Media Bill
Tuesday 21st November 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time. I am especially pleased to do so today, as it is World Television Day.
The British media are world renowned. They inform and educate, they challenge and entertain. Content created by our media, be it journalistic exclusives or broadcasting endeavours, attracts domestic and international audiences and helps to drive our creative economy. However, the world in which this content is competing is changing rapidly. Technology has transformed every facet of our lives, and nowhere is that more evident than in the way we watch and consume television and listen to the radio. We have seen the rise of streaming giants and on-demand content, YouTube and smartphones, tablets and TikTok, and all those have combined to reshape our whole broadcasting landscape. Today, that landscape is unrecognisable in the context of what followed the last major reform of the rules that governed broadcasting in 2003.
We need to support the British media to enable them to compete and continue to serve their audiences with high-quality content. We need regulations fit for the digital age, and that is what this Media Bill will give us. In keeping with the Government’s defining mission, the Bill makes long-term decisions for a brighter future for our viewers, our listeners and our public service broadcasters. It is a pro-growth Bill that is designed to level the playing field for public service broadcasters such as the BBC, Channel 4, STV and ITV, among others, so that they can continue to provide first-class content and reach their audiences. As Members will know, we have engaged heavily with all parts of industry, from the streamers to the independent production sector and our public service broadcasters, to get the Bill right, and if we want our broadcasters to be ready for the next wave of technology, it is imperative that we get it right.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
As the Minister says, the Bill marks a time of huge change in broadcasting and what have you, but the specific concern in Scotland, especially in my part of the world, is that while it mentions and makes provision for S4C, Gaelic broadcasting seems to have been omitted from it. I am sure that that is just an oversight, and that during the Bill’s later stages we will see safeguards in place for Gaelic broadcasting and BBC Alba in particular.
Lucy Frazer
I recognise the great contribution made by Gaelic speakers. We have agreed that we will, in the first instance, bring together the BBC and Scottish Government officials to discuss the co-ordination of funding decisions for Gaelic language production between the two organisations. We considered funding arrangements for minority language broadcasting, including programming for the Gaelic language, at the previous charter review, and those arrangements will be considered again at the next review.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will acknowledge the immense importance of public sector broadcasting to the Welsh language. How will she ensure that the Bill reflects the significant challenges faced by S4C in providing a wide range of good-quality programmes for both linear TV and online consumption, and protects the viability of the Welsh medium sector?
Lucy Frazer
We are of course anxious to protect S4C. As it is a public service broadcaster, many of these provisions apply to S4C, which we strongly support.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way; she is being very generous with her time.
In recognising the importance of public service broadcasting to outstanding broadcasting UK-wide but particularly in Wales, we should also recognise that this is not just about Welsh language programmes; it is also about English language programmes produced in Wales. Is my right and learned hon. Friend not saying—entirely correctly—that the Bill is not about protecting public service broadcasters, but about allowing them to compete on a level playing field in doing what they do best?
Lucy Frazer
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because this Bill is all about protecting our public service broadcasters, whether that is the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 or S4C, and I am proud to be bringing it forward.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
On the point about public service broadcasting, does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise the growing importance of local television and how the Bill could be improved by making sure that local television coverage is dealt with as a public service broadcaster? It is getting as important as local radio stations such as Swindon 105.5 in my constituency—
Sir Robert Buckland
Swindon 105.5—I recommend you all listen to it, and BBC Wiltshire, of course. It is important that we recognise local television as a public service broadcaster, and an amendment could be made to the Bill in that regard.
Lucy Frazer
I am always happy to discuss matters with my right hon. and learned Friend. This provision will help to protect radio more broadly through the smart speaker provision and there are other measures on protecting. The Government understand the issue of online local news, which is very important, and Ofcom has concluded proposals in relation to its role, but there are always matters we can look at further.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
What is contained in this Bill to address the concern that, in the digital age, the BBC licence fee is simply unsustainable?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend will know that this is a matter that the Government are considering—that is, the question of the licence fee. We have already started looking at the issue that faces the BBC in a changing media landscape. People consume their media in a different way. Last year, 400,000 people did not renew their licence. This is something we are looking at, but it is not a question for this Bill.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Secretary of State knows, Channel 4 is based in Leeds and I thank her for her decision that it should be retained as a public service broadcaster in the public sector. The Media Bill is an opportunity to legislate for new public service broadcasting purposes for media literacy and workforce diversity. They are not currently in the Bill, but is the Secretary of State considering those two issues in relation to the Bill?
Lucy Frazer
As the hon. Member will know, we are bringing forward the matters in this Bill, but he is right to state the importance of Channel 4. We have brought forward measures to ensure that it retains its ability to be sustainable while also protecting independent producers.
I was talking earlier about how it was important to engage to get this Bill right. We have engaged heavily and are very grateful to the wide number of people who have helped to ensure that the Bill has the appropriate scrutiny and has landed in the right place. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). The Committee invested heavily in the Bill and I am grateful for its recommendations. I want to thank it for its constructive engagement with my Department and for its pre-legislative scrutiny earlier this year. Alongside views from the industry, its reports have played a crucial role in ensuring that the Bill delivers for audiences and listeners.
But it is not just the Select Committee that has called for this Bill. The Welsh Affairs Committee, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), and the Scottish Affairs Committee have both called for its introduction. I would like to thank Baroness Stowell of Beeston for her leadership of the Communications and Digital Committee, which also called for this Bill’s introduction and worked hard on the issues in it for a number of years. I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), for East Devon (Simon Jupp) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter) for their thoughtful and considered engagement. I would also like to thank the previous iteration of the shadow Front Bench for its support, and I am sure that this shadow Front Bench will also provide constructive engagement.
It is not just films that are central to our creative industries and our national life. We are in a golden age for the silver screen in the UK, and public service broadcasters are the main reason why. Whether it is reality TV shows such as “The Great British Bake-off” and “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!”, or dramas such as “Time”, “Broadchurch” and “The Night Manager”, our public service broadcasters have proven that they can continue to go toe to toe with the streaming giants, but it is clear that this Bill is needed to enable our world-leading broadcasters to compete in an ever-more online world. Measures in the Bill will introduce simpler, more up-to-date rules on what our public service broadcasters have to broadcast and how they reach viewers, making sure that the high-quality public service content for our audiences remains easy to find as viewer habits evolve.
For a renowned public service broadcaster such as Channel 4, this Bill will help to support its long-term sustainability. This includes removing its publisher broadcaster restriction, which will free up Channel 4 to make more of its own content if it wants to, and open new options for diversifying its revenue away from advertising. Alongside this, we are bringing forward measures to safeguard Channel 4’s significant role in driving investment into the production sector. As many Members will recall, I set out the core aspects of this package, which the Government have designed in consultation with Channel 4 and the independent production sector, in a written statement to this House on 8 November.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I heard the right hon. and learned Lady’s previous answer and I am sure that it came from a good place, but just to be absolutely sure—what we are looking for in Scotland are provisions similar to those for S4C, and if they could be bolted on as things progress, that would be gratefully welcomed. One final point I would make is that Gaelic broadcasting has enjoyed tremendous cross-party support in Scotland, pre-devolution and post-devolution, and I think she should bear that in mind. It is probably the same in Wales with S4C, so hopefully we will get the same provisions as S4C.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. He will be aware that Alba is not in the same position as S4C because it is a programmer rather than a channel. In that way, it has a relationship with the BBC, and that is how its funding arrangement is determined.
Lucy Frazer
I am going to make some progress.
I was talking about Channel 4, but it is not just Channel 4 that is going to benefit from this Bill. The Bill includes measures specific to S4C, the Welsh language broadcaster. We worked closely with S4C on the provisions in the Bill, which will enable S4C to broaden its reach and offer its content on new platforms in the UK and beyond. The Bill also updates S4C’s public service remit to include digital and online services, and implements in statute other recommendations made in the independent Williams review in 2018. These provisions are a crucial part of the Government’s support for regional and minority language broadcasting. We know how important this kind of broadcasting is, giving many people content in a language familiar to them and providing a cultural outlet for communities across the UK. It was no surprise that, in its recent report on broadcasting in Wales, the Welsh Affairs Committee called on the Government to introduce a media Bill to Parliament as early as possible in the next Session, and I am glad that we have been able to deliver on that commitment.
It is clear that online demand streaming services are now an important part of the broadcasting landscape. From Netflix to iPlayer, they provide huge value to UK audiences and in many cases make significant and growing contributions to the UK economy. While UK audiences enjoy having instant access to the programmes they love, it is also essential that when they watch them on their smart TVs, they enjoy similar protections to live TV.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
As a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I would also welcome assurances that our Welsh media broadcasting, S4C, is safeguarded under the Media Bill, but more specifically, can the Secretary of State confirm that the listed events regime will accurately reflect the importance placed by supporters on key competitions including the Six Nations rugby to ensure their status on terrestrial TV?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member will know that sport is devolved in Scotland, and if the Welsh Government want to make any recommendations to us in relation to listed events, of course we would be very happy to listen to them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lucy Frazer
I will make a little progress.
The Bill will provide greater protections for children and vulnerable audiences through a proportionate new on-demand video code, to be drafted and enforced by Ofcom, bringing streaming services in line with the protections that already exist for the audiences of public service broadcasters.
The Bill will also require greater provision of subtitles, audio description and sign language. This will lead to a much improved service for millions of people living with a hearing loss or visual impairment when they watch or listen to television programmes on demand.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to an expected future interest on this point that I articulated in Westminster Hall.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the work she has done to ensure that accessibility is accommodated in this Bill, and particularly for responding to the previous work she did with me and others on subtitling and other accessibility points.
Lucy Frazer
I was pleased to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss these important points, and I am very proud that this Bill will ensure greater access so that those with impairments can enjoy the things that those of us without impairments already enjoy.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. She will know that, in our report on public broadcasting, we recommended that the Government provide urgent assurances on maintaining Freeview beyond 2034. That chimes very much with her speech to the Royal Television Society, in which she said:
“We want terrestrial television to remain accessible for the foreseeable future.”
Does she anticipate an opportunity in this Bill to ensure we have that guarantee beyond 2034?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point, because we want to ensure that everybody has access to television. That is why I made those comments in my speech. We are looking at this matter. There are a number of ongoing reviews to make sure we have evidence bases. I am happy to stay engaged with him on that subject.
From Wimbledon to the FIFA World cup final, live sports are among the most important fixtures on our television schedules every week. To protect British viewers’ access to major sporting events, the Bill will modernise the listed events regime. In line with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendation, we have acted to close the streaming loophole.
Millions of us tune into the radio every single day to spend time with our favourite presenters or our favourite music. Whether it is Cambridge 105 Radio or LBC, we rely on local radio to keep us entertained and informed. Few know more about this issue than my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South, and I thank him for his tireless work to champion this vital sector. But as modern technology continues to transform how, when and where people tune in, we must ensure that stations across the UK have the right support in place so that they can reach their listeners.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s kind words. One of the issues we have discussed and debated in this Chamber over the last 12 months is the BBC’s decision to reduce local news on many of its local radio stations. I am very supportive of this Bill and welcome the steps to cut red tape for local commercial radio, but can she assure me and this House that there are sufficient provisions to ensure that local news continues on local multiplexes?
Lucy Frazer
I was pleased to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and to take part in a session on his local radio station. As he knows, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent but, of course, local news is important. We have measures in this Bill to protect local news.
Because listeners increasingly listen to radio using smart speakers, the Bill will require that major smart speakers ensure that the UK radio stations that listeners love remain available on request. The Bill will also remove a number of outdated and burdensome regulations that are holding back the commercial radio sector, while strengthening protections for local news and information.
Finally, one of my central priorities as Secretary of State is to protect media freedom so that our world-leading media can continue to thrive. The Bill has media freedom at its core. One of its most significant measures is the removal of a long-standing threat to that freedom by repealing section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Section 40 and the possibility of publishers having to pay the legal costs of the people who sue them, even if they win, has hung over our media like a sword of Damocles. The Bill removes the sword for good.
The Labour party, of course, is no friend of the free press. The shadow Secretary of State has, in the past, called for boycotts of some of this country’s most well-respected papers. The Labour party has accused the Government of muddying the waters of this crucial legislation by including the repeal of section 40, but for us the water is clear. The position is clear: we will protect our free press.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
At Justice questions earlier today, the Government were again lauding anti-SLAPP legislation that protects small publishers and investigative journalists from oppressive conduct by wealthy individuals and organisations. That is exactly what section 40 does, and the Minister has completely mischaracterised it. Is it not inconsistency, amounting to hypocrisy, to repeal that provision?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable on this point, and I am always grateful for his interventions. I am proud that, together with the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), I have brought forward provisions to strengthen the anti-SLAPP regime via a taskforce. The Ministry of Justice has proposed further legislation and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who is extremely knowledgeable, will know that currently it applies only to economic crime. Section 40 applies across the board, and SLAPPs are strategic lawsuits of a particular client, so repealing section 40 is necessary. I am proud to be bringing forward that repeal in this Bill.
I am sure that today we will hear significant contributions on this important Bill, and I look forward to the debate. We should be under no illusions about the urgent need to press ahead with reforms. Success today is never a guarantee of success tomorrow, and it is our job, as a Government and as a House, to enact reforms that keep our broadcasters at the top of their game in the years ahead. That is what the Bill will do: levelling the playing field, removing threats to the media’s sustainability, and opening up opportunities for them to maximise their potential and unlock growth. I commend this Bill to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, I welcome the introduction of this important and long-overdue Bill. I start by making her an offer: I will work with her on a cross-party basis to get the Bill into law as quickly as possible, subject to the proper scrutiny that would be expected from His Majesty’s Opposition. Britain’s public service broadcasters must be fully equipped with the tools they need to thrive in this intensified era of internet and on-demand television. That is why Labour has been calling on the Government for some time to bring forward many of the measures in the Bill. And it is not just Labour; Ofcom, Select Committees of both Houses, the public service broadcasters, consumers and industry leaders across the sector all back the Bill and want to see it passed into law, and some have done so for many years.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Further to the point I made to the Secretary of state, and further to the shadow Minister’s excellent point about working co-operatively across the House, would she support a straightforward amendment to protect Gaelic language broadcasting? I hope the Government will do so too.
Thangam Debbonaire
I cannot say whether I would support an amendment until I have seen it, but despite a specific mention of “Gaelic-language content” in the briefing note on the King’s Speech, there seems to be no mention of protecting Gaelic language broadcasting in the Bill, which gives me cause for concern.
I am sure that the Secretary of State understands how frustrating the delay has been to everyone involved and how, unfortunately, it seems to our public service broadcasters, the creative industries and all the talented people who work in them that the Government do not care about them. Much of the delay was down to the pointless war on Channel 4: were the Government going to sell it off and did they think it was publicly funded? Nadine Dorries, their 10th Culture Secretary in 13 years, certainly seemed to think so, which slowed down the Bill.
Not content with chipping away for more than a decade at our remarkably resilient British creative industries, they attempted to take their Tory wrecking ball straight to one of our finest institutions, costing Channel 4 and other PSBs time that they could have used to get on the stronger footing with their international competitors that the Secretary of State has described today. If only the Bill had come sooner.
Selling off Channel 4 was never going to work. It was wrong for viewers and it has only done damage to our creative industries. The Government should not have been contemplating it in the first place. With all that time wasted, looking inwards and wrangling with themselves, they held our public service broadcasters back. The resulting delay to the Bill and all the consequences of that have to sit squarely with the Government. Never again must our PSBs be treated with such disdain.
It may seem like a non sequitur, but the Culture, Media and Sport Committee undertook incredibly thoughtful pre-legislative scrutiny. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the Committee’s work added considerably to the quality of the legislation across the piece.
PSBs are important to the wider creative economy because they stimulate growth, create quality jobs and nurture British talent across all our nations and regions, so I welcome the measures in the Bill to boost that success further, particularly those ensuring that PSBs are always carried and given prominence on smart TVs, set-top boxes and streaming sticks. There is still debate about whether “appropriate” prominence, as it is described in the Bill, goes far enough. Would “significant prominence” avoid confusion? As we set the framework and as the Bill moves to Committee, we have to explore what being clear about the mandate to Ofcom actually means.
For many people, the most important part of the Bill is the recognition that PSBs bring us joy and their unique universality brings tens of millions of us together, whether to cheer on the Lionesses, watch Elton at Glastonbury or mourn the late Queen. At a time where loneliness is at an all-time peak, public service content keeps us connected. It is a string threaded through homes in every city, town and village in this country. I welcome the important modernisations to the listed events regime in the Bill—there is a lot to welcome in the Bill—including closing the streamer loophole, so that TV-like services that provide live content via the internet, such as the World cup and Wimbledon, will be brought within scope in the listed events legislation.
However, unfortunately the Government have not taken on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendation to include digital on-demand rights in the regime, so on-demand highlights and online clips can be kept behind paywalls. I know the Government are conducting a review on digital rights, but the deadline for responses to their consultation was last year. I urge the Secretary of State to look down the back of the Culture, Media and Sport sofa—I am very fond of sofa metaphors, I am afraid, so hon. Members may hear more about sofas later—pull that review out and tell us what is in it? If the results of the consultation are not ready in time to be included in the Bill, will the Government include an enabling provision to allow digital rights to be added later?
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Some of the points raised, including those about digital rights, are made by Colin Browne of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer. I recommend that the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State meet him to understand what other points he is concerned about, so they can be addressed during the passage of the Bill?
Thangam Debbonaire
The Father of the House is quite right to draw attention to the Voice of the Listener and Viewer—I believe that organisation is on my call list, so I will chase that up following his kind and sensible suggestion.
Another broad area that I ask the Secretary of State to look at again is children and young people’s television, which has been one of public service broadcasting’s biggest contributions to the life of our country. I am sure we can all name our favourite programmes, which might reveal the age of hon. Members. For me, they are “Jackanory”, “Grange Hill” and “The Magic Roundabout”, but for others they might be “Byker Grove” and “The Story of Tracy Beaker”, tackling issues rarely seen elsewhere in the media. Colleagues are welcome to mention their own favourite TV programmes.
Thangam Debbonaire
Interesting. The hon. Gentleman obviously appreciates the importance of tidying up.
Sadly, I fear that the importance of children’s TV has been lost in the Bill. There has been a dramatic shift in the viewing habits of young people, particularly children over the age of 7, as increasingly parents no longer control viewing. Coupled with the long-term reduction in commissioning of original UK content for children, I am concerned that the Bill does not go far enough.
The Government must ensure that the next generation does not miss out on the high-quality, culturally relevant storytelling, such as “The Wombles”, for which our generations are so thankful to our public service broadcasters. I think I will develop a Wombles theme now. These programmes have a powerful influence on a child’s development. They provide role models—I am sure the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is an assiduous tidier up as a result of what he watched as a child—inspire ambition and encourage social inclusion. They engage participation in national conversations and develop a child’s understanding, valuing and ownership of what it means to be British.
Children’s TV also makes a significant contribution to the economy and provides quality jobs. It is a key part of our soft power too, promoting tolerance, logic and fair play to children all over the world. The Government must consider the wider consequences for public service broadcasters if children are not consuming as much content as they used to. It is unhelpful for the long-term interests of our public service broadcasters if a generation has little experience of their content. Will the Secretary of State think carefully about how she can work with public service broadcasters to get more quality UK-made children’s content and, crucially, make sure it is as accessible as possible to them?
The Bill is designed to allow current public service broadcasters to fulfil their obligations by taking into account their online delivery platforms, but children also spend a massive proportion of their time on Disney+ or on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube. I urge the Secretary of State to speak with those platforms about how they can provide more quality public service content produced here in the UK.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
There seems to be an excessive amount of advertising on commercial programmes aimed at young children, to the extent that it sometimes seems almost subliminal within the programme. Does my hon. Friend think that area needs to be looked at, because those programmes are using children as a commercial pressure on their parents or guardians?
Thangam Debbonaire
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of work done by the Children’s Media Foundation and I am pleased to note his point. A great concern of mine is that all children’s television and broadcasting ought to be of the highest possible quality. In our country we have that tradition of making great children’s TV.
I am also concerned about the talent pipeline that PSBs rely on. For the past 13 years, successive Tory Governments have failed to understand the importance of creative education for economic growth and jobs. We get announcements with no follow-up, which means they have not taken the issue at all seriously. Government adverts patronised creatives, suggesting that ballerinas should retrain in cyber.
Complementing the aims of the Bill, Labour will back the next generation of creative talent that we know our PSBs need if they are to fulfil the promise offered by the Bill. We will equip the workforce with the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to sustain PSBs and the wider creative industries, which are so necessary to fulfil the pipeline. There will be a broad and balanced education for every child, who will have access to high-quality arts, culture and creativity under a future Labour Government.
I recognise the unique and vital role of the independent sector, as set out in the Bill. As MP for Bristol West, the home of BBC Wildlife, some Channel 4 studios and many creative industries that supply and work for them, I know how important PSBs are, or can be, for driving inward investment into communities across our country. I have seen for myself in my patch how that can stimulate the supply chain and the resilience of the local economy, but I want more for this industry across the country from this Government.
Finally, I welcome the measures in the Bill to give S4C, the Welsh language broadcaster, more flexibility in the modern world, and I welcome the comments that my hon. Friends have made about that.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and congratulate her on her appointment. The point that I would like to make to the Secretary of State is that, although there is a broad welcome in Wales for the reforms to S4C, it is a channel that seems at the moment to be at a crisis point; perhaps that is going too far—it seems to be in an element of turmoil. I would be very grateful if the Secretary of State would look at what is going on at S4C, starting with the journalism of Martin Shipton on Nation.Cymru, because there are a few issues that need to be addressed.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, although I think it was probably addressed to the Secretary of State. I agree with him on the importance of S4C, as I am sure we all do. I want S4C to have more flexibility in the modern world, but I did note, as has been raised by other colleagues, that there is no specific mention of protecting Gaelic broadcasting in the future. That is despite an explicit mention of it in the King’s Speech, so I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could clarify what has changed by the next stage of the Bill.
I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward the measures in the Bill and urge her to listen to the comments that I have raised today, and those that my colleagues and others across the House will raise, because there is a great deal of cross-party consensus. We all want the Bill to be as good as it possibly can be. I reiterate my offer to work with her to get the Bill through Parliament in the best shape possible and to do so as smoothly as possible. Labour will back this Bill to back our public service broadcasters.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I echo the sentiment of others. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). In continuing with the spirit of non-partisanship that she expressed, I, too, hope that the Bill will get through the House quickly and think that we should congratulate the Secretary of State on getting this far. As she said, it is 20 years since we last had a significant media Bill of this size. Most of the big names that we think of in the media now, apart from the public service broadcasters, would not have meant anything or, indeed, did not exist at the time. I suspect that when the 2003 Act was being prepared, the biggest disruptor around was Blockbuster Video—[Interruption.] I can see a few memories being sparked across the House. That was the case then; companies come and go, but the importance of the sector continues.
This Bill is so important and timely for two reasons. The first is the economic importance of the creative sector; the creative industries are one of the Chancellor’s five important growth sectors—and rightly so, as they contribute something like £108 billion to the economy and support something like 2 million jobs. They are an extremely important part of the British economy and also help to spread British soft power around the world. Those institutions that provide great creative content are some of the things that people around the world most admire about this country.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When I was last in the United States, before the pandemic, I was astounded by how many people asked me if I had heard of “The Crown” or “Downton Abbey”. If that was not an example of the soft power that our creative industries give this country, then I know of no better.
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman is of course quite right, with the slight caveat that of course “The Crown” is made by Netflix—one of the global disruptors that produce great work that we watch, but also give rise to the necessity to protect our own British public service broadcasters.
Arguably even more important than the economic importance of our public service broadcasters is their cultural importance; in a global world—where, indeed, people can take British stories but produce them in a global context—we need a British voice or a collection of voices. At a time when our society is riven with divisions, we need activities and means of expression that remind us all of what we share, so the media, which both create and carry those illustrations of our shared experiences, are more important than ever. The protections in the Bill are important not just for our economy, but for the flourishing of our culture, and I can think of few more important things that a Government can address.
Stephen Crabb
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about British soft power and projecting British culture on the world stage. Does he agree that, within that, there is also huge scope for projecting the variety of what modern Britain looks like? Does he agree that, whether it is through programmes on Disney+ like “Welcome to Wrexham” or through the Welsh public service broadcasters, projecting Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish identities as part of that overall industry is an incredibly important thing in the 21st century?
Damian Green
Partly as a fellow Welsh man, I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that it is about the subtlety of British culture. There is one recognisable British culture, but within that there are many streams of different cultures, and preserving each is extremely important—not just by itself but also to preserve the whole British culture. Precisely because we have not just one public service broadcaster—it is not just the BBC, but people from ITV, Channel 4, S4C and Channel 5 doing great work—we get the ability to project diversity of voices within the wider British voice. That is extremely important.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way. I had hoped that there would be consensus right across the House on epistle he is giving on the importance of the Gaelic language, and that an amendment to make sure that the Gaelic language is protected should be supported across the House. If I may say so, there is a Gaelic TV station, BBC Alba Radio nan Gàidheal —in contrast to what was perhaps said from the Dispatch Box. It is important that we have that parity of esteem and that we can consider the funding that is necessary to allow the station to flourish.
Damian Green
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. As that matter is not in the Bill, I have not considered it very carefully. If I may say so, I thought that it was an expression of wisdom on the part of the shadow Secretary of State when she made the point that she could not commit to supporting an amendment that she had not seen. I think that is a good rule for everyone.
I wish to concentrate briefly on five areas covered by the Bill, the first of which is indeed Channel 4. It is what is not here that I celebrate as much as what is, because the Secretary of State took an early and wise decision not to proceed with a wholesale privatisation of Channel 4. I always thought that that policy was based on two pillars that were mutually incompatible; there was an argument that Channel 4 had no commercial future and was not viable, and a separate argument that it could be sold off and raise a huge sum of money for the Treasury. It seemed to me that we could make a plausible argument for either of those propositions, but it was really impossible to make a plausible argument for both those propositions at the same time, and that seemed to be what the Government were seeking to do for a time.
I wholeheartedly congratulate the Secretary of State on moving on from that policy and finding new ways to make Channel 4 viable in the long term, because that is extremely important. The way that the Government have chosen to do that is to remove the publisher-broadcaster restriction to allow Channel 4 to start making some of its own content. I merely observe at this stage that I hope that that will be done very cautiously, because among the virtues of Channel 4 is not just what it broadcasts, but the fact that it has promoted the growth of an enormous sector of production companies—some very small and some that have grown to be very large—and it is that ecosystem that has allowed much the successful creativity in recent decades, for more than 40 years.
I should declare an interest, because I was working for “Channel 4 News” the day the station started. I was there from day one. I suspect that, particularly given that the early reception of “Channel 4 News” was—how shall I put it?—not wholly positive, if somebody had told us then that the programme would still be on air at the same time every night as it was in 1982 when the station started, we would all have dropped down dead with shock. Nevertheless, it is still there and it is still controversial, and many other excellent things have been produced by the channel.
That has allowed other production companies to flourish, so I hope that, as Channel 4 moves cautiously towards producing some of its own programmes, it recognises, and the regulator and the Government recognise, that preserving that ecosystem of independent companies is hugely important. Channel 4 says that its move into in-house TV production will be gradual and will build on the existing diversity in the market; I very much hope that it observes that and that there is not too much conflict between proceeding cautiously with that and maintaining the channel’s overall viability.
The second detail in the Bill that I would like to deal with is preserving the prominence of public broadcasters on the new platforms that people use to watch TV. I welcome the measures in the Bill, but with some caveats. It is obviously important to ensure that UK users can easily find the public service content they value; despite the increasingly diverse global marketplace that we have discussed, about seven in 10 UK adults want UK life and culture represented on screen, and that is the core purpose of the public service broadcasters.
If I may pick up on the many gratifying favourable references to the CMS Committee, on which I serve under the enlightened chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), we have suggested that PSBs should be given “significant”, not just “appropriate”, prominence on all platforms. We think that that will be a better way to protect the long-term interest of the PSBs, and it can be done by introducing amendments to proposed new section 362AM of the Communications Act 2003 on the Ofcom code of practice, so it is not a complicated thing to do.
Another detailed point I would make is that the Bill creates a level playing field in the must-carry/must-offer section for commercial PSBs in their negotiations with the programmers about how they will be carried, but not for the BBC. An amendment to that part of the Bill covering the must-carry obligations, setting out that a regulated platform should act consistently with the equivalent BBC charter and framework agreement provisions, would address that small point.
The next point I will concentrate on is listed events, and here I echo some of the remarks made earlier in the debate: it is very welcome that the loophole about streaming services has been closed. That will be a significant step forward in the way people watch big sporting events in particular, but again I commend to Ministers a recommendation of the Select Committee that the Government should go further and include digital on-demand rights as well, because that is how many people will watch big sporting events—something that brings the country together—in future. With the Tokyo Olympics in 2021, which were obviously in a different time zone, some digital on-demand clips and highlights reached 10 times more people than the live TV coverage where an event had seen some British success overnight in this country.
If we look ahead to future great sporting events, the men’s football World cup is in the USA, Mexico and Canada, and the 2028 and 2032 Olympics are in the USA and Australia respectively. Those are all inconvenient time zones for most British viewers, so extending the regime to on-demand rights would make a lot of difference to a lot of viewers.
I echo the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), the former Lord Chancellor, about local TV. Those channels provide valuable services and I think they could be included in the licensed public service channel definition in the Bill. Allowing some guaranteed prominence for local TV services in the new TV ecology would help to ensure sustainability for that sector, which is increasingly important.
My final point is about radio. I am a lifelong fan of radio, and I am impressed and surprised by how the medium is flourishing in this area of infinite choice, particularly when it comes to music listening. For years, people have thought that the existence of services such as Spotify would kill off radio, but the opposite seems to be happening: there is more radio listening than ever. That is a tribute to all those in the radio sector, both BBC and commercial services, who have done an incredible job of preserving new generations of listeners.
As another word of congratulation to Ministers, I am delighted that, after some doubt, part 6 on the radio sector has been included in the Bill, because there are some very important protections that are needed. As online listening grows, radio stations are becoming increasingly reliant on global technology platforms that produce smart speakers to reach their listeners. It is important, at this stage in the development of radio, that we stop platforms’ potential abuse of their market position by charging for access to UK radio services or inserting their own adverts in commercial radio services, so those protections are very welcome.
Stephen Crabb
On that point about the growth of the radio sector, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the real success stories of recent years is the emergence of a new generation of digital community stations to plug the gap of the local commercial stations that have become part of national groups and lost some of their local rootedness? Does he further agree that Ofcom should look at releasing more FM licences so that those new digital community stations can grow, especially in areas such as mine in west Wales, where take-up of digital radio is perhaps lower than elsewhere?
Damian Green
I do, because in an era when the biggest media have become completely global, what we used to call hyper-localism is important in all media. Radio Ashford in my constituency does what it says on the tin—it is very local. It is strictly about the town and it competes with the BBC’s offering on Radio Kent, which is broader and, like all BBC local radio, for a large part of the day is regional rather than even county-based. The capacity to have properly local services is very important.
If I may suggest a way in which those welcome protections could be strengthened even further, Ministers should consider expanding them to include online-only radio content such as podcasts and catch-up radio content, and indeed the systems in vehicles—that is where a significant proportion of radio listening takes place—which are not protected in the Bill as it stands.
Ian Blackford
It is important in that context that we give consideration to the community radio stations that broadcast on FM—I have a number in my constituency, including Skye FM, Two Lochs Radio, Nevis Radio—which are very often hand to mouth. It is important that Government agencies conducting advertising through local radio stations remember the importance of those community stations and their high level of reach. They need to be given their fair share in that regard.
Damian Green
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who makes a powerful point.
To conclude, the Bill is welcome. Many of the individual measures are welcome and necessary. Some could and should be improved, and I am sure that they will be as the Bill is scrutinised in its various stages. Overall, I am delighted that the Bill is now before the House, and I wish it, and the Ministers carrying it through, well.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I appreciate having the opportunity to lead for the SNP on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), who usually leads on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, has been unable to come along, so I have stepped into the breach, as it were, and agreed to manage the Media Bill for the SNP.
Although the Bill is welcome and takes a number of positive steps forward, I am concerned about how over-complicated some of it is. The Bill amends the Communications Act 2003, the Broadcasting Act 1996 and the Broadcasting Act 1990. Apart from amendments to corporation Acts and tax Acts, I have not seen anything quite this complicated. If I were a broadcaster or worked in this area, I would find it difficult to find all the information I needed even to comply with the legislation because of its complicated nature. The Media Bill mostly amends those three pieces of legislation, as well as a few others in smaller technical ways—smaller technical amendments are absolutely standard—but it has been done in a complicated way that will make it difficult to find some of the definitions.
I was looking, for example, for the definition of “programme”. I was directed to the Communications Act 2003, which directed me to the Broadcasting Act 1990, which then told me what the definition was. I have yet to find out the definition of “person”. Perhaps the Minister could furnish me with information on where I could find that definition in those three pieces of legislation. I did, however, find out that when it comes to choosing programmes and organising programming, an algorithm can be counted as a “person” if someone is assisted by an algorithm. I would find it very helpful if the Minister pointed me in the direction of the definition of “person”, which is used a significant number of times in the Bill when it talks about a person who is in charge of programming. Does the word “person” also relate to an entity or a group of people if they are in charge of programming? It would be helpful to have more information on that.
I am slightly concerned about other definitions and uses of words. The requirement for Ofcom to work out that there is a sufficiency of something without there being any clarity on what “sufficiency” means is slightly concerning, because something that I see as sufficient may not be seen as sufficient by somebody else. If there were more information on what “sufficient” meant, there would be more clarity on the changes to Channel 4 as a proportion of expenditure, for example, as opposed to a proportion of programming. “Sufficiency” is not sufficiently defined in the Bill.
The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the word “appropriate” in respect of the availability of public sector broadcasters through internet services, and raised concerns about whether it should be re-termed as “significant”. That would probably give those broadcasters the level of prominence that we expect and want them to have, so that people can access their services in the way that they want and expect. I agree that there could be a different way of doing that.
I will come to a number of different issues, but let me touch on the requirement on the prominence of services. That is important, and I am glad that the Government have chosen to tackle the prominence of services. The order in which public service broadcasters appear—particularly for those who use Amazon Fire Sticks, for example—is important. As those broadcasters have responsibilities that other broadcasters do not, it is important that they are given a level of primacy.
However, I am concerned that the App Store and the Google Play Store are not included in the measures, given the way in which such organisations—particularly the App Store—have behaved. They have said, “We can carry things such as the BBC iPlayer or the STV player only if you give us a significant slice of your revenue.” That is not acceptable. If people look up the BBC iPlayer on the App Store, it should be the top result, rather than being placed further down because Apple has had an argument with the BBC about it. It is inappropriate for Apple to charge the BBC significant amounts of money for a level of prominence that the BBC should have by right as a public service broadcaster. That is important not just in relation to the software in the Fire Stick, for example—or however we choose to view our video-on-demand services—but in the prominence that public service broadcaster apps, such as Channel 4 on demand and BBC iPlayer, are given. The same applies to BBC Sounds in radio access. Those broadcasters should not be charged significant amounts for that prominence.
While I am on radio, I appreciate what has been said about ensuring that Alexa and Siri provide the correct radio station. I would really like Alexa or Siri to play Taylor Swift when I ask for her, rather than Rage Against the Machine. It is not that they are trying to provide me with something else; it is that they do not understand my Scottish accent. Improving the listening ability of those services so that they can play the song that I want would be incredibly helpful.
I like the provisions on advertising. In some cases, it is not Alexa or Siri making decisions on advertising; it is TuneIn Radio—or whichever programme Alexa or Siri is playing through—that is making those decisions. As long as that provision applies to how we hear advertising, rather than who deals with the background stuff, I am happy enough with the measures.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), who has just headed out of the Chamber, on the importance of local radio. In my constituency, Station House Media Unit—known as shmu—does local magazines as well as a significant amount of local radio. It feels really rooted in our communities in a way that, as the right hon. Member said, larger stations that have been taken over by other companies do not.
I appreciate the level of children’s content we have had, particularly on the BBC, having watched CBeebies with my children. When I was younger, I went to a fancy dress party dressed as a Tweenie. I cannot remember whether I was Bella, Milo, Fizz or Jake, but I can tell the House that I did not have to look up those names, because I remembered them. They are ingrained in my soul, having watched the show with my little sisters. They are significantly younger than me, which is why I mention such a recent television programme.
Ofcom has had to scale up massively to service the provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023. I am appreciative of that, and I have a lot of time for the growth in capacity and the number of excellent people it has brought in to do the work. Can the Minister give us a level of reassurance that, for the policing of this area, the writing of the regulations and guidance that this Bill will require and the different interactions that Ofcom will be having, in particular with video-on-demand services, it will have the number of individuals and capacity and resource to be able to undertake such additional layers of work? I am aware that Ofcom is doing significant portions of work around broadcasting already, but I do not want it to have to stretch itself when it is already having to grow at pace. I am concerned that there are not even the number of qualified individuals to take on that work, given how specialised and important it is. Can the Minister reassure me that he is having conversations at least with Ofcom about its capacity when this legislation comes in?
A number of my colleagues have mentioned the Gaelic language and the issues around it. Of course, those could all be solved by devolving broadcasting to the Scottish Government, but in lieu of that, I will highlight some of the disparities. The Secretary of State was perhaps getting a little confused between BBC Alba and MG Alba, which are two different organisations. [Interruption.] Alba—my pronunciation is nearly there. I am an east-coaster. The two organisations are different and operate differently. We appreciate the support being given to S4C, which is a good thing, but we have a disparity, as £89 million of licence fee is going to S4C, whereas only £10 million is going to the Gaelic language. There is a requirement for a quota of at least 10 hours a week of Welsh language programming, but no requirement for a similar quota for Gaelic programming. I am concerned by that.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member is making a very good point about the Gaelic language. I absolutely hate to say this in this place, but my constituency has a few native Gaelic speakers—there are so few of them. I pray that in a few years’ time another generation will have the language. Gaelic is in a vulnerable situation, which reinforces her point.
Kirsty Blackman
I very much appreciate the hon. Member’s point. I went to visit a Gaelic nursery in Aberdeen a couple of years ago. Staff there were concerned about the reduction in Gaelic programming for children, because outside the nursery the children were not necessarily getting the exposure to Gaelic that they might have had if they had lived in Skye or the Western Isles. They were concerned that, just because they had chosen not to live in those communities, the language embedded in those children and their ability to access TV programmes in their native first language was significantly reduced. I am concerned by the disparity. I hope the Minister appreciates that we are coming from a good place in trying to ensure the protection of Gaelic, some level of parity and that people across Scotland can access it.
I will highlight specifically what the Bill states. It states that there has to be
“a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content that is in, or mainly in, a recognised regional or minority language”.
Later, the Bill states that
“‘recognised regional or minority language’ means Welsh, the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland, Irish, Scots, Ulster Scots or Cornish.”
The Bill does not define what “a sufficient quantity” is. It does not say whether it will be measured on the basis of the percentage of people who speak that language in each of the countries. That wording is concerning, and given that there is a quota for Welsh programming, it is disappointing that there is not a similarly recognised quota for any of the other languages.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is making some strong points, and all of us on the SNP Benches support full funding for S4C, but it is specifically worth saying that there is no index-linking of the funding available for MG Alba. In many respects, the situation that Gaelic broadcasting is now facing is even worse than people might consider, because in real terms the funding available for MG Alba will, by 2027, be 50% of what it was in 2008. We are facing an existential threat to the survival of Gaelic broadcasting. We can think about the breadth and depth of the programming. I have programme-making in Skye, including from Chris Young of Young Films, who is known for “The Inbetweeners”. He, for example, produced the excellent “Bannan”. We need to fund such broadcasting appropriately.
Kirsty Blackman
I agree. We do not regret or feel angry at the Welsh language programming that is provided and the support for it. As my right hon. Friend said, we are looking for parity, and the index-linking of funding is important. We also need to recognise that the Scottish Government are already providing significant funding for the Gaelic language and to MG Alba, but there is no parity in terms of the licence fee.
I have a few other things I wish to say. Sadly, the Bill finally says goodbye to teletext; it is the end of teletext as we know it. It has not been in use since 2009, but the Bill finally removes it from legislation.
I also wish to talk about football games and how broadcasting and listing works. Listing is the particular concern. The Secretary of State said that the listing system is being revamped—I am not sure exactly what word she used but that was the direction she intended. However, the listing system itself—the way in which category A and category B listings are chosen—is not being revamped. No change is being made to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) is unwell and unable to take part in today’s debate, but he has done a huge amount of work on trying to ensure that we can access Scottish football games. It is incredibly important that we can see Scottish football games in Scotland. The Broadcasting Act 1996 says:
“’national interest’ includes interest within England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.”
It does not say, “England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”; it says “or Northern Ireland”. Given how popular Scotland’s football team is in Scotland, its games should be classed of national importance, especially as we have finally made it to the finals of a tournament. That is wonderful and we want to be able to see those games. It is not fair that viewers in Scotland have to pay to see their national team play, whereas viewers everywhere else in the UK do not have to pay for the same privilege. This issue is important. I note the point that the shadow Secretary of State made about the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s digital rights enabling provision, and I agree that if enabling provisions could be made on digital rights for sports events, that would be an important move.
I have a couple more issues to raise. The first is on-demand services and the inclusion of the 30-day requirement. Unfortunately, the Bill does not make it clear whether that means 30 consecutive days. It is important that the word “consecutive” be added unless precedent in other legislation suggests that “30 days” means 30 consecutive days. Why is news excluded from that provision? The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) spoke about the economic and cultural importance of our media, but we must consider its democratic importance in ensuring that knowledge is spread. I do not understand why the Minister and the Secretary of State have chosen to exclude news from this 30-day requirement on digital provision. The other thing that could have been clearer is ensuring that some of the provision is accessible. I know that the BBC has worked hard on this, but we are not there yet, as some of the local news that is provided is nearly impossible to find. If I want to watch Aberdeen-specific news, or even Scotland-specific news, it is hard to find it and disentangle it from more national news. Accessibility is required in that regard.
This legislation provides for quite a lot of delegated powers. I have not managed to make my way through all of them, but using the affirmative procedure often strikes the right balance. Using the draft affirmative procedure for a significant amount of the delegated powers in this Bill is important.
I am pleased that we have the Bill. I am concerned about the lack of futureproofing in some of it and about the overcomplication, as some of the definitions are difficult to follow and therefore may not achieve what the Government intend. The cultural sector is incredibly important to the entirety of the UK. It is incredibly important in Scotland, and we certainly will not oppose the Media Bill as it goes forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in this debate, not least because although the Government have been committed to a media Bill for a long time, it has always been with that well-worn caveat, “when parliamentary time allows”. I am really grateful to both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for their kind words about the work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. I am pleased that one of our first recommendations to be adopted by the Government was to include the Bill in this Session, and I am even more delighted that it has been introduced so quickly following the King’s Speech.
So much has changed since the last piece of major media legislation was passed 20 years ago, in the days when broadcasters decided when their programmes could be watched, TV was almost entirely analogue and only about 4% of the country had any form of access to the internet. But not everything has changed. Public service broadcasters remain at the heart of the UK’s media ecosystem, providing content that enriches our culture, our society and our democracy, and radio remains resilient, despite the environment in which it operates changing beyond recognition. It falls to us to pass legislation that both recognises the immense way in which technology and audience behaviour has changed and preserves the future of our valued PSBs and radio stations for years to come.
I am really pleased to see that the Government have accepted the majority of our Committee’s recommendations following our hard work on the Bill. The changes make the Bill more effective, closing the loophole that allows an unregulated streaming service to buy the rights for a listed sporting event and then stick it behind a pay wall. They make it more workable, improving the drafting of how the must-offer and must-carry carriage deals between PSBs and platforms should be negotiated. They make the Bill more proportionate, exempting news and sport from the requirement for on-demand content to be available for 30 days if it is to count towards a PSB’s remit. They make it more futureproofed, ensuring that the definition of an internet radio service can be amended to reflect changing audience habits or use of technology, and they make the Bill clearer, by ensuring that Channel 4’s sustainability duty is compatible with its existing statutory obligations.
There remain a few areas where the Bill will benefit from further discussion as it progresses, and I would like to pick up on a few of those today. The first is the issue of genres, which some Members have talked about. Ensuring prominence for our public service broadcasters is central to the Bill, but it is the obligation on them to provide high-quality and diverse programming that enables us to make the argument for prominence so incontrovertibly.
The changes to the public service broadcasting remit are significant. Other than news and current affairs, the Bill will remove the genres in the Communications Act 2003—for example, religious and arts programming, or children’s programming; I will not be drawn into the trap of discussing my favourite, because my dad may well be watching the debate—and replace them with an obligation to provide programming that reflects the lives and concerns of the UK’s different communities and cultural interests and traditions. That simplifies the remit of PSBs and the enforcement of it for Ofcom, but at what cost?
In our inquiry, the Committee found that these changes have received far less attention than other aspects of the Bill. Funnily enough, it was something that the PSBs themselves did not want to linger on in their evidence to us, but that is all the more reason why we need to consider whether these changes are the right ones. It is true that much of what people regard as public service content is now provided by a wide range of providers beyond PSBs and sometimes for free—for example, on Sky Arts—but not all genres are served in that way, and we need to be sure that the Bill gets the balance right.
With regard to prominence, obligations on our PSBs must be fairly balanced with the benefits that they are going to see. The harder it is to find public service broadcasting content, the less likely that content is to be watched, so PSBs need prominence on smart TVs and streaming sticks. That cannot come soon enough, but those who followed our inquiry will know that there was a debate among stakeholders as to whether we keep the existing descriptor for electronic programming guides that PSBs’ prominence should be “appropriate”, or change it to “significant”. That sounds like a really technical argument, but in the advanced user interfaces of today, what prominence looks like varies considerably from device to device and from platform to platform, so it is really important. What is considered appropriate prominence is far more open to interpretation than before, which is why we supported changing “appropriate” to “significant”. That was one of the few recommendations we made that the Government did not accept. Ultimately, what really matters is ensuring that public service content is always carried and is always easy to find, so that is what we need to work through as the Bill progresses.
We also need to consider whether the Bill’s “must carry” obligations on platforms need aligning with the “must offer” obligations in the BBC’s charter and framework agreement. Are we aiming for a level playing field between platforms and all our PSBs, or only the commercial ones? The House needs to explore that question, as well as whether the Government should extend the new prominence regime to local TV services. Those services are given prominence on electronic programme guides, on either channel 7 or channel 8, but the Bill does not give them prominence on smart TVs. We need to decide whether that is the right direction.
There are also places where I would be grateful if our Ministers provided more detail. Our Committee recommended that the new video-on-demand code should apply to all platforms in the same way that the broadcasting code applies to all broadcasters. However, the Government intend to apply that code only to platforms with a large UK audience. I recognise the Government’s argument that the legislation must be proportionate: clearly, applying the code to small, niche services such as a football team’s on-demand service could unfairly and unnecessarily penalise them, with no overall audience protection. However, we need more indication from the Government of the types of services they have in mind. The Minister will probably say that no decision has been made, but Ministers will have already considered this issue as they developed the Bill and responded to the Select Committee’s report, so I hope he will be able to say a bit more about what services he envisages being in scope.
We also need a bit more clarity on a late addition to the Bill: the introduction of a new special clause for multi-sport events that was not in the draft Bill. That clause would apply to four group A events: the summer Olympics and Paralympics and the winter Olympics and Paralympics. Currently, Ofcom consent is not required when there are genuine partnerships—that is, full and comprehensive rights on both sides of the partnership—but the Bill will change that, with each partner only entitled to “adequate live coverage”. This morning, the Select Committee had a session on women’s sport and met broadcasters, including the BBC’s director of sport, Barbara Slater. She raised real concerns about the impact of that clause, especially without any detail of what “adequate” means. If we are to avoid PSB coverage of those listed events being undermined by the Bill, we need clarity. Why did Ministers add that clause? What is wrong with the current rules? We need to make sure that we protect those moments of national importance, and that the Bill does not lead to any unintended consequences.
Turning to radio, there are places where we could look again at what is covered by the legislation. As Members have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), on-demand content from licensed radio stations is not covered by the Bill, nor are any online-only stations, yet some 10 million adults listen to podcasts every week and some of our biggest broadcasters have online-only stations. We all know how incredibly important radio is—it is the most trusted medium in the UK—and, in particular, how important local radio is. More than anything, the public reaction to the BBC’s changes to local radio brings that home. Sharing content across large areas risks undermining the sense of localness that has, until now, made BBC local radio really distinct. The measures to protect radio are some of the most important parts of the Bill, and we need to reflect on whether they go far enough.
Ultimately, of course, there is only one question to ask of any piece of media legislation: does it deliver for its audiences? First, the Bill is critical to the sustainability of our PSBs. While those broadcasters do not always get everything right, they provide huge value for audiences: they are the broadcasters who entertain us, who teach us, and who show us our national sporting triumphs—and, quite often, our defeats. Secondly, the Bill is critical if viewers are to be confident that all TV-like content, whether broadcast or on demand, will be subject to the same or similar standards. Thirdly, this Bill is critical to the future of radio, where stations are increasingly dependent on online platforms for access to listeners. This Bill seeks to ensure that radio remains the strong, trusted medium that it is today. Yes, there is more discussion to be had on the exact contents of the Bill, but it does deliver for audiences, which is why I am so pleased to hear that it has support from across the House and why I want to see it come into law as soon as possible.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I want to start by expressing my party’s broad support for this Bill, which is timely. What a change we have seen since 2003 when the Communications Act was passed: it is a massive change. The new legislation is crucial for public sector broadcasters, and I therefore believe that time is of the essence. However, I am treating this debate as a bit like a tutorial in which we will have an interesting exchange of ideas. On behalf of my party, I will reserve our opinions—in the light of certain reservations that I will express—and we shall be abstaining on the Bill tonight. That does not in any way indicate that we do not support the thrust of the Bill, and I think that needs to be understood.
The first concern I would air is the removal of some regulations about local broadcasting. We have heard from all around the Chamber the importance of local broadcasting, including what it means in platforming voices and stories from across the nations and regions, not least the highlands, where I come from. I think this is a good point at which to unreservedly add my support to my colleagues—one across the Minch, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil); another to the south of me, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford); and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)—in saying that it is crucially important that we get it right with regard to Gaelic. As I said in an intervention, it saddens me to say this, but the situation of the language is precarious and we need to do everything possible to secure its future.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that there should be some sort of legislative underpinning and support for Gaelic broadcasting. Indeed, BBC Alba has asked for that and pointed that out.
Jamie Stone
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.
Furthermore, as we know, local radio—and, as was expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who is no longer with us, the same is true of local television—is absolutely fundamental to the proper functioning of local democracy. I know this only too well, and in some ways I regret it. Let me give Members, for their lighter amusement, a cautionary tale. When I was first elected to be a member of Ross and Cromarty District Council a long time ago—I was once upon a time the youngest member of the council—my younger brother was a broadcaster on Moray Firth Radio, our local radio station, which is still alive and well today. He thought it would be kind to me to put me on his chat show on a Saturday morning called “The Chipboard Table” just days after I was first elected. He sat me down—this was live—and he said, “Jamie, last night we had a dram together, and you told me that you felt your fellow councillors were quite creative in the way they completed their expenses.” This led to an indifferent start to a career in local government, but that is one of the scars I bear. Luckily, it was a long time ago. For accountability and throwing a light on local democracy, local radio is absolutely crucial, and notwithstanding my experience, I would not have it any other way.
On the issue of quotas, the removal of Ofcom’s responsibility to monitor the delivery of content in education, science and culture may risk content in these areas declining. That would concern me because, as was eloquently expressed by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), the soft power this country exerts is about being British, but it also about reflecting the different facets of our nation that English-speaking countries find absolutely fascinating. As the Bill progresses, I will be looking to ensure that Ofcom retains a statutory requirement to measure the output of each of these genres—language, culture or whatever—against, let us say for now, the benchmark of what we have at the moment. I do not wish to see any decline from that whatsoever.
On accessibility, when it comes to linear television, there is a requirement for 90% of programmes to be provided with subtitles, as we know. It is right that there should be greater access to those things. Let me give the House another personal example. On a Sunday evening, a cousin of mine who is a little older than me comes and has a meal with my wife and I, and she watches the television. She is a great friend and much loved. She is also pretty deaf, and for some television programmes we can get the subtitles up, but for others we cannot. Perhaps I am not very intelligent with IT, but by gosh we’ve tried, and it is hugely frustrating that she cannot see the words that are being said. The same applies to people with visual impairment—we are talking about signing and other ways of helping. The Liberal Democrat party will look to require that at least 80% of on-demand TV content be subtitled, with 10% audio described and 5% signed. That is our position at this stage.
While I find it tricky to find the subtitles, another issue is also tricky to find. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is the call for public service broadcaster prominence, ensuring that the likes of BBC, Channel 4 and ITV are not only easy to find on any smart TV, but are also given due prominence. This is the existential issue for our public service broadcasters, and the question of how appropriate prominence will be defined is vital. The Liberal Democrats would like the current call for “appropriate” prominence be strengthened to “significant” prominence, and I believe we will be tabling amendments to see whether we can achieve that.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Member is talking about a range of different issues, which highlight the fact that there are a lot of disparate concerns about the Bill. Does he share my concern that the draft programme motion does not include taking oral evidence for the Bill, and does he understand why the Government have done that?
Jamie Stone
I believe that is a wise point, and we would be wise to heed it.
