered multiple front-page corrections or clarifications. Newspapers have also made improvements to their governance frameworks to improve internal controls, standards and compliance, and one regulator, IMPRESS, has been recognised under the royal charter. Extensive reforms to policing practices have been made, too: the College of Policing has published a code of ethics and developed national guidance for police officers on how to engage with the press, and we have legislated in the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to strengthen protections for police whistleblowers.

It is clear that we have seen significant progress from publications, from the police and from the new regulator, and the media landscape today is markedly different from that which Sir Brian looked at in 2011. The way in which we consume news has changed dramatically. Newspaper circulation has fallen by about 30% since the conclusions of the Leveson inquiry, and, although digital circulation is rising, publishers are finding it much harder to generate revenue online. In 2015, for every £100 newspapers lost in print revenue, they gained only £3 in digital revenue.

Our local papers in particular are under severe pressure. Local papers help to bring together local voices and shine a light on important local issues—in communities, in courtrooms, in council chambers—and as we devolve power further to local communities they will become even more important, yet over 200 local newspapers have closed since 2005, including two in my constituency. These are the new challenges.

There are also challenges that were only in their infancy back in 2011. We have seen a dramatic and continued rise in social media, which is largely unregulated, and issues such as clickbait, fake news, malicious disinformation and online abuse threaten high-quality journalism.

The foundation of any successful democracy is a sound basis for democratic discourse. That is under threat from these new forces, and that requires urgent attention. These are today’s challenges and this is where we need to focus, especially as more than £48 million was spent on the police investigations and the inquiry.

During the consultation, 12% of direct respondents were in favour of reopening the Leveson inquiry, with 66% against. We agree and this is the position we set out in the Conservative party manifesto. Sir Brian, whom I thank for his service, agrees that the inquiry should not proceed under the current terms of reference but believes that it should continue in an amended form. We do not believe that reopening this costly and time consuming public inquiry is the right way forward, so considering all the factors that I have outlined to the House today, I have informed Sir Brian that we are formally closing the inquiry. But we will take action to safeguard the lifeblood of our democratic discourse and tackle the challenges that our media face—today, not a decade ago.

During the consultation, we also found serious concerns that section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 would exacerbate the problems the press faces rather than solve them. Respondents were worried that it would impose further financial burdens, especially on the local press. As one high profile figure put it very clearly:

“Newspapers...are already operating in a tough environment. These proposals will make it tougher and add to the risk of self-censorship…The threat of having to pay both sides’ costs—no matter what the challenge—would have the effect of leaving journalists questioning every report that named an individual or included the most innocuous data about them.”

He went on to say that section 40 risks

“damaging the future of a paper that you love”

and that the impact will be to

“make it much more difficult for papers...to survive”.

These are not my words, Mr Speaker, but those of Alastair Campbell talking about the chilling threat of section 40—and if anyone knows about threats to the press it is Alastair Campbell.

Only 7% of direct respondents favoured full commencement of section 40. By contrast, 79% favoured full repeal. We have therefore decided not to commence section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and to seek repeal at the earliest opportunity. Action is needed, based not on what might have been needed years ago but on what is needed to address today’s problems. Our new digital charter sets out the overarching programme of work to agree norms and rules for the online world and put them into practice. Under the charter, our internet safety strategy is looking at online behaviour and we will firmly tackle the problems of online abuse. Our review of the sustainability of high-quality journalism will address concerns about the impact of the internet on our news and media. It will do this in a forward-looking way, so we can respond to the challenges of today, not the challenges of yesterday.

The future of a vibrant press matters to us all. There has been a huge public response to our consultation and I want to thank every one of the 174,000 respondents as well as all those who signed petitions. We have carefully considered all the evidence we received. We have consulted widely, with regulators, publications and victims of press intrusion. The world has changed since the Leveson inquiry was established in 2011. Since then, we have seen a seismic change in the media landscape. The work of the inquiry and the reforms since have had a huge impact on public life. We thank Sir Brian for lending his dedication and expertise to the undertaking of this inquiry.

At national and local levels, a press that can hold the powerful to account remains an essential component of our democracy. We need high-quality journalism to thrive in the new digital world. We seek a press and a media that are robust and independently regulated and that report without fear or favour. The steps I have set out today will help give Britain a vibrant, independent and free press that holds the powerful to account and rises to the challenges of our times. I commend the statement to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Hancock]

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

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

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

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

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

The Secretary of State’s predecessor promised the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that we would receive a full response to our submission to the Government’s consultation on press regulation, but we have yet to receive it. Can he give me an assurance that we will receive a full response in good time for his appearance before us on 14 March?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course. Not only have I made this statement today, but I will also be publishing a full response to the consultation, with full details—I will place a copy in the Library. I look forward to coming before the Select Committee to discuss this question narrowly, and also to discuss the wider actions we are taking, in which my hon. Friend is playing an important part, to make sure that we have a sound basis for political discourse in this country.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement. I wrote to him on 22 February seeking an update on progress with the inquiry and asking if and when it would be implemented. I am pleased he has come to the Dispatch Box today at least to clarify that.

The Secretary of State will also be aware that the Scottish National party is absolutely committed to ensuring that the practices that led to Leveson in the first place do not happen again. Our position has always been that, should a UK-wide part 2 of Leveson go ahead, it must take into account the distinct legal context in Scotland.

We firmly believe that all individuals should have a right to redress when they feel that they have been a victim of malpractice. However, the Scottish Government have absolutely no plans to introduce statutory incentives for the press in Scotland to sign up to a state-approved regulator. Press regulation and the operation of the civil courts are areas that are clearly within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament, so can the Secretary of State assure us that he will respect the devolution settlement and the independence of the Scottish legal system? Does he agree that, by not doing so, he would set a dangerous precedent in determining the ability of the Scottish Parliament to take decisions in devolved areas?

