Oral Answers to Questions
Nigel Evans Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Hands
I am excited by the prospect of the deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council, with which the Secretary of State is very much engaged, and I am looking forward to being re-engaged with it. It is a huge opportunity for us, as the latest figures show that total trade between the UK and the Gulf is worth more than £60 billion. We are looking forward to moving the negotiation forward and getting a very good deal for the UK.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister back to the Department for Business and Trade, and I look forward to helping him hopefully to do better this time around. According to the International Monetary Fund, over the past decade British food and drink exports, including from SMEs, rose by just 3%, which was the lowest growth of any G7 country. The US, Canada, Italy and Japan all saw their exports grow by between 30% and 95%. Government Ministers will not negotiate a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would help, they have cut funding for trade missions, and now the Secretary of State has cut funding to go to trade shows too. Why will Ministers not share our ambitions for Britain to have the fastest export growth rate of any G7 country?
Autumn Statement Resolutions
Nigel Evans Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Brown
All of the above. It is infuriating. If the Government were to listen, even the energy supply companies want them to invest more in energy efficiency and insulation. Right now, in the ECO4 scheme—energy company obligation 4—the companies cannot even find the requisite number of properties to upgrade. As that goes on, we are losing the supply chain instead of building it up.
If we really want green growth, green jobs and lower energy bills, it is perfectly obvious that more money should be spent on energy efficiency. Ironically, the Government never listen to that, but they should listen to the third sector and the energy companies who praise the Scottish Government for their direct investment in support of energy efficiency programmes. In contrast to the Government’s blank cheque for nuclear, Scottish renewable projects still have to pay the grid charging penalty, making it harder for them to compete in the contract for difference auctions.
This autumn statement means that we still have an incoherent energy policy. It does nothing for Scotland. Hard-working families are still going to suffer, living standards are still falling, and the disabled are now threatened with losing support unless they are forced into jobs not of their choosing. It is not difficult to choose a different path for Scotland—it is a path that other smaller countries in western Europe are already on, so why not Scotland? It is time we took that different route.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the winding-up speeches. I call the shadow Minister.
UK Export Performance
Nigel Evans Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman
The party’s policy is that every new oil and gas licence should go through a rigorous environmental assessment. As much as the Conservatives try to paint it as something else, that is the party’s policy. The vast majority of my constituents who contact me would like no new licences to be granted. Far more constituents contacted me to tell me that Cambo was a disaster and should not go ahead. I have a large university in my constituency, and a huge number of people from all around the world, who are massively concerned about the impacts of climate change. I urge the Minister to come and spend some time in my constituency, to see the passion on the ground for a just transition.
My constituents really like having jobs. Most people do. It is great to be able to take a salary home. My constituents, in the main, are not terribly fussed if the job that pays them lots of money is in oil and gas or in the renewables sector. When I talk to people, they tell me that they would like a good job. Those people in the oil and gas industry ask for their tickets to be transferable so that they can go to offshore wind just as easily as they can go to oil and gas platforms. The UK Government have failed to capitalise on that. They failed to invest in CCUS. In fact, back in 2015 the then Chancellor pulled the plug on CCUS without even telling the industry. He stood at that Dispatch Box during the Budget and did that.
The UK Government have failed to prioritise improving our food exports. If they were serious about supporting our farmers, they would do everything they could to ensure them access to the labour that they need to pick the fruit, butcher the pork and export all that wonderful produce. If the UK Government were serious about supporting people and businesses in Scotland, they would have come forward far quicker with the decision on Horizon. They would have prioritised ensuring that our world-leading scientists across these islands, and particularly in my constituency, continue to have access to those research grants. They would have ensured that they could continue to work closely with European counterparts to develop the really cool tech of the future and to develop drugs for Alzheimer’s and heart disease in my constituency. All those things would have been prioritised by the UK Government if they cared about supporting individuals and businesses. They would have taken these things seriously, and they would have prioritised those industries rather than simply prioritising the removal of freedom of movement.
A number of Members have mentioned making Brexit work. It is not possible to make Brexit work. We cannot make Brexit work, because Brexit does not work. Various Conservative leaders have stood there saying, “Make Brexit work.” The Labour party has stood there saying “Make Brexit work.” It cannot work. It is not the positive economic future that we want. The Scottish National party will continue to stand for being in the single market. We will continue to support being members of that single market and, yes, having freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is great for economic benefit. In nine out of the last 10 years—and eight years running—Scotland has had the highest levels of foreign direct investment of any area, country or region in the United Kingdom other than London. That is because the Scottish Government are doing everything they can to ensure that we continue to trade and export, and continue to have a great relationship with as many countries in the world as we possibly can.
The UK Government do not even have a published trade strategy document that pulls everything together. If they had an internal trade strategy document, it would be great if they would publish it, so that we can all see their strategy. Conservative Members say that there are missed opportunities in international trade because they are not prioritising work on selling renewables around the world. Clearly, something is missing. It would be great to see that strategy so that we can provide the appropriate scrutiny. If they continue to hide it, no one can scrutinise it. We do not know what they are trying to do because they are not willing to tell us and share the strategy with us, if they have one.
The only way to ensure that trade with the EU continues to go up and to bring back freedom of movement is for Scotland to free itself from Westminster and take its own decisions on immigration and trade, ensuring we have as close a relationship with the EU as possible, not by making Brexit work but by being back as a member of the EU and the single market. That will protect our economy and our freedom of movement, and ensure our scientists have the best possible access to collaboration. That will ensure our farmers have a level of protection they do not currently have in being able to export food without whatever is going to happen with the Windsor framework, which could be disastrous for our farmers. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 continues to go over the top of what the Scottish Government would like for our future, our farmers and our food producers. I recommend that everybody looks very closely at the SNP’s next manifesto, in which we will lay out those policies even more clearly than I have this evening.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Shannon, it is so lovely to have you on so early in the debate. [Laughter.]
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much for that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, for their contributions, and especially the Minister for setting the scene so well, as he often does.
I do not want to put a dampener on proceedings, but I have to put on record my concerns about the Northern Ireland protocol. I say that gently, because I believe we are at a stage in negotiations where we are trying to find a way forward and I hope they will be successful. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) spoke of his hopes that the Northern Ireland protocol would move forward. There is nothing wrong in hoping that, but the reality is very, very different. I say that very gently to him and he knows where I am coming from. I am very pleased to learn of the export rates and I also note that Members believe we can improve on them. From a Northern Ireland perspective, the notion of export performance is intrinsically linked with the Windsor framework. It is important that I give an honest Northern Ireland perspective in a gentle way to the House. I always try to be constructive in my comments. I do not try to be aggressive or nasty, or say things that are unhelpful to the debate, because we hope that things will work out.
A House of Lords Select Committee report, released in the summer, shows the depth of the problems with our exports caused by EU interference, something we were keen to shake off with Brexit. As a Brexiteer, I want the same Brexit as England, Scotland and Wales, and we do not have that for Northern Ireland. The report highlights a number of significant issues. Just last week, Lord Dodds, the speaker at our association annual general meeting, outlined where we are very clearly. One key conclusion is that the Windsor framework makes things worse for many businesses compared with what they have experienced up to now. Honestly, that is the situation for many of the businesses in my constituency. There is a way forward, which my party has outlined through our seven-point plan. With the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and all the other Ministers involved, we are seeking to find that way forward.
The original protocol was unworkable and could not be implemented without major damage to our economy. That led to the grace periods and easements. Now those are to be done away with and replaced with the more onerous and burdensome Windsor framework provisions. The Windsor framework renders Northern Ireland worse off in terms of the Irish sea border, and creates greater checks and barriers to trade with the rest of the UK compared to what we experienced thus far, even if it theoretically improves on the original version of the protocol, which was unworkable in any case. Some may believe that that has no effect on UK exports, but Northern Ireland is an integral part of the supply chain. The Minister, in response to my intervention, made that very clear and I welcome that. He stated very clearly that we want Northern Ireland to have all the advantages England, Wales and Scotland have in export trade. That would be really good news, if only that was where we were.
If we cannot, in pharmaceuticals for instance—engineering is a second one—source our medical ingredients, we cannot produce the vaccines or veterinary products and supply the global market as we currently do. That affects our global output, never mind the fact that without a permanent solution, the supply of over 50% of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland may be discontinued, posing a risk to both animal and human health, and the agri-food supply chains and the resulting transfer to exportation. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has spoken at some length in different questions to different Ministers, including the Prime Minister, on the problems for veterinary health.
If we cannot source steel and parts to carry out our engineering, which delivers parts in many industries from aerospace to boats, to defence weapons and any number of other chains in which we have been, to date, an integral part of the UK machine for export, and if we have divergence in regulation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and Ireland, there is a valid underlying fear that Northern Ireland will find itself in a no man’s land between Great Britain and the EU, placing the competitiveness of Northern Ireland firms and their complex supply chains in jeopardy.
