26/04/2017 House of Commons

Point of order. Mr David Winick. Because question one was closed,

there wasn't an opportunity for a response on that particular point

about the West Midlands. Would it be possible to put on record that if

there had been an opportunity, on the Labour benches, we would,

certainly myself, would have stated that public services have been

result of the Tory cuts. I thought result of the Tory cuts. I thought

it was useful that that should be said because there was not an

opportunity to respond to what the Prime Minister said. He has made his

point with force, and it will be recorded in the official report, and

if the honourable gentleman wishes, it may be then more widely

disseminated to others. I am saving the honourable gentleman up. Point

of order. You and I are familiar with the tension that afflicts this

place before an election. I believe what we have seen this morning is a

sudden outbreak of parliamentary Tourette's, and the rumour is that

something known as a Crosby check has been implanted within the brain

of those on the other side that compels them to stay strong and

stable -- says strong unsaleable library 18 seconds and say Coalition

chaos every 30 seconds. Is the affliction permanent one that be

cured? I am grateful to the honourable gentleman, but I am not

sure this is a matter for the chair. Without fear of contradiction, I can

say that in my time in this place, I have never been preprogrammed or

otherwise by anyone. Point avoid, -- point of order, Mr Chris Brown. I

want to raise a serious point. You want to raise a serious point. You

referred to the order paper can memorise and two people killed in

the First World War. That is the right thing to do. This short

parliament has seen two members of our own community killed. Jo Cox,

our colleague, and Keith Palmer, who was defending us. I am sure the

whole House would want to add the thanks to all the police officers

who work on the estate, add them to the thanks earlier. Jo Cox is

getting a shield in the chamber by the next time the parliament

gathers. It would seem to me and to a lot of members on all sides,

wholly appropriate that Keith Palmer should also have a shield in the

chamber. He was not a member of Parliament, but he was one of us,

and he was our shield defender. If there are many voices out there that

said this chamber should just be for members, those should be rejected.

There must be a permanent reminder of what he did for us. I thank him

for his point of order. I had no advance notice of this, and about

which I make no complaint whatsoever. It is right that these

matters should be considered by a number of people, and it would be

wrong and disrespectful of me to other individuals who should be

consulted simply to say yes, it is going to happen. I entirely open to

the proposition that the honourable gentleman has just put? I most

certainly am. Not all precedents in every matter have to be observed.

There is scope for innovation, otherwise nothing would ever change.

And Keith Palmer will always have a very special and perhaps unique hold

on the affections and respect of members of this House, so I think

that that discussion can continue and perhaps I can most appropriately

say, having heard the honourable gentleman's view, and expressed a

response not unsympathetic that I would be interested to hear the

views of my parliamentary colleagues. I am absolutely up for

doing just that. Point of order, Sir Desmond Swain. I agree with the

honourable gentleman in that respect. I am mystified with the

point of order by the point -- honourable member of Walsall, who

said there was no opportunity to comment on the back of the closed

question. There was an opportunity, but he did not take it. Surely you

can stand, and depending on whether he catches your eye, you can call

him on the back of a closed question. It is just that the

question must relate to the substantive question on the order

paper. I do not want to have a great long debate about this. I do not

know whether he is standing -- he was standing, I didn't seek to have

further questions. I judged the best way to maximise the discussion. I

had given thought to that matter in advance, and I decided I would move

from the closed question to the engagement question I had made the

mental calculations about numbers and I think it was the right

judgment, so there was not an opportunity on that question. More

widely, I would simply say colleagues might have noticed that

on this occasion, conscious of the very large numbers of people wanting

to contribute, I ran proceedings on somewhat longer than normal. There

is no debate offering the opportunity for valedictory

speeches. -- at the end of the parliament as there was at the end

of the last. I make no complaint about that, I am simply saying it is

no such opportunity. And I thought the mood for today was that as many

members as could reasonably be called should be called, perhaps

particularly with regard, not exclusively, but particularly with

regard to those who had announced their intention to leave the House.

So we have run on a bit. To which I reply, so what? In order so there

should be no misunderstanding, because the honourable gentleman

gave the impression that I was not standing. I was desperately trying

to catch your eye, and if I may say so, we have all the differences in

the world, but I have always looked upon him as a person of integrity,

and I would be grateful if you could clarify the position. I was not

looking at the honourable gentleman, I confess, but I accept entirely

that he was standing and I withdraw. Very greatest. We have it on the

record that the honourable gentleman, the Member for Walsall

North, was standing! He was seeking to catch my eye! I called 35

members. One further point of order. We then should proceed. The

honourable gentleman has had a good crack today, but another goal. I

merely wanted to correct my honourable friend the Member for

Newport, who referred I think to me, when he said Lincoln, I am

Litchfield. And to my honourable friend, there has been considerable

speculation about what might be on my head. Can I say that a chip is

not one of them! It is reassuring to have additional information! Head

inspection may be available to members, but not to those observing

our proceedings elsewhere, and I do not want them to feel excluded.

Point of order. I am sure I speak for my colleagues who are standing

down. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to express our

appreciation for our Prime Minister to stay as long as she had. I have

always been a staunch supporter of maintaining conventions, but on this

occasion I have to say that I think stretching the convention was rather

a good idea, and thank you very much. I thank the honourable

gentleman. We have known each other a long time, and I wish him all the

best for the future. If there are no further points of order, the

appetite has been satisfied for today, we come now to the ten minute

rule motion, Mr Alan Brown. Thank you. Mr Speaker, I beg to move to

bring in a bill to make provision to safeguard them for release of cash

attentions in the construction industry and for connected purposes.

When I secured this ten minute rule Bill, I genuinely hoped it would be

the start of new legislation. Unfortunately the honourable member

was apparently so scared to what I was proposing to call a general

election instead! Joking apart, this topic is very important. Cash

attentions as a deduction of proportion of the agreed value of a

contract effectively cash bond. This cash is withheld by the main

contractor to cover snagging defects and agreed -- in an agreed

maintenance period of one or two years. Usually the subcontractor

remedies these defects at the alone cost as per contractual conditions,

thereby... Retentions are not released in a timely manner at the

end of the contract, for a reasons, and something not at all. The most

common reason for non-releases going into liquidation. One example of

this is a world based company losing ?240,000 over five years due to

insolvencies. Another example is a Scottish plumbing firm, which lost

?150,000 of retentions over five years. A huge amount for an SME.

Scottish plumbers have already been hit by the 1995 pensions act,

section 75, multi-employer pension debt issue. So some of these owners

of companies are already at risk of personal insolvency. So this issue

is just another distraction that is not required. Regarding the

tensions, and SME steelwork and contractor has an annual turnover --

turnover of ?30 million and has the supplied attentions of 150,000. That

is 0.5% turnover. When you consider how small the profit margin is that

the lower end of the construction industry, that 0.5% is a

considerable amount. I have worked in the construction industry so I

understand the origins of the detention system. To be fair, I also

know how hard it can sometimes be together subcontractor back on site

to do snagging works, which is often because they have moved onto another

job, some resources are not immediately available. That said, it

is seldom subcontractors do not fulfil their obligations, therefore

when they fulfilled their obligations, they expect to get the

money released when it is due to them. If they comply, why should

they not receive the money in a timely manner? I would ask this

House, white, in the 21st century, are we dealing with unprotected cash

attentions? The loss of cash retentions comes with a human loss.

According to a survey of SMEs, 25% of them say that a debt of 25,000

places are not to jeopardise their business prospects. They are often

much higher than ?20,000. This gives fewer opportunities to recruit

apprentices and opportunities to invest in training. Individual

bankruptcy is also a risk. Due to personal guarantees by directors.

There is a productivity problem in the UK, and yet here we have smaller

companies struggling with cash flow, stress in having to put extra

man-hours into chasing up these cash retentions, so surely resolving this

issue can only improve productivity, not just in man-hours saved in not

having to chase up the tensions, but in terms of the money released that

can be freed up for investment in new equipment, or job creation,

productivity. To be fair, this issue productivity. To be fair, this

in terms of late payments has been in terms of late payments has been

they have took action on that, but they have took action on that,

release of retentions is the missing release of retentions is the missing

link in this payment chain that action has to be taken on. We can

further illustrate the seriousness further illustrate the seriousness

of this. In 2015 small firms across the UK lost almost ?50 million worth

of retentions because of insolvencies on the supply chain.