When it comes to Channel 4, I believe I am not alone in having concerns about plans to relax the publisher-broadcaster status, and about the potential risk that that poses to the unique contribution that the channel makes to the diversity and sustainability of the independent production sector across the nations and regions. Again, that takes me back to my earlier point about the sheer diversity of the product being part of our soft power, which is important to this country. However, there is a caveat. With the increased independent production quota and Channel 4’s prediction that any changes will take at least five years to launch, that fundamental change might not lead to any market shock in the short term. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we shall see.
Finally, let me turn to what is perhaps a core debating point today. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 requires new outlets to pay the costs—we know what that is all about. The Liberal Democrats stand firmly against that charge. The 2013 Bill followed the Leveson inquiry and the phone hacking scandal, and the proposed change will put at risk the balance between free speech and public safeguarding, all the while favouring news publishers. One could say that that is a standard political stance in this debate, and perhaps Conservative Members would take a different view. However, let us consider one final point, which is important in terms of the notion of British justice. This change would mean that anyone without substantial financial resources or deep pockets that can match the might of the newspapers would find it impossible to pursue legitimate grievances through the legal system. We need to think about that very deeply. What can the small man possibly do against the publishing giants? That is hugely important and I think there is a warning here. With that I will conclude my remarks. I sincerely hope that my career in this place will not include any more gaffes on live radio, but you can never tell, Madam Deputy Speaker, least of all from a highland Member of Parliament.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
A number of hon. Members have mentioned how long it has been since the last major piece of media legislation, but it is worth reflecting on that period of change and what it means. When the Communications Act 2003 was passed more than 20 years ago, Amazon was a relatively small online retailer selling music, books and video games, Netflix delivered videos and DVDs by mail order for people to watch at home, and YouTube did not exist. If we had asked someone then what a smart device was, they would probably have guessed that it was a scientific calculator. There were no smart devices, and the iPhone was still some years away from existing.
The idea that every one of us would carry in our pockets a device allowing us to watch live television whenever we like would not have been envisaged, or people would have thought that to be far off. That is significant not just because technology changes the media landscape but because it has a massive impact on viewing habits. That in many ways is the real challenge faced by the public service broadcasters today. The Bill is a hugely welcome step towards addressing some of those needs, but there will continue to be an ongoing challenge.
All Ofcom data is clear that, with the exception of the pandemic period when everyone watched a lot more television, public service broadcasting is declining. The minutes people spend each day watching public service broadcasting are declining year on year. Broadcasters face ongoing pressure not just from that audience decline but from rising costs through inflation for television production, which are running much faster than the consumer prices index. That puts an inevitable squeeze on budgets.
Public broadcasters that have the luxury of making more of their own programmes while raising money through subscriptions and other things are better placed to deal with that audience change. Nevertheless, it is there. The biggest challenge that the BBC faces is not about it not making brilliant programmes, not having fantastic writers or not nurturing brilliant talent; it is that people are voluntarily declining to pay the licence fee simply because they feel their needs in gathering news or watching fantastic programming can be met elsewhere.
The challenge that Channel 4 has faced is that, without the ability to invest in programmes from which it can make money, it relies solely on advertiser revenue, and that revenue is under challenge all the time, so it is much harder for it to be sustainable and to plan for the future. I welcome the Government’s introduction of measures in the Bill to change Channel 4’s remit. I understand the concerns raised by companies in the independent production sector, but I think they would recognise that that sector is totally different from when Channel 4 launched. At that time, a lot more BBC and ITV production was done in-house and there were no other routes to television.
Channel 4 created an opportunity for independent production companies to launch businesses, make programmes and gain an audience that otherwise would not have existed. Now, there are huge opportunities for independent producers. While Channel 4 is an important part of that ecosystem, it is by no means the only one, so the best thing we can do for the independent sector is ensure that Channel 4 is in as robust health as possible so that it can commission more, because 65% or 70% of a bigger TV company is worth a lot more than 100% of a very small one, or one that is struggling to continue to exist.
Those are the ongoing challenges that the PSBs will face, and the fight for attention will only continue. People now are more distracted not only by video-on-demand services but by video gaming and other forms of audio-visual entertainment. That is the backdrop against which the Bill is being introduced.
The question of the degree of PSB prominence on connected devices—modern televisions that are internet-connected and totally integrated with people’s on-demand viewing habits—is incredibly important. Whether that level of prominence is “significant” or “appropriate” is an important debate. Is it enough simply to have the television schedule there on the device, with that schedule the live schedule ranked in order on the electronic programming guide as we are used to seeing it? How easy is that to find? Will people be constantly shifting through menus for on-demand services, be those Netflix, Amazon, Sky programming or whatever, before they find the television guide?
We see in Ofcom’s yearly audience analysis data from its media nations report that those under the age of 40 do not really regard television as a live product any more, unless they are watching the news or live sport; it is an on-demand product. If we asked student audiences what they thought of the TV schedule, they would find the idea of going home, turning on a television, pressing the No. 3 button and watching live what had been preselected for them, in a selected order, completely anathema. Younger audiences do not expect television to be a live product. They do not expect to go to the television guide to find what they want. In fact, audience analysis shows that, increasingly, when people turn the television on, the first thing they do is turn to an on-demand service like Netflix to browse what is there—that is their primary act, rather than going to a channel.
Whether it is easy to find the schedule and see what is being shown will be key to the debate on prominence. Otherwise, the PSBs will continue to find it hard to have a share of voice and be noticed in an environment where people are increasingly distracted by what they want to see. That experience itself is fractured, as a consequence of the way that on-demand services are designed. They are tailored to the user, so everyone will see a different screen when they turn them on. When everyone turns to Netflix, they see something different. They even see different tiles advertising the same programmes, tailored based on their past viewing habits. That is great for the consumer; it makes it much easier to navigate the services and find what they are looking for, but it makes it much harder for them to be challenged and surprised.
What is the value and role of original British content, telling unique stories of people on these islands? How easy will that be to find if people do not know to look for it and have not viewed it before? Those are the sorts of questions that Ofcom will have to consider. The Bill gives Ofcom the power to issue guidance, but it is important that here in this House we are on top of what Ofcom analyses and recommends, and that we feel that whatever the final wording of the Bill, it ensures that PSBs get a fair share of voice.
Kirsty Blackman
I did not even think about the TV schedule as something that people look at. I never look at a TV schedule. I do not know if my Fire Stick or my PlayStation has a TV schedule. On significant prominence, I was picturing the BBC iPlayer app being at the top of the apps list. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Ofcom should look at both those things: how it appears on the screen and where the public service broadcasters are in any live schedule?
Damian Collins
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It should be easier to find through app stores. Although they are not directly in scope of the legislation because they are not broadcast formats in their own right, that question should be asked—is it easy to find? It should be easy to find on a connected device when it is turned on, and it should be easy to locate the apps.
Ofcom also has to consider whether the business model that underpins connected devices is fair to public service broadcasters. There is no doubt that the business model for Amazon and Google is to try to create a connected device space where all the entertainment exists and is tailored to each person. They also want to build the ad tech into that, so that they are the principal beneficiaries of the ad revenue, by monetising the placement of that content as well and diverting it away from broadcasters who have traditionally sold audiences to make money. That is the underlying problem that public service broadcasting faces today. The sale of audiences to generate advertising revenue to invest in programmes—the model that has fuelled independent public broadcasting for 50 years—is not broken, but it does not work in the way it used to; it is much more diffuse.
The revenue challenges that come from that are extremely real. That is why, on Channel 4, although I am pleased to see the Government’s changes to the remit, we need to keep a watching brief to see whether they go far enough. We have not gone as far as Channel 4 asked to go in its counter-offer to privatisation, which was the ability to go to the markets to raise money from private investors to create a programming fund that would invest £1 billion over two years in new programming. If we simply allow Channel 4 to acquire a stake in the making of programmes that it will broadcast, which will make revenue in the future, will that be enough now to meet the challenges that it will face? Given the ongoing pressures this year on declining ad revenue for TV broadcasting, we need to make sure that that will be enough. We should not assume that the measures in the Bill, which are welcome, will be the last word on that. There may be more challenges to come.
I would like to add two further points. It is right that we try to create more parity between the regulation of on-demand online services and broadcast television. If a viewer turns on their connected TV device, as far as they are concerned Netflix is as much television as the BBC, and there should be some parity in the way the platforms are regulated, the obligations they have to their users and the notifications they give about the suitability of the content. That should apply to advertising too. Often the debate we have is around advertising that targets children, but children are not watching live television; they are watching it on demand. The danger at the moment is that we have a highly regulated live broadcast television environment, but an almost completely unregulated online one. We should be far more worried about the ad rules that apply on YouTube than those on ITV, because that is where the children are. It is vital that the work on the Government’s online advertising review is completed at pace. The project has been worked on for a number of years. There needs to be proper enforceability of the advertising codes that have stood us in good stead in the broadcast world, but do not yet work in the same way online.
Finally, on media ownership and media freedom, which the Secretary of State mentioned in her opening remarks, we should give some consideration—maybe the Bill is not the right place—to the ownership of UK news companies and news assets, particularly if they are acquired by organisations based in jurisdictions overseas where maybe the regard for press freedom is not the same as it is in the UK. The Bill does not address that concern. If we have an ongoing concern about a vibrant news media landscape, there should be some concern about the companies that own media organisations—where they are based, what their interests are and what interest they have in the way the news is reported here. We do not want to see the press regulated in any way—we want to avoid that and in many ways the measures in the Bill are a nod to that as well—but we want certainty about safeguarding media freedom in the future.
Andy Carter
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about news media. What does he think about the ownership of public service broadcasters? Should there be legislation in place to consider who is allowed to own a public service broadcaster? For example, ITV could be bought and sold tomorrow on the stock exchange to somebody in a different country who has very different values and views on what content might be put out on ITV. Should that be in scope as well?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. Whether it be ITV or a newspaper such as The Daily Telegraph, which is currently up for sale, what is the motivation of someone acquiring them? We might assume they would not seek to censor what was going on, but would they have a different view on creative content, news, the stories they want to tell and what obligations exist for them? That is not something we have had to consider before, but in a market where such media assets are attractive to global investors, we should not be unconcerned about the motivations of investors who might buy those companies.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Mòran taing, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate.
There has been much discussion about the impact of the Bill on Gaelic broadcasting and it is that that I would like to reflect on today. I think it is fair to say that in decades gone by—50 or 60 years ago—there was largely indifference to the Gaelic language right across the political divide. That, I am glad to say, has changed. Let me state that the Gaelic language belongs to absolutely everyone and it is right that we continue to look at the support we can give to the language on that cross-party basis. It is important that we retain that consensus. The reason I mention 50 or 60 years ago is because in the 1970s some fundamental changes took place. In some respects, there was a renaissance for the language. We had the establishment of the Gaelic college in Skye—we have just celebrated its 50th anniversary—and there was everything that happened in a wider sense in music. There was the arrival, again on the island of Skye, of the rock bank Runrig, which gave a voice to young people in the language. We think, of course, about what the West Highland Free Press did.
My friend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) reflected on the diminishing numbers of Gaelic speakers in his constituency, but it is important that we retain a sense of perspective. There are some very strong signs about not just the durability but the growth of the language. I can think specifically about Gaelic education. In my own constituency, I have a number of Gaelic primary schools, most recently in Portree. I am delighted that the number of children going to the Gaelic school in Portree is way in excess of the number going to the English language school. There are some very strong and encouraging signs.
In the light of all of that, what we do and in particular what we do in relation to the Media Bill is important. It is worth reflecting that the Government have in the past said some very encouraging things about recognising the importance of the Gaelic language.
According to a White Paper published on 28 April 2022,
“The Government recognises the hugely valuable contribution that MG Alba makes to the lives and wellbeing of Gaelic speakers across Scotland and the UK, including through its unique partnership with the BBC in the provision of BBC ALBA. Such a partnership must ensure high quality, diverse Gaelic language content continues to be readily available so that Gaelic culture is protected in the years to come. We also recognise that certainty of future funding is important for MG ALBA being able to deliver for Gaelic speakers.”
I endorse those words, and I make an appeal to the Minister: that protection of Gaelic really must be included in the Bill, so that we can then have the necessary discussion about the responsibilities we all have to ensure that there is appropriate support for the language.
We have heard a great deal today about remote and rural areas, and I think of the contribution that is made by Gaelic broadcasting in such areas. I think of the production facilities in Inverness, Stornoway and, indeed, Portree in my constituency, associated with the Gaelic college. We are home to some film production activities—I referred earlier to Chris Young, who produced “The Inbetweeners”—and I think of some of the Gaelic drama that has been produced, such as “Bannan”. We often hear about programmes in the UK being sold internationally, and this Gaelic drama has been sold internationally, although admittedly on a shoestring. I have always been overwhelmed when I have had the opportunity to be on site with the 70 or 80 people producing that masterpiece of Gaelic drama.
All of that shows what we are capable of doing throughout these islands, and it shows the ability of people to contribute Gaelic content, but of course it has to be funded. As I mentioned earlier, we face a cataclysmic challenge because of the real-terms decline in funding for MG Alba ever since its foundation in 2008. We are at a crisis point. I welcome the funding that has gone into S4C, but my goodness, if we could get even a fraction of that funding, what a difference it would make. Let us think about not just the social and cultural contribution, but the economic contribution generated by the investment that we have had. MG Alba sustains about 340 full-time jobs, half of which are in the highlands and islands, and with its annual funding of £13 million, it produces gross value added of more than £17 million. We are talking about a return of £1.34 for every £1 of investment. Just think how it would be if we could increase that, and see more of that economic contribution in our remote and rural areas!
I appeal to the good sense of the Minister, because I know that he has much good sense. I appeal to him to respond positively when he winds up the debate. Let us come together in this Chamber and collectively accept our responsibilities for Gaelic, as we have for other languages. Let us make sure that this station—for MG Alba is a station—can flourish, and that BBC Radio nan Gàidheal can flourish. Again, mòran taing, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this Second Reading debate on a Bill that comes at a crucial time for our creative industries and broadcasters. Several broadcasters are already applying for the 10-year licences, and we need to have a settled approach to how they can be granted. I should refer the House to my entry in the transparency register, as a former Minister, and to the interests that I have declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who was in the Chair earlier, was the director of BBC children’s television in the 1970s. A number of children’s programmes have already been mentioned, but, for what it is worth, my favourites were “Paddington”, “Pipkins” and “Mr Benn”. It has often been said by the person who created “Mr Benn” that children’s television had to attract not only older children but adults, who would often sit watching it alongside the children. It has sparked many a career, including the careers of Members of the other House but also those of some of the greatest broadcasters of today.
The Media Bill reflects the changes in technology and in how people consume broadcasting in a variety of ways. A lot more is consumed on the go or on demand, and I regret that there are fewer community moments—water cooler moments, as they used to be called—but broadcasting still plays a vital role in shaping the conversation, through the fun and joy that people have in watching, as well as in exposing some of the interesting challenges we face.
In this broader landscape and market, I welcome the global online platforms. They have helped the viewer and the creative industries, but they have also brought a risk for our public service broadcasters, particularly our commercial public service broadcasters, who have responsibilities that those other organisations simply do not have. It is important, if those broadcasters are to be viable and sustainable, that we recognise the context in which those platforms land.
There has been at least one call from the shadow Secretary of State for the use of Henry VIII powers, and that is because we need to be flexible. The last time we had similar legislation was in 2003. By the time the Bill goes through, we will need to have that flexibility built in—I hope it goes through at pace, because it really matters to our broadcasters and the industry that it does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, there are certain areas in which Channel 4 would have liked the flexibility to go slightly further. Let us build that flexibility in now and, rather than seeing Henry VIII powers as something bad, look at what they can be used for. I must admit that in my role as a Minister, I found that one of the most flexible pieces of legislation was the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It was by having Henry VIII powers that we were able to keep pace with the challenges we faced, and we should welcome the opportunity to add such powers to this Bill.
I thank the Members of both Houses who performed the pre-legislative scrutiny. That has made it a stronger Bill, and it is important that the Government have largely listened. That shows maturity, and it is why I think the Bill will be a success. I echo Members’ comments about ensuring that we use the word “significant” and not just “appropriate” in proposed new sections 362AM and 362AO to the Communications Act 2003, because we need to give clarity and send a firm message to Ofcom. At the end of the day, Ofcom is an independent regulator. It does not represent people right across the country, and it is important that Parliament has a voice in pushing or promoting that.
The Select Committee referred in its report to the use of negative statutory instruments by the Government. I ask the Government to think again slightly. Having experienced a variety of legislation, I know that the role of negative SIs is well established and that they represent about 80% of the legislation that we make. They are used to update minor points. However, it is not necessary to leave such elements to Ofcom or to take these things to court when Parliament can assert that role.
I am really pleased about the change in Government policy that has led to the parts of the Bill that relate to Channel 4. It was under Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government in 1982 that Channel 4 was created as a way to have a public sector broadcaster that was still state owned but that generated all its revenue privately rather than through the licence fee, and what a job it has done. S4C was, of course, created on the same day. I very much welcome the special status that Channel 4 will continue to have, as well as the new powers that give it the freedom and flexibility to produce. I also welcome the commitments still being made to the independent sector, and I know that Channel 4 will not suddenly rush to bring everything in-house—far from it. Why would it, when the way it has done things so far has been so successful? I pay particular tribute to its exceptional chief executive, Alex Mahon, who has been a real champion for Channel 4 and the creative industries. Long may she flourish.
Turning to the excellent ITV, I suggest that it really needs a level playing field and this kind of opportunity, particularly when it comes to global platforms. The extra burdens put on our public service broadcasters are important to the diversity of the TV that we enjoy, and ITV continues to go from strength to strength. Just like Channel 4, it has made transformations in its filming. Channel 4’s portrayal of the Paralympics in 2012 has been recognised around the world as a real game changer by the Paralympic movement. Similarly, ITV broadcasts brave coverage of the news and is spending a lot more money on going to some of the most challenging parts of the world. Other broadcasters including Sky have done similar things. When we give Ofcom these powers, we must send a strong message about the robust application and enforcement of prominence for PSBs on global online platforms, on terms that enable them to thrive and deliver their remit.
Much has been said about local radio, and a significant number of local radio stations have been created in Suffolk Coastal following the significant reduction in BBC Suffolk’s very local content. Although I regret that reduction, it has opened up an opportunity for many more broadcasters. I welcome the provisions in the Bill to make it easier for local radio stations to broadcast and thrive.
On part 7, there is a lesson for all of us in the light of the Leveson inquiry that a knee-jerk reaction to a prominent public inquiry is not necessarily the best way to generate new legislation. I can see why people were so upset, and continue to be upset, when the media seem to have the freedom to trash people’s lives and reputations, but it was not the right knee-jerk reaction. It is good that we never commenced section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and are now repealing it. I would be very concerned if the repeal led to a rush of newspapers suddenly departing from the Independent Press Standards Organisation or Impress. I know that some newspapers have chosen not to use either, but we should not actively encourage that choice through the Bill.
This is a good Bill, and I hope the House will let the Government work at pace. The Bill is important for the commercial viability and sustainability of PSBs, none of which has the benefit of the licence fee, which means that the BBC does not particularly need to work to generate income. I should say that I worked at the BBC for six to nine months before becoming a Member of Parliament, and it has a very special place in UK life, but it is important that we have a wide range of PSBs. The Bill will help to keep PSBs sustainable for the future.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome this debate, and I strongly welcome the departure from the idea of selling off and privatising Channel 4. It has been a very good channel that continues to do a lot of innovative things. That it can develop its own content can only be a good thing, as it shows the importance of public service broadcasting.
We should reflect that the Bill is going in the direction of proper regulation of the media, while recognising the value and importance of public service broadcasting. We should compare that with the United States, which, since the second world war, has systematically defunded public service broadcasting and has ended up with news values essentially dominated by Fox News and nothing else. We should value the principle of public service broadcasting.
I am particularly pleased that Gaelic and Welsh-language stations are not only protected but supported by the Bill, as they have greatly increased the speaking of Gaelic and Welsh, enhancing and developing the culture of both Scotland and Wales.
Many of us often criticise journalists, but we very much value the idea of a free press and a free media, which we do not always appear to have. We should think a little more about the multiple ownership of different media outlets across TV, newspapers, radio and so on.
The Bill is also about trying to keep up with changing technology and a changing media landscape. There was a time when radio was one thing, television was another, social media had not been invented and newspapers were completely separate from all of them. All of those are now essentially merged into one, in some way or another: radio interviews are televised and newspaper articles appear on websites, often with videos. That is not a bad thing—it is often a good thing—but there is a universality to the media, and many people get their information from online sources.
However, we should be slightly cautious because we, in this Chamber, are all media obsessives, I suppose. We probably read newspapers and listen to current affairs programmes more than anybody else in our society, so it is easy to forget that a significant proportion of the population does not watch very much television, has no access to smart phones, does not know how to use a computer and is completely lost in a digital divide. Those people are increasingly isolated and left behind. The Bill does not pretend to give an answer to that. I am not sure there is a simple answer, but we should recognise that a growing proportion of the population—not huge, but significant—often loses out on all kinds of information as a result.
I will briefly address the question of news values. I believe there is a high degree of bias in the way that a lot of news is reported in our media, notably international reporting on global affairs. If something happens in the USA, Europe or whatever war is being followed at that time, be it the horrors of Gaza or Ukraine, that is news, but if something happens in much of Africa, Latin America or south Asia, it is simply not reported at all. The huge conflict going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo receives almost zero coverage in any of our written or broadcast media. The problems of, say, indigenous communities in Ecuador receive no coverage either.
We need to think about how we can encourage all our media to have a more global view when they report globally. The BBC has cut back on its global coverage significantly. It cannot afford to have journalists all around the world, so it puts them in the best known places—Brussels, Washington and so on—and has cut back on many other places. The only global channel that currently tries to report on the whole world is al-Jazeera, which is funded entirely by the Qatar Government and royal family. We need diversity in broadcasting as well as in the way in which the news is chosen. That applies to many other issues as well, including the reporting of environmental affairs and debates about global warming.
Commercial media is driven by the need to make money to survive, so it has no great incentive to do anything other than entertainment, because that is what brings in the audience and advertising. It does not necessarily provide information and education for the population. I realise Ofcom has to do a difficult balancing act, but we should be aware that the majority of the population no longer looks at the two alternatives most of us in the Chamber grew up with—the BBC and ITV—but at a whole plethora of different news outlets. Therefore, those people have a wide variety of news issues thrown at them.
A number of colleagues have raised issues about local journalism and local papers, which also appear heavily online. I once worked in a genuinely local paper—it was printed on the same site where we wrote the stories and it was part of the community. It then became part of a bigger group, then another bigger group and then an even bigger group. Local papers across the country are actually not local at all. They are owned by a media group in a distant place and, if they are lucky, there are one or two journalists in the town in question and they live largely by press releases.
My friend, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), quite rightly commended the West Highland Free Press for its work. I remember that it was set up because of a lack of local reporting. There was a very serious determination by those who set it up to ensure that it was a genuinely independent paper that covered a huge part of Scotland and that was able to build community strengths and links with it, and I think that the paper has been very successful in doing that.
A long distance away and in a completely different kind of community, the Camden New Journal group, which also includes the Islington Tribune and other enterprises, is, again, a wholly independent group set up by the journalists who worked on the paper when the previous owners essentially walked away from it. It is independent, it is local, and it is co-operatively run. It is also very, very successful, because it concentrates completely on the news and stories within the local community and tries to bring them forward.
Having newspapers and radio stations that cover all languages is also very important. We have talked about Scotland and Wales, but there is also a plethora of communities in this country who want to hear stuff in their own language. I remember speaking in this House, probably from this very spot, in the 1980s, trying to defend London Greek Radio, which was set up as an independent Greek-speaking radio station. It was raided 74 times by the Post Office and all its broadcasting equipment was taken away—goodness knows what happened to the 74 items of broadcasting equipment. Eventually the station was given a licence, and it is now a very successful Greek language radio station. There are many other language radio stations all across the country, which is important. It is important for people growing up in bilingual communities to be able to listen to things in their own language, and for young people to feel that sense of belonging to the Greek, to the Turkish, to the Somali or to any other community, as well as being able to communicate in English. That to me is the great value of local radio stations.
My final point is about social media. When I go to meetings, I often ask people how many of them ever buy a newspaper. If the audience has nobody in it over the age of 50, no hand goes up. Younger people simply do not buy newspapers at all—they have no relationship with them. They rely completely on social media for their news, information and ideas. We all access social media. We are all driven in social media by various algorithms, some of which are owned by people far away, who have patented those algorithms. They follow us, they follow our interests and they decide what news we ought to have. It is hardly a free media when we are directed to the news that somebody wants us to hear. It is not simple. It is not simple to regulate on what algorithms do, but we should be extremely well aware of it.
We should also be aware that it is possible to set up a radio station—unless I am wrong about this Bill—that is purely online. There is no regulation of it whatsoever, other than the basics of libel law and things such as that. That is an area that will grow. It is an area that is increasing, and some of the online radio stations have very large audiences indeed. Some of them are very good, and some of them less so, but we must be aware of that and the need in the longer term for further regulation and control of the behaviour of algorithms and how they can influence opinion—politically, socially and commercially—and everything else in our lives.
We should just take a moment to think of the bravery of many journalists around the world, including those who have been killed in Gaza over the past few weeks; those who are in prison in Egypt, in Russia and in a number of other countries; and those who risk everything in order to try to get the news out. They need support and protection in every way possible.
I would also like to put it on record that we should reflect quite seriously on the situation facing one of the world’s best-known investigative journalists—that of Julian Assange, who has now spent almost five years in a maximum security prison for revealing uncomfortable truths about Iraq and other places. Journalism at its best tells us the truth. At its worst, it is propaganda for somebody else and somebody very, very powerful.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I agree with some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), in particular his comments about the bravery of journalists covering conflict around the world today.
It is very doubtful that there will be a Division on the Bill this evening. We have had something of a love-in, with contributions from all parties saying that they support the Bill. I do not want to shatter that consensus, but I am going to do so. Although it is clear that the Opposition are not going to divide the House on Second Reading, I must say to them that, had they chosen to do that, I would have supported them. I would have done so purely because of the strength of my feelings about clause 50, which repeals section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I believe consistency in this place matters, even though it might sometimes be elusive. The truth is that section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was part of a Conservative-drafted compromise following the Leveson inquiry. It was a compromise in which I had a hand, and I am not about to vote against it, today or at any other point.
The reason I supported the thrust of the Leveson proposals at the time was not despite my being a Conservative, but because I am a Conservative, and true Conservatives believe in accountability. It is true Conservatives who, throughout history, have faced down powerful vested interests and it is true Conservatives who will always look out for the underdog, whatever the consequences might be. The Leveson inquiry followed decades of failure on the part of the press to engage seriously with self-regulation, and the craven failure of this House over 70 years to act on the findings of no fewer than seven inquiries and Royal Commissions set up during that time.
It is often the case that we never quite know when something that is known to be a problem will become a big story—a running story, as we call it in the media. It was the hacking of the phone of Milly Dowler, the murdered schoolgirl, that made this House decide to act. Therefore it was a Conservative Prime Minister at the time who condemned the Press Complaints Commission as wholly ineffective. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who set up the inquiry. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who chose Lord Justice Leveson to lead that inquiry—in part because Lord Justice Leveson was recognised as somebody who respected the press and believed passionately in the freedom of the press, and could therefore be relied upon to come up with a sensible set of proposals.
It was a Conservative Prime Minister who wrote the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry and a Conservative Prime Minister who said that that inquiry should make policy recommendations to the Government. When that report came back, it was a Conservative Prime Minister who stated on the Floor of this House that we could not just say, “Let’s have one last chance saloon for the press again.”, because we had done that. When that report landed—all 1,800 pages, in four volumes—my noble Friend Lord Cameron, then Prime Minister, asked Oliver Letwin to work out a way to implement the proposals of the Leveson inquiry.
There followed a series of compromises to accommodate some of the concerns of the press. First, while Lord Leveson had recommended that there should be a statutory body, preferably Ofcom, that would act as the recognition body, that was seen to be problematic by the press. So Oliver Letwin came up with the rather ingenious idea of establishing a Royal Charter for the self-regulation of the press. The press then raised concerns that a future Government might be able unilaterally to change the terms of that charter simply by bringing forward Orders in Council. We accepted that that was a very fair concern. Paradoxically, the press then asked whether Parliament could safeguard the integrity of the Royal Charter by ensuring that it could be amended or removed only if there were a super-majority of both Houses of Parliament and, in addition to that, a super-majority in the Scottish Parliament.
Finally, there was a lot of discussion about the editors’ code and who should hold the pen. The media felt that existing editors should always hold the pen on the editors’ code, which was contrary to what Lord Leveson had suggested. Again, however, to carry the press with us—as it had said that it would work with us if we made the concessions that it wanted—we made that final concession to ensure that the editors’ code would always be written by the newspaper industry, not by any other independent body.
At various stages during those multiple concessions, Oliver Letwin asked me whether I would help to broach conversations with the Opposition parties with a view to forming a cross-party consensus on the matter, and I did so in good faith. At this point, I pay particular tribute to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who was at that time the shadow Secretary of State, and to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, for the way in which they approached the issue. The easiest thing for any Opposition to do is simply to oppose everything for the sake of it, but on that issue, they recognised the importance of trying to arrive at a consensus in Parliament for the good of civil society.
I hope that you will not mind if I pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your former guise as Opposition Chief Whip. I remember attending one meeting where it was somewhat presumed that I would be able to turn up on the night with 70 Conservative rebels to defeat the Government. You probably saw the anguish on my face at the daunting prospect of having to do such a thing. You made everybody else in the room aware that Whips’ Offices can, when they put their minds to it, be pretty good at burning off opposition.
It is true that the victims of phone hacking were quite concerned about the level of compromise that politicians were making on their behalf. I remember Hugh Grant being particularly sceptical of that. We got him in and said, “Trust us; we are going to do this. This is a cross-party consensus: all parties are signed up to it. It will happen.” It is disappointing that, a decade on, Hugh Grant is being proved right because of the Government’s actions through the Bill.
Some months after we had put in place the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press, I met Sir Alan Moses, who was the first inaugural chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the industry’s own regulator. I remember saying to Sir Alan, “IPSO is making good progress. It is an improvement on the PCC. It wouldn’t have to do a great deal more in order for it to be a recognised regulator. Why doesn’t IPSO simply seek recognition?” He said, “George, I completely agree with you. However, my contract of employment forbids me from saying so publicly.” How is that for the freedom of speech that we hear so much about? Sir Alan Moses, the inaugural chairman of IPSO, was subject to a gagging order, no less, that prevented him from saying what he believed to be true.
Let me turn to the specifics of section 40, which put in place one of the key provisions of Leveson’s recommendations: the creation of incentives for an industry regulator to seek recognition. That is often misunderstood, for the provisions of section 40 are symmetrical: not only does it protect innocent people who want redress and access to a process of arbitration, but it protects publishers from people with deep pockets who go to lawyers such as Carter-Ruck or Schillings and threaten litigation—through so-called SLAPPs—to intimidate and bully publishers and prevent them from publishing things. Had we put that in place and commenced section 40, if a Russian oligarch, for instance, had said, “If you print that, I will see you in court,” and all sorts of injunctions came forth from various lawyers, a publisher would have been able to say, “No, you won’t. We will see you in arbitration.” That would have protected genuine investigative journalism in a way that has never been done before.
Jeremy Corbyn
The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. He must be aware that the laws relating to libel and so on are completely misshapen, in that it is totally a rich person’s game. Anyone without resources gets threatened with libel and is silenced immediately. They have no recourse to legal aid and no other way of dealing with the situation other than either to accept something they believe to be wrong or to make themselves bankrupt trying to defend themselves.
George Eustice
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The truth is that the system of arbitration, backed up by the cost provisions under section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, protected small, plucky journalists working for small publishers as much as it protected the weak and vulnerable who could not afford legal action. It is important to note that the arbitration system envisaged would only have engaged at all where there was what is called a cause of action, which is to say where people have a case in law. The arbitration system would never have become overwhelmed, since there would have been a sifting process to take out simple complaints about inaccuracy and so forth. In essence, the system would have focused predominantly on the areas of defamation and privacy.
We even considered what I used to term the Private Eye test, which is to say that if we have a publication that for all sorts of ideological reasons has never joined up to anything at all—bear in mind that Private Eye never even joined the Press Complaints Commission—there was an option for them to be able to demonstrate adherence to the principles set out in the royal charter while not joining a body. There was also a large area of discretion for the courts on an individual case. While there was a strong margin of appreciation in favour of those who signed up, it was not black and white. The clause stated that where it was “reasonable in the circumstances” for a court to find a different position, it had the right to do so.
I am therefore generally critical, as the House can understand, of the repeal of section 40, but I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to the continued existence of the royal charter on the self-regulation of the press and that they have no intention of bringing forward any Order in Council to disband the Press Recognition Panel. It is important to recognise that Leveson did not recommend that we needed to take a legal provision through an Act of Parliament to give effect to these cost provisions. His recommendation was that we or the courts could use the Civil Procedure Act 1997 to set civil procedure rules to create a margin of appreciation and an incentive in favour of those who joined an independent regulator.
While the Government legislated in this place, albeit that they then failed to commence the order, it was entirely understandable that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Master of the Rolls might have felt it inappropriate for them to act in this space. Now that the Government have signalled their intention to vacate this space, it is entirely open to the Master of the Rolls and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to make their own civil procedure rules in this space to give effect to the Leveson inquiry. Let us not forget that that inquiry was established under the Inquiries Act 2005 and is explicitly referenced in the royal charter. It would be fair and reasonable for the courts to give consideration and weight to that fact.
An important duty now falls to the Press Recognition Panel. That body, independent of Government, does not need to wait for advice or permission from Government; it is entirely open to the Press Recognition Panel to put together a detailed report setting out its recommendations for what the alternative incentives might be to encourage publishers to sign up to a recognised regulator. It may come up with some useful advice for all parties in this House as they consider their manifestos going forward.
In conclusion, I feel that the failure to commence the full architecture of the Leveson proposals was a terrible missed opportunity for the press, and I say that as one of the few Members on these Benches who first came into Parliament with a brown Press Gallery pass. I knew every single one of the journalists in the Press Gallery and the news organisations they worked for, and I developed a strong appreciation and respect for the individual character of each and every one of those newspaper organisations—even the ones that were often critical of the party on the Government Benches—as I understood their tradition.
Those of us who really believed in the freedom of the press and wanted to see the press thrive had in our minds that if it sought recognition, it would become distinguished from social media and other news content. A decade ago, we were already seeing the start of so-called “fake news” and the idea put forward by Leveson was that a recognised regulator could be used as a Kitemark showing a news organisation’s commitment to ethical journalism. That would be a positive and would restore trust in our press, which had been lost over the years. The idea was that the Broadcasting Act 1996, covered today in much of this Bill, would affect the regulated broadcasters, but that there would be a much more flexible, self-regulatory model for the press or other online content. We could also see, even 10 years ago, that there was going to be a convergence between broadcast media, who would increasingly have online news content in written form, and the print media, who would increasingly be online and would have podcasts and video content. Therefore, a blurring would take place in the traditional distinction between broadcast and print journalism. The great beauty of the architecture we put in place with the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press is that it enabled there to be multiple regulators, some of which might specialise just in online news and others that might specialise just in the printed press, with everything else in between. Had we implemented that, we would have had a great opportunity to restore trust in the truthfulness and integrity of journalism in this country.
There is a final reason why I believe it was short-sighted of the press not to do this. When the courts see that over a period of time there has been intransigence on the part of the press to take standards and genuine accountability seriously, and a craven weakness in this House to act in this space at all, they will make public policy decisions. It is no good complaining about SLAPPs, privacy injunctions and so forth when this House has failed to do even the most basic things to put in place some sensible protections for our civil society. So I would have opposed this Bill on those grounds alone, but I recognise that it contains much else that has cross-party support. I hope that the Government will consider removing clause 50 at a later stage of our consideration of this Bill.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the Media Bill. I wish to focus narrowly on part 4, which sets out the provisions on public service broadcasting and gives Ofcom powers to draft and enforce a video-on-demand code. The Bill proposes to do that by extending audience protection measures, for example, age ratings and content warnings, that are currently enforced for broadcast media and BBC iPlayer-only to all on-demand programme services.
A number of colleagues have mentioned how the media landscape has evolved rapidly in our lifetimes. I remember the black-and-white telly in my parent’s lounge, with the choice of just three or four channels. I remember traditional linear TV, where we would all sit around to watch a programme and we would not answer the phone or the doorbell, because if we missed something, that was it. I remember my grandparents getting a VHS player before we did in the 1980s and my grandma would record “Thomas the Tank Engine” and “Postman Pat” for us, and we would binge watch it when we went to stay with her. Of course, so much has changed since then, and when my children were young, they did not even understand the concept of linear TV. I remember going to stay with a family member who did not have a smart TV at the time and my children did not understand how they could not watch “Octonauts” right that minute.
So much has changed in our lifetime. Of course, there are many wonderful aspects of media programming in this country—we have some fantastic content that is the envy of the world—but there are also some not-so-wonderful aspects, and there is lots of material out there that may be entertaining for adults but we definitely do not want children to see. That is the point of the Ofcom broadcasting code, which says for broadcast TV:
“1.1: Material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under eighteen must not be broadcast.
1.2: In the provision of services, broadcasters must take all reasonable steps to protect people under eighteen.
1.3: Children must also be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.”
A healthy family media environment relies on parents being able to keep children safe by making sure they do not accidentally come upon content that is not suitable, and on parents having control over what is suitable for their own children. It goes without saying that young children should not be watching violence, sex, extreme language and all those kinds of things. We accept that as a society, and that is why we have rules and systems in place to help parents and to stop children seeing unsuitable content.
Our traditional on-demand media—cinema, DVD and VHS—is regulated by the British Board of Film Classification, which is a highly respected organisation that has been going for over 100 years. We are all familiar with the littles triangles telling us that a film is a U, PG, 12 and so on. Our TV scheduling is regulated by the broadcasting code, which mainly relies on the watershed so that broadcasters do not put out programmes before 9 pm that children should not see. On demand presents a new challenge for our broadcasters, because the watershed does not apply. By definition, all the content is available all the time, and therefore parents cannot rely on the fact that it is before 9 o’clock to know that a particular programme is safe.
Some commercial streaming services have voluntarily adopted the BBFC’s ratings. Netflix is a good example. It has adopted the U, PG, 12 and so on ratings. That is really important, because the BBFC ratings are some of the clearest, most transparent and most respected in the whole world. The BBFC even has an app now where parents can look for any programme or film, and it will tell them the rating and exactly why that rating is given, so that parents can be fully informed about what children are going to watch.
I visited the BBFC a couple of weeks ago—I highly recommend that to Members; it is more than willing to give briefings—to see how it rates films, trailers and programmes. It is a hugely impressive organisation, with enormous levels of trust from not just the content creators but the public. It surveys 10,000 members of the public every four years to ask them about their attitudes to violence, swearing, sex, drugs and so on, to feed into its ratings, so that there is buy-in from the public.
Some services have not opted into the BBFC ratings or produced a suitable rating system of their own. The most significant player in this category is Disney+, which has an opaque system of age rating that cannot be trusted by parents. For example, the film “Avatar”, which I think most people would say is suitable for children, has a rating of 16+, and yet a quite sinister adaptation of “A Christmas Carol” that involves nudity, horror, child molestation, forced prostitution and a depiction of child drowning has a rating of 9+.
The problem is that when parents see that kind of discrepancy, and when the ratings are opaque and there is no transparency about why things are rated in the way they are, parents just remove the passwords, because they think, “I want my child to be able to see ‘Avatar’”. But in removing the passwords or changing the settings on their account, they inadvertently enable children to watch a lot of material that is not suitable for them.
Clearly, Disney+ and other streaming services need to be subject to the same standards as broadcast media. If material is unsuitable for children, it is unsuitable whatever the platform on which it is viewed, and it is the intention of the Bill to remedy that. Clause 38 will require Ofcom to review audience protection measures used by providers of all on-demand tier 1 programme services, including those that do not have their headquarters in the UK. In other words, the Bill seeks to ensure that what we might call the new media—streamed content—is subject to the same audience protection measures, such as age ratings, content warnings, parental control and age assurance measures, as traditional and linear material such as cinema, DVD and broadcast TV.
So far, so good—that is a laudable and much-needed aim—but my question to the Government is, why reinvent the wheel? Why task Ofcom with another review and developing another new code, when we already have a world-leading regulatory framework in the BBFC? Why not instead extend the remit of the BBFC—an internationally trusted organisation—and an age-rating system understood by millions who already use streaming media, so that those familiar ratings logos of U, PG, 15 and so on are visible on each and every programme on every streaming platform?
Indeed, 88% of parents find the BBFC ratings on Netflix extremely helpful, so it would make sense to standardise these ratings across all the major streaming platforms. The platforms would pay the cost—that is how the BBFC is funded, so it would not require a massive expansion of the BBFC. For example, the BBFC gives the code and the transparent materials for rating to Netflix; Netflix polices itself, and every so often, the BBFC will check that it is fully compliant with the way it regulates itself. There would be a clear advantage to extending that universal rating system across all streaming services: it would not be reinventing the wheel, and there are also serious question marks about Ofcom’s capacity to deliver on both the requirements in this Bill and the significantly increased requirements placed on it by the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023. I urge the Minister to consider amending the Bill to use the BBFC and its code, rather than Ofcom, to achieve the aims of clause 38.
I also urge the Minister to consider extending the remit of the Bill’s audience protection provisions beyond broadcast and streaming to all UK-accessible video content, including online. I appreciate that that would be a very significant expansion of the Bill, but if its purpose is to bring audience protection regulation up to date with the current and future media landscape, we are just skirting around the issue if we do not include online content. Indeed, the principle of part 4 of the Bill is to create that parity between online and offline. Nowhere is that more needed than in the much less regulated online space.
I say that principally because of the proliferation of unregulated hardcore pornography on the internet—pornography that would be completely illegal in the offline world, on DVDs or on streaming services—that is now being viewed by millions, including children, and causing immense societal damage. We are not talking about erotic magazines passed by teenage boys around the bike sheds, but extreme, violent, hardcore, repulsive and completely illegal material: violent rapes, violent assaults and incest. It is the most unimaginable, degrading material—material that is illegal offline on traditional platforms, and always has been. If we are rightly convinced that it matters what people watch—that it matters that children are protected from strong content, whether they are watching it on TV, streaming it on demand or seeing it on their phones—we have to apply the same principle to pornography.
A third of the internet is pornography; Pornhub has more users than Twitter, Instagram, Netflix, Pinterest, Zoom and LinkedIn put together. It is a $100 million industry, and algorithms draw users into more and more extreme material. The Government’s own research makes the link between viewing violent pornography and violence against women and girls, yet the average age of first viewing in this country is 11. We will never turn the tide on violence against women and girls unless we recognise the role of pornography in conditioning men and boys to link violence with sexual pleasure. That is why I urge the Minister to bring online pornography content within the scope of the audience protection measures in the Bill.
The Online Safety Act will go some way towards helping in this space: its age verification provisions will make it harder for under-18s to access that content. I very much commend the Government on accepting those amendments, which had cross-party support. But that Act missed an opportunity to crack down on online porn that would be completely illegal in the offline world—material that still proliferates online and, even with the new protections, will of course be accessed by some children. Again, the BBFC can have a role here, because it is the BBFC’s role to regulate offline porn, such as DVDs, and certain adult websites. It has a very effective working relationship with the adult industry and with payment providers, so if the BBFC establishes that a particular adult platform has on it a video that is illegal and should be taken down, it can contact the payment providers and ask them to deny payment to that website until the video is taken down.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the BBFC is also a very established brand that is trusted and understood by the public, so the public would themselves have confidence if the BBFC was given the ability to act in this space?
Miriam Cates
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly why I am calling for the BBFC to have a much greater role in this Bill, but also for that role to be extended to the regulation of pornography. The BBFC has been going for over 100 years; other countries look to it and its ratings. It has buy-in from the public and from the content creators themselves, so it is perfectly placed to provide the kind of regulation and expertise we need. If we really want online and offline parity when it comes to audience safety—of course we do, because it does not matter where this content is viewed; it will have the same effect—we must look to include pornography in the scope of the Bill. I would go so far as to say that if the Government really want to leave a legacy of child protection and reducing violence against women and girls, nothing is more important than preventing access to hardcore pornography that is, and always has been, illegal in the offline world.
I welcome the Bill; it contains some excellent provisions. Obviously, I have focused narrowly on one aspect of it, but I ask Ministers to consider mandating that all streaming services use the BBFC’s age verification ratings, and extending audience protection measures to online content, especially violent pornography.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I am delighted to see this Bill before the House today. It has been a long time coming, and its arrival is extremely welcome.
From a very young age, I wanted to be a broadcaster. So committed was I to this goal that I wrote to BBC Radio Oxford at the tender age of 15, and complained that it did not produce any programmes for teenagers. Somewhat to my surprise, it told me to put my money where my mouth was, and invited me to go in and make them myself. My first series covered such weighty topics as spots and school dinners; life as a teenager was rather more naive in that long ago era.
After university, I joined the BBC full time in its news and current affairs department, working as a reporter, presenter and producer. As the Spice Girls, in a blaze of colour, heralded the launch of Channel 5 in 1997, I perched on the newsroom desk to prove that current affairs did not have to be stuffy and boring. Indeed, so keen were we to be modern and relevant that I was even allowed to have a cameo as a newscaster in “Shaun of the Dead”. There being no greater possible pinnacle of an on-air career, I then moved behind the scenes to work as an adviser to ITV for several years.
I recount this biography not as an application to make a late appearance on the new series of “I’m a Celebrity”—I feel these Benches have provided enough victims of that recently—but to show that I have been lucky enough to have some experience of the subject matter, and perhaps more importantly, to illustrate the wide range of the country’s public service broadcasting landscape. All the broadcasters I have mentioned—the BBC, Channel 5 and ITV—have in common that they are PSBs, and it is on them that I wish to devote most of my remarks.
Public service broadcasting is not just about news and current affairs, crucial though they are; it is about reflecting all parts of our country, not just the metropolitan elites, not just London—and, indeed, not just England, as we have heard from our colleagues in the Scottish National party. It is also about showing programmes that do not just have an immediate commercial rationale. As one example, I think Channel 5’s commitment to children’s programming is commendable, and its recent commission of an animated series with disabled lead characters for pre-school children is incredibly important.
As the Government themselves have stated, this Bill will
“reform the legal framework for the regulation of public service broadcasting”,
and there can be no doubt that this is sorely needed, because the media and entertainment landscape, as we have heard several times, has changed almost beyond recognition over the past 20 years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) have touched on some of the circumstances we faced in 2003, such as watching analogue TV, Netflix still posting DVDs to its customers and Blockbuster Video still existing on our high streets. YouTube, iPhones and Twitter had not been invented, yet they are the ways in which we watch much of our content these days.
Let me add some other cultural memories of that year. Jemini—with a J—scored “nul points” at Eurovision, Cilla Black quit “Blind Date” live on air and Jonny Wilkinson scored a last-minute drop goal that won the Rugby world cup and the nation’s hearts. That same year, 2003, more than 19 million viewers were glued to their screens as the “Coronation Street” serial killer Richard Hillman abducted the Platts and drove the family into the canal. It was must-watch TV the length and breadth of the country. However, those TV audience numbers for drama could only be dreamt of today. Indeed, the entire TV landscape is almost unrecognisable, thanks to rapid developments in technology that have in turn brought about fundamental changes in viewing habits. Today, 75% of households have an on-demand streaming service, and according to Ofcom, 90% of 18 to 24-year-old adults bypass TV channels and head straight to streaming, on-demand and social video services when they are looking for something to watch.
While the likes of Netflix, Prime and Disney offer a panoply of great programming, they are not bound by the requirements on our public service broadcasters—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. The responsibility that PSBs bear to present socially valuable content carries a burden, and it is only right that that is reflected in the regulatory regime. Key to achieving that is ensuring due prominence for PSBs on whatever device. At its simplest, there is no value in having high quality, publicly important programming if viewers cannot find it quickly and easily, yet that is increasingly the risk with the market as it is today.
We are all familiar with the shift away from an on-screen list of TV programmes—electronic programme guides—to a set of tiles along the bottom of our screens, but whereas the lowest numbers on an old EPG could easily be reserved for the PSBs, the tiles can be set in pretty much any order. Inevitably, those linked to the highest paying providers of content, or otherwise prioritised, are frequently the first to be seen. It can take many clicks on the remote to get to the smaller PSBs: Channels 4 and 5.
I strongly welcome the Government’s provisions on the new online prominence regime, and I agree with ITV that a “clear mandate” must be
“given to Ofcom for a muscular implementation of the Bill…on terms that enable PSBs to flourish and deliver their remits.”
I would be grateful if the Minister set out in a little more detail how he envisages Ofcom implementing the new regime, and said whether he supports the regulator taking a bold stance to ensure that global companies comply with our decisions in Parliament for an appropriate level of prominence for our PSBs.
I would also be grateful for reassurance that a secondary power to designate platforms will be cast as broadly as necessary to achieve the aims of Bill. For example, that could potentially include gaming consoles, which I understand from much younger colleagues are often used to access PSB content. This is not just about watching the box in the corner of the room. The requirement to give PSBs prominence cannot become a licence to print money by the platforms carrying them, so I welcome the Bill’s proposals for a must-offer, must-carry regime, with an arbitration scheme as a backstop.
The other side of the coin is that the privilege of prominence carries with it a duty, and nowhere more so than at the BBC. It must do better if it is to retain its hallowed position as the most prominent and privileged of the PSBs, because it is funded by all of us through the licence fee. I have said before that I believe that that funding method is living on borrowed time; it is an anachronistic and frankly regressive tax. During my 12 years as a magistrate, I saw the painful impact, particularly on some women, of the draconian measures that are taken against those who cannot afford to pay that licence. Although the future of the licence fee is not part of today’s debate, the funding model puts additional and serious duties on the BBC as a PSB.
I fear that the BBC is no longer the organisation that I joined more than 30 years ago. We are all familiar with the growing torrent of criticism, not least of aspects of its coverage of the middle east crisis. Although there are undoubtedly some phenomenally good and brave journalists in the field, there have also been some appalling and inexcusable lapses in the BBC’s reporting. Responsibility for that must go to the very top of the newsroom, and it must always be remembered that the facts are far more important than a juicy headline. I fear that if it is not careful, BBC Verify will have to start scrutinising its own newsroom, and that was not the idea of it in the first place.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Leaving aside the newsroom, when pensioners started paying the licence fee again, I had a large number of them in my constituency. Three of them made contact with me, one of whom objected, and two of whom were trying to pay in an old-fashioned way that the BBC’s agents could not cope with. That shows that the licence subscription system works pretty well and is welcomed. I say to my hon. Friend that if we had the alternative to the licence fee, or some other kind of household impost, we would have a subscription where the BBC stops serving everyone in the country, and starts serving those who choose to pay. As it is a national institution, we still face the question put by the Canadian, Graham Spry, nearly 100 years ago:
“It is a choice between the state and the United States.”
Let us choose the state and make it a public broadcaster still.
Rob Butler
I thank the Father of the House for his intervention. He raises important points, which is why we will need to have a long and detailed debate on the future of the licence fee at another time. I chose my words relatively carefully in saying that I hoped the licence fee was living on borrowed time, rather than saying that the end must come immediately. My hon. Friend raises points that will have to be addressed before we move to another system, but I personally feel that the current model is not sustainable in the medium to long term.
It is not just me who has raised concerns about the BBC. According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, trust in BBC News has plummeted from 75% in 2018 to 55% in 2022. That trend clearly cannot continue.
I have focused my remarks principally on broadcasters, as that is where the majority of my experience lies, but I will turn for a moment to the print media. I listened carefully to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and I am afraid to disappoint him but I agree rather more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on section 40. I am glad to see the Bill removing that sword of Damocles from newspapers. It struck me that, although it was never commenced, it loomed over papers and magazines as a potential form of state control that would have been unconscionable interference in the freedom of the press. While I have many quibbles with both national and local newspapers about how they cover some stories, I felt that the draconian measures in section 40 were an entirely disproportionate way to tackle complaints.
Rob Butler
I will make one or two more points, just in case they answer my right hon. Friend’s question, but I will certainly give way in a moment.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, it was a surprise to me that it was ever considered appropriate to oblige the publisher to pay the costs of both sides in a legal claim, even if the publication won the case. I know that that stance was taken by the organisation Reporters Without Borders. Thankfully, the Bill will put that right, and I am reassured that the industry’s own actions in recent years in setting up its own regulator, IPSO, and beefing up internal complaints handling procedures have proved effective, without the need for further statutory intervention.
George Eustice
Obviously, the easy way for any publisher to avoid the cost provisions would be to seek recognition. What is it about the Leveson recommendations that my hon. Friend disagrees with so much? What in the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press does he find objectionable and impossible for a news organisation to subscribe to?
Rob Butler
As I just outlined, my principal concern is about the suggestion that a publisher would have to pay the loser’s costs, irrespective of what those costs could be.
The Government have considered the many factors in play in reaching this decision. It is important to say that this is not a licence for newspapers to print whatever they wish—I hope that is understood in my local area by the Bucks Herald and the Bucks Free Press. There are undoubtedly times when the line between fact, comment and insinuation seems to be ever thinner. Self-regulation brings with it a responsibility to get articles right first time, as well as to give sufficient opportunity for a right to reply and appropriate space for both sides of the story. I hope that newspaper owners and editors will take the opportunity of the repeal of section 40 to redouble their efforts to justify the trust we are putting in them to work to the highest standards.
