Sir John Whittingdale
MP for Maldon · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation of our continuing support for Ukraine. He has set out the sustained threat from Russia facing not just Ukraine, but this country and the whole of Europe, yet for too many people, it is still business as usual.”
“That is perhaps even more relevant to the second prong of the Government’s proposals, which is about social media. I will come to that point, but before I finish talking about local media, I want to mention that another of the Government’s flagship policies is devolution.”
“The hon. Member is completely right that this issue must be addressed before we proceed. There is also the question of cost, raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke). There are people who probably do have access to broadband, if they choose to pay for it, but they cannot afford to do so.”
“I was the Minister responsible for the passage of the Media Act 2024, during the previous Parliament. It is a great delight to see some familiar faces with whom I have worked with in the past on the officials’ Bench.”
“Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) that young people are turning more and more to social media, but I do not think that this policy is the answer, because it looks to me like a very dangerous extension of Government interference in the freedom of the press and the right to free speech.”
“My right hon. Friend asks a perfectly valid question, and I want to acknowledge that there are concerns. We had a debate in Westminster Hall not that long ago, and a number of my colleagues—particularly from Scotland—turned up to express concern about the fact that the quality of reception via broadband in their constituencies is very poo…”
The complete record
Every one of 4,278 lines we hold for Sir John Whittingdale, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 62 of 86.
“It was suggested that that should be done through the dispatch of warning letters. Once people were identified as serial downloaders, their internet protocol addresses should be identified and the internet service providers asked to send letters.”
“For a long time, Governments have sought to address some of the problems created by online distribution. In the previous Parliament, the Government passed the Digital Economy Act 2010, which was a valiant attempt to put in place measures to deter online piracy. Unfortunately, it has not come into force. I will not recap the whole history of what has happened since the Act was passed—the judicial reviews, the arguments and so on. However, the principle behind it is that people who illegally download copyrighted material, and so jeopardise the success of the music, film, television, and, I suspect, in due course, games industries, need to be told that what they are doing is not only illegal, but poses a real threat to the economic viability and success of those industries.”
“Of course it is. In particular, historical dramas make use of some of our great heritage assets. There are a large number of reasons why people want to come to Britain to make films, but without the tax credit, they probably would not. We pay tribute to the previous Government for introducing it, and to this Government for continuing it. I would be interested to hear from the Minister an update on the progress of discussions with the European Union on the introduction of the electronic games tax credit, because that, too, is welcome. The games industry is under pressure, and we have lost some companies already, so it is important for that tax credit to be achieved soon. In examining the creative industries, we received a lot of evidence about an issue that lies at the absolute heart of their success: intellectual property rights.”
“I believe that the success of our creative industries is an ample demonstration of why it is so much in our interests to make arts a core part of the curriculum—so that this country can continue to produce the extraordinary talent that lies behind the success of all the industries that I have talked about. I shall not go on talking any longer. I thank the Minister for the response that he has already given, but there are areas where we feel that he could go further, and I hope that he might be willing to do so later this afternoon.”
“That is an encouraging innovation. It is doing impressive work. However, there is a question about its long-term funding. I hope that the Minister can give some indication of whether the Government see it as a permanent part of our policing, with appropriate funding. I now come to the final area that I want to discuss. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is not present, because he felt very strongly about it. I understand that the severe flooding in the west country prevents him from being with us. I am referring to education. It is obviously right that the Government focus on the promotion of the so-called STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—but, as the Minister knows, the debate is about whether STEM should in fact be STEAM. In other words, arts should be part of the core curriculum.”
“A much more sensible recommendation, which the music industry, among others, promotes, is that when a website is the subject of, say, more than 10,000 notices, it should be removed from the front page of search results, and when the figure of 100,000 notices is reached, it should be removed from the first 10 pages. Eventually, if that goes on, it should be blocked in its entirety, on the basis that it plainly consistently makes available copyrighted material illegally. The Committee was persuaded that there was a very strong case for increasing the penalties for online copyright infringement from two years to 10 years, so that they were of the same severity as those for physical piracy. I know that the Government are looking at that. We were very impressed when we visited the new City of London police’s IP crime unit.”