That money could be reinvested and also a client somewhere along the

line has to pay for this lost revenue. ?3 billion worth of

retention monies are held at one down. This can affect productivity,

cash flow and profit. Also, the uncertainty of retention release

companies. -- banks not allowing means borrowing against sums due

borrowing. A report prepared for government 53 years old recommended

this being dealt with. And a government report recommended cash

retentions should be detected in a cost again. Operating a tenancy

deposit scheme would protect individuals in the private sector,

but there has been no will by governments to do something with

these construction deposits. In 2002, 2008, a committee... In 20

During the enterprise committee, of which I was a member, the Minister

said, it is fair to say there is absolute cross party agreement on

the need to reform cash retentions. I am very open about it, I think

they are outdated and do not think they are there. They are

particularly unfair to small businesses. The Minister then said,

the honourable gentleman can be sure that this Minister gives her word

that this matter is not going to be kicked into the long grass. In fact,

it is very short grass that has only just grown, because the review will

be completed by March, then recommendations will be out to

public consultation. If legislation is required as a result, I will be

happy to be the Minister to take it through. Here we are in April 2017,

the process being kicked back this year, now we have a general election

causing further delay. We're not just in the long grass, we're then

longer as growing out of a sea of mud. The consultation will be

consulted on again once completed. So any new government will not move

on this until after the summer recess. I would plead that there is

consideration of suitable secondary legislation to be enacted early.

I have been contacted by companies in my constituency affected by the

non-release of these retentions. One company wanted to remain anonymous

and would not name the company they were having difficulty with because

the difficulty is they still have to tender for more work from that

company with holding the money, so they did not want to upset them, and

that is how the market share operates. I care a tribute to the

Scottish and Northern Ireland's plumbers' Federation, the National

Confederation Of Building Contractors, and others. They have

raised these matters with myself. The companies and organisations are

fed up with blockages from Government. The Scottish Government

has been operating a project bank account system to ensure

subcontractors get paid in time and the Government pays the main

contractor. This can be adapted to include retentions. The tenancy

deposit scheme is the model which should be adopted for cash

retentions. This could already have been in place at the Government

accepted the Enterprise Bill but this year alone we have seen

examples of thousands of pounds worth of retentions lost, when a

company in Northern Ireland went into liquidation in January. With an

article in The Times in February this year, the main contractors

treat retentions as their own money. It can take up to five years to get

a bill settled. Retention monies are ring-fenced in several accounts in

countries such as the US, Australia, New Zealand and certain EU member

states. As already outlined, we know what the problem is. It has existed

for well over 50 years. We know there is a solution for works, and

it works in other countries. The Government has acknowledged

cross-party support for ending cash retentions. I have outlined today

this is a UK wide issue that requires UK Government action. I do

urge the Government to support the Bill and if I'm lucky enough to be

re-elected, I continue to pursue this issue. The question is that he

have to leave to bring in his bill. As many as are of that opinion, say

"aye". To the contrary, "no". I think the ayes have it. Who will

prepare and bring in the bill? Hannah Medel, Gavin Newlands, Stuart

Blair Donaldson, Bill S Duffin, Patricia Gibson, Doctor Philippa

Whitford, Mark Duncan, a beast Simpson and myself, Mr Speaker. --

Davies Simpson and myself. Mr Alan Brown.

Construction Industry (Protection of Cash Retentions) Bill Bill. Second

reading, what day? 12th of May. Order. Business of the House. 24th,

25th, 26 and 20 7th of April. The question of the business house as on

the order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say "aye". To the

contrary, "no". . The ayes have it. Ways and means motion. Beg to move.

The question is the Digital Economy Bill. The question is as on the

order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

"no". . I think the ayes have it. The clerk will read the orders of

the day. Digital Economy Bill, consideration of Lords amendments. I

must draw attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by

Lords' amendments 248-254. If the House agrees them, I will cause an

appropriate entry to be made in the journal. The motion to be taken is

to disagree with the Lords in their amendment one, with which we will

consider Government amendments a - see in you and the others as on the

selection paper. To move to disagree with Lords amendment one, I call the

minister. Minister Hancock. I am delighted that today we have the

final opportunity to scrutinise the Digital Economy Bill and I hope get

it onto the statute book before the dissolution of Parliament. The bill

has been widely supported during its passage. It tackles head on some

serious issues which many in this House feel strongly about. It will

help extend digital conductivity, protect children from online

pornography, and better deliver Government services. The other House

has made some amendments so I will go through these in turn. Lords

amendment one challenges the Government to be more ambitious on

universal digital connectivity. It forms part of our plan to deliver

better connectivity, helping to ensure everyone gets decent

broadband and no one is left behind. However, we have some serious

concerns about amendment once and whether it is deliverable. As

drafted, it is counter-productive to the implementation of a USO because

of the risk of legal challenge and the delay this will cause. We are

legislating for this USO under the EU telecoms legislative framework in

which a USO is intended to ensure a baseline of services where a

substantial majority have taken up the service but the market has not

delivered and where users are at risk of social exclusion. According

to Ofcom's latest data, in 2016, take-up of ultrafast broadband with

download speed of 300 megabits per second and higher was less than

0.01%, so we are nowhere near able to demonstrate that the majority of

the public have this access. We therefore cannot accept amendment

one and we are not in a position, also of a substantial majority

having taken up superfast broadband. However I support the ambition of

faster and better broadband and so we propose an amendment in you which

says that any broadband USO should... And the Government should

direct Ofcom to review the minimum speed once superfast take-up is 75%.

This gives the assurance that any USO speed will reconsidered once a

substantial majority of subscribers are on superfast. Lords amendment

two seeks to tackle a number of issues related to mobile phones and

frustration about service. I understand that, representing a

ruble constituency, and this bill is designed to address them in the new

electronic code, switching and powers. But Lords amendment two is

not the answer. It is an understandable reaction to faults in

the market, but first the requirement to allow customers to

Rome is unclear and there have been doubts about whether it would --

they would be able to do it legally. Whilst superficially attractive

roaming it's the wrong solution, why would operators improve their

coverage when a competitor can reap the war rewards -- the rewards?

Taking roaming off the table in 2014 locked in ?5 billion of investment

to improve mobile infrastructure in the UK and 4G coverage from all

operators has grown from 29% to 22% in the last year. Second, on

switching the bill already has greater provision on switching, and

this provision concerns operators all telecoms services including

fixed line broadband, pay-TV, not just mobile phones, and Ofcom is

better placed to ensure companies improve the level of their service.

On Bill capping it, this is something the Government intended to

look at in the consumer rights look at in the consumer rights

paper, and something that is already offered by some providers, so while

we can't accept the Lords amendment two, we can see the benefits of

customers being able to limit use. Providers must ensure that those

with existing contracts will also have the opportunity to place a

limit on their bill. This will not affect any obligations regarding

contacting the emergency services, be that through voice call or text

message. Moving on to Lords amendment 40 and the proposed code

of practice for social media platform providers in online abuse,

want to start by saying we agree with the spirit of the amendment

that was agreed in the Other Place. We take harm caused by online abuse

and bullying very seriously. We offer an alternative close that we

think will achieve the intended outcome and will form part of our

work to improve internet safety next Parliament. Our amendment seeks to

provide a code of practice to protect users of online services and

set out the behaviour social media companies should follow. It will

give guidance for how providers respond to harmful behaviour such as

bullying. There is good work being done by some providers to prevent

the use of platforms for illegal purposes and potential criminal

conduct, were reported to the police, will continue to be liable

to investigation. We already expect social media providers to work

closely with law enforcement in relation to potential unlawful

activity taking place on these sights. But other uses of social

media might be cruel or upsetting or insulting but nevertheless legal.