The Media Bill is essential to securing the long-term future of our public service broadcasters. More than that, it gives confidence to our nation’s wider creative economy. We need to ensure that the Bill gets on to the statute book as smoothly and quickly as possible. I have not proposed amendments or called for specific changes because I recognise the urgency. The industry has worked closely with the Department for many months, if not years. As a result, I believe that we have before us a Bill that is well thought-out, fit for the future and fair to all. I am delighted to give it my enthusiastic support.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). I fear that I may repeat much of what he just said. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate, a week on from the King’s Speech debate in which I spent quite a bit of time calling on the Government to get on and introduce the Media Bill. For once, they listened to me—that’s nice.
The Media Bill we are debating is the first piece of media legislation for 20 years. The media landscape has changed beyond belief in the last two decades—it is vastly different from the world we lived in 20 years ago—so the Bill is vital to supporting broadcasters and audiences in the modern age. As the media landscape has changed, it is important that we support legislation without delay to give certainty to this important sector. We should recognise that the Bill will probably govern the media landscape for the next 20 years, so it must be forward-thinking, outward-looking and open, just as the previous legislation was.
I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary media group and the all-party parliamentary group on commercial radio. Let me start by saying that I welcome the Bill, which responds well to the needs of the sector. Because of time limitations, I will focus my remarks on three specific areas of the Bill. I will do something that I rarely do, and put television ahead of radio.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to simplifying the existing remit for public service broadcasters. PSBs are what make our television landscape renowned around the world, but they face unprecedented competition for viewers, programming content and talent in an era when global streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime are producing original content and becoming increasingly dominant in the market. It is good that we have more content producers, but even better, they are choosing to make content here in the UK because of our regulatory framework.
TV prominence is about ensuring that UK viewers can easily find public service content that they value. We are living in an increasingly global marketplace, but there is still an appetite for programmes that reflect British values. In fact, around seven in 10 UK adults want UK life and culture to be represented on screen, and a similar number agree that PSBs make programmes designed for UK audiences. Why is it important that we introduce legislation to protect PSBs? Surely, viewers will want to watch the programmes that they make.
Until now, in return for providing public service content, the Government, through Ofcom, have allocated frequencies to broadcasters. In a relatively uncomplicated world, those channels have been easy to find on electronic programme guides: ITV, and STV in Scotland, on channel 3; Channel 4 and Channel 5 on their respective channels. Once someone has tuned in their TV to the nearest transmitter, they press the number on their remote control and the channel is there.
In a future world where the internet is used to deliver the linear TV and video on demand, the tech companies and platforms will decide where products and programmes appear. In fact, at the moment, if Samsung or LG decided not to include the BBC iPlayer app on their TV screens, there is nothing the BBC, UK viewers or the Government could do about it. If Amazon decided to double the charge for Channel 4’s on-demand service to appear on its Fire Stick, there is little Channel 4 could do about it. From speaking to Channel 4, I know that when Amazon moved the location of the Channel 4 app on the Fire Stick, there was a significant alteration in the viewing of Channel 4. It matters where the apps are located on the relevant platform.
If we want to make sure that British viewers can easily find BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, and STV in Scotland and S4C in Wales, we need to agree the framework that will ensure that platforms carry those services. I fully support that. I also urge the Government to look carefully at using the word “significant” rather than “appropriate”. That will determine where the channels are found on those platforms.
Kirsty Blackman
I wholeheartedly agree that it is not just about the schedule. As I said earlier, I was not aware that we had a schedule. We do not use Freeview; we open the Fire Stick or PlayStation and look at the apps. The prominence of the apps is important. If someone does not have terrestrial TV or an aerial hooked up, that is the only way that they are able to consume the public service broadcast content.
Andy Carter
There may be an age divide that determines whether someone looks at an electronic programme guide or the Radio Times, or whether they just look for a tile. The notion that viewers want to continue to use linear TV is important. That is why it is so critical that we legislate in the right way to make sure that British viewers can find it.
The changes in the Bill will impact Channel 4 more than any other PSB, given its unique publisher-broadcaster licence. Channel 4’s status, introduced by the Conservative Government back in the 1980s, has significantly aided the development of the independent production sector in the UK over the last 40 years, which is now worth nearly £4 billion. The removal of the publisher-broadcaster restrictions will allow for Channel 4 to produce its own content, as opposed to simply commissioning or acquiring all of its content from third parties. Why does that matter? For the first time, it will allow Channel 4, when it produces content, to own the rights for that content, which it can then sell around the world, creating another stream of revenue which will allow products and programmes to be funded on Channel 4.
The Government have announced plans to increase Channel 4’s independent production quota as part of the changes. However, there will be many small production companies in areas such as the north-west of England, which have seen a rapid growth in independent production businesses, who are still unsure about the full impact the changes will have for them. Will the Minister, in his response, expand a little more on what the changes will mean for those businesses and give some assurances that they will still be able to thrive once Channel 4 receives its new licence and the Bill receives Royal Assent?
Channel 4 has indicated that it will maintain its existing commitment to spend 50% of its budget for main channel commissions outside London. That is really important to regional production. Ofcom has announced that it will be consulting on whether changes will need to be made to Channel 4’s regional programming making quotas. Is the Minister able to provide a timeline for that consultation, so we know when any changes will come into effect?
I want to touch on local TV and echo some of the comments from other hon. and right hon. Members. I have received representations from the local TV networks who are concerned that the current Bill does not guarantee local TV service prominence in the new TV ecology, and neither does it grant powers on a par with those of local radio services. At some point, the sector will start to provide streamed linear programme services. Will the Government be giving consideration to including local TV as part of the licensed public service channel designation in the Bill to help ensure sustainability for the sector? It really is important that there is an understanding for this sector going forward, because it is making decisions today on the future of its business plans.
Finally on TV, if we are looking to the next 20 years, because this is the only Bill we are likely to see in the media landscape, we should be conscious that the previous broadcasting Bill ran for 20 years. On the Government’s management of a digital terrestrial television switchover, I have been reassured in my conversations with the Minister that he wants terrestrial television to remain accessible for the foreseeable future. I very much agree with him on that. When he is summing up, could he give an indication of the criteria he might want to set before broadcast TV services on Freeview are considered for switch off? That was in place for DAB digital radio. There was a clear criteria in terms of when that might happen. Things have moved many, many times over the years, but it would be helpful for the digital terrestrial sector to understand what the Government might be thinking.
Before I turn to the provisions on radio, may I put on record my congratulations to all those who have worked in commercial radio over the past 50 years? Independent local radio, as we once knew it, celebrated its 50th anniversary just a few weeks ago. It was 50 years ago in October since LBC and Capital Radio arrived on our airwaves in the capital, 50 years since Radio Clyde in Glasgow launched and 50 years since BRMB in Birmingham launched. They were the four stations in 1973 that appeared on our AM radios. Over the 50 years, we have seen a plethora of local, regional and national stations arrive on AM, FM, DAB and now online via Radioplayer and smart speakers. Today, commercial radio is delivering record audiences. Back in the early 1980s, we were all convinced that video was going to kill the radio star. Actually, radio is in rude health. We have regional brands, national stations and hyperlocal services focused on their own towns and cities that are doing remarkably well. We should all recognise in this House how strong commercial radio is today and how much we value the services that people who work in that sector provide for us.
There is unanimous agreement across the BBC, and across commercial and community radio, that the Bill, on the whole, works for radio. It contains crucial measures that will help to safeguard the future in the face of changing technology and shifts in listening habits. The radio sector continues to deliver significant public value, providing trusted news, entertainment and—particularly important—companionship for about 50 million listeners every week. UK radio broadcasters make a substantial contribution to the creative industries, and BBC and commercial radio combined generate more than £1.5 billion in gross value added for the UK economy.
I especially welcome the provisions to support the future of the UK radio industry on voice-activated smart speaker platforms, and the removal of outdated regulatory burdens such as music formats on analogue licences for commercial radio stations. When there was a limited number of stations in each market, it was right for the Government to regulate the number of stations that could provide each particular type of service, but today, when there are a great many services, it should be for the market to decide. If country music is not working, it is possible to switch to jazz without spending too much time bothering the regulator.
There are, however, a few parts of the Bill that I should like the Minister to clarify for the industry. Part 5 deals with the safeguarding of local news and information on DAB services, and it would be helpful if the Minister could explain how those powers will work in practice. For instance, how would a multiplex decide which services must carry local news? Would the multiplex owner be responsible for the enforcement against a digital sound service provider, or would that be the responsibility of Ofcom? What would happen if a service carrying local news stopped broadcasting? Would the obligation be transferred to another service holder, or to the multiplex owner? As for Ofcom’s new role in producing guidelines for the regular broadcast of local news, can the Minister tell us when and how Ofcom will be consulting on that process?
Part 6 contains clauses relating to futureproofing. Will there be scope for expansion of the provisions to cover on-demand and online-only radio content provided by UK broadcasters, as opposed to linear content? Finally, may I ask whether the Government will consider an amendment to protect access to radio in cars, which still accounts for about a quarter of all radio listening, by bringing non-voice activated infotainment systems within the scope of the Bill?
I want to touch briefly on the proposals
“for the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013”,
a decade-old provision that has never been brought into force. While I appreciated the opportunity to observe the perspective of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), whose knowledgeable account of the forming of that legislation was extremely insightful, I am afraid I disagree with the points that he made. It does not seem right to me that publishers who are taken to court could be forced to pay the legal costs of a judgment if they are not a member of an approved regulator, regardless of whether they win or lose the case. I am a firm believer in the freedom of the press. I have spent time working as a journalist, and there have been times when journalists have written about my activities. There are, occasionally, times when I do not like what the press have written, and there are, occasionally, times when I believe that the press have got it wrong. Healthy democracies, however, need objective journalism which is free from state involvement.
The reason I do not agree with my right hon. Friend is this. The Leveson report recommended a system of
“voluntary independent self-regulation”,
envisaging
“a body, established and organised by the industry”
which
“must be funded by its members”.
Lord Justice Leveson said that that body should include all the major players in the industry—national newspapers, and as many regional and local newspaper and magazine publishers as possible—
“although I am very anxious that it remain voluntary”.
George Eustice
What Lord Justice Leveson actually said was that the members of the body would only be recognised as a regulator if they had sought recognition from an organisation called the Press Recognition Panel. Leveson very clearly rejected the model put forward by Lord Black in the other place, for the very good reason that there was no independent accountability and no body to recognise that independent regulator.
Andy Carter
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments and I recognise his knowledge in this area. He was involved at such a deep level that he has experience and expertise in this field.
For me, the media regulatory landscape has changed significantly since section 40 was introduced, with the Independent Press Standards Organisation now regulating nearly 2,000 print and online titles, including the vast majority of UK national, regional and local newspapers. I feel that that has left us with an obsolete law on the statute book which was never enacted. Removing the section was a Conservative party manifesto commitment in 2017 and in 2019, so I welcome its proposed repeal by the Bill.
In concluding my remarks, I want to offer my thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), to the Secretary of State and to officials in DCMS for all their positive engagement with me, with the industry and with those in the House who have long been pressing for this Bill to be brought forward. I know that the Minister is just as keen as I am to see the Media Bill on the statute book, and I am grateful to him for taking note of the issues that I have raised today. I look forward to his addressing those issues in his reply, as well as to our continued engagement over the coming months so that we can pass this Bill as soon as possible.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). I remember being warned by the Whips on my very first day in this place, “Do not make the mistake of thinking that the media are your friends. They are not.” I can still remember that. After four years of being in this place I understand the sentiment, but actually we have a job to do. It is to represent our constituents and be accountable, and the media equally have a job to do. As far as I am concerned, we form a relationship with each other, hopefully for the benefit of our constituents. It might not always be a friendship, but in my case it is a decent, healthy working relationship none the less. In North Norfolk we are lucky, because we have some really good local media companies. We have good local TV, good local radio and good local newspapers, and I work with them all. I would like to think that we have a good relationship because I have a job to do and so do they in reporting on my role and what I am doing in Parliament.
We all know that local media are under immense pressure and I have been very outspoken about BBC local radio cuts. BBC Radio Norfolk is a beloved institution in my parts and I still think that those cuts were misguided and wrong. They will devalue the product, push content creators into online from radio and put pressure on our regional newspapers, which are already struggling as a result of the ever-dwindling numbers of people who are reading print content. Local media are often far more adept at reporting on the stories our constituents want to hear, because the regional stories affect the reader directly. Local news programming often aims to be the authentic voice of its viewers and their interests, with viewers often telling stories directly through their own words.
One of the purposes of the Media Bill is supposed to be to ensure that viewing migrating to new streamed platforms does not result in viewing and revenues to public service broadcasting being lost. However, while supporting the largest broadcasters, the Bill does little to protect the rights of viewers to access local news and information on their new TV sets. So for me, the fundamental issue of the Bill is the definition of public service channels. Under the Bill, local TV services are no longer included in the definition, which means that Ofcom will have no power to secure carriage and prominence for internet-delivered local TV streamed services on smart TV sets.
The reality of that is that if local TV services cannot replace lost viewing and revenues, they will ultimately no longer be able to deliver their services. For one of my local TV stations, That’s TV, it will have a direct impact on its business. I have always supported That’s TV, along with its presenter Charlie Walden and now his successor, Ryan Wykes. Both have been young, talented and keen reporters and I have greatly enjoyed working with them. It is important that they flourish and are not lost, because the demise of local TV would be an irreversible loss to the media landscape.
Where the Bill has got it right is in reducing the regulatory burden on commercial radio stations. They, too, are stretched for advertising revenue but contribute enormously to the rich fabric of community media. To give an example of just how popular local radio is in my region: according to RAJAR data from Sept 2023, 199,000 people across Norfolk and north Suffolk tuned into Greatest Hits Radio, including 18,000 in North Norfolk alone. That is more than BBC Radio Norfolk, at 125,000, and more than Heart Norfolk, at 174,000. That echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South has just said.
Of all the people listening to the radio in Norfolk, around one in every five listened to Greatest Hits Radio for at least some of the time. It is vital that stations like these are supported and enhanced so that brilliant reporters such as Tom Clabon can continue to report on the latest and most important regional topics, day in and day out. I often find these journalists have a freer rein and more flexibility than journalists from, say, the BBC, with its strict schedule on what they can and cannot report.
One concern is that increasing the visibility or accessibility of public service broadcast content could have an adverse consequence in providing unfair competition to regional newspapers that, as we know, are under great pressure across the country. I am blessed to have a brilliant local newspaper that covers all of my constituency—I know not all MPs have that.
There is almost a clamour to buy the North Norfolk News on a Thursday morning, and I pay tribute to up-and-coming journalists such as Adam Barker and the local democracy reporter George Thompson, and not forgetting Stuart Anderson, the community editor, who was the first reporter to interview me after my election, We have worked together productively ever since I was elected to inform the population of all things in North Norfolk.
As I end, I cannot fail to mention protections for non-commercial community radio stations. I have one of the best, Poppyland Radio, based in Northrepps village hall. A bunch of wonderfully energetic, creative and talented presenters and volunteers enable it to broadcast 24/7 but, like every other local media channel, it needs protection to ensure its viability. I hope consideration can be given so that, across the spectrum, it is not just the broadcasting giants that are protected but also the content creators who represent our smaller communities. Without them, the journalists of the future may never be given the opportunity to learn their trade, and then we and the communities we represent would all ultimately suffer.
Thangam Debbonaire
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for neglecting to mention at the start of my remarks that I have recently accepted hospitality totalling £345 from Sky, a broadcaster, to see Madonna—it was unforgettable. I apologise for failing to mention that in my remarks, and I wish to correct the record. I hope that is acceptable. Thank you for your guidance.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for correcting the record as quickly as possible, for which I am grateful.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I am pleased to welcome the introduction of the overdue Media Bill. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It has been 20 years since the last major piece of broadcasting legislation was passed, and the media landscape has since changed dramatically. In 2003, the words “television” and “radio” described the devices on which we consumed our visual and audio content. Now these formats have taken on a life of their own.
Television can be viewed without a physical TV, and radio can be streamed online. As this technology has evolved, so have the habits of audiences and the competitors entering the industry. In the television space, for example, global streaming services now challenge our public service broadcasters for the attention of audiences. Rather than being linear channels, they offer catalogues of content for the price of a subscription.
Against this backdrop, we are pleased to finally have the Media Bill before us today, in order to give our public service broadcasters and UK radio the tools they need to thrive in the digital era. Just last week, I again met stakeholders from across the industry, including from public service broadcasters, radio providers, online platforms and consumer groups. While not everyone agreed on every detail of the Bill, what was clear from the discussions was the almost unanimous desire to get the Bill through as soon as possible.
Too much time has already been wasted in bringing forward the changes that are needed. Around 18 months ago, Ministers first introduced the “Up Next” White Paper, which contained many of the crucial measures we see before us in the Bill today, including welcome commitments to modernise the public service remit, to ensure public service content is prominent and easy to find on smart TVs and streaming sticks, and to futureproof the listed events regime, so that UK audiences can enjoy important national sporting moments.
However, rather than getting on with providing support for the broadcasting industry, the Government chose to waste a year pursuing doomed plans to privatise Channel 4 instead. Thanks to widespread opposition, Ministers finally made a very welcome U-turn on that proposal. That was a huge relief, not least for those local economies across the country who rely on Channel 4 spending over 50% of its commissioning budget in areas outside London, which the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) raised some important questions about.
Although I am pleased to welcome the Bill today and look forward to supporting it in its passage, it is vital that the Bill is subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, the Bill has already made distinct progress from its draft thanks to pre-legislative work by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which has rightly received praise from across the House. The Chair, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), outlined some of the accepted changes, including creating exemptions to the 30-day requirement, making progress in closing the streaming loophole in the listed events regime and adding much-needed protections to help facilitate a smooth end to Channel 4’s publisher-broadcaster restriction.
However, I would like to highlight some areas where clarification may be needed, starting with the first four parts of the Bill, which primarily focus on visual media. It is important that the Bill seeks to ensure that the public service remit is not overly complex or onerous. However, the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, the Media Reform Coalition and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee have raised concerns that removing explicit requirements to cover genres such as entertainment, drama, science, religion and other beliefs could lead to a decline in the provision of content in those areas. Will the Minister clarify what impact assessment the Department has carried out on how the new remit will impact the nature of public service content, particularly with respect to the removed genres?
In the light of changing viewing patterns, it is sensible to provide PSBs with some flexibility to meet their remit through on demand programming, but the Broadcast 2040+ campaign and others have been clear that public service content on linear television must still be protected and maintained. If it is not, we risk excluding those who live in rural areas, do not have an internet connection and an older generation that rely on being able to watch television in its traditional format. Will the Minister explain how the Department will work with Ofcom to hold our PSBs to the highest standards, and ensure that they continue to deliver quality content for as many people as possible?
Further scrutiny will also be needed to ensure the new video-on-demand code is not just a copy and paste of the broadcasting code, and is tailored to the needs of the on-demand environment, a point touched on by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). It must also be clear who this code will apply to. Currently, the Government have said tier one services will be subject to the code, but there is confusion over how tier one will be defined.
Discussions will also be important to ensure the new prominence regime achieves the aim of making sure public service content is easily accessible on smart devices, properly considers how best to implement prominence for the likes of S4C, as raised by a number of hon. Members, and takes into account legacy devices.
On listed events, we need further clarification on how the findings from the Government’s consultation into digital rights will be implemented. We do not want a situation where a major sporting event takes place overnight and the next day the online clips are behind a paywall, meaning people in the UK are cut off from viewing it.
Let me move now to the radio-focused parts of the Bill—particularly part 6. I am aware that there has been a wider concern over the drafting and intent of the clauses. Thanks to the occasions that I have been in this Chamber to discuss the importance of preserving BBC local radio, the Minister will be well aware by now that I believe that radio services are of vital importance to people up and down the country. I am therefore also in full support of the changes that the Bill makes to ensure that UK radio services are available and easy to access, without undue interruption, on devices such as smart speakers.
It is with that support in mind that I wish to ask the Minister how he plans to ensure that these measures are futureproofed, as I know that is something that Radiocentre and the BBC have raised, too. For example, does the Department have any plans to extend the regime where necessary, for instance, to include car entertainment systems? Further, despite the rapid growth of podcasts and online-only radio, these forms of audio are not covered by the Bill’s protections. Does the Minister believe that that, too, should be kept under review?
Although I support these measures, I know that the likes of TuneIn, TechUK, and Google, which I met last week, have shared some concerns over this section. Again, I am pleased that the Department has taken on board some of the important recommendations made by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to ease some of those concerns. However, I would still be keen to hear from the Minister on what work the Department has carried out to ensure that smart speaker platforms are able to prepare internally for carrying radio services through their preferred routes. It is vital that radio is protected in light of changing listening habits, and, in order for this regime to be successfully implemented, there must be proper engagement with platforms and technology stakeholders to ensure that they are able to comply.
Although the Media Bill is overdue and in need of some clarifications and adjustments, I am very pleased to welcome it today. I look forward to working closely with Ministers and Members from across the House on ensuring that we seize this once in a generation opportunity to update media regulation, and create the change needed to ensure the future of our brilliant British TV and radio.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Sir John Whittingdale)
May I start by thanking all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate? It has been wide ranging and remarkably consensual with one small exception. Nevertheless, there has been much support for what the Government are seeking to do in this Bill from right across the House. That is perhaps in part because it has been a long time in the preparation, but I think that it is all the better for that. The Government decided to publish the Bill in draft form, and we have consulted very widely since that time.
We are extremely grateful to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and to the Lords Communication and Digital Committee. We have also held extensive discussions with broadcasters, platforms and all those who have an interest including—just to reassure the Father of the House—with Colin Browne of the Voice of the Listener & Viewer, whom I met recently. We intend to continue to engage with all those with an interest in the Bill to make absolutely sure that we have got it right.
A number of hon. Members, in the course of their contributions, remarked on the extraordinary transformation that has occurred in the media landscape over the past few years. It is absolutely the case that things such as EPGs and linear television are becoming less and less part of everyday behaviour, particularly for young people who access television content. It has meant that there has had to be a succession of Bills to update the legislation to take account of the changes. I have to admit that I was a member of the Broadcasting Bill Standing Committee in 1996. I led for the Opposition in the Committee on the Communications Act 2003, and I am delighted that I shall be taking this Bill through Committee in the next few weeks.
I particularly welcome the offer from the shadow Secretary of State to work with us in taking the Bill through and I look forward to working with her and the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) in Committee as I think that there are areas where we share a common objective. We are also keen to work with all members of the Committee to ensure that we get this right.
As I say, there has been a remarkable transformation in the media landscape. We are particularly grateful for the recommendations, and I want to touch on one or two made particularly by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have always had a high regard for that Committee, having spent 10 years chairing it. As ever, the report produced by the Committee was extremely valuable and we were delighted that we were able to accept a large number of the recommendations.
There were one or two recommendations on which we took a different view. In particular, one that has been raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), was the distinction between “significant” and “appropriate”. A number Members have recommended that we should use the words “significant prominence”, rather than “appropriate prominence”. The Government have taken a different view, which can be summed up as, “Significant can indeed be appropriate, but appropriate is not necessarily significant.”
S4C is an example of that. In Wales, it is very important that it should be highly visible, and therefore significant prominence in Wales is appropriate. On the other hand, it would not necessarily be appropriate for S4C to have significant prominence outside Wales. It should obviously be findable, but it has a different position outside Wales. The Government remain of the view that “appropriate” is a more fitting term than “significant”.
Dr Coffey
I am very conscious of what my right hon. Friend says, but “appropriate” is so wishy-washy and it is clear that promoting S4C in parts of England is not what people are talking about. It is leaving the decision to Ofcom and judges, as opposed to the very clear signal from Parliament that we want our public service broadcasters to be high up the list right across the country, including on the platforms we discussed earlier.
Sir John Whittingdale
As I say, in a large number of cases the appropriate position would be a significant one, but we think there needs to be a degree of flexibility to take account of regional differences, and therefore that Ofcom is perhaps better placed to look at each individual example and decide the appropriate level.
I come to Channel 4, which has featured a lot in the course of the debate. Channel 4, set up by a Conservative Government, has played an extremely valuable role in the broadcasting landscape. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe who rightly said that when Channel 4 was created, the independent production sector did not really exist at all. The indie sector was created by Channel 4 and the fact that Channel 4, as a broadcaster, commissioned all its content from the indie sector.
As a result, we now have one of the most successful independent production sectors in the world, which to some extent does not now need the support of Channel 4; it is making content for all the broadcasters, in this country and beyond. Nevertheless, it is the Government’s decision that, to provide Channel 4 with a more sustainable revenue base moving forward, we should allow it to acquire an in-house production capacity if it so chooses. We talked to the independent production sector at length and felt it was appropriate that in those circumstances we should increase the independent production quota to 35%, in order to provide some underpinning of the independent production sector. We hope that that will ensure the continued sustainability of the independent production sector at the same time as giving a Channel 4 an additional ability to diversify its sources of revenue.
There have been a number of contributions from north of the border during this debate, particularly around Gaelic broadcasting. One measure in the Bill for the first time makes the provision of services in the minority languages across the United Kingdom part of the public service remit. That did not exist before. It is for Ofcom to decide an appropriate level of provision, but there is now a requirement that there should be such provision.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but should there not be something a bit stronger and more stringent in the Bill than a decision by Ofcom further down the road, and should it not be written into law, as several Members have asked?
Sir John Whittingdale
Well, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that clause 1 makes clear that there should be a significant quantity of
“audiovisual content that is in, or mainly in, a recognised regional or minority language”.
Kirsty Blackman
Just to correct the Minister, it does not say “significant quantity”; it says “sufficient quantity”, but there is no definition of “sufficient”. We are concerned about the fact that that word has not been defined. We want a reasonable amount of Gaelic content to be available.
Sir John Whittingdale
I apologise to the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right: it does say a
“sufficient quantity of audiovisual content”.
That will be a matter for Ofcom to rule on. MG Alba already gets support—
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the Minister, who I appreciate is trying to be helpful. What we are asking for specifically is that protection in law be given to Gaelic in the way it is given to other languages, such as Welsh. I hope that that can be done with cross-party consensus, which is what we have done over the course of the past few decades in this place.
Sir John Whittingdale
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s wish to see continuing provision both for the Welsh language and indeed for Gaelic. I would, however, draw a contrast. Some have suggested that there should be some kind of equity in the support given to the Welsh language and to Gaelic. Of course, S4C receives funding from the licence fee, but that is in recognition of the fact that there are nearly 1 million Welsh speakers in the United Kingdom. MG Alba gets some support from the Scottish Government, which is welcome, but there are approaching 100,000 people in Scotland who speak Gaelic, so there is a big contrast between the two.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
There is a reason there have been so few Gaelic speakers over the centuries: Acts of Parliament, from the Education (Scotland) Act 1872 onwards—and even before. The point is that we are looking for redress and hope, not for more of the same. I mean that in a good spirit; I hope it does not come across otherwise, because I know that the Minister is not that type of person. I am trying to communicate to him the urgency of the real need, expressed by a number of Members, for that kind of support.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am afraid that all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government recognise the importance of continuing support. We expect the BBC to continue providing a channel in Gaelic, in the form of BBC Alba, and we welcome the fact that MG Alba produces content through an arrangement with the BBC and with the support of the Scottish Government. We have now, for the first time, put into the public service remit the requirement to provide
“a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content”.
That is a significant step forward, even if it does not go quite as far as SNP Members would like.
The provisions covering radio have been rightly welcomed and described by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who is an acknowledged expert in this area. We have worked closely with the radio sector, and I think that the audio review identified the need to ensure the protection of radio services as more and more people adopt smart speakers.
A number of hon. Members raised local television, of which the Government remain supportive. However, at the moment, local television is not available through apps, so including it in the provisions for prominence was not appropriate, but we will of course keep the situation under review, should it evolve in future. The Government are consulting on the future of local television.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) raised a specific point about the regulation of video-on-demand streaming services. The Government completely share her wish to see adequate protection for children. Having sufficient protections in place will be part of the new requirements on the major streaming services. She is right to praise the BBFC. I have worked with the BBFC for many years, going right back to James Ferman, who for 25 years was its director. It is absolutely true that the BBFC is recognised as expert in this field. I very much welcome that a number of streamers have chosen to adopt the BBFC to carry out their age ratings, including Netflix and Amazon.
The Government’s objective, however, is to ensure that protection is in place, rather than necessarily to specify that it has to be done by the BBFC. It will be left to Ofcom to oversee that, and it already has a lot of experience in this area. It enforces the broadcasting code, which also requires age-appropriate broadcasting. As my hon. Friend rightly said, that was traditionally via the watershed, although that is now changing with the move to on-demand TV. Ofcom also undertakes other protections such as parental controls and so on, so it is not just age rating. I entirely share her view that the BBFC does an excellent job, and I hope that all services will consider using it when reaching decisions, but the Government are not at the point of wishing to mandate that at this time.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I utterly appreciate what my right hon. Friend is saying, and I can see why the Government and Ofcom do not want to be overly prescriptive about how this regulation is done, as long as the content is well understood. Will he just reflect on the fact that this set of labels is well understood by the public? Everyone knows what a U is, and everyone knows what an 18 is. In that sense, it would be an effective vehicle to establish that people understand the content.
Sir John Whittingdale
In determining whether the requirements are met, Ofcom will have to take into account whether the rating is easily understood by viewers. Even if that is not necessarily the BBFC’s triangles and particular age ratings, it will nevertheless need to meet those requirements and ensure that viewers can easily see what is an appropriate age for that particular content. I am a viewer of Disney+ along with the other services, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Disney+ has some content that is highly appropriate for children, but it has other content that is perhaps less so.
I move on to the repeal of section 40, which is of concern to a number of Members. I very much welcome the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who served with me on the Select Committee when we carried out the inquiries into phone hacking. I hope I am not being too immodest in saying that the Committee was responsible for exposing phone hacking, and none of the events that followed would have occurred had the Select Committee not persisted in our summoning of representatives of News International, as it was at that time, and pursuing that inquiry. It led to the police investigations and ultimately to the establishment of the Leveson inquiry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) was right to set out the historical background to the establishment of the Leveson inquiry. However, the one thing that he did not cover, which I recall very well, is that the intention behind section 40 was to put pressure on one or two newspapers that might have been standing out against seeking the approval of the recognised regulator. What nobody anticipated when section 40 was established was that every single national publication would say that they were not willing to comply with that requirement. It was not just the tabloids or the red tops; it was The Guardian, The Independent and the Financial Times. No national newspaper was willing to comply with the Government’s proposals under the royal charter, and that did change things, because it made the system unworkable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) —to whom I am grateful for taking over the APPG on media freedom—is right to point out that campaigning organisations for press freedom such as Reporters Without Borders were equally critical of the Government’s proposals on section 40 and have been campaigning for its repeal. The Government reached the conclusion that the system had not worked and should be repealed, and we therefore put that in the Conservative party manifesto of 2017. It was repeated in the Conservative party manifesto of 2019, and I am delighted that we will now put that commitment into effect by repealing section 40.
I have seldom agreed with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but on this occasion, I thought he made one or two extremely good points. He is absolutely right to highlight the digital divide. We are very conscious that as more and more people access TV content through streaming services and via the internet, there is a group who have not done so. Several Members asked whether the Government can make a commitment to the continuation of Freeview beyond 2034. The Government would not consider switching off digital terrestrial television unless we had reached the point where the overwhelming majority were no longer using it to access TV. We are very conscious of that group in the population who still rely on traditional Freeview, and that will be in our thoughts.
The right hon. Member was also right to pay tribute to news reporting from around the world and to point out that it does not get enough attention. I was delighted to be able to attend the Society of Editors’ media freedom awards recently, where Sky received two awards for its reporter Stuart Ramsay’s reports from Myanmar about the civil war raging there. That is a terrible conflict that does not get enough attention. The right hon. Member is right that it is important that both PSBs and other providers continue to bring us reports from right around the world about things that we would otherwise be unaware of.
Lastly, I welcome the right hon. Member’s stressing the importance of local newspapers. I have been deeply concerned about the decline of local newspapers for many years. I am delighted that the BBC’s local democracy reporting service, which was established following the last charter, continues to support local newspapers, and we continue to look for other ways to support them.
This has been an excellent debate. I look forward to working with all Members and the Opposition as we take the Bill into Committee. I am delighted to commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Media Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Media Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14 December 2023.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mark Fletcher.)
Question agreed to.
Media Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Media Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Fletcher.)
Question agreed to.
Media Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Media Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the charging of fees under the Act; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mark Fletcher.)
Question agreed to.
Media Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 5th December 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 December 2023 - (5 Dec 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings.
The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments take place in the order not in which they are debated, but in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in the group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in the group to a vote, they need to let me know.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
I beg to move,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 5 December) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 December;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 7 December;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 December;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 14 December;
2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 17; Schedule 1; Clauses 18 to 27; Schedule 2; Clause 28; Schedule 3; Clauses 29 to 36; Schedule 4; Clause 37; Schedules 5 to 7; Clauses 38 to 40; Schedule 8; Clauses 41 to 48; Schedule 9; Clause 49; Schedules 10 and 11; Clauses 50 and 51; Schedule 12; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 14 December.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to debate with the hon. Member for Barnsley East, reprising the enjoyable time we had in the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill Committee not long ago. This Bill is important for the future of our public service broadcasters and the media in this country. It has been some time in the preparation. It has been through pre-legislative scrutiny, and has been amended considerably to reflect the views put forward to the Government. As a result, I hope that it is generally non-controversial, but it is obviously important that we scrutinise it in detail.
The Programming Sub-Committee met yesterday evening to debate the programme for consideration of the Bill. It was agreed that we should meet today at 9.25 am and 2 pm, again on Thursday, and then again on Tuesday and Thursday next week. That was the unanimous view of the Committee. On that basis, I commend the programme motion to the Committee.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you chairing the Committee today, Mr Vickers. It is a pleasure to stand opposite the Minister. The last work I did with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was on the Online Safety Bill, which took a significant time—significantly more than I expect this Bill will. I will talk more generally about the Bill later, when we have moved off the programme motion.
I have questions for the Minister about the lack of oral evidence for the Bill. There is no programme for taking oral evidence. That generally happens when the beginning of a Bill’s Committee stage is taken on the Floor of the House; for example, we have the first part of the Finance Bill Committee on the Floor of the House. The Government have been keen not to take oral evidence on the Finance Bill. It also happens when a Bill originates in the Lords; then no oral evidence is taken in the House of Commons.
I understand what the Minister said about there having been pre-legislative scrutiny. However, I spoke to an external organisation that is often called to give evidence on things related to media, and it assumed that it would be giving evidence this morning when it first saw the draft timetable for Committee during Second Reading. It did not expect that there would be no oral evidence sessions. Let me make it clear how useful oral evidence is. We are able to ask so many experts for their views on specific parts of the Bill. The Minister said that there is a large amount of agreement on much of the Bill, and I do not disagree, but there are significant points of contention, such as the use of the word “appropriate” as opposed to “significant” in relation to prominence. It would be helpful to have experts here who could explain why they believe that “appropriate” is not the appropriate word in the circumstances.
We have had a tight turnover from Second Reading. I very much appreciate all the organisations that have worked hard to put together their written evidence in such a short time, but I guarantee that not everybody in the room will have read all the written evidence, given the tight timescales.
I have two questions. First, why did the Minister decide not to schedule oral evidence sessions when programming the Bill? Will he be slightly ashamed if we do not meet on Thursday 14 December, and we would have had time for an oral evidence session? My second question relates to the timing of the Bill. It is fairly unusual for Committee to begin this quickly after Second Reading. There were two days after Second Reading to table amendments before the deadline. That is a fairly tight turnaround, especially given that we will probably discuss most of the Bill over a few days. I would appreciate it if the Minister let us know the Government’s thinking on the programming.
Sir John Whittingdale
I hear what the hon. Lady says and understand her points. However, as I indicated, the Bill has been in gestation for a long time. I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee until 2015, and it called for a number of the measures in the Bill, so certain parts have taken at least seven or eight years. As she rightly points out, the Government published the Bill in draft form, and that led to lengthy Select Committee hearings, in which a large range of stakeholders gave evidence. Indeed, there was the Select Committee’s report, and the Scottish Affairs and Welsh Affairs Committees also made recommendations. All those were taken into account by the Government, and published evidence was available.
Since that time, we have held a number of roundtables to hear from stakeholders. I obviously recognise that those were private meetings, so there is not a public record of them, but nevertheless, as the hon. Lady points out, there has been an opportunity for all stakeholders to submit written evidence. I am shocked at her suggestion that there could be members of the Committee who have not read all the written evidence submitted, but it is publicly available. Given the time spent consulting on the Bill, it was felt that a public oral evidence session in the Committee was not necessary. If anybody wishes to make further representations, we would gratefully receive them.
The Programming Sub-Committee felt yesterday that the timetable gave sufficient time, given the Bill’s non-controversial nature. Relatively fewer amendments have been tabled than were tabled to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which the hon. Member for Barnsley East and I took through Committee not that long ago. I hope that we will give the amendments proper scrutiny. I view the timetable with a certain amount of schadenfreude, in that I shall be stepping down from my position at the end of the year so that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) can return to her role. I am pleased that I shall have the opportunity to take the Bill through the whole of Committee, because it is one that I have spent quite a lot of time on. For those reasons, I think the programme motion and the amount of time allocated for consideration of the Bill are correct, although I join the hon. Member for Aberdeen North in hoping that anybody with further representations to make does make them, even if we are not having oral evidence sessions.
Kirsty Blackman
I will not vote against the programme motion, but I echo the Minister’s call to stakeholders on written evidence, and say to any stakeholders who are watching: “You have been wrong-footed by the very short timescales we were given for amendments, but there is the opportunity to make amendments on Report.” If they get in touch with us about any amendments they want before the deadline for Report, they could be debated then, even though we may not necessarily have had time to craft them before Committee proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
The Chair
The Committee will therefore meet again at 2 pm this afternoon, and on every sitting Tuesday and Thursday until 14 December, unless we complete consideration of the Bill before then.
Ordered,
That the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 17, Schedule 1, Clauses 18 to 27, Schedule 2, Clause 28, Schedule 3, Clauses 29 to 36, Schedule 4, Clause 37, Schedules 5 to 7, Clauses 38 to 40, Schedule 8, Clauses 41 to 48, Schedule 9, Clause 49, Schedules 10 and 11, Clauses 50 and 51, Schedule 12, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill.—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
The Chair
Copies of any written evidence received by the Committee will be circulated to Members by email and published on the Bill webpage. We now proceed to line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 1
Reports on the fulfilment of the public service remit
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 1, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
“(iii) at least ten hours’ transmission time per week in the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland.”
This amendment would add a similar requirement for broadcast of programming in Scottish Gaelic as there is for Welsh language broadcasting.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Gaelic language service—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, review whether a Gaelic language service should be given a public service broadcast remit.”
Kirsty Blackman
It is a pleasure to take part in the Bill Committee, Mr Vickers. I am glad to see everybody here early on a Tuesday morning, either with or without coffee—I mean, definitely without coffee, as that is not allowed in Bill Committees.
Amendment 39 to clause 1 relates to Gaelic language programming. I hold my hand up: I am sorry that this is not a very good amendment. I have been pretty clear about the fact that there was an incredibly quick turnaround, and I could have done a significantly better job on this amendment. In fact, I am quite happy to support new clause 5 on this issue, which was put forward by Labour.
The Gaelic language and its preservation through public service broadcasting was debated at significant length on Second Reading. The subject is incredibly important. It exercises people in Scotland and across the rest of these islands. There is massive concern about the lack of a requirement for Gaelic language public service broadcasting. There is no requirement for a minimum amount, and no requirements relating to new content. There could, for example, have been a requirement in the Bill for the BBC to produce new Gaelic language content. The Minister is aware that MG ALBA and BBC Alba are involved in producing Gaelic language TV in Scotland, which is absolutely excellent and makes a massive difference to the use of the Gaelic language.
On Second Reading, we heard about the issues that there have historically been with Gaelic. There was the intention by authorities over a significant number of years to reduce the amount of Gaelic spoken in Scotland, and to stamp it out, and Gaelic is still slowly making a comeback. In Aberdeen, we have Gaelic-medium education; that provision is massively full at the moment, despite Aberdeen not being known as a centre for Gaelic, being on the east rather than the west coast. When I visited a Gaelic nursery in my constituency, I asked people whether they found it difficult to ensure that their children were brought up with enough Gaelic language in Aberdeen, where it is not nearly so prominent as it is in, say, the Western Isles. They talked incredibly positively about the impact of children’s TV in Gaelic. Children can watch that TV and learn Gaelic as a native language. Given that there is less Gaelic spoken by the population, public service broadcasting is even more important. Free-to-air public service broadcasting in Gaelic is vital to ensure the continuation of the language, particularly when many adults in the area are not speaking Gaelic regularly.
I would very much like the Minister to consider the lines about Gaelic in the Bill and whether they are sufficient, because I do not believe that they are. I do not believe that Gaelic is given enough of a footing in the Bill. It talks about having an “appropriate” level of provision in the indigenous languages of the UK, but it does not put Gaelic on the same footing as, for example, Welsh; it talks significantly more about quotas and minimum levels of new content for Welsh. That is incredibly important, and I do not at all want to take away from what is happening with Welsh, because that should be happening.
I am asking for parity for Gaelic, or an increase of it—or even an acknowledgement from the UK Government that Gaelic is important. It should not be mentioned as a small aside, and simply be included in a list of other languages. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister considered augmenting the provisions relating to Gaelic, to make it clear how important it is to people in Scotland and across these islands, as one of our indigenous languages. I will not push amendment 39 to a vote—I will return to the issue on Report—but I am happy to support new clause 5, put forward by Labour.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I am delighted to be on this Committee. I support amendments 39 and 40 from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North. The one thing in clause 1 that I baulked at slightly was the term “regional language”. I would not say that Welsh is a regional language, though there are regions in Wales where language is used slightly differently; there is Welsh and Welsh English, if I may use that term.
I suppose I should confess that I was a participant in a campaign during the 1970s to establish S4C, the Welsh language channel. It was a very long time ago— 40 years ago—and perhaps it would be better to draw a veil over my activities then. If hon. Members are interested in the lessons from the last 40 years on how to build, sustain and improve a channel such as S4C, I refer them to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport document of 2018, “Building an S4C for the future”, by Euryn Ogwen Williams. It is a very interesting document that chronicles, to some extent, what has happened with Welsh in respect of the channel, and it has useful lessons for similar channels, and for Gaelic provision.
One of the outstanding successes of our campaign a very long time ago was ensuring minimum hours in Welsh, to refer to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North made, and ensuring that programmes in Welsh on a specific channel should be broadcast at peak hours. That was a great success. It is now entirely unremarkable to have programmes in Welsh mid-afternoon, or late in the evening. The very fact that that is unremarkable is a measure of success.
The two sorts of lessons I will briefly refer to from our experience in Wales are, first, what one might call the economic and diversity arguments and, secondly, the cultural arguments. Certainly initially, the arguments for a Welsh channel, and perhaps for a Gaelic channel or Gaelic provision, are essentially cultural. To point to some of the economic features of the argument, an increase in hours in Gaelic would have the same sort of effect.
Initially, in Wales at least, there has been a greater diversity of providers. As with Channel 4, the intention—and the achievement—was to have a larger independent sector and to locate it outside Cardiff, Swansea and Bangor. In my area of Caernarfon, and in Arfon in general, that has led to a huge economic benefit in terms of not only the people employed in television production, but all the other work that has come our way because we have Welsh language television production in the north-west. Those independent producers have also diversified and now participate in international production that has nothing to do with the Welsh channel itself. As a result, we have greater growth in television production skills, and some people have graduated to working in other parts of the world. So there is that argument.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I have actually watched “Hedd Wyn” on YouTube. What analysis has the hon. Gentleman made of the distribution of Welsh language products on other digital platforms, rather than just on S4C?
Hywel Williams
I thank the hon. Member for that point, and I will refer to it if I am lucky enough to be called to talk on the relevant provision later. Welsh programmes are available on all kinds of platforms, but a large number of Welsh-speaking people in England, for example, cannot see programmes in Welsh, because those are not available digitally to the extent I would want. As one would imagine, people have found a way around that, but for the language to prosper and thrive and for provision to be right across the available platforms, we must move forward, and I will speak to that later.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers, and to welcome the Media Bill as it enters a new stage in its passage. Before I begin, I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
As I said many times on Second Reading, I am supportive of the Bill on the whole; I only wish it could have been brought forward sooner after the Government U-turned on their decision to privatise Channel 4. Good progress has been made on the Bill thanks to the excellent work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, whose recommendations the Government have largely taken on board. That is to the credit of the many interested stakeholders who provided detailed evidence.
It is with that in mind that I have tabled only focused amendments where I feel they are really needed, and I will not unduly dwell on areas where no concerns have been raised. I would like to make as much progress as possible, so that our creative industries can reap the benefits at the earliest opportunity. I look forward to having productive discussions with the Minister and with members of the Committee on both sides of the House in the coming days about how we can ensure that the Bill best achieves its aims and truly secures the future of UK television and radio for years to come.
It is with that in mind that I turn to amendment 39 and new clause 5 on Gaelic broadcasting. Language is a cornerstone of culture; it is not just a way of communicating. Languages are daily expressions of history, reflecting a way of life, values and heritage as they are spoken. The diversity of languages in our nations and regions is therefore a living, breathing expression of the rich identities and traditions that we are lucky to carry with us. Understanding that, however, also requires an understanding that, if we lost a language such as Gaelic or Welsh—if they are not nurtured and passed down through the generations—that rich culture would also be at risk of being lost. With that recognition in mind, I am pleased that we are explicitly discussing the importance of Gaelic at the top of the Bill.
According to the Scottish Government’s Gaelic language plan, census results in 2011 found that, of the population aged three and over in Scotland, 1.7%—just over 87,000 people—spoke, read, wrote or understood Gaelic. While that represented a decrease in the proportion of people able to speak Gaelic in most age groups since 2001, there was actually an increase among those under 20 years old. That is perhaps due in part to Scottish Government initiatives to encourage Gaelic education, including the Education (Scotland) Act 2016, which gives parents the right to ask their local authority to provide a Gaelic-medium education for their child.
In order to nurture a language, however, progress cannot be limited to education. There must be cultural opportunities surrounding the language too, and Gaelic broadcasting can and should play an important part in that. Indeed, BBC Alba—the Gaelic-language television service launched in 2008 as part of a partnership between MG ALBA and the BBC—is a huge asset to Gaelic culture, providing a wide range of high-quality Gaelic programming for speakers to enjoy. I was pleased to meet representatives over Zoom a few weeks ago.
MG Alba is also of economic importance, sustaining around 340 jobs, half of which are in economically fragile areas. The Government have acknowledged that contribution on multiple occasions, saying that MG ALBA makes a hugely valuable contribution to the lives and wellbeing of Gaelic speakers and recognising that certainty over the future is important for MG ALBA if it is to continue to deliver in that way. The fact that Gaelic broadcasting is recognised for the first time in the public service remit in clause 1 of the Bill is therefore welcome.
However, as was mentioned several times on Second Reading, the Bill, and legislation more broadly, seem not to recognise Gaelic-language broadcasters in the way they do S4C in the Welsh language, despite apparent cross-party support for doing so both here and in Scotland. That is not to dismiss the importance of the provisions made for S4C or to say that the situations of the Gaelic and Welsh languages are comparable—there is currently a much larger population of Welsh speakers than of Gaelic speakers—but it seems to be a disparity that MG ALBA, for example, is not mentioned in the legislation at all. Indeed, there is somewhat of a cycle of reinforcement here: if having fewer Gaelic speakers means there is less provision for Gaelic programming, then less Gaelic programming may in turn mean there are fewer Gaelic speakers. Conversely, a boost for Gaelic broadcasting could be hugely beneficial to the language as a whole. That is something new clause 5 and amendment 39 seek to highlight.
Amendment 39 tries to address the problem by directly rectifying disparities in quota requirements. Specifically, a quota requires the BBC to provide S4C with at least 10 hours of Welsh-language programming per week, but no such quota exists—not even at a lower level—for Gaelic broadcasting. The amendment tries to mirror that requirement with a similar measure for content in the Gaelic language. There is more to be done to understand how we can best incorporate quotas and support for Gaelic services in existing legislation, which is why the new clause I have tabled looks to review the status of Gaelic services in legislation in the round.
I want to be careful to make sure that there is enough flexibility in the legislation to ensure that any future changes and partnerships in the area of Gaelic broadcasting are accounted for. However, I am supportive in principle of the idea of ensuring that there are regulatory and legislative measures in place that give Gaelic broadcasting the status it deserves. That may well be the start of a minimum level of content being available in the Gaelic language.
I anticipate that some might say this particular measure is not necessary given that, for the first time, the public service remit now acknowledges the importance of providing content in minority languages, which I of course welcome. However, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has argued, without a definition of “sufficient quantity” of content, there is a risk that that inclusion will not result in the kind of tangible change and assurance needed to ensure the growth or even maintenance of minority language content. I therefore support the idea that “sufficient” should be better defined, whether that be through legislation, Ofcom or elsewhere, so that the provision can be truly enforced and upheld.
New clause 5 takes a more holistic look at the ways in which the Bill fails to address Gaelic broadcasting and suggests an assessment be made on whether giving a Gaelic language service a remit as a public service broadcaster might be suitable. That would be an opportunity to look at how we can ensure the statute catches up with events—BBC Alba did not even exist when the Communications Act 2003 was passed—and would reflect Parliament’s will for there to be an enduring television service in both Welsh and Gaelic. Further, it would provide a chance for Government, Parliament and Ofcom to view the Gaelic service as something to be acknowledged in reference to its own needs, benefits and missions, rather than only being considered as a small part of the wider BBC portfolio.
For instance, just a few days ago Ofcom published its sixth review of BBC performance, and mentions of a Gaelic service totalled four lines in an 80-page report. That comes from the need to assess BBC Alba only as a BBC portfolio service, as that is what the BBC operating agreement does. Given, however, the importance of the service to Gaelic speakers, it would be appropriate to see it acknowledged and assessed as such, irrespective of whether the service remains tied to the BBC. Indeed, new clause 5 is not prescriptive, and recognises that although the partnership between BBC and MG ALBA has been working well, this may not always be the preferred set-up for either or both parties involved. Therefore, with future-proofing in mind, it simply looks to provide an opportunity for Gaelic broadcasting to be recognised in its own right, whatever form that might take.
I hope the Minister might be able to lend his support to the new clause, but if he chooses not to, I would like to hear from him on the measures the Department is taking to support Gaelic broadcasting in the way it deserves and needs. This should matter not only to those who speak Gaelic and will enjoy the content, but to our society as a whole, as we look to keep alive the unique culture and heritage of all our nations.
Sir John Whittingdale
I thank the hon. Members for Barnsley East and for Aberdeen North for speaking to their amendments and allowing us to debate the importance of the Gaelic language. It is something we spent a little bit of time on at Second Reading, but it is an important issue.
The Government absolutely share the view of the vital necessity of supporting the continuation and future of Gaelic, and recognise the important contribution that the Gaelic media service MG ALBA makes to the lives and wellbeing of Gaelic speakers across Scotland and the rest of the UK. It is for that reason that the Government embedded a duty to support regional and minority languages, although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Arfon about Welsh not being a “regional” language in that sense. It is, nevertheless, a minority language—as is Gaelic. There is a duty within the BBC’s general duties under the current charter arrangements. We want to help ensure that audiences are able to access this culturally important minority language content in the decades to come.
The Bill goes further than existing provisions. Clause 1 makes the importance of programmes broadcast in the UK’s indigenous languages, including the Gaelic language, clear in legislation, by including it in our new public service remit for television. That is a new addition, which puts on the face of the legislation the need to continue to support minority languages of this kind. We will debate later the way in which the public service broadcasters are required to contribute to the remit and are held accountable for doing so. The purpose of clause 1 is to place a requirement on Ofcom to consider how the public service remit has been fulfilled. It sets a high-level mission statement for public service broadcasters, and is underpinned by a more detailed system of quotas in later clauses. It is intended to be simpler and to provide PSBs with greater flexibility.
That point notwithstanding, I reassure the hon. Member for Barnsley East that the availability of Gaelic language content is provided for elsewhere. As she knows, the BBC has a specific responsibility in the framework to make arrangement to provide BBC Alba, which is a mixed-genre television channel for Gaelic speakers and those interested in the Gaelic language. Ofcom also places a number of more detailed responsibilities on BBC Alba in the BBC’s operating licence. For example, it must provide music of particular relevance to audiences in Scotland, live news programmes each weekday evening—including during peak viewing time—and a longer news review at the weekends.
It is for Ofcom to determine whether these requirements remain appropriate, including on the basis of feedback. It is the case, however, in terms of the amount of Gaelic language broadcasting that takes place, that at the moment BBC Alba broadcasts in Gaelic from 5 pm until midnight. That is seven hours each day, starting an hour later at weekends. When not broadcasting television programmes in Gaelic, it plays—forgive me if I pronounce this wrong—BBC Radio nan Gàidheal, which is the Gaelic language radio station. That is broadcast with static graphics during the periods when television programmes are not being aired. That means that there is a total of something like 2,579 hours of Gaelic television content, certainly in the course of last year.
I think that the amount of Gaelic language already being broadcast meets the ambition set out in the amendment from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, and it is now contained in the public service remit, serving all channels, and the BBC charter agreement. For that reason, I think there is already considerable provision to ensure the continuation of Gaelic language.
I want to turn to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley East in new clause 5, which refers specifically to the manner in which Gaelic is delivered. BBC Alba is a requirement as part of the charter, and we will again consider how it is delivered by the BBC when the charter renewal takes place. The charter review starts in 2025 and has to be completed by 2027, and we will set out further details in due course on precisely how it is to be carried out.