“The latest figures that I have been given show that the proportion of links to infringing sites appearing in the top 10 search results remains roughly the same as before. The latest figure that I was given was 252 out of a possible 400, so 63% of results in the top 10 were illegal download sites. Google will tell us about the huge number of pages that it takes down when it is notified that they contain copyrighted content being distributed illegally, but the notice refers to a single page, with the result that the music industry has sent more than 50 million notices to Google. Google does take the pages down when notified, but no sooner do they come down than they go up again.”
“YouTube has been a great success in generating revenues for people who post material on it. More than £1 billion has already been generated in income. The Committee was concerned about the issue of searching and the direction of people towards illegal download sites. Google has supplied us and, I am sure, other hon. Members present with statistics on how, if someone searches for an artist, most of the results that come up will be legal. Part of the argument is about the fact that Google is citing results of searches in which people simply put in the artist’s name, whereas the music industry points out that if, as well as naming the artist, people use the word “download” or “MP3”, that produces very different results.”
“The film industry said that the exception was unnecessary and that, in any case, legal means were already being developed through which consumers who purchased audiovisual material could store it in the cloud, or access it through different devices. The Minister will know that the film industry remains very concerned about the private copying exception. Perhaps he will say a few words on that in his speech. We also talked to Google, which is responsible for some great successes and huge benefits; it is important to recognise that. The Committee visited the Google campus in east London, which is providing opportunities for start-up firms and app manufacturers to develop. It is at the forefront of the development of technology and making it available to entrepreneurs and small start-up firms.”
“We are particularly concerned to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to examine each exception in detail. There should be proper scrutiny. The private copying exception has caused most concern, because it has the widest effect. No one would argue that transferring a piece of music that one has legally purchased from one device to another should not be permissible. Millions of people do that, and it is nonsense that putting a song on an iPod, for example, technically puts them in breach of copyright law. Legalising private copying, however, has to be done carefully. The Committee took evidence on that, and listened in particular to the concerns expressed by the film industry. Most of the rest of Europe has not applied a private copying exception to audiovisual material.”
“Extending the exemptions on the basis that it might produce extra economic activity and income is dangerous if we do not take account of the risk of widened loopholes jeopardising existing success. We viewed the Hargreaves report with some concern. When we tried to find out how Professor Hargreaves came up with the figures quoted in his report on the substantial potential benefits of some exceptions, we were concerned at the lack of hard evidence to support those figures, and no account was taken of the risk that widening exceptions poses to the industry’s success. That debate continues, and we await the statutory instruments implementing some of the exceptions. Great concern is still being expressed across the industry about the lack of clarity on some of the proposed exceptions, and on the loopholes that might be created.”
“If that can be done voluntarily, that is preferable, and we should get on with that as quickly as possible. The Committee’s report is clear: we prefer a voluntary system, but if agreement cannot be reached, the Government need to stand by to bring into force the provisions of the Digital Economy Act 2010, and to use legislation. Unfortunately, we were perhaps less optimistic on copyright law. The proposals on the modernisation of copyright law have given rise to huge controversy. The Minister will be only too aware of the concerns expressed right across the creative industries about the dangers of tampering. Copyright law supports the success story that I have described. The enormous economic contribution made to our GDP by the creative industries is possible because copyright law ensures that they receive the reward that they are due.”
“My hon. Friend is right. Some of the websites deliberately set out to appear legitimate. They might even make a small charge, although often they are distributing the content for free. Perhaps that would be another advantage of sending letters: it would increase awareness and oblige people to ensure that when they did download, they did so from a legal site, so that the artists and producers concerned received the remuneration due. Despite the difficulties in enacting the DEA, the recent development of a voluntary agreement is in many ways preferable, if it can be made to work. In America, that is already working well. A voluntary copyright alert programme would involve an agreement between the rights owners and the ISPs that there would be a system through which letters were issued to those identified as illegally downloading.”