There is more that can be done to tackle online abuse like bullying

and other serious issues which people face, which face our children

and young people. The code will set out guidance about what social media

providers should do in relation to convert that is lawful but not

molest distressing or upsetting. Our intention -- lawful but distressing

or upsetting. Social media companies have recently put in place some

improvements to make their platforms safer but we all agree they still

have some way to go and this amendment will be helpful in

achieving that. Turning to Lords amendment 230 seven, 238 and 230

nine. These amendments would establish a BBC licence fee

commission to make a recommendation on the level of the licence fee

required to fund the BBC. For a full public consultation on the

appropriate level of BBC funding. But we do not believe it is right

for an unelected body effectively to set tax rates. It is a long

established principle that the Government does not consult on the

level of taxation, and therefore the amendments are not only impractical

but also unnecessary. Lords amendment 242. It extends the public

service broadcast regime to OnDemand menus and platforms. I know we

recently consulted on this and concluded that we saw no compelling

evidence to change the regime but I understand the impulse behind the

amendment, to ensure that PSB channels are readily available as

technologies are changing. But there is podcasting and Internet-based

viewing and they are completely different. The amendment extends the

prominence regime to content originating from the non-PSB

portfolio channels of the commercial PSBs. It also seeks to remove

Ofcom's discretion in applying prominence rules and defines the

current definition of an EPG to include smart TV interfaces, which

we are told would ultimately put up the cost of a television. So we

cannot accept the amendment but we do understand the strength of

feeling in both houses on this issue so we have tabled in view of Lords

amendment 242 to place a new requirement on the needs of finding

and accessing PSB content across all TV platforms. If Ofcom's makes clear

there was a problem in this area that can only be fixed by

legislation, then assuming that this Government returns in June, I can

commit we will bring forward that legislation as soon as reasonably

possible. Another area that has raised serious concern is secondary

ticketing. Here I want to pay tribute to colleagues across this

has for their work but in particular my honourable friend the member for

Selby, who is in his place in a bright blue suit. Since this issue

was debated in the House, we have published our response to the review

accepting the recommendations in full, introduced Lords amendment 247

to give the Government the power to introduce a criminal offence,

provided funding to national trading standards for enforcement,

facilitated the sector's operation in cyber security networks, and

launched an enforcement investigation into suspected

breaches of consumer protection law in the online secondary ticketing

market. But that is not enough, and noble Lords also added amendment 246

to the bill, requiring ticket resellers to provide buyers with the

ticket reference or buying number in any specific condition attached to

the reseller of the ticket. We agree in principle. We have got some

concerns over its practicality and the provision relating to reductions

on tickets that also duplicates provisions in the Consumer Rights

Act, so we tabled our amendment to Lords amendment 246, which requires

that any unique ticket number must be identified, which we intend to

have the same effect, and we will also continue to work with the

industry to reduce the risk of fraud or unwarranted cancellation of

tickets. I would also like to say a few words

about amendments we are proposing to accept an age verification for

online pornography, part three of the bill. Age verification of people

accessing pornography is a hugely important part of the bill, and has

been welcomed across the House. While the intention of the bill is

about protecting children, the scope of material for adults that the

regulator can act against has prompted much debate in the other

place, where we heard concerns that the current prohibited material

definition may be going too far in the type of material regulator is

able to block. Our goal is to ensure that children are prevented from

accessing online pornography. Our amendment therefore redefines the

scope of the material, taking an approach based on the definition of

extreme pornographic image in the criminal Justice and immigration act

2008. I would like to confirm that this does not change the definition

of what is and what is not lawful for adults to view, and indeed in

the Lords amendment 45 we made absolutely clear that content behind

age verification controls can still be subject to criminal sanctions

provided by existing legislation. What is illegal off-line is illegal

online. And where material is criminal in nature, and not hosted

in the UK, the National Crime Agency is see op command works with

international partners to address this material at you dudes diction.

-- the Ceop division. Ceop considers illegal or inappropriate content

with children. I recognise that for many the Digital economy Bill

represents unfinished business in re forming the law in this area.

Internet safety strategy is already underway and will look into the

questions of safety on the Internet, and we will agree with Lords

amendment 41, which requires the Secretary of State to produce a

report on the impact and effectiveness of the new regulatory

framework for online pornography. It precludes -- includes a requirement

to consult on the definitions in this bill. The ability for the

regulator to block noncompliant sites of a significant step.

Noncompliant sites should be blocked we're recommended by the regulator

to do so. But nothing is 100% effective. I am delighted we have

made this much progress in this bill to protect children from harmful

content online, and I pay tribute to the work of many members, including

my old friend, the Member for Devizes, Hampshire, the former

Secretary of State, the select committee and others. And I look

forward to putting this Bill into action. Turning to the other

amendments made by the other place, Lords amendment 46 fulfils our

manifesto commitment just in time to enhance the public lending Right by

extending it so that authors of e-book standard audio books have the

right to receive payment from the government for remote landing of

these books from public libraries. -- lending. Amendment 240 concerns

children's TV programming. We have extended tax relief for animation to

children's TV, and this amendment, proposed by an strongly supported by

Baroness Benjamin in the other place, and powers of common to

support children's TV further if necessary. Lords amendment 241

concerns accessibility of on demand programmes. We debated this in this

House report stage last November and I paid tribute on action on hearing

loss as well as honourable members who impressed this matter. Ofcom

will now have the power to ensure subtitles are other appropriate

provision is put in place. Lords amendment 243 concerns listed

events. In the UK the listed events regime provides coverage of sports

events with national significance, and this amendment will make sure

this is future proof does TV changes with new technologies. Amendment 244

creates a new power for the Secretary of State to protect a

policy statement relating to telecommunications for the

management of radio spectrum and postal services for Ofcom as the

regulator. .Com will have regard to this when carrying out their

statutory duties. The reason for this is that during the passage of

this bill, there has been the ability to change provider,

connectivity, and lots of other things, is things like the universal

service obligation. This will allow the government to define a clear

policy on these matters to ensure a greater coherence in an increasingly

complex and interlinked environment. I want to thank off, for all the

work they have done supporting the package of this Bill is an excellent

ensure the bill was amended in the ensure the bill was amended in the

Lords to tackle concerns in the EU neutrality ... Lords amendment 249

response to an operational requirement of the police, who

require support in tackling gangs especially in large urban areas, who

supplied drugs in suburban areas, market and coastal towns, especially

class a drugs, to support their market expansion, gangs recruit and

exploit children and vulnerable adults through intimidation,

violent, debt, bondage and grooming. They are used to carry drugs with

money. I want to pay tribute again to my old friend from North West

Hampshire for his long campaign on this, and the work in the Home

Office by my honourable friend the Minister for safeguarding, and with

this amendment to the police will be able to disrupt the mobile phones

that the drugs gangs rely on. Lords amendments 249-25 at the start of

reforms to the Data Protection Act. The new legal framework coming into

force in May 2018, paving the way to ensure that funding mechanism can be

put in place and time and provide certainty for data controllers.

Lords amendments 253-255, a concern the Crown guarantee for BT pensions.

They are necessary following the announcement on the 10th of March of

a deal between BT and accurately that will legally separate BT and

open beach. We welcome the split, and these amendments ensure the

split does not affect peoples pensions. I will give way. We do not

have BT open reach in Northern Ireland at all, to roll out with

broadband, as that is carried out by BT itself. Is there any provision

for Northern Ireland? The provision in the bill as to ensure that those

protections will be able to detain that protection when they

transferred to the separate organisation, OpenReach. Those who

are not leaving BT Group, there will be no change to the pension

arrangements, so they are not negatively affected either, but the

provision is not necessary. It is necessary to allow the split to take

place without detriment or added benefit to any current BT employee,

so the Crown guarantee continues to operate as is today. Further

technical amendments have been made regarding whistle-blowing. And to

define the electronic communication cord, one of the core measures of

this Bill which will be a crucial enabler. I wanted to say that there

have been improvements to this Bill, thanks to the work of many people

across this House, but in particular... Yes, of course. Before

he closes, I hope he will recognise, he spoke about the missed

opportunities in terms of this Bill, does he recognise that he leads this

Parliament with data-sharing and the rights of citizens over their own

data in a worse state of chaos and total unknown mess across

departments that it was when he took up the role, I think just over a

week ago -- a year ago. The honourable lady is normally so

reasonable and constructive that the electioneering must have got into

her. Because I am afraid I do not recognise that. We have made

considerable progress on data-sharing in this Bill, but the

rules around data are going to evolve, not least because there are

European rules that come into force before we leave the European Union.