In the more immediate term, we have recently brought together BBC and Scottish Government officials to discuss the co-ordination of funding decisions for Gaelic language broadcasting between the two organisations. In that respect, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and the hon. Member for Barnsley East will recognise that the intention behind their amendment and new clause is already delivered by the Bill and on that basis will be willing to withdraw their amendments.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister for his response and colleagues for their comments on the amendment and the new clause. I am pleased to hear the Minister talk about the co-ordination of funding decisions and the group that has been brought together to discuss future co-ordination on these decisions and how that may work.
There is a significant asymmetry between the funding settlements for the Welsh language and for Gaelic, particularly with the amount that comes from the licence fee and comparing, for example, Gaelic-speaking broadcasting to Welsh-speaking broadcasting. As I have acknowledged, there are significantly more Welsh speakers, and I am not trying to say that those two things should be directly comparable, but looking at the percentage required from the Scottish Government compared with the amount provided by the licence fee, there is a significant difference between that and what is provided for Welsh. I am glad to hear that the Minister has recognised that decisions are required to be made about the future of funding going forward, and is ensuring that discussions take place.
I am not a Gaelic speaker, but I think my pronunciation of nan Gàidheal would be more accurate than the Minister’s—it does sound like it has a lot more letters than that. I am, however, a native Scots speaker and grew up speaking Doric as my first language. In fact, I think I am the only MP ever to have sworn in to this place in Doric. I have done so twice.
I appreciate that Scots is also mentioned as one of the recognised regional minority languages, and I want to back the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon and the hon. Member for Barnsley East about the number of young speakers. There has been a significant increase in the number of young people speaking Scots. Even when I was at school, which is some time ago now, we were very much discouraged from speaking Scots, but anyone standing at a bus stop in Aberdeen nowadays will hear young people arguing and bantering with each other in the broad Doric. That just would not have happened in the same way 25 or 30 years ago, when I was at bus stops bantering with my pals.
It is good to see that increase, but we have not seen a commensurate increase in the amount of Scots language TV. There is some Scots language programming, but it is very unusual for us to hear somebody speaking in an Aberdeen accent, for example. A significant proportion of those in the north-east of Scotland would be able to speak Doric, or at least understand it were it on our TVs. Doric is a dialect of Scots, which is a recognised language, and it is spoken in the north-east.
The Minister talked about the BBC provision and the licence conditions in the charter. I appreciate all that, but the safeguarding of that in this legislation would have shown Gaelic speakers and people who care about the Gaelic language that it is important to have this at this level. It is important to have it not just as part of the BBC charter and of the potential BBC charter negotiations, but as a recognised part of public sector broadcasting. Gaelic should not be playing second fiddle; it should not be down the list of priorities. It is important, and we should not just say, “It is included in the charter, so that’s okay.” That is not exactly what the Minister said, but it was angling in that direction. Such an approach does not provide that safeguarding we need, and it does not provide the requirement for Ofcom to monitor this. He mentioned that Ofcom has to check whether or not there is an appropriate level of Gaelic programming because of the conditions in the Bill. However, what Ofcom has to check is whether there is a
“sufficient quantity of audiovisual content”,
and, as the shadow Minister said, no clear definition of “sufficient” is provided.
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that Ofcom has a duty under the Bill to monitor the delivery of the public service remit, but she will be aware that in addition Ofcom has the duty to oversee the BBC’s delivery of its requirements under the charter and the agreement. To that extent, Ofcom will be monitoring whether or not the BBC is meeting is obligations.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate that Ofcom will be doing that right now, but, as the Minister says, the charter negotiations are about to open; 2025 possibly seems slightly further away to me than it does to him, but those negotiations are about to begin again and there is no guarantee that that duty will continue to be part of the charter. If the Media Bill provides that this is a required part of public sector broadcasting, it would make it easier for that to be included in the charter and to be part of the licensing conditions, and for Ofcom to ensure that the BBC or any other public sector broadcaster was delivering it.
The last point I wish to make on this is about BBC Alba. Later, we will be discussing the appropriate placement of public sector broadcasters on on-demand services, be it on Sky or wherever else one happens to watch TV. There is a requirement for public sector broadcasters to be given an appropriate level of significance. If we ensure in the Bill that Gaelic-language broadcasting is part of the public sector remit, we increase the likelihood of these broadcasters being given that level of prominence on those on-demand services and digital viewing platforms. We have a requirement for them to be given prominence but at the moment BBC Alba is not included in that, because it is just considered part of the BBC, rather than as a relevant service in its own right. I appreciate that the Minister is unlikely to accept amendment 39 and I am not going to press it to vote, but if the shadow Minister does press new clause 5 to a vote, I fully intend to support it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 40, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(iv) an annual increase in the spend on content and combined content duration made in Scotland until they reach a population share.”
This amendment would add to Ofcom’s reporting requirements a requirement to report on the extent to which the public service broadcasters had made available audiovisual content including an annual increase in the spend on content and combined content duration made in Scotland until they reach a population share.
I promise that I do not have an amendment on every part of every clause—I am sure everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. Amendment 40 is about the proportion of content made in Scotland and the conditions in the Bill for content made outside the M25. It is important that more content is made outside the M25, and I am glad that the Government have recognised that and that there has been a move in public sector broadcasting to ensure that that happens. I recognise the work that broadcasters have done to ensure that that continues to be the case, and that much more content is produced outside the M25 than previously. That is positive and I am glad to see it.
Hywel Williams
The rule here is that if there is facility for growth, growth will occur. There is an Irish saying that I like very much: “Live, horse, and ye shall have hay.” If it is there, it will grow. Perhaps the proof of that, in Wales at least, is that the Welsh-speaking population is equal to the size of Sheffield, but is able to sustain a full channel. I am sure that would happen in Scotland, as well.
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely. If there were a requirement for more broadcasting, not just outside the M25, and for looking at population share, even reporting on spend and population share, there would be clarity and transparency about that spend, and whether it is anywhere close to population share. I think that public sector broadcasters would have a look and think, “Actually, we could probably do better than this. We could produce more content that is more exciting and relevant to people across all of these islands, produced in places with incredibly diverse scenery and people taking part in it.”
As for the Government’s position on levelling up, a fairly general statement on content produced outside the M25 is not going to cut it. It will not bring about levelling up or an increase in broadcasting in places that do no currently see significant amounts. As I said, I appreciate that the Minister and his Government are trying with the outside-the-M25 quota, but it could be done better in order to encourage more content, or at least transparent reporting on the level of broadcasting, spend and content creation in various parts of the UK. As expected from an SNP MP, I have highlighted Scotland, but many parts of these islands could make a pitch for more content to be made in their area, or at least reporting on the level of spend and content created in each region.
Stephanie Peacock
Not too long ago, just after the Scottish Affairs Committee concluded its important inquiry into the topic, I was joined by colleagues in Westminster Hall to talk about Scottish broadcasting. One of the biggest takeaways from the debate was just how important the sector is to people.
Scottish broadcasting brings communities together. It promotes pride in place and strengthens local economies. For those reasons, and many more, I strongly believe that Scottish broadcasting can and must continue to form a vital piece of the puzzle in the UK’s creative sectors. Indeed, Scotland is already a popular destination for broadcasters. Not only is it home to Amazon, but the BBC and Channel 4 operate there alongside STV, which in 2021 reached 80% of Scottish people through its main channel. Content made in Scotland often represents Scottish people’s lives and the diversity within them. That sort of representation matters. I know, for example, that it was exciting for many when the first Scottish family finally appeared on “Gogglebox”.
I am very sympathetic towards the aspect of the amendment that looks to ensure that the level of content made in and for Scotland is proportionate to the number of people who live there. However, I have questions about the mechanism used to achieve that. For example, what are the implications of directly attaching spend to population? How would population be measured and how frequently, and how would that impact the legislative requirements to match it? I wonder whether this issue could be better addressed through individual channel remits. For example, both the BBC and Channel 4 have existing nation quotas. Perhaps it would be better to focus on that rather than insert a strict spend requirement, tied to population, on the wider remit.
I would like to show my support for Scottish broadcasting, but further investigation might be needed into how we can best ensure that there is a comprehensive and holistic package of regulation and legislation to secure its future.
Sir John Whittingdale
I start by agreeing with both Opposition spokesmen about the importance of supporting the production sector outside London and across every region and nation of the United Kingdom. The growth of the independent production sector outside London has been a phenomenal success in recent years, and we now have very strong companies in all parts of the UK. That is shown by the fact that since 2010, PSBs’ production spend allocated to programmes outside London has increased from 39% to over 50%, with ambitions to go even further. For instance, the recent publication of the BBC’s “Across the UK” strategy commits it to increasing the proportion of its own TV production budget outside London to 60% by 2027.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North focuses on Scotland, where production spend is now worth over £266 million, supported by developments including the opening of a Channel 4 creative hub in Glasgow in 2019. As I say, the BBC’s “Across the UK” strategy includes commitments to expand its production studios within the city.
Damian Collins
Screen Scotland has pointed out that the total production spend last year on film and television and audiovisual content in Scotland was more than £600 million, which is a 55% increase on the 2019 figures, which shows a substantial increase in production in Scotland. Does the Minister agree that that is to be welcomed?
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just the public service broadcasters that are committing to spending money on production in Scotland; it is right across the range of broadcasters. That exemplifies the strength of Scottish independent production. Indeed, similar figures can be quoted for Wales; it is not unique to Scotland. Every part of the UK is benefiting. Of course, Scotland has its own broadcasting company in the form of STV, which has a production arm, STV Studios, which has an ambition to become a world-class content producer for global networks and streaming services.
The success of the production sector in Scotland and across the UK has been supported and underpinned by a regulatory system. The importance of programmes being made outside London is in the new public service remit. In addition, all public service broadcasters, with the exception of S4C, are subject to regional programme-making quotas for spend and hours of production outside London. Channel 4 has its own out-of-England quota; the BBC also has a specific quota for content made in Scotland. Those quotas are set by Ofcom, which has the power to amend them, where appropriate. One example of the success of that regulatory system is the “Made outside London programme titles register”, published by Ofcom, which, in 2022, had 811 entries, including 543 from English regions outside London, 53 from Northern Ireland, 117 from Scotland and 72 from Wales. In each case, broadcasters are exceeding the production quotas quite comfortably. The Government will continue to support screen industries across the UK through a system of tax reliefs, investment in studio infrastructure and the UK global screen fund.
In line with the Government’s broader ambition to level up the UK, we want the production sector in all areas of the UK to continue to thrive, and we believe that PSBs play a very important role in our meeting that ambition. Returning to comments made by the hon. Member for Arfon, which I did not address earlier, S4C plays an extremely important part in that. I have not had the opportunity to visit production facilities in Scotland, but I have been to visit both BBC Wales in Cardiff and S4C, where I went on the set of “Pobol y Cwm”, and production in Wales is thriving. The position for S4C is slightly different from that for Scotland, in that there is, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, a dedicated television channel for the Welsh language in the form of S4C. However, the Government are committed to supporting the production sector in all the nations of the UK.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Barnsley East that attempting to set quotas that are exactly in line with the population proportions would impose a constraint, which would be limiting and unnecessary. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Aberdeen North to withdraw her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I highlight that the focus on content made outside the M25 is not enough. There needs to be a focus on ensuring that the economic and cultural benefits, and the talent pool, are spread wider; “outside the M25” cannot just be Salford, for example. It is possible for “outside the M25” to mean “focused in a small place”, which means benefits are not spread as widely as they should be.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 1, page 3, line 13, at end insert—
“including education, entertainment, music, arts, science, sports, drama, comedy, religion and other beliefs, social issues, matters of international significance or interest and matters of specialist interest.”
This amendment would add detailed description of the range of genres which Ofcom must report on whether the public service broadcasters have made available.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 2 and 7 stand part.
New clause 1—Delivery of public service content on relevant television services—
“After section 264A of the Communications Act 2003, insert—
‘264B Delivery of public service content on relevant television services
(1) Ofcom must monitor the extent to which the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is met in respect of relevant television services.
(2) If Ofcom considers that the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is not being met in respect of such services, it may set whatever programming quotas it considers necessary to ensure that the remit is met.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “relevant television services” means—
(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC;
(b) the television programme services that are public services of the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of section 207);
(c) every Channel 3 service;
(d) Channel 4;
(e) Channel 5.’”
This new clause would give Ofcom powers to measure the delivery of public service content on the linear services of the public service broadcasters, and set quotas if it considered the current level to be unsatisfactory.
Stephanie Peacock
On the whole, I am pleased to welcome the clause, which looks to simplify the public service remit, and to allow broadcasters to contribute to the remit with programmes that are made available on a wider range of services, including their on-demand service.
Clause 1 makes an important attempt to simplify the public service remit. Currently, the remit consists of a set of purposes that public service television must fulfil in accordance with a different set of public service objectives. The Bill condenses those requirements, so that the PSB remit is considered fulfilled when providers together make available a wide range of audiovisual content that meets the needs and satisfies the interests of as many different audiences as possible. A list is then provided, setting out the types of content that can form part of such a contribution.
That simplification is, on the whole, a welcome idea, and the inclusion of minority language services and children’s programming in the remit is is great to see. However, the Voice of the Listener & Viewer, the Media Reform Coalition, the International Broadcasting Trust and others have expressed concerns that the simplified format has been coupled with the removal of requirements for public service broadcasters to provide specific genres of content.
When the Government first released the “Up next” White Paper that preceded the Bill, it made no mention of references to genres such as entertainment, drama, science and religion being removed from the remit, as they have been in the Bill. Content from those genres is important to people, and has huge societal and cultural value. If we remove explicit reference to them in the remit, there is a risk of less programming in those areas, particularly where they might be of less immediate commercial benefit. That is surely contradictory to the aim of having a public service broadcaster, which is fundamentally to ensure that public benefit is balanced against purely commercial interests.
The change is especially concerning at a time when, commercially, there is more choice than ever before in popular genres such as entertainment and drama, and less choice when it comes to dramas that provide diversity and difference for UK audiences. This would not be the first time that a reduction in requirements for PSB content led to a decline in culturally valuable content. As the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport highlighted in its report on the draft Bill, Ofcom identified how provision of non-animation programming for children became limited outside the BBC after the quota for children’s programming was removed.
I am pleased that the public service broadcasters have issued reassurances that the new remit will not significantly impact programming in the removed areas, and I am glad that, since its draft version, a small protection has been added in the Bill to secure
“an appropriate range of genres”.
However, the removal of references to specific genres is still a concern, even after these reassurances and amendments. Indeed, if there is no clear specification of what counts as a “range of genres”, there is no guarantee that Ofcom will monitor the amount of content in each of the removed genres. Without such monitoring, falls in provision will be difficult to identify and rectify.
It is with that in mind that I proposed amendment 19, which would ensure that public service content continues to be provided across a range of genres, including entertainment, drama, science, and religion and other beliefs. Further to that, in combination with the powers in clause 10, the amendment would enable Ofcom to properly monitor those genres and make proper suggestions, where content is lacking.
I want to be clear that this addition is not intended to change the nature of the remit, so that the issue would be covered by the PSBs as a whole. I understand that it is not, and should not be, the responsibility of each and every individual public service broadcaster to hit each and every one of the remit requirements, and that is no different for the provision of genres. For example, ITV provides nations’ and regions’ news in a way that means it is not realistic for it to meet some of the other obligations; those are then covered by the likes of Channel 4 and Channel Five, which do not provide the same level of news coverage. That sort of balance works well, and I want to explicitly state that I do not propose that every genre would have to be addressed by every provider. I hope that, bearing that in mind, the Minister can take on board what amendment 19 proposes. Simplifying the remit is a good idea, but not if is done at the cost of the kind of content that sets our public service broadcasters apart.
I move on to the other major consequences of clause 1: the changes that allow content provided through a wider range of services to contribute to the remit. This change makes sense as viewing habits start to shift in a digital age. As the Government know, last year, the weekly reach of broadcast TV fell to 79%, down from 83% in 2021. That is the sharpest fall on record. Meanwhile, on-demand viewing increased, reaching 53 minutes a day this year. Having the flexibility to meet the remit through an on-demand programme service is reasonable, given that this pattern is likely to continue for years to come.
In the meantime, online content can also help to deliver content to niche audiences. Indeed, ITV estimates that 3.8 million households in the UK are online only, meaning that they have no traditional broadcast signal. However, it is important to note that, while habits are shifting, a number of households still do not have internet access. Having previously served as shadow Minister for Digital Infrastructure, I have engaged extensively with telecoms providers and organisations such as the Digital Poverty Alliance, all of which have shared their concern and acknowledged that not everyone has access to or can afford a broadband connection. There is a movement to ensure that social tariffs and lower-cost options are available, as well as to improve the roll-out of gigabit-capable technology, so that as many people as possible can be connected.
Regardless of those efforts, there has been and will remain a section of the population for whom broadcast signal is their sole connection to media, news, entertainment and information. It is incredibly important that those people, who are likely to be older citizens, families in rural areas and those struggling with bills as a result of the cost of living crisis, are able to access public service content as usual on linear channels, delivered through a broadcast signal. That case has been argued extensively by the campaign group Broadcast 2040+, which is made up of a number of concerned organisations. We recognise that the direction of travel is that people are watching content online more than ever, but that does not need to mean diminishing content on broadcast linear services, especially where that content caters to a local audience. That belief goes beyond this Bill and ties into wider worries about the impact that a digital-first strategy will have on traditional means of broadcasting, and, as a result, on audiences.
It has been four months, for example, since the BBC decided to replace some of its vital and unique local radio programming with an increase in online journalism, which has been to the detriment of local communities up and down the country. That decision was made without consulting the communities that would be impacted, and it could easily be repeated in other areas, since there is nothing to stop many more services being axed in favour of online services. This is not to say that there will be no decline in audiences in the years to come as the rise in online content consumption continues, but no co-ordinated effort has been made to ensure that our infrastructure is ready for a mass movement toward online broadcasting. That effort must be made before such a transition takes place. The consequences for the internet capacity that will be needed to cater for spikes, and the implications for national security in a world where TV and radio are no longer methods of communication between the Government and the public, have not been thought through. As long as that remains the case, we must think of those for whom internet connection is not an option. That is why I tabled a new clause to protect the provision of high-quality content on linear services.
The new clause would introduce a safeguard, so that if Ofcom believes that the delivery of PSB content on broadcast linear services is less than satisfactory, it will have the powers needed to set a quota—to ensure that a certain proportion of public service content remains available to linear audiences through a broadcast signal. In short, quality content should remain available to those families up and down the country who rely on their TV rather than watch online content. The new clause makes no prescriptive requirements on how that should be achieved; nor does it set a specific figure for how many programmes must be available to a certain percentage of people. It simply allows Ofcom to monitor the effect of the Bill, which allows PSB content to be delivered online, and allows Ofcom to intervene with such measures as it sees fit if the new remit has unintended negative outcomes.
As well as encouraging him to accept the new clause, I urge the Minister to update us on whether the Government intend to support linear broadcasting beyond 2034. If they do not, what plans are they putting in place to manage a possible transition away from linear services? We have simply not heard enough about this from the Government, and I would be grateful to hear today what the Department’s position is and what work it is already doing on this.
Finally, I come to the rules that state that for on-demand content to count toward the remit, it must be available for at least 30 days. In the draft Bill, public service broadcasters including ITV and the BBC raised concerns that that minimum period was not appropriate for every type of content, because on-demand rights in certain areas, especially sport, news and music, often mean that such programmes are available for limited periods. It is welcome that those concerns are recognised in the Bill, and that an exemption is being introduced for news programmes and coverage of sporting events. Did the Department consider adding programmes covering music events to the list of exemptions? If it did, why was the decision made not to do so? Overall, I support a simplified remit, and the change in clause 1 that allows online content to count toward the remit, but further safeguards around certain genres of content and linear television are needed to protect against unintended or negative consequences.
I am broadly happy with clauses 2 and 4, which are consequential to clause 1. Clause 2 updates Ofcom’s reporting requirements to reflect the changes being made; likewise, clause 7 makes consequential changes to section 271 of the Communications Act 2003. On those issues, I refer Members to my remarks on clause 1 as a whole.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to pick up a couple of points relating to clause 1 that I have not mentioned yet, but that the shadow Minister has mentioned.
I am happy to support the provision in new clause 1 that would ensure that public service content is available on linear TV, but I do not think it goes far enough, and it does not add much to Ofcom’s requirements. The same concerns arise around matters such as “significant prominence”. The Minister said from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading that the move away from broadcast terrestrial television would not be made until the overwhelming majority of people in the UK were able to access television by other means. I hope that is a fairly accurate version of what he said. I am concerned that the phrase “overwhelming majority” is also not specific enough, although I appreciate the direction of travel that the Minister was indicating with that remark. My concern, like the shadow Minister’s, about the potential removal of terrestrial TV and non-digital output is for the groups who would be significantly disadvantaged by that loss.
Sir John Whittingdale
The past decade has seen a complete transformation in the way in which people access television. Ten years ago, streaming services barely existed; now, they are ubiquitous. That is why the Bill is so important in modernising our approach and, in particular, ensuring that the public service broadcasters continue to thrive in this new landscape.
Clause 1 amends section 264 of the Communications Act to create a modernised remit for public service broadcasting against which Ofcom must report at least every five years. The new remit replaces and simplifies the purposes and objectives of the current public service broadcasting system. That is set out in proposed new subsection (4), and it will be fulfilled when the public service broadcasters provide a range of content that satisfies the interests of different audiences and is delivered in a way that meets the needs of those audiences.
Proposed new subsection (5) identifies the principal types of public service content that should form part of the PSBs’ collective contribution to the remit, specifically news and current affairs, children’s content and distinctively British content, as well as original, independent and regional productions. For the first time, regional and minority language content—content in Gaelic, Welsh, Scots, Ulster Scots, Irish and Cornish—is specified as contributing to the public service remit.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
In that list of protected genres, I note the exception of music. Does the Minister agree that the BBC has an integral part to play in the UK’s cultural landscape as the biggest commissioner of music and the biggest employer of musicians in the country? It has a proud cultural record, from the discovery of new artists and the Proms to innovative, brilliant cultural BBC radio programming at home and abroad. It is vital that all that is protected under amendment 19.
Sir John Whittingdale
While I completely share the hon. Lady’s love of music and recognition of the importance that broadcasters play in the promotion of music, the purpose of the new remit is to remove the specific naming of individual genres and instead put a requirement for them to be a “broad range”. In my view, that would certainly include music. Ofcom will have a duty to ensure that the broad range of different aspects of public service broadcasting is delivered, and there is a backstop power. If it is felt that broadcasters are failing to deliver sufficient quantities of the specific genre, it is possible for us to pass additional regulation to include a named additional genre. While music is no longer specifically mentioned in the remit, I am confident that that will not lead to any reduction. Indeed, the broadcasters have made clear that they have no intention of reining back on specific genres just because they do not appear in the legislation.
On how content is delivered, the Bill updates the present system so that on-demand provision contributes to the fulfilment of the remit, but to count towards the remit, as has been mentioned, it has to be online for at least 30 days. The only exceptions to the requirement are news and the coverage of live sports, which are regarded as being of instantaneous value, but value that perhaps diminishes over a short space of time. We thought about including music, but I think the value of music lasts beyond 30 days—I am as keen to see a performance from Glastonbury today as I was at the time it was broadcast. It would therefore not be appropriate to include it as one of the exemptions to the requirement. The Government recognise that it is valuable for audiences to be able to access news and current affairs in a traditional format, and the Bill accounts for that by ensuring our public service broadcasters are still subject to quotas that require them to deliver news via traditional linear television. Taken together, these changes will help ensure that our regulatory regime keeps up with modern viewing methods.
Clause 2 updates section 264A of the Communications Act in the light of the new public service remit for television. Section 264A describes how Ofcom, when undertaking a review under section 264, should consider the contribution that other media services, including those provided by commercial broadcasters, make to the remit. The changes made by the clause are needed to implement the new public service remit.
Clause 7 makes changes consequential to clause 1. In particular, it amends section 271 of the Communications Act to apply the existing delegated powers in the section to the new public service remit, as opposed to the old purposes and objectives. That will ensure that, should there be a need, the Secretary of State can by regulation modify the public service remit in clause 1, as I was suggesting to the hon. Member for Luton North. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
I understand the intention behind amendment 19, which is to ensure that the range of content shown is broad. We want that too, but we feel that no longer specifying a large number of individual genres simplifies the current system of public service broadcasting. We want to set a clear and simple vision for the industry that narrows in on what it means to be a public service broadcaster, but we do not see that that need comes at the expense of breadth. We continue to want to see a wide range of genres, and we believe the clause achieves that.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister said it is possible by regulation to amend the list to add genres. Could he write to me with information about the process by which that could happen? How can amendments be made to add genres to the list, should that become necessary?
Sir John Whittingdale
Ofcom has a duty to monitor the delivery of the remit, and that includes satisfying itself that there is a sufficient range of genres and that there has not been a diminution of a particular genre that would be considered part of the public service remit. If, however, it becomes clear that broadcasters are failing in any area, there is a backstop power that allows the Secretary of State to add a specific genre to the remit. We believe that safeguard is sufficient to ensure continued delivery of the range of genres that the hon. Lady and I want to see.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous with his time. At what point would the backstop power be initiated? Is there a standard below which the Government believe the backstop should be initiated? If so, why not just lay it out on the face of the Bill?
Sir John Whittingdale
The position is that Ofcom has a duty to monitor the delivery of genres, and it produces a report on that. If it becomes clear, and Ofcom states, that the public service broadcasters are failing to deliver aspects of the remit, section 271 of the Communications Act, which is amended by clause 7, provides a delegated power to amend the remit following the report by Ofcom. Proposed new section 278A allows for the creation of additional quotas for underserved content areas. Those powers are designed to address any underserved content areas that have been identified, and could be used to add a specific genre if that proved necessary.
Kirsty Blackman
On that point, for clarity in advance of the remaining stages of this Bill, it would be really helpful if the Minister wrote a letter explaining that. He has mentioned both that the Secretary of State would have the power to vary and to initiate the backstop, but also the power to create regulations, and I am not entirely clear about which it is. It would be great if he just laid that out to us in in a letter.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am very happy to provide the hon. Lady with a written briefing on exactly how the powers can be used.
New clause 1 would put a specific duty on Ofcom to report on how public service broadcasters deliver the public service remit. We agree that that is very important, but we think that the Bill already achieves that. Clause 1 amends section 264 of the Communications Act to put a responsibility on Ofcom to review and report on the extent to which public service broadcasters fulfil the remit. Regarding the specific requirement of delivery of the remit on linear, I think that we are straying into the territory of debate on the next group, about how long viewers should be able still to rely on digital terrestrial television. I am very happy to debate that, but I think that discussion that is more appropriate to the next grouping.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised a specific question about how the measurement of the 30 days requirement should operate. I can assure her that the broadcaster would certainly not be able to pick out individual days and put them all together to make up that 30. It is 30 consecutive days starting from the day that the content is first made available.
I believe that the clauses that we are debating represent a modernisation that will ensure that public service content remains at the heart of our broadcasting landscape but is modernised to take account of the extraordinary transformations that are occurring. On that basis, I commend clauses 1, 2 and 7 to the Committee, but I would, I am afraid, be unable to support new clause 1 or, indeed, amendment 19.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the Minister’s comments on amendment 19, but it still remains the case that, without clear specifications as to what counts in the “range of genres”, there is no guarantee that Ofcom will monitor the levels of content in each of the removed genres. Without such monitoring, it will be very difficult to identify whether there is a reduction and to rectify that. With that in mind, I would like to press amendment 19 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 3, page 7, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) which is broadcast via UHF frequencies that can be received by a minimum of 98.5% of the population of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would amend the definition of public service for Channel 3 services and Channel 5 to include an obligation to broadcast via digital terrestrial television.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 36, in clause 3, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(d) which is broadcast via UHF frequencies that can be received by a minimum of 98.5% of the population of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would amend the definition of public service for Channel 4 to include an obligation to broadcast via digital terrestrial television.
Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 17, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) after paragraph (c), insert—
“(d) provide for the broadcast of programmes for or on behalf of a Channel 3 licensee using the MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 digital video broadcasting standard via UHF frequencies that can be received by a minimum of 98.5% of the population of the United Kingdom.””
This amendment would amend the definition of public service for Channel 3 licensees to include an obligation to broadcast via digital terrestrial television.
Kirsty Blackman
We covered a little of this in the last debate, in relation to access to terrestrial television services. As I said, there is still significant digital exclusion in our society when it comes to those who access television services and public service broadcasts through non-digital means.
It is possible to do what I do, which is to access television entirely through digital means—I have not had an aerial for a significant time. We moved into our house in 2016 and I am not aware that we have ever watched terrestrial television there, but we are lucky enough to have and be able to pay for a fast broadband connection and to live in a city where we can access one; we are not in any of the excluded and more vulnerable groups that find it more difficult to access television through on-demand means. A significant number of people can still access TV only through terrestrial services.
The amendments are about trying to pin the Minister down on what he means by “an overwhelming majority”. This is about looking at the numbers: is 98.5% of the population the kind of figure that the Minister was thinking about when he said “overwhelming majority”, or did he mean 60% or 70%? I am in debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who, like me, has met Broadcast 2040+, which crafted these amendments. My hon. Friend is significantly more of a football fan than I am, and has specifically mentioned the fact that football viewing figures are higher for terrestrial TV than they are for subscription services. Removing access to terrestrial TV, which may happen at some point in the future and may need to happen at some point in the very distant future, will reduce the number of people able to access Scottish football. Therefore, in addition to the comments I was making about the educational provision available on television, I make the point that it is also important that there is the ability to view sport.
Yesterday in the Chamber, there was a ministerial update on the risk and resilience framework, which was published by the Government last year. Ministers have been at pains to state how much more transparency the framework enables than was the case previously. I appreciate the work that the Government are trying to do to update the national risk register, to ensure that it is as public as possible and that people are able to access this information. However, an incredibly important part of local resilience is being able to access up-to-date news, up-to-date and on-the-spot weather, and information when something significant happens.
I will give an example. Recently, there were significant floods in Brechin, which is just down the road from Aberdeen—although I am not sure that people in Brechin would want to be described in relation to Aberdeen; Brechin is a very lovely place in its own right and not just a neighbour of Aberdeen. People in Brechin saw really significant flooding, and a number of properties were evacuated. Without the ability to access information on what was happening through terrestrial TV or radio services, people would have been much less aware that the river was about to break its banks. If there is really significant wind—as there was, during the significant rain—accessing mobile phone masts, for example, is much more difficult. Terrestrial TV service masts, having been up for significantly longer, are significantly less likely to come down in the kinds of winds that we saw during Storm Arwen and Storm Babet, as weather events increase. In terms of resilience, it is important for people to be able to access that.
During the covid pandemic, people were glued to their television screens for updates about what was happening and the latest lockdown news. If some of our most vulnerable communities were struggling to access such content because, after the withdrawal of the terrestrial services, they did not have the broadband speeds necessary to watch television on demand, they would be less likely to be able to comply with and understand the law if another pandemic or national emergency happened.
It is important for the Government to know that they can reach the general population; that is how they could make the case for lockdown restrictions or ensure that people were aware of when the Queen sadly passed away last year. They can make those announcements and ensure people have the understanding and ability to know when significant national events have happened.
If people who are older, in poverty or otherwise digitally excluded are less likely to hear timeously about extreme weather or massive national events of incredible importance, then we further marginalise communities that are already struggling. As I said, I appreciate the Minister using the term “overwhelming majority” but I am just not confident enough that—
Damian Collins
The hon. Lady should recognise that such switchovers are possible only when the technology supports it, which is a question of changing the distribution mechanism at some point. That can lead to more choice.
Take the village in Kent where I live. When we had to do the switchover in 2012, the consequence of turning off the analogue signal and replacing it with a digital one was that we could get Channel 5, which people would otherwise not have been able to get at all. With the improvement in infrastructure, some people may see a significant improvement in services, but only where that infrastructure is ready.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate that and think it is important, but my point is about those who cannot get access and do not have the financial ability to do so. If we have a commitment to continue to provide terrestrial services and the legacy infrastructure, the providers of that infrastructure—the public service broadcasters—can continue to invest in it and not just say, “Well, the Government are going to allow us to turn it off in 2040 so there is no point in investing in it now. It has only got 17 years left to run, so we are just going to run the network down.” I am concerned that that may be the direction of travel.
Without a very clear commitment from the Government, I am worried that there will be a lack of investment in terrestrial services and that people will lose out. I would not want anybody to lose out on Channel 5 and I am very glad that people have access to it, but they need to have the choice. I would rather people had access to some public service broadcasting than none, which would be entirely possible if the digitally excluded could no longer access terrestrial TV services.
If the Minister made some really clear commitments today, that would be incredibly helpful. He may not be able to do that, in which case I may press some of the amendments. I will certainly be supporting the Labour party’s new clause. If the Minister cannot make more commitments, will he make clear the Government’s point of view about people likely to be excluded from taking part in a switchover, in relation to current investment in the network and investment to ensure that the network can last the next 15, 20, or 30 years? Would the Minister be happy to see that network diminish and for there to be a lack of investment so that services run down of their own accord or would he would prefer people to continue to be able to access them?
It would be great to have a little more clarity from the Government on the proposed direction of travel. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and also Broadcast 2040+ for all the work that they do to try to ensure that marginalised groups can continue to access public service broadcasting.
Stephanie Peacock
As I outlined during the discussion about my new clause 1, it is incredibly important that we recognise the value of broadcast television services and ensure that they are available where needed, particularly when thinking about making public service content available to as many people as possible. Indeed, the Government have themselves highlighted that millions of households in the UK still rely on broadcast television as their form of access to visual content—a trend expected to continue over the next decade.
Furthermore, unlike internet streaming services, PSB content on terrestrial TV does not require a strong broadband connection or rely on monthly subscription fees. Such content is primarily relied on by those already marginalised in society—people on the lowest incomes, people of an older age and those in isolated rural areas. There is a higher population of such people in Scotland given its increased rurality, island communities and comparatively older population, so I understand and support the reasons why the amendment has been tabled. It wants to ensure the future of terrestrial services for those who need them. That is particularly important because, as we have discussed, under the Bill on-demand content can now contribute to public service remits. That is the right move but it should come with safeguards for content on terrestrial TV, which is what my new clause seeks to address.
A host of implications are not being properly considered when digital-first plans are put forward in the Bill for broadcasting. If we move away from broadcast services prematurely, there will be huge implications for telecoms operators, who will have to handle unprecedented surges in internet traffic. For example, if everyone watched the World cup final online rather than on their broadcast TV, the infrastructure would need to be strong enough to carry that. Without due preparation and regulation, questions may arise about how that would be funded without costs being passed on to consumers and without raising bigger questions on topics such as net neutrality.
As we have discussed, there are also national security implications to moving away from broadcast infrastructure in its entirety. How would local and national Government communicate with the public if the internet was down due to an emergency situation? With all that in mind, we need to consider the future of our broadcasting landscape and the important role that terrestrial television will continue to play in the years to come.
I am unsure, however, whether the amendment is right to be so prescriptive in legislation about the percentage of the population who must be reached through digital terrestrial television, particularly given the rapid advances in technology taking place around us. There are already statutory obligations in the Broadcasting Act 1996 that feed into broadcast and multiplex licences, which require the likes of ITV to use DDT on the UHF frequencies to broadcast. Those obligations mean that 98.5% of the population are able to receive broadcast television.
However, although the current infrastructure broadly allows for 98.5% reach, I do not believe that is a precise enough figure or a stable enough measurement to warrant requiring it specifically in legislation; if the Bill wants to be future-proofed and recognise the importance of terrestrial television, I am not sure that quite strikes the balance. I hope the Minister takes on board the strength of feeling on this issue and seeks to ensure that the public service content remains available up and down the country. I also hope the Department puts a future plan in place that really considers the importance of broadcast services and of the certainty over the future that that could provide these services and the people who rely on them.
Sir John Whittingdale
I want first to make it clear that the Government remain committed to the future of digital terrestrial television. We absolutely accept that millions continue to rely on it. We have already legislated, as hon. Members know, to secure its continuity until at least 2034 through the renewal of the multiplex licences. Obviously, I understand that the Opposition would like to go further and give a commitment going beyond 2034, and the amendments are tabled with that purpose in mind.
I said “overwhelming majority” on Second Reading, because I do not want to be tied down to a specific figure, particularly when we are now looking 10 years ahead, but I repeat that it would be a brave Government who switched off DTT while there was still a significant number—even a small number—of people relying on it.
Stephanie Peacock
Since the Minister is not willing to commit to going further than 2034, will he outline when he will make a decision on whether he will extend it past 2034? If not—this is quite important—what plans are the Department putting in place to ensure any future transition takes place effectively?
Sir John Whittingdale
I am happy to say a little more about what the Department is doing. First, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North is absolutely right that broadband availability is one of the factors that would need to be taken into account. I also have ministerial responsibility at the moment for digital infrastructure, and I can confirm to her that the Government remain committed to the universal availability of gigabit broadband by 2030; if we achieve that target, that is one factor that will have been met. There is also the availability of low-cost tariffs, and I agree with her about the importance of those.
The hon. Lady also talked about resilience. Resilience is important, but it is worth bearing in mind that the Bilsdale transmitter fire was not that long ago—that took out DTT for a significant number of people for quite a few months. Every technology is subject to occasional risk, and that was a rather more dramatic one.
On getting vital messaging across, I gently say to Opposition Committee members that radio is, of course, available through a variety of different technologies as well as television.
Stephanie Peacock
The fire that the Minister referenced really outlined how important linear television is to many parts of the country. Actually, the further north we go, the more communities rely on it. In that particular case, I think that a prison was affected as well as a number of older people. It is a good example of how important terrestrial TV still is to many in the country.
Sir John Whittingdale
We completely recognise that terrestrial TV is important to many in the country. I was in my second incarnation as a Minister at the time of the Bilsdale fire, and I talked to Arqiva about the importance of restoring services as rapidly as possible. A very large number of people were left without the ability to access information, entertainment and all the things that people rely on television to provide.
Looking forward, as hon. Members may be aware the Secretary of State recently announced that the Department is going to carry out a new programme of work on the future of television distribution. That includes a six-month research project working with a consortium led by the University of Exeter, looking at changing viewing habits and technologies. We have also asked Ofcom to undertake an early review on market changes that may affect the future of content distribution. I am very happy to keep the House updated on those. That will be looking at all the various factors that would need to be taken into account.
I make one final point about amendment 37. It puts a particular requirement on channel 3 licensees to use particular standards for compression technology. As with all technologies, the standards for television distribution will change over time. We want to ensure that there remains flexibility, so restricting channel 3 to a particular use of one technology would be severely limiting and actually be contrary to precisely what the Bill is designed to achieve.
Kirsty Blackman
On what the Minister just said about the report on the future of television provision being done and the timeline for decision making, does he recognise my point that the degradation of the technology is possible if the Government do not make fairly early decisions—I am not talking about in the next three months—on whether they are going to extend it beyond 2034? Does he understand the importance of making a decision in fairly short order to ensure that broadcasters, for example in Arqiva, keep the technology running so that it stays viable beyond 2034 if necessary?
Sir John Whittingdale
As I say, we are committed to keeping the House updated about the research. I recognise the point, and my own expectation is that DTT will be around for quite some time to come. For the reasons I have explained, I am not able to accept the amendments. I hope that the Opposition will withdraw them.
Media Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 5th December 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 December 2023 - (5 Dec 2023)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 36, in clause 3, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(d) which is broadcast via UHF frequencies that can be received by a minimum of 98.5% of the population of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would amend the definition of public service for Channel 4 to include an obligation to broadcast via digital terrestrial television.
Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 17, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) after paragraph (c), insert—
‘(d) provide for the broadcast of programmes for or on behalf of a Channel 3 licensee using the MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 digital video broadcasting standard via UHF frequencies that can be received by a minimum of 98.5% of the population of the United Kingdom.’”
This amendment would amend the definition of public service for Channel 3 licensees to include an obligation to broadcast via digital terrestrial television.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 7, line 33, at end insert—
“(5A) In this section, a reference to making available audiovisual content, in relation to a licensed public service channel, is a reference to the provider of that channel making available audiovisual content.”
This amendment describes how audiovisual content contributing to the fulfilment of the public service remit for a licensed public service channel is provided.
Sir John Whittingdale
I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Cummins. Clause 3 amends section 265 of the Communications Act 2003 to update public service remits of licensed public service channels to make clear that the high-quality and diverse programmes they make available must themselves contribute to the public service remit and together represent an adequate contribution. In line with the changes made by clause 1, it allows licensed public service channels to fulfil their remits by using a wider range of services.
Government amendment 1 ensures that when a public service broadcaster is required to fulfil the public service remit for a given channel, and that remit is to make available content, then it is the public service broadcaster that should be making that content available, either themselves or through others. That point of detail was arguably included in the Bill at its introduction, but we felt it necessary to bring forward the amendment in order to put this matter beyond doubt. It is a technical amendment, and I hope the Committee can support it.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I too welcome you to the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Cummins. As well as the remit covering all the public service broadcasters, there also exist separate remits covering the activity and content of each individual channel. The channel remits are important, as they ensure that the specific aims of each channel are clear in the context of the wider contribution these channels must make as a whole.
Section 265 of the Communications Act 2003 sets out the specific remit for channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5. As will become the theme in coming clauses, only channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5 are dealt with by this clause, with many of the same changes to the BBC and S4C made later on in the Bill due to their differing arrangements. In any case, section 265 ensures that channel 3 and Channel 5 must provide a range of high-quality and diverse programming. Meanwhile, Channel 4 has an extended remit that requires its programming to: be innovative, creative, experimental and distinctive; appeal to the tastes and interests of cultural diversity; include a significant contribution to meeting the need for education programmes; and exhibit a distinctive character.
The clause amends section 265 to update the remits. First, it makes clear that the high-quality and diverse programmes they make available must themselves make an adequate contribution to the wider public service remit. This is sensible, as it makes it explicitly clear how the individual channels will feed into the broader remit. Secondly, the clause allows public service broadcasters to fulfil their channel remits by means of any audio-visual service, echoing changes made in clause 1 that allow for on-demand programming to count toward the wider remit.
While I believe it is important we see public service programming on linear services protected, it makes sense that as on-demand viewership increases, channel remits should be given the same flexibility as was provided for the wider remit in clause 1. I therefore welcome the clause and the clarification it provides for each channel and the consistency it ensures for the new public service remit as a whole. I understand that amendment 1 is largely a technical clarification that specifies that audio-visual content contributing to a channel remit must be content made available by the provider of that channel. This seems to be a very sensible tidying up of phrasing.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Statements of programme policy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Section 266 of the Communications Act 2003 puts a duty on Ofcom to require providers of licensed public service channels to prepare statements of their programme policies that set out how they intend to fulfil their individual channel remits. Currently, these statements must only be prepared in relation to the content provided by public service broadcasters on their traditional TV channels. Clause 4 amends section 266 of the 2003 Act. It expands these statements to reflect that the fulfilment of the public service remit could now include, as set out in clause 1, content delivered by on-demand services.
Going forward, the providers of licensed public service channels—channels 3, 4 and 5—must set out in their statement the services they are using to contribute to the fulfilment of the public service remit and explain how each service is contributing. The publication of these statements is important to allow proper scrutiny of our public service broadcasters.
Clause 5 of the Bill, which is grouped with clause 4, amends section 267 of the 2003 Act to update the definition of “a significant change”, so that it would apply if any of the services that a licensed public service broadcaster is using to deliver its remit—not just the main channel, as before—were to become “materially different in character”. For example, this will include on-demand services as well as the traditional TV channels. And like the previous clause, clause 5 will ensure that these statements continue to allow scrutiny of all the ways that the public service remit is fulfilled.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 4 amends requirements on channels 3, 4 and 5 to report on how they intend to fulfil their channel remit. Indeed, due to clause 3, these channels will now be able to meet this remit using qualifying audio-visual services, including both linear and on-demand programmes.
As a result, licensed PSBs will now have to set out in their statement of programme policy which audio-visual services they use to fulfil their channel remit, as well as the contributions that each service will make. This is a necessary change to ensure that reporting standards, and as a result the standards of public service TV, do not slip or falter as a result of the changes made by clause 3.
However, making this change will also be beneficial, as it will help Ofcom to build a clear picture of how the new rules are being used and whether they are working effectively to serve both linear and on-demand audiences. Therefore, as a result of both the necessity for and benefit of clause 4, I am happy to welcome it.
Similarly, clause 5 makes further updates to the reporting requirements on channels 3, 4 and 5. Currently, public service broadcasters must make changes to their statement of programme policy if their public service channel makes “a significant change”. “A significant change” is defined in the 2003 Act as the channel becoming
“materially different in character from in previous years.”
To reflect the new rules, which will mean channel remits can be met by services beyond the public service channel, clause 5 updates the definition of “a significant change”, so that it will apply if any of the services that a licensed public service broadcaster is using to deliver its remit becomes “materially different in character”.
Widening the scope of the 2003 Act to include more than just the public service channel is sensible and necessary in relation to the changes made in clause 3 and, as such, I welcome the inclusion of clause 5 in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Enforcement of public service remits
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 6, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) In subsection (2)(a), after “serious”, insert “, or at risk of becoming serious””.
This amendment would lower the threshold for Ofcom’s intervention if it considers that a public service broadcaster has failed to fulfil its remit.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 6 is another example of necessary changes being made to the Communications Act 2003 to reflect the changes in clause 3. Indeed, since public service broadcasters can now use on-demand services to deliver their remit, Ofcom’s power to consider whether such a broadcaster has failed to fulfil its remit must be adjusted accordingly, so that on-demand services can be taken into account.
Likewise, it is right that Ofcom will be able to make directions and impose licence conditions that apply to audio-visual services, ensuring that its enforcement and monitoring now reflect the new flexibility in the remit. I therefore welcome the premise of this clause.
However, I want to speak briefly about Ofcom’s enforcement powers more generally with reference to amendment 20. Given the increased flexibility that public service broadcasters have been given in meeting their remit, concern has been raised about the strength of Ofcom’s position in being able to step in when things look as though they may go wrong. The British Association of Public Safety Communications Officials and Ofcom can step in only when failure to meet the remit is considered to be serious; and any failure is not excused by economic or market conditions. That seems to be an unreasonably high threshold for intervention that does not allow for preventive action to take place in order to stop an issue becoming serious in the first place.
As the Culture, Media and Sport Committee highlight in its comprehensive report on the Bill, enabling Ofcom to step in earlier if it perceives there is a risk of a breach becoming serious would not only protect the integrity of the new regime but increase public confidence that the new remit would not come with a decline in standards. Ofcom itself has also recognised that, saying in its submission to the Committee that,
“it is important that this flexibility is accompanied with appropriate ‘step in’ powers so the commercial and PSB incentives remain effectively balanced.”
Further, we will speak many times during the passage of the Bill about how important it is for Ofcom to be empowered as a result of it. Indeed, many of the new regimes in the Bill are reliant on Ofcom being able to act confidently in enforcement. As such, it must be given the tools to intervene where needed across the board. Therefore, my amendment proposes that section 270 of the Communications Act is updated to lower the threshold at which intervention can take place in the case of remit breaches. The phrase “is serious” will be adjusted to “is serious or at risk of becoming serious”, thus ensuring that Ofcom can remedy any failures efficiently and in good time. Indeed, it is not my hope that that power will have to be used on a regular basis; there is every reason to believe that the public service broadcasters will continue to do their best to deliver on their remit for UK audiences. However, should that not be the case, it is important that we do all we can to mitigate any failure. I ask for Committee members support for this amendment.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Can the hon. Lady give the Committee any examples of when Ofcom has been unable to act with its current powers against public service broadcasters in the linear world? She talks about making changes for the digital world, but are there current examples where Ofcom is concerned?
Stephanie Peacock
I do not believe so, no, but obviously the Bill is changing, and giving more powers to, Ofcom. Like any regulator, it needs to be able to enforce them properly; so it is really a preventive measure. We hope that the Minister will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I rise briefly to support the amendment. This changes the remit requirements on public service broadcasters. I do not think that anyone is disagreeing with some of the changes that are being made. It makes sense for the public sector remit to be able to be fulfilled on some of the on-demand services, for example, in a way that currently they are not. However, the concerns that were raised earlier around genres, for example, are not written into the Bill. There is a requirement for there to be a range of genres but those definitions are no longer included. The system will probably need to bed in; it will probably take a bit of time. I agree with the shadow Minister that we do not expect public service broadcasters actually to create serious risk or enter this situation. If they do, though, I believe it is better for everyone for Ofcom to be able to intervene at an earlier point, for a number of different reasons.
If Ofcom can intervene earlier and is empowered and asked to do so, it will be cheaper, easier and quicker to sort out the issue. If it can act only once the issue is serious enough, then undoing that harm is difficult. Stopping the harm is better for the general public, better for the broadcasters, better for the staff who work within those broadcasters, and better for Ofcom, which will have to spend less time clearing up a mess and ensuring that a mess can be cleared up.
On the empowerment that it gives to Ofcom, I agree with the shadow Minister that it will not be used terribly often, but it does give Ofcom sufficient power to say to the broadcaster, “Things are not going right here. We think there is a risk of things becoming serious, so we would like you to make some changes,” particularly when some of the quotas have been removed, for example, or some of the requirements for genres have been changed. It is going to take a while for the system to work as intended. The Government do intend it to work—I have no doubts that that is the case—but Ofcom needs to be empowered to ensure that it can do that.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It strikes me that a lot of what the hon. Lady is talking about is relevant to the broadcasting code. It is Ofcom’s job to issue guidance in relation to the code and to take action if a broadcaster fails to meet its obligations. If Ofcom feels that a broadcaster has no intention of keeping within the remit of the code, it can withdraw its licence. That is the ultimate sanction, and one that Ofcom has already.
Kirsty Blackman
That is absolutely the case. However, on this section of the Bill, which is about enforcing the public sector remit—sorry, I keep saying “public sector” when I mean “public service”; I spent too much time in local government. It is about enforcing the public service remit and amending this section of the Communications Act. The shadow Minister has made the case to allow Ofcom the ability to step in with a lighter touch. We do not want Ofcom to have to take licences away. We want Ofcom to assess that, if things are not going in the right direction, it is better for everyone if it ensures the proper provision and that everybody has access to the public service broadcasting that we would expect. We want Ofcom to have that earlier opportunity to step in and say, “Guys, it’s time to make some changes before it gets to the point of being beyond repair.”
Sir John Whittingdale
As the hon. Member for Barnsley East has already set out, section 270 of the Communications Act gives Ofcom enforcement powers to use in the event that it believes the provider of a licensed public service channel has failed to fulfil its statutory remit, or to make an adequate contribution to the public service remit for television. In those circumstances, Ofcom could issue a direction to the public service broadcaster setting out the steps for remedying the failure. Should it not give effect to that direction, Ofcom can also then impose additional obligations on the broadcaster.
In that context, clause 6 does three things. It amends section 270 to make clear that Ofcom can make directions and impose licence conditions in relation to any services that the public service broadcaster has indicated it is using to fulfil its channel remit. In the light of the ability of licensed public service broadcasters to use a wider range of services to deliver their remits, it will allow Ofcom to consider the record of the provider in using on-demand programme services when considering enforcement action.
Turning to amendment 20, I understand the Opposition’s concern about whether Ofcom will have the tools it needs, which we absolutely share. However, we believe the particular change sought by the amendment is not necessary and would carry with it some dangers. First, as the Government have already set out to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, there are reasons why Ofcom might form the opinion that the failure of a provider is serious, but it may consider that a failure is more serious if it is likely that it will be repeated without regulatory intervention.
Secondly, the power to enforce against the licensed public service broadcaster is not the only tool available to Ofcom. Ofcom can also take less formal action, working with public service broadcasters to produce good outcomes; it also has legal options.
Thirdly—this is perhaps the most important consideration —the amendment breaches what is quite an important principle: public service broadcasters need to be independent to make their own decisions about how they best run their channels now and in the future. Ofcom’s role is to reach judgment on whether broadcasters have succeeded in meeting their public service remit. The amendment would make Ofcom a pre-broadcast regulator rather than a post-broadcast regulator. It would give Ofcom the ability to penalise failures that have not yet occurred.
Andy Carter
It strikes me that the Opposition’s amendment would effectively take regulation back to the days of the Independent Broadcasting Authority where, before anything was done, permission was needed from the regulator. That type of regulation is of no benefit to the creative industries and to the freedom to innovate in the way the sector requires.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is right. It is a long-established principle that Ofcom is a post-transmission regulator. The acceptance of the amendment would change that and give Ofcom an ability to intervene before transmission. That would be a breach of what we consider quite an important principle. Therefore, on that basis, we cannot accept the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a follow-up question. Can the Minister give us some indication or understanding of how Ofcom will ensure that the remits are fulfilled across public service broadcasting, without having any sort of pre-conversations with each broadcaster—to ensure, for example, that there is enough educational content across all of them? How does he expect Ofcom to ensure that that happens without having pre-conversations and by only being a post-transmission regulator?
Some of the quotas and individualised direction are being removed. I am not necessarily suggesting that that is a bad thing, but the Minister’s point about Ofcom being a post-transmission regulator goes against the fact that it will have expectations on the broadcasters as a whole, and will require some of them to do some things and some to do other things without knowing what those things are until afterwards.
Sir John Whittingdale
We are about to debate the fact that individual channels will be subject to some quotas. There are also the statements of programme policy that Ofcom will be required to approve. Having said that, Ofcom will reach a judgment on delivery of the remit, looking across the broad extent of public service broadcasting. Ofcom will be able to make it clear if it thinks a particular genre has not been sufficiently provided either by an individual public service broadcaster or, indeed, across the whole range of public service content. It will be for Ofcom to determine that, but I believe the Bill gives it that ability.