“If there are to be modernisation changes, they should be made carefully, and we hope that there will be opportunities to look carefully at every proposed change. That will mean debates on the statutory instruments, if possible, as they appear. I thank the Minister for his reply. His official response did not go as far as we might have hoped in some areas, but he has endeavoured in some way to make up for that this afternoon. Question put and agreed to.”
“I had not anticipated commenting further, but this has been a very good debate. I am grateful to the members of my Committee who have come along to speak and to other hon. Members. That has demonstrated the degree of support and interest on both sides of the House and, indeed, in all parts of the country. As the Minister said, the debate has ranged into areas that perhaps go beyond his Department’s responsibilities, but I hope that he will consider carefully what has been said. I echo everything the Minister said about the success of our creative industries. The Government are doing many good things, but the area that I remain concerned about and that several hon. Members raised is copyright.”
“My right hon. Friend said that the Bill’s provisions were being introduced on the advice of those who were most affected by the regulations, but he will be aware of the concern that has been expressed by a wide range of media and broadcasting organisations about the effect of clause 47 in removing important journalistic protections. Is there anything he can say to reassure them that it will not have the effect they fear?”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that soft power is all the more important in increasing understanding between ourselves and countries with which we may have differences of view? She has just referred to the forthcoming UK-Russia year of culture. May I invite her and the shadow Secretary of State to join me at the launch of that event in this place on 24 February, in advance of her attending the winter Olympics in Sochi?”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest laws passed in Ukraine severely restricting democratic protest represent a further step backwards and are fuel for the shocking violence seen overnight? Will he send a clear message to the Ukrainian Government that we will take measures against those responsible and a message to the Russian Government that this is for the Ukrainian people to resolve?”
“When there are repeat offenders, repeat penalties should be imposed. A large number of different measures can be taken. No single one will sort the problem out, but taken together they should have a real impact. They were set out, very well, in the report by the all-party group. That suggestion was repeated by my Select Committee, which made a number of similar recommendations and one or two different ones. I hope that both reports will have helped to inform the Government and we look forward with keen anticipation to the Minister’s response, who will, I hope, set out what the Government intend to do.”
“Member for Angus that the number of people who bother to make a complaint are a small fraction of those who suffer nuisance calls. For every person who complains, there are at least another 10 who feel that this is one of the irritations of life that they can do nothing about, and so do not bother to make a complaint. There is a case for Ofcom and the ICO to concentrate more on this area and to deploy more resources. To help them, it may also be necessary for us to lower the threshold for enforcement action. It has been suggested that rather than having a threshold that requires substantial damage and distress to be proven, all that should be required is the ability to show that it has caused annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety. Once that has been demonstrated, perhaps there should be higher penalties.”
“Although we did not agree with some people who said that there should be a single regulator, we did think that there should be a single point of entry for the consumer, so that the consumer does not have to sit down and think, “Should I ring up Ofcom or go to the Information Commissioner’s Office or the Telephone Preference Service?” There should be a single front-facing telephone number for consumers, so that if they get a nuisance call, they can report it and then the people at the other end of the phone can work out which is the appropriate body to pursue the complaint. Finally, there is the question of enforcement. It may well be that more resources are needed to deal with the sheer volume of complaints. I agree with the hon.”
“I accept that there may be greater and different challenges as we move towards more internet protocol telephony, but I have every confidence that the telecommunications companies in this country have the ability to overcome the challenges and develop protections should they choose to do so. The Committee also looked at the confusion that undoubtedly exists over where responsibility lies. There are different bodies, all of which have some role in accepting complaints and enforcing regulations.”
“Member for Edinburgh West also talked about the ease with which it is possible to report a nuisance telephone call to one’s telephone service provider. As it happens, I got one yesterday by text message and I used the 7726 service, which is easy to use on a mobile telephone. It was suggested to us, as it was to the hon. Gentleman, that that was much more difficult to do with landline calls, but, as he said, similar services are already available. For example, people can dial a number as soon as they have received a call to ensure that it is blocked next time. A reporting system of that kind should be relatively simple to operate.”