I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), has undertaken to highlight our global potential with investment in Invest Northern Ireland’s new offices in Seoul—the Minister for International Trade, who opened the debate, referred to the potential for trade with South Korea; that is good news, and we hope to be part of it—to learn how Government funding is boosting Northern Ireland’s profile in the Asia-Pacific region and helping to connect Northern Ireland businesses to the world. He announced back in December that £8 million of funding from the New Deal for Northern Ireland would enable Invest Northern Ireland to expand Northern Ireland’s presence on the international stage as it supports Northern Ireland businesses in new locations from Paris to Toronto, as well as providing additional trade advisory support in their Belfast offices.
I know that this is not this Minister’s responsibility, but let me just say that I am keen to see a trade deal with India—with one proviso. I will mention, in a Westminster Hall debate on religious persecution which starts at 9.30 am tomorrow, what has been happening recently in the Indian district of Manipur. I consider it imperative for any trade deal with India to enshrine the preservation of human rights, the equality of rights, and freedom of religious belief. Some 60,000 people have been displaced, and some 360 Christian churches have been damaged. I want a trade deal with India; everyone wants one; but if we are to have one, it must be conditional. It is disappointing that, as I understand it—although I will not pose this question to the relevant Minister in Westminster Hall tomorrow morning—our Prime Minister never once raised the issue of freedom of religious belief, even after all that violence, destruction and displacement.
By and large, we should welcome the Government’s UK export performance, but I do want to make the case for Northern Ireland. I ask our Minister to implore his colleagues in the Cabinet to act, and to ensure that Northern Ireland can play her full and functioning part in the story of UK global exports, from which we are currently precluded. We have the potential to become so much more in a post-Brexit UK, but we have a great deal to do, and in my opinion that should start with our ending the strong-arming of Europe, embracing true global trade and allowing Northern Ireland to play her part. We deserve that, as loyal British subjects. I love telling people that I am a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I am a British citizen, and I am proud to be British—but I want to be proud to be British and have the same equal rights. That is my request.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Nigel Evans ExcerptsWednesday 13th September 2023
(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Manuscript Amendments, Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 13 September 2023 - (13 Sep 2023)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 161B. If that Lords amendment is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. Dame Margaret Hodge has tabled two manuscript amendments to Lords amendment 161B, which have been selected by Mr Speaker. Papers will be distributed as soon as possible.
The deferred Division has now resumed in the No Lobby and injury time has been added, but Members do not have long.
After Clause 46
Register of members: information to be included and powers to obtain it
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 23B and 23C.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 151B and 151C, Government motion to disagree, and Government motion to insist on amendment 151A.
Lords amendment 161B, Government motion to disagree, manuscript amendments (a) and (b), and Government motion to insist on amendment 161A.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is always a pleasure to speak with right hon. and hon. Members on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which they will know is close to my heart and contains many vital measures for which I have long campaigned. The Bill will give us the powers we need to crack down on those who abuse our open economy, while ensuring that the vast majority of law-abiding businesses can grow and flourish.
I am grateful that both Houses have reached agreement on several issues, including those relating to the register of overseas entities and on removing the extension of the failure to prevent offence to money laundering. However, we are here today as agreement is still outstanding on a handful of remaining issues. I urge this House to accept the Government amendments, to settle those remaining topics and ensure that we can proceed to Royal Assent and implementation of these important reforms without delay.
I will now speak to those remaining topics. In the other place, the Government tabled two amendments on nominee shareholders—amendments 23B and 23C, in lieu of Commons amendment 23A, and in response to Lord Vaux’s amendment 23 on this topic from Report stage in the other place.
The Government’s amendments will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to make further provision for the purpose of identifying persons with significant control in cases where shares are held by a nominee. This will allow the Government to work with relevant stakeholders to target the regulations in an effective and focused way that does not impose disproportionate burdens. Members of the other place agreed with the Government’s proposal and I trust that Members of this House will therefore agree with it today.
Lords amendments 151B and 151C would apply the exemption from the failure to prevent fraud offence to micro-entities only, rather than the Government’s position of excluding all small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government appreciate that Lord Garnier has moved closer to the Government’s position in agreeing to the principle of applying a threshold. However, our position remains that such an amendment would still incur significant costs to businesses. Reducing the exemption threshold to only micro-entities would increase one-off costs for businesses from around £500 million to £1.5 billion. The annual recurrent costs would increase from £60 million to over £192 million.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and speak very strongly against Lords amendments 151B and 151C, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. I am surprised at Lord Garnier’s lack of any conception of what it is like to run a small business and the cumulative impact of Government regulation thereupon. The limits that are drawn here will draw in all manner of businesses, not least some eminent barristers who will fall foul of some of the numbers. Indeed, the average town-centre or city-centre pub will be covered by these regulations, such is their level of turnover and employees. It is worrying that I am perhaps the only small-business voice here and that there are not enough small-business people in the House to point out the problems with this issue.
As the Minister has said, hundreds of thousands of businesses will be drawn into the net. This is not necessarily about the compliance cost. The kind of regulation that comes with the prospect of a criminal offence has a chilling effect on small businesses. I speak as somebody who has owned one for nearly 30 years. When the Revenue, health and safety or trading standards show up with some new regulation, a whole industry cranks into place to terrify the owners of small businesses into some kind of compliance. Then along come the consultants, the accountants, the webinars and the newsletters telling us what we do and do not have to do. All of this distracts us from what we should be doing, which is trying to create employment and wealth and paying tax to the rest of the country.
The other issue is that this misunderstands the dynamic of businesses of this size. If a business of this size is going to engage in fraud, it is very possible—more than likely, actually—that the principal will be the instigator of that fraud. The idea that, alongside all the other offences, they should take steps to prevent themselves from perpetrating fraud seems ridiculous. Added to those general difficulties are the specific ones presented by the Heath Robinson-type calculation that every business will have to undertake every month: adding together how many employees there are and how many are employed in each month in year P, then taking away the number you first thought of and dividing it by the number of months. We are all going to have to do this every single month to work out whether we are above the threshold or not. Should we have the steps? Should we not have the steps? It all seems particularly nonsensical.
We know that a vast amount of this fraud takes place in larger companies, and they have the capacity and the wherewithal to deal with it. If my hon. Friends really think that senior barristers, whose turnover and assets will be more than the threshold, should be taking and showing procedural steps to avoid conducting fraud—do not forget that they are sole practitioners—then I am afraid we have gone through the looking glass of what Conservative Members think is appropriate.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
In the interest of moving to the vote, I will not speak.
Kevin Hollinrake
We are very clear that we believe we have the right threshold. Larger companies clearly have the capacity and the human resources and risk compliance departments to mitigate these kinds of risks, whereas small and medium-sized enterprises are rightly much more focused on driving their business forward, which is very important to the economic health of our country. I think we have it right. My hon. Friend made a similar point in our previous debate on this issue, and he makes it very strongly. The fact that both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) have made that point today counterbalances some of the arguments on the other side for extending the threshold further.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) spoke about my previous comments. I think I have been pretty consistent in everything I have said in the House, unless she can point to anything different I have said from the Back Benches—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), laughs, but I have always been a champion of the “failure to prevent” offence. If Members look back to the original Bill, which I think was 260 pages long—it is now nearly 400 pages long—they will see that I have been very keen to make sure that we listen to hon. Members on things like the “failure to prevent” offence and the identification doctrine, which both now feature in the Bill. All the cases I dealt with on the Back Benches, and indeed the information I have seen as a Minister, show that the kind of fraud the law enforcement agencies have not been able to prosecute is happening in larger companies, not smaller companies.
We believe that these circumstances are different from unexplained wealth orders, for which we obviously put cost-capping measures in place. Of course, unexplained wealth orders are not a process for taking somebody’s assets from them; they are a process for freezing assets. Lords amendment 161B is entirely different. In my view, there is definitely a civil liberties issue in terms of the power of the state versus the power of the individual. This measure potentially delivers an imbalance of power between the state and the individual. I would be keen to have a conversation with the very learned Members in the Chamber, but they must understand that the state is powerful and well resourced compared with the individual. Obviously there are some individuals who are very well resourced, but we still operate on the presumption of innocence in this country, and we have to be very careful. That is why we want a review to look into this and report back to Parliament within 12 months.
We have communicated with the National Crime Agency to ask for evidence on where it feels these measures are needed. All law enforcement agencies want more power and more provision, of course, but I have seen no clear, significant evidence from the enforcement agencies that cost-capping orders would be needed in this situation.
I, too, have spoken to Bill Browder, and I have spoken to officials about whether this measure is needed in the UK regime. Members will be aware that Mr Browder principally looks at the parallels with the US situation, where adverse costs do not apply across the system. Members have talked about the chilling effect of such provisions, but there is potentially a chilling effect on the other side of the equation.
Yesterday I met a barrister who defends people against such actions, and he was very concerned about the imbalance of power that would result. I have not seen any significant evidence, and I am very interested in the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst gave to the Cambridge crime symposium, at which I have spoken in the past, on whether this is needed. However, I am not aware of anything the Justice Committee or the Law Commission has done in this area. It is important that we look at that kind of evidence before we implement these kinds of measures.