Stephanie Peacock
Throughout the Bill, we are giving more powers and responsibility to Ofcom. The amendment speaks to the idea that prevention is better than cure. I do not agree with the Minister’s interpretation; indeed, the Select Committee spoke of the matter and the amendment echoes that. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Quotas: independent productions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clauses 8 to 17 make amendments to the current system of quotas, which I will discuss in this group and the next.
Quotas are an important tool to ensure that public service broadcasters produce an appropriate range of content. Unlike the public service remit, which is judged by Ofcom in regard to the PSBs as a whole, quotas allow Ofcom to put licence conditions on specific public service broadcasters to ensure that they make available certain types of content. That is how we can ensure an appropriate balance of key types of content, such as news and current affairs, independently produced content and original content. It is worth stressing that such requirements are floors, not ceilings, and that PSBs routinely exceed them, often by a considerable margin.
Section 277 of the Communications Act sets out a minimum proportion of broadcast hours that must be independent productions. It is set at 25% for each of the licensed public service channels. Clause 8 amends this to change the way in which the provider of a licensed channel may deliver the independent production quota. In particular, subsection (2) replaces the existing requirement on the
“provider of a licensed public service channel”
to allocate time on the channel to the broadcasting of a
“range and diversity of independent productions”.
Together with clauses 11 and 12, it will allow the requirements to be fulfilled using a public service broadcaster’s designated on-demand programme services to better reflect modern viewing habits.
The subsection also replaces references to a proportion of hours that the provider of licensed public service channels must make available, with reference to a number of hours. The number of hours that each licensed public service channel must include is to be specified by the order of the Secretary of State. Given that this requirement can now be met using on-demand services, it is more appropriate to use the number of hours of content made available as a measurement rather than the proportion of hours.
Subsections (5), (7) and (9) make comparable provision in relation to expenditure quotas for independent productions that the Secretary of State may establish. In setting the new hours-based quota, the intention is for them to be no more or less demanding than the existing 25% quota. We therefore intend to calculate the effective level of the quota over the last five years and replicate that. Of course, in Channel 4’s case, which we will come to later, that will be revised upward to the equivalent of 35% should Channel 4 decide to start a production business.
We believe that the consequence of that provision represents proportionate and reasonable requirements on our public service broadcasters. Of course, it is open to PSBs to go further and exceed their independent production quotas as they do now. Clause 9 makes similar amendments to section 278 of the Communications Act, which provides that a minimum proportion of broadcasting hours must be allocated to original productions. The proportion for each licensed public service channel, as well as the proportion in peak viewing times, is determined by Ofcom. As with clause 8, this clause ensures that the provider of the licensed public service channel can fulfil the quota using their designated on-demand services. That change is achieved by replacing the requirement to allocate time on the channel to the broadcasting of original productions with a more general requirement. Again, it makes provision for this to be measured by duration rather than as a proportion of broadcast hours as it is currently.
Clause 14 relates to the quotas for making programmes outside of London. The Communications Act currently provides that a minimum proportion of programmes made in the United Kingdom have to be made outside the M25 area. Similarly comparable provision is made in respect of expenditure. We debated this earlier, particularly in relation to the effect on production in Scotland and in Wales. Similarly, clause 14, read with the previous clauses, amends the Communications Act to preserve the substance of the provision, but it changes the way in which the provider may deliver their regional production quotas. In similar fashion, it again makes the change to measure the quota in terms of duration, rather than proportion of hours.
Together, these changes modernise our system to reflect the change that has occurred in audience viewing habits over the past 20 years, and ensure that it will continue to be meaningful and delivering value.
Stephanie Peacock
Clauses 8, 9 and 14 change the way in which licensed public service channels may deliver their independent production, original production and regional production quotas respectively. In short, they will first be changed to allow qualifying audio-visual services to fulfil this quota, meaning that on-demand and online services can make a contribution. That is the case with both the channel and the wider remit.
As a consequence of this move, the quotas are moving away from having to fill a certain proportion or percentage of content towards being based on a set number of hours of content and spend to be specified by the Secretary of State. I will look at each of these changes in turn, but first I want to emphasise how important the quotas themselves are, because they maximise the contribution our PSBs make to the wider broadcasting sector. For example, as the Minister just outlined, the requirement to have a number of programmes made outside the M25 area recognises the importance of reinvigorating our creative economy beyond simply the south-east. At the moment, our creative economy is densely concentrated in London, resulting in limited opportunities and entry points in the sector in other regions, including my constituency of Barnsley East. Yet, wherever we look in the UK, there is no shortage of culture and creativity. I am very supportive of the modernising and future-proofing of quotas, like those on content outside the M25, so that steps continue to be taken across the broadcasting industry to make use of the creativity that exists in every corner of the country.
Kirsty Blackman
I will make a brief comment on the inclusion of on-demand services and the change to defining quotas in numbers of hours rather than in percentages. It could be incredibly difficult to calculate the total number of hours available of all programmes, because of the number of different platforms, apps and arms that each public service broadcaster has. I therefore understand the rationale for moving to a number of hours model instead of a percentage model.
To make the case in terms of on-demand services and on-demand hours, I hope the Minister will encourage Ofcom to ensure that the content that is counted towards these remits is accessible. We have spoken about digital inclusion already— I am not referring to that—but if, when people open BBC iPlayer, they can find a certain programme only by going through 17 screens, finding it at the bottom of a page further on and finding that it may be available only every second Tuesday, it will be very difficult for the broadcaster to argue that that programme is included in its number of hours. Will the Minister be clear that the broadcaster should be able to demonstrate to Ofcom that the content is both available and accessible in order for it to be included in the number of hours for quotas and to meet the agreed public service broadcasting remits?
Sir John Whittingdale
I am grateful for the general expression of support from the Opposition. As I said, it is not the Government’s intention to make the quotas any less demanding than they are at present by moving from a proportional measurement to a numerical measurement of the number of hours.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East asked for an indication of what that meant. It is complicated, but using the data published for 2018 to 2022, we expect the quotas to be roughly as follows: all together, the BBC will have an independent production quota of 1,725 hours; regional channel 3 services will have a quota of 725 hours; Channel 4 will have a quota of 450 hours, rising to 625 hours if it chooses to start a production business; Channel 5 will have a quota of 325 hours; and S4C will have a quota of 425 hours. There is a significant variation between them, which, given that they were all at 25%, came as something of a surprise to me when I first looked at the data, but it is a reflection of the proportion of new, original programming commissioned by each channel. There is therefore a variety.
Ofcom will still have the duty to ensure that the quotas are met. If, by some chance, a PSB fails to meet its quota due to extraordinary circumstances, Ofcom can take that into account when considering whether to take enforcement action. However, the purpose of the change is to move the quota requirement into the modern world.
I hear what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North says about the risk of the number being hard to define. As we debated earlier, a programme will count towards the public service remit only if it is available on demand for 30 days, and Ofcom will need to be satisfied that it is accessible in the way the hon. Lady describes. On that basis, I hope that the clause can stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Power to create additional quotas for qualifying audiovisual content
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 2.
Clauses 11 to 13 stand part.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 10 inserts proposed new section 278A into the Communications Act 2003. This will establish a mechanism for the creation of additional quotas for audio-visual content that has not been made available by one or more providers of
“licensed public service channels…to the extent that is appropriate.”
That is achieved by empowering the Secretary of State in new subsection (1) to specify
“by regulations…a description of qualifying audiovisual content”.
This will include both specifying the type of content—for example, a particular type or genre—and how that content is to be delivered.
The power is essentially a backstop should there be a type of content that is neglected in the fulfilment of the public service remit, as we discussed. It will only be used as an exception rather than by rule. We believe that a modernised public service remit, deliverable across a wide range of services, will in most cases be sufficient to ensure a range of high-quality public service broadcasting. The power will ensure that the legislation is future-proofed against changes in how content is delivered—for example, by allowing the Secretary of State to require that certain content be delivered on certain services.
The bar for imposing additional quotas of this kind will be high. The more specific the proposed quota, the higher it should be. Before making a recommendation under these sections to introduce regulation, Ofcom will be required to consult members of the public, affected licensed public service channels and any other providers of television or on-demand programmed services. Any regulations made under the new section will be subject to the draft affirmative mechanism.
Clause 11 inserts proposed new section 278B into the 2003 Act, which introduces some important definitions that are relied on by other clauses. It defines “qualifying audiovisual content” and what it is to make available a “qualifying audiovisual service”. It also specifies that this must be free of charge where it has been included in an on-demand programmed service, and it must have been included, as we said, for at least 30 days. These important definitions are needed for the functioning of the Bill.
Government amendment 2 is a technical amendment to clause 11, clarifying that, where qualifying audio-visual content has been made available through services provided by persons associated with the licensed PSB, arrangements must be in place between the PSB and that person. That corrects a theoretical anomaly between section 264, as amended, and the proposed new section, which could have resulted in quota content not counting towards a PSB’s remit.
Clause 12 makes further provisions about how quotas can be fulfilled. It inserts proposed new section 278C into the 2003 Act, requiring the Secretary of State to make provision, either directly or through Ofcom, for the appropriate treatment of material that is made available by public service broadcasters multiple times. It can apply whether the repeats are on the same service, as with the traditional repeat, or across multiple services. We believe that this complex issue needs more detailed treatment. Before making any regulations in this area, the Secretary of State must consult Ofcom.
In respect of original and regional productions, and other additional quota conditions that may be determined, clause 12 allows for the treatment of repeats to be determined not by the Secretary of State but by Ofcom. Given that Ofcom is responsible for setting the level of those quotas, in our view it makes sense for it to continue to determine the treatment of repeats.
Turning to clause 13, section 285 of the 2003 Act requires that the provider of each licensed public service channel draws up a code of practice that they will apply when commissioning independent productions for that channel. Those codes of practice must be consistent with guidance issued by Ofcom, and this gives rise to a system of regulation known as the terms of trade regime. The purpose of the codes, and indeed, the terms of trade regime as a whole, is to ensure that broadcasters work fairly with independent production companies and do not take advantage of their dominant market position.
Clause 13 makes amendments to section 285 of the 2003 Act to extend the scope of the codes of practice to cover independent productions commissioned for other audio-visual services—for example, programming that is put on on-demand programme services—should the PSB wish to count those programmes as part of its independent productions quota. Subsection (3) is complementary, in mandating Ofcom to issue guidance with a view to ensuring that the PSB provides the person who is being commissioned with information about the application of the code. These essential provisions support the modernisation of our PSB system, and I commend Government amendment 2 and clauses 10 to 13 to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak to each clause in this grouping in turn, starting with clause 10, which enables the Secretary of State to create additional quotas for audio-visual content by licensed public service channels. On the whole, I welcome the clause. In particular, I am pleased that changes have been made to the draft version of the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State can make regulations only following a recommendation from Ofcom. As the Culture, Media and Sport Committee observed, no explanation was given regarding the circumstances in which it would have been necessary to use this backstop without an Ofcom recommendation. Media regulation is rightly independent from Government through Ofcom, and the adjustment will ensure that there are no concerns about a shift away from that.
On the intent of clause 10 more broadly, in theory, the new power that it provides is important. It is right that Ofcom should be able to mandate new quotas if it believes that audiences are being under-served. This is particularly true given the adjustments in clause 1 that make a number of simplifications to the remit, most notably removing explicit mention of the genres of content that must be provided, including, as we discussed, science, religious beliefs and matters of international importance. However, given that the genres have been removed, Ofcom’s ability to monitor and recognise the gaps is unclear. That creates a sort of paradox: how can Ofcom judge whether audiences are being served properly if it is no longer monitoring the genres of content needed to ensure that there is a good service for those audiences? For that reason, I tabled amendment 19, which would ensure that genres would still be explicitly mentioned in legislation so that could be monitored accordingly. Without such a measure, the clause is at risk of failing to live up to its potential as a backstop measure to ensure that audiences are protected from a fall in quality programming.
Clause 11 underpins almost all the clauses in the first section of this Bill by defining phrases such as make available and “qualifying audiovisual content”. Those phrases allow for on-demand content to count towards remit and quotas, and as such, it is important that they are properly and sensibly defined. I am happy with the definitions on the whole, and it is pleasing that there is also room for additional audio-visual services to be added to the list of qualifying audio-visual content, subject to consultation with Ofcom and the affirmative procedure. That will effectively future-proof the measures in the Bill, subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Clause 12 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding whether content that is made available multiple times—more commonly known as repeats—counts towards production quotas. As I mentioned during the discussion on clauses 8, 9 and 14, some have raised concerns about how changes in this area could impact the ability of public service broadcasters to fulfil their quotas. At present, programmes that have been broadcast before in substantially the same form count towards some of the production quota. Any change, therefore, that results in repeats no longer counting towards those quotas, will mean that the quotas are harder to reach. For example, excluding repeats from counting towards quotas on original content will mean that more original content will have to be produced to meet existing obligations.
However, in the context of on-demand content, which will now count towards quotas, it is unclear how the concept of repeats could possibly be applied. Indeed, when viewing on-demand content, it is usually available 24/7 at the choice of the viewer, rather than run multiple times at the choice of the broadcaster, as is the case on linear. That brings up complex issues relating to how the contribution of repeats will be calculated as counting towards quotas in the digital age, the detail of which will need to be worked out promptly.
I therefore ask the Minister for guidance on how the Department intends to proceed in this area and use the power that the clause will give to the Secretary of State. Will repeats continue to be counted towards quotas on both linear and on-demand content, and if so, how will a repeat be defined on the on-demand service? Ultimately, it is important that the way that repeats count toward quotas and the level of new quotas are considered hand in hand. We must ensure that the quotas remain at levels that are meaningful enough to ensure quality content for audiences and encourage a healthy broadcasting ecology in the UK, while being at a reasonable level, given the economic constraints on the broadcasters.
Finally, I turn to clause 13. As I am sure we will touch on in more detail when we discuss the changes made to Channel 4’s publisher-broadcaster restriction, our public service broadcasters are crucial to the success of the wider UK TV production sector. As stated in the submission from the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, PSBs account for 77% of original UK commissions and, as a result, hold immense buyer power in the UK domestic commissioning market. Given their role and bargaining power in the sector, it is crucial that fair principles apply when public service broadcasters commission independent productions. The terms of trade regime, which was established following the Communications Act, has done a good job so far of ensuring that that is the case.
That is not to say that the landscape operates perfectly, and I know that some have raised concern over the rise of super-indies, which may make it more difficult for smaller indies to compete. Overall, however, it is welcome that the clause looks to maintain a successful supply side to the market by ensuring that the terms of trade regime will apply to any qualifying audio-visual content. That is important for the health of the sector as a whole. In particular, it has been welcomed by PACT, which has worked hard at many stages of the Bill to ensure that independent production companies are well represented and do not feel adverse effects as a result of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed, for all these clauses, that any changes by regulation must be made using the affirmative procedure. Particularly on clause 10—a power he suggested would be used very rarely, if at all, and only if needed—it makes sense, given the level of importance attached to the power that it should have to go through the affirmative procedure to be implemented. I appreciate that the Government have chosen to do that.
It is important that additional services can be added by regulation rather than by primary legislation, particularly when there are continual updates and renewals—on digital platforms especially, we are seeing changes on a very regular basis. As I said, I was on the Online Safety Bill Committee, and it was so important to ensure that that Bill was future-proofed as far as possible. There are potentially on-demand services that we cannot conceive of or genres that currently do not exist that will be a massive part of daily life in a few short years. The Minister has ensured that there is flexibility, in concert with the Secretary of State and Ofcom, and then through the affirmative procedure in the House. I think it is sensible to future-proof the legislation by allowing regulations to be decided on using the affirmative procedure.
The same applies to the requirement of quotas for potential genres or ways that television is delivered that we cannot foresee today. I agree with the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East. It is important to look at what happens with repeats and to ensure that everybody is clear about what happens. I probably do not have a firm view of how those should be judged, but I do have a firm view that everybody should understand how they are judged, and people should understand it in advance, so that they know what the expectations are of them.
A clear definition of what a repeat looks like on an on-demand service is important. If something is available for 30 consecutive days, goes away for a day and then comes back for 30 consecutive days, would that be a repeat, or would it not? Would it be included in the quota? It is important that some of the public service broadcasters that are producing this stuff can take it down so that they can sell it abroad for a period of time if they need to in order to generate some income. As long as it is on the service for a length of time here—they are required to include it for those 30 days, for example, or longer—I think it is perfectly acceptable for them to use some of the productions to gain some cash to continue to produce their excellent programmes.
Sir John Whittingdale
We debated earlier whether we should continue to have specified genres as part of the public service remit. As I said, the Government considered it better to specify that there should be a broad range without necessarily going through each individual category. That does not mean that Ofcom will not have the power to consider the provision of precisely the same genres as they have in the past, and those will include things such as arts and classical music, religion, sport and drama. Ofcom will also be required to produce an annual report on what it considers to be the principal genres and on whether those are being met. Some of the concerns that the hon. Member for Barnsley East identified will be met by the Bill.
The treatment of repeats is complicated, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North indicated. The Secretary of State will have the power to make regulation under the affirmative procedure, having consulted Ofcom. We cannot go into specific detail at this stage about how the power will be used, but I can say, in respect of independent productions, that the intention is that repeats should not count towards the quota, given the focus on the way in which programmes are made. But in respect of original and regional productions and other additional quota conditions that may be determined in the future, this allows for the treatment of repeats to be determined by Ofcom. Given that Ofcom will have the responsibility for setting the level of quotas, it makes sense for it to continue to determine the treatment of repeats. I hope that that provides a little more clarity, if not an absolute clear statement at this stage of how this will work.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Quotas: meaning of “qualifying audiovisual content” etc
Amendment made: 2, in clause 11, page 12, line 29, leave out from beginning of line to “by” in line 30 and insert—
“(a) that content is provided by—
(i) the person, or
(ii) a person associated with the person, under arrangements made between the person and that associated person,”.—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
This amendment adds a requirement that the provision of qualifying audiovisual content by a person associated with the provider of a licensed public service channel should be under arrangements made between the provider and the associated person.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 12 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Networking arrangements for Channel 3
Sir John Whittingdale
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 15, page 17, line 28, after first “for” insert “available”.
This amendment and Amendment 4 secure that networking arrangements must be arrangements that provide for programmes made, commissioned or acquired by one or more holders of regional Channel 3 licences to be available for inclusion in qualifying audiovisual services that are connected with every licence holder, as services provided by the licence holder or by a person associated with the licence holder.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 4 to 7.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.
Schedule 1 stand part.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 15 of the Bill amends section 290 of the Communications Act, relating to the existence of a system of networking arrangements that govern the interaction between the providers of the different regional channel 3 services—that is, ITV and STV. Any such arrangement must be approved by Ofcom and, in considering whether to approve the arrangements proposed by a provider, Ofcom must consider whether the arrangements meet the three networking objectives set out in subsection (4). The basic premise of those arrangements is that the regional channel 3 services should be distinctive, but should nevertheless share programming between them.
Clause 15(2)(a) amends the second networking objective, which relates to the providers of a channel 3 service making programmes available
“for broadcasting in all regional Channel 3 services”.
It replaces those words with the words,
“available for inclusion by every holder of such a licence in qualifying audiovisual services provided by that person”.
Together with Government amendments 3 and 4, this will ensure that the networking arrangements remain relevant in a world where many viewers are choosing to watch programmes on demand.
Stephanie Peacock
This grouping covers clauses 15 to 17, schedule 1, and a small set of Government amendments. I will address all of those briefly in turn.
Clause 15 makes amendments that are largely consequential to the issues already discussed. It acknowledges the ability of public service broadcasters to use qualifying audio-visual services to meet their remits, and ensures that that also applies to requirements around network arrangements. I have mentioned previously that I am in favour of that new flexibility for broadcasters, given changing audience patterns, and I believe it makes sense to mirror this change in network arrangement requirements.
Clause 16 removes the Channel 4 quota to create a specified level of programmes intended for use in schools. It is my understanding that the quota is currently set at the low bar of 30 minutes, as the Minister has just mentioned. Channel 4 surpasses that quota, and it is somewhat arbitrary, given Channel 4’s wider commitments around education. These wider themes around educational content are extremely important, but it seems that this specific quota is no longer making an active contribution in the way it once did. I am therefore happy to move on without raising any particular issues. I also have no particular issues with the Government amendments, which are largely technical and consequential, and clear up confusion in some areas.
Finally, clause 17 and schedule 1 primarily echo the major changes made in this part of the Bill for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, applying them to the BBC and S4C too. That includes confirming that quotas on independent content will be set at a number of hours, rather than as a percentage for both S4C and the BBC. The concern around a move to pure number targets from percentages is something I have already raised, but I wish to note that the BBC in particular took objection to that during the process of pre-legislative scrutiny. In its submission to the Committee, the BBC argued that the Government should take advantage of the distinctive regulatory framework to maintain proportional targets. Would the Minister use this opportunity to explain whether that was something which the Department explored?
Kirsty Blackman
I have some questions from colleagues about channel 3, in particular on the provision of ITV Border, which is the cross-border channel 3 provider that operates around Dumfries, Galloway and, across the border, Carlisle. People in the south of Scotland in such areas do not receive STV; they receive ITV Border, with its regional news and other channel 3 provision.
One of my colleagues, Emma Harper, who is a Member of the Scottish Parliament and has done a significant amount of research and work on this on behalf of her constituents has expressed concerns about the percentage of the content made south of the border compared with the proportion made north of the border. If we are to ensure that, for example, the regional dialects and languages of the UK are part of the public service remit, having a significantly unbalanced situation with ITV Border is a slight concern. It is a bit of an issue for my colleague’s constituents.
Another matter that comes into play concerns news, or updating the general public and ensuring that they are aware of issues. STV—channel 3—is a significant place for people to get access to local news in particular so that they can understand what is going on in their areas more widely, as well as nationally. People in the ITV Border region are being given information about school, legal and policing policies that apply south of the border, but not in Scotland. The content has to be significantly delineated because it is split across two very different jurisdictions—that is in some, not all, legal areas, such as school policy. For example, the school systems are completely different north and south of the border.
What consideration has the Minister given to asking Ofcom to look at ITV Border and whether it is best serving the populations on both sides of the border to ensure that everyone has the most up-to-date regional content in their area? I am not suggesting that we should always have certain delineations, but in this sector in particular, which people rely on for news services and updates, having a disparity that particularly affects the people of the Scottish Borders, rather than the English borders—because more content is made in the south—is a concern.
I would very much appreciate it if the Minister agreed to have a look at this, or to have a chat with Ofcom about the provision of ITV Border to ensure that he and Ofcom believe that the broadcaster is appropriate and properly serving people on both sides of the Scotland-England border.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I have a brief point to make about providing services across the border, as the hon. Lady referred to. That has been a problem in Wales, especially with Welsh language programmes intruding on English language provision to the extent that many people on the borders and the south Wales coast would turn their aerials eastwards or southwards, so the news that they got was for the west or north-west of England. That was remedied to some extent in the north-west at least, by Granada carrying Welsh news, which was a peculiar situation for people in the north-west of England who would receive news about the goings-on in the Llŷn peninsula, where I used to live. There are ways of remedying that, and one way would be for the service south of the border to carry some news from the north.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am grateful to all those who have made contributions. I will come on to address the points made by the hon. Member for Barnsley East returns, but first I will address the points made regarding Scotland and Wales.
I have some sympathy with that, because while we maybe do not feel as strongly about these things as representatives of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, my own constituents frequently have to listen to news about what is happening in London, rather than Essex, because of the way in which some people receive regional programming.
I fully understand the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. It is perhaps a consequence of the fact that the boundaries of regional services television do not necessarily coincide with national boundaries, which may mean that people on the border are receiving television services that are less appropriate for them, given their geographic location. I think that is probably a difficult issue to solve, but I would certainly encourage her to discuss it with Ofcom, which will obviously need to be satisfied that each of the channels is delivering the public service remit across the geographic area that it is covering. I think that is probably a matter for Ofcom; I will certainly draw it to its attention and suggest that it might like to talk to the hon. Lady further.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
In a similar vein, would my right hon. Friend ask Ofcom to look at the implications of the BBC’s decision last year to close its sub-regional newsrooms in Oxford and Cambridge, which means that my constituents in Aylesbury now only get to see regional news from Southampton. It is quite a stretch to see anything in common between the two areas, not least as Aylesbury is one of the furthest inland towns in the country. The BBC, of all organisations, is supposed to represent the whole of the country, and that means each and every part of the country.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend tempts me to go down a route that could open up a whole new area of debate. I have to say that I share his concern about some of the decisions taken, particularly in relation to local news provision, by the BBC on radio and, indeed, in local news services. He will be aware, and he has a lot of experience in this area, that this is a matter for the BBC. That does not mean that we do not make clear our own views to the BBC about how it is delivering its obligations to provide for local news. We will continue to do that, but it is ultimately a matter for the BBC.
In relation to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Barnsley East, we want the BBC to have a consistent approach, recognising its distinctive contribution. We will be looking at all these matters when we come to consider the renewal of the charter which, as we discussed this morning, will start not instantly, but in the not too distant future.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendments made: 4, in clause 15, page 17, line 29, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 30 and insert
“”, in relation to each holder of such a licence, available for inclusion in one or more qualifying audiovisual services provided by that holder or a person associated with that holder”;”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 15, page 17, line 32, after “licences” insert
“and persons associated with any of those holders”.
This amendment secures that the purpose of networking arrangements is to enable holders of regional Channel 3 licences and persons associated with those holders to provide qualifying audiovisual services that (taken as a whole) are able to compete effectively with other television programme services and on-demand programme services provided in the United Kingdom.
Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 17, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Section 362AZ12(6) (meaning of references to a person associated with a public service broadcaster) applies for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) and (c) as it applies for the purposes of Part 3A.””
This amendment is consequential upon Amendments 4 and 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 15, page 17, line 36, leave out “(4)” and insert
“(4A) (inserted by subsection (2A))”.—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 6.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 18
Power to require information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 18 inserts two new sections into the Communications Act to ensure that Ofcom has the powers to gather the information which it needs to regulate this part of the Bill effectively. Proposed new section 338A of the Communications Act will give Ofcom the power to issue information notices to request any information which it needs to carry out its functions under sections 198B to 198D, sections 263 to 294, schedule 11 and certain provisions in schedule 12 of the 2003 Act. It includes its functions and duties to regulate the public service remit, quotas and licence conditions. An information notice will compel the recipient to provide Ofcom with the information specified in the notice, including where such information must first be obtained or generated by the party. An information notice may be served on a PSB other than the BBC or, where necessary, a third party, but only where proportionate. Proposed new section 338A(7) clarifies that the power to require the provision of information includes the
“power to require the provision of information held outside the United Kingdom.”
Clause 18 also introduces proposed new section 338B of the Communications Act, which will allow Ofcom to take enforcement action against any party that does not comply with an information notice under proposed new section 338A. After allowing the person to make representations, Ofcom may issue a penalty notice imposing a financial penalty. This penalty in respect of an information notice cannot exceed £250,000. In the case of a continuing failure to comply with a notice, a penalty notice may also require a penalty of an amount not exceeding £500 per day for each day the failure continues after the penalty notice is issued. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
During discussion of clause 6, I mentioned that, as a result of the changes in the Bill, it will be increasingly important for Ofcom to be able to step in where there is a risk of public service broadcasters failing to fulfil their remit and quotas. I am therefore supportive of this clause, as it gives Ofcom the power to issue information notices and financial penalties to public service broadcasters in respect of breaches in the fulfilment of their duties. Although I have confidence in the willingness of our excellent public service broadcasters to carry out their remits and quotas, it is important that Ofcom is able to ensure that and provide a backstop where necessary.
I will say this more than once: the Bill really does rely on a strong and empowered Ofcom. It is with that in mind that I believe the powers to find out further information and impose penalties where necessary are proportionate and important tools that will enable the regulator to do its job. I therefore welcome the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Amount of financial penalties: qualifying revenue
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 19 addresses the calculation of financial penalties in respect of channels 3, 4 and 5. By way of context, the Broadcasting Act 1990 and schedule 9 to the Communications Act 2003 relate to the financial penalties that Ofcom may impose on the provider of a licensed public service channel in certain circumstances. In each case, the maximum penalty that Ofcom may impose is set by reference to the qualifying revenue of the provider or, in the case of section 18, whichever is greater—that or £500,000. Having maximum penalties in reference to revenue helps to ensure that penalties strike an appropriate balance between being dissuasive and proportionate. That link is important in accounting for the differences in size and revenue of different public service broadcasters.
The clause inserts proposed new section 18A of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which will amend the existing definition of the qualifying revenue of the provider of a licensed public service channel specifically in relation to financial penalties. The new definition includes revenues from both the licensed public service channel and certain services included in any designated internet programme service provided by that provider. As part 1 of the Bill will expand the ways in which PSBs can fulfil their remit and meet their quotas, it is only right that should a PSB not complete their responsibilities, the revenue of the internet programme services that they provide and which benefit from prominence should be taken into account. That is the purpose of the clause, which I commend to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause amends the definition of “qualifying revenue” where it is used as a reference measure to help set the maximum penalty Ofcom can impose on public service broadcasters. The change will see the revenue a PSB gains by providing on-demand and online services included alongside the revenue that it gets from its public service channel when making the calculation. Given that online and on-demand content can now count towards quotas and remits, it makes sense that the revenue from such content should be considered when determining maximum fines. I am therefore happy to support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Categories of relevant service
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Digital rights to listed events—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Broadcasting Act 1996 to make provision for coverage of listed events which is not live coverage.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Sir John Whittingdale
This part of the Bill relates to the listed events regime, which seeks to strike a balance, so that broadcasts of key sporting events are widely available and free to air, while sports rights holders are able to use the income that they generate from rights to invest in their sport. Clause 20 updates the listed events regime to make qualification for the regime a PSB-specific benefit, reserved for PSB services that are free of charge. This change was first recommended by Ofcom in its “Small Screen: Big Debate” report in 2021.
The change we are proposing recognises both the practical difficulties around the current audience reach-based approach and the fact that our PSBs play a key role in distributing content that is of interest to British audiences. The current qualifying criteria stipulate that a qualifying service must be free and received by 95% of the UK population. In a changing market, in which audiences can use a range of technologies to access content, we need to ensure that the qualifying criteria are both appropriate and future-proofed.
The clause also closes the streamer loophole; it brings into the regime TV-like service providers that are not based in the UK but intend to show live coverage of listed events to UK audiences. The change recognises that audiences have increased access to content provided by global providers. If we did not bring these providers into scope, there is a risk that the contents of live listed events could be purchased via a streaming service and put behind a paywall, without the provider adhering to the rules of the regime.
The PSB services that will qualify are those that are free and genuinely used by PSBs to fulfil remit. Those are either the PSB licensed channels or the internet programme services that have been designated by Ofcom for prominence. It is important to note that changes to the regime do not preclude non-PSBs from bidding for rights. The regime does not guarantee that an event will be broadcast live or on a free-to-air channel. Rights holders are not required to sell live rights, and broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them or to show events. The legislation sets out that where live rights to a listed event are sold, they must be offered to both PSBs and non-qualifying services. That ensures that the right balance is struck between audiences being able to watch coverage of our major national sporting events, and rights holders and broadcasters having the commercial freedom to negotiate deals in their interest, so that they can reinvest in elite and grassroots sport.
Stephanie Peacock
The listed events regime is a vital scheme that allows for major sporting events of national importance to be broadcast on free-to-air channels. Its success since its introduction decades ago has been outstanding. Almost everyone in this room and across the country will have a fond memory of watching a listed event, whether that be watching Mo Farah cross the finish line at the London Olympics in 2012 or seeing Andy Murray win at Wimbledon.
These major occasions bring our country together, and unite us in victory and loss, but the benefit does not end after the programme has finished. An event being televised can be a catalyst for the nationwide success of a sport. The final of the women’s Euros, for example, was watched by more than 17 million people. As a result, the number of women and girls participating in grassroots football has no doubt increased, and attendance at women’s league events has reached a record high, generating further revenue for reinvestment in the sport. Televised sporting events are also a big boost for our hospitality businesses, allowing people to watch major matches together in pubs, bars and restaurants, no matter where they are in the country. With that in mind, it is right that we do all we can to preserve the listed events regime and ensure that important sporting events are available to watch as widely as possible.
An event’s being listed does not guarantee that it will be broadcast live or on a free-to-air channel, but if rights are made available to qualifying services, there is the best chance of the event being seen by as many people as possible. The definition of a qualified service is a broadcast channel that is received by 95% of the population and is free to air. I have spoken many times about the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient content available on linear television. Over the coming years, we must anticipate that viewing on a range of devices will increase. A listed events regime based on broadcast audience reach is therefore no longer fit for purpose because, as Channel 4 notes in its submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, there is a risk of some PSBs falling out of the regime altogether in future. It is welcome, therefore, that the clause amends the scope of the listed events regime, so that it is a PSB-specific benefit. That ensures that no one drops out of the regime. It also allows channels such as S4C— a PSB that does not reach 95% of the UK—to be included.
I am also pleased that the clause looks to end the streaming loophole, which has caused widespread concern. Until now, the listed events regime has applied only to television programme providers, meaning those who hold Ofcom broadcast licences, plus the BBC and S4C. The draft Media Bill proposed extending the regime to include “internet programme services”, but that failed to capture unregulated online services such as livestreams. Theoretically, those services could buy the rights to a listed event and put it behind a paywall, and so undermine the regime. It is welcome that the new version of the Bill creates a new definition of services that fall within the scope of the regime, so that TV-like services providing live content to UK audiences via the internet are captured.
The likes of the BBC and ITV had concerns about the effectiveness of some of the other options on the table for shutting the loophole, such as extending regulation of electronic programme guides. What assurances has the Minister received, this time round, that the clause will close the loophole once and for all? If we can be confident that it is the solution, I will be more than happy to support the clause.
Given the effort that Ministers have put into future-proofing the integrity of the listed events regime when it comes to the streaming loophole, it is extremely disappointing that there has been no attempt to include digital rights in the Bill. It seems quite straightforward: if we want to ensure that sporting events of national importance are available for people to view for free in years to come, the regime should be extended to reflect the new ways that people consume content, including online.
Again, as Channel 4 highlights in its submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in recent years, its content on social media platforms, such as YouTube and TikTok, has generated a
“record number of hits for highlights and digital clips of live sport.”
Last year, Channel 4’s sport content on YouTube drew 16.8 million viewers globally and 8.2 million viewers in the UK. Those figures were driven mostly by Nations League and Formula 1 coverage, and were up 430% on the year before. That type of content seems to be catering to a growing younger audience: more than a quarter of the Channel 4 Corporation’s sport content on YouTube is viewed by 13 to 24-year-olds in the UK. However, this is not just about putting content where it is likely to be viewed in years to come. It is about ensuring the integrity of the regime.
As significant sporting events are often global competitions, they may take place in various time zones, including when it is night-time in the UK. In such situations, the live broadcast of the event may be of limited value to UK citizens, who will be asleep during the event. However, the next day, digital and on-demand clips could be immensely popular, as they would allow UK audiences to experience the moments they missed. As the BBC highlights, when Charlotte Worthington won gold at Tokyo in 2020, just 400,000 people were able to watch that in the middle of the night, but in the days that followed, different forms of short-form coverage of the event gathered more than 3.4 million views. If the BBC does not have access to those digital and on-demand rights, which will likely be the case in the future if there is no change to the regime, such national moments of pride could become restricted and hidden behind paywalls. That would go against the entire objective of the listed events regime. I know the Government recognise that, because they are conducting a review of digital rights, but we have had no updates on the progress of the review, and it is unclear how its recommendations will be implemented, if not through this Bill.
Hywel Williams
I welcome the change proposed in clause 20. Major sporting events are a crucial means of introducing people to S4C’s services and, indeed, the Welsh language. In fact, I noted rather jocularly this morning that that has already happened with some events, which were not specified.
For the Committee’s interest, let me set out a couple of ways of getting round the difficulties that S4C faced. Sky at one time had a red button feature that allowed commentary in Welsh or English, as one pleased, but that experimental provision died a death, I am afraid. Rather more interestingly, when S4C was not allowed to carry Five Nations rugby, many people, including me, watched BBC Wales with the sound turned down, and listened to the commentary in Welsh on Radio Cymru—we are a very inventive nation.
The point is that under the current regime, only free-to-air channels received by 95% of the UK population qualify, as the hon. Member for Barnsley East mentioned. S4C was the only PSB excluded, although of course it could be received by 95% of the population it specifically served. I welcome the provision, which redresses that anomaly by specifying S4C.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree about the rugby coverage. Similarly, we watched Scotland games with the volume turned off and Radio Scotland turned on, so that we had commentary from our nation, rather than another nation. Understandably, commentators are always a little biased, and that is fine, but we would like the option of hearing those that are biased in our favour for once. That does not necessarily happen on some of the other channels.
On new clause 2, which relates to access to listed events, I agree with the comments about time zones, and access to non-live events happening on the other side of the world. It would make sense for public service broadcasters to be able to access rights to listed events happening in other time zones. For example, my husband has been obsessed with American football for a significant time. Quite often, if he is not able to watch a live game, then the next day, or the day after that, he watches the 40-minute highlights available on on-demand services for the most important sporting events. Events such as the Olympics, or the women’s or men’s football World cup, can be held in places that mean that the live rights are not terribly useful unless someone is so dedicated that they get up at 3 o’clock in the morning to watch. I am sure that many people watching then would just not go to bed, but it would be more enjoyable for most people to catch up on the highlights the next day—provided, of course, that their team had done all right.
I agree with the points made on new clause 2, and I think it is a clever way to go about the issue. It does not require the Secretary of State to make legislation, but if the Secretary of State chooses to make it, the new clause requires it to be made through the draft affirmative procedure, so the Houses would have a say on it. It is an enabling provision, which is incredibly important, given the changing nature of viewing.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am concerned to hear from the hon. Lady about the bias that has crept into BBC Scotland’s coverage.
Sir John Whittingdale
However, I understand her point. As the hon. Member for Arfon highlighted, under clause 20, the right to listed events that are broadcast free to air must be extended to public service broadcasters, so in future, that will include S4C. I am grateful for the support that the hon. Member for Barnsley East expressed for the closure of the streaming loophole; we think that the Bill will close that, and therefore preserve the ability to watch live broadcasts of listed events.
As more and more people access digital broadcasting, digital rights are clearly something that we will need to consider. That is why we are undertaking the digital rights review. I note that the review was a recommendation of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, so we recognise that there is quite a lot of interest and support for it. It is important that we get this right. As I was saying, the listed events regime is about balancing the ability of a large number of people to watch iconic sporting events free to air, and the ability of rights holders to raise revenue from the sale of rights—revenue that can obviously be invested back into the sport. Striking that balance has always been the difficulty with the listed events regime. If the regime is to be extended in this way, we want to get it right.
New clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Barnsley East, does give quite a broad power, which could lead to uncertainty for broadcasters and rights holders when they are negotiating deals, given that at the moment we have not spelled out how and whether we would extend the regime to digital rights. That is actively under consideration.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the points that the Minister makes, and I am not against them, but would he enlighten the Committee on how the recommendations made in the review will be put into action and into law, if not through this Media Bill?
Sir John Whittingdale
I cannot guarantee that there will be a successor media Bill immediately. Equally, although it was suggested that media Bills only come around every 20 years, I hope that we would not have to wait that long. As I say, at this stage, we are concerned with getting this absolutely right, and I have no doubt that we will continue to debate the issue. I hope that we can publish the results of the review very soon, but at this stage, we cannot accept new clause 2.
Stephanie Peacock
My apologies; I responded in my intervention. I believe we can vote on the new clause later, but the points that I made in the intervention stand. I am very keen to hear about the findings of the review, and to find a vehicle for changes to be put into action, because I am not sure that the Minister has fully responded to my points.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Contracts relating to coverage of listed events
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Regulations about coverage of listed events—
“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 104ZA insert—
‘104ZB Financial matters arising from the listing of events: the Listed Events Fund
(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a fund (the ‘Listed Events Fund’) with the purpose of minimising the consequential financial impact of the listing of events on sporting governing bodies who would otherwise suffer egregious financial distress.
(2) Payments from the fund shall be limited to governing bodies and other sporting rights holders who maintain their registered office in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England and whose primary geographic area of responsibility lies within one of these territories.
(3) The Secretary of State, following the revision of the listing of events in Group A of the list drawn up under subsection (1) of section 97, shall invite governing bodies and other organisations who could reasonably assess their turnover or income as dropping as a result of an event being listed in Group A (and who qualify under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section) to apply to him for payment from the fund.
(4) No organisation with a reported turnover of greater than £50 million per annum for the financial year in which any subvention may be paid shall be entitled to payment from the fund.
(5) The amount laid down in subsection (4) may be varied by the Secretary of State on an annual basis, but may not increase by a rate greater than that of the Retail Price Index as measured at any point in the three months previous to any proposed variation.’”
This new clause would provide a fund under the auspices of the Secretary of State to be paid to governing bodies or other broadcasting rights holders who may experience financial detriment as a result of listing under Group A.
Sir John Whittingdale
As we have just debated, the listed events regime seeks to ensure that key supporting events are widely available and free to air, while achieving balance that ensures that rights holders are able to use the income that is generated from a sale. One of the ways in which we seek to achieve this outcome is by prohibiting exclusive contracts for live rights to show coverage of listed events. This applies equally to PSBs and non-PSBs. It encourages competition and stops a situation in which a broadcaster can work with a rights holder to shut down an open process by concluding an exclusive deal.
The purpose of this clause extends the application of existing legislation that prohibits exclusive contracts for live coverage of listed events to the new wider range of services that the regime covers. The existing section 99 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 ensures that exclusive contracts are void. This stops rights holders and broadcasters bypassing the regime and it enables Ofcom to conduct its work on establishing whether live coverage is being shown by a provider in another category and is therefore authorised, or whether rights were offered to other services without fear of legal repercussions flowing from contracts that have already been concluded. The existing section 100 requires that a contract between a broadcaster and a sports rights holder must specify the category of service on which a listed event is to be televised. In line with the changes we have made to close the streaming loophole, this clause amends the scope of services caught by sections 99 and 100 to include those services which will be in scope of the listed events regime under the Bill. It would be inconsistent to require these services to heed the rules of the listed events regime without also putting in place the relevant protections to allow Ofcom to conduct its assessments.
Kirsty Blackman
I stand up in order to speak to new clause 8, in relation to contractual arrangements for listed events. The intention behind this is to provide a fund under the auspices of the Secretary of State to be paid to governing bodies or other broadcasting rights holders that may experience financial detriment because of a listing under group A. Payments from this fund are limited to those organisations with a turnover of less than £50 million per annum, with this threshold allowed to increase by the retail price index on an annual basis, with some limits in relation to the increase.
The Minister is right in relation to the financial implications for both selling rights and buying rights, and the cost. The issue for us is that football is a fundamental part of Scottish culture, and it should be accessible to all. In many other countries, home nation international games must be on free TV by law. As the Minister has said, there is no requirement for a number of listed events to be shown on free-to-air television, but the rights must be offered.
It is absolutely the case that people in Scotland will do whatever we can to watch our team qualify for anything, given that it happens so rarely. Once we have qualified for something, we will do everything we can to ensure we can watch those games. We have already made the case in relation to those people who are excluded from digital participation—for example, those who do not have access to streaming services—who would be incredibly keen to watch our women’s team or our men’s team play football. This new clause would allow for financial backing, which would ensure that organisations were not prohibited from showing listed events. The Government would not then have to converse with those organisations, because they would be able to apply to the fund in order to be able to afford to allow the population to see the events on free to air.
Stephanie Peacock
I will start by discussing new clause 8. Once again, I reiterate my support for the listed events regime, which connects communities across the UK in experiencing moments of national sporting importance by prioritising rights for free to air channels, soon to be PSBs. In the following debates, I will also go on to speak about how any expansion of the regime requires consideration. In particular, that is due to the need to balance the benefits of investment in the relevant sport, gained through the funds gathered by financial television deals, and the desire for people to see events in that sport free to air.
I understand where the new clause is coming from in this respect, as it looks to recognise that balance and tip it in favour of making more events available on the regime, with the financial losses compensated by a new Government fund. I recognise also that a good attempt has been made to keep proportionality in mind, given that organisations with a turnover of more than £50 million per year are excluded from being entitled to anything from the proposed fund. However, I fear that there may be a few perverse incentives built into new clause 8.
First, if the Government anticipate that they will be responsible for making up for the financial distress of a sport on the listed events regime, that could disincentivise placing such a sport in the regime at all. Further, for the sports themselves, there may be a disincentive to grow beyond a turnover of £50 million, should that mean their Government support is taken away. I am not sure this is best for the health of the regime, or indeed for the sports, as a result. I believe also that the fiscal implications of this new clause more generally need to be analysed before they are committed to.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister, however, what he believes the best way forward is in terms of promoting sports and making them available to the public, while securing the investment needed to secure the future of such sports. It is worth exploring how we strike this balance, and I commend the new clause for bringing the issue at hand to the forefront for discussion as part of the passage of the Bill.
I will briefly address clause 21 as well. The clause updates other sections of the Broadcasting Act 1996 to acknowledge the changed definition of “relevant services” in clause 20. As previously mentioned, the changes made to close the streaming loophole are very welcome—and this clause will support that. Clause 21 also makes clarification about section 99 of the Broadcasting Act, which looks to be relatively straight forward. I am happy to move forward with that in mind.
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North rightly highlighted that the issue that the new clause addresses is a matter that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North has been rigorous in pursuing. Indeed, not only have I heard him speak about it in the Chamber; I have also actually met him to hear him put directly his case. I am afraid that we were unable to reach agreement, but I recognise that he feels strongly about the subject. In the grouping which follows this one, we will address the more specific issue which he wants to amend the Bill to cover, which is the inclusion of matches involving the Scottish national team. One of the reasons why we have been resistant to the suggestion—and as I have indicated in a previous debate—is that it is all about establishing a balance. Inclusion of any sport on the listed events regime inevitably means that the potential for raising revenue is diminished, because it excludes a number of broadcasters from bidding for that particular right. It is a question of establishing a balance between the need to raise revenue and the need to ensure that as many people as possible are able to view an event.
The new is clause is quite ingenious in seeking to address that dilemma by asking the Government to set up a fund to compensate rights holders who are subject to inclusion on the list and therefore unable to sell to a non-free-to-air broadcaster. I have to say that that is not something the Government would consider. It would be quite a significant market distortion, and it would be open to potentially a number of other sports or rights holders. What I would say, however, is that sport, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North is very much aware, is a devolved matter. Should the Scottish Government decide to set up such a fund, they would be free to do so, but I am afraid we are not able to accept the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Restriction on showing live coverage of listed events
Sir John Whittingdale
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 22, page 26, line 30, after second “to” insert “the coverage of”.
This amendment and Amendment 9 are minor drafting changes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 10.
Clause 23 stand part.
New clause 6—Sporting and other events of national interest—
“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 97 (as amended by section 299 of the Communications Act 2003), after subsection (1B) insert—
‘(1A) The following events must be included in Group A of the list drawn up under subsection (1)—
(a) the Olympic Games;
(b) the Paralympic Games;
(c) the FIFA World Cup Finals Tournament;
(d) the FIFA Women’s World Cup Finals Tournament;
(e) the European Football Championship Finals Tournament;
(f) the European Women’s Football Championship Finals Tournament;
(g) the FA Cup Final;
(h) the Scottish FA Cup Final;
(i) the Grand National;
(j) the Wimbledon Tennis Finals;
(k) the Rugby Union World Cup Final;
(l) the Derby;
(m) the Rugby League Challenge Cup Final;
(n) any match involving the national teams of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England pertaining to qualification for the events listed in paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f).’”
This new clause would make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to place the list of sporting events in Group A of listed sporting events, ensuring they are available on free to air television in their entirety. The events consist of all current Group A events plus the home nations World Cup and Euro qualifiers.
New clause 7—Consultees for sporting and other events of national interest—
“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 97(2), after paragraph (b), insert—
‘(ba) Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig (the Gaelic Media Service),’
(3) In section 104(4), after paragraph (b), insert—
‘(ba) Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig (the Gaelic Media Service),’”
This new clause would add Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig/The Gaelic Media Service to the list of organisations which must be consulted when the Secretary of State is drafting or amending listed events and Ofcom is drawing up its related code of guidance.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 22 updates section 101 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 to make specific provision for group B events and to take into account the updated scope of services captured by the regime. That includes TV-like services based both inside and outside the UK providing live content to UK audiences via the internet. We have updated the services in scope of the regime in line with other measures in the Bill that recognise that audience viewing habits and technology have changed significantly in recent years. That has brought all TV-like services, including those delivered via the internet, in scope.
Since publishing the draft Bill in March 2023, we have heard from stakeholders that the approach to widening the scope of services that can qualify may inadvertently harm the ability of PSBs and non-PSBs to work together, in partnership, to deliver multi-sport events to UK audiences. Partnerships help ensure that rights holders can extract maximum value, both in terms of income and access to a broad audience base, while ensuring that all audiences still have access to the most incredible moments of multi-sport events. Where partnerships deliver great outcomes for audiences, we want that to continue. We have therefore introduced the concept of adequate live coverage for events that involve different sports—multi-sport events like the Olympics—and will require Ofcom to set out in regulations what the threshold for this coverage will be.
That is necessary because previously to receive automatic authorisation for live coverage partnerships between PSBs and non-PSBs had to be arranged so that both held the same rights to show coverage on the services in scope of the regime. That concept worked when there were only a handful of TV channels, but it is now outdated in an age when dozens of sporting events can be taking place concurrently and can all be broadcast live across different distribution channels. Ofcom’s new regulations on adequate live coverage will set out how this will work in practice and will help to ensure that the regime does not deliver suboptimal outcomes for audiences.
Clause 23 amends Ofcom’s existing regulation-making powers in the Broadcasting Act 1996 to take into account the new provision for multi-sport events being added by clause 22. It sets out that Ofcom may make regulations to determine what will be considered adequate coverage. It also updates some language, replacing “televising” with the more general term “coverage”. Ofcom will continue to define in regulations what is to be considered to be “live coverage” for group A events and what is to be considered “adequate alternative coverage” for group B events. Currently, its code defines that as highlights and live radio commentary.
Turning to Government amendments 8 and 9, their purpose is to clarify that the restrictions set out in the clause relate to the coverage of a listed event in part or in whole, as was intended. Government amendment 10 makes it clear that Ofcom’s regulations on adequate live coverage may also relate to parts of multi-sport events, as well as the whole. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that Members will support those three technical Government amendments and the new clauses—I mean, the existing clauses.
Kirsty Blackman
I am delighted to hear that the Minister might support the new clauses. That would be amazing, if he were able to do so. At the end of the previous conversation, the Minister mentioned sport being devolved in Scotland, which is the case. However, broadcasting is reserved. Should the Minister wish to devolve broadcasting, we would support such an amendment, so that we could take our own decisions and would not need to stand here having this discussion about our new clauses.
I will speak to new clauses 6 and 7 on the live coverage of listed events. New clause 7 would amend the Broadcasting Act to ensure that the Gaelic Media Service is on the list of organisations that must be consulted when the Secretary of State is drafting or amending listed events or guidance, and when Ofcom is drawing up the code of guidance. I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask for the Gaelic Media Service to be included. I hope that if the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendment, which is often the case, he will give consideration to ensuring that the service is one of the consultees, whether or not that is written into legislation.
New clause 6 focuses on sporting and other events of national interest. The Minister is absolutely correct that a significant part of the point that we are making is about being able to watch our football team play. It is about having a level of parity for people in Scotland, because as I have said football is part of our national culture. My daughter has been playing football since she was three. It is something in the blood of many Scots people, and seeing our team take part and qualify for something is amazing. The problem, however, is that too many people were not able to see our team qualify or watch those matches, because of the lack of availability as a result of the lack of listing of the event.
The issue is the listing, the fact that the home nations are not included—the home nation games to qualify for the FIFA World cup finals, the women’s World cup finals, the European football championship finals or the European women’s football championship. Currently, we do not have the proposed new paragraph (n) that we suggest in new clause 6. It would ensure that all the games involving the national teams of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England pertaining to qualification for the events listed would be included in group A.
I am sure that the Minister has looked at the list of events. I guarantee that more people care and know about Scotland qualifying, or Wales qualifying, for any of those events than even know what the Derby is. The Derby does not have the same level of national importance—it does not have the same place in national consciousness. People know what the grand national is, but the Derby is way further down people’s lists of priorities. The Minister and the Government have the listings, or some of them, slightly wrong. We do not have the level of access to watch those events live that we should. It is not too much to ask for listing as a group A event all the home games—to qualify for those tournaments—of all the nations of the UK.
I have mentioned this already, but I just want to be clear that we are also including women’s football in this list because of the massive rise in the number of people who are keen to watch women’s football, as well as the massive rise in the numbers of women and girls playing football. I will make one last pitch for the women’s parliamentary football team, which is truly excellent, should any women who work in or around Parliament wish to take part, having seen the Lionesses perform. We are not quite at their level, but we do have an awful lot of fun when we play, so I would thoroughly recommend that people take part in that. I know that more people are taking part because of being able to see their teams perform in this way. It is not just the fact that we can all go to the pub, have a drink and watch our team play; it has an impact on participation levels in sport.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Has the hon. Lady consulted any of the bodies involved in her proposal as to whether they welcome being listed in the way she has proposed? I know from discussions with some bodies that they are concerned, as has been pointed out previously, about their capacity to raise revenue for their sport. There is always a consequence when we set out—even with the best intentions—to do something like wanting greater coverage for football, as in this amendment, which I do think is laudable. If the hon. Lady has consulted those people, what was their view?