Yes, there is more work to do, but she has had -- she should not be so

churlish about this Bill. Would he then answer the question, do

citizens own and control their own data? Yes or no? Of course, citizens

elect the government, and in many cases the government is responsible

for data, and having democratic legitimacy behind the control of

data is critical to a functioning democracy. No doubt in the future

this will be an issue that we can return to. There are not any Lords

amendments that I have described in this area. And I think the Bill

makes significant progress. I wanted to end by paying tribute to the

honourable lady opposite, who has worked hard on the bill, made some

suggestions we have taken on board, and been a pleasure to work with, to

negotiate with, and has been a very effective... She tells me when I'm

complementary about her that I'm damaging her career no end! And so I

hope she takes these compliments in the way that they are intended. And

with that, I beg to move. The question is that this House

disagrees with the Lords under Amendment one. Louise Haig. Thank

you. The Minister knows he makes me deeply uncomfortable when we agree

on anything, including compliments from across the dispatch box! But it

is a great privilege to respond for the opposition today and be part of

the closing stages of this Bill, which is in better shape thanks to

deliberations across the House, and exemplary cross-party working when

it was first introduced last year. We're Stokely at -- still clear from

the opposition benches that this does not go far enough in some

crucial areas and that is a missed opportunity to update

infrastructure, on skills strategy, finance, responsibilities in the

digital age, and drives individuals should have in this era, when data

is increasingly a currency that matters above all. But there have

been some useful changes and I am grateful to the Minister for his

considered opinion regarding the government bid... Amendment one has

sought to increase broadband to superfast levels to ensure that

every household in the country can benefit from speeds of at least 30

megabits a second. The benefits of this do not need espousing again. We

have debated them at length. The House is united on the need for much

improved speeds and reliability of broadband across the country. I know

the Minister's own constituency has fallen down the rankings in terms of

superfast availability during his tenure. Said he will be keen to

tackle this. 59% of Britain has access to superfast speeds, and a

shopping 40% in rural hamlets do not even have access to basic broadband.

In my city of Sheffield, superfast access is no means universal, we

have the biggest availability of any major city in the UK. I appreciate

the arguments around the universal service directive, but it is

disappointing that more of an effort was not made at an earlier stage of

the bill today is the argument on this, given Ofcom has made the case

clearly that it is better value for money for the taxpayer to intervene

in the market now and future proof the 30 megabits per and. The

European Commission has provided non-binding guidance in its latest

review of universal service in 2011, so it is not entirely clear that a

superfast designation is beyond the scope of their directive. The legal

perspective is only one of the tools the government has as it -- at its

proposal. Ofcom reviews the USO accordingly, tying the USO to the

rest of the market in ensuring that the last ten, five or 1% do not fall

too far behind the rest of the UK. We would have liked to see the

government back 30 megabits in its entirety and I do not accept that

millions of consumers and businesses should be (.

This was an opportunity to prepare the UK for the digital future and

although this is a step forward, it is a baby step. I'll amendment to,

it is fantastic the Government has put the accepted the case we put

forward on Bill capping, allowing consumers to put a monthly cap on

their bill. There are some providers providing bill caps already. Tesco

Mobile and 3, mobile are leading the way. There are in addition some

smaller companies such as plus net which has a smart cap automatically

set at ?10, and another one which has a ?5 cap. That predicted

possible and commercially viable for companies to introduce such a

measure, however there is currently not the sector wide standard we

would like to see. So this amendment will provide basic protections

across the whole sector for all consumers and we are delighted that

the Government, who opposed this when the bill was passing through

the Commons, has seen sense and been persuaded by the strength of our

Ottomans. On pornography and age verification is, all sides of the

House have worked together in partnership and often in unison and

part three of this bill. The original intention remains intact,

to protect children from the harmful effects of pornography, and I am

delighted the House has worked together to ensure we will have one

of the most effective regimes in the world for protecting children. The

digital age brings responsibilities and this is recognition of that

fact. The bill has grown beyond the narrow bounds of age verification

during its passage. The blocking measures for age are fixation which

we supported at all supporters into the contentious areas of what is

categorised as extreme pornography or prohibited material. This could

have been welcome opportunity to fully debate what should and should

not be accessible on the internet but due to the late editions of

amendments, it curtailed debate, and it is vital that these issues are

properly debated, as we tread a very thin line between protection and

censorship, so we are pleased the Government has accepted our

reasonable amendment that requires the Secretary of State to produce a

report on the impact and effectiveness of this regular to

refrain work, and crucially also requires Government to consult on

the definitions in this bill of extreme pornography. I will give

way. Would she agree with me, though, that in setting out these

definitions of prohibited material and extreme pornography, and I will

speak about this later, we will have -- we have left ourselves in a

quandary, when material that she and I would probably agree is completely

unacceptable can in theory be viewed behind age filters. I had from the

minister that he is prepared to continue this unfinished business.