[Matt Hancock]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. It is, of course, part of the devolution settlement that these issues are dealt with in Scotland. I of course respect the separate and distinct legal system in this area. He asks whether we will respect that in future, and he knows as well as I do that amendments have been made to the Data Protection Bill in the other place—that Bill will have its Second Reading in this House on Monday—that, with respect to data protection only, require a Leveson 2-type inquiry and the commencement of section 40 on a UK-wide basis. I look forward to discussing with the hon. Gentleman how we can make sure that we have the respect we need for the devolution settlement and for the Scottish press. The single best way that we can deal with the problem he rightly raises is by disposing of those amendments in their entirety.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that, now more than ever, newspapers play a vital role in holding both the Government and the Opposition to account? He is absolutely right that, rather than looking backwards at the events of 10 years ago and adding to the costs of local newspapers, we should be supporting newspapers in meeting the challenges of the internet giants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend, not least because, as he points out, one of the jobs of a Secretary of State is to look forward and consider how to solve the problems of today. The problems of local newspapers are not a marginal or side issue. More than 200 local papers have closed in the past decade and a bit, including local papers in my patch. I do not want to see that accelerated by the actions of this House, and that is what would happen if we do not take the course of action I have proposed today.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Having spent many hours with the Dowler family, Christopher Jefferies and many others, may I say on behalf of all the victims that many of us will feel that the Secretary of State has shoved another little knife in our heart? In all honesty, we had hoped that the promises were real promises that we would get to the truth—not just the bits and pieces that were able to be dealt with, as Sir Brian said, but the elements that were expressly excluded from the original investigation, particularly the Metropolitan police’s collusion with the press, which could not be looked at at all.

I find it inconceivable that the Secretary of State talks only about the freedom of the press—of course the freedom of the press is important—because to many of us, it is also important that politicians should be able to speak without fear or favour. That means we should no longer be cowed by press barons; we should be able to do what is right for society. I simply ask the Secretary of State why on earth, if everything he has said today is true, did the Government make all those promises in the past, and why did he vote for the legislation?

[Matt Hancock]

The world has changed since 2011. The truth is that the rise of the internet means that some of the issues the hon. Gentleman rightly raises about making sure the debate we have is a reasonable one, not one based on abuse and bullying, are much broader. Tackling the problems of today is our task now. Of course there were abuses that were looked into during the inquiry, and they have been looked into by the police in three investigations, with over 40 criminal convictions since. The judgment we have to make is: what is the best thing to do for the future of this country, when the way in which we debate politics and make decisions is under challenge, because of new technology, in a way it has not been for decades if not centuries? Getting those solutions right is mission-critical to our future as a liberal democracy, and that is what we are putting our attention to.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s response to the consultation and to the concerns raised about section 40. Will he outline further its potential impact on the viability of local newspapers and press, such as the Long Eaton and District Chronicle, the Ilkeston Advertiser and Ilkeston Life in my constituency?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend mentions three of her local papers. Given the nature of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, anybody making a complaint will see the costs assigned to the newspaper and not to the complainant if that newspaper is not a member of a royal charter-approved regulator. That means anybody making any complaint would effectively be able to stop a journalist pursuing a story, as was set out eloquently by Alastair Campbell.

The situation has changed since 2011; nobody then imagined that a self-regulator, IPSO, would come to the fore. It now covers 95% of national newspapers, has a low-cost arbitration system and can require corrections to be put in place. IPSO is not perfect, and I hope it makes further progress, but nobody imagined that it would be there at all. We have a better system than was in place, and it allows for redress and for local newspapers to thrive as much as possible.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statements because I believe that although newspapers often make the life of an elite intolerable, they make complacency impossible. I worry about local newspapers, and I welcome what he said about section 40, because we used to have three newspapers and we now have one, the Harlow Star. We also have the good newspaper internet site “Your Harlow”. What other measures will he put in place to strengthen local newspapers?

[Matt Hancock]

This is an important question and we are working hard on what we can do, through this review of the sustainability of the press, with which I hope my right hon. Friend, the Harlow Star and “Your Harlow” will engage, to ensure that we have not just support from the big organisations—whether that is the BBC or some of the big internet giants—but commercial models that work effectively to deliver news, locally and nationally.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I am very disappointed with the Secretary of State’s statement and feel personally let down by his answers to some of the questions. What is in this for the victims of phone hacking and press abuse? What does he say to the Dowler family, the Hillsborough families and the other countless victims of appalling press abuse? There is nothing in this. We had the promises made to them by a Conservative Prime Minister and the legislation that was voted on by the Secretary of State. Times have not changed for the victims, and there is nothing in this for them. What will he say to them?

[Matt Hancock]

What I have said and will say to them is that we have to make sure that the UK media and news industry can hold the powerful to account and respond to today’s challenges. That means facing the country as it is now, which includes the stronger press self-regulation that we have, and making sure that we take into account the wider context, which is that there is an undermining of the ability to have an objective and positive political discussion because of the technology that is available. In that context, the proposals that were set out more than five or six years ago would make the challenges harder and worse, rather than better.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I welcome the statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the press, both local and national, has a critical role in holding politicians and the powerful to account, any form of state regulation is highly undesirable in a democratic society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I do. To be frank, I am concerned by the statements coming out of some parts of our political system that seem to think that state control over newspapers is a good idea.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

As a former journalist, I am utterly dismayed by the Secretary of State’s statement. I value the freedom of the press, but does he not see the sad irony in talking about how the press has held the powerful to account and then closing the door on our opportunity to hold the powerful voices of the press to account on behalf of the victims? Those victims were promised the sort of legislation in section 40 that the Secretary of State is now turning away from. The problems faced by local newspapers and the newspaper industry in general are nothing to do with Leveson; they are to do with modern technology. Will the Secretary of State please reconsider thinking about the victims and giving them a chance to raise legitimate concerns under section 40?