The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) accuses me of being party political. I am surprised she takes that view. I have worked on a cross-party basis from the Back Benches and, as she knows, I do the same from the Front Bench, and I will continue to do so to make sure that we get this legislation right.
In conclusion, throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have worked hard to get the balance right between tackling economic crime and ensuring that the UK remains a place where law-abiding businesses can flourish without unnecessary burdens. The motions tabled by the Government today achieve that balanced and proportionate approach, and I therefore urge Members on both sides of the House to support them.
Lords amendments 23B and 23C agreed to.
After Clause 180
Failure to prevent fraud
Motion made, and Question put,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 151B and 151C and insists on its Amendment 151A.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The inexplicable delay in counting votes has now risked denying the House a vote on ensuring that this Bill to tackle economic crime is as strong as it could be. Will you therefore advise the House on what action we can now take to ensure that in the debates that lie ahead we can come back to this question and make sure we have the right provisions in place in statute and that this country is no longer a soft touch for economic crime?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he knows, we are now going to move on to the motion on amendment 161B, and if that is annulled there will be other opportunities, I am sure.
After Clause 187
Civil recovery: costs of proceedings
Resolved,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 161B in lieu of Commons amendment 161A and insists on amendment 161A in lieu.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 151B, 151C and 161B.
That Kevin Hollinrake, Scott Mann, James Sunderland, Jane Stevenson, Rushanara Ali, Taiwo Owatemi and Alison Thewliss be members of the Committee;
That Kevin Hollinrake be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance about how I properly place on the record a reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in the context of my speech in the debate about the Lords message on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. and learned Member for his point of order. He has recognised that he made an omission and he has corrected it at the earliest opportunity. I thank him for doing so.
Hormone Pregnancy Tests
Nigel Evans Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Allan Dorans
I would welcome that type of inquiry and the opportunity to view the outcome.
Despite serious concerns being expressed by the eminent paediatrician, Dr Isabel Gal, in 1967 indicating the possible dangers of Primodos, no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years later. There is strong and compelling evidence of systematic regulatory failures, demonstrating that the committees tasked with safeguarding the health of pregnant women failed in their duty of care.
When I was elected in 2019, I had never heard of the drug Primodos, and I suspect that is the case for many Members. I had heard of thalidomide, as it received far greater coverage in the media at the time. However, since then I have learned much about the horrors caused by Primodos—the devastating effect it had on unborn babies and on the babies born with horrendous birth defects, and the continuing, unimaginable tragic consequences for the mothers and families whose lives have been so cruelly affected by the drug. It is an absolute disgrace and shameful that those families have not only been utterly abandoned and ignored by the drugs companies responsible, but also by successive Governments, who actively put up barriers to avoid accepting the consequences of the manufacture, approval, prescribing and giving out of Primodos.
The drugs companies involved in the production of Primodos, the medical authorities at the time who failed to protect people and successive Governments are all liable for the suffering caused to the victims of Primodos. They are all culpable and guilty of negligence, for failing to put right this horrendous wrong put upon innocent people. It cannot be right that the fight for justice in these circumstances has been left in the hands of a few determined individuals battling against a huge global pharmaceutical conglomerate with millions of pounds of resources and our own Government.
I highlight the case of my constituent, Nan. I have her permission to share her experience and the effect that Primodos had on her and her daughter, Michelle. In January 1975, Nan was a recently married, healthy young woman. Feeling sick and suspecting she may be pregnant, she went to her GP for a pregnancy test, expecting—as was normal at that time—a urine test. Instead, her doctor gave her two Primodos tablets. By 1975, Primodos had already been banned for use as a pregnancy test for five years in Norway and Sweden. Nan put her utmost trust in the knowledge, experience and expertise of her GP. It was subsequently confirmed that she was about seven or eight weeks pregnant. She had a very uneventful pregnancy during which she neither smoked nor drank alcohol.
On 28 August 1975, Nan’s daughter, Michelle, was born. It was immediately discovered that Michelle was born with a hole in her diaphragm, which had allowed her bowel and spleen and part of her liver and kidney to be forced in to her chest cavity, crushing her lung. She was not expected to live, but through the exceptional skills of our national health service she survived and is now 48 years of age. Throughout her life, she has endured numerous operations and surgeries and long periods of hospitalisation. She has suffered severe health issues, including breathing difficulties, a weakened immune system, numerous bowel obstructions and inflammatory bowel infections, and she has been unable to conceive children. The horrendous effects of the debilitating physical, psychological and medical conditions and the extremely challenging health conditions suffered by Michelle and her parents for the past 48 years just cannot be adequately described by me with words.
When Michelle was born in 1975, Nan was unaware that the drug that she had been given to test for pregnancy had been associated with birth defects for the previous eight years. It was not until some two and a half years later that she read an article in the press that reported on a number of cases linking birth defects to Primodos, including internal organ damage similar to that suffered by Michelle. Since that time, Nan, along with many other women, has been fighting the injustice, where no one has ever been held responsible for the damage caused to so many lives through prescribing Primodos, which had been approved by the Government.
In February 2018, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), announced that Baroness Cumberlege would oversee an independent medicines and medical devices safety review. This review was, among other things, instructed to consider the consequences of Primodos. One of the conclusions in the report by Baroness Cumberlege is that Primodos should have been withdrawn from the market in 1967, after the first report by Dr Gal. However, the Government refused to accept responsibility for the effects of Primodos without a proven causal association, but admitted later, in a Sky TV interview, that there was a possible association. There was a moral duty for Government representatives on the Committee on Safety of Medicines to protect patients, but they failed in their duty of care by suppressing the evidence of harm caused by the drug. Even today, the Government continue to deny that they suppressed evidence, while supporting the flawed conclusions of the 2017 expert working group.
The damage to individuals, lives and families caused by Primodos, successive Governments’ lack of action and the failure to prevent, is immeasurable. This could be a far greater tragedy than thalidomide. Apart from frustration at the pharmaceutical companies and the glacial pace of Government in righting this tragic, historical wrong, the most chilling words we hear, increasingly regularly, are: “We have recently lost another of our Primodos family.” The tragedy is that we all know that those people died without receiving the justice they deserved. Even if compensation were paid, it would never fully compensate the families who were so tragically affected, or take away the immense guilt experienced by mothers who feel that they were in some way to blame for the defects that their children suffered.
It is well past the time for the current Government to put right this historical wrong, end the scandal and give some security to those who have suffered so much, thus allowing the mothers, fathers and the children who have survived some dignity and compensation for the tragedy that was caused through no fault of their own. The very least the Government can do is accept responsibility for the tragic circumstances, immediately issue a full apology to everyone affected by Primodos and compensate the victims. I and my party urge the Government to accept and commit to implementing the full recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety review and to set up a redress fund for families affected by Primodos.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
When we get to the winding-up speeches, it will be six minutes, eight minutes, eight minutes and then we will leave two minutes for the proposer of the motion.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
It has been an honour and a privilege to sit through this debate. As usual, I will be speaking with no notes, because a lot of what has been said today I would have said myself. I pay tribute to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). We have done much work together over the years.
I pay tribute to Marie Lyon and all the other campaigners, but there is something about this debate. Every time we have it there is unity, conformity, passion and love in the Chamber but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, it disappears into Government and does not come back out. Governments of all descriptions have known about this for years and could have done something about it, but, for some unknown reason, they did not. When I was a Home Office Minister under my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) we did other inquiries together, but we had to battle to get them.
I do not understand why Governments, of all descriptions, do not come to the House to make statements, so we have to UQ them. It is plainly obvious that we will get a statement. We had three statements today, and quite rightly, but the Government would have been UQ-ed if they had not come to the House. Perhaps common sense is prevailing.
When it comes to really serious issues, like Primodos, for some unknown reason the Government, the Department and the Treasury pull down the shutters. It is not one Department, and I fear for the Minister when she stands at the Dispatch Box, because this is way outside the remit of just the Department of Health and Social Care.
We heard earlier that Government lawyers are threatening activists who are trying to get justice for their families, loved ones and others. Many of these campaigners have lost their loved ones, and some of them were victims themselves when they were told to have an abortion or when they had a miscarriage or stillbirth. A lot has changed in society but, in the 1960s and 1970s, it was a really difficult thing for a woman to go to her GP because she thought she was pregnant, especially if she might be a single mum. These couples and single mums were passionately waiting for this pregnancy to make their life fulfilled, and then, a short time later, they were told that perhaps the best thing to do was to abort the child because they would have terrible deformities, or they might go through childbirth. I am lucky enough to have just become a grandfather. I remember being there 33 years ago when my wife punched me on the nose halfway through childbirth. She did not intend to do it; she had no idea what was happening. She was just in a lot of pain and doing that made her feel better. These women were there and then all of a sudden they realised that the disfigurements and abnormalities were there to be seen—or, as we have heard in this debate, not seen until a little later.