“There may be some argument over whether other operators offer free services or charge for them, but the fact that TalkTalk clearly thinks it is in its interests to market its services by offering such protections free to its customers can only be a good thing. We were concerned when BT, having told us about the services that it offers, particularly caller line identification, announced that it was changing the terms of its contract and that some people would be required to pay for that feature. That seemed a retrograde step. Although it is a matter for BT, we none the less expressed a very strong view that BT and all other telecoms providers should provide that kind of service to their customers free, and that there are clear market advantages in so doing. The hon.”
“The next component is the technological opportunity to obtain information about who is calling or to block people making calls. Ofcom published a useful table that goes through all the various services offered by different operators, such as caller display, incoming call blocking, anonymous call rejection and last-caller identification. It also shows whether the major providers offer those services and whether they do so free or charge for them. As this has become such a matter of public controversy and concern, it is healthy that operators are now beginning to compete, as part of their own marketing, by telling consumers the protections they offer. Yesterday, TalkTalk announced that it is to become the first and only internet service provider to make all landline privacy calling features completely free.”
“The Committee also looked at whether there should be an expiry time: where someone gives consent to say they are happy to receive these calls, is that for time immemorial or should a renewal be required after six months? The Committee thought that the simplest solution, which I would like to see applied more widely, is that where a complaint is made against a company for making unsolicited calls, that company should be required to show the consent—it should show why it has called that individual. The company should be able to produce evidence to show that the individual had given consent to be called, particularly if they were registered under the TPS. That would be a simple requirement for the ICO to enforce to deal with some of this confusion over whether consent had or had not been given.”
“That is part of the problem: people register with the TPS, think that they have made sure that they will not get any of these calls and then tick a box, perhaps a few days or weeks later, which results in the expression of their wish expressed through the TPS being overruled and in their starting to get these calls again. One thing we talked to the Information Commissioner’s Office about was the extent to which companies should be able to claim that a TPS preference had been overruled by a subsequent action. The ICO has already begun to take on cases relating to that area, arguing that the consumer’s wish has been improperly overlooked. There may be scope to do more, particularly through the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, which I am sure the Minister will mention.”
“We were concerned to be told that even though somebody may register with the TPS, that expression of their wish can somehow be deemed to have been overruled because they happen to have ticked a box at another time, often when they are buying a completely different product and are asked whether or not they wish to receive marketing calls relating to products from that producer or, indeed, from third parties. I was interested to hear the results of the research that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West had done on various companies’ practices as to whether the default is to say that people want these things.”
“The Committee concluded that there was no single magic bullet to deal with the problem; it could be broken down into a number of different parts and in each case there was an argument for strengthening the regulation and increasing the protection available to consumers. I will briefly go through the four relevant areas, which have been covered by him and by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir). Like the hon. Member for Angus, I understand why people who have gone to the trouble of registering with the Telephone Preference Service, having been told that by doing so they will be sending a message that they do not wish to receive calls, are deeply irritated when they go on receiving them.”
“My Committee was presented with compelling evidence—the hon. Member for Edinburgh West referred to some of it—about the scale of the problem: 85% of the population had received a cold call in the previous month, with the average number of calls being about seven a month. That is an enormous amount, and it is not surprising that the number of complaints about this issue has increased dramatically in the past few years. Some 62% of the unsolicited calls relate to PPI, so that specific driver has led to a large number of the complaints. I do not want to repeat the hon. Gentleman’s comprehensive speech, as he went through the various component parts of the problem and possible solutions in detail.”