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with the hon. Lady that there has been a big change because of modern technology. I want to make sure that we have high-quality journalism in future and that that cannot be undermined by any complainant having costs assigned to the newspaper for any complaint. That is no way to organise a system of press regulation. Instead, we have to make sure that we have sustainable business models for high-quality journalists so that, just as the hon. Lady had the opportunity to be a journalist in the past, people have that sort of opportunity in future.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly what he said about section 40. I also agree with what he said about the local press, which are the lifeblood of our communities. Is he aware that Iliffe Media Publishing Ltd has recently bought Lynn News in my constituency? It is bucking the national trend by investing in a new building and in its staff, and it is confident about the future.

[Matt Hancock]

I am absolutely delighted to hear that. It is not the national norm to hear that about the local press, but that shows that sustainable business models can be found. I am absolutely delighted about that and want to do everything I can to make sure that there are sustainable business models for high-quality journalism, which includes not adding extra costs on to the local press.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson came before a Committee of this House and admitted to committing crimes by bribing police officers—such was the scale of their arrogance; they felt that they were so powerful that they could take on Parliament and they had the Metropolitan police in their pockets. That shows the scale of the position we had reached when the Secretary of State voted in favour of the legislation that he is now trying to repeal. Has he forgotten what happened to the victims? Our duty is to give a voice in this House to people who are weak and vulnerable. As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to stand up for them. The Secretary of State has failed to do that today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely powerful case for just how much the Leveson inquiry looked into everything in this area, and it was followed by three police investigations. My central point is this. We looked into these things as a society. We had a comprehensive Leveson inquiry. We spent £48 million of taxpayers’ money doing so. As he said, there were criminal convictions as a result and some people were jailed. My job now as Secretary of State is to look at what the country needs for the future.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State reassure me that the new regulatory framework is working well for victims and is much cheaper and easier than those regulations that were in force at the time of Leveson?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely. I can tell the House, first, that we have a new independent self-regulator, IPSO; secondly, that it has introduced a low-cost arbitration scheme; thirdly, that it requires corrections, including multiple front-page corrections; and that we would like to see further action in strengthening it. What matters to this House in terms of having a free and robust press, whether we like every story or not—frankly, I do not like some of the stories about me, but I still want people to be able to write them—is that people have to write to hold the powerful to account. That means scrutinising this place in the robust way that the press does.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

How many of the victims’ families have called for a change of Government policy?

[Matt Hancock]

We have considered the evidence from right across the board. We have had 174 responses to the consultation and we will be publishing all those details in full. We have taken into account the considerations raised by the victims and the considerations raised by everybody else responding to the consultation.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

When journalists are investigating cases, it is vital that they check their facts and do not publish before they have checked their facts. What action will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that redress is available for those people who have been unfairly pilloried? Can he also explain to the House why he is not taking forward Sir Brian’s recommendation to further the investigation, albeit on amended terms?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course, accuracy is part of the code against which complaints are considered and, therefore, corrections and apologies can be required by an IPSO-regulated newspaper. On the first point, which is very important, accuracy is core to the redress system. It is critical that we have a regulatory system for the press. It is also critical that it is not a regulatory system that is put in place by politicians, but one that is put in place by the press itself.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many years ago, I was libelled by a newspaper and took it to court and won. That was the most stressful time in my whole career as a Member of Parliament because you suddenly wake up to the power of the great newspaper, with all its resources and its ability to mount costs and bring pressure on you. That was for a Member of Parliament. Please think, in your liberal democracy, Minister, about what it means for an ordinary person—one of our constituents—to be taken on by something like the Daily Mail—their life traduced and their family ruined, with so little ability to stand up for themselves and their family. Will he think again on this? As far as I can see, if he reads the Daily Mail this week, he will see that not much has happened to change it.

[Matt Hancock]

The libel laws are of course a critical guardian in this space, but the low-cost arbitration scheme brought in by IPSO is designed precisely to address that question, and making sure that that works is very important.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I agree with the Minister about section 40 because I have seen the impact that that would have on local papers such as the New Shopper in my constituency. However, I do not agree with some of the personalised attacks upon him. May I bring him back to the second part of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the amended terms of Leveson? Sir Brian Leveson is probably the most distinguished and experienced judge in criminal matters in this country. He identified in detail the issue of criminal collusion between corrupt police officers and corrupt journalists. Anyone who knows the criminal justice system knows that that has not gone away and continues. Absent of Leveson 2 on revised terms, what will the Government do to expose and deal with that?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course there have been changes to policing—not least the code of ethics, the national guidance for police officers and the changes in the Policing and Crime Act 2017. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that I did not address the second part of his question. We are taking forward the need to look at and to ensure that this country has high-quality journalism, but we have to look at that in the full round. Yes, that includes the press, but it also includes online, where a huge amount of news is now consumed. I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) about what he thinks needs to be done, but I want to ensure that we address the problems that we still face.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Democratic Unionist party is listening, but we remain concerned that Northern Ireland newsrooms and papers seem to have got off scot-free in the first inquiry. Will the Secretary of State tell us just how the landscape has changed since Sir Brian initiated the report? In the light of our concerns, where does he think we are now?

[Matt Hancock]

There has been a change, not only in the wider media landscape that we have discussed, but in the means of redress available. Self-regulation is much tougher, with the introduction of IPSO and the ability for people to go to arbitration. We now have the means of redress to address problems in the press, and I hope that they will be strengthened.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

While we are right to celebrate a free press within our democracy, are we not also right to demand a responsible press? With freedom comes responsibility. On the subject of responsibility, may I invite the Secretary of State to share his thoughts as to whether, in order to ensure a free and open democracy, the responsible thing to do would be for Members to hand back racially tainted money?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend’s second point raises a very important question. I am sure the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) will be thinking very hard about that now that he has admitted that it was a mistake to take this money. On my hon. Friend’s first point, it is critical that the press and online publications act responsibly and accurately in their reporting.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State agree to meet the Dowler family, Christopher Jefferies and the McCanns to explain to them why this Conservative Government are breaking the promise given by a Conservative Prime Minister?