Will she and her party commit to try to work out these definitions in the

next Parliament to ensure we can come to a better place? That is

exactly why be pushed these amendments in the Lords and we are

so pleased to see the Government accepted. We do need a clear

consultation. It is my understanding though in new legislation that has

passed, that nothing considered will be able to be viewed height age

filters, whether it is prohibited or extreme or otherwise. It will be

required to be behind age verification filters. She is right,

but she will know that the original definition referred to five

statutes. We now have a definition that is much tighter. Specifically

because items that were in the broader definition were now deemed

to be not obscene, and I agree with that, but the problem is that

material that 85% of people have viewed it the should not be

accessible on the internet for anyone, could potentially be

accessible behind those filters for anyone to see, and that is the

problem that I think we need to collectively solve. She's absolutely

right and it is true to say that material is currently available

without any age filters. So we have made substantial progress in this

area and it is very welcome that we have. But this consultation will be

absolutely crucial in the next Parliament and we look forward to

participating in that debate and making sure we get the best possible

regime for online pornography. Their balls are several Government

amendments brought forward in the Lords on age verification -- there

are also several Government amendments. The effectiveness of

measures will be determined by the technology used. If we are not

careful, we could either end up with age verification that can be too

easily by past -- far too easily bypassed, or intrusive and therefore

push viewers on two sides that do not use age verification, or illegal

sides that straight into much more damaging runs. Proportionality is at

the heart of these proposals and I would like to push the minister to

say something more on this when he speaks again. The BBFC have

intimated that the likely preference is age verified mobile teller funny,

but there are significant privacy issues with this approach and we

should proceed with caution before creating any process in storing data

that could be leaked, hacked or commercialised, and would otherwise

be completely private and legitimate. Concerns have been

raised about the BBFC and the appropriateness to be the tax-free

regulator, and I'm therefore grateful that the minister has

listened to these concerns and guidance will now be issued by the

Secretary of State and then issued to the regulator. I want to put

those concerned on the record here again and ensure that the report

that the Secretary of State produces on the effectiveness of the

regulation also covers the regulated itself. I will be grateful for

clarification from the minister on this point also. On the social media

code of conduct, we are delighted that the Government has taken a

decisive step in the right direction. This amendment requires

the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice for online social

media platforms in relation to bullying, directing insolence or

other behaviour likely to intimidate or upset. It is important to tackle

bullying online. While social media has brought transformative and

significant change for the good, it has also significantly to an

exponential increase in bullying. It is estimated that seven in ten young

people have experienced cyberbullying, with many I frequent

basis. It can lead to anxiety, depression and even suicide. This is

the first time social media providers will be legislated for on

this issue and will now be required to her processes in in place to

respond. Some providers have taken sets to address these issues but the

pace of change has to keep up with the scale of the problem. It is

absolutely right that the Government has taken decisive legislative acts

action and it would be great if the minister could confirming his

remarks that there will be full public consultation in the drafting

of this code of conduct. We're happy to support the Government's

amendment that require Ofcom to review on a regular basis at

electronic programme guides in relations to the public service

broadcasting and the indications of change in technology that is taking

place on public service broadcasting. We are pleased that

the minister has confirmed that any necessary powers will be transparent

to Ofcom should they be required to intervene on this. -- powers will be

transferred. My right honourable friend has helped to make

significant progress on tackling abuses in the secondary ticket

market. Music fans across the country will be thanking all those

involved in this campaign but we recognise there is still more to be

done and that the review must be implement it in full in the next

Parliament. On each lending and on demand accessibility, we are pleased

that the minister has accepted the Lords' amendments. Finally, I would

say that whilst the bill has made significant improvements, and it has

been a privilege to enter negotiations with the Government,

and it also, as the minister says, has been a privilege to negotiate

with him, I would just finished by saying this. This legislation is not

a bill for the digital economy. The technology sector waited eagerly for

the Government's strategy for this crucial area of our economy for well

over a year and to say that it was disappointed with a lack of ambition

and the strategic direction in both this bill and the Government's

eventual strategy would be a gross understatement. Our burgeoning

digital economy is the largest in the world and growing at a rate we

could hardly have expected even a decade ago but after seven years of

a Conservative Government, 12 million people still lack basic

digital skills. And businesses do not have access to superfast

broadband. Britain doesn't even feature on the fibre broadband

league table and 4G mobile coverage lacks firmly behind our major

competitors. Too often, workers will find themselves underpaid and

exploited by bosses they never even meet and who don't fulfil their

basic duties as an employer. People across the countries of the

exclusion because I digital technologies behind. Now would have

been the time to lay the foundations for a truly world leading economy

with digital inclusion at its heart. These foundations must be built and

responsibilities. Responsibilities from employers to the workforce,

responsibilities of the Digital giants to their users, and the

responsibility of Government to create the situation in which

digital can transform our economy. There was a alarming lack of

ambition for the country, a worrying indication of the Government's

priorities in terms of technology as we Brexit. I can assure the House

that come June the 9th, when I am preparing to take the minister's

place, it is the Labour Party that will have the vision of the

infrastructure, skills and finance that will be championing this

sector, which is central to the UK's ability to thrive in Brexit. We

welcome the improvements that have been made in this bill but I hope

that however the next Parliament looks, our digital economy is given

far greater prominence and priority. I welcome this bill and the

amendments that the Government is supporting from the Lords. This bill

does take place, the debate exposed against the background of the UK

creative economy, the leading creative and technology economy in

Europe. London is by far and away the leading technology city in

Europe and one of the major centres of the world. The creative and

digital economy has been a major factor in our growth and is a

success story in this country. The bill brings in necessary and welcome

measures for reform but elderly position of considerable strength

where the UK tech economy is the envy of Europe and many others in

the world. I particularly thank the Government for the intervention on

the question of the resale of ticketing online, the abuse in the

secondary market. This follows on the campaign by the honourable lady

and my honourable friend in championing this cause. They brought

it to the attention of the select committee and we held at first

hearing on this question in November just before the report stage debate

here in the Commons, with cross-party support we tabled

amendment seeking legislative reform to combat the use of robots and the

failure of people to correctly identify tickets when sold on

secondary markets. The member for West Suffolk said the Government

would consider the presentations made and consider amendments to the

bill in the Lords. That has taken place so I congratulate him and his

Department and the Secretary of State for the interest they have

shown in this subject, for the round tables Bates posted and the support

given to amend the Bill. It is important that people buying tickets

online know what they are buying. I welcome the decision for the

investigation to be opened to ensure that the existing consumer

protection is being enforced. I welcome what the minister has said,

that there should be a unique reference them on a ticket that can

be seen when someone purchases it. That does make it easier to identify

who the reseller of the ticket is. But others stressed that there is

also the question of consumers buying tickets where the seat

number, the row number, isn't clear when they buy it. A reference number

may not tell them when the theatre they are buying a ticket for and

people end up paying inflated prices for a cheap ticket that they could

have bought themselves online, and are not aware of that. Many of the

venues that have given evidence to the Senate committee has given

evidence about that too. That should be referred to the commission to

ensure that the existing consumer protection is enforced and action is

taken against those who breach it but the Bill should -- the amendment

to the bill to make sure that is taken into account is welcome, too.

There has been widespread abuse in the market here and it is good to

see these reforms will combat that. I would like to touch on the code of

practice for online social media platforms. This is out of the debate

about Internet safety and in particularly, cyber-bullying. There

are many areas of practice of social media companies which are giving

cause for concern. One of the reports was linked to the sale of

tickets online as well. In particular were social media

platforms are promoting and supporting ticketing site selling

tickets that had been fraudulently acquired or fraudulently sold. It

shouldn't be the case that should be done. It is important to have a

debate around the broader debate about social issues like fake news

as well. To consider the social obligations social media companies

and platforms had to protect users from harmful or misleading content,

to make sure there is some fair redress for people when they are the

victims of that and for the companies to recognise they do have

an obligation. It would be interesting to consider, after the

election, when looking at some of these important issues, whether we

would consider the role for some broad obligation that can be placed

in statute on these companies linked to a failure to act. Whereby

somebody has referred to the company, evidence of harmful

contents, illicit content on the site and the company has failed to

act against it, there is some measure of redress against them as

well. This is the first step in looking into the broader obligations

from social media companies. It feels only fitting you are in the

chair, as I have my last opportunity before we break up and you are

therefore my maiden speech. It is lovely to see. Can I welcome the

changes to this Bill? I believe we have worked very well, as the

minister and the member for Sheffield Healy outlined. He is at

least wearing red Sox, so that would be some view you have an influence

on him. You are shaking your head but I think the honourable lady is

correct. It is correct we should have been able to go on a journey

with this bill. When we sat in the Bill committee, there was concern it

did need significant improvement. Even though we have managed to put a

lot more onto the face of the bill, something we have urged all along, I

still think there are some deeply worrying areas that will need to be

revisited, in particular around data-sharing. It won't surprise

members that know me, I want to exclusively focus my comments on

connectivity, given the member for Sheffield Healy has covered every

other aspect so wonderfully well. Connectivity is a fundamental issue

in rural communities. It is the lifeblood of our communities. It is

no longer the ropes, they still complain about them, it is the

superhighways of the Internet people are desperately concerned about. We

welcome the government's move with a universal service obligation. We

would have liked to have seen, as we have heard, more ambition. The 30

meg option which was one of the options put forward by Ofcom

highlights this was feasible, it was possible. I don't accept the

government's argument that it was not possible because of the

mechanism itself. If that truly is the case, then perhaps we are

choosing the wrong mechanism. If not, choosing the wrong mechanism,

but we need to put into place other measures that will ensure that rural

communities are not left behind. It is true that in areas in my

constituency such as oxen, ten meg would be a huge step forward as they

have 12 kilobits. So it will be welcome. But it will be overtaken in

Scotland by the Scottish Government's commitment to 30 meg.

The Minister has talked this town saying we are showing more ambition

in Scotland because this could go further, because it is open. But the

end product lets us down. In Scotland, the Scottish Government

has committed 230 meg to 1% of the population over the course the

current Scottish parliament. When we look at what will happen in terms of

the government's offer here, this trigger mechanism of 75%

subscription rates. 2016, only 31% were getting 30 meg and the year

before, in 2015, it was only 27%. If you are a constituent in England,

Wales and Northern Ireland, how long are you going to have to wait before

you catch up and get to 75%. What this highlights, it could have been

an ambitious measure to close the digital divide, or simply a safety

net, it is quite clearly the latter. I think it is fine, so long as it is

clearly articulated as such. Because, actually other things can

be done. As the Minister knows, I have been a huge advocate of

vouchers. I was disappointed about your alternative was not put in. I

welcome the government's move at the end of last year when they did bring

forward a consultation on vouchers. The consultation, as I understand,

is ready to report. I accept that as a valid excuse on this occasion,

that we cannot continue that discussion for a number of weeks.

But I want to urge the government to live up to its ambition. The

Minister says fibre means fibre and fibre is the future. The Chancellor

talks about millions for fibre and five GE. What they need to make sure

is that it is universally available. Based on the government's strategy,

all of it will flow to urban areas without specific policies that

ensure it goes into the role rural economy also. The government in its

rush to get back up at the fibre league tables will show the same

inevitable pragmatism as it has on. I the government to use the

opportunity of an election, to put in the manifesto, a commitment to

vouchers, a commitment to empowering rural areas because in the Scottish

Borders, I have set up a Scottish Borders digital Forum and that

brings together all the community councillors. We have been looking at

solutions, looking at the options and considering how we not only

catch up, but put in place structures that ensure we do not

fall behind in future. And it will push fibre slightly further and we

will see copper and some wireless. If we get the right support,

communities in my constituency who want to do community fibre schemes

could leap ahead and that is where the voucher schemes could prove so

valuable. So perhaps the Minister, if he is not saving it for some

future date, could confirm whether vouchers are something he will

support and perhaps fit into this model so constituents in the Borders

can actually leap forward in terms of their speeds. Because if we don't

show more ambition in this area, actually put more money into it,

what you will see is this government's policy winding,

cementing in the digital divide, telling constituents in rural areas,

you can only get 10 megabits. Asked in the cities, people are getting

gigabits. I am sure many honourable members here, not least those in

rural constituencies, we would consider that a failure in

government policy. Take the opportunity, show the ambition and

make sure we realise the full potential of fibre and connectivity

into the future. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will close just by