“There are reasons why people should make unsolicited calls, and I certainly would not want to ban them. One also has to assume that it is of some benefit to some people that they receive calls to ask whether they have been mis-sold payment protection insurance. One has to assume that companies would not be making these calls unless some people said, “I am so glad you rang. Yes, I was mis-sold PPI and I would like you to help me.” If these companies had got no custom and simply annoyed every person they called, the exercise would seem fairly pointless. One therefore has to assume that some people will welcome these calls, but that does not justify the scattergun approach whereby these companies appear to be calling millions of people across the population and identifying perhaps one in 1,000 who welcome the call.”
“Some people have said that we should just ban it, but, early in our inquiry, the National Autistic Society pleaded with us not to do that, saying that cold calling was one of its most effective fundraising methods. There are legitimate reasons for cold calling, including fundraising and using it for political purposes. We had an interesting debate in the Select Committee when the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who cannot be here today, told us that about once a week he rang up a number of his constituents at random to ask them their views and to discuss whatever was going on at the time. We debated whether that came under the definition of nuisance calling, and we decided that it did not, because it was part of the job of a Member of Parliament to keep in touch with his constituents.”
“It has been very effective in raising awareness of this issue and has mounted a good campaign. I went on to Radio 5 Live to debate the issue with some of the main regulators, and the extent of the problem and the strength of feeling about it became apparent from the calls to the programme. It was then that I suggested the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport might investigate it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) also founded the all-party parliamentary group on nuisance calls, which has held its inquiry in parallel with ours. All those investigations have contributed to the recommendations that we will be debating. It is important to point out that there are perfectly legitimate reasons why, in principle, there should be cold calling.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) on securing the debate. This matter is clearly the cause of great annoyance and anger, and it results in complaints from a large number of people. I suspect that Members of Parliament are no different from any other member of the public in this regard. I started getting calls some time ago asking me whether I wanted to make a claim for having been mis-sold payment protection insurance. I found that a little puzzling as I had never had PPI, but I then discovered that the calls were made indiscriminately and bore no relation to whether the recipients had actually bought the product. That is probably the most common kind of nuisance call, although it is not exceptional. I also want to congratulate Which?”
“I welcome the debate as an opportunity to bring some light to the subject, rather than the large amount of smoke that has obscured it so far, but that might be a statement of hope rather than experience. It is important to bring some perspective to the debate. Gambling is a legitimate activity that brings considerable pleasure to millions of people in this country, that generates a lot of economic activity and that provides employment and tax revenue for the Government. Betting shops are not a blight on the high street; they are regulated and controlled environments that provide employment and, in some cases, a social benefit.”
“That was why, when the Culture, Media and Sport Committee looked at the problem, we recommended allowing up to 20 B2 machines in casinos and some B2 machines in adult gaming centres.”
“I shall come on to problem gambling, but it is a myth to suggest that that is entirely a result of FOBTs. There is a difficulty due to problem gambling, and a small number of people suffer from addiction—of course they need some protection. It has always been a principle that the harder forms of gambling are permitted in more controlled environments. To that extent, it was something of an anomaly that the previous Government allowed B2 machines on the high street while there were restrictions on those machines in adult gaming centres and casinos. It was ironic, too, that the previous Government wanted to introduce category A gaming machines, for which there were no limits on stakes or prizes, in super-casinos. Perhaps those anomalies should have been addressed.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I was going to come on to that point. The latest statistics in the English health survey show that something like 0.5% of the population might be suffering from problem gambling, which represents a drop from the previous figure in the gambling prevalence study.”
“Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) pointed out, the strongest growth in gambling is taking place online, but there are far fewer controls online for people who have a problem. It is much more difficult to verify someone’s age online and for someone to self-exclude.”
“I am sorry, but I have very little time, so I shall have to continue. Although that figure might have fallen and although only a small number of people are involved, I accept of course that those people still need protection, which was why the Select Committee looked at various technologies that might help to address the problem. We looked at self-exclusion, taking periods of rest between playing machines and mandatory pre-commitment. We should consider such measures, but before taking any action, it is important that we act on the evidence. That was why we recommended that more research should be conducted so that we could establish whether B2 machines presented any greater risk of attracting problem gamblers than other types of machine. As my hon.”
“Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) confirmed, the proposal would not be retrospective. It would apply only to new shops, so he would not seek to close existing betting shops on the high street.”
“I am sorry, but there are strict time limits on speeches, so I want to press on. I have explained why I believe that we need much more research. The issue of clustering has been raised, too, and it was also recognised by the Select Committee. We recommended, although this was widely misinterpreted, that there should be some flexibility for local authorities so that if it could be shown that a large number of betting shops had opened to get around the limit of four machines in a shop, one solution might be to allow local authorities to permit more machines in individual betting shops precisely to stop more shops opening. We suggested that such flexibility should be applied in an upward rather than a downward direction. I support localism, but the problem with the Opposition’s motion is that, as the hon.”
“The Opposition’s motion pre-empts the work that the trust is doing and draws conclusions before we have even seen the results of its research. That is completely the wrong way round, and it is for that reason, in line with what the Select Committee recommended, that I shall support the Government’s amendment and not the Opposition’s motion.”
“But the hon. Gentleman is not proposing to revoke the existing permissions for shops that are currently on the high street, so what he suggests would not be likely to make any great difference. It would act as an anti-competitive measure that would benefit the people currently operating on the high street and prevent new entrants from coming into the market. Generally, that would be detrimental to consumers. The Select Committee’s overall conclusion was that before we take action in this area, we need much more research. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who is a member of the Responsible Gambling Trust, pointed out that a thorough study is under way, with a report due in the near future.”
“Has the hon. Lady ever played a fixed odds betting terminal? They have one of the highest rates of return of any gambling machine and it is virtually impossible to lose hundreds of pounds as the majority of the money one puts in comes back out again.”
“Will my right hon. Friend join me in saluting the courage of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been peacefully protesting across Ukraine for the past few weeks against their President’s decision to break off talks with Europe and to move closer to Russia? Does he agree that if there is any further violence against them, those responsible should be held personally accountable, and will he continue to hold out the prospect of closer links with Europe in the longer term, which is what the people of Ukraine want?”
“Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the £1.5 million grant from the National Heritage Memorial Fund to save Stow Maries aerodrome in my constituency, which is the last remaining, intact first world war airfield? Does she agree that Stow Maries, from which pilots flew to defend us against zeppelin attacks, would be a fitting place to start the commemorations that her Department is planning?”
“That is something that the Government have sought to address, but it is still impacting severely on some pensioners of the Visteon company. Perhaps the Minister might touch on that in his response. As we know, there is a legal case pending, and I of course hear the instruction from the Chair. We do not want to prejudice in any way the legal proceedings that are under way. It should not be necessary because ultimately it is not a question of whether or not Ford acted within or outside the law. It is, as Members in all parts of the House have said, a question of corporate social responsibility. It is a question of the reputational damage that this is doing to Ford across this country and beyond, and it is a question of morality and decency.”
“Also, we know that the Visteon pension fund was underfunded right from the start. In the discussions that we have had as part of the all-party group, we have talked to the Pensions Regulator, for instance. It is perhaps a matter of regret that the Pensions Regulator was not in place at the time that this happened. It is perhaps worth speculating that had we had the Pensions Regulator, this situation would not have been allowed to arise. I am grateful to see on the Front Bench the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), who responded to the previous debate so is familiar with this injustice. At that time we talked about the way in which the cap on the Pension Protection Fund affected some former employees of Visteon.”
“It is particularly sad when one meets and talks to employees who gave many years of service to Ford that now seem to be ignored and forgotten because for a few years—or even, in some cases, for a few months—they transferred to the Visteon company. In particular, I mention Mr Steve Sharpe, my constituent from Heybridge, who spent 27 years working for the Ford Motor Company and three months working for Visteon, yet has lost 50% of his pension. On any grounds, that is clearly wrong and should be recognised as such by the Ford Motor Company. What makes it worse is that—we have heard reference to this—it appears that Ford knew perfectly well that the Visteon company could not succeed, and indeed took actions after its establishment which made absolutely certain that it was not viable in the long term.”