[Matt Hancock]

As I said, I have already met some of the victims. I have also already extended an invitation to meet victims and Hacked Off in order to discuss today’s statement and what we are doing.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

In my 15 years at The Daily Telegraph, I had a thankfully limited amount to do with the Press Complaints Commission. I reassure the Secretary of State that IPSO is genuinely a profoundly different regulator with far greater powers and far more teeth. Section 40 would have a chilling effect not just on our valued local papers, but on our national papers. The issue that faces local papers today is social media and the changes in technology that I saw the beginnings of over those 15 years. May I say that what the Secretary of State has done today has done more for the freedom of the press in this country and our accountability than the alternative course of action that the Opposition would like to see?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this matter because not only was he a journalist, but he was a journalist of technology, so he understands the impact of technology on journalism in a very personal way. I agree entirely with what he said on the importance of having a press that can report without fear or favour, and that can hold the powerful to account. We sometimes talk in a glib way about holding the powerful to account, but accountability is critical to good decision making. It is only when we have full accountability for our decisions that our feet are held to the fire and we think extremely hard about all the different courses of action available to us.

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

Sir Brian believes that the inquiry should continue, albeit in a different form. The victims, who were promised as much in person by David Cameron, believed that the inquiry would continue. Those victims have been betrayed today. Will the Secretary of State enlighten us—when was the last time that a Government overruled the wishes of a judge chairing an inquiry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I do not know the answer to the last point, because I am only looking at this inquiry. What I have to do, and what I have done today, is make a judgment about what the national interest is. I entirely understand the concerns of the victims in this issue. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, there have been significant changes. The inquiry was a significant undertaking that led to a year-long look at all these issues and the concerns of the victims, and then there were three police investigations and over 40 convictions. It is not as if this has not been looked into—it has been looked into to the tune of 48 million quid. I therefore have to take the decision today on what is in the national interest of the country as a whole, and that is exactly what I have done.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

I welcome the statement on section 40, which would jeopardise the viability of fantastic local papers such as Barrhead News in my constituency. I also associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). Can the Secretary of State confirm my understanding that Labour’s proposal to enact section 40 now would have serious implications for the relationship between Scotland’s two Governments in a devolved area?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. The amendments that will come before the House in coming months would have very complicated impacts on the devolution settlement that I do not want to go into. I am very happy with the devolution settlement in this area. It is a good settlement, and I look forward to trying to ensure that it is maintained through the passage of the Bill.

[Simon Hoare]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

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

1. What steps he is taking with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to encourage sporting venues to recycle plastic containers.

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

I have held discussions with the Environment Secretary on reducing plastics, including at sports venues, and further work is ongoing as part of our wider environmental agenda.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Secretary of State for that very helpful answer. People just have to go to any sporting venue to see a massive amount of single-use plastics. This is an area where there are opportunities not only for improving recycling, but for raising awareness. Will the Secretary of State continue to use his office to that end?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely. I strongly support the work that the Environment Secretary is doing in leading on reducing single-use plastics. In fact, he was in Scotland this weekend, including at Pittodrie—I believe also that the right hon. Gentleman is a graduate of Aberdeen University—so the Environment Secretary is talking to venues about how they can reduce plastic waste. Of course, the London 2012 Olympics was an exemplar, but there is clearly more to do.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

As we have just heard, in 2012 this country set new high environmental standards at the London Olympics. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital we continue to show environmental leadership, not just sporting leadership, at other major sporting events, including the Commonwealth games in Birmingham in 2022?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that continuing improvement must be seen. While the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games set a new standard, we have to make sure that these standards keep advancing, and I hope to see that at the 2022 Commonwealth games.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

2. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on publishing the Government’s assessment of the effect on the public purse of a reduction in the maximum fixed-odds betting stake.

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

I have held discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the issue of gambling. The Government’s consultation on the gambling review closed on 23 January and we are considering the responses.

[Stephen Timms]

Vile machines are cynically clustered by shameless and irresponsible conglomerates in the poorest communities, where they destroy hard-working families. They are a magnet for crime, and they launder the proceeds of crime. Tawdry and soulless high street outlets drive decent shops away and repel family shoppers. Will the Secretary of State now call time on this racket, with its £1.5 billion a year welfare burden, and cut the maximum stake to £2?

[Matt Hancock]

I know that the issue of fixed odds betting terminals raises strong emotions in the House and around the country, and it is very important that we approach it properly. Especially coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who is widely respected across the House and was a member of the Government when the expansion of FOBTs happened, that is a telling statement.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is not like the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) to give the House an ill-informed rant, but that is what we heard. I notice that the Secretary of State did not actually answer the question on the Order Paper, which is about the cost to the public purse of a reduction in the stake. Will he indicate what the cost to the Exchequer would be of the lack of tax receipts, increased unemployment benefit to pay to all the people who would be put out of work by a substantial reduction and the lack of business rates? Will he total up all those amounts and tell us how much it would actually cost the Government if they went for a drastic reduction in the stake?

[Matt Hancock]

Impact assessments on the question of FOBTs were of course published alongside the Government consultation in October. All the consequences of any changes in this area—we are committed to reducing the maximum stake on FOBTs—will be worked through, and that is part of the work we are doing right now to determine the appropriate response.

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

Further to the excellent points made by the right hon. Member for East Ham—not so much to those from the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—with the consultation completed, it is time to get on with it. My Scottish National party colleagues have continually called for a £2 maximum stake. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this will finally happen, and if not, will he devolve these powers to Scotland so that we can finally take action?

[Matt Hancock]

I confirm that we will respond to the consultation in due course. I said in answer to an earlier question that this raises high emotions, and we have seen a demonstration of that today.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

We send our best wishes from across the country to our Winter Olympic and Paralympic athletes.

With the gambling review just two weeks away, we need the Secretary of State to ensure that the Government take action against FOBTs, and they must intervene to stop these machines ruining lives and tearing families apart. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham is absolutely right, so will the Secretary of State answer my simple question and commit today to reducing the maximum FOBT stake to £2 a spin?

[Matt Hancock]

What I will do is commit to reducing the maximum FOBT stake, and to responding to the consultation in due course and in the proper way. We must ensure that we come to the right answer on this question.