We will be having a debate later, which I will be leading, about a situation where babies are born exactly like that and people are being told, “Oh, they’ve got bunions.” They do not have bunions; they have a genetic deformity. But because that deformity is so rare, no one understands it. On this issue, however, the Government, the NHS, the GPs and the drug company knew what they were doing. If the drug company had withdrawn Primodos after a year, when it first started to see this, most of us would have understood that these sorts of situations occur and it should, rightly, have compensated. However, that is not what happened. This went on year after year, with it knowing about this drug.
My point about the word “prescribed” is not just semantics; this drug was not prescribed. A prescription is a prescription. Opening a drawer and giving out a couple of tablets to the lady in front of you is not a prescription; it is a handout. This was done with no information given as to the dangers that we all see today. We have only to buy a packet of paracetamol to see written across the back of it what could happen. These ladies were not given that opportunity. They needed to know whether or not they were pregnant, for whatever situation they were personally in, and the GP then opened the drawer. This was in an NHS surgery, with a GP who was self-employed, as they mostly are, but paid for by the NHS. Those drugs were given not through a pharmacist, but directly from the drug company to the GP to hand out.
Let me conclude on an area that we have not really touched on, and it is something that Governments need to understand. I was a shadow health Minister for four years and I was passionate about this. The damage to our NHS of public understanding of this is so, so bad. The public need to trust the NHS. When they go to their GP, they need to be able to trust that if something needs to be done, it will be done for them and not for the system. Our NHS is being damaged by the way this cover-up continues. Government lawyers have accepted bits of Baroness Cumberlege’s report, but the fundamentals of it, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made sure happened, have been completely ignored. We can run around the head of a pin and say, “It is because there was legal action here and legal action there,” but we should say, “Let’s just do what is right. We have made a mistake, in the Department or in the drug company, and we are going to put it right and put it right today, for those families who are still there and for those families we have lost.” That is the decent thing that this House should do.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Nigel Evans ExcerptsMonday 4th September 2023
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 4 September 2023 - (4 Sep 2023)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 6, 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 21, 30, 32 to 34, 54, 68, 115, 117, 120, 124, 125, 173, 174 and 178 to 201. If those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 46
Register of members: information to be included and powers to obtain it
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 151, and Government amendment (a).
Lords amendment 153, and Government amendments (a) to (c).
Lords amendments 115 and 117, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 159, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 161, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 1 to 22 and 24 to 55.
Lords amendment 56, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendments 57 to 114, 116, 118 to 150, 152, 154 to 158, 160 and 162 to 229.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to bring this Bill back to the House. It is crucial in ensuring that we can bear down on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, while also strengthening the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive. I am pleased to say that the Bill is now in a better place and there is a great deal more of it than when it left for the other place back in January. When introduced, the Bill ran to some 239 pages; it is now closer to 400. That reflects the spirit of genuine collaboration across both Houses and the fact that the Government have listened and taken many sensible proposals on board. I take this opportunity to thank Members of both Houses for their collaborative and cross-party approach.
The Government made significant amendments to the Bill in the other place. It is now unquestionably a milestone piece of legislation that takes the UK’s fight against economic crime to an entirely new level. I will summarise a few key changes, starting with the game-changing reforms to corporate criminal liability. As the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), committed to, the Government tabled amendments to introduce a new failure to prevent offence, which will drive cultural change towards improved fraud prevention in organisations and, failing that, hold organisations to account with prosecutions if they profit from fraudulent actions.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
This business is protected for up to three hours and I am expecting multiple votes at the end of the debate, which could go on until 9.50 pm. The votes would not eat into the next business, which could go on for two hours. I hope that Members will therefore reflect on whether their speeches could be briefer than they had perhaps anticipated, as that would be helpful to everyone concerned, including the staff of the House.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise in support of Lords amendments 146 and 147, which introduce the power to strike out SLAPPs claims in relation to instances of economic crime. SLAPPs—strategic litigation against public participation claims—are described as
“legal actions typically brought…with the intention of harassing, intimidating and financially or psychologically exhausting opponents via improper use of the legal system.”
In essence, people who have such a claim brought against them are threatened into silence. They are a tool of intimidation and censorship, often used by wealthy individuals such as Russian oligarchs or by corporations against individuals such as journalists who rarely have the financial means to fight back.
SLAPPs are not brought with the intention of participants having their day in court; they are based on the power of inequality of arms and are intended to stifle free speech, with the allegations never seeing the light of day. For the purposes of this Bill, SLAPPs claims are defined as one where the claimant’s behaviour in relation to the matters concerned has or intends to have the effect of restraining the defendant’s freedom of speech, and that any disclosures they seek to restrain have to do with economic crime or would be made in the public interest to fight economic crime.
These amendments seek to give people more protection when facing a SLAPP claim in relation to economic crime only. They will be able to use a new early dismissal mechanism and, where a case does proceed, they will have the umbrella of a new cost protection regime. This matters because costs can be prohibitive when fighting legal cases, and indeed the financial risks are intended to deter people from fighting back. However, we cannot let people who seek to silence and intimidate win.
We should be concerned that, in 2022, the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe found that the UK was the top European destination for cross-border litigation, with 15 of 62 known transnational cases over a decade being filed here. Who knows, there may be more. One of the reasons we are in this position is that the UK has no anti-SLAPP legislation, and I therefore welcome the measures that are being introduced here.
Although the Bill concentrates on economic crime only, I encourage Ministers to make it the first step in bringing a stop to SLAPPs altogether. SLAPPs are not just a threat to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, they seek to stop so many other disclosures that are in the public interest.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, I am committed to protecting and empowering people who speak out. I have been pushing for legislative change to ensure that people feel able, safe and supported to make disclosures that are in the public interest. Whistleblowers, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, are pivotal in the fight against economic crime and fraud, with almost half of all fraud detected by whistleblowers. Because economic crime is often well hidden and difficult to trace, discovering it requires insiders to speak out and share their knowledge.
Take, for example, the £178 billion Danske Bank money laundering scheme, which was exposed only as a result of a whistleblower who had worked in the bank’s trading unit and who raised concerns about breaches of anti-money laundering procedures in its Estonian branch. His internal reports ignored, he turned to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Once allegations made the news headlines, Danske Bank itself ordered an investigation that confirmed the whistleblower’s claims.
Although a worker may seek protection at an employment tribunal, journalists, who are often the target of SLAPPs, are not recognised as whistleblowers under UK law, and they are therefore afforded no protection. Yet due to the investigative nature of their work, they are among the most likely to acquire inside information and evidence of wrongdoing. At the moment our whistleblowing legislation, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, applies only to workers and is meant to protect them from unfair dismissal or detriment at work that may result from their whistleblowing. Whistleblowers such as journalists, who fall outside our current laws and are prey to SLAPPs, will find support with these amendments where their disclosure relates to economic crime.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you for the way that you conducted your speech. I saw what you were doing, and thank you very much for helping.
Sir Robert Buckland
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your guidance on how I can put on the record that I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I think you have already done it—thank you very much.
Richard Fuller
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill is an important Bill that has cross-party support. I do not know whether it is appropriate to say that the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) is in many ways its godmother, but she is certainly one of the key drivers of this important legislation. Whether it is perfect in her regard or nearly perfect in her regard, I would like to put on record that for all of us her efforts have been to the benefit of the country as a whole.
It is with some temerity that I wish to make a few points perhaps not in accordance with some of the comments made particularly by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who make the case for extending the failure to prevent fraud provisions to smaller businesses. I must say that they have not convinced me of the merits of their argument at this stage, and I think on balance I am with the Minister on this.
I am a Conservative and therefore change is perhaps always difficult for me, but I think particularly of what the implications may be for smaller businesses. I have not been persuaded by the other examples put forward of health and safety or bribery; I think there will be quite a chilling effect if the responsibilities for preventing fraud are extended to small business owners. I think it is appropriate and prudent that we build the measures, as the Minister has said, in his amendment (a) to Lords amendment 151. That is all I will say on Lords amendment 151,
However, I want to talk about another amendment that affects small businesses, which no other hon. Member has referred to in this debate: Lords amendment 30 regarding the disclosure of profit and loss accounts for certain companies, which the Bill will require of small businesses and microbusinesses that had previously been exempt. It potentially causes considerable concerns for owners of very small businesses if they are to have their profit and loss and their balance sheets publicly declared through Companies House reporting.
I ask hon. Members to imagine, if they will, that in a town or a community there are two or three competing laundries or plumbers, all of them maybe husband and wife, father and son or whatever—concentrating on what I want to say of a small business—or just sole proprietors, competing with each other in a small market. If their profit and loss statements were to be a matter of public knowledge, that would have very serious implications for local understanding of that person’s or that family’s personal wealth. It would have significant implications for local competition. The provisions that were in place in the Bill originally provided no protection for people in those circumstances. Yes, they will still provide the information, but surely it makes sense for companies in those circumstances not to have all their very specific financial information in the public domain.