Kirsty Blackman
Those organisations have been consulted. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North has been clear on the roundtable discussions he had, including with the Scottish Football Association, which is open to this happening. New clause 8, on the financial support fund, which we discussed previously, was partly to ensure that those smaller organisations are able to claim back, should they lose out on a significant amount of revenue as a result. As I say, these organisations have been consulted, and the SFA is open to this happening.
It is important to ensure that organisations have enough money to invest in their sport. I do not think there will ever be any lack of young men keen to play football; the number certainly does not appear to have reduced in all the years I have been alive. There are still many children at my kids’ school who are very keen to get involved in football. There are still the grassroots structures there. However, I agree that for organisations involved in women’s football, for example, or involved in nations with lower levels of participation, it may be an issue.
I would be very keen to press both new clauses 6 and 7 to a vote when it comes to that point.
Stephanie Peacock
I begin by echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North on the women’s parliamentary football team, having been involved a little over the years. I will address clauses 22 and 23, as well as the associated amendments. It appears from the Government’s explanatory notes on these clauses that their intention is to ensure that partnership arrangements between qualifying and non-qualifying broadcasters on providing coverage of listed events continue as they do now.
I know that many of our commercial and public service broadcasters alike feel they have strong partnerships that allow sporting events to be shown to as many viewers as possible. Indeed, where an event is not on the listed events regime, this kind of commercial partnership is inevitably even more common; for example, Channel 4 has historically teamed up with Sky to show Formula 1 events to many viewers across the UK. These kinds of cross-industry partnerships are integral to the overall ecosystem of sports rights, and I therefore support any movement that seeks to protect these relationships and dynamics.
However, the BBC has raised concerns that clauses 22 and 23 together could undermine the listed events regime, in particular with regard to multi-sport group A events—the summer Olympics and Paralympics and the winter Olympics and Paralympics. In effect, the BBC says the clauses could potentially mean that Ofcom consent is not required for events where there are partnerships such as the BBC and Discovery deal for the Olympics, as long as each partner has adequate live coverage, which lowers the bar from the current expectation of having full and comprehensive rights on both sides. How much that bar is lowered is difficult to gauge. However, given that the Bill does not define what adequate will mean in this context, it only opens the door for live coverage and adequate coverage to be defined. It would be most unfortunate if a Bill that aimed to modernise and protect the listed events regime inserted a change that, in effect, allowed for exclusive rights to parts of the Olympics to be held behind a paywall.
I therefore ask the Minister for a clear indication of what “adequate” is now to be defined as under these new clauses. Further, why were these changes not included in the original drafting, and for what specific purpose did the Government choose to introduce them today? There was a detailed scrutiny process through the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and it would have been beneficial for these additional clauses on the listed events regime to be analysed by those who know the regime best. If we cannot be absolutely clear on the real intent behind this clause and the impact that it will have on the listed events regime, it will be difficult to support it at this stage.
Let us move on to new clause 6. I hope that by this point it is clear that I am a strong supporter of the listed events regime. It is important in ensuring that British audiences are able to view moments of national sporting importance. However, many Scottish campaign groups and Scottish Members have been long discontented that the definition of such national moments did not seem to encompass crucial events that define their national sporting story. I am aware that these feelings are likely to be echoed by those in Wales and Northern Ireland, too, and I want to be clear that I believe the regime must not be overtly discriminatory in this sense. There has been particular concern over the lack of a formal plan to encourage making Scottish international football free to watch, something which may seem counterintuitive given the intent of the listed events regime. I understand that the new clause hopes to address this issue and to create equality of access to qualifying events for every UK nation.
When considering additions to the listed events regime, however, there is always a careful balance to be struck. It is important that sporting moments are available to watch, but is also important to secure investment in sports through the revenue generated by selling rights. The fact that the number of events in the regime is limited is indicative of the need to recognise that.
I also want to highlight the fact that the listed events regime is not the only method of ensuring that sports are available on a free-to-air basis. As I mentioned when praising commercial partnerships, it was extremely pleasing to see Sky and STV come to a formal agreement that allowed Scots to watch the World cup qualification play-off final. That was a truly beneficial outcome that did not rely on the structure of the regime.
Has the Department thought about the definition of a moment of national sporting importance? It is a fluid concept given changing public attitudes, and it is further complicated by the fact that inclusion in the regime can bolster the status of an event in the public consciousness. However, I think that there will be many more cases in which an argument is made for an event to be added to the regime, and there could therefore be merit in knowing the criteria that events are judged against when considering whether they should be included in the regime.
Finally, I would like to speak to new clause 7. As per section 97 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, the Secretary of State is required to consult
“(a) the BBC,
(b) the Welsh Authority,
(c) the Commission”
and rights holders before drawing up or revising listed events. I understand the intent behind that clause, especially given that many argue that Scottish football and sport has not been duly incorporated into the listed events regime.
Further, we have also discussed at length the desire to improve parity across broadcasting legislation between S4C and Gaelic language services. With that in mind, I believe that there would be benefits to broadening consultation requirements, so that the Gaelic viewpoint can be better taken into account when amendments to the list are being considered.
We could do with more clarity on how decisions about inclusion in the listed events regime are made. There would be a better sense of the fairness of such decisions if requirements to consult those who may be impacted by such a decision were expanded. In fact, the scope of this could have been broadened even further to require consultation with other relevant persons that the Secretary of State deems necessary. That could have perhaps included the other PSBs or relevant stakeholders, such as sporting bodies.
I do not wish to make additions to the listed events regime more onerous than they need be. However, having strong and varied input into decision making would certainly save time in the long run. I hope it is clear that I understand the intent of new clauses 6 and 7, but that I will need answers to my questions on clauses 22 and 23.
Sir John Whittingdale
First, I welcome the support in principle of the hon. Lady for partnerships. They play a very important role in ensuring that iconic events are shown free to air even if they are not necessarily listed events. The one example that I can recall is Emma Raducanu’s US Open final, which certainly was not one of the listed events. Nevertheless, Amazon made it available to Channel 4, because clearly there was huge demand to watch it. Those kinds of partnerships play a very valuable role.
Regarding the definition of adequate live coverage, which the hon. Lady raised, and how Ofcom will define it, it is certainly not the intention of the new clauses to reduce the threshold. However, in terms of setting parameters as to what is adequate live coverage, that is a question for Ofcom, which has a lot of experience in this area, and it includes setting the standard for adequate alternative coverage for group B events, as well. In doing so, Ofcom would consult widely with stakeholders and analyse what metric works best to balance the interests of audience, broadcasters and rights-holders, and it can look at previous partnership deals to see how such partnerships have been arranged in the past. There are a number of different factors that are taken into account, but it is a matter for Ofcom to determine.
Stephanie Peacock
Before the Minister moves on, could he perhaps elaborate and let the Committee know why these new clauses were not included in the original drafting and say what the specific reason is for their being included now?
Sir John Whittingdale
I cannot say specifically why they were not included earlier, although I have tried to set out why we think it is important that they should be included now. We will provide any additional information that we can provide in writing to the hon. Lady and to the rest of the Committee.
Regarding the support from the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Barnsley East for women’s football, there is no question that the increased popularity of and demand for women’s football has been enormous. Both hon. Members will be aware that the most recent changes to listed events were to include the FIFA Women’s World Cup finals and the European Women’s Football Championship finals on the list. I was not sure whether the hon. Ladies were suggesting that the parliamentary women’s football team should be put on that list, too. I am sure that the idea has considerable support, even if that team has not reached the iconic level quite yet.
I am also quite sure that the Opposition welcomed the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport of the £30 million Lionesses fund, which will be invested in grassroots women’s football. Hopefully, it will enable us to reach even greater heights than we have already reached.
I turn specifically to new clauses 6 and 7. New clause 6 is ingeniously phrased, but I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North regarding coverage of the home nations. Of course the matches involving the England football team, and indeed the matches involving the Welsh football team, are available free to air— through S4C for the Welsh team—but it is harder to find coverage of the Scottish national team and indeed the Northern Ireland national team.
The only thing I would say to the hon. Lady is that inclusion on the list does not mean that events will be broadcast free to air; indeed, it does not mean that they will be broadcast at all. That is a matter for the broadcasters to determine. We have already debated the difficulty of balancing the need for audience accessibility with the need for revenue-raising. At the end of the day, however, it will remain a matter for the broadcasters to decide, as they do in England and Wales, as to whether or not they wish to bid for the right to cover the Scottish team. I am afraid that new clause 6 would not achieve that, because it remains a matter for the broadcasters to decide.
Turning to new clause 7, the Government believe that, as I say, regional and minority language broadcasting has an important role to play, providing an opportunity for speakers of minority languages to access them. Currently the Secretary of State does consult the BBC, S4C, Ofcom and relevant rights holders when revising the list of events protected under the listed events regime.
The BBC and S4C are of course licence-fee-funded public service broadcasters. Although the current legislation does not require the Secretary of State to consult other affected broadcasters, it does not restrict them from doing so. If updates to the list were to be proposed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would of course listen to all relevant representations. We therefore do not feel there is any need to list out any additional organisations who may or may not have an interest in particular changes. I am afraid that we are unable to accept new clauses 6 and 7. I urge the Committee to accept Government amendments 8 to 10, and to agree to clauses 22 and 23 standing part of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
If the Secretary of State were to update the list of statutory consultees, I would appreciate his being made aware of this interaction and the fact that the Gaelic Media Service should be considered for inclusion. I understand the Minister’s point that the Secretary of State will consult more widely than with just those that are statutory consultees. I appreciate that, but I would make a pitch that the Gaelic Media Service should be included and should be consulted. Whether or not it is put on a statutory basis, it would be sensible to speak to it about it.
On matches involving the national teams of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, the Minister is right: having them included in the listed events does not mean that a match will be shown. It does not mean that it will be shown free to air or that people will be able to access it, but it increases the likelihood that we will be able to watch our national football team play incredibly important games that mean a significant amount to massive numbers of the population. We would be more likely have the opportunity to see those games without having to pay Viaplay or whoever £180 a year to do so. The reality is that this is unfair, and it is unfair for Northern Ireland as well. We should be able to access these things and see our teams playing.
The Derby had 1.6 million viewers it this year, which is about the same number as viewed Celtic v. Rangers. If the Derby is of UK-wide importance with only 1.6 million people choosing to view it, presumably Celtic v. Rangers is also of national importance, although I suggest that that is not quite as important as having a Scottish national team playing on TV.
There is an asymmetry in relation to some of the choices being made. Ensuring that the Derby is on television does not encourage grassroots participation in the sport. As far as I am aware, young girls who ride horses are going to continue riding horses whether or not they are able to watch the Derby on television. We are not going to stop children being obsessed with ponies, no matter whether or not it is on TV. Horseracing does not inspire, as far as I am aware, young people to take part in grassroots sport.
However, watching the Scottish national team or our Scottish women’s team play football on TV, or watching the Welsh team play football on TV, will encourage people to take part in those grassroots sports and be able to think that that is something they can aspire to. If that was the key aim, accepting the amendment would be incredibly important.
The key aim is not necessarily access to grassroots sports, though. For us this is a significant part of our cultural heritage. We want to be able to see our team play football. It is part of the culture in Scotland and we cannot currently do that because of the level of unfairness in the system. Were there an increase in the likelihood of us being able to view it on free to air because it was listed, that would be positive and would show that the Government cared about ensuring that we are all able to watch our teams play football, rugby, or whatever sport it happens to be. In this instance, it is football, and men’s football as well.
Sir John Whittingdale
I would just say to the hon. Lady that the list will be kept under review. I note her hostility to the inclusion of the Derby on the list, although I am not sure it would have been shared by a former leader of her party, who, as I recall, was a keen fan of horseracing. It is not a matter of unfairness. Scotland is not singled out as not being included on the list of events. None of the home teams are on the list. It is a matter for the broadcasters that they have chosen not to bid for the rights to show matches involving the Scotland team. I am afraid that, at the moment, the Government consider the listed events to be appropriate and we have no intention of changing them at this time. I regret that we are unable to accept her new clause.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment made: 9, in clause 22, page 26, line 31, after “to” insert “the coverage of”.—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 8.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Regulations about coverage of listed events
Amendment made: 10, in clause 23, page 27, line 11, leave out “of an event”.—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
This amendment makes clear that regulations under section 104ZA(1)(aa) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (inserted by clause 23) may also relate to cases about the coverage of part of a multi-sport event.
Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Provision of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 11.
Clause 25 stand part.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 24 makes amendments to extend Ofcom’s existing powers to gather information and, if necessary, undertake enforcement action to reflect the changes made in clauses 20 to 23. Without these new powers, Ofcom would not be able to enforce the regime against the extended list of services brought in scope by the Bill. The clause amends section 104A of the Broadcasting Act 1996 to create a new power for Ofcom to require providers of the services in scope of the listed events regime and, in limited circumstances, certain other persons to supply it with any information it requires to carry out its functions in relation to listed events. It also creates a new section 104B that sets out the penalties that may be applied for failure to provide information.
Clause 25 is a saving provision for clauses 20 to 23. It ensures that contracts that have already been agreed before the introduction of the new provisions will not be affected. Any contract entered into prior to the commencement of the new provisions will be governed by the old listed events regime. That ensures certainty for deals that have already been concluded.
Government amendment 11 is needed to ensure that the existing list of events, as published on gov.uk, is revised into groups A and B. It replicates transitional provisions contained in the Communications Act 2003 that mean that the existing list will otherwise be preserved without need for consultation. While provision was made for this division in the Communications Act, for some reason, relevant sections have not been commenced. The Government’s overarching objective for the listed events regime is to ensure that key sporting events are widely available and free to air for all audiences, particularly those who cannot afford to watch sport behind a paywall. As has already been debated, rights holders use income for the benefit of the wider sporting sector, so it is important for the regime to strike the right balance.
The Government believe that the current list of events works well to deliver the best outcome and that it strikes an appropriate balance. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to revise the list into groups A and B but provides that, so long as the list remains the same—other than the division into groups A and B for the purposes of the legislation—there will be no need to consult in relation to that list. For reasons I set out, I hope that Members can support this amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
As I have mentioned more than once during this group of clauses on listed events, I am pleased to see that the Government have taken action to close the streaming loophole in the listed events regime. However, bringing into scope those who are not licensed by Ofcom will mean that Ofcom needs new powers to enforce this regime against new providers. I am therefore supportive of clause 24, which provides Ofcom with such powers, including the ability to require information and impose penalties where failures occur.
Clause 25 ensures the legality of contracts agreed before the introduction of this Bill. This sensible clause will minimise disruption and provides clarification and certainty for all involved.
Finally, I understand that Government amendment 11 requires the Secretary of State to categorise the listed events into groups A and B. I wonder therefore if we could hear from the Minister how the Secretary of State intends to use this power, and whether this will be limited to what is essentially a tidying up of the legislation. With that answer in mind, I would be very happy to support and move on.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her indication of support. Essentially, my understanding is exactly that: the division is in effect already there and it had to be formalised through this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Sections 20 to 23: saving provision
Amendment made: 11, in clause 25, page 29, line 34, at end insert—
“(2) On the date on which section 21 comes into force, the Secretary of State must revise the list maintained for the purposes of Part 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 in order to allocate each event which is a listed event on that date either to Group A or Group B.
(3) Where—
(a) the events listed in the list in force immediately before the Secretary of State revises it under subsection (2) are treated, for any of the purposes of the code in force under section 104 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 at that time, as divided into two categories, and
(b) the Secretary of State’s revision under subsection (2) makes the same division,
section 97(2) of the Broadcasting Act is not to apply in relation to that revision of the list.”.—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to revise the list of sporting and other national events so as to divide them into Group A and Group B events. It disapplies the requirement for consultation in section 97(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 if the division follows the division into Group A and Group B events by reference to which OFCOM’s code under section 104 of the 1996 Act operates at that time.
Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Public teletext service
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 26 ensures that our legal framework is up to date—I have to say this with a degree of nostalgia—by removing the now obsolete legal provision for a public teletext service. This is achieved by repealing sections 218 to 223 of the Communications Act 2003, which established such a service. I can remember consulting Teletext and Ceefax on many occasions, but I am afraid that it has now passed into the mists of time.
Rob Butler
Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those journalists who worked on teletext services, both at the BBC and ITV? When I worked on business television programmes at the BBC, there was a very small team of three people who worked on the business pages of Ceefax. They were extremely diligent and they frequently updated the news faster than we could to get it on the air.
Perhaps, as we mourn the loss of teletext services, we can pay tribute to all those who worked very hard to not only bring us great information but to create some of the most unbelievable graphics on television that people might ever have experienced without any artificial simulation. I am particularly fond of the reveal button that, as Advent wore on, used to show a new little Christmas or festive picture each day. Perhaps this is a good moment in the season of Advent to recall those moments and pay tribute to all those who were involved in providing those great services.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the journalists who made Teletext, for a time, such an essential service in keeping the nation updated with news as it happened. Indeed I do recall—
Kirsty Blackman
I am absolutely not too young. I spent an awful lot of hours—far too many hours—playing Bamboozle! on Teletext. I wonder if the Minister would also pay tribute to the fact that Teletext was actually a genius idea. The concept and the way that it was delivered was just brilliant. In addition to the team that worked on it, its creation was completely phenomenal and was incredibly impressive—it changed our lives for the better.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am very happy to join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the huge number of benefits that Teletext brought for quite a considerable length of time. It was not just news that could be accessed via Teletext; I understand that one of my colleagues booked her holiday regularly through Teletext. I think there was even a dating service that was provided by Teletext for a time. All these things are now available online in perhaps a little more sophisticated form than was originally the case.
I am afraid it is the case that the most recent public teletext provider ceased to provide a service in 2009, and its licence was revoked in 2010. Therefore, in accordance with the intention of this Bill to modernise the legislative framework and to take account of the changes in the broadcasting landscape, I am afraid I must ask the Committee to support that clause 26 stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
This clause repeals provisions in the Communications Act 2003 regarding teletext, due to it no longer existing. I would like to echo the Minister’s nostalgia, and also thank everyone who invented it and worked on it. I must take this opportunity to say that my dad was an avid user of teletext. Right until it closed, he would phone me up and be like, “It’s not really going to close, is it?”. He would always check his weather and his traffic. I feel like I should put that on the record, because people like my dad across the country relied on it. While he might, I do not take any issue with this clause in particular. It would be remiss of me not to reiterate how important it is that information and services are available to everyone, including those who are older, those who have disabilities, and those without the internet. While we remove old services, it should serve as a reminder to all of us to ensure new services are as universally accessible as possible.
Sir John Whittingdale
I commend the clause, with sadness.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Further amendments relating to public service television
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 16 to 18.
Schedule 2.
Sir John Whittingdale
This clause and the Government amendments to it are technical in nature and I hope will not detain the Committee for long. Clause 27 introduces schedule 2, which makes amendments to broadcasting legislation to maintain operability of that legislation in light of the changes in part 1 of the Bill that we have already debated. For example, many of these amendments are intended to remove redundant references to the public teletext services from the 2003 Act. Government amendments 16 and 17 correct references to provision added by clause 20. If this were not taken forward, schedule 2 would incorrectly refer to the incorrect type of relevant service.
Government amendment 18 is essentially a tidying-up exercise. It removes transitional provisions that related to section 300 of the Communications Act, which was never brought into force and is now being repealed by this Bill. Government amendment 11 adds replacement transitional provisions. On this basis, I hope the Committee will support clause 27 and the Government amendments to it.
Stephanie Peacock
I believe the changes in schedule 2 and clause 27, as well as Government amendment 18, are consequential on the larger adjustments made in part 1. I have had no specific concerns about these changes drawn to my attention, so I am happy to move forward. I refer members of the Committee to my remarks throughout the discussion on the rest of part 1. I am also glad to see some mistakes corrected through amendments 16 and 17.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. If I may make a small correction, I understand that when we were debating the listed events earlier, I said that it excluded bidders if the event is listed. It is not the case that it excludes non-PSBs from bidding, but they may be inadvertently precluded from doing so.
The Chair
I thank the Minister for that clarification.
Schedule 2
Part 1: further amendments
Amendments made: 16, in schedule 2, page 121, line 37, leave out “98(7)(e)” and insert “98(7)(g)”.
This amendment and Amendment 17 correct references to provision added by clause 20.
Amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 121, line 38, leave out “98(7)(e)(iii)” and insert “98(7)(g)(iii)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 16.
Amendment 18, in schedule 2, page 126, line 33, at end insert—
“64A In Schedule 18 (transitional provisions), in paragraph 51 (listed events rules), omit sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).”.—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
This amendment repeals provision that relates to amendments made by section 300 of the Communications Act 2003. Section 300 has not been brought into force and is being repealed by this Bill.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Mike Wood.)
Media Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 7th December 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 December 2023 - (7 Dec 2023)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
Clauses 33 to 36 stand part.
Schedule 4.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I will speak to clause 32, and the other clauses about S4C. I welcome the clauses, as do many people in Wales. They arise from the 2018 review carried out by Euryn Ogwen Williams, one of the great figures of television in Wales for many years. I expected an avalanche of complaints, possible amendments and new clauses from my compatriots; however, I am afraid that there is complete silence from them, so I will speak fairly briefly—perhaps to the relief of some members of the Committee. That silence is perhaps a measure of people’s qualified satisfaction with the channel, and is due to it being such a normal part of life. It has been normalised, and is no longer the matter of dispute that it was when I was a student, many years ago, campaigning in its favour. Having been a permanent Member of the Opposition in this place for the last 22 years, I am in the rather strange position of agreeing with the Government and supporting a Government Bill; it is a very peculiar feeling.
I come back to the S4C clauses—I may slip into calling it ès-pedwar-èc, which is what it is usually called in Wales. I was looking for an explanation from outside broadcast television. I know quite a bit about language planning, and there are two principles there that may help us to understand what is happening: the principles of normalisation and institutionalisation. Normalisation is just that—making something that was at one point new, novel and a subject of dispute unremarkable. As I said, I think that is what has happened to an extent with S4C.
The other principle is institutionalisation—that is, when someone switches the machine on in Wales, the output comes out bilingually, or in one language or the other. That process has happened through a great number of public institutions in Wales. Hon. Members may have seen lobbying or advertising material from public bodies and third-sector bodies in Wales that has .cymru at the end. Some time ago, when I chaired the language committee of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, I had a leaflet through the post from the office in London, and it was bilingual. I phoned the staff up in Cardiff and asked, “Is this your work?” They said, “No, what is it?” I said, “It was nothing to do with me either.” When we checked, we found that the machine had just produced it in Welsh, because now the process was institutionalised.
That is one way of seeing what is happening to S4C; it is now being treated as any other public service broadcaster. That is as it should be—but, of course, S4C is a special case. I am not pleading any special rights for S4C, but it is the only Welsh language television broadcaster in the universe, I suppose, if I might possibly venture to say so. Hon. and right hon. Members can, if they choose, switch to Sky, Channel 4, ITV or perhaps even GB News—who knows?—but no such facility is available to Welsh speakers. S4C has a specific and very special place in cultural and democratic life in Wales. It is 40 years old. I am happy to say that it was established by a Conservative Government—by Mrs Thatcher’s Government—40 years ago. Eventually, she could not resist a deputation made up of a Labour party grandee, the Archbishop of Wales and a senior ex-civil servant, who told her that, unfortunately, she had to produce a Welsh language channel. Apparently, she said, “Do I have to?” They said, “I’m afraid you do, Prime Minister,” and she did.
Those were some points about S4C as a special case. I welcome the removal of the geographical restriction on S4C. There are S4C viewers outside Wales—perhaps quite a lot of them, as I said this morning; who knows? They can now much more easily access the channel’s digital and online services. Bringing S4C in line with other public service broadcasters is welcome. It must be put on a par with larger broadcasters, because it provides the same sort of service: it is a generic broadcaster that produces anything from game shows to gardening programmes, but in the medium of Welsh.
On Tuesday, I think, I spoke about the demography of the language, and why that was relevant. The conventional way of thinking about minority languages is that they are the language of the old people, and young people modernise and speak the other language. For instance, I have Polish friends whose grandparents spoke Polish when they escaped communism after the war. The grandchildren do not speak it at all, and the parents occupy some sort of intermediate space. Paradoxically, the Welsh-speaking population is getting younger; young people are learning the language. People of my generation, who were not taught Welsh in the ’60s, are still about—language change takes a very long time—and the proportion of older people who speak Welsh, about a fifth, is much lower than the proportion of younger people who speak Welsh, which is about a third.
That leads me to mention, with some pride, S4C’s provision for children, including mine. There is a dedicated service called “Cyw”, which means chicken, chick or young person. It produces all kinds of content for children in the medium of Welsh. It has its own YouTube channel. It has roadshows, books, badges, balloons and biros—the whole lot. It is extremely popular. Allowing S4C wider prominence will allow even more children to absorb the language in an easily accessible way—by seeing it on telly, absorbing it as they do English. I see that with my children, who were monoglot Welsh speakers until they were about five or six, and are now thoroughly bilingual.
In the ’60s, living in west Wales, I had the pleasure and advantage of accessing Raidió Teilifís Éireann; we could watch Irish television as well as the BBC. There was no ITV available at the time. On RTÉ, we could see American shows much sooner than they appeared on the BBC; the Irish had a certain advantage. That is an early example of something that came up this morning: the value of choice. People these days can choose what they like; we could choose BBC Wales or RTÉ. I sometimes think that watching RTÉ as a child accounts for my accent. Who knows?
Moving quickly on, clause 33, which concerns the board, puts in place the recommendations of the 2018 review. A shadow board has been operating for some time, and I think it seems to be trouble-free. Clause 34 is on accounts and audit. The Comptroller and Auditor General is already the BBC’s external auditor, and there are no issues with that also being the case for S4C; it perhaps normalises its position as a PSB like any other.
Finally, the possibly more worrying—or possibly not—clause 35 changes the previously fixed approach in which the BBC was required to provide at least 10 hours of programmes in Welsh per week to S4C. It allows for alternative arrangements. The contribution of the BBC is highly valued and of a high standard. It produces the news and various other things, including what I think is the longest running soap opera in the universe. “Pobol y Cwm” has been going for a very long time and has a devoted audience, not only in Wales but slightly beyond the border.
The worry is that replacing statutory provision with an agreement that requires a high degree of trust might not work. That was tested in the past, when the licence fee was cut substantially and the funding for S4C was cut substantially. The BBC’s provision, which was set in law, was very much valued. One wonders what will happen if the BBC has further cuts—who knows? Without the 10-hour arrangement, will those cuts be knocked on to S4C?
However, one of the outstanding successful features of S4C is that it obtains programming from more than 50 independent companies, many of which are located in my constituency. People are occasionally slightly surprised when they ask me where I represent and I say, “I represent Arfon, and the main industries in Arfon are agriculture, tourism, the production of blood-testing machines and television programmes.” That is considered slightly peculiar for what is seen by some people as the back of beyond—that depends on where you start from, of course; it could also be said about London. S4C obtains much of its programming from those companies, and that is highly valued.
All I am really asking for is any observations that the Minister might have about the danger for S4C of cuts to the BBC’s provision. Otherwise, I am very glad to support these clauses.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
I am grateful to Opposition Members for their general support for these clauses. The hon. Member for Arfon has taken us through the history of S4C, and he is right to say that it now has widespread acceptance and has become part of the institutional landscape. There is only one part of what he said that I would question: having worked as political secretary to Margaret Thatcher for five years before I entered this place, I can assure him that she would not have done anything unless she wanted to do it.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the BBC’s funding of S4C. The Government determine the funding for S4C. It merely comes from the licence fee pot. The BBC is being given knowledge of its funding for the coming year in today’s statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That does not affect the funding of S4C, which has already been determined. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the flexibility that we are giving S4C and the BBC to determine, potentially, alternative arrangements for the BBC’s support for S4C. That was a request from S4C, which saw it as a benefit that it might receive other forms of support from the BBC, but of course it will have to be by agreement, so the BBC will not be able to change that unless S4C and the BBC reach an agreement together.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East asked for further details about the Secretary of State’s power to approve commercial activities of S4C. We feel that allowing that to be done in writing, rather than by order, provides greater flexibility. The timescale for taking advantage of commercial opportunities, together with the confidential nature of the activities sometimes involved, makes it difficult to do that by order. The Secretary of State will be required to publish any approvals, exempting only confidential matters, and the Secretary of State of course remains accountable to Parliament. I do not think that there is any cause for concern in either case.
The clause is essentially based on the recommendations of the review of S4C, which the hon. Member for Arfon pointed out was widely welcomed across Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 37
Tier 1 services
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 37, page 77, leave out lines 6 to 9.
This amendment, together with Amendments 23 to 27, is intended to pave the way for the regulation of all video on demand services, rather than just those designated as “Tier 1” services.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 23, in clause 37, page 77, line 11, leave out
“that is a Tier 1 service”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 22.
Amendment 24, in clause 37, page 77, line 14, leave out from “of” to the end of line 16 and insert
“on-demand programme services and non-UK on-demand programme services”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 22.
Amendment 25, in clause 37, page 77, line 28, leave out
“that are Tier 1 services”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 22.
Amendment 26, in clause 37, page 77, line 37, leave out “Tier 1” and insert
“the regulation of on-demand programme”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 22.
Amendment 27, in clause 37, page 78, line 1, leave out “Tier 1” and insert
“the regulation of on-demand programme”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 22.
Stephanie Peacock
I am pleased that we are making good progress in scrutinising the Bill, having reached part 4 on the regulation of on-demand services. We have spoken at length about the growth and popularity of on-demand services, so it may come as a surprise to some members of the public that the content on most of our video on-demand services is not regulated. We are all used to high standards, thanks to the high-quality content provided by PSBs, which we see when we turn on our television set, and the regulatory landscape that complements that content; but it is easy not to consider whether regulatory standards apply to content on demand. Indeed, the high standards set by our PSBs have played a big part in creating an atmosphere in which newer streaming services have had to provide content of the highest standards. They have to model best practice to compete with traditional television.
That has put us on a good footing, and the streaming services and on-demand providers I have spoken to actually welcome the regulatory clarity that a new regime will provide. Currently, if a complaint is received against a piece of on-demand content, the service that has provided that content has nowhere to point towards in handling that complaint, and does not have to prove compliance with a regulatory regime. Part 4 brings on-demand services under the scope of Ofcom, and gives it new responsibilities, including to follow a new on-demand code. It is a good thing for viewers and providers, who will benefit from consistent high standards in the on-demand space.
However, I have concerns regarding the proposed tiered approach to the framework. Clause 37 and schedule 5 both set out that only tier 1 services will be regulated under the new regime. The only real information we have about how tier 1 will be defined, however, is that it will be based on size, which is determined by audience figures, turnover and catalogues.
In many areas of the Bill, there has rightly been a desire to avoid being too prescriptive in the primary legislation in order to allow flexibility in the light of rapidly changing technological advances and viewer habits, but in the uncertainty and lack of detail about on-demand services has been troublesome for some providers. Netflix said in its submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that without clarity on scope, there was no way for it to tell whether the scope will ultimately be discriminatory.
I know that there are good intentions behind taking what might be considered to be a proportionate approach that avoids placing new burdens on smaller video services that are trying to grow and compete with much larger services. However, the approach could create perverse incentives. One can imagine smaller services becoming averse to growing, for fear of meeting the regulatory threshold and having to contort their services to comply.
Putting all services on a level playing field will ensure that no service is deterred from competing with those at the very top, and no one at the bottom can feel that the situation is unfair, or that they are being unfairly given burdens that others are not. Further, everyone will be given an entire year’s grace period in which to become compliant; that will ensure that those who are less prepared can come up to speed.
Perhaps even more pressing than the impact of the tiered approach on providers, however, is the effect that it will have on viewers. As the CMS Committee highlighted, the Government said that part of their purpose in introducing the provisions was
“to protect audiences from the potential harm arising from the gaps in the existing regulatory framework”
and to
“ensure UK audiences receive a similar level of protection no matter how they watch television— whether it be live or on-demand.”
Clearly, requiring only the largest video-on-demand providers to abide by the new regulatory scheme would not achieve that aim. For the average viewer who does not invest their leisure time in understanding the nuances of a tier 1 service, a category in which I believe most of the general public will fall, how will such a person possibly be aware whether they are watching a regulated service?
To strive to create a consistent regulatory approach between broadcast and on-demand services, while simultaneously creating an inconsistency within the regulation for on-demand services, seems counterintuitive. Viewers deserve to have certainty over the level of protection they are being provided with. Put simply, I believe that the best way to meet that aim is for the new video-on-demand code, and the various other changes in this part of the Bill, to be applied universally across all video-on-demand services watched by UK audiences.
Such a move has been also recommended by everyone from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Voice of the Listener & Viewer to Amazon and Netflix. Including all services would provide the harmonisation in regulatory approach that I believe the clause sets out to achieve. It would get rid of confusion for viewers and prevent any definition from being discriminatory or drawing what could have been a somewhat arbitrary line between services.
If the Government cannot accept my amendments, which would pave the way, I would be grateful if the Minister at least explained their current plans for the definition of tier 1 at this stage, and detail how they will work to create consistency in experience for viewers. I believe that we are on the same page about the importance of the new framework and what it could achieve, and I hope we can work constructively to ensure that it is the best it can be.
Sir John Whittingdale
I welcome the hon. Lady’s general support for what the Government are trying to do by bringing video-on-demand services within the scope of regulation. We believe it is important for audiences to be appropriately protected when watching TV on demand. We will do that through what we see as a proportionate regulatory approach, which will ensure that all the mainstream streaming services that target UK audiences are subject to rules similar to the existing ones governing UK TV broadcasters.
Under the Bill, any UK on-demand service used by a PSB other than the BBC will automatically be designated as tier 1. Alongside that, other mainstream TV-like video-on-demand services will be designated after the Media Bill comes into force, following a review of the market by Ofcom. I can tell the hon. Lady that all the streaming services with which most people are familiar will certainly come under tier 1, but at this stage we cannot publish a list or the general categories to determine it because the market is rapidly evolving. Once again, as elsewhere in the Bill, we want to have a degree of flexibility and we believe that regulatory change needs to be proportionate and practical.
At the moment, more than 270 video-on-demand services are notified with Ofcom. Many of them simply do not provide TV-like content and nor are they widely accessible, so it is important to balance audience protection with freedom of expression, and to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on them. Consultations that have been conducted already tell us that extending tier 1 regulations to the smallest niche services, such as a football team’s on-demand service, could unfairly and unnecessarily penalise them with little or no benefit to audience protection.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying, and I am very supportive of a tier system, but a broadcaster on linear TV, be it a football station or a new start-up, would be bound by the Ofcom broadcasting code. Why would rules in the new online environment be different from those for someone who holds a broadcast licence in the linear world? That does not seem to make a lot of sense.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is right that at the moment linear TV channels are required to be licensed by Ofcom, but in the new world it is much more likely that we are going to see quite small niche channels, which serve a particular audience. There has been a proliferation of such services, which simply could not really have taken place in the old linear world. That is why the Government felt it was right that new services that command considerable audiences and target a broad range of viewers should be subject to the same sorts of requirements as exist for linear broadcasters.
However, it would be excessive to place those requirements on every single new notified VOD service, including those that are relatively small and serve very small and defined audiences. If it is determined that a small service has the potential to cause harm, the Bill allows that it can be designated as tier 1. The Government retain the power to do so if there is evidence supporting a need for it. That will allow us to ensure that regulation can be updated or added to.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I can very much see the logic that the Minister describes. To recall my private Member’s Bill on small-scale DAB, one of the issues was that people could use a laptop to set up an online radio station in their bedroom with no regulation at all, or they had to jump up to being a large broadcasting operation. I agree with the Minister that there is a logic to having a tiered system, so that we do not have either no regulation at all for those online or, for any form of broadcasting, regulation on the level of a very large operation.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is right that there are different levels of service that require different amounts of monitoring and oversight. To my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South, I would say that UK-based on-demand services are already required to abide by the on-demand programme service rules, which are less restrictive than the Ofcom regulations but control things such as hate speech and have basic protections for young audiences. It is appropriate that we determine the appropriate level of regulation on the basis of the audience and the size of the station. As I say, Parliament will be given further information that sets out the list or description of services at least five sitting days ahead of any regulation, so there will be transparency and oversight. For that reason, we do not feel it necessary to bring all the existing video-on-demand services within tier 1 at this time.
Stephanie Peacock
I am, of course, aware of the complexity of removing the tier 1 element from the Bill at this stage, and I acknowledge that agreeing to this set of amendments would create difficulties for the Bill more generally. I was aware of that when drafting the amendments, but I wanted to raise the issue that the Bill is perhaps not clear enough about—what the video-on-demand provisions will apply to and how audiences would receive the certainty they need. The Minister has alleviated some of those concerns today, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 37, page 77, line 34, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 368C (Duties of the appropriate regulatory authority), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) The appropriate regulatory authority must draw up, and from time to time review and revise, appropriate guidance relating to the duty of providers of on-demand programme services to ensure the archiving and retrieval of programming delivered by these services for the purposes of preserving cultural heritage.
(6B) The guidance under subsection (6A) must include guidance on providers’ relationships with—
(a) the British Library;
(b) the National Library of Scotland (Leabharlann Nàiseanta na h-Alba);
(c) Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru (the National Library of Wales);
(d) the Library of Trinity College Dublin;
(e) the British Film Institute.’”
This amendment would place a duty on OFCOM (or other regulator) to draw up guidance aimed at streaming services giving them duties to liaise with legal deposit libraries and the BFI to ensure that appropriate measures and strategies are in place for the archiving of video.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—National Television Archive—
“(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part 4A, after section 368R, insert—
‘368RA Contributions towards maintenance of national television archive
(1) OFCOM shall, for the financial year which includes the commencement of this section and each subsequent financial year, determine an amount which they consider it would be appropriate for a provider of on-demand programme services to contribute, in accordance with this section, towards the expenses incurred by a nominated body in connection with the maintenance by it of a national television archive.
(2) In this section “a nominated body” means such body as may for the time being be nominated by OFCOM for the purposes of this section, being a body which—
(a) appears to OFCOM to be in a position to maintain a national television archive, and
(b) is engaged in preserving the cultural and social heritage in one of more of—
(i) Scotland,
(ii) Wales,
(iii) Northern Ireland, or
(iv) England.
(3) A provider of on-demand programme shall pay to OFCOM, in respect of each of the financial years mentioned in subsection (1), such amount as they may notify to them for the purposes of this section, being such proportion of the aggregate amount determined for that year under that subsection as they consider appropriate (and different proportions may be determined in relation to different persons).
(4) Any amount received by OFCOM by virtue of subsection (3) shall be transmitted by them to a nominated body.’”
This new clause would extend the current provisions under the Broadcasting Act 1990 that pertain to Channel 3, Channel 4, and Channel 5 to on-demand programme providers, namely that they make a contribution towards the costs of a national television archive.
Kirsty Blackman
It is a pleasure to take part in this Committee again today. Amendment 38 and new clause 9 relate to the archiving of television content.
The television archives are pretty fabulous. A lot of stuff is available there, but there are also significant gaps, including some of the earliest broadcasts. Earlier this year, Aberdeen celebrated 100 years of radio broadcasting. Aberdeen has been a hub of Gaelic radio broadcasting for quite some time, which is slightly bizarre given the small number of Gaelic speakers in Aberdeen. Unfortunately, we do not have access to some of the earliest broadcasts, because they were not properly archived or saved. We have seen that issue through the years with a number of different things.
The amendment is meant to probe. It is a request for the Minister to have a look at the issue and highlight the disparities in relation to it. Amendment 38 asks the regulatory authority to
“draw up, and…review and revise, appropriate guidance relating to the duty of providers of on-demand programme services to ensure the archiving and retrieval of programming”
to ensure that our cultural heritage is preserved. I do not think that it is unreasonable for the Government to require that of agencies or on-demand programmers that are providing programmes that are part of our cultural heritage.
Stephanie Peacock
Preserving television and visual content is a way of preserving our history. There are already some amazing examples of how television is collected and archived. The British Film Institute, for example, looks after one of the largest and most important collections of film and television in the world, where teams of experts ensure that the collective programmes are accessible for generations to come. In particular, the BFI’s priceless television archive, which includes programming from the 1950s, can help us to tell with fascinating clarity the story of British television and Britain at large over the last 70 years. Since 2016, the BFI has automatically recorded various channels, all day, on an on-air and off-air basis, meaning that the recording is complete with adverts, trailers and announcements. That archive will only become more precious as the years pass.
The BFI archive is complemented by the BBC Archive, which contains over 1.5 million items recorded on everything from film to videotape to digital files. Despite the range of the BBC Archive, there are still programmes missing from that collection, particularly from earlier years of broadcasting. The BBC cites a few reasons for that, including limited means of recording, the expense of recording and tapes of which there was only one copy simply being lost. It also says that limited records were also the result of the fact that there was no requirement to build an archive. It was not until 1979 that the advisory committee on archives recommended that a requirement to keep archives be included in the charter, at which point programmes began more routinely to be kept for good.
It might be easy to assume that archiving in the digital age might be a given, given the capacity of the internet to host vast amounts of information that is then available at our request. However, even digital files and the cloud ultimately rely on physical infrastructure, and the nature of the internet means that there is more content than ever that requires such storage. I therefore support amendment 38, which seeks to set guidance on the archiving and retrieval of on-demand programming. That is not only because we cannot take it for granted that such programming will be properly archived, but because it matters how and where those archives are stored and whether something ends up being in the public interest.
I hope that, in the years to come, we can preserve broadcasting as an insight into our society and culture. To achieve that, we will need input from and collaboration between on-demand programming services and those institutions that can help with archiving, such as the national libraries and the BFI. I believe that amendment 38 recognises that and looks to set us up for a future that values the past.
On new clause 9, although I am interested to hear more about the idea of a nominated body being responsible for a centralised national archive, I am not sure about the detail of how it would work. I feel that I should ask, on behalf of the on-demand services implicated here, what the forecasted cost implications are and on what basis a contributory system has been identified as the most effective and efficient way for services to be part of the effort of archiving. I wonder whether, perhaps, the way forward should not be assumed, as it is in the clause, but rather should hinge on any guidance that is issued as a result of amendment 38, particularly with reference to using those archives and resources that are already working well.
I emphasise that I am keen to support the archiving of our television services, but I want to ensure that the way that is done is carefully considered and properly consulted on.
Hywel Williams
I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North, as well as the new clause, and to reassure her and the Committee. In her amendment, she refers to Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru: the National Library of Wales. It maintains the Archif Film Theledu Cymru—the Welsh Film and Television Archive—which is a highly successful development in Aberystwyth.
I also note that these archives have monetary value. In passing, ITV in Wales, for example, has a regular programme with clips from the ’60s, illustrating Welsh life. It fills half an hour—more than fills it. It is not just to fill space. It is very interesting, particularly to people who see culture in its broadest sense: not high culture, but the entire scope of human activity in Wales. It is available in the National Library of Wales, but is also available to broadcasters.
Sir John Whittingdale
I think that there is general agreement across the Committee about the importance of archiving television programmes that are of cultural significance. That is already the case, as we know, for the public service broadcasters. Indeed, I can recall the excitement when various episodes of, for instance, “Doctor Who” or “Only Fools and Horses” were rediscovered, having been lost before the requirement for archiving was in place. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North is absolutely right that there are now examples of programmes or series commissioned by on-demand services that are of similar value—she mentioned “Bridgerton”, for instance. I was fortunate enough to go and see the final episode of “The Crown”, which Netflix showed us a couple of night ago, in advance of its being made available, and that undoubtedly will be seen for a long time to come as a culturally important programme that needs to be preserved.
Where we differ slightly is that the Government’s view is that a non-legislative approach is best able to achieve the objective of archiving on-demand content. The BFI is extremely active in this area and works directly with mainstream services such as Netflix and Amazon. The BFI National Archive has already entered into initial partnerships with Netflix and Amazon to provide both financial contributions and a curated selection of their UK content. The BFI is also talking to other subscription video-on-demand platforms and will continue to do so as it moves ahead with its Screen Culture 2033 ambitions.
We are pleased that considerable progress is being made and we do not want to impose unnecessary additional requirements on organisations at this time. Therefore we do not see a necessity to legislate at the moment.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate that, and I appreciate the work that the BFI is doing on this. In the event that the BFI found it particularly difficult to get an agreement with an on-demand service, would the Government assist with some of the conversations in order to ensure that the cultural heritage is preserved, if they were asked to give some level of assistance or if the BFI were struggling with some level of intransigence?
Sir John Whittingdale
I recall discussing this matter with the BFI some years ago and I absolutely share its wish, and indeed the hon. Lady’s wish, that it should have access to any of the programming content that it felt was important to preserve. I hope that the circumstances that she describes will not happen, but should they do so, I or whoever is holding my position would, I hope, be keen to assist in those discussions with any video-on-demand provider.
Finally, I come to the amendment that the hon. Lady tabled. Amendment 38 includes Trinity College Dublin, which of course is not a UK institution, and we do not feel that it would be appropriate to instruct the deposit of important works with an overseas institution. For that reason, and for the reasons that I have described, we cannot accept the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister very much and genuinely appreciate the way in which he has approached this amendment. I am pleased that around the room we are happy and keen to see the archiving of lots of culturally important television footage and on-demand footage as well. I believe, from what the Minister has said, that he has a good handle on this, and I am glad to hear that he does feel that it is important enough for the possibility of intervention in the future should a significant gap be identified. Hopefully, as he says, we will not get to the point at which that happens. Given the Minister’s comments, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in schedule 5, page 142, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) In preparing or revising a code under section 368HF, OFCOM must take account of how principles will apply in a video-on-demand context where there is a library of content where users choose what programmes to watch and when.”
This amendment would place a requirement on Ofcom, when preparing the Video on Demand code, to consider how principles will apply in a VoD context where there is a library of content where users choose what programmes to watch and when.
Schedules 5 to 7.
Sir John Whittingdale
We now come to the core of this part of the Bill, which is the extension of regulation to the major video-on-demand services. Take-up has grown dramatically in recent years, and many of them make a significant contribution to the UK economy. Audiences now have access to thousands of hours of their favourite television programmes at the touch of a button, but providers are not regulated in the UK to the same extent as linear TV channels, and some mainstream international services are not regulated in the UK at all. That means that TV-like content in the UK is regulated differently depending on how audiences choose to watch it.
Stephanie Peacock
As I hopefully emphasised in an earlier discussion, I am on the whole supportive of clause 37 and schedule 5, which will bring video-on-demand services into Ofcom’s scope. It is absolutely right that on-demand services are regulated against a new standards code, given their popularity with the public. That will provide certainty for providers and viewers alike. Of course, it will be up to Ofcom to develop the detail of the new standards code, but I welcome the requirement to consult the services that are regulated by the new code and audience representatives before it is finalised.
The objectives that the code should meet are set in the Bill, as is some further detail on due impartiality. There is also a list of matters that Ofcom should have regard to in preparing the code. As such, the Bill sets out the framework within which the code will be drawn up.
However, there are aspects of the framework that have caused some concern among providers of video-on-demand services. I will address those concerns in relation to amendment 28—I appreciate the Minister’s comments about it—before I move on to the accessibility code and schedules 6 and 7. Providers’ most common concern is that it does not seem that the framework takes into consideration the differences between the broadcast and on-demand environments.
As Netflix pointed out to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, regulation of linear television was driven by a concern that viewers may come across unsuitable content by accident. The risk is inherent and specific to linear TV, as a viewer cannot dictate what is shown to them on any one channel at any one time.
As such, the broadcast code ensures that broadcasters make choices on behalf of the viewer that protect them from being subject to unsuitable content. For example, as Disney+ points out, the 9 pm watershed helps to shield children from inappropriate language and themes for their age. In an on-demand setting, however, every decision to view a title is active and deliberate. Video on-demand catalogues can hold thousands of titles, of both new and catalogued content, with the audience in complete control of what they decide. In that context, platforms make fewer choices on behalf of the viewer and instead aim to provide the information and tools they need to make informed choices themselves. The Bill does not explicitly address the differences, but I am grateful for the Minister’s points and I welcome them.
I want to move on to discuss the accessibility code, which will apply alongside the broader standards code already discussed. I am pleased to welcome that second code, which will ensure that on-demand services adopt a minimum standard of accessibility on the content they make available for UK audiences, with target figures rising over time. For example, providers must ensure after two years that at least 40% of their total catalogue has subtitling, at least 5% has audio description and at least 2.5% has sign language, rising after four years to 80%, 10% and 5%, respectively.
That has been welcomed by Ofcom, which says the measures reflect its 2018 and 2021 recommendations to Government, which should bring tangible benefits to disabled people, including the 87,000 people with British Sign Language as their preferred language and the more than 2 million people living with sight loss. It has also been welcomed by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which have been campaigning together for on-demand services to deliver access services. They say that 80% of those with hearing loss or who are deaf stop watching a programme when subtitles are not available, showing just how important they are to people’s ability to enjoy video on-demand content.
I wonder whether the section could have been more ambitious. Disney+ said in its contribution to the CMS Committee that it is confident it already meets the obligations set in the Bill and Netflix also said it has English-language subtitles for 100% of its UK catalogue and audio description of all its English-language branded content in the UK. Though on-demand services should be commended for that great work, it shows that a target of 40% of content being subtitled could be stronger. I understand that the 5% target for signed content on large back catalogues is seen by some as slightly more burdensome, but BSL users deserve to watch on-demand services as much as anyone.
Where BSL interpretation is available, it is used, with the BBC reporting that 1.4 million people watched the signed coverage of the coronation. Does the Department, therefore, have any plans to increase the requirements in future? I would hope that the standards are seen as a minimum and just the beginning, rather than an aspirational goal or target for larger services. Indeed, should the code be applied beyond tier 1 services at any point, I would expect that smaller services might be exempt from some of the quotas where necessary.
The RNIB and RNID have further shared with me their concerns about the timescale for implementation. Powers were initially created in the Digital Economy Act 2017 to set minimum levels of access services for on-demand TV. The timeline just shows how rarely such legislative opportunities come about. Are there any mechanisms that could shorten the timescale if desired or needed?
It is also important that online and digital accessibility measures are not used as an excuse to axe services that are more convenient and inherently accessible to disabled people. When campaigning against the changes being made to BBC local radio services, I met the National Federation of the Blind multiple times. They taught me that radios with real, tactile buttons are often much easier for the visually impaired to operate compared with websites, even though websites claim to be more accessible. It is important, therefore, that an increase in accessible content through on-demand services is not used as a reason for saying that other options are no longer necessary.
I would like to touch on the issue of disabled representation in the media more broadly which was highlighted to me by Brooke Millhouse and Simon Sansome, who run podcasts on disabilities as part of their work. I met them briefly a few weeks ago alongside the shadow Minister for disabled people, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). It is very important that on-demand services can be accessed by disabled people, but that can and should be matched with a conscious effort to better represent the lives of disabled people in that content. That means getting more disabled people into the creative industries, right the way through from writers to actors, in the hope of creating a more diverse array of disabled characters. In doing so, we might be able to finally put a stop to disabled people primarily being represented in the extremes.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Lady is making a powerful and important point. All of us feel better when we can see lives like ours reflected on the television screen. She is absolutely right that we currently see extremes for disabled people; we do not see them on television programmes living their lives as they do. It is all about, “That person is disabled, and that is why they are on this programme,” rather than, “That person is on this programme; they are living their life and they happen to be disabled,” which is much more reflective of life in general.
Stephanie Peacock
I completely agree. That is the point I am attempting to convey to the Committee: that we want to see everyday life reflected on television, and that obviously includes disabled people. What work is the Minister’s Department doing to open up opportunities for disabled people in the creative industries and to encourage better representation in the media?
As I have said before, if we to implement a new regime whose effects we really believe in, but that regime relies on Ofcom being a strong regulatory presence, Ofcom must be empowered to act with strength where that is needed; otherwise, the desired impact will not be realised. As such, I am happy with the powers set out in schedule 6, but what recent conversations has the Minister had with Ofcom about its capacity to carry out all the new duties bestowed upon it by the Bill? It is important to the integrity of the new regime for on-demand services, and to the Bill more widely, that there is confidence on all sides in Ofcom’s ability to enforce the new regulation.
Schedule 7 amends references to tier 1 services in the Representation of the People Act 1983, the Communications Act 2003, the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and the Online Safety Act 2023. I will speak specifically about the amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1996, as those changes will have a more tangible impact. The changes in this schedule require Ofcom to create a tier 1 fairness and privacy code and to bring tier 1 services in line with Ofcom’s enforcement powers on breaches of the fairness and privacy code. Hopefully, that will protect members of the public from unwarranted infringements of privacy resulting from the activities of video-on-demand services, but some on-demand and streaming services, particularly Netflix, have raised concerns about the impact on their content and on Ofcom’s resources. They warn that, since the fairness and privacy code will enable complaints to be made from outside the UK, Ofcom could become something of a global policeman, and will have use its resources dealing with complaints from people who do not live in the UK but have failed to seek redress elsewhere.
That practice—complaint tourism—is of particular concern to Netflix in relation to its catalogue. It says it is aware of international complainants previously trying to use the UK regulator to get material removed. It appears from the pre-legislative scrutiny process that Ofcom does not share those concerns. Its approach seems to be that if harm is happening, or there is a risk of harm to UK audiences, it wants to know, regardless of whether a complaint is being raised by someone outside the UK. However, it would be reassuring if the Government and Ofcom worked together to monitor the extent to which the code requires Ofcom to manage a high volume of complaints from abroad, to ensure that genuine complaints can be handled appropriately and that complaints with malicious intent are not encouraged.
Overall, I hope it is clear that I am pleased that the on-demand services will finally be regulated. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister in response to my questions about the details.