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to improve broadband and mobile phone coverage in rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As we have just been hearing, improved digital connectivity is a priority. We have reformed mobile planning laws in England to provide new rights—for example, to build taller masts to improve coverage.

[Neil Coyle]

Parts of my central London community have the lowest mobile internet data broadband speeds, including in Rotherhithe, Surrey Docks and south Bermondsey, deeply troubling my constituents who are trying to get the latest “Hanky” app from the Secretary of State’s own provider. Will he guarantee that those areas are included in the roll-out of superfast broadband? Will he confirm whether he supports my council’s bid for Government-funded broadband improvements in Rotherhithe?

[Matt Hancock]

I will certainly look at the bid the hon. Gentleman mentions. The point he raises is that the areas in the final 5% that do not have superfast broadband are not all rural. Some are urban. There are complicated reasons for that, in many cases to do with wayleaves and access, especially to multi-dweller units. We are working very hard on this and I will certainly look at his bid for funding.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The broadband network coverage in some of the Blackdown hills is absolutely appalling. The key to getting broadband and the mobile phone network is combined in those hardest-to-hit spots. We have to get more done.

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is dead right.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

A recent witness at the Scottish Affairs Committee described the Government’s mobile infrastructure project as a disaster. What are the UK Government doing to address that failure?

[Matt Hancock]

We had a commitment to reach 90% of the UK landmass with mobile coverage by the end of last year. Ofcom is assessing whether that has been met. We now have a commitment to get it up to 95%. We are doing that largely through a commercial roll-out. There is no doubt that mobile phone coverage is going up. It is just a question whether it is going up fast enough.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to support tourism across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

10. What progress his Department is making on developing the Government's internet safety strategy.

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

We are committed to making the UK the safest place in the world to be online. In October, we published the internet safety strategy Green Paper. On Tuesday the Prime Minister confirmed that we will bring forward the social media code of practice and an annual internet transparency report, as proposed in the Green Paper, and we will publish a full response in the spring.

[Matt Warman]

It is clear that teaching internet safety in schools will be a crucial part of all that the Government are doing for the future. At the moment, there is a huge number of disparate endeavours from a range of sources. It seems to me that they are in some ways less than the sum of their parts. I wonder whether the Government would consider backing a body such as Internet Matters to really deliver gold standard education in this area.

[Matt Hancock]

As my hon. Friend says, there is a lot going on in this space. Last Friday, I visited the parent zone at Coupals Primary Academy in my constituency and saw a brilliant presentation teaching 8 to 11-year-olds how to be safe online. There is a lot more to do in this area, so that young people grow up resilient and able to use the opportunities that the internet presents safely. I pay tribute to Internet Matters for its work.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

In the internet safety strategy, the Secretary of State proposed that there would be specific measures to protect children, yet when the Data Protection Bill came to the other place there was a hopeless deficit of any specific measures to protect children. It fell to Baroness Kidron, supported by us, to remedy the gap. When the Bill comes to the Commons, will the Secretary of State agree to work constructively with us to ensure that proper digital rights for children, who make up a third of users, are included in the Bill, like the very good five rights framework proposed by the Baroness and supported by us?

[Matt Hancock]

That is an interesting proposal. We supported the Baroness Kidron amendment. I welcome it and I think that we have made some progress. Of course, this issue is broader than just data protection, so we have to ensure that we get the legislation right. That Bill can only cover data protection, which is not the whole issue. Also, it would be a backwards step if the Bill gave the impression that the generality of measures did not apply to children because we have specifics that do. I am happy to talk further to the right hon. Gentleman and to work on this because it is clearly an area on which we need to make progress.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to improve digital infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to tackle problem gambling.

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

We take problem gambling very seriously. In the gambling review, we consulted on measures to strengthen protection against problem gambling. We are considering all the responses.

[Holly Lynch]

I am grateful for that response. In addition to that, I have been approached by concerned lone workers who are working in betting shops on high streets in my constituency. There has been a series of incidents of serious sexual assault and violent acts committed against those lone workers. What is the Secretary of State doing to engage with the industry to reduce lone working in betting shops and improve the safety of those staff?

[Matt Hancock]

There is full consideration of these issues in the gambling review. It is important that all evidence is brought to bear. The Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who apologises for not being able to be here, has been working on the review very closely. I am sure that we should take this evidence into account.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to promote equal pay for women in television, film and radio.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

16. What recent discussions he has had with Channel 4 on its potential relocation outside London; and if he will make a statement.

Thank you for reaching me.

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

It is always a pleasure to reach my hon. Friend. [Laughter.]

Channel 4 does an amazing job. We want to see it do even more to reflect and provide for the country as a whole. We are clear about the need for the company to have a major presence outside London and I am working with it to ensure that that happens.

[Michael Fabricant]

The Mayor of the West Midlands has cross-party local support in trying to attract the Channel 4 headquarters to the region. Will my right hon. Friend outline in more detail how he thinks—and, more important, when he thinks—Channel 4 will move?

[Mr Speaker]

But not in too much detail.

[Matt Hancock]

Terrific.

I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this issue and I have noted the verve with which the Mayor of the west midlands has campaigned for Channel 4 to move there. We believe that the company needs to do more outside London and I can certainly see the arguments for it to move its headquarters.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to congratulate Bristol on being designated UNESCO city of film, which is yet another good reason for Channel 4 to choose to relocate there, but does he agree that, wherever it relocates, this is about commissioning and it will be necessary to ensure that there is a regional spread of commissioning services across the country?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course. A lot of this is about where the broadcast production is commissioned. However, the location of the commissioners will undoubtedly help to determine some of that.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

It is a pleasure to take my first session of topical questions as Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for the things that make life worth living.

We at the DCMS are focused on building Britain’s digital future, growing our nation’s brilliant creative and cultural life, backing a free media fit for the modern age, and supporting sport. With that in mind, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing good luck to Team GB at the Winter Olympic and Paralympic games in PyeongChang. I am sure that our Olympic athletes will do us proud and we wish them all the very best of British.