I believe Lords amendment 30—the Minister might refer to this if he has time—seeks to provide a mechanism for a restriction on that disclosure of such personal information. The amendment lays out in proposed new subsections 468A(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 2006 that the Secretary of State
“may by regulations make provision requiring the registrar, on application or otherwise”,
and goes on further to say that regulations
“which provide for the making of an application may make provision”
as to who may make an application, the grounds on which an application can be made, the information to be included in it, the notice to be given, how an application is to be done and so on. My concern here is that Lords amendment 30, in seeking to correct the over-disclosure of public information, has put in its place quite a complicated application procedure.
Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister could say what he has or what the Government have in mind about that application process. It would be ideal if that process were just a tick box. It would be ideal if that information could be communicated to accountants across this country who regularly have to file accounts on behalf of very small businesses, and it would be helpful if the Minister could advise that it is the Government’s intent that very small businesses in the circumstances I have outlined will not have very private personal financial information put in the public domain, although their information will still be required by Companies House and therefore placed under the protection that the Bill seeks to address.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I would like to pay my respects to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) for her excellent opening on our behalf, as well as to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for her excellent knowledge and understanding. The time she has put in is just unbelievable. She spoke about Bill Browder—no one can read his work without realising just how serious this issue is. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who covered it so aptly and brought it down to how dangerous and very serious this is for our democracy and our economic equality. What could happen, and what I think will happen, is frightening.
I want to focus on the importance of legislating on the failure to prevent fraud and money laundering, which are crimes committed in the shadows. Currently, there is a severe lack of provisions to prevent economic crime, which we know is the best, cheapest and most effective way to tackle our dirty money problem. These crimes are committed and witnessed by some of the most senior professionals at a company, and even if they are not participating but just happen to witness fraud, surely they must be under a legal duty to report it. Amendment 159 was introduced in the other place, and I pay my respects to the other place for its absolutely wonderful scrutiny of the Bill. I commend it to the Minister. He has spearheaded the Bill to where it is now, but he just needs to go that bit further.
We must have reasonable prevention mechanisms in place. The failure to prevent measures would work on multiple fronts. First and foremost, they would act as a deterrent, forcing companies to act and to take economic crime seriously if they know they would be held liable. Deterrence is proven to work. As a health and safety professional, I know that regulations to make companies and directors liable made tremendous inroads on health and safety. We may wonder why there were always so many disputes on construction sites, but it was because there was no health and safety. The workers had to fight for everything, and they could not do it without legislation. That is why we are here: to tackle things when they are not being tackled, and economic crime is not being tackled at the present time. That legislation resulted in a 90% drop in deaths and serious injuries on construction sites, which could have involved just building a few houses.
Secondly, regulatory factors such as the fines that exist are not sufficient to bring about the required change. After all, the fines could be a lot less than these companies are earning from economic crime, and they become a cost factored into doing business for those companies. This cannot be right, and it simply cannot continue. To our shame, Britain is the global hotbed of economic crime, at a cost of £350 billion a year. The people of Ukraine are feeling the impact of this unchecked economic crime, as some of the main benefactors have been Russian oligarchs, the Russian state and Putin himself. There are the Magnitsky sanctions, but it tells us a lot, does it not, when Putin kills his own people as a deterrent? When we look at the invasion of Ukraine, we cannot sit back and let this continue unchecked.
The Government amendments to cover this do not go far enough. Well-organised criminal entities would easily get around legislation that only touches the largest companies and the largest businesses. They take advantage of small and medium-sized businesses, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said. That is exactly what they do—they do whatever it takes. They are cleverer than us, and they are doing it now. Well-organised criminals will get around it. As 64% of companies have experienced fraud, this would help those companies.
The Government legislation fails to make failure to prevent money laundering an offence. The justification for doing that is the money laundering regulations, yet there has been only one corporate conviction since they were introduced—that of NatWest in 2021. Clearly, the money laundering regulations are not good enough. The new legislation would make companies prove that they have the right procedures in place to prevent money laundering. This is the type of tough legislation we need to crack down on economic crime. For too long Britain has been the laundromat for foreign despots and dictators.
I heard a Member across the Floor talking about feeling the chill; what is more chilling than seeing what is going on and turning a blind eye, not washing the blood off our hands for the crimes against humanity committed for the very money being laundered around our country? I urge the Minister—I know where his heart is—not to throw away this wonderful opportunity to save so much. Democracy is at risk. It really is not acceptable. Please be brave enough—be brave enough and you will sleep at night.
Local Radio: BBC Proposals
Nigel Evans Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will be looking for speeches of about four minutes, but I will do the maths while we listen intently to Sir Mike Penning.
Sir Mike Penning
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct; BBC local radio is the lifeblood. Whether it is a football match, or the local schools closing because we have had half an inch of snow, those are the sorts of things that are really important to local people. I love Norfolk. I go fishing on the Norfolk broads on a regular basis, but I do not think the Norfolk broads area has any synergy with junction 8 of the M1 being blocked. The latter has massive effects in my constituency, but no effects in another area. I am not really interested in their issues; they are not interested in mine. It breaks up the empathy with the community in what people trust the BBC to do.
As well as our sending a message to Ofcom and to the BBC, the motion before the House today, which was carefully drafted with the assistance of the Table Office, is worded in such a way that, if necessary and if anybody in this House objected to it, we could divide on it, so that this House could send that message to the BBC. I hope that we are unanimous and that we do not need to do that, but if we do, we will. If this House does not divide and we unanimously accept the motion before us, that message needs to be heard by the BBC loudly and clearly. It needs to wake up and smell the coffee before the British public say they have had enough of the BBC.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thanks, Mike, for keeping to 15 minutes, so that we can get a few more people in. I have already given forward notice that we will have a time limit of four minutes, so, for four minutes, I call Emma Lewell-Buck.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Just before the hon. Lady replies, let me just say to her that the Annunciator is showing her as representing Westminster North. That is clearly not true, is it?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
That is not me, no.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has pre-empted a point that I will make later in my speech.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. At a time when people are losing faith in politics and politicians, it is vital that all voices are heard, not just in this place but in local government.
Disgracefully, the BBC started these cuts during the pandemic, asking more than 100 staff to take voluntary redundancy, stripping back the schedules, forcing all shows to have four-hour slots with solo presenters, and axing specialist programmes. That set the scene for homogenising practice at all local stations, making it easier for the BBC to make the cuts that it wants to make now and merging everything from 2 pm onwards. For the nation’s flagship broadcaster to introduce those changes without consulting the fee-paying public is pretty galling.
As a fee payer, I am angry that my views were not sought, but I am angrier about the loss of jobs and talent at the BBC that these changes will cause, and the loss of service to my fantastic constituents. Digital exclusion in the north-east is the highest in England. The north-east is the region with the highest proportion of disabled people, and my area of south Tyneside has the largest elderly population in the north-east, a group who have already been battered by the changes to the over-75s licence fee. Those are the very groups who not only listen to local radio but rely on it the most. When the BBC’s director general appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, he said that the changes were “critical for local democracy”, but when it comes to the north-east he is simply wrong—these changes are quite the opposite.
The director general also claimed to have empathy with striking staff, yet MPs across this House have heard how disgracefully staff have been treated, how he is presiding over a toxic culture of fear and paranoia and how the reselection interviews related to the cuts in local radio have been embroiled in workplace bullying. Little wonder that in a recent survey, less than one quarter of BBC television and radio staff said they had confidence in the their senior leadership team. I pay tribute to those workers, and their union, who have bravely spoken out not just for themselves but for their 5 million-plus listeners—more than listen to Radio 1 or 5 Live.
Local radio employs some of the best journalists we have in the country. Anyone who is in doubt should just re-listen to the disastrous round of interviews that the previous and brief incumbent of No. 10 did last year. She underestimated and undervalued those journalists, just as their employer is doing now. We are now in a scenario where the BBC is blaming the Government, as its revenue is down from the licence fee freeze, and the Government are simply saying, “Well, that’s up to the BBC.” The reality is that with these changes the BBC is not adhering to its own charter, it is not delivering on contributing to social cohesion, and at the same time—
Lia Nici
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Unless we are really good at working with digital, it is quite difficult to find our local radio station. Podcasts, BBC Sounds and all these things are really difficult for the exact people in BBC local radio’s target reach.
I would like to say a big thank you to my local presenters, in particular David Burns and Andy Comfort, who have been fantastic. We do not talk about this, but for people who do not get out much and want to listen to their local radio, hearing local voices is so important; there is a sense of familiarity and a feeling that they know that person. The BBC seems to be losing those presenters who are exactly the right demographic to talk to the people who are listening. Yes, we want to bring on young broadcasters, but they are not the right demographic for their target audience, so I would say to the BBC, “Please listen. This is vitally important. If we lose any more of local radio, it is going to be a desperate situation for our constituents.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If Members do not take too many interventions, I think we can go to a time limit of five minutes.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
May I break it very gently to the House and those following the debate that not everybody listens to Radio 4 or the World Service? As mentioned by many previous speakers in the debate, lots of people depend in many ways on listening to local radio. Local radio is extremely popular in this country, a reminder of our pride in our robust local characters and in local heritage, history and traditions.