thanking again, the way the team have worked here. I would like to

have been consulted a bit more, I would have liked to have seen a bit

foresight and ambition in the whole scheme, but this Bill represents

progress, even as said, they are baby steps. For this final

opportunity to speak on this Bill, I am particularly pleased, given all

our hard work and the fact the government has made time so we can

complete this as a priority during this final week. I will confine my

remarks to two provisions, Lords amendments 246 and 247 which address

problems in the secondary ticketing market. That I and many music fans

have been personally affected. These are proposals we have refined

through various stages of the bill committee and discussed at length in

the culture, media and sport select committee. I want to thank my

honourable friend for helping us here detailed evidence on this

important issue and my colleagues on the committee for their tenacious

advocacy for both producers and fans of sport, theatre and music, as well

as they're constructed work to allow the committee to make some unanimous

recommendations at committee stage. Also, would he agree with me, it is

regret that the company did not appear in front of the committee to

give evidence and people can draw their own conclusions that they did

not appear? I agree, it is despicable they have dodged and been

slippery around attending the select committee. There have been so many

victims of Via Go Go and they should have come and explain themselves. So

I agree with my honourable friend. At this juncture, I don't know if

you will go on to mention another campaign, and they don't want to

steal your thunder if you are... His thunder? Yes, his thunder, I want to

mention the number that was mentioned in an e-mail I know you

have had, he has had... You would think I would have got the hang of

it by now, I have been doing it for 12 years. I will try to get the

protocol right. I know she has been in touch and the numbers are

shocking. They have already refunded ?51,000 to the victims of Via Go Go

and I was astonished that there is still 418 members waiting to join

the group. I can assure the honourable lady my thunder is very

much intact still and hasn't been stolen. I totally agree, the

campaign that Clare Turnham has ran has been exemplary. But she

shouldn't have had to run her campaign. The customer services team

at Viagogo should have dealt with the complaints that were flooding

in. I suspect it is not the last we will have heard of Viagogo in this

place. While we have not been able to conclude the enquiry due to the

impending dissolution, I hope our successor committee, however it is

comprised will adopt the evidence we have heard and continue that work. I

would like, it just thank the honourable lady from Sunderland

West, who has campaigned for years to get wider attention for the

problems with secondary ticketing. Based on the number of people across

the country who have shared their stories of being ripped off or

missing out on a favourite show because of the practices of

parasitical touts, I would imagine there are now a large number of

colleagues across this House who have also heard from affected

constituents, how these practices are poisoning our cultural wealth,

both for fans and creators. Amendment 247 will prohibit breaches

of ticket sales limits helping combat touts using bot software to

gobble up tickets before genuine fans can get them. I tabled a

version of this amendment at committee stage and the select

committee tank fully added their names. I'm grateful to ministers, in

particular, my honourable friend for West Suffolk, a huge Paul Simon

Funk, who I know has had experience is trying to gain Paul Simon

tickets, as well as members from the other plays for their cooperation in

flushing out the legal details for a workable law. And to the Secretary

of State for her work in engaging very closely with the industry. It

is particularly important this amendment provides for an unlimited

fine when someone is found guilty of this offence. Fans and ticket agents

have been engaged in a technological arms race against increasingly

sophisticated touts, Madam Deputy Speaker. They can make tens of

thousands of profit in one go from one pair of tickets. To prevent fans

being fleeced and protect the rights of artists to decide how they want

to sell their tickets, we need to make touting a genuinely bad

proposition for those seeking to make a quick windfall. Smaller fine

simply would not have done this, so I am pleased this law has teeth.

Amendment 246 to augment the consumer rights act 2015 provisions

that require transparency, declaration of certain transparency

to the buyer during ticket resale. We have heard time and time again

from people that have bought tickets from touts only to find that they

were misled about the validity of the tickets or have been denied

entry. Artists and venues who have anti-touting policies but who cannot

enforce the policies because touts and resale websites either flout the

consumer rights act or are not required under the consumer rights

act to declare enough information for them to identify and cancel

these tickets. Some of the stories are

heart-breaking, Madam Deputy Speaker and one of the worst offenders has

be Viagogo, which in addition to often completely ignoring consumer

right acts requirements to declare information like the face value of

the ticket, as often failed to display to consumetering full price

they would be paying for the resale tickets. Fans who thought they could

be paying a couple of hundred pounds would end up instead finding that

their credit cards have been charged amounts into the thousands. For

some, the dire financial straits this put them in has led them into

panic attacks and even consideration of suicide. The victims of Viagogo

Group we have heard about, has identified 108,000 pounds of refunds

owed of which less than half has been refunded.

The group has hundreds upon hundreds more ripped off fans waiting to

join. Even when a refund is given, people are still left without

tickets for events they were excited about. So that's disappointed

children and their family day ruined.

As was the case for one woman who hoped to surprise her husband with

concert tickets when he came home from serving in Afghanistan. The

Select Committee invited, as we have heard, Viagogo to respond to our

questions, but, as you saw, they left an empty chair. I hope our

successor committee does not let this pass. Lord's amendment 246 and

the Government amendment to it are important because adding a unique

ticket reference number to any ticket resale will both allow

consumers to check with the venue in advance of the purchase whether that

ticket would be valid and will also allow artists and venues to enforce

their terms and conditions and cancel touted tickets.

There is no point in making a rule if you can't enforce it and it's

high time for touts to learn that they can't simply continue on with

impunity. Therefore I would ask that ministers going forward work with

the industry to establish in regulations what constitutes a

unique ticket number. A number that will be identifiable to venues. If

this happens, this is genuine progress and I'm grateful to the

Government for getting behind it. However, it was originally included

in lore's amendment 246 to also add a requirement to the CRA to list any

terms and conditions associated with resale of a ticket and the

Government amendment has deleted this provision, contending that it's

already covered under section 93-B. What I've learnt seems to indicate

that this is significantly less clear. An unequivocal statement from

the minister here today that this is the case would be a welcome step. I

would also be grate if you feel we could look further into this in the

future. Going back to the point about a law being only as good as

its enforcement, one problem we have is that there have not yet been any

prosecutions under the consumer rights act 2015 for violations to do

with secondary ticketing. Instead, the CMA is undertaking a review. The

review's welcome and should I be re-elected, I will be most

interested in the conclusions of that review.

But there have clearly been many a myriad violations to do with ticket

resaling. Without having been able to test the laws fudge shucking in

court, we don't know if it's effective and fit for purpose --

laws functioning in court. Not to mention, it's not serving as the

robust protection for consumers this it was intended to be. An example.

Metallica, a group I'm sure you are very familiar with as a very popular

UK tour coming up this autumn. There are strict conditions attached to

the tickets, including that the lead booker must enter with others in

their party which is limited to a McMum of four, they must present

photo ID matching the name on the purchase -- maximum of four. All the

conditions have been clearly listed by the primary sellers which are

Ticketmaster and the Ticket Factory. The fan fair alliance who does great

work in this area has found multiple listings on Ticketmaster's secondary

sites, Get Me In and Seat Wave, as well as Stub Hub and Viagogo which

do not note the conditions. It's a disaster waiting to happen for fans

if the venues follow through on enforcing the conditions. So whether

the problem is one of enforcement of the CRA or one of the CRA being

unclear, it certainly needs sorting out. We are not currently seeing the

conditions being consistently declared.

I personally cannot see how it would be harmful to make the consumer

rights act absolutely clear on this at this juncture and I would

appreciate the minister's clarification. While we have thus

achieved great progress in this area, there do remain problems

within secondary ticketing to consider in the future. There seems

to be a number of dodgy practices yet to be investigated. This week I

heard from someone who'd recently resold spare tickets on Stub Hub. He

told me he priced the tickets below other sellers, closer to their face

value, and instead of a fan buying them, the buyer tells me it was Stub

Hub themselves that actually bought the ticket, presumably to resell for

an even greater profit. Another issue, Madam Deputy Speaker is the

potential use of Google ad words, ticket sellers including Viagogo

spend top dollar to advertise themselves highly in Google search

results, often masquerading as official ticket sellers when they

have not been authorised by the venues or the event organisers at

all and are selling tickets that are invalid if resold. I understand from

Google that if they wish to be vigilant about deceptive

advertising, but that to act on these issues, they need evidence.

They need examples reporting to them, either from consumers

themselves who've been turned away from events after buying a ticket

from a company using a sponsored link on Google or from the

Advertising Standards Authority. These are not yet been forthcoming

thus far. To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker,

and I see the joy on the whip's face as I say I'm about to conclude - I

would like... There is more if you would like me to continue.