[David Hanson]

I join the Secretary of State in that wish.

I hope you do not mind, Mr Speaker, if I ask the question I asked earlier, because it was not answered. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister answer this question simply: when do they expect the split between BT and Openreach to occur?

[Matt Hancock]

Last year, Ofcom agreed with BT the outlines of the legal separation and the work to ensure that that happens is ongoing. The deadline set by Ofcom was April this year and it is for BT to take the action with the regulator.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

T2. My cup really doth runneth over today: I have a topical question as well. I welcome the progress the Government are making on superfast broadband, but can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that the remaining 17% of premises in my constituency that do not have access to fibre broadband will have it as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

What action does the Secretary of State think should be taken against an app that breaches key provisions of the Data Protection Act and the privacy and electronic communications regulations, and that is not GDPR—general data protection regulation—compliant?

[Matt Hancock]

I think that all apps should be compliant with the law, and I am delighted to say that the Matt Hancock app is.

[Kevin Brennan]

Exactly, because the app I am talking about does not just belong to the Secretary of State, but is named after him, and the general public need to be protected from their privacy being invaded by Matt Hancock, their personal information being shared with third parties by Matt Hancock and their private photos being accessed by Matt Hancock. Will he undertake to ensure that Matt Hancock complies fully with all data protection regulations in future, and explain why he thinks other people should abide by their legal obligations with regard to data protection if Matt Hancock does not?

[Mr Speaker]

I must say that I am surprised the Secretary of State did not call his app “Hancock-Disraeli”.

[Matt Hancock]

Very good, Mr Speaker.

Of course the app does comply but, more importantly, I think we should use digital communications in all their modern forms to communicate with our constituents. I am delighted by the response the app has had—it has been far bigger than I could possibly have imagined—and I look forward to communicating with my constituents over Matt Hancock for many years to come.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T3. I, too, congratulate the Government on the progress made in passing the 95% target for coverage of superfast broadband, but what message can my right hon. Friend give to the over 2,000 households in my constituency who are unable to receive 10 megabits per second, and particularly the over 10% of households in the village of Purleigh who cannot even receive 2 megabits per second?

[Matt Hancock]

The message I can give those households is that the cavalry is coming: this House has legislated so that everybody shall be able to get 10 megabits per second as an absolute minimum by 2020, and the Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is driving the secondary legislation through necessary to make that happen.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

T5. Obesity is the single biggest preventable cause of cancer after smoking. In my health board area, 26% of four to five-year-olds are overweight or obese. Junk food advertising is the key driver of this, so what assessment have the Government made of the financial impact of the 2007 Ofcom advertising restrictions on children’s broadcasters?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course making sure we have a healthy and buoyant advertising market in the UK is important, but it is also absolutely critical that we do what we can to reduce the amount of obesity in the nation. This is a matter on which I have had discussions with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I am very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman in more detail.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

T4. What steps is the Department taking, alongside the Department for Education, to improve access to sport for our young people, both during school hours and outside them, given the associated health and wellbeing benefits?

[Matt Hancock]

A huge amount of work is ongoing. We have managed, through the sugar tax, to double the amount of funding for school sport. I pay tribute to the Minister for Sport for all the work that she has done on this—she cannot be here today because she is flying to the Winter Olympics—and I am sure that she will be happy to work with my hon. Friend to see what more we can do.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The gross yield of the gambling industry is £13 billion a year, yet GambleAware has been able to raise only £8.6 million through the voluntary levy. Come on, Minister—we have to do better than that.

[Matt Hancock]

I will take that as another consideration in the gambling review, the response to which we are looking at right now.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

T6. Back to the app. Too many users of Android phones have been unlucky enough to read the words “Matt Hancock has stopped” when the app crashes. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that, for all the fun we have had over this, it is a genuinely meaningful attempt to get in touch with constituents and that, as the owner of the fastest-growing social network in the country, he will continue to press on?

[Matt Hancock]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have not stopped and I will not stop communicating with my constituents, which is what this is all about.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the recent estimate by the Centre for Economics and Business Research that 121,000 users of fixed odds betting terminals could be classed as problem gamblers, and that each suffers an average annual loss in welfare of nearly £10,000?

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work she has done as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on FOBTs. She has raised the issue repeatedly and I look forward to working with her on it.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will know that climbing will be a new Olympic sport in Tokyo in 2020. Outfit Moray, a great group in my constituency, is encouraging local kids to get involved. What can the Government do across the UK to ensure that we have enough facilities and coaches for this new sport?

[Matt Hancock]

Climbing is a cracking new sport. In fact, last week I went climbing, as we celebrated funding some of the athletes, including the world champion female climber, who is British and looking forward to competing at the Tokyo Olympic games.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a fact that, when it comes to the 95% broadband target, the UK Government underfunded the Scottish Government, who had to make up the shortfall. When it comes to 4G coverage, England has 60% landmass coverage and Scotland has only 17%. What are the UK Government doing to make up for this double deficit?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course, we have increased mobile phone coverage in Scotland more as a percentage than elsewhere in the UK. When it comes to fixed broadband, I will not take that from the Scottish National party. We gave the SNP £20 million over three years ago and it has not spent it yet. Every single person in Scotland who does not have superfast broadband knows that they could have got it if the SNP had got on with it instead of just worrying about independence.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

On a similar topic, a Scottish Government report found that in 2012 over half of my constituents did not even receive 3G service. Six years later I do not feel that enough progress has been made. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that more is being done to ensure that rural constituents are not being left behind?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The roll-out of mobile phone coverage needs to go further. We have made very good progress, but a lot more needs to be done. I commend her constructive tone, which is so much more useful.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Sustainability of the Press

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Written Statements

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

The Prime Minister is today announcing that the Government will be establishing an external review, looking into the sustainability of high-quality journalism, including the national, regional and local press.