I was born in the north-east; I believe it is like nowhere else in the country and it should be celebrated rather than ignored and piled in with the rest of the country as if we are just one big blob. Most speakers have said that people in their regions want to hear the local news of relevance to them told to them by people with the same accents as them. They want to hear about what is happening on their high streets and the local weather—what it will be like tomorrow? People do not want to know what the weather will be in Southend when they live in Newcastle upon Tyne or Northumberland, where I live, where it is misty all the time. Basically, we are being misled. We need to make sure we get this right. The BBC must listen, for heaven’s sake, and understand the value of the crown jewels of local radio, as it has been described.
The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) mentioned that non-league football plays a huge part in people’s lives. People cannot put on Radio 4 and find out how Ashington or Bedlington have got on. It is fantastic for people when the local radio station has reporters with the same accent as them telling them how the different clubs and teams are doing in the different parts of the region. That is invaluable.
It is good to listen to fantastic journalists with skills and knowledge of their own area telling us what is happening in politics. It is great to be interviewed by people who understand us and who press us on the local issues. It is great in the morning to get a phone call from Alfie Joey from Radio Newcastle asking if I will come on and talk about this, that and the other. It is essential; it is what people want.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) mentioned that we in the north-east have a huge issue with digitalisation. Of course we do; people in the north-east still call the radio “the wireless.” Not everybody uses wi-fi. We have to remember that.
A lot more can be said, but I have fond memories of Radio Newcastle. I remember when my mother used to make the Sunday dinner in the morning to feed seven of us. There was a programme called “Sing something simple”, and we once rang up and said, “Can you give a message to our mother on Mother’s Day?” and Radio Newcastle gave a message to her. She was absolutely past herself; she said, “If I had known my name was going to be on the radio, I would have got my hair done.” That is how much it meant to my mother.
In conclusion, we have some fantastic reporters and fantastic journalists, and the way they are being tret, bullied and intimidated by the BBC is not acceptable. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) suggests that he supports the strikes; I am going to invite him on to the picket line. He cannot deny it; he will have to come. We hope that the BBC will reflect on the fact that local radio is the people’s radio.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We look forward to seeing Mr Walker on the picket line.
Anna Firth
They will be, I assure Members of that; we just need more people listening and more people supporting. It was such a pleasure for me to hold a centenarian tea party and have 100-year-old Annie Maxted telling me what a fan she is of Southend United. At that great age, she is glued to the radio—apart from when we took her to watch in person. That was an incredible afternoon; she was glued to what she was seeing through the window and understood a great deal more than I did. The point is that these people cannot go online and watch it live, so radio is key for them.
I have talked about the importance of our local radio to the elderly and how ludicrous it is for the BBC to be excluding its best audience, the one that is the most loyal and loves it the most. I also want to mention how important our local radio is to our disabled and partially sighted community, of whom I wish to mention one brilliant example—our blind campaigner Jill Allen-King OBE. I have talked about Jill many times in this place. She is now in her 80s, but she has been a BBC Radio Essex fiend ever since she went blind on her wedding day more than 50 years ago. On a Saturday night, she is a regular listener and she regularly calls in, and she is now a regular guest, as she campaigns for more guide dogs, so that the 1,000 people in the country who are still waiting, as she is, for a new guide dog can have one. For the Jills of this world the radio is an essential resource and it should not be removed.
I conclude by going back to the fact that the BBC was founded on the principles of informing, educating and entertaining people, as we all know. BBC Radio Essex is the very epitome of all those principles. My constituents need a local radio station that is relevant to their lives, and I urge the BBC to reconsider its proposals, recommit itself to providing a service for the very people who deserve it the most—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To give the Front Benchers 10 minutes each, we need to stick to the time limit of four minutes.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on securing this popular debate. Local radio matters. It matters for community, for inclusion and for democracy. We all know that it is a foolish politician who underestimates local radio journalists and their ability to hold power to account.
As we have heard from other hon. Members, local radio matters particularly in the north-east, where we have the highest figures for digital exclusion in England and where there is a strong sense of local identity, with local culture embedded in the lives of all my constituents. A 2021 Institute for Public Policy Research report estimated that 40% of the north-east population has no or a very low level of digital engagement. Local radio is a vital way for many people to get involved and be informed about many aspects of public life.
For many, local radio is also a source of connection, crucial to combating loneliness and instilling a sense of local community. We must not forget that point about loneliness. It is really important that we work together to address that issue, and not to make it worse. We have heard from others how important it is to local people that they have that local radio connection.
Some 92% of over 55s listen to some form of radio every week, with around 5.4 million people listening to BBC local radio weekly. Those figures tell a tale about those who rely on local radio for news and companionship. If that is to be stripped back, it will have a dire effect for all those listeners. It is the BBC’s intention to cut up to 50% of its local radio output across 39 stations in England. Clearly that fails in representing the values that those 5.4 million listeners look for in their local radio content.
Briefly, I want to talk about the issue of “local”. In the north-east, there may be a debate between Tyne and Tees for people’s local radio preference, but having that very local knowledge is important to many people in our communities. I know that from my own experience.
The question of accessibility has also been raised. Local radio is a great way of communicating. People who are blind or have other disabilities may find it very difficult to use new digital services. I worry that that has not been taken into account and needs to be looked at.
As we have heard, the changes bring about casualties among our fantastic local presenters, who are being pitted against each other and, frankly, being treated badly by their employer as they look for alternative jobs. They are being given the impossible task of competing against each other and facing uncertain circumstances. The story that local journalists and staff have told us is that there has been a managed decline by the BBC. I commend all those local journalists who are taking action to support their local station.
Others have mentioned the role of Ofcom, which has been calling for the BBC to better resonate with viewers and listeners. It is important that the BBC looks again at those provisions. I urge the Minister to work with us to get the BBC to pause this plan, and engage with the public on the restructure through the consultation, which has been sadly lacking.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Today’s debate has illustrated the power, benefit and importance of local radio across the UK. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on opening the debate so powerfully. He was absolutely right when he said that local radio is trusted like no other.
To see that in action, we need look no further than Radio Sheffield. There are so many examples of how this is done. There was an interview this week with Tomekah George from Sheffield, who designed one of the special stamps issued by Royal Mail to mark the 70th anniversary of Windrush. Then there is Toby Foster, who held Sheffield City Council to account on the tree-felling inquiry. This week, Sheffield City Council issued a full and unreserved apology, which was covered on “News at Ten” on Tuesday evening. But for years it was Radio Sheffield that was holding the council to account and providing a voice for concerned residents. That is the powerful role that it plays in local democracy—from helping to force an important policy change to interviewing Barnsley’s youngest councillor, Abi Moore, who was elected to serve the Dearne South ward at the age of 20. Then there are the super local traffic updates, such as on the recent roadworks on Summer Lane in Wombwell. This is the local granular information and content that my constituents in Barnsley find invaluable.
The changes that the BBC have proposed put such content at risk, potentially marking the beginning of the end for local radio altogether, as the NUJ has warned. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly paid tribute to the hard work of the NUJ in representing workers. He also rightly pointed out that there has been little attention paid to the digital divide, a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist).
It has now been eight months since the BBC announced its intention to reshape those crucial services so that content on local radio stations is regionalised after 2 pm and on weekends. In that time, despite appeals, strikes and multiple debates on the Floor of this House, the BBC has shown no sign of pausing to assess that approach. Instead, it has repeatedly insisted that those reductions, alongside a boost to online services, are the right thing to do.
It is in that context that I join my colleagues from across the House, on behalf of our constituents, in urging the BBC to finally look at the true cost of the plans and to reconsider its decision. Of course the BBC is rightly both impartial and independent, but we are elected to this place to give voice to the concerns of our constituents, and that is what everyone in this debate has done, right across the UK, from Great Grimsby to Kingston upon Hull, Worcester, the Isle of Wight, Southend West and Strangford.
The BBC’s independence should also not keep it from making decisions that are informed, transparent and in the interest of our communities. It is one of the BBC’s public purposes to reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, yet when proposing the changes to local programming that would directly threaten the delivery of that purpose, the BBC has failed to consult any of the communities that would be impacted, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) rightly pointed out. I echo the calls he made in his speech.
Likewise, the BBC remains unable to present any assessment of the impact of the changes. The National Federation of the Blind of the UK has directly requested the BBC’s equality impact assessment and the public value test regarding the plans, but the BBC said it was exempt from sharing them. As a public service broadcaster, funded through the licence fee, the BBC owes more to the public on how and why such decisions are made about its programming, particularly when they disproportionately impact marginalised groups and those with protected characteristics. It is largely older people, those with disabilities, the lonely and those who are digitally excluded who will be heavily impacted by these changes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said.
It is important that the BBC listens directly to those people, and I would therefore like to share some of their stories today, starting with Sarah from Leicestershire. Sarah is visually impaired and says that the changes to local radio would isolate and exclude many visually impaired, blind and disabled people such as her. Sarah is fortunate to be able to access the internet and is comfortable using technology, but if the text on any given website is not spaced properly—as she claims it often is not on the BBC website, despite the BBC’s insisting otherwise—her text-to-speech function does not work, leaving her to describe the pages as not accessible in any shape or form. BBC local radio is therefore an essential information service for Sarah and it was vital in protecting her during the pandemic—as many others said, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck).