Sir John Whittingdale
As I said in my earlier remarks, we feel that the hon. Lady’s amendment in particular is unnecessary. Regarding the phrase “matters to be taken into account” by Ofcom in drawing up the list, those matters that are specified in the Bill are not exclusive; there is an ability to take other matters into account. The purpose of this measure is to set out the general regard for the principles that Ofcom is required to consider, so I do not think that this amendment would add anything to the existing position. For that reason, we do not support it.
I agree with the hon. Lady very much about the importance of accessibility. As she rightly said, that is something that the organisations representing disabled people have been campaigning on for a long time. Regarding the targets in the Bill, it is the hope and expectation that broadcasters will exceed the minimum targets wherever possible, but it is possible for the Secretary of State to increase the minimum targets at some future date.
Interestingly, the hon. Lady said that she does not want to add to the burden on smaller services. To some extent, that is exactly why the tier 1 provisions were put in place: so that the requirements are different for much smaller services, which would otherwise find them quite burdensome. As for her comments about Ofcom’s resource, it is certainly not the intention that Ofcom should become a sort of global policeman acting on behalf of anybody around the world who wants to make a complaint, particularly about content that is designed for global audiences. Some of the big streaming platforms commission programmes that are intended to be viewed right around the world, but Ofcom’s role is to protect UK consumers, and obviously it will need to take that into account in how it administers the code.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for the overall intention behind these measures. I am sorry that I cannot accept her amendment, but I think the Bill will deliver what she wants to see.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 38
Audience protection reviews
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 38, page 78, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) information about where viewers can seek help if they have been affected by content.”
This amendment would add “signposting” measures to the audience protection measures which OFCOM must review under new section 368OB of the Communications Act 2003.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 34, in clause 38, page 78, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) When considering the adequacy of age ratings, OFCOM must assess whether any age ratings used by providers are—
(a) widely recognised by the UK public;
(b) underpinned by a transparent set of standards;
(c) informed by regular consultation with the UK public.”
Clause stand part.
Stephanie Peacock
I have already spoken in detail about the rise of on-demand services and the need to bring them into the scope of Ofcom regulation. At the heart of these calls is a desire to ensure high standards of protection for audiences, so I welcome clause 38, which requires Ofcom to carry out a review of the protection measures in place on on-demand services. I understand that this review will then be considered against the duty to protect audiences from harm, as set out in the Communications Act 2003, to ensure that standards of protection are high across the board.
It is important, as Ofcom pointed out in its contribution to the CMS Committee inquiry, that such a review considers the unique differences seen in an on-demand environment. For example, rather than catching a programme halfway through, users are likely to start at the beginning of an episode or movie, meaning that there is an opportunity to warn audiences about the nature of the content they are about to see. With that in mind, I am happy for the most part with the clause, as the examples of matters to be considered include parental controls, content warnings, age assurance measures and age ratings. I will speak about them in more detail in a moment, but first I will pick up on a point made by the Antisemitism Policy Trust. In its submission to the CMS Committee, the trust identified something that had perhaps been left out of the list of measures that are to be reviewed, in particular the value of signposting and educational resources when viewers might be impacted by a programme.
Content warnings and age ratings can give a viewer an idea of what a piece of content might contain before they watch it. Although there is always a chance that a viewer will be affected by a programme or film in an unanticipated ways, some viewers may go ahead and watch a programme knowing that it may affect them, in an attempt to find solidarity about something that they have gone through. In such cases, information on where to seek further help can be extremely useful, not only for the individual who will be able to access support and resources, but for society as a whole when programmes address potentially harmful topics such as racism, extremism or self-harm. In those cases, further resources can help to counter any damaging narratives.
This sort of education and signposting is not a new concept. Indeed, on linear television, we often see a message pop up at the end of a show to guide us towards a particular charity or organisation if we have been affected by the content. On-demand services have also adopted that approach in some areas. For example, the Antisemitism Policy Trust says it has engaged in discussion with Channel 4 about its support offers following a documentary the channel hosted on antisemitism. However, there does not seem to be a co-ordinated approach to that sort of feature, and I fear that could continue if the measures are not included in the clause.
The Ofcom review should cover signposting and educational resources as an important component of audience protection, alongside those measures already listed. Such measures can and should play an important part in complementing warnings and ratings, which cannot do much to help once a piece of content has already been watched. Amendment 30 does not prescribe that education and signposting will always be necessary or even needed in just some circumstances; it simply suggests that the way in which they are used should be reviewed alongside other audience protection measures. I hope that the Minister and colleagues will support the amendment, with a view to putting the best interests of viewers first.
There has also been a lot of discussion about whether it would be appropriate to identify a single system of age ratings across on-demand services. As has been the case throughout much of the Bill, the clause is not over-prescriptive about how age ratings and protections for under-18s should be presented in the new audience protection code for on-demand services. It simply confirms that such ratings should be reviewed as part of the process. Of course, such protections are extremely important. On linear television, the watershed has long provided a distinct barrier to ensure that content is age appropriate to the time it is being shown. Further, there is a high standard of protection in place on the content that public service broadcasters create in general, due to a combination of regulations, which has been crucial in ensuring that children are not exposed to material that could be damaging to them and their development. How we mirror those protections for online content must therefore be explored in depth, both by us in Parliament and Ofcom in its review.
Despite the need to keep legislation flexible, I believe that some criteria for age ratings should be recognised legally, but they have not yet been. There are already some strong examples of good practice in the area of age classification. In particular, I will highlight the work being carried out by the British Board of Film Classification. Long before there was a possibility of consuming thousands of films on our phones, BBFC was providing trusted age classification services for cinemas and packaged media. Its ratings are almost universally recognised across the UK; the general public have a strong understanding of the categories, which run from U to 18. Trust in BBFC ratings comes not only from their being widely recognised, but from their being underpinned by a transparent set of standards and informed by regular consultation with the UK public, so that changing attitudes on relevant topics such as violence and swearing can be taken into account. That consistency, transparency and track record over time means that where BBFC ratings are used, families can be sure that the content is appropriate for the stated age group.
To keep providing its service in the modern media landscape, BBFC has been working hard to adapt its best-practice age-labelling system to be used in video-on-demand settings. That is exemplified by its hugely successful partnership with Netflix, where 100% of content now carries BBFC ratings on a voluntary basis. Netflix uses the BBFC criteria to police its own content, which is then periodically cross-checked by the BBFC for accuracy. That model seems to have great potential to be rolled out further to provide universally understood and trusted ratings for children and adults alike, but some providers use alternative methods of providing age ratings and protections.
Sir John Whittingdale
I absolutely share the desire of the hon. Member for Barnsley East, and I suspect all members of the Committee, to protect children and vulnerable audiences from harmful and inappropriate video-on-demand content. As we discussed earlier, the principle underlying this part of the Bill is to bring mainstream TV-like on-demand services in scope of the new code to be drafted and enforced by Ofcom.
Ofcom already has considerable experience in the regulation of broadcast TV to ensure that it is age-appropriate, and those those who may be deeply affected by what they see or hear are protected. Clause 38 inserts new section 368OB into the Communications Act 2003, giving Ofcom a new ongoing duty to review audience protection measures on all UK-based video-on-demand services and on any non-UK services that are brought under Ofcom regulation for the first time as a result of being designated as tier 1.
As we previously discussed, while linear television has a watershed that means unsuitable material should not be shown before 9pm, it is not possible to have a similar arrangement for on-demand content, so alternative protection measures are needed. Age-ratings, content warnings and parental controls in particular are necessary tools for parents and guardians; they give information to all audiences on what they are about to see. We do not want to restrict Ofcom on what it considers to be protection measures. It needs to be able to take account of the impact of systems that evolve in the future through new technology and audience trends. The Bill gives Ofcom powers to request information from providers, to provide guidance, to report, and to use existing sanctioning powers to deal with any providers that they consider are not providing appropriate audience protections.
Andy Carter
I accept what the Minister is saying about the role of Ofcom. May I take him back to his earlier point about the 9 o’clock watershed? That was the time when children went to bed so that they did not see things. It was a protection mechanism. One thing that we have seen with the development of technology is the introduction of a children’s profile so that we can exclude children from content on demand.
What concerns me is that all the individual VOD companies rate their own content, and different companies and providers to have a very different view of what they believe is suitable for children. The shadow Minister made a particular point about Disney+. Because my son is taking GCSE English, I watched “A Christmas Carol” the other day; there is a Disney version that was on at 9 pm. I would not have wanted a 16-year-old to watch that. It contained graphic nudity and foul language, and I was very concerned that if I had set the rating at a particular level for a child to watch, they would have been exposed to something that I and most parents would be uncomfortable with them seeing. Can the Minister assure me that the framework that Ofcom puts in place will deliver a comparable and consistent level of protection for children so that families and parents can be assured that the age rating system and the children’s profile will give that layer of protection?
Sir John Whittingdale
I am interested to hear that example. There will always be disagreement about what is suitable for children and what is not. Some parents will take a much stronger view on what is appropriate than others, who will think it part of the education. Ofcom has a lot of experience in this. I am not sure whether it was “A Christmas Carol”. I remember a good version that contained some quite graphic material, which perhaps was not in the original by Dickens. I think that was on the BBC, so it would have already been subject to Ofcom’s scrutiny.
Part of Ofcom’s overall objective, in determining whether a system of age rating is appropriate or viable, will be to make sure that it is in line with other systems, so that parents have a basic level of assurance, whatever they are watching and whatever system for determining age ratings is chosen by that provider.
Amendment 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Barnsley East, seeks to add information about where viewers can seek help, if they have been affected by content, to the list in new section 3680B of examples of audience protection measures. I completely agree that it is sometimes absolutely right that audiences be given a warning if they might suddenly encounter content that they were not expecting and which could be distressing. That already takes place across the broadcasting sector, and it is appropriate. However, the Bill already fully enables Ofcom to review or provide guidance on any such measures. The Bill purposely does not give an exhaustive list of measures that Ofcom can consider. As a result, it will enable Ofcom to take into account anything it considers to be appropriate. That can certainly include signposting.
The hon. Lady’s amendment 34 would impose requirements on Ofcom when it is assessing age ratings on VOD services. However, we feel that there is a danger that that might restrict innovation and impose extra requirements and costs on VOD providers that will not necessarily equate to increased protection. As I think I said on Second Reading, I am a great admirer of the work of the BBFC, with which I have worked for at least 30 years. Generally, it reaches very sensible decisions on what is deemed appropriate. It goes to great lengths to ensure that its ratings reflect the current standards of what the public views as appropriate for particular age ratings. My reluctance to support the hon. Lady’s amendment in this area is not in any way a reflection on or a criticism of the BBFC. The Government take the view that we do not think it appropriate to mandate the use of BBFC ratings at this time.
The important thing is that each channel should have a system of age ratings that delivers effective protection for young people. It is for Ofcom to assess whatever audience protection measures are put in place by that channel to ensure that they are effective and fit for purpose. We think that that is more effective than specifying any individual system. Ofcom will have the power it needs to provide guidance and to report and deal with any providers that it considers are not providing appropriate audience protections. For that reason, we feel that amendment 34 would put unnecessary restrictions on Ofcom and could preclude any new form of age ratings from entering the market. I am afraid that I am therefore unable to accept the hon. Lady’s amendments.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. Although I do not fully agree with his explanation, I am quite happy to withdraw amendment 30.
I will not press amendment 34, but I will just clarify that although I think there is agreement across the Committee that we support and praise the work of the BBFC, my amendment was not specifically mandating BBFC ratings or the use of the BBFC, however well it does. My amendment set out three best practice criteria: recognition, transparency and consultation. It proposed that those three things be taken into account by Ofcom. Obviously the BBFC does that very well, and others might too. The distinction that we are making is that where those are not taken into account and the public cannot necessarily trust age verification ratings, where problems emerge. However, I have put my points on the record and I am happy not to press amendment 34.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
S4C: on-demand programme services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
This is a very brief return to S4C, which we debated before our lunchtime break. All clause 39 will do is amend the Communications Act to update the regulation of S4C’s video-on-demand services to bring them into line with other UK on-demand services. It removes the red tape that currently means that Clic, the S4C on-demand service, is regulated not by Ofcom directly, but by S4C’s board, which could be fined by Ofcom if it contravened the basic requirements that other VOD services have to follow. The change will also mean that Clic will, in due course, be rightly regulated under Ofcom’s new VOD code. It will also have the accessibility requirements for subtitles, audio description and signing to support those with sight and hearing loss. I should add that the clause is also fully supported by S4C.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 39 will make amendments to the Communications Act to update the regulation of S4C’s video-on-demand services, as the Minister has just outlined. I believe these to be largely technical changes to create consistency, and I therefore have no further comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Other amendments of Part 4A of the 2003 Act
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 40 introduces schedule 8, which contains minor amendments to part 4A of the Communications Act 2003, covering existing legislation for video-on-demand services. The changes will ensure that existing legislation will be updated where necessary to take into account the new regulatory regime for tier 1 services. These are simple, minor and technical amendments, which include updates to existing enforcement definitions to include the newly defined tier 1 non-UK services. Schedule 8 will also remove or amend old target-setting provisions on accessibility that are not needed after the addition of new, more robust accessibility requirements contained in schedule 5. I commend clause 40 and schedule 8 to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I have no particular concerns to raise about the content of the changes. As the Minister said, they make minor amendments to part 4A of the Communications Act, and update requirements and definitions to reflect the changes made in this part, and in the media landscape more generally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 41
Licensing of analogue radio services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
We now turn to part 5 and the provisions affecting radio. Clause 41 is the first of seven clauses through which the Government are updating the legislative framework for the licensing and regulation of commercial radio. The intention behind the changes is to ensure that the regulatory structure continues to support investment by broadcasters in content and the long-term sustainability of the sector. They will also strengthen the protections for local news and information which are a fundamental part of radio’s public value.
To that end, clause 41 will make a number of changes to the Broadcasting Act 1990 to allow Ofcom greater flexibility when exercising its powers in relation to analogue radio licensing. Subsection (2) removes the current statutory requirement for Ofcom to provide for a diversity of analogue services. The requirement is no longer necessary, given the wide range of stations now available over digital. Subsection (3) gives Ofcom a new power to extend analogue licences in the event that a date is set for a digital switchover which postdates the expiry of any remaining licences. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I am pleased we have reached the stage of the Bill when we can discuss the importance of our radio services. There will be further opportunities to talk about protecting radio services in the digital age in part 6, but I would like to begin by acknowledging my support for radio. Indeed, as the digital radio and audio review recognised back in 2021, radio is a great British success story. Almost 90% of the population tune in to the radio each week, where they find trusted news, entertainment, music and cultural programming. It is important that these clauses look to protect the future of those services, from commercial to BBC to community radio, and ensure that people are able to enjoy them for years to come.
Despite the continued popularity of radio, however, the provision of services and listening habits have both changed significantly over the past few decades, particularly with regard to the decline of analogue radio. Since the launch of DAB, its popularity has grown and grown, resulting in 76% of listening to commercial radio now being on digital platforms. That trend has led to an estimate that analogue radio listening will account for just 12% to 14% of all radio listening by 2030. As a result, we must ensure no one who listens to analogue radio is prematurely excluded from accessing those services. As is the case with those who watch broadcast television, it is vital that we update our legislation to reflect the new realities in the sector.
The clause seeks to do just that by removing Ofcom’s duty to provide a range and diversity of national and local analogue radio services. Of course, is still important that a range and diversity of radio services are available. However, the rules applying specifically to analogue services were conceived when there was an inherently limited number of stations. Ensuring diversity within this small range of services was therefore sensible in order to cater for as many people’s needs as possible. Now that we are no longer limited to a small choice of analogue stations, there is an unprecedented range of radio services available. These truly do cater for everyone, covering genres from country to dance, and eras from the ’60s right through to the present day. Radiocentre confirms that these digital services will be unaffected by the changes in regulation, so this immense choice will remain available despite the changes in this Bill.
In that context, it seems appropriate to remove legal requirements on creating diversity in analogue services specifically. That is not to say that analogue services do not remain important; indeed, FM coverage is greater than DAB coverage, so it is vital to rural areas, particularly in Scotland. However, with the new and heavy regulatory responsibilities that Ofcom is taking on as a result of the Online Safety Act and this Bill, it is sensible that we alleviate outdated duties by recognising the bigger picture.
The clause will also make one other major change, following the commercial radio deregulation consultation in 2017. In the event of a digital switchover date being issued for radio, the clause allows Ofcom to extend for a short period any licences that are due to run out before that date, so that they can continue operating until the switchover date. It is my understanding that there is currently no nominated date for switchover. The digital radio and audio review has confirmed that FM spectrum will be needed for BBC, commercial and community analogue radio until at least 2030.
Should a date be announced in future, it makes sense that there be flexibility in licence arrangements to ensure that they can continue until any end date. Placing that flexibility in the Bill will hopefully save parliamentary time in the long run. The very fact that it was 2017 when the Government decided that that change would be made shows how rarely the opportunities come about to make legislative changes. However, although this measure will be sensible if the time comes, it is still very important for the timing to be right. It would therefore be good if the Minister outlined today the Department’s current thinking on the future of analogue radio beyond 2030. As has been mentioned, although we must take into account the dominance and range of DAB services provided, DAB is not available as widely as FM. The future of FM is still vital to people, particularly in rural areas.
As I did in speaking about broadcast television, I point to the Broadcast 2040+ campaign and its work to highlight the importance of preserving broadcast services despite the rise of online services; I was pleased to attend its event in Parliament. It is with that question on analogue radio’s future in mind, and with full support for the future of a diverse programme of radio services, that I would like to conclude.
Sir John Whittingdale
I welcome the hon. Lady’s invitation to speak a little more broadly on radio in general. About 20 years ago, lots of people were saying that radio was in permanent decline. It was thought that the advent of things like podcasts and streaming services such as Spotify would mean that people slowly gave up listening to radio.
I am delighted that that has proved to be completely wrong. Actually, radio is going from strength to strength, particularly in the commercial radio sector, at which these clauses of the Bill are primarily aimed. It is doing very well, which is extremely welcome.
Similarly, about 20 years ago there was a great debate about when we should switch off analogue transmission as people moved to digital. The hon. Lady is right to say that the take-up of digital broadcasting has been considerable and continues to grow. We now have additional means of radio reception, such as via smart speakers or online, which we will debate when we consider later clauses of the Bill. There is a wealth of ways in which listeners can access radio, but I think analogue, rather like digital terrestrial television, will be around for some considerable time. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Lady a date by which we think we might switch off analogue, but it is not under consideration at the moment. Actually, I do not think that radio is particularly pressing for it in the way it was some time ago, for cost reasons.
Sir John Whittingdale
I give way to my hon. Friend, who is a considerable expert in the matter.
Andy Carter
I will limit my comments on the clause to analogue radio. I am aware that there are community radio operators that would very much like to go on to the analogue spectrum, particularly in rural areas. Rutland and Stamford Sound has been providing a community service that would simply not work on DAB. I set up the first commercial radio station in Rutland. I know the territory incredibly well, and it does not work to run a small-scale service on DAB. So many transmitters would be needed that it just simply would not be viable. There is an operator there that wants to run an FM service. Will the Minister speak to Ofcom to look at offering more licences in rural areas where there is demand?
The second point I would like to raise with the Minister is also an issue for Ofcom. Where there has been small-scale DAB roll-out, we have many more excellent local services as a result, and I am supportive of it. However, the fact that the signal and reception of small-scale DAB are measured from a height of 10 foot, which is equivalent to the eaves of a house, has given rise to disappointment in communities. Not many radio receivers have aerials that high, so although it says on a graph that someone can hear it in a car down on the ground, the reality is that they cannot. Ofcom could look at that to improve small-scale DAB radio coverage at a local level.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is correct that attention has mainly been focused on small-scale DAB roll-out, which provides options for communities to access more locally based stations. My view has always been that we should let a thousand flowers bloom. Therefore, in whatever format, I would be keen to encourage the licensing and starting up of new stations, if possible. I am a great supporter of community radio as well.
I note that our hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) has been active in pressing the case for a station in her constituency. She is always active on behalf of her constituents and she has been outspoken in this policy area, having already been to see me about it once. I will draw Ofcom’s attention to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South and for Rutland and Melton, because I share the wish to see that take place, if possible.
The means by which they choose to transmit is up to stations. However, there is currently a requirement under their licence for national commercial stations to continue to maintain an analogue service. A point may come when there is no longer any particular benefit in doing so. That will not be covered by the Bill, but I would like to put on the record that I am personally quite sympathetic to the idea that, although analogue is appropriate in many cases, we should not necessarily force it where it is no longer appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Licensing and local services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 42 makes a number of changes to the Ofcom process for advertising local and restricted service licences and for renewing local licences. The provisions will give Ofcom a greater degree of flexibility in relation to the process for the licensing of local analogue commercial radio stations, given that the licences for nearly all such services will be eligible for renewal over the coming years. There should therefore be very few occasions when a licence needs to be advertised.
Subsection (3) will allow a licence holder to renew its licence in circumstances where the station intends to broadcast on digital but is not in a position to do so because a suitable digital multiplex service is not available in its broadcast area. In these circumstances, the station would have to nominate a suitable, either local or small scale, multiplex service as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so and commit to taking carriage when that service launches. That will ensure that smaller stations that have been unable to take advantage of renewals will be in the same position as larger stations.
Clause 43 makes a number of changes to the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Communications Act 2003. It provides stations with increased flexibility to respond to changing listener preferences by removing the requirement for them to commit and adhere to conditions in their licences requiring them to, for instance, broadcast specific genres of content or target a particular age group. These requirements made sense in 1990, when they helped the Radio Authority to manage the development of local FM services on limited spectrum and to seek to maximise the public value of the spectrum, but they have become obsolete given the range of stations available across the UK on digital. However, Ofcom will still be required to ensure that there is local news and information on local radio, as set out in clause 44, which I look forward to debating very shortly. In the meantime, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 42 amends rules around local radio licences, as the Minister has outlined.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 sets out that Ofcom must publish a notice stating that it proposes to grant a licence to a local service before granting such a licence. The notice must specify the area in which the service will be provided, invite applications for the licence, specify a close date and state the fee for applications. This sort of competition is becoming less and less necessary, particularly as most licences are eligible for renewal under additional rules in the Broadcasting Act that allow for renewal when Ofcom is satisfied the licence holder is also providing a local digital radio service. As such, it makes sense to give Ofcom the discretion to decide how applications will be made in future, removing the prescriptive notice and competition requirements. This will allow for flexibility going forward, allowing Ofcom to exercise its own judgment on applications in a changing landscape while also maintaining its ability to require fees if necessary.
The clause also allows for parity on the ability to renew a licence where it is not possible to broadcast a digital service. It seems fair to ensure radio services that intend to broadcast on digital but physically cannot do so are not excluded from being able to renew their licence in the same way as those with a digital service. The technical changes being made in this part have been long awaited, and I hope it will benefit both Ofcom and radio services to finally have flexibility where it is needed.
Similarly to clause 41, clause 43 accounts for the fact that things have changed quite dramatically from the times where a strict, finite number of radio licences were available. In a situation where there were limited services, it made sense that licences for providing such services would include precise conditions on character to ensure that each station provided content to a high standard. Indeed, the current requirements on character are prescriptive, and can be deviated from only if Ofcom is satisfied the departure will not narrow the range of radio programmes available to people living in the area where the licence was provided. However, given the unprecedented choice and diversity of content now available across commercial radio, to have such strict conditions on character seems much less necessary. It makes sense, therefore, to review which aspects of the conditions on character should be kept, and which are outdated.
I will speak more on the requirements that must be maintained when discussing clause 44, but overall it seems sensible to provide more flexibility on character conditions given the range of services now available, which this clause allows for.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Local news and information
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 44, page 83, line 12, at end insert—
“(5A) After subsection (1A) insert—
‘(1B) The Secretary of State must publish guidance as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section on the guidance which OFCOM is required to draw up under subsection (2), including the meaning of “local news” for the purposes of subsection (1).’”
This amendment would require the Government to publish guidance regarding OFCOM’s responsibility to ensure that broadcasting licences contain conditions requiring the broadcast of local news and information, including clarity on what ‘local news’ means in this context.
Stephanie Peacock
Following on from the removal of prescriptive licence requirements in clause 43, clause 44 makes further amendments to the requirements on the character of local radio services. In short, it strengthens the need to provide local news on analogue services, while repealing requirements to provide other local material, increases flexibility on where local radio content is produced, and allows for future regulations to require news on digital local radio services.
I will speak to these changes in turn, starting with the newly strengthened requirements on local news on analogue services. The 2017 commercial radio deregulation consultation found that there was strong support across the board for provisions protecting local news. In fact, many respondents said that local and national news are often the prime reason that people choose to listen to a particular radio station. On the other hand, there are poor financial incentives for stations to provide news, which can be expensive to produce. I agree with that and, as I said many times during the debates on BBC local radio services, local news has proved its importance time and again in recent years—whether by providing school closure updates in extreme weather events or keeping people updated during the pandemic.
Localised radio updates are even more important for people who cannot access news in other ways—for example, those with visual impairments or those without an internet connection due to cost or location. As a result, it is pleasing to see that there will still be clear requirements on the provision of local news on analogue stations, particularly given the crossover between those who are unable to access a stable internet connection and those living in places without access to digital radio signals. It is also pleasing to see that local news must include locally gathered news, encouraging positive relationships with local papers, journalists and agencies working directly in communities.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I find myself in fervent agreement with the hon. Lady on local news, and I wonder how she would define it. I have been concerned in my area of Buckinghamshire, because when Mix 96 ceased to exist when it was taken over by Bauer and made into Greatest Hits Radio Bucks, Beds and Herts, the amount of Buckinghamshire news coverage drastically reduced. Often, we have found that journalists do not live in the area, and we could have a news bulletin with no Buckinghamshire news in it at all, yet it is still officially compliant with the requirement for local news. What is her view of what local should mean in practice?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Member makes an incredibly good point and I welcome his support. Indeed, I will go on to speak about my amendment, which talks about what local is, and I would be delighted if he would like to support it.
Stephanie Peacock
If the hon. Member bears with me, I will give him the answer and the opportunity to perhaps vote for the amendment, too.
I want to raise the importance of local programming that is not also local news. Although I understand that there is a range of DAB services offering a whole host of programmes, it is a shame that there has not been some recognition of the value of non-news-related local programming among the changes, which dropped requirements on local spoken material and music. Again, as I spoke to in the debates on BBC local radio services, I hope that a range of the content continues to be delivered on local analogue services, as well as digital ones.
On the newly relaxed requirements on production, which mean that stations can provide local programming from studios outside the coverage of their area, I note that concerns were raised during the consultation process about the impact of that on local opportunities and routes in the industry, with production becoming concentrated in larger cities. Respondents said that a local presence can be important for listeners who want to feel connected to the content the station produces, so they might be less likely to engage with call-ins and competitions if they feel presenters and production are not based where they are.
I understand the need to carefully balance requirements on analogue services and to release undue burdens where possible, particularly given the changing landscape of listenership and the fact that there are no such localness requirements on DAB commercial services. However, I would still like to ask the Minister whether the Government have assessed the impact the requirement relaxations will have on listeners and local people, rather than just on the services themselves. It is important that communities and those who actually benefit from local radio services are taken into account.
Separate to the requirements on analogue services, the clause also provides the Government with the ability to introduce local news obligations on DAB radio services in the event that analogue services cease at some point in the future. It is my understanding that multiplex owners will be responsible for requiring that there is at least one digital local radio service that carries local news, rather than that being a direct obligation on the radio services themselves. Radiocentre, which represents the commercial radio sector, has said that it is sensible to introduce the powers to guarantee the provision of local news in the future. Indeed, I have already discussed how important local news is to local people.
Radiocentre has also shared that it is not entirely clear how that will work in practice. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain, in the event of the power, how multiplexes would decide which service must carry local news. Furthermore, in the event that the chosen service stops doing so, or goes out of business, how would the obligation be transferred to another service? Lastly, how would all that be enforced between Ofcom and the multiplex owners? What conversations has the Minister had with both Ofcom and the multiplex owners, including Arqiva, to ensure readiness when the time comes? The preservation of local news is very important, and I look forward to hearing some clarity on how the new system could work.
Finally, I tabled amendment 31 on what counts as local news, which was raised by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport during the pre-legislative scrutiny process. Indeed, the Committee noted that in 2017 the Government promised to provide greater legislative clarity on what local news actually meant, and stated that it would enable Ofcom to produce guidance in the policy area. However, the issue was never fully resolved, leading to Ofcom calling for clearer guidance regarding its responsibility to enforce the provision of locally gathered news.
In its submission to the Committee, Ofcom said:
“We think it is important the Bill is clear what is intended by this new requirement.”
In response, although the Government said that they accepted
“the principle that the definition and enforcement of the obligations on local radio to provide locally-gathered news could be clearer”,
there was a lack of detail on how they would put this principle into practice, other than references to some technical changes on the face of the Bill. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could talk us through the technical changes and how, or whether, they might be able to act as a replacement for full guidance on this issue. In the absence of such confirmation or detail in the Government’s response to the Select Committee report, I felt it important to raise the issue again. It seems like people from all parties in the House and, indeed, radio services and viewers alike can agree on the importance of local news and information, but if the new requirements on local news are not enforced properly, such unanimous agreement is futile. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Sir John Whittingdale
Perhaps I should start by outlining the purpose of clause 44, which makes changes to section 314 of the Communications Act to reflect the evolution of the market and the findings of the Government’s 2017 consultation on commercial radio deregulation.
In particular, it is clear from that consultation, and the steps taken since by Ofcom to relax its definition of locally made programming, that the requirements in this area are too onerous and are constraining the industry from rationalising its production base. This is making it harder for stations to compete effectively against new online services, so the clause removes the requirement for Ofcom to secure that stations provide a certain amount of programming from a studio within their coverage area. However, it is the case that local news and information remain of great importance to listeners, and their provision remains central to radio’s public value. Commercial radio’s local news provision plays an important role in ensuring plurality in the sector. Stations will, then, be specifically required to provide news that has been gathered within the area to which they broadcast.
The provisions do not require stations to directly employ journalists to gather local news. A station could, for example, enter into a partnership with a newspaper agency or a freelance journalist who gathers news in the local area. We also taking powers to apply the requirements to DAB services if there is a future shortage of available local news. This could take a variety of forms—for example, Ofcom could be required to impose conditions in local radio multiplex licences that require the multiplex operator to carry at least one digital radio station that carries local news and information. Alternatively, the multiplex operator could be required to reserve capacity on the multiplex for a radio service that carries local news and information. At the moment, many existing digital radio services are simulcast versions of analogue stations that carry local news and information, so we do not consider that there is currently a need to consider in detail how the powers would be exercised.
Amendment 31 seeks to add a requirement for the Government to publish statutory guidance on the interpretation of the clause, including on the meaning of “local news”. Ofcom would then need to have regard to that guidance in developing its own guidance for holders of local sound broadcast licences on how they are able to meet the new local news and information requirements as set out in the Bill.
Andy Carter
I want to press the Minister a little more on the requirement on the multiplex operator to deliver news services. If, for example, a multiplex is full, and contracted legal licences to deliver product for 10 years are already in place, but the operator now has a requirement to deliver news, how can they do that? They are not providing the service; they are contracting space to other radio operators. I am interested in the practical application of the Bill where a multiplex provider is required to ensure local news provision.
Sir John Whittingdale
That is a matter for Ofcom to determine. As I said, Ofcom will be able to ensure that a local radio multiplex, through its licence, can provide space for a local news service. For the moment, that might well be provided by the existing analogue service, but if we reached a point where none of the services wishing to go on to the multiplex provided a local news service, the operator could restrict remaining space on the multiplex, so that it is available if someone comes forward.
Andy Carter
In effect, Ofcom needs to change the licences of existing multiplex operators, because in the licences issued, I do not see a clause to say that they have to deliver news if that is not provided locally on an analogue service.
Sir John Whittingdale
The powers relate to future shortages. I suspect that we could not backdate the provisions to kick someone with a contract off a multiplex. Perhaps it would be helpful if I later provided a bit more information to the Committee on precisely how that would work.
To go back to the definition of “local news” in the amendment of the hon. Member for Barnsley East, I understand that her purpose is to refine that definition and that of “locally gathered”, but I think that the amendment is unnecessary.
Rob Butler
The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South on the Front Bench will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to add to the woes of the Government Chief Whip by supporting an Opposition amendment, but I want to press the Minister a little on what “local” means, and how it is to be interpreted. I gave an example from my area. What was intrinsically an Aylesbury radio station has been superseded by one with three counties in its name: Bucks, Beds and Herts. Are the people of Aylesbury to assume that “local” means anything from any one of those three counties, rather than one from their town? I wonder whether some form of guidance—not necessarily statutory—might be helpful as we move quickly to develop new audio-visual services in radio and television.
Sir John Whittingdale
I hope to provide my hon. Friend with further detail in my response to the amendment of the hon. Member for Barnsley East. I take my hon. Friend’s point, however; people expect to hear local news, relevant to the place where they live. In some cases, the definition of local news seems to be stretched somewhat. This is not a debate about the BBC, but I am sure that it might crop up in our discussion.
Local news and information are not defined in section 314 of the Communications Act 2003. They are mentioned as elements of local “material” that Ofcom is required to secure as part of the licensing of local commercial radio. Ofcom is also required to
“draw up guidance as to how they consider the requirements…should be satisfied; and…have regard to that guidance in carrying out their functions”.
Clause 44 amends section 314, and enables Ofcom to impose local news requirements in stations’ licences. It also enables Ofcom to ensure that this local news includes “locally-gathered” news. The hon. Lady suggested that she wanted further clarity on the definition of local news, but the provisions include a definition of local news for the first time. Under clause 44(7), to be regarded as “locally gathered-news”, news will need to be gathered
“by persons who gather news in the course of an employment of business”—
in other words, by professional journalists. We considered whether there was a case for being even more specific about how much news should be provided, or the times of day when local news should be available, but we felt that it would be most beneficial to the effective operation of the licensing system for Ofcom to continue to have responsibility for drawing up guidance on how stations should meet requirements.
Ofcom will draw up guidance that will replace the existing local news guidance. That will ensure continuity, while retaining a degree of flexibility in an approach that has been taken ever since 2003. It must have regard to the new definition of local news, and the requirement for at least some of that local news to be “locally-gathered”. We do not think it is either necessary or helpful for the Bill to require the Government to provide guidance to Ofcom on drawing up its guidance.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
On the point around Ofcom drawing up guidance, will Ofcom seek—and will the Government press it to—consultation with viewers, readers and listeners affected by these local changes, especially given that local newspapers are closing their doors across the country? It is so important that we have proper, accountable local news that is accessible to everybody.
Sir John Whittingdale
I would love to spend time debating the importance of local newspapers with the hon. Lady; it is a point on which I completely agree. I also share her concern about the disappearance of local newspapers in so many places, but that matter of concern is slightly outside this Bill. Nevertheless, she is right that it means that the remaining sources of local news become all the more important.
As she suggests, I would expect Ofcom to consult widely in local communities before it decides precisely how the guidance should work. We differ from the Opposition, however, in not thinking that it would be helpful to have two sets of guidance, one emanating from the Bill and the other from Ofcom. I think that would simply add to the complication and confusion, and we need Ofcom to be able to apply the new provisions across a wide range of stations with flexibility. The provisions, which include a requirement for at least some local news to be gathered locally, give a degree of clarification. I hope that on that basis, that the hon. Member for Barnsley East will withdraw her amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. My amendment was based on concerns put forward by Ofcom and the CMS Committee. The issue of, and debate around, local news is important. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North about consultation, although this debate is of course not about the BBC, we are all very familiar with its changes to local radio, which were made without any local consultation. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, the listeners from Barnsley who used to tune into BBC Radio Sheffield are now listening to programming for the entirety of Yorkshire. Obviously, that is a parallel issue not connected to this, but having local people involved in these decisions is really important. I hope that Ofcom is genuinely satisfied with the Minister’s comments, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment accordingly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Financial assistance for radio
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
The clause amends section 359 of the Communications Act 2003 to give the Secretary of State the power to provide financial assistance for, or in connection with, the provision of community radio, commercial radio services and audio production. It is a technical amendment.
The covid-19 pandemic provided an illustration of circumstances in which the Government may need to make grants directly to radio stations, potentially on an urgent basis. In particular, during the pandemic the Government relied on the funding powers found in section 70 of the Charities Act 1993 and common law powers, in conjunction with section 86 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, to provide funding in relation to various radio services. However, relying on provisions such as section 70 of the Charities Act and common law powers is not always straightforward; it requires a considerable amount of legal and policy analysis to establish whether the relevant power is available for the need identified.
The purpose of the clause is therefore to make it explicit that radio stations and audio producers, whether their content is for on-demand or broadcast access, as well as those who facilitate the transmission of radio and audio content, can benefit from potential future grant schemes. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
As I have spoken at length about my support for radio services, it will come as no surprise that I welcome the power for the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the provision of such services. The measure is welcomed by AudioUK and Radiocentre, which ran a successful three-year pilot of the audio content fund. I understand that that came to an end, having previously been funded through the TV licence fee, but I hope that the measure will make it easier for the Department to support like-minded projects directly in future, where needed.
Does the Department have any plans to use the provisions? If so, how? The answer to that question is of interest not just to those who seek to benefit from this new opportunity, but to those benefiting from other funding pots. Indeed, the UK Community Radio Network has shared with me its concern that the commitment would be delivered off the back of funding currently allocated to the community radio fund. The UK Community Radio Network says that opening up the fund to more broadcasters could have negative consequences for the sector. Will the Minister clarify whether the aim of the clause is to expand the community radio fund?
Many colleagues spoke in support of local TV on Second Reading. Local TV forms a vital part of the wider television ecology and makes a great contribution to communities up and down the country. The Local TV Network has also been in touch with me to share that, although it is not seeking financial assistance, it would have liked a similar clause for local television to have enabled an increase in local programming or expansion of geographic coverage. Did the Department consider such a clause during the development of the Bill? It would be good to hear the Minister’s response, particularly given that the Bill does not give local TV the same prominence benefits as our public service broadcasters.
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Lady raises a number of issues. I remain a great supporter of the audio content fund, which was created when I was first in the Department and responsible for the renewal of the BBC charter. Of course, the audio content fund, along with the young audiences content fund, was funded for a time through licence fee money. It did a good job, but at the moment there is no plan to resurrect it. I remain a great supporter of community radio, and certainly there are no plans to raid the community radio fund for that purpose either. The clause creates a general power that will make it much simpler for us to provide grants directly to radio stations or for the transmission of radio, but I regret that at the moment there is no immediate prospect of doing so.
The hon. Lady touched on local television. I met local TV representatives yesterday. The Government will shortly announce the result of the consultation on the renewal of licences for local TV. I remain supportive of local TV. We continue to discuss issues around prominence with local TV representatives. Again, I am afraid that there is no current likelihood of our being able to provide financial assistance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Licensing of non-UK digital sound programme services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
This clause makes changes to sections 245 and 402 of the Communications Act. It enables overseas digital radio services to be provided on a local or small-scale multiplex, where their country of origin has been specified in regulations. The Secretary of State intends to specify Ireland as a qualifying country, with the effect that RTÉ—the Irish national broadcaster—and other Irish commercial and community radio station operators can apply for digital licences for their radio services, and ultimately for those services to be broadcast in the UK. This simply removes an unnecessary restriction on Ofcom’s ability to license well regulated overseas stations, in contrast to similar TV services targeted at the UK. That was raised in the Government’s 2017 consultation on radio deregulation.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause allows the Secretary of State, by regulation, to specify a country in which international digital radio services can come under Ofcom’s regulation and be broadcast in the UK, as the Minister outlined. I understand, as he said, that this was done with the intention of specifying Ireland as a qualifying country first, so that Irish radio services can apply for digital licences for broadcast in the UK. When this issue was consulted on back in 2017, the majority of respondents were in favour of allowing this, particularly in the case of Ireland; the station RTÉ was identified as long having been important to members of the Irish community living in the UK.
While there must always be careful consideration of the spectrum available and the need to ensure a diversity of UK-based services, I see no reason why selected non-UK stations of particular importance to those living in the UK cannot complement UK services. Indeed, these non-UK services may be uniquely placed to attract new audiences to radio and subsequently advertisers and sponsors. It is due to those same concerns about prioritising UK services, however, that it seems the Government have opted to take a gradual approach to the change, allowing the Secretary of State to specify one country at a time, rather than opening things up more broadly. This gradual approach has perhaps been even more gradual than expected, given the five-year gap between consultation and the Bill.
Could the Minister share with us whether the Department has any intention of specifying countries other than Ireland under the clause? For example, does the Secretary of State intend to extend this arrangement to any other station’s licence, in the EU or beyond? I am pleased to support the clause, but I am keen to hear an update on whether there are plans to actually use it.
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Lady is right that, at the moment, the demand is primarily from Ireland. If there were to be significant demand from other countries, this would need to be reviewed in the context of views from industry and advice from Ofcom. The regulations would then be in the form of an affirmative order, which would need to be laid before the House, but there is no current intention of doing that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Radio multiplex licences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
This clause updates provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1996 to remove Ofcom’s function of overseeing the line-ups of national and local radio multiplexes, in light of the Government’s 2017 consultation on commercial radio deregulation and the responses to it. As long as applicants for a multiplex licence can demonstrate that they are able to provide a sustainable service with sufficient geographic coverage, and that they will enable fair and effective competition, they will otherwise be free to decide the number and nature of the radio stations they carry. This change reflects the availability of a wide range of stations across the UK, and will allow for simpler arrangements between multiplex operators and Ofcom.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 47 continues the deregulation of requirements on radio, this time simplifying radio multiplex licence applications. In effect, this means that Ofcom will no longer have to oversee the line-up of national and local radio multiplexes, other than by ensuring that there is regard for sustainability and competition. Again, when this was consulted on in 2017, most respondents agreed that there was no longer a need for Ofcom to oversee station line-ups on multiplexes and approve changes. As I have said multiple times, the need to oversee the content and diversity of radio services has decreased significantly since the introduction of a vast range of digital services. I believe this relaxation of requirements, therefore, should not have any negative effects on the range of services available for audiences in the UK, with their different tastes, needs and preferences.
As we come to the end of our consideration of the provisions on regulation of radio services, I reiterate my support for radio services, which provide so much to audiences. I am pleased that this package of long-awaited changes will finally be implemented, and I hope that the future of radio is protected for years to come. That hopefully leads us nicely to the next part of the Bill, which we will debate next week.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Wood.)
Media Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 7th December 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 December 2023 - (7 Dec 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Order. Before we begin, I remind Members to please send any speaking notes to Hansard at hansardnotes@parliament.uk—they will be very grateful. I also remind Members to please switch all devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not permissible in this sitting.
Clause 28
Prominence on television selection services
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 28, page 37, line 4, at end insert—
“(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would make the Secretary of State’s power to designate regulated television selection services subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 29, in clause 28, page 40, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) When preparing guidance under subsection (1), OFCOM must have regard to the strategy and policy published by the BBC pursuant to clause 62 of the Agreement between Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation, dated 7 November 2016, as that clause may be amended or updated at any time.”
This amendment requires OFCOM explicitly to consider the relevant parts of the BBC’s regulatory framework when setting its guidance for the new prominence regime under subsection (1) of 362AL.
Clause stand part.
Schedule 3.
Stephanie Peacock
I am pleased to be starting part 2 of the Bill today. Indeed, an update to the prominence regime is arguably the most anticipated of all the Bill’s measures, and I am certainly keen to see it come into force.
As I have spoken about many times already, our public service broadcasters are the cornerstone of our broadcasting sector in the UK, investing billions in original productions and creating content that is trusted, valuable and entertaining for UK audiences. Historically, in return for the high standard of programming and investment that public service broadcasters provide, their channels have been made easy to find on linear television sets—to the benefit of audiences across the country. However, amid rapid changes in how viewers access television and content more generally, the prominence regime, which has not been updated for decades, is at increasing risk of becoming diluted and outdated.
As ITV identified in its submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the major risks are twofold. First, public service broadcasters are in danger of being cut out of view, as global content players and platforms strike international deals with online platforms for prominence. Secondly, as a result, our public service broadcasters are at risk of being forced to concede increasingly material percentages of their revenue to these platforms, simply to appear on them. In this situation, it seems like almost everyone loses out—from audiences, to the wider UK production economy, to even the platforms themselves, which may find themselves in a position where they cannot promote the content that UK viewers most want to see. A new prominence framework for the digital era, therefore, was always going to be crucial.
The next question to answer was how prescriptive such a new regime would be in legislation. I am pleased that, in response to this, the Government have avoided explicitly spelling out what prominence looks like in the Bill, or making primary legislation restrictive or resistant to future changes in technology and behaviour. Instead, we have before us a principles-based approach based on finding mutually beneficial carriage deals between what is branded “designated internet programme services” and “regulated television selection services”, with Ofcom being able to provide a framework in which these negotiations can operate.
That is then backed up by a strong dispute resolution and enforcement powers for Ofcom, including the ability to improve significant penalties in the result of non-compliance. This allows for maximum flexibility in both legislation and negotiations, as well as proper protections where agreements cannot be reached. It also allows for the regime to be expanded where necessary to capture new technology that people might be watching television content on. Platforms and PSBs have a history of successful negotiations, creating mutually beneficial deals and partnerships that would be counterintuitive for the prominence regime to undermine.
With that in mind, I am glad that the Department has made a few changes to the initial drafting of the Bill, in particular regarding the agreement objectives that are designed to incentivise the agreement of appropriate terms between platforms and PSBs. The original phrasing had concerned both parties. For PSBs, there were fears that the stated focus on costs would see platforms making unfavourable demands on advertising and data. For the platforms, there was concern that the phrasing could imply a responsibility on their behalf to cover the cost of PSBs. The new phrasing, which looks at the provision of public service content to audiences in the round, will hopefully alleviate some of these worries.
It is also welcome that there has been a clarification over legacy devices. It is important that technical feasibility is taken into account when deciding which devices are designated as being in scope of the regime. I would, however, like to ask for some clarity on the requirement to secure “appropriate” prominence. This was a major topic of discussion during the pre-legislative scrutiny process, with the majority of PSBs calling for this to be upgraded to “significant” prominence. The arguments around this were mostly based on the differences between linear and digital streaming landscapes.
On a traditional television set, appropriate prominence has, in practice, meant a fixed and high slot on programme guides—a relatively straightforward goal to achieve. However, the BBC said in its evidence that it has still sometimes struggled to secure high listings for its children’s channels on linear televisions. Likewise, S4C noted that it remained channel 166 on Virgin Media in Wales until 2021 due to a wide interpretation of the word “appropriate”. On streaming sticks and smart TVs, however, there is an ambiguity as to what appropriate prominence should provide in practice, especially given the many ways one programme might be reached within only one such device. Therefore, for the regime to have its intended impact, the argument is that significant prominence will be needed to ensure that public service content is easy to find on every necessary interface. That was also recommended by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. However, I am aware that Sky and others have expressed that there may be some unintended consequences to upgrading to significant prominence, particularly because of the risk of overriding consumer choice and preference.
Will the Minister provide a full response to the argument for significant prominence and outline the reasons why the prominence requirement has not been upgraded? Further, what conversations have been had with Ofcom on how the detail of the regime will be set out in the code of practice to ensure that it meets its aims? As I will go on to say throughout the Bill’s passage, we need a strongly empowered Ofcom if this Bill is to be a success.
On a similar note, Will the Minister tell me whether the Department has considered the possibility of including remote controls and multi-use devices in the prominence regime? I know that is something the BBC has consistently called for. Its latest thinking is that electronic programme guides could be given a prominent button on remotes, rather than one PSB in particular. Although my priority remains to see this clause passed, we must explore these questions to make sure that we are fully seizing this once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that public service content is easily findable in a digital age.
I will also take this opportunity to briefly discuss the role of regional prominence. Before I continue, I want to reassure colleagues that I do not mean to imply through the use of the phrase “regional prominence” that Wales and Scotland are regions, rather than nations in their own right. I use that terminology because that is how the Bill refers to prominence arrangements that will be required for the likes of S4C and STV, as well as other, genuinely regional services provided by our PSBs. For those broadcasters and their respective audiences in Scotland and Wales, proper prominence will be absolutely crucial. That is perhaps even more so the case when we consider that S4C simply cannot match the promotion budgets of those that dominate streaming platforms, yet it provides a unique service in the Welsh language that others simply do not.
However, some platforms have raised concerns over the technical feasibility of ensuring regional prominence. For example, techUK has said that technical and privacy challenges mean that providing regional variation in prominence would be a disproportionate burden. As a result, S4C has raised concerns that user selection might be used in lieu of guaranteed prominence. That would be quite different to the envisaged package of benefits that the prominence regime would provide for PSBs.
First, will the Minister first reaffirm that the Bill does not require regional prominence for S4C, STV and other regional programming that our PSBs provide? Secondly, will he update us on what discussions his Department has had with both Ofcom and platforms on how this requirement on regional prominence will be enforced and adhered to on a practical level? I know that the detail of what is required will become clear when Ofcom’s code is published after the Bill, but some baseline reassurances are needed now to clarify whether changes are needed to primary legislation to secure the kind of prominence we had all envisaged for the likes of S4C. The Bill must empower Ofcom as much as it can. Regional prominence goes to the very heart of why these changes are being made in the first place, and it is vital that its inclusion in the Bill is in no way compromised or diluted.
Finally, I will address my two technical amendments to this clause. First, I suggested an amendment that changes the power of the Secretary of State to designate or specify a description of regulated television selection services from the negative procedure to the affirmative. As the CMS Committee report recognises, although the Secretary of State can only designate services deemed to be used by a significant number of viewers, and must receive a report from Ofcom, the Minister can still make a decision that goes against Ofcom’s recommendations. Given that, it seems sensible that their decision should be open to greater parliamentary scrutiny.
Too many Bills coming through this Parliament have given sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, as the Minister and I discussed at length during the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Though such measures are sometimes needed to futureproof a regime, it is absolutely crucial to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny is not seen as an onerous task to be bypassed, but an important part of shaping good policies. With that in mind, I would like to see the affirmative procedure used in this case.
Secondly, the BBC has raised concern that the new framework creates a level playing field for licensed public service broadcasters in a way that it does not for the BBC. Indeed, the BBC is required under its framework agreement to publish a distribution policy, outlining the conditions under which it makes its services available. The conditions include securing appropriate prominence, quality and value for money. The BBC is also legally required to offer services to third parties without charge and on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.
The Media Bill largely recognises that the BBC has a distinct regulatory framework—no less so than in this very clause, where it is made clear that there will be no additional “must offer” obligations on the BBC given its equivalent obligations. However, though there is explicit reference to the BBC’s “must offer” duties in the Bill, there is no matching reference to the BBC’s charter and framework agreement in the “must carry” section of the Bill. Both a “must carry” and a “must offer” requirement are needed to create the conditions for PSBs and platforms to have successful negotiations on prominence from a level playing field. The exclusion of comprehensive “must carry” requirements on platforms when it comes to the BBC may therefore make such negotiations harder. That is particularly worrying given the BBC says it already faces increasing difficulty when negotiating with some platforms that have little interest in supporting UK PSBs. It says global platforms, in particular, are more focused on self-preferencing their own content, monetising user interfaces and controlling data and algorithms.
My amendment would seek to rectify that inequality in the Bill. It would give the BBC an equivalent negotiating position to the commercial broadcasters, setting out that any regulated platform must also act consistently with the charter and framework agreement. That is hopefully a largely technical change to ensure no unintended consequences that could put the BBC at a disadvantage. My absolute priority on prominence is to ensure that the new measures are brought into force, but it is also important that we take the opportunity to ensure the new regime is as robust and effective as possible while we still have the chance.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
This section of the Bill on prominence is a central part of the changes the Government wish to make. Although the hon. Lady has done a good job setting out the reasons we decided it necessary to update the prominence requirements, I hope she will forgive me if I recap them since I think it is important that the Government’s position is set out in some detail.
As the hon. Lady described, the objective of the UK system of public service broadcasting is to ensure that public service content is readily available to as wide an audience as possible and is easy to find. PSB prominence plays a crucial role in delivering that. In doing so, it boosts viewership and engagement, which are important to sustain advertising revenue and brand value for PSBs. In turn, that ensures they can continue to deliver the high-quality original programming that UK viewers expect. PSBs receive the benefit of prominence in recognition of the additional obligations placed on them, such as news and current affairs provision, and that has become known as the PSB compact.
However, the existing regulatory framework for ensuring carriage and prominence of PSB channels, set out in the Communications Act 2003, does not extend to the PSBs’ on-demand services, nor services other than electronic programme guides that enable viewers to navigate and select TV programmes. Audiences increasingly watch TV online and, in many cases, bypass traditional distribution platforms altogether, so without the new prominence frame- work, we risk undermining the long-term sustainability of the PSB system in the UK. All PSBs have been calling for an update for some time.
Clause 28 introduces a new online prominence framework for PSB apps, referred to in the Bill as “designated internet programme services”, wherever they appear on particular user interfaces, referred to as “regulated television selection services”. The framework is principles-based to ensure that regulation is proportionate and adaptable for the future without negatively impacting consumer choice and experiences. This approach to regulation aligns with the consistent feedback we have had from stakeholders on both sides through our engagement with them on this issue.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
A lot of the existing regime, and also a lot of what is in the Bill, is based on the assumption that as many people as possible will seek to be designated as a public service broadcaster and will do everything they can to keep that designation. Is there not a danger now that if prominence is not effective enough, PSBs will simply decline to be PSBs, with all the obligations that being a PSB places on them, and just seek to make programmes that are popular and that will therefore be recommended and promoted on smart devices? Is my right hon. Friend confident that Ofcom will have the ability to issue guidance that distributors of programmes may need to increase the prominence of public broadcasting if they are not doing so already?