Robust high-quality journalism is important for public debate, scrutiny, and ultimately for democratic political discourse. Yet the press currently faces an uncertain future. Print circulations have declined, with readerships moving online, and the shift from print to digital advertising has led to a loss of revenue for the press. The Government are determined to ensure that the UK has a vibrant, independent and plural free press, which is able to provide high-quality journalism as one of the cornerstones of our public debate. As per our manifesto, we are committed to making sure content creators are appropriately rewarded for the content they make available online, and ensure there is a sustainable business model for high-quality media online. The review will help us deliver on these commitments.

We have already commissioned research to look into the current state of the local and national press markets. The review will bring together experts who will be able to assess the many factors affecting the health of the UK’s news sector. These factors include the impact of the digital advertising supply chain, the role of content and data in the market, click-bait and the role played by the online platforms.

The review will publish a report and a range of recommendations for the industry and Government to consider. The report is expected to be published later this year.

I have published a summary of the scope of this review on gov.uk. The terms of reference, chair and panel will all be announced in the coming months.

[HCWS454]

Sky/Fox Update

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I am here in my capacity as the quasi-judicial decision maker on the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky to update the House on the interim report issued today by the Competition and Markets Authority.

The decision-making role is one that my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) discharged, having met her commitment, which was given many times in this House, to the greatest possible transparency and openness allowed by the process. Although I come fresh to this, I intend to follow that approach of being as open as possible while respecting the quasi-judicial nature of the decision.

As the House well knows, after the proposed acquisition was formally notified to the competition authorities last year, my right hon. Friend issued an intervention notice on media public interest grounds, namely of media plurality and the genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. That triggered a phase 1 investigation, requiring Ofcom to report on the specified public interest grounds and the CMA to report on jurisdiction.

Having received advice from Ofcom and the CMA, in September 2017, my right hon. Friend referred the proposed Sky/Fox merger to the CMA for a phase 2 investigation on both grounds. The original statutory deadline for the final report was 6 March 2018, but the CMA has today confirmed that it will be extended by a further eight weeks and that the revised deadline is 1 May.

Once I have received the final report, I must come to a decision on whether the merger operates or may be expected to operate against the public interest, taking into account the specified public interest considerations of media plurality and genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. Following receipt of the final report, I will have 30 working days to publish my decision on the merger, so if I receive the CMA’s report on 1 May, I will have until 14 June to publish my decision.

To be clear, the publication today is of the CMA’s provisional findings. I have placed a copy in the Library. On the need for genuine commitment to broadcasting standards, the CMA provisionally finds that the merger is not expected to operate against the public interest. On media plurality grounds, the CMA’s provisional finding is that the merger may be against the public interest. It cites concerns that the transaction could reduce the independence of Sky News and would reduce the diversity of viewpoints available to, and consumed by, the public. It also raises concerns that the Murdoch family trust would have increased influence over public opinion and the political agenda.

The CMA has identified three remedy approaches and seeks views from interested parties on them. The remedy approaches are: first, to prohibit the transaction; secondly, to undertake structural remedies—to recommend either the spin-off of Sky News into a new company, or the divestiture of Sky News—and thirdly, behavioural remedies, which could include, for example, enhanced requirements relating to the editorial independence of Sky News.

The CMA recognises that the proposed acquisition of Fox by Disney could address concerns set out in the provisional findings. However, the uncertainty about whether, when or how that transaction will complete means that the CMA has also set out potential approaches that include introducing remedies that would fall away subject to the Disney-Fox transaction completing. The CMA has invited written representations on the provisional report’s findings, and the potential remedy approaches, with 21st Century Fox, Sky and other interested parties, before producing a final report.

As such, and given the quasi-judicial nature of the process, I hope that the House will understand that I cannot comment substantively on the provisional report and must wait for the final report before commenting. However, I am aware of the keen interest across the House in this important matter, and I know that Members will be closely scrutinising the CMA’s provisional findings and will have views on them. The CMA’s investigation will continue in the coming weeks. It has set out the process for making representations on the remedy options outlined, and on the provisional findings, with deadlines of 6 and 13 February respectively. I am sure that today’s debate will provide helpful context for that work.

What I am able to confirm today is that I will undertake to keep the House fully informed and to follow the right and proper process, considering all the evidence carefully when the time comes to make my decision on receipt of the CMA’s final report. I commend this statement to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Hancock]

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

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

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

The Secretary of State rightly raised Disney’s proposed takeover of Fox. If Disney wholly acquired Sky, Sky would of course be completely separate from the Murdoch family trust and in the ownership of a completely different company. However, does he believe that the Fox takeover of Sky must first be considered on its own merits, and that the future acquisition of Fox by Disney is a separate matter?

[Matt Hancock]

The CMA’s report does address the fact that the proposed takeover by Disney is uncertain, and it sets out some details of potential options, given that uncertainty. Anybody can make written representations in the next three weeks, based on that interim report, and I will consider the question when I see the full report in the months to come.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I have said many times in this place that plurality and diversity are vital components of an independent media, and therefore I welcome today’s findings by the CMA, which have put on the record the valid concerns that many people have about the further concentration of media ownership in fewer and fewer hands. Although the CMA has said that the deal, as it currently stands, does not meet the public interest test, I am pleased that it references a number of possible remedies.

We have heard reports that the owners of Sky might look to close down Sky News if it becomes an impediment in the takeover deal, with the possible loss of 500 jobs. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will not allow employees of Sky to be used as pawns in any takeover when the final decision comes before him? If the takeover deal between Disney and Fox is likely to be green-lit, what impact will that have on his final decision, given Disney’s reported lack of interest in news broadcasting?

[Matt Hancock]

It is a matter of law that while consideration of the proposal is ongoing, Sky News cannot be shut down in advance of a decision—I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He also made points about his views on the report published today; I shall reserve my judgement, see the final report and come to a conclusion based on that.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s keeping the House informed, but of course he currently has no role. When the CMA presents the final report and he comes to address this matter, will he bear it in mind that, to date, no regulator that has carried out any objective assessment has found any reason to block the merger on the grounds of commitment to broadcasting standards, and also that the greatest disaster that could befall the plurality of the media in this country would be for Sky News, which is after all a loss-making enterprise, although extremely good, to be closed by its new owner?