Metallica's lyrics. I won't be quoting that. To conclude, Madam

Deputy Speaker I would like to thank ministers, the Secretary of State

and colleagues across this House for helping to make some real progress

in this Bill and I look forward to seeing these measures enacted.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow the

honourable gentleman for Selby and Ainsty who I've gotten to know very

well over our time campaigning on this in this and the last Parliament

on this issue so it's a real delight to see that we have got to this

stage as I rise to speak in respect to clauses in respect to sale of

tickets. It's with great delight that I welcome the news that these

will be accepted and make it on to the substitute yew book. It goes

without saying that we'd not be where we are if it was not for the

cross party campaigning. None of this would have happened without the

campaigning of myself and others over the years. This is where it

gets into a very long list so I hope the House will indulge me, including

the steadfast received by my own frontbench, over recent years on

this issue and the excellent speech we had from the Shadow minister

today. I do sincerely hope she's returned to continue in this vein

too and the support from the other side of the House, most notably in

the last Parliament by the former member for Hove and Port Slade who I

know is a friend of the honourable member for Selby and Ainsty who,

along with myself, we founded the All Party Group on ticket abuse and

chaired that. In recent years, by the member for Selby and Ainsty and

Folkestone and Hythe, have worked together with other colleagues. I

can't remember his constituency but he's sitting over there with the red

tie. I sound like David Dimbleby now. But we've worked tirelessly on

this issue through the Culture, Media and Sports Select Committee

with their investigation into the secondary ticketing market. I think

the other honourable - sorry I've just given you another job on

another Select Committee - I sincerely hope this issue will be

picked up again in the next Parliament so all of the hard work

that's been done so far on this inquiry is not lost and I'm sure it

will be. I want to acknowledge the minister, the Minister for West

Suffolk for his customary Goodhue four and willingness to listen, that

ensured that, along with the Shadow frontbench and members in the Lord's

and member who is've brought the amendments at a satisfactory

conclusion for us all was reached and of course the Secretary of State

for Culture, Media and Sport who I'm pleased to see is in the chamber

today with us. She'll recall that she met with myself and the former

member for Hove and port Slade, I think that was over three years ago,

to discuss the fraud aspect of all of this when she was a Home Office

Minister, proving that ministers have long memories. So those

meetings are worth it. I give way to the minister. I wanted to respond to

a point that she and my right honourable friend raised. We are

clear that section 93 of the consumer rights act requires

secondary sellers to provide information on the restrictions on

resale. It was very clear on the face of that Bill. Excellent. I was

going to come on to that, so I'll have to make sure not to press him

on that issue again because he's answered the question that I was

going to follow on from the honourable member for Selby and

Ainsty. I'm pleased he's put that on-the-record. I commend the

sterling work by colleagues on all sides of the House of Lords. Firstly

to Lord Pendry, Labour peer who way back in 1997 was shadow Sports

Minister, was the first to coin the phrase, put fans first. So I can't

claim credit for that one, I didn't invent it. He campaigned on this

issue way back then. Sadly for him and for us today, he was not made a

minister in the Government that followed so he wasn't able to ensure

this happened 20 years ago, showing that this day has indeed been a very

long time coming. More recently Lord Stevenson and Baroness Hayter, Lord

Clement Jones from the Liberal Democrats and the amazing talent of

the late Baroness Flint who laid the first amendments in the Lord's. The

House knows she sadly passed away a few short months ago. She was a joy

to work with and without this campaign I wouldn't have gotten the

chance to know her and I wish I could have had that privilege for

longer. I want to give a special mention to Conservative peer and

former Sports Minister Lord minutian whose tenacity at the end of 2015

ensure wed got the measures that we did in the statute book in the

consumer rights act. We wouldn't have progressed to where we are now

without him, as we'd still be at base camp waiting for the weather to

shift. He's been the most amazing allie. All fans across the country

who're not ripped off in the future should know his name and thank him.

Thank yous over to back to the business at hand. The two new

clauses will take us one step closer to making sure fans are put first in

the second market, something that has been sorely lacking for years.

At this point I was going to be pressing the minister on the point

he's clarified so I'll thank him again for doing that. The acceptance

of the clauses will be a fitting way to end this current Parliament and

I'm confident any Reds it you issue -- Reds it you issues will be picked

up after the general election. None of us can know what will happen come

polling day but if the good people of Washington and Sunderland elect

me and other honourable members across the House, I'll personally

get right back to business and pick up where we leave Office today on

this issue because there's plenty more to continue campaigning on. We

are far from our cross party vision on a market to ensure that fans are

not ripped off. The consumer markets authority are investigating, the

chair of the Select Committee mentioned, to supporting the victims

of Viagogo, who've been I unfairly ripped off disgracefully by one of

the worst players in this market who disgracefully did not attend the

Select Committee when they were called to do and that is definitely

something that we should revisit and see if there's ways to force

companies who have the head office overseas to be able to come and give

evidence. It seems wrong that they are able to evade that by saying

they are not based in the UK. Well all their customers are.

And also ensuring the recommendations are implemented

fully and effectively. The list could go on, but those are just a

few of the many issues that must be picked up in the next Parliament.

Finally, I want to thank the Minister, the Secretary of State and

particularly my front bench colleagues and all other honourable

members across the House and colleagues in the other place, who

have committed so much time to this campaign. For the early part of the

last eight years I felt like a loan Warrier on this issue, but it has

been welcomed to see momentum build and see colleagues from both houses

built around this campaign. This campaign cannot be slowed when the

newly elected House and returns in June. Fans deserve for us to be

campaigning for them at every opportunity. Let's all commit today

to continue to fight for them until this market is properly cleaned up.

Then, our work will be done. Nigel Huddleston. It is a pleasure to

speak today because I like my friend from the opposite side of the

chamber, and I said that with sincerity, you were in the chair

when I gave my maiden speech as well, so my final speech of this

parliament will also be with you in the chair. I support this bill

wholeheartedly because it is a very consumer friendly bill from

beginning to end. It will be of extreme benefit to my constituents,

it will improve their businesses and they will have more fulfilling

careers. I would like to highlight the points made around the universal

service obligation around switching of mobile phones, which has been an

ongoing debate for quite a while and it is good to see resolution on that

matter. And all the initiatives from Digital government. And I appreciate

the amendments that have been suggested, and agreed that those

that have been accepted there to improve the bill. I would like to

say, echoing the comments of many of the chamber here, in the development

of this bill and on Bill committee, it has been very nice for me as a

relatively new MP to see Parliament working at its best. When we work

across parties, we have meetings, discussions, we disagree

respectfully, but become too reasonable conclusions because we

have the same end in tent in mind. We see the theatre of Prime

Minister's Questions and others, but Parliament does a lot of work when

we work cross-party and I would like to echo the words of many here by

praising the work done by many colleagues over many years, before I

came into the House of, and is, to make significant progress on an

important bill. The honourable member for Sheffield Healy, I will

disagree with respectively. I would not want to run down the Digital

economy. This bill will enable us to be even more successful. We need to

make sure we have this bill so we can continue with that success. We

shouldn't take our digital leadership for granted so measures

in this bill will be of huge advantage. The Minister mentioned

about further worked been required in several areas. I agree with him,

particularly with Bill capping and the topics around the changes,

significant changes required in secondary ticketing. The devil will

be in the detail in terms of secondary ticketing changes. I

understand the Russian offer having a booking number or unique reference

number but we do have to be careful but doesn't have the unintended

consequence of potentially opening up to more fraud. We have to be

careful about the details of that bill. Or the element of the bill.

Finally, I would like to make my final comments around this area of

Internet and social platforms. This is something I know a fair bit

about, many of you know I worked for Google before coming into

Parliament. It is a great company, as are all the Internet players.