Like Sarah, Annette, who is a volunteer for the charity Gig Buddies, said that many disabled people cannot or do not want to access information online or using digital devices. They just want to be able to tune in through their FM radio, which often has accessible buttons and switches rather than touchscreens, at any time of day and hear local community information. Neil from Dronfield is blind, housebound and suffers with a head injury. He says that his local radio station, BBC Sheffield, is extremely important to him for accessing information and hearing local accents each day. As it stands, the BBC is looking to take that away, with nothing to offer as a replacement. For people such as Neil, Sarah and Annette, there is no alternative.
For others, such as Angela in London, local radio has long provided companionship that simply cannot be replaced. For a few years, she says, BBC Radio London was her only entertainment and, for several months, her only communication. She speaks so powerfully about the experience that I would like to share it with the House, saying, “I heard no other human say my name other than when Jo Good or Robert Elms read out an email I’d sent in. Local radio has the power to make another less alone, to have your voice heard and to feel part of something when the world has forgotten you.” Angela also says that the presenters felt like her friends and that there is an innate intimacy about hearing discussions about her local area and the streets that she and those before her grew up in. Clearly, truly local programming means something to people such as Angela—something that the BBC fundamentally failed to grasp when announcing the changes.
The changes to local radio are also having a profound impact on the BBC’s workforce, with roles in audio teams reducing by more 100. As well as the loss of experienced talent and local knowledge from forcing out radio presenters and producers, the changes will also see a key pipeline for broadcasting and journalistic talent cut off.
Members across the House—the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), and my hon. Friends the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—have expressed concern about the treatment of workers by the BBC, and I add my voice to theirs.
Local journalism is a fragile ecosystem. The BBC plans to increase digital output in place of local radio, but that will put undue pressure on the system, as I have said in this House before, by providing unwanted competition to local papers and other media outlets that are, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said, already struggling to stay afloat. That is not to mention the significant impact on local democracy: local radio currently holds councillors, MPs and national politicians to account in a way that no other outlet can.
While Tim Davie, the director general of the BBC, describes loyal local listeners as only “13% of the population”, we recognise that 5.4 million people are not a fringe group but an important audience made up of people who do not have an alternative way of accessing their community or local news. That is what the BBC has failed to understand: people truly value and need their local radio. These changes are the thin end of the wedge in taking it away. Once local radio is gone, it will be gone.
This debate has shown that there is strong feeling across the country that the BBC should think again about its decision, or, at the very least, pause and review it. It seems that the only person who thinks it a good idea is the director general himself. My local paper, the Barnsley Chronicle, quoted staff who described the BBC as either ignorant or arrogant. The fact that it has come to that stage is a reflection of how poorly this whole situation has been handled, and it is an incredibly sad state of affairs.
I hope that Tim Davie has listened to the calls and contributions made today. If he will not listen to our constituents up and down the country, I hope that he will listen to Sarah, Annette, Neil and Angela, all of whom rely on their local radio. I hope that he will listen to the representatives of his hardworking staff who are facing cuts and redundancy. I hope that he will listen to the charities that are concerned about the lack of local consultation and disability impact assessment. The director general can convince himself all he likes that his decision is the right one, but I am afraid that everyone else thinks he is wrong.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Minister, may I say that Mr Speaker and I share Radio Lancashire, an excellent local radio station that we value greatly for the reasons we have heard in this excellent debate. No pressure, Minister.
Pride Month
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart Andrew
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I meant to mention that point, because I thought it was an interesting one. I will happily speak to my colleagues in the Foreign Office about that because I think, from my perspective, that if we can do it, we should.
As Minister for Equalities—but also because I have felt passionate about this for most of my life—it is my privilege to build on the achievements of the past in furthering LGBT equality in the future both at home and abroad. I thank the hon. Member for Wallasey and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing the debate. I also thank colleagues across the House for their contributions. I pledge that many of the things that are important to our community in my portfolio—such as loneliness, sport accessibility and youth policy—will, as far as I am concerned, have a heavy LGBT influence.
Finally, I thank all the groups and stakeholders I have met and continue to meet for the work they do to support the LGBT family. Do you know what? I am going to say a big thank you to my family and to my mum and dad for being there for me when I came out—they were brilliant—and I am thinking about you, Mum, because I know you are not well today. As I said at the PinkNews reception last week, and as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) mentioned as well, we should remember the words of our former colleague Jo Cox. As a community, we should make sure that we hear her words loud and clear: there is more that unites us as a community than divides us, and others may want to divide us, but we will not let them. I look forward to working with Members across the House to deliver for LGBT people.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Elliot Colburn to speak for the last two minutes, may I say what a privilege it has been to chair the entirety of this debate? People have talked about Pride and love versus hate. I do not know whether hate has a colour. I suspect not, because Pride and love have a rainbow of them, and no other colour is represented. With rainbows, you get hope on either side. I hope that is what we can give to those in the 66 countries where it is illegal to be gay and, indeed, where they may even face the death penalty.
We are in a Parliament that has more openly LGBT Members than any other Parliament in the world. What did you do with one of those Members? You elected him Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, and I am incredibly grateful for that. Wherever you live, have a happy Pride. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I call Elliot Colburn.
Elliot Colburn
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it has been a pleasure to have you in the Chair for the entirety of this debate.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and for coming along to the annual debate that we hold to mark Pride Month. I also thank the Minister for his very considered response. I am grateful that he was at the Dispatch Box for this debate. I am sure there is lots that will need to be followed up. As I said in my speech, there was a lot repeated this year that we have said in years gone by, and I hope that next year we can come back having made significant progress.
To send out a message of hope—not just to the 66 countries around the world where being LGBT is still a crime, but to every single LGBT+ person who perhaps feels they cannot celebrate Pride openly this year—let me say that you have friends in this place from all political parties and persuasions. Parliament will continue to do what it can and I know that the parliamentarians here today will continue to do what they can to ensure that all LGBT+ people are represented, feel safe and have friends with the ear of Government. Thank you all for coming.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The spirit of Glenda Jackson was with us today. Rest in peace.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Pride Month.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. While we have been having this debate, my constituents and many people across Sussex and Kent have had no fresh water for three to four days. We had arranged a public meeting with South East Water, which continues to fail local residents who are having to use bottled water or have very low flows of water. However, South East Water has withdrawn from all public meetings on this matter, because it says it needs to focus its time on fixing the problem. This does not seem to be an appropriate response to families without running water on some of the hottest days of the year. Could you advise me how I can get the chief executive of South East Water to come and be held to account by my constituents and those in Wealden and Rother who have not had running water?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It does seem an incredibly unacceptable position to be put in. I hope those on the Treasury Bench have heard that and will urgently get that through to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who will engage in dialogue immediately.
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: Great Yarmouth
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is spot-on. That challenge has been fed into me recently by a number of businesses: they have asked what more the Government can do to ensure there is collaboration between the Government and industry to deal with energy pricing. The rise in energy prices is one of the big challenges coming out of the problems of covid and particularly the abhorrent invasion of Ukraine by Putin. The Government have rightly put protection in place for households, and I congratulate them on that, but many businesses are still struggling with rate rises of up to 400%. They are often businesses working on small, single-figure margins—often of 1% or 2%.
The pub industry is tough: it is hard work making sure the client and customer is happy and has a good experience. We need to make sure that we have the support in place to not lose more pubs. We all know we are losing pubs and that lifestyles are changing. It is not necessarily the Government’s responsibility to fix all those issues, but we do need to be cognisant of what more we can do to work with the energy industry to ensure that we have the biggest possible impact for businesses, as some of their rising costs through inflation go back to the challenges from rising energy prices.
My hon. Friend is right, too, that the hospitality industry is one of the first to see any warning light for our economy, as, indeed, is the housing sector. If we want more houses to be built across our country, we need SME house building businesses to be building. I know some of the chief executives of our big house builders. One of them, who sadly has passed away now, always said to me when I had responsibility for the sector in government that one of the challenges today is that the regulation and the restrictions on housing make it very difficult for people to do what he and some of his competitors did in the past—those big house builders that started as sole traders—which was to borrow money and get through the planning process in order to build even one or two homes.
If we were able to invigorate SMEs in the housing sector to build those small numbers of homes in our villages and towns across the country—wherever we need them; in the right places and of the right quality—that would make a huge difference to our economy, because it has a knock-on effect. It is not just about the house, which itself improves social mobility; it is about everybody who is employed in building the house, and about the person who moves into it going to buy some paint or whatever else to decorate it. That all adds to the economic boost and growth for our country, and it is why we benefit by about 1% of GDP for every 100,000 homes built in this country.