[Matt Hancock]

Both those points are covered in the CMA report that was published today. If my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State wishes to make to the CMA any further comments like those he just made, he has three weeks in which to do so, after which I will consider the final report in full.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the CMA’s strong set of findings on plurality. The CMA says explicitly that the deal would give the Murdoch family trust

“too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda.”

I pay warm tribute to the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), because we would not be here had she not had the guts to stand up and say that this matter should be referred to the CMA. We all owe her a debt of gratitude for having done that.

I very much hope that the new Secretary of State, whom I welcome to his place, follows his predecessor’s lead. He can do that by doing two things. First, it is important that he and the CMA should not allow a back-door attempt by the Murdochs to get control of Sky through the so-called remedies process. The simple way to stop the deal going ahead is to prohibit it, not to have some carve out or complicated process. Secondly, it is relevant to the context, so I think the Secretary of State was wrong to attack the other place for what it did on Leveson 2, which was promised by David Cameron, by me and by people from all parts of this House to the victims of phone hacking. If the Secretary of State is to stand up to the Murdochs, he has to allow Leveson 2 to go ahead to get at the truth, because that is what the victims were promised.

[Matt Hancock]

It was enjoyable to hear a rendition of the right hon. Gentleman’s greatest hit on Leveson, but on the points relevant to today’s statement and the decision on this deal, I intend fully to exercise my quasi-judicial decision-making role by taking into account all relevant considerations, based on the CMA’s final report. It is in that straightforward and reasonable way that I intend to proceed.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I say to the Secretary of State that this is personal? This is basically about lefties—particularly the Labour party—who do not like Murdoch. If this involved any other media organisation, the shadow Secretary of State and the Labour party would have nothing at all to say. This is personal, and the Secretary of State should bear that in mind. After all, Ofcom is there to make sure that Sky News is impartial in its coverage, and I am sure that Ofcom can be trusted to deliver on that. In the light of this provisional judgment, can we now expect the CMA to call for the BBC to be broken up, given its dominance over news output in the UK?

[Matt Hancock]

The report does go into detail on the different level of media dominance of different parties and sets that out clearly, but obviously I will take forward the views of the CMA’s final report when it is published. My hon. Friend—like the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale)—has the opportunity to let the CMA know his views in writing in the next three weeks.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

As the CMA acknowledges the importance of Sky News to media plurality, as well as the risks and threat of a forced closure, might the Secretary of State conceivably have a role in facilitating white-knight investors?

[Matt Hancock]

The most important thing that we in the Government can do is to execute on the law as it stands. The law has clear constraints and must be operated properly, above board, with integrity, in the quasi-judicial capacity that it sets out.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My constituents in Kettering would like to know what Sky’s audience share is compared with the BBC and ITV.

[Matt Hancock]

The BBC’s audience share is the biggest, ITN is second and Sky is smaller than that. The details of that are covered in the report, which I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituents will find illuminating.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I am honoured to have Sky and Sky News based in my constituency. Despite very serious instances of sexual and racial harassment at Fox News, the CMA has concluded that none of that, and none of the industrial-scale phone hacking at Murdoch’s UK papers, is relevant to broadcast standards. Does the Secretary of State really agree with the CMA and think that none of that is relevant to how companies that are completely controlled by the Murdochs behave?

[Matt Hancock]

My position is not to agree or to disagree with the CMA; it is to consider the final report that the CMA produces in a couple of months’ time.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Given the fact that Sky’s audience share is dwarfed by that of both the BBC and ITV, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are committed to the high-quality journalism and the world-class British broadcasting sector that we know and love?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) alluded to, the report does describe the market shares of the different broadcasters, including, of course, the BBC, which is the biggest. We are fully committed to ensuring a sustainable future for high-quality journalism. That is a policy question, and it is also a question of legislation that we will no doubt debate when the Data Protection Bill comes before the House, but it is separate from this decision, which is to be taken specifically within the rules and the law as it stands.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Five years after the phone hacking scandal broke, some civil cases regarding alleged criminality in the Murdoch empire are still ongoing. There will be victims who were very disappointed with the Secretary of State’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). The commencement of Leveson part 2 would be in the public interest, because it would finally reveal the full scale of hacking and the relationship between the press and the police. When will the Secretary of State follow the CMA’s lead and act to protect the public interest by commencing Leveson part 2?

[Matt Hancock]

These two questions are separate. We have a consultation on the Leveson issues. In policy terms, I really care about making sure that we have a sustainable future for high-quality journalism, but that is separate from this quasi-judicial decision, which has to be done within the existing law, and that is how I will take it.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his position and congratulate him on the transparency with which this process is being conducted. Does he agree that it was sensible to refer the merger of Sky and Fox to the CMA to avoid making it party political? Given the Government’s commitment to high standards in broadcasting, will the Secretary of State assure my constituents in Taunton Deane that the Government will continue to maintain high standards in broadcasting and journalism? I have a vested interest as a former broadcaster, but it is also what the people on the street want.

[Matt Hancock]

I am not sure that the high-quality journalism of “Farming Today” will ever be the same again without my hon. Friend. Undoubtedly, the importance of high-quality journalism, with a sustainable business model to fund it and plurality around it, are incredibly important policy questions. We will no doubt debate that in future, but it is a commitment to which I stick firmly.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course, “Farming Today”’s loss has been Taunton Deane’s gain, as we are all conscious.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he will consider “all the evidence carefully” in his quasi-judicial role. How is it possible for him to consider all the evidence unless he goes forward with Leveson 2—thereby honouring the promise given by a Conservative Prime Minister—and hears the evidence that remains unheard so that he can properly judge the Murdochs’ capability and competence for governance?

[Matt Hancock]

As I think I mentioned earlier, the question that the hon. Gentleman raises is not relevant to what we are discussing, because the latter is about exercising a quasi-judicial decision within the law as it stands. As I might have mentioned already, I intend to exercise that quasi-judicial decision-making role very clearly within the process as laid out in the law as it stands.