They do a lot of good, but they need to take their responsibilities more

seriously than they have of late. I welcome the changes and significant

progress has been made in terms of child exploitation images and the

age verification. It was alarming to learn about 1.4 million people under

the age of 18 accessed pornography just last year in the UK. But the

scale of inappropriate content online now is huge. YouTube has 400

hours of video uploaded every single minute of every single day. A lot of

that content is perfectly acceptable, fun, entertaining,

newsworthy and so on. But some of it is inappropriate. And the scale of

the inappropriate is shocking. And this comes from somebody who worked

in the sector. Every day, Google removes 200,000 videos that have

been flagged as inappropriate. 92 million videos have been removed by

Google as deemed inappropriate from Google as deemed inappropriate from

you tube last year. Clearly, the other social media platforms as

well, particularly Facebook... If that means they have to spend

millions, tens of millions or billions working on making sure that

we, our children and families are protected and can operate online in

safety, then so be it. I would prefer them to the days of their own

volition. I would prefer them to do this themselves and invest

considerably in both technology and human resources bodies to make

judgments and assessments as to the appropriate of content online. If

they do not take this action themselves, I hope I can work with

colleagues in a cross-party manner when we hopefully come back after

this parliament and make sure that if they don't act themselves, then

we will take action for them. Thank you. Tom Elliott. I hate to almost

be someone who repeats things, but I think you were in the chair when I

made my maiden speech two years at no. I hope it is not a bad omen. I

am at a disadvantage to some members who are on the committee and have a

better insight to the bill. I will restrict my contribution to the

Lords amendment number one. I am in support and agreement with the

member for Berwickshire and Selkirk. We come from rural areas even though

he is from Scotland and I am from Northern Ireland. I note the

minister said at one stage the bill was unfinished business. I think

what you will find, as time goes forward, it will continue to be

unfinished because technology is moving so fast and so quick, we will

see more demands no matter what area and it is the one concern I have

around the bill because it may not be future proofed. I accept there is

the movement for reducing the proposal from 30 megabytes per

second down to ten for broadband to be a practical move. I understand

that argument. One of the reasons we rejected Lords amendment number one

in the form put forward by the other place was precisely because it was

not future proofed and it had specific figures on the face of the

bill. The powers in the bill require of comp to review speed so as

technology advances, so can the demands of the service obligation.

Thank you for that clarification. If we can get 10 megabytes per second

in South Tyrone, that is great because you have a huge job of work.

In fact, currently there are less than 40% of businesses and

households that have access to 10 megabits per second in Fermanagh and

South Tyrone, my constituency. If we can get up to that great, I say

bring it on and the sooner the better, because I want to see

businesses flourishing. And in an area that is very rural, many of the

online agricultural forums, many of the application forms for

agriculture now have to be done online. It is a requirement. We just

don't have the access to the high-speed broadband to do that.

Happy to give way. Will he accept from me there are rural areas in

England as well and whilst the government are to be congratulated,

does he agree with me we must do more to ensure the areas that are

geographically isolated do not remain digitally isolated? I

absolutely agree with the member and he has my full support in trying to

resolve that matter. I suppose I will give one example, my young son

had a new PS for the Christmas 16 months ago. And I had promised him I

would download a game for Christmas and I gave him the voucher on

Christmas morning, hopefully he would have it downloaded by

lunchtime. He didn't have it downloaded for New Year's Day. Ten

days it took to download the game, which was some kind of simulator. It

is areas like that that is frustrating to young people. Also

those young people need to do their classwork and their student work and

they rely on line, there is so much reliance on line. I wanted to put on

record my appreciation for bringing the bill forward and progressing it

at this stage because it is important. But I also accept the

Minister's suggestion that the Lords amendment wasn't future proofed, but

can I say to the Minister and the Department in future, we must look

at this on a regular basis because changes will be needed and will be

required. Thank you very much. I wanted to make three sets of

comments, I won't retain the House too long. The first is to set out

for the benefit of the front bench, the specific concern I still feel

and they did address this around these definitional points, the

second is to talk about how far we have and the third is to join into

some of the statements about how cross-party working can deliver in

this place. Just to focus and I know both ministers did receive a letter

from me on this, but the part three amendments, I understand the

processes as to where we got to on this. When we had briefings, we were

concerned these definitional questions were not thrashed out. I

do want to commend the ministers, unlike some of the Commons from the

opposition front bench, I do think this bill was greatly improved by

the current ministerial team and there was a willingness to engage,

listen and improve the bill and I felt we were in a much better place

at the end of the committee stage than we were when we started. But we

had this could concern over the definition of prohibited material.

Prohibited material is clear definition, it is appropriate, it is

workable, it is guided by five different statutes. Only one of

which is the obscene publications act from 1959. It is from that act

that came the concern about, and I will not trouble Hansard in terms of

checking up, but checking whether certain acts were performed, once

considered to be illegal, are now not considered to be illegal and

therefore should not be captured by this definition of prohibited. I

think it was the concern over those specific items that led to what I

think is effectively rather narrowed down the focus too much to the

definition of extreme pornography, which essentially leaves a lot of

material in the middle that is not currently captured by existing

statute, but is considered to be damaging, at worst, or

life-threatening in some cases, all the way down the damaging. For

example, my reading of the current definitions means the definition of

extreme pornography makes two things, all but the most extreme

forms of sexual violence. By that I am referencing choking pornography,

with the extreme, multiple sexual abuse, sexual activity on one woman

or man and also, non-photographic child sexual images, including

animation. That is a thing that concerns us because we have worked

so hard to outlaw this whole area without any conversations about what

is permissible. It is an area we would all support removing entirely

from the Internet. It was a great privilege to work with her on the

committee. I wonder if she would share my concern we don't have

enough information, clear, research-based evidence about the

long-term impact on viewing all different sorts of pornography and

of appearing in it. The honourable lady, who I think has worked

assiduously in this area, and I thank her for many levels of

conversation and improvements of the building did together. But she is

right, in some ways we are conducting an unknown experiment

with child-rearing, with the way young people absorb information

about the world. It is not for me to pontificate about what might or

might not be harmful. If you look at the research which has been done,

they have shown some of these items that are now permitted behind an age

verification screen. And between 74 and 81% of people to whom those

images are shown, are in favour of preventing any access to those

images. It is a representation of men and women and the proportion of

women is the Highers. We are using prohibited material in the off-line

world and we are now using a narrower definition of extreme poor

pornography in the off-line world. 82% of people think the regime

should be as tough or tougher for online material given its ease of

access to generation we are trying to protect.

I want to intervene to put on record to the honourable member for devises

who's approved this Bill with no end to her work on it, along with

others. But just to reiterate the point, what is illegal offline is

illegal online. What we have been doing in this Bill is bringing in

age verification for online and the enforcement of the need for that age

verification which of course can only take place online because it's

about stopping people being able the view it online. So the point that

she's just made I think is taken care of. As for the definitions, we

did have to use an existing definition but, as I said in my

speech, we regard this as unfinished business and the report that we've

accepted as an amendment which has to report after the consultation,

the Secretary of State has to report after consultation between 12 and 18

months after the passage of this Bill will be the opportunity to take

all of this research into account and get to a good settlement that

has strong support behind it, rather than doing it in a rush just before

the disillusion of Parliament. I do appreciate the minister's comments

on that and he neatly anticipates what I was coming on to say which is

that I have no intention of causing trouble, if you like, at 24 stage of

the Bill because we know from the despatch box about his firm

commitment to make sure the definitional questions are

established in a way all parties can agree to support. Yes, of course. I

thank the honourable lady for giving way a second time. One further

concern I wish to place on record that was remaining unresolved, which

is that regardless of the appearance about the Acts it's what is

happening about the welfare and safety of those who might have been

violently pushed into pornography which we may not be able to tell

from the viewing of it. I'm very concerneded about the effect that

has. My right honourable friend raises an important point again.

Having material like this easily available, in some cases marketed

for commercial purposes, many would believe, and evidence is starting to

emerge, is extremely damaging for people who're viewing it,

particularly under-age people and those coerced into performing in

those acts, but I think the honourable lady hopefully shares my

relief and satisfaction that the Government front pen. Does accept

that and is prepared to continue to look at these things and to look at

this definition of what actually to whom is this material harmful. That

brings me on to my second point which is how far we've come. I

wanted to pay tribute to so many colleagues in this place, some of

whom are not in place, some of whom are standing down, like the

honourable lady for Slough who, with me led the cross party inquiry into

the original question as to what we should do in this space and, in the

face of much provarietication and push back, not from within this

place, primarily from industry, managed to deliver a result that was

both effective and proportional. I do just want to thank all colleagues

and ministers and Shadow ministers for continuing to work with that

commitment. What I have found and I wanted to just reference the

conversations that my right honourable friend the member for

Hastings has been having around banning extremist material or making

it more difficult to disseminate, in this space, none of us are

technoexperts but I think we understand what our constituents

want. Always here you get people saying, don't trouble your heads