Our hospitality industry is a canary in the mine showing what condition the economy is in, as my hon. Friend said. Those businesses I was talking about earlier—the larger and the medium-sized businesses—entertain clients and customers, and hospitality notices first if there are fewer of them, if those businesses are taking less time to entertain because they have fewer customers and visitors, and if we as individuals are spending less money in hospitality.
It plays an important part in the economy. People think of hospitality in places like Great Yarmouth as being just there for visitors, but it is there for business as well. In Northern Ireland, I spoke regularly to businesses who would use the hospitality pull of Northern Ireland as part of the sales pitch for their business in the engineering sector. It is a very important sector for our economy, and it thrives and relies on those SMEs.
The majority of that sector is SMEs. Big companies like Haven Holidays have a huge presence in constituencies like mine, but it is the small businesses that knit things together and support people across the villages and the coastal towns. I have seen that at first hand in Hemsby in Great Yarmouth, where almost all the businesses are independent or family-owned. They have come together to protect the coastline and literally defend the homes of people, and they have helped people who have lost their homes when they have fallen into the sea because of the coastal erosion we have had over the last few years. There have been some very dramatic circumstances. The businesses with a sense of passion for their community —the publicans and business owners in Hembsy—have come together to drive the campaign to make sure we get the support for the residents who need it, as much as for the businesses themselves and the visitors who come to enjoy the beach that we want to protect.
I have seen time and again the importance of SMEs across the whole of the UK economy, as I have outlined. Many people—the majority in our country—are employed in SMEs. I know the Minister is cognisant of this, but in everything we do we should always be thinking about what more we can do to help today’s sole trader become a small business, and today’s small business become a medium-sized enterprise, with a view to how they grow into the big plc of the future; because without doubt for me in Great Yarmouth, our small and medium-sized, predominantly family-owned, businesses are the heartbeat of the constituency, and they end up being the heartbeat of our country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before calling the Minister, I must say that it is rare and impressive to hear a content-packed speech delivered without notes, so congratulations.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill
Nigel Evans ExcerptsWednesday 17th May 2023
(12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill 2022-23 View all Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I will now announce the result of the ballot earlier today for the Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. A total of 384 votes were cast, one of which was invalid. There was a single round of counting. With 383 valid votes, the quota to be reached was therefore 192 votes. Dame Caroline Dinenage was elected Chair with 198 votes. She will take up her post immediately, and I congratulate her on her election. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet.
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the Bill, which will drive innovation, growth and productivity by reforming digital market regulation, the competition regime and consumer protection.
Let me begin with the digital market elements. Technology permeates every aspect of our lives. The businesses that develop and apply new technologies—be they social media platforms, online marketplaces or innovation-driven firms—create huge benefits for consumers and make a major economic contribution. As the Chancellor frequently reminds us, the UK is the only country outside the US and China to have a tech sector with companies valued at more than £1 trillion—companies that have developed their businesses and attracted customers.
We must always be mindful that regulation and intervention in markets come at a cost. My starting point is to trust the invisible hand of the market as much as possible to drive competition, but markets require rules, and where those rules exist, they need to be enforced. We must be careful in how we approach regulation, and not penalise firms for being successful.
As has been said, digital markets have features, including the importance of data and network effects, that tend towards a few large players. It is certainly not the case, however, that having a small number of players with large market power is in itself a bad thing—it can represent the reward for innovation and investment. However, the CMA concluded in its review of online advertising that Facebook and Google’s market position meant that consumers and businesses faced increased costs, there was less innovation, and consumers had unfavourable terms imposed on them owing to competition.
The Bill will give the CMA the tools to designate firms with that strategic market status and apply conduct requirements for fair dealing, open choices and trust, which all sounds reasonable—for example, ensuring that there is a clear appeal process if a user’s marketplace access is terminated, or giving consumers choices and the ability to easily switch between services. However, it could easily become a burdensome requirement, so we must ensure that the regime is proportionate and that the cumulative impact of such requirements is regularly reviewed. Perhaps the Bill could be further improved by including something on its face to require the CMA to do so.
As a member of the Regulatory Reform Group, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), I share his concern about the accountability of regulators and the systematic underperformance that we see. Given the significant power that regulators wield and the impact of their decisions on the lives of our constituents, they must be accountable for those decisions. My hon. Friend set out very clearly and powerfully the case for our first report’s recommendations to promote greater accountability, as well as introducing standardised metrics so that we can judge regulators’ performance. I hope those recommendations will be taken forward.
I will briefly focus on the consumer regulation part of the Bill. Where companies breach consumer protection rules, there should be swift and proportionate action, but currently that does not happen, as the CMA lacks the powers to rapidly act: it has to go to court when it considers there has been a breach of consumer law. Which? has pointed out that a lack of powers meant that it took nearly six years to get the online secondary ticketing market to change its practices, although as we have heard from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), there are still problems in that sector. That is why the new powers in the Bill are to be welcomed: there will be a direct enforcement regime, so that the CMA can investigate suspected breaches and issue enforcement notices and fines. That brings us into line with other major jurisdictions.
Others have referred to subscription services. About £30 billion is spent annually on those services, and consumer groups have identified that as another area of potential abuse. We will all have had different experiences: in some cases, it has been simple to unsubscribe from a service, and in others, it has been far more difficult—perhaps deliberately so, to make customers stick. Sky has raised concerns about the level of prescriptiveness on the face of the Bill regarding this issue, and has pointed out that in some cases, the requirements are more onerous than those that apply in regulated sectors. I hope the Minister will carefully consider those concerns, while ensuring that it is simple for customers to unsubscribe from services they no longer wish to pay for.
The final element I will focus on is that of fake reviews, and the detriment they cause to consumers and businesses. According to research by Which?, fake reviews make consumers more than twice as likely to choose poor-quality products, and people can be put off from making choices, whether about restaurants or about somewhere to stay. That is a particular issue for my constituency of North West Norfolk, which has a vibrant tourism and hospitality sector. UKHospitality welcomed the Bill’s helping to deliver fairness for hospitality venues and customers in that area, so I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed when the consultation he has referred to, which will get into the detail of how we tackle fake reviews, will be published so that we can act rapidly to close down those unfair practices.
To conclude, I support the intention of the Bill: to give the CMA powers to act rapidly against breaches of consumer law, to strengthen competition, and to crack down on abuses.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will be relatively brief. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), I am a member of the National Union of Journalists’ parliamentary group—in fact, I am its secretary. It is really pleasing that there have been so many references to the issues around journalism and publishing from the hon. Members for Warrington South (Andy Carter), for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles.
The NUJ welcomes the Bill wholeheartedly; Members who may not have been interested in the journalistic or publishing side of this issue will want to understand why. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles has described the way in which there has been erosion of local media and local press, as well as national cutbacks. While journalists have been losing their jobs, what has infuriated them is that where they are producing work—quality, reliable, regular news—that news is then being effectively ripped off on to other platforms and used to attract customers to advertising, and they get no recompense whatever. Members can understand why there is a depth of anger that has built up, and why the NUJ welcomes the Bill. We have been working with the News Media Association as well, which also welcomes it, because we see it as restoring some elements of the balance of power between the big tech giants and the journalists and publishers themselves.
To a certain extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) about the importance of the accountability of regulators and ensuring that they can play their role effectively. Part of the problem on regulation at the moment is the forest of regulators that we have and their accountability. About five years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles and I commissioned a report from Lord Prem Sikka. I will send the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden a copy, because it identified something like 50 different regulators in the finance sector stumbling over each other, not being held particularly to account by this place. I see the solution as being more about shifting the balance of power not to regulators, although they should be held accountable, but to the journalists and publishers themselves. That is why part 3 of the Bill is key for us. It demonstrates a firmness of purpose by the Government in ensuring proper regulation and the restoration of the balance of power, but the devil will be in the detail of the implementation of these regulations and clauses in particular.
I am anxious, like others, about clause 29. It just looks like a gaping loophole that could emerge in the coming period. The NUJ stands ready to engage in any discussions and consultations on the implementation of all the clauses in part 3, particularly in regard to guidelines, the final offer mechanism, the issues around timescales of the implementation and, if necessary, the sanctions that could be brought forward for any individual organisation that is dragging its feet and delaying an agreement on the final offer so that people are properly rewarded.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park raised the issue of intellectual property. That is an issue not only for journalists and others, but for performers. It has been raised with Equity, and Equity stands willing to engage in the discussions with the Government on these matters.
Overall, the significance of this legislation, for us and for the NUJ in particular, is that it could be another brick in the wall of restoring some of the infrastructure and architecture that we had for quality journalism in this country. In that sense, that is why we welcome it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles that it is one part and much more needs to be done, including investment in the BBC and elsewhere, such as local radio services. Instead, we have this dispute.
We also need to ensure proper investment in local journalism. There have been some developments under this Government to support local journalism. Money has been hived into particular support for community journalism, but there is a lot more to do, and that is why the union wishes to engage in a full consultation with the Government about the long-time future of quality journalism in this country. With those few remarks, I welcome the legislation. We will work on the detail. As I say, we and the unions stand ready to involve ourselves in the consultation on the guidelines for implementation.