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I have sympathy with the concern he expresses. However, if this Bill was not passed, the advantages of being a public service broadcaster would be very small. All the PSBs have made it clear that they regard prominence as an essential benefit of the compact, in order that they are easily found and accessible. Because they have laid such stress on that, we assume that it is still their wish to remain designated as PSBs.
It is, of course, up to any PSB to walk away from the compact if they chose to do so. In doing so, they would no longer necessarily be able to benefit from prominence and the other advantages that come with PSB designation. However, I know that both my hon. Friend and I believe that there is a continuing need for public service broadcasting in this country. One of the purposes of the Bill is exactly to address the point he makes, by ensuring that PSB designation is still an attractive proposition for broadcasters to seek.
Let me return to one or two details of precisely how the system will operate. Once the necessary internet programme services and regulated television selection service providers have been designated, new sections 362AJ to 362AN introduce new rules to ensure the availability of public service content. That is achieved by requiring providers to offer their designated IPSs to RTSS providers and requiring RTSS providers to carry these designated services. After all, prominence would be redundant if the PSB services are not on the platform to begin with.
These availability requirements will be underpinned by statutory agreement objectives that providers of designated IPSs and RTSSs must act consistently with when reaching an agreement on the availability and prominence of designated services and when keeping that agreement in force. These include that the arrangements support the sustainability of public service broadcasting and do not disproportionately restrict how the platform may innovate its service. The intention behind these agreement objectives is for Parliament to provide expectations for the outcome of negotiations between designated IPS providers and RTSS providers. These objectives are to be supplemented by more detailed Ofcom guidance on how providers may act consistently with them.
In that respect, let me address the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley East in her amendment 29. Proposed new section 362AL requires Ofcom to
“prepare…guidance about how providers of designated internet programme services and providers of regulated television selection services may act consistently with the agreement objectives”
when negotiating on the carriage and prominence of designated services and after an agreement has been reached. The Government absolutely recognise that Ofcom’s guidance should take into account the BBC’s equivalent duties under the framework agreement, as also reflected in its relevant strategies and policies under the agreement, including clause 62. However, I can tell the hon. Lady that proposed new section 362AL(2) already provides for such considerations by Ofcom by referring to
“any duty of the BBC under the BBC Charter and Agreement that is comparable to the duty of providers of designated internet programme services other than the BBC”.
This may be a good opportunity to expand on another point. By convention, the BBC is not regulated in statute. It is the Government’s intention for the new prominence framework to apply to the BBC through the framework agreement. We plan to work at pace with the BBC to make corresponding changes to the its framework agreement to ensure that the relevant parts of the prominence regime apply to the BBC, while also acknowledging how it legally functions. It is the Government’s view that there is already provision in the Bill for Ofcom to consider the BBC’s comparable duties and corresponding policies under its framework agreement in its guidance on the agreement objectives. It is for that reason that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Barnsley East.
Overall, we think the principles-based approach that we are taking, with Ofcom playing a vital role, is the correct one. It will give Ofcom the tools it needs to ensure that the regime is functioning effectively without being too inflexible or overly prescriptive. Once designated services are available on the platform in question, new sections 362A0 to 362AR introduce specific duties on providers of RTSSs, including the requirement to carry and display designated IPSs with an appropriate degree of prominence. That includes the requirement to carry and give regional prominence to designated S4C services in Wales and STV services in relevant parts of Scotland.
Stephanie Peacock
I asked the Minister to reaffirm that it does not require regional prominence. Obviously, I am very keen to hear that it does because I know that there are some concerns, particularly from S4C, that it might do so in theory but not in practice.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am happy to address that point. The hon. Lady also raised the subject, which was debated on Second Reading and in the Select Committee, of whether the requirement for “appropriate prominence” is a better description than “significant prominence”. That is something we looked at carefully, particularly as it was one of the Select Committee’s recommendations, but we feel that it is important that the approach to regulation should be proportionate and allow for flexibility and operability across different RTSSs. We believe that an appropriate level of prominence, as determined by Ofcom in the code of practice, provides that flexibility and enables Ofcom to implement the regime in a practical way.
Damian Collins
Does the Minister agree that, given the nature of new smart devices, which favour personalisation of content and recommendations to users, smaller regional broadcasters, such as S4C, may benefit significantly, because viewers who have a habit of watching programming in the Welsh language are far more likely to be recommended that programming in the future?
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is right. As he says, the technology in this area is evolving very rapidly, so it is important that the regulatory framework is sufficiently flexible to keep up to date with technology as it arises. His point is that we are moving towards viewers having greater and greater control not only of what they watch, but of what comes up as recommendations for them to watch, and can choose which channels appear, and that will continue to evolve. It is therefore important that Ofcom can take account of technology developments in the framework.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Minister and the shadow spokesperson have been talking about regional content in respect of national content for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is incredibly important that viewers in the regions are able to access regional news and information. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent upon service providers such as ITV and the BBC to ensure that, when people access their services, it is very easy to find that regional content? Geolocation is particularly helpful, because it will recognise the user’s postcode, but there needs to be a requirement for public service broadcasters to ensure that it is easy to be set up, so that people can access their local area. That would certainly benefit the service providers, who we all know always talk to us about the strength of their services, such as the number of viewers who watch Granada and other services in the regions. Does the Minister agree that it really comes down to ensuring that the public service broadcasters have those things set up properly and prominently in their apps?
Sir John Whittingdale
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As I said—and as the hon. Lady the Member for Barnsley East mentioned in her remarks—the issue of regional prominence is important. It is our view that we should replicate the current regional prominence arrangements under the linear regime in the online space, given that the nations and regions are a core component of PSBs. We designed the regime to give Ofcom the discretion to determine various ways of delivering appropriate prominence across different platforms, and that includes delivering regionally.
We expect that Ofcom will set out different options, depending on what would be proportionate and reasonable for RTSSs to deliver, having regard to technical considerations. One method, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South suggested, would be to ask the viewer to submit a postcode at the time that their smart TV or other device is first set up. That would be sufficient to enable regional prominence. Stakeholders will have the opportunity to submit their views on how regional prominence should be delivered in due course, when Ofcom consults on the code.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that part of this is about viewer or listener choice? For example, my phone would currently geolocate me in London, but I might be far more interested in listening to—and I do, actually—BBC Radio Devon or watching the evening news back in Devon and Cornwall, than I might be in the content based purely on the location. That is the point. The types of choices now available to viewers would have been unimaginable in the era before IT, when we were merely relying on broadcast signals.
Sir John Whittingdale
As I said earlier, the Bill does not, at the moment, suggest that prominence should be required on mobile phones, because they are not primarily used for watching TV, but the point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely correct. More and more applications and devices are going to be influenced by the location from which they are being used. It will therefore become more important that TVs and all other devices are clearly geolocated in order to allow appropriate prominence of regional programming.
Proposed new sections 362AT to 362AY give Ofcom a dispute resolution function, should negotiations between providers of designated IPSs and RTSSs fail. Our overall intention is to allow PSBs and platforms to pursue mutually beneficial commercial arrangements in the first instance, but if that is not possible, it is appropriate for the regulator to have the necessary powers to intervene in support of effective negotiations.
In addition, proposed new sections 362AZ to 362AZ11 provide Ofcom with the necessary powers to enforce the new prominence framework, which include information-gathering powers and the power to issue notices requiring the provider to take remedial steps and/or pay a financial penalty in the event of a breach. Many of the providers we are talking about are large, sometimes global, organisations, and it is important that Ofcom feels confident that it can take robust enforcement action when required.
Schedule 3 contains further changes to the Communications Act 2003, which are required as a consequence of the new provisions inserted by clause 28. Taken together, we believe that the provisions in the clause will deliver, for the first time, a new, much-needed and bespoke prominence regime to ensure the availability and discovery of PSB content online to the benefit of audiences and PSBs alike. I hope hon. Members will support the clause, and I ask the hon. Member for Barnsley East to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I agree with the Minister that the clause creates a new and bespoke prominence regime. I have some questions that I was going to ask in interventions, but I figured that I had too many.
I am happy to support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister relating to the BBC and affirmative approval by the House, but I have some questions arising from the comments that have been made. The comment about personalisation is key. I hope that people who regularly watch S4C, for example, will be offered it. I am slightly concerned that that will conflict with the commercial nature of these devices, and that we will end up in a situation whereby Amazon provides more money to give prominence to a certain television show, which bumps S4C down the list. I am glad that there is flexibility in the Bill to allow things to be updated and changes to be made, because it is important that such conflicts are resolved.
Damian Collins
What may resolve that conflict is the fact that personalisation is often linked to the placement of advertising, so the platform operator may only care about advertising reaching eyeballs and may be agnostic about whether it is placed against S4C content or anyone else’s.
Kirsty Blackman
That is possibly the case. I have never been a platform managing its budget on the basis of advertising, so I do not know exactly how the advertising regime works. As time goes on and the way that people interact with these services changes, that may be updated anyway, provided that there is the flexibility to make changes if we find that people are not being served the content that we expect, and are not receiving that level of prominence of the services. It would be great if the new regime works and people are algorithmically served the content that they like and want to see, but I am concerned that it might not always work out like that. It would therefore be incredibly helpful if the Minister can keep that under review.
On the comments about the words “significant” and “appropriate”, I completely understand the BBC’s concerns. I know that not everybody feels quite so strongly about those words. Some people believe that Ofcom will be clear that “appropriate” means “fairly significant” and “quite prominent”, so that people are able to access these broadcasters. Again, the Government need to keep that under review to ensure that there is an appropriate level of prominence, and that Ofcom has the ability and strength to say, “This is not appropriate. We need it to be more prominent than it currently is.” Ofcom must have the teeth to enforce that. It should first work with the platforms to ensure prominence—we do not want to move straight to enforcement—so that people can access the public service broadcasters that they expect.
The comments made about television remote controls were also key, and we might come back to them later in relation to radio selection. Hardware is an issue as well as software. For example, a television remote control may allow people to press a Netflix button but not a BBC button, despite the fact that significant proportions of people would prefer to press a button to access the BBC, STV or whatever service they are keen to get, and that they generally go to for information. I have spoken already about the importance of accessibility. Public service broadcasters need to be accessible, and we must work with people to make PSBs as accessible as possible, and prominent; those are two separate but related things.
Local content and local news content are very important. Yesterday, I had a discussion with the BBC, which now provides Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire local bulletins on some of its on-demand services, after a long-running campaign by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and me. We have both been constantly pestering the BBC to ensure that our local news bulletins are accessible, particularly so that we can see what is being reported in our local area when we are down here. The BBC has now done that, but I would like commensurate prominence for online and on-demand television services, as well as services on my phone or computer.
On a related note, the Minister talked about the measures applying only to devices that have the main purpose of allowing people to watch television, and I can understand why he has gone down that route. I do not know whether he is aware of Ofcom’s “Media nations” report, which shows that 21% of TV users in Scotland watch through a games console. That is not an insignificant proportion. Some family members may use the games console to game, but others may use it only to watch television. If games consoles are outside the regulatory regime and are not required to give any prominence to public service broadcasters, a chunk of the population is not being properly served and does not have proper access to public service broadcasters.
I appreciate the Minister’s comment about Ofcom being able to update and make changes to the regulated services and providers. However, I am slightly concerned that he has gone too far down the route of saying that the measures apply to devices that are mainly used for television purposes. I am concerned that that will not provide my constituents with the best service, particularly when the percentage of people in Scotland who use games consoles to watch television is double that in England. The proportion is much higher, so this issue will be important. For example, if someone can watch television on a PlayStation, why would they waste money on a Fire Stick? They can already watch television through the games console. If that is the main route by which a not insignificant portion of people watch television, it is important that the Minister considers whether regulating games consoles would improve our constituents’ lives. I genuinely think it would. My concern is mostly that the Minister should not rule it out; I do not necessarily want him to say that he will definitely regulate things such as games consoles.
My other question, which the Minister may not be able to answer today, is about the prominence requirements for smart TV provision. If I say to my Fire TV Cube, “Alexa, play BBC News on BBC iPlayer,” I would expect it to do that. Provisions we come to later relate to asking a smart speaker to play something on a certain provider. That is about not just prominence on screen, but prominence when I use my voice to make a request of my Fire Cube. I hope and expect that Ofcom and the Government intend that I will get BBC News on BBC iPlayer, if that is what I ask my smart TV for. This is about not just navigating the system, but being able to make a request by voice.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I will not repeat the points made by Members on both sides of the Committee, with which I agree. Briefly, I welcome the provision under proposed new section 362AA(7)(a) to the Communications Act 2003 that
“OFCOM must have regard…to the contribution that the internet programme service will make towards fulfilling the public service remit”
of PSBs, and S4C in particular. As I said on Tuesday, and as I am sure that I will say again when we come to discuss clause 32, S4C is a national, not regional, broadcaster in Wales. It is a separate, independent broadcasting service, much like BBC1 and ITV1. Broadcasting in Wales through S4C is not niche; it offers a wide range of broadcasting, from sport and drama to stand-up and gardening. In fact, through its range of programmes, it can and does extend people’s knowledge and surprise them. One of the things that has always surprised me about BBC news provided through S4C is the range of international reports in Welsh from all parts of the world., sometimes from professional journalists, but also from Welsh people who happen to be wherever the incident or news item is. That extends people’s horizons. S4C is not niche, and not parochial in any sense, so its content must be readily discoverable and prominent on television services, wherever they are.
It is difficult to find out how many Welsh speakers there are outside Wales. The census does not ask that, but it is reckoned that there are at least 100,000 Welsh speakers in England. A rather more interesting proxy for the figure is the fact that quite recently, Welsh was the most popular language to learn on Duolingo. In 2023, some 3 million people had registered, one way or another, to learn Welsh on Duolingo—that is probably more people learning Welsh outside Wales than there are people living in Wales. The extent of it may be learning to say “bore da”—good morning—but that is still interesting. I seek reassurance that “appropriate degree of prominence” in proposed new section 362AO will not lead to S4C being limited to specific audiences, for the reasons I have set out.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am most grateful to hon. Members for raising a number of interesting questions. The general answer to them is that these matters need to be considered by Ofcom when it draws up the details. However, I can seek to address one or two of the points made. On the continuing discussion about “appropriate” versus “significant”, I will try not to repeat our maxim that “significant” may be appropriate, but “appropriate” does not necessarily always mean significant—hopefully I got that right. For instance, there is the issue around S4C. Obviously, if someone lives in Wales, then S4C prominence is appropriate. If someone lives in Chelmsford and is learning Welsh, then perhaps it might become appropriate, as the hon. Member for Arfon set out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay made a point about algorithms, and basing prominence on behaviour as well as geolocation. If someone regularly turns to, and finds, S4C, it is an indication that they are interested in Welsh language television. That might well be taken into account in the prominence regime, but that is a matter for Ofcom. The technology may not yet have reached that point, but I entirely take my hon. Friend’s point that geolocation does not necessarily deliver sufficient prominence for each individual viewer.
On the question that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked about PSB buttons on remote controls, she is right that one or two of the streaming services pay to have their own button. My remote control has a Netflix button. I think it would be quite difficult to have a PSB button, because PSB obviously covers quite a wide range of broadcasters. It would not be right to say, “You’ve got to have a BBC button”; in a sense, the whole of the point of the legislation is to ensure that we do not need to do that. The prominence regime is designed not to force people to watch PSBs, but just to make them easily findable, so that when someone turns on their television, the first thing they see is the range of PSB channels as suggestions. If that is delivered, we do not necessarily need a button. Netflix presumably paid to have a button because it does not automatically pop up when someone turns on their television, but it will only be pressed by those who choose to watch Netflix. I do not think a button is necessary.
The hon. Lady also raised the interesting question of television-like devices. My children had an Xbox, and because it was constantly plugged in, we used it to access TV, rather than having to remove all the wires. She is absolutely right that in some families, the games console may well be frequently used to access television. That too is something that Ofcom will need to take into account. She asks that I make it clear that it is not ruled out, and I am happy to do that. We have asked Ofcome to look into those issues and draw up what is appropriate. It came as something of a surprise to me to read in my guidance notes that people can watch television on their refrigerator in some cases. I am not necessarily suggesting that it would be appropriate to give the BBC prominence on a refrigerator. All those things are matters that Ofcom will need to consider.
Damian Collins
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a distinction needs to be drawn between internet-connected devices—through which BBC iPlayer or the ITV hub or whatever it is can be accessed—and a smart television, which displays multiple different TV providers in the same place? On the latter, the user is not necessarily going to a separate place on the internet to watch something; they are going to one place, where these things are held together. It is in that environment that we want to ensure that the public broadcasters have due prominence.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. More and more devices have screens, but they are not necessarily primarily or even occasionally used for watching television, so it would be completely wrong to include them within scope. However, there will be a variety of possible devices for watching TV, and Ofcom will need to look at that.
Kirsty Blackman
On the PlayStation, the user can click on all the games, but they also have a TV button they can click on, which takes them to a screen like that on a smart television, showing each of the different apps. This is similar to what the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe was saying: there will be a view of all the different apps, and then the user can choose from them. They are not all set out separately, in amongst the games. I feel it would be easy to regulate this, if the Minister and the Government felt that it was important to do so, particularly given the number of people for whom consoles are their main source of television use.
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Lady makes an absolutely fair point. I hope Ofcom will look into that as it draws up the rules. Finally, on the point about voice activation, she is right that I can talk to my television set without even needing to pick up a remote control. Again, it is an obligation of Ofcom’s to consider appropriate prominence in that respect, and I am sure that it will take that into account.
Stephanie Peacock
I hope the BBC is reassured by the Minister’s explanation. I am happy not to press amendment 29 to a Division. This has been a useful debate, involving Members on both sides of the room, and it was particularly good to note the points about TV remote controls and gaming, which affect so many of the population.
On amendment 21, I continue to disagree with the Minister on the use of the affirmative procedure. For that reason, I would like to vote on it.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sir John Whittingdale
This chapter of the Bill relates to Channel 4 and is perhaps a little less contentious than it originally might have been.
Channel 4 is a vital part of the UK’s world-renowned system of public service broadcasting. For over 40 years it has commissioned innovative and distinctive content that reflects and shapes our culture, but like all our PSBs, Channel 4 faces structural changes in the broadcasting landscape. Changing consumption habits are making audiences more fragmented and harder to reach than ever before; at the same time, competition for viewers, programmes and talent is increasing at a rapid pace. The Government want Channel 4 not only to survive these changes but to seize the opportunities that they present. That is why in January this year the Government set out a package of reforms to support Channel 4’s long- term sustainability while remaining in public ownership.
Clause 29 takes forward the first element of the sustainability package: a new duty on the Channel 4 board to consider the corporation’s long-term sustainability as part of its decision making alongside delivery of the Channel 4 remit. The existing obligations on the corporation and its board are focused on the Channel 4 service—its continued provision and the fulfilment of its public service remit—and on the discharge of its duties in relation to media content. There is currently no formal requirement in legislation for the corporation to consider its financial sustainability and long-term success, although this kind of consideration may already be occurring informally.
The wording used in the clause is similar to the directors’ duty in section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, which places a duty on company directors, among other things, to promote the success of the company, and in doing so to have regard, among other matters, to the likely consequences of any decision in the longer term. The wording for the duty builds on that of the 2006 Act by using language that is appropriate for Channel 4; in particular, it reflects the fact that Channel 4 is a statutory corporation with board members but no shareholders, as opposed to a Companies Act limited company.
Stephanie Peacock
I will begin by discussing clause 31, which I think requires a bit more attention, before briefly addressing clauses 29 and 30. In perhaps the most significant of the changes made to Channel 4 throughout the Bill, clause 31 ends the restriction on Channel 4 that means it cannot be involved in the making of any programmes that it broadcasts.
Before I speak in a little more detail about the clause, I want to take the opportunity to set some context. I welcome the fact that an even more significant measure has not made its way into the Bill, as the Minister alluded to. The Government’s initial plans to privatise Channel 4 would have been disastrous. Channel 4 has a truly unique role in British broadcasting. As a company owned by the British public, which costs the public nothing, it commissions new programming, creates jobs, and discovers new talent across the country.
The channel plays a key role in the pipeline of talent and skills in the industry. For example, 4Skills has provided opportunities to young people who might never have considered a career in broadcasting, through apprenticeships, training schemes and the Content Creatives scheme. 4Skills has reached over 10,000 people since 2015 and aims to reach a further 100,000 over the next decade. Channel 4 has also brought us Film4, which spends more on British film than any other UK broadcaster. It invests millions in feature films that nurture new talent and help to sustain writers, directors and production companies across the UK. In addition, Channel 4 takes seriously the need to enable opportunities outside London, spending over 50% of its commissioning budget outside London—something it has committed to continue even after the introduction of the clause.
The Government’s plan to sell off Channel 4 was a plan to sell out Britain, heavily disrupt the broadcasting industry, and puncture several local economies. I am very pleased that Ministers finally came to their senses, although I question why it took them so long, and I reiterate the disappointment that I expressed on Second Reading that the process has delayed the introduction of other important measures in the Bill.
The clause is best understood in the context of the U-turn on privatisation. Channel 4 never asked for the removal of the publisher broadcaster restriction. Instead, the measure was announced as part of the package that the Government put forward when announcing Channel 4 would not be for sale. The statement that the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), put out at the time said that the change would give the channel more “commercial flexibilities”, and
“exploit Intellectual Property…as other public service broadcasters are able to.”
What the announcement did not include was a detailed assessment of what impact the change might have on the independent production sector more widely. Even Channel 4 warned that there could be
“unintended consequences on the UK production sector”
as a result of the new powers. Directors UK also pointed out that the changes could
“distort or negatively impact the market in which our members are employed”.
Furthermore, the Media Reform Coalition expressed concern that even the current state of play was seeing smaller independent companies suffer, with Channel 4 becoming overly reliant on super indies. It was therefore crucial that the wider market was properly considered before the change was implemented.
I am pleased that the Department and Channel 4 have made a range of commitments to mitigate any potential negative impacts of the change. 4Skills will receive increased annual investment, the number of roles outside London will be doubled and, perhaps most important, Channel 4’s independent quota will rise to 35% of qualifying programmes. If Channel 4 does commence production, which I understand would be a gradual process and is some way off at the moment, further measures would be put in place. There would be a separate C4C production business with its own board and governance, a proper dispute resolution procedure and new reporting requirements. All of that will then be underpinned by a new requirement for Ofcom to consider whether Channel 4’s in-house productions have impacted on the fulfilment of its remit.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that package of measures has eased everyone’s concerns. I know the Media Reform Coalition, for example, has called for the restriction to remain in place and for further measures, such as a small and medium-sized enterprises guarantee, to ensure that a majority of commissioning spend goes to producers with an annual turnover of less than £25 million. Although I believe that significant progress has been made since the first draft was published to assess the impact of the clause on the market, I continue to understand and recognise that the changes will be worrisome to independent producers, particularly small ones.
If Channel 4 decides to exercise the new powers in the Bill, I hope it continues the approach it has taken thus far of doing everything possible to allow the independent sector to thrive, from top to bottom, and keeping itself accountable by setting targets that ensure this. With that in mind, I am happy to proceed with the measures within and without the Bill in the hope that they will be the start of a longer process of assessment and engagement with the wider market. I am grateful that Channel 4 will remain in public ownership, and hopeful that it will continue to deliver a unique contribution to the industry, as well as our screens, for years to come.
I know there was some concern over the initial drafting of clause 29, not because anyone disagrees with the principle of the duty, but because of a fear of unintended consequences if the clause did not take into account the primary functions of Channel 4 in looking to mirror the Companies Act 2006. Indeed, the new duty outlined in this Bill should largely only reinforce what Channel 4 is already doing. As such, it is right that the wording has been adjusted so that it directly references the primary functions of the channel, and is based on the well understood directors’ duties in the Companies Act 2006 while recognising the channel’s status as a statutory corporation rather than a limited company. Having spoken with Channel 4 since the new version of the Bill was published, I understand it is much happier with this drafting.
Clause 30 places C4C under a duty to facilitate fair competition for its commissions for broadcast and on- demand services; both Ofcom and Channel 4 are then given duties to report on C4C’s performance in adhering to that policy. As mentioned when we discussed the terms of trade regime in part 1, it is incredibly important to ensure that basic principles of fair competition are applied when public service broadcasters are commissioning work, so I am pleased that this clause will further enshrine good practice in legislation.
Sir John Whittingdale
Perhaps I should start by saying the one thing we agree on is that Channel 4 has played a valuable role in the UK broadcasting ecology, and that we want that to continue. I do not always agree with everything I see on Channel 4—I suspect few in this room do—but it has a history of innovative programming that is of real benefit. As the hon. Member for Barnsley East says, it has been hugely important in supporting the independent production sector and creating jobs across the UK. I should say that “Married at First Sight” is made, in part, in my constituency of Maldon. I think that Channel 4 has just announced there is going to be a dedicated channel to “Married at First Sight”, although how much of a contribution to the public service broadcasting remit that will make is perhaps debateable. Nevertheless, Channel 4 has a wide range of diverse content.
The Government considered whether there should be a change of ownership because we want to make sure Channel 4 is in a strong position to thrive going forward. There is no doubt that the Channel 4 model is under pressure. It becomes particularly vulnerable when faced with an advertising downturn, as indeed we are seeing at the moment. To provide Channel 4 with greater support through diversification of its revenue streams, the Government have decided it is appropriate to remove the restriction to allow Channel 4 to make its own programmes.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
When Channel 4 representatives gave evidence to the CMS Committee recently, they were asked about that producer-provider split and whether they would make use of it. Their answers were quite dismissive in tone. They suggested the change would require them to take responsibility not only for production, but for the marketing of any product, which they do not have to do now; that is part of the role of independent producers that produce the content. Did Channel 4 at any time in its discussions with the Minister indicate that it wanted this new responsibility?
Sir John Whittingdale
The first thing to say is that nobody is forcing Channel 4 either to acquire a production capacity or to develop its own production capacity. That will be a matter for Channel 4; we are merely giving it the option. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about Channel 4 saying that it is not particularly interested in pursuing that option, but I think that has changed. I have had a lot of discussions with Channel 4, including one yesterday to discuss precisely how the requirements would work. The fact that Channel 4 has engaged a lot with us on the detail—particularly the competition aspect of the commissioning process—indicates that, even if not immediately, it certainly wishes to explore the option and have that ability. I do not think that debating how the requirements will operate is a waste of time. I do not know when Channel 4 will take advantage of the option; that is a matter for it to decide, but it is certainly keen to have it available.
Andy Carter
I hear what the hon. Member for Eltham said, but all the other media businesses in PSB have acquired production companies so that they can sell products around the world. If Channel 4 said, “We are not going to do that; we are just going to stay as a broadcaster publisher,” it would be left in an incredibly vulnerable state. I encourage Channel 4 to get on and move into that space, because having alternative revenue streams to advertising will give it more certainty in the future.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having an in-house production facility, as, for instance, ITV and the BBC do, allows channels to potentially make programmes not just for their own transmission but for others as well. It therefore offers a diversification of revenue streams.
The other point my hon. Friend might be getting at is that Channel 4 commissions all its programming output externally, but that is usually governed by terms of trade that mean that it does not retain the intellectual property of that programme. The restriction limits the amount of money that it can make from the commissioning of programmes. There are reasons why Channel 4 might well want to explore the option, but, as I say, it is not required to do so. It will be a matter for the channel.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East rightly raised the concern that giving Channel 4 that freedom could adversely impact the independent production sector. That is why we have included in the Bill the requirements for fair competition and for Ofcom to monitor the statement of commissioning policy and carry out a review to ensure that there is not an adverse impact of the kind that she described, as well as the increase in the independent production quota. I think that the Bill contains protections for the independent production sector, but at the same time gives Channel 4 the freedom that there is a strong chance it will wish to exploit at some future date.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
S4C’s powers and public service remit
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 33 to 36 stand part.
Schedule 4.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clauses 32 to 36 relate to S4C and enact the recommendations made in the “Building an S4C for the future” independent review. The clauses update S4C’s powers, public service remit, and audit and governance arrangements. They also adjust the approval arrangements for S4C’s commercial activities, and update the BBC’s responsibilities to support S4C in delivery of its public service remit.
Clause 32 amends the Communications Act 2003 to update S4C’s powers and public service remit. It removes the current geographical restriction on S4C’s powers, ensuring that it is able to provide services outside Wales, and confirms that it is allowed to provide digital or online services, as recommended by the independent review published in 2018. That will allow S4C to broaden its reach and offer its content on a range of new platforms in the UK and beyond, ensuring that it continues to play a vital role as a public service broadcaster and has a strong future delivering high-quality content for Welsh-speaking audiences in the UK and indeed around the world.
The clause also simplifies the framework of S4C’s functions, public service duties and public service remit currently set out in the Communications Act 2003, reflecting the new public service remit introduced for all public service broadcasters in part 1 of the Bill. In recognition of S4C’s position as the UK’s only dedicated Welsh-language broadcaster, the clause retains the requirement that a substantial proportion of S4C’s public service remit content must be in Welsh. However, to ensure that S4C is not unnecessarily limited in its ability to deliver for Welsh-speaking audiences, the clause confirms that S4C may also provide content that does not fulfil the public service remit alongside the content that does. That brings S4C’s powers into line with those of other public service broadcasters.
The clause also adjusts the approval arrangements for S4C’s commercial activities. It replaces the previous requirement for approval to be provided by way of an order in secondary legislation with the requirement for approval in writing. That will give S4C greater flexibility in responding to market developments, as was recommended by the independent review.
The Secretary of State will have the power to approve a range of activities by way of a general approval, or to approve a particular activity in a specific approval. Any other activities already being carried out by S4C are to be treated as approved at the point of commencement, whether or not they were previously approved by the Government, given that it would be impractical to pause them purely for the purposes of obtaining approval after commencement.
It is important that S4C is given commercial flexibility as recommended by the review. However, at the same time, as it is a PSB in receipt of significant public funding, it is also appropriate for the Secretary of State to be given the opportunity to consider the suitability of specific activities to ensure that they remain in line with S4C’s functions. The clause therefore specifies that S4C must obtain the Secretary of State’s approval in writing before providing any television programme service, or doing anything for a charge or with a view to making a profit.
It would be difficult to create an exhaustive list on the face of the Bill of approved activity for payment, or intended to make a profit, that S4C could undertake, because we cannot predict precisely what future commercial activity might constitute. The clause therefore allows the Secretary of State to determine which activities can be covered by a general approval and which would need specific approval, for example, on the basis of a financial threshold.
Clause 33 formally replaces S4C’s governance arrangements, currently set out in legislation, with a new unitary board that is composed of both executive and non-executive members. That is also in response to a recommendation made by the 2018 review, which recommended that the governance structure at the time, which was the S4C Authority, should be replaced with a new unitary board comprising executive and non-executive directors. That replaces the previous two-tier management structure, which the review concluded created uncertainty around responsibilities.
In response to the review, and with the support of the Government, S4C has already created a shadow unitary board that undertakes governance responsibilities, with provision in its standing orders for specific situations where the differences between the previous model and the unitary-board model have required a bespoke approach. The clause therefore places that arrangement on a statutory footing by establishing S4C’s new unitary board and confirming that the board has overall responsibility for S4C’s activities in pursuit of its powers and duties.
The clause makes further changes to the Broadcasting Act 1990 to create the unitary board, adding the requirement for non-executive and executive members in accordance with the principle of the unitary board, and confirms that, as now, the chair must be appointed by the Secretary of State, along with a specific number of non-executive members.
The rest of the clause is largely limited to updating existing legislation with references to non-executive and executive members.
Clause 34 amends S4C’s financial audit arrangements in schedule 6 to the Broadcasting Act 1990, so that the Comptroller and Auditor General is formally appointed in legislation as S4C’s external auditor, rather than S4C’s being able to choose its own auditor. Again, this is in response to a recommendation made by the review. The review recommended that the Government consider whether the audit arrangements were suitable, and the Government accepted the recommendation. Although the Comptroller and Auditor General has actually taken over the auditing of S4C’s accounts, the clause puts the arrangement on a statutory footing.
The clause also places requirements on S4C subsidiaries. It requires each S4C subsidiary to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General as auditor unless the Comptroller and Auditor General agrees that the subsidiary may appoint a different auditor. The Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect the accounts of any S4C subsidiary regardless of the identity of the subsidiary’s auditor, and S4C must give the Secretary of State access to the accounts and related documents of an S4C subsidiary.
Clause 35 allows the BBC and S4C to come to an alternative arrangement on ways for the BBC to support S4C in delivery of the public service remit. Current legislation results in a fixed approach of requiring the BBC to provide at least 10 hours of programmes in Welsh to S4C per week. The clause amends the 1990 Act to allow the BBC and S4C to agree in writing an alternative arrangement to the BBC’s existing responsibility if it is mutually and commercially beneficial for both parties. That reflects the fact that the BBC may be able to provide to S4C other types of support that are more relevant to its functions and remit in the modern digital broadcasting age. That could include, for instance, the use of spectrum, specific services, rights, funding or content. This will better enable S4C to broadcast a wide range of high-quality content and serve Welsh-speaking audiences. The BBC will be required to publish the terms of an alternative agreement as soon as reasonably practicable. The BBC will be able to exclude from publication any information that it considers to be commercially sensitive.
The clause also removes references to S4C’s analogue television service and the requirement for Channel 4 to provide S4C with programme schedules and programmes to deliver that service. This simply reflects the fact that S4C’s analogue television service, which showed programmes in English from the Channel 4 service alongside Welsh language programmes when Channel 4 was not available in all parts of Wales, no longer exists.
Finally, clause 36 introduces schedule 4, which contains further amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1990, the Broadcasting Act 1996 and the Communications Act 2003 that are required as a consequence of the provisions in this part. The changes also reflect S4C’s new public service remit.
Taken together, these clauses reflect the Government’s recognition of the valuable contribution that S4C makes to the lives and wellbeing of Welsh speakers and learners. We remain committed to helping S4C to adapt to the changing media landscape and remain relevant as an independent and modern public service broadcaster in the UK. I urge that clauses 32 to 36 and schedule 4 stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The second chapter of part 3 of the Bill makes a number of changes to S4C, which I understand is largely very welcoming of the Bill and wants to see it passed, particularly in order to benefit from prominence measures and to become in scope of the listed events regime. These clauses are of crucial importance, but are not quite as immediately transformative as the changes made to C4C, as they largely provide a legislative basis for changes that have already started to roll out. Indeed, it was all the way back in 2018 that the “Building an S4C for the future” review made recommendations, which the Government accepted and which form the basis of the clauses.
Given the long wait for the new laws, S4C and DCMS agreed for many of the changes to be adopted early in the meantime. As such, although clause 32 introduces a new remit, S4C has already taken advantage of the changes within it, offering online and digital services and providing services outside Wales. This has allowed S4C to adapt to the changing landscape and broaden its reach and appeal beyond just those Welsh speakers situated in Wales. It is therefore welcome that the clause ensures that legislation reflects the new reality of how S4C can be accessed and delivered.
Media Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2023 - (12 Dec 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues will be very grateful indeed if you email your speaking notes to them. I remind everyone to please switch their devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Clause 48
Regulation of radio selection services
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 48, page 88, line 17, at end insert—
“(b) an in-car entertainment system.”
This amendment and Amendments 43 and 44 would expand the scope of the definition of a “radio selection service” to include non-voice activated in-car entertainment systems.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 43, in clause 48, page 88, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of this Part, “in-car entertainment system” means any equipment designed or adapted for use in a motor vehicle that enables, or among other things enables, a user of the equipment to use it to give instructions to a radio selection service, whether by giving spoken commands that are recorded by the equipment or otherwise.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 42.
Amendment 44, in clause 48, page 94, line 13, leave out from “giving” to the end and insert
“instructions to the service (whether by spoken commands that are recorded by equipment connected to the internet or otherwise)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 42.
Kirsty Blackman
It is a pleasure to take part in this Committee stage of the Media Bill today. I will not talk for too long on these amendments, which I tabled after conversations, particularly with Radiocentre, about how in-car entertainment systems work. These days, the reality is that an awful lot of people are using those in-car systems by navigating through screens or pressing on their mobile phone, in advance of actually driving the car. I myself tend to use the buttons on my screen when I am listening to stuff in the car.
Nine out of 10 UK adults—a significant proportion—listen to commercial radio or BBC radio every week. That is where a massive number of people get their local news, hear updates on what is going on, and listen to all sorts of genres of music. It is incredibly important for people. Even though in a lot of places we are moving away from cars and taking more public transport, people who use cars generally have some sort of sound on when they are driving. An awful lot of the time that is either commercial radio or BBC radio.
Commercial radio is already highly regulated. The adverts available on commercial radio that can be heard over DAB, for example, are checked. They have to meet high standards, not have false claims in them, and be pre-checked in advance of being broadcast. Radio stations have to ensure that they cover certain genres, although that is set to change as a consequence of this Bill. That makes a huge amount of sense, given the increase in the availability of services and the fact that there are not just one or two radio stations available to listen to and get signal for on AM or FM. There is the whole gamut of digital or internet radio.
We spoke last week about resilience and public reliance on hearing public sector broadcasts. The Minister himself made the point that radio is a good way for people to get updates on things happening in the local area, particularly if there is some sort of emergency. When we were talking about terrestrial television, the Minister made that point clear, and I absolutely agree with him. In the event that there is flooding in a local area, people often tune in to their local stations. In Aberdeen, that is Northsound 1, Original 106, or shmuFM—Station House Media Unit, an excellent community-run radio station. Those are all things people will use to they increase their resilience and ensure that they are aware of any emergencies.
To ensure that this is future-proofed and that the Bill makes sense and works in the way that the Government intend, I have tabled the amendments 42, 43 and 44 in relation to radio selection services, specifically to include non-voice-activated in-car entertainment systems. Not all cars rely on voice activation, and lots of people do not like voice activation; even though 53% of people now have smart speakers, a proportion are still not keen. As someone pointed out to me recently, the level of tolerance in relation to these things is pretty low. When someone says, “Alexa, please could you do this,” and it does not do it, they get frustrated fairly quickly, because the technology does not necessarily behave itself. For various reasons, some people choose to use the physical buttons or the screen selection services. Radiocentre and I believe that those people should also get the service that they are looking for, and that when they press those buttons in the car, they should get whichever radio station they want on whichever player they are looking for. It is important, therefore, that the Government consider this matter and whether something else could be done, particularly in this clause, to ensure that in-car entertainment systems are accessible to the public; to ensure that they are able to find the BBC, or BBC iPlayer if they are streaming through an internet service; and to ensure that they are able to listen to digital radio and to Northsound, if that is what they want to listen to on that morning.
I hope Minister will be able to give me a significant degree of comfort on this and convince me that this is something that the Government are considering and taking account of, something that they recognise is important and that they do expect people to be able to find the radio stations they want.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
A not insignificant amount of listening—around a quarter of all radio listening—still takes place in the car, so it is a really important area for voice activation. It is really important that the Government look closely at this.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. It is really important for voice activation. It is also really important for physical activation as well in terms of on-screen navigation, because of that massively high proportion of listening that takes place in the car.
For an awful lot of people, that is the only way that they hear news. They are not listening to the radio to hear news; they are listening to the radio to hear music, but they catch news bulletins on commercial radio. By the way, commercial radio stations put an awful lot of time, effort and journalism hours into ensuring that they have accurate news bulletins and that they are providing updates. For a significant proportion of people, that is the only form of news that they hear, and they hear international and national news as well as local news on those services. Therefore, it is important not just from an entertainment point of view, but from a resilience and an information point of view.
We have talked already about democracy and access to democracy and democratic services. Some people only get those updates from the radio; they only know that a general election has been called because local radio has told them. [Interruption.] Don’t worry, a general election has not been called this morning—I am sure that Government Members would know before I did, anyway. [Interruption.] I am sure that some Government Members would know before I did, anyway.
I would like the Minister to be very clear that he attaches importance to radio and to commercial radio and that he understands the ways that people use it. I would also like him to commit to giving some consideration to how this Bill could be future-proofed to ensure that those screen and button navigations also allow people to get the service that they want and that they do not have to use voice activation. If he can give me that reassurance, I may not push the amendments to a vote.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As I mentioned on Second Reading, part 6 is one of the most contentious parts of the Media Bill. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee picked up on it immediately and published a dedicated report on the radio clauses prior to its report on the Bill more broadly. The report highlighted issues with the drafting as well as with the content, which I will speak about in more detail as we debate the various aspects of, and additions to, this part. It also expressed full support for the inclusion of measures intended to protect our treasured radio services. I wanted to mention that at the beginning of my remarks.
I have been extremely supportive of radio and the principles of inclusion, but I know that platforms are extremely concerned. A few weeks ago, I hosted a roundtable with radio services and platforms and we had a really constructive discussion about the Bill. It was one of the first times that stakeholders had been invited together to have a discussion, albeit a virtual one. During the discussion, it was clear that platforms were largely happier, albeit to varying degrees, with the latest version of the Bill compared with the draft. That is to the credit of the Committee and the Department, which took seriously the matter of rectifying some of the problems with the Bill while maintaining a commitment to the importance of the part and radio as a whole. I believe the Bill is all the better for it. We are now on a much better footing for discussing some of the remaining issues in the clause. We can focus on the nuances, rather than discussing whether our radio services should be protected.
I therefore approach the amendments today keeping in mind the fact that a good balance has been struck. My overwhelming priority is to ensure that radio services get the protections they have been waiting for. I do not wish to cause any major further disruption to a part of the Bill that has been fine-tuned, to the benefit of both radio and platforms.
To address amendments 42 to 44 specifically, as with the smart speakers explicitly included in the Bill, car entertainment systems are a platform that have the potential to make it hard for users to find radio services. Some sophisticated car entertainment systems, for example, have the ability to preference their own content over radio services, to force users to swipe through pages of options to find their favourite radio station, or indeed to refuse to offer radio, full stop. Radiocentre claims that some recent models of Tesla cars do not have a broadcast radio at all, and though it is theoretically possible to stream radio through an interface on such models, no protections are in place to ensure that that will remain the case in a genuinely accessible and convenient way.
That issue is only more worrying when coupled with the reality that listening via car entertainment systems is on the rise, in particular among younger people. Ofcom reports that 9% of people listen to a streaming service via an in-car system, rising to 19% in the 16-to-24 age group. I therefore ask the Minister why such car systems were not considered for inclusion in the initial definition in the Bill alongside smart speakers. The CMS Committee report said that
“the Government may have overestimated the extent to which listeners are easily able to find their preferred stations in in-car systems.”
I agree with that statement and with the Committee’s recommendation to the Minister and Ofcom that they keep the issue under “close review”.
The Government agreed to that in their response to the Committee report, so how do they actively plan to do it? At what threshold will they consider extending the regime to cars or to any other device that poses similar problems? While I am in favour of exploring the inclusion of car entertainment systems, given the scope in the Bill to extend the regime, I think it is important that any extension is properly consulted on; in particular, car manufacturers themselves will need to be consulted.
Similar to the prominence regime for public service broadcasters, , it is right the Bill should be future-proofed so that new technologies can be accounted for, not just with cars, but further into the future. I hope that the Minister will consider that and will explain with clarity how we can be sure the Bill does enough to protect radio not just in today’s world, but in the years to come.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
I apologise to the Committee for croaking a little. I also declare that on Sunday I attended the Jingle Bell ball with Capital Radio, which is organised by Global Media. In between some excellent performances, we talked briefly about the Media Bill.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East described part 6 of the Bill as perhaps one of the more contentious ones, although in fact I think that there is widespread agreement in Committee. On Thursday, we spoke about the importance of radio and how it continues to achieve a significant proportion of listening, despite having been written off a number of times in the past years. Part 6 of the Bill relates to the recognition that the way in which people access radio is changing. We spoke for a bit of time about updating the regime governing broadcast television to take account of the move to digital so, similarly, this part of the Bill is concerned with the fact that a growing proportion of radio listening is done through smart speakers.
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North relates to cars in particular, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South pointed out, listening to the radio in cars represents a significant proportion of radio listening. Research carried out in 2021 by WorldDAB Forum, which is the international standards and co-ordination body for digital radio, showed that more than 90% of prospective car buyers across a range of international markets say that a broadcast radio tuner should be standard equipment in every car. Research has also found that 82% of potential car buyers say they would be less likely to buy or lease a vehicle that is not equipped with a built-in radio tuner. Consumer demand for new cars to have a radio installed as standard remains powerful.
Kirsty Blackman
I am not aware that I have ever bought a new car, but if I were to, I would probably not think to ask, “Does it have a radio?” I would just assume that it would have a radio, and then I would buy the car and be utterly shocked if I did not have access to radio. Maybe a kind of future-proofing, or at least leaning on the car manufacturers to say, “Radio is really important. Please could you include this?” would be a key way to go forward here.
Sir John Whittingdale
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady about encouraging manufacturers to include a radio. We would be very happy to do that. At the moment, it is almost unheard of not to include a radio—indeed, we encouraged manufacturers to install DAB sets. Older cars had traditional analogue sets, but in 2020 the Government actually brought in regulations to ensure that all radios installed in cars had a DAB tuner. That was a big step along the road to switching radio listening from analogue to digital, and the result now is that virtually all new cars in the UK have a DAB tuner installed, which allows the receipt of a large range of radio stations on the road. As noted by the digital radio and audio review carried out by the Department in 2021, audio and entertainment systems in cars are evolving rapidly, giving opportunities for car manufacturers to develop partnerships to provide or support other types of audio services, whether that is Bluetooth connectivity to connect mobile phones, or integrated systems including those that use or support Amazon, Google or Apple in-car systems.
In the terms of this Bill, part 6 applies to “radio selection services”, and it is device-neutral. While smart speakers represent a significant and growing proportion of radio listening, for the benefit of Members today and for Hansard, I would like to be clear that the term we have used in the legislation is “radio selection service”, through which the provisions could extend to any device with a microphone, including in-car systems that can respond to a spoken command requesting a radio station to be played. While I am sure that we will go on using smart speaker as a short-hand term, it is important to bear in mind that the requirements in part 6 apply to “designated radio selection services”, which is a service used by a significant number of people. We have made clear in new section 362BB that in assessing whether the use of the service is significant, we can consider the context, particularly where the service is used in a vehicle.
Amendments 42 to 44 seek to extend protections for radio into other audio systems provided by car manufacturers, whether these systems are voice controlled or not. However, our approach to developing these provisions has been to assess the potential risk from platforms being able to take a gatekeeper role, and to have targeted and appropriate measures that enable Ofcom to deal with any concerns. Individual systems provided by car manufacturers and which facilitate access to audio services or support this via connectivity links do not provide any way to disrupt access to radio services. We are, however, conscious about the longer-term issue raised with us by UK radio operators that at some point in the future radio might be designed out of cars and other vehicles. We absolutely accept that this would be a very regrettable development and that, given the importance of radio to listeners, we would need to look at it.
Kirsty Blackman
Say that a car manufacturer or a significant number of car manufacturers had a deal with Apple, and that their vehicles played only Apple services, or it was very difficult to find services other than Apple ones. Is that the point at which the Government would begin to look at a change? The relationship between the tech platforms and radio is good—I do not want to give the impression that it is not—but the tech platforms’ potential monopoly or domination of the market is significant, and therefore the risk is there.
Sir John Whittingdale
I completely understand the hon. Lady’s concern, and I will say a little more about our approach to that issue in some detail. Essentially, we recognise that we need to keep a close eye on the issue. At the moment, given the very high level of consumer support, it seems unlikely that the car manufacturers would want to alienate new customers by not having the equipment that car buyers now regard as standard. In our view, a better approach is to support the very effective partnerships between the radio industry and the car industry. An example is Radioplayer, which is a major initiative between the BBC—[Interruption.]
Sir John Whittingdale
I was just saying that the Government’s approach to the issue is to encourage the existing good partnerships between the radio sector and car manufacturers. Radioplayer is an initiative by the BBC and commercial radio that supports the use of common standards and technology, to make it much easier for partner manufacturers to integrate radio into car entertainment systems. The BBC and commercial radio recently announced new investment to expand that work, to support and build Radioplayer in the UK and to continue the development of partnerships across Europe. Radioplayer has partnerships with manufacturers including Volkswagen Group, BMW and Renault, which together represent over 40% of all European car sales, and it recently announced a long-term extension and expansion of its partnership with VW Group’s automated software company. A range of other companies also provide integration services. That prevents car manufacturers from having to bear all the research and development costs as systems develop.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for noting all those car manufacturers. As the representative of Luton North, I would like to include van manufacturers as well, particularly Vauxhall.
Sir John Whittingdale
I have no doubt that van drivers spend as much time listening to the radio as car drivers do, so the hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight vans.
Turning back to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, we believe that existing partnerships are the most effective way forward. However, we still have power to intervene—by, for instance, changing the definition of a radio selection service to include different ways in which radio stations are selected, if a clear need arises in the future. We will continue to support efforts by the radio industry to develop partnerships with car manufacturers, which, as I say, have produced good results. We will also keep these issues under review, as she requests. I hope that will go some way towards reassuring her, and that she is willing to withdraw her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I accept and understand the Minister’s reassurances. I am pleased to hear his support for radio, and his understanding of its importance, particularly in relation to car and van use. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 48, page 89, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations which designate and specify descriptions of radio selection services are subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 33, in clause 48, page 89, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) Before making regulations under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent providers of radio selection services;
(b) persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent providers of internet radio services;
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would have to consult before making regulations adding or removing a condition that must be satisfied before a radio selection service may be designated.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak in much more detail about my support for clause 48, and for protecting radio services, in various other debates on this part of the Bill, but here I will focus on two areas where increased scrutiny is needed, both of which will be important for the integrity of the regime. In the initial drafting of the Bill, there were many areas in which the Government had not incorporated sufficient scrutiny of powers to create secondary legislation. That was picked up by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which made various recommendations to do with strengthening scrutiny requirements and ensuring that power was not concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State where that was not necessary.
Many of those suggestions were accepted by Government, but in the area of designated radio selection services, the Government chose not to follow the relevant recommendations. Indeed, it is understandable that the Government have chosen not to determine in the Bill which radio selection services will be regulated, and are instead leaving the definition broad, so as to include those that are
“used by a significant number of members of the public”.
That will ensure that the decision on which platforms are in scope can be informed by the recommendations of Ofcom, and that the list can be amended in the future to fit the needs of the regime.
Kirsty Blackman
These amendments would ensure that the regulations were subject to the affirmative procedure when they were first created, and advance consultation on any changes to those regulations. Have I got that correct? If so, I am happy to support the hon. Lady.
Stephanie Peacock
Yes. We understand why the Bill is not prescriptive in setting out designated radio selection services, but if that is to change, there should be further parliamentary scrutiny.
Sir John Whittingdale
On amendment 32, the hon. Lady and I have debated the secondary legislation provided for in this Bill, and in other Bills in the past. In this case, we do not agree that the affirmative procedure is appropriate. As the Bill sets out, the designation of a radio selection service will reflect the fact that it is used by a significant number of people who access radio services. Advice on what level of use is significant, and which services cross that threshold, is a matter for Ofcom in its role as independent regulator.
As is set out in proposed new section 362BB(3) to the Communications Act 2003, the Secretary of State must have received a report from Ofcom before making the relevant designation regulations. The framework for designation is therefore set by this Bill, and advice on which services are used by significant numbers of people will be provided by Ofcom. On receipt of Ofcom’s advice, the Secretary of State must consult with radio selection services and the radio industry, as well as others whom they consider appropriate, in accordance with proposed new section 362BB(4), before coming to a decision. They can disagree with Ofcom’s recommendation, as provided for in proposed new section 362BC(6), but must provide reasons for doing so.
The order-making power relates to orders confirming the Secretary of State’s decision to designate a platform or platforms. The order will be laid before Parliament and follow the negative procedure. We felt that the affirmative procedure, which would trigger a debate in both Houses, was not appropriate, given that the exercise of this power relates to decisions affecting one or more companies. I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley East will accept that in this case, a negative resolution is sufficient.
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley East for tabling amendment 33, and I absolutely recognise the intention behind it: to ensure that the Secretary of State consults before making regulations adding, removing or altering a condition that that must be satisfied before a radio selection service may be designated. A similar consultation requirement is imposed by proposed new section 362BB(4) before the Secretary of State can make regulations designating a radio selection service.
I acknowledge that it is reasonable to seek an equivalent requirement with regard to making any changes to the conditions that need to be satisfied before a service may be designated. However, the full impact of the amendment’s wording will need to be looked at by parliamentary counsel. In particular, the hon. Lady’s proposal will need to be considered in the context of subsection (4) of proposed new section 362BB to the Communications Act 2003. I hope that she is willing to withdraw the amendment, on the understanding that the Government will consider the matter further before Report.
Stephanie Peacock
I thought for a moment that the Minister was going to support my amendment. However, I am happy with his explanation, and so am willing not to move amendment 33. On amendment 32, I am afraid that once again we disagree on the statutory instrument, and once again I am not comfortable with the fact that Ofcom’s recommendations can be ignored, with no subsequent debate. For that reason, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 48, page 91, line 26, at end insert
“, or
(b) is a UK on-demand sound service and is provided by the BBC or by a person who holds a licence under Part 3 of the 1990 Act or Part 2 of the 1996 Act.”
This amendment and Amendments 46 and 47 would expand the scope of “internet radio service” to include on-demand and internet only content provided by the BBC or Ofcom-licenced radio stations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 46, in clause 48, page 91, line 33, at end insert—
“(3) In this section a “UK on-demand sound service” means a service whose principal purpose is, or whose principal purposes include, the provision of programmes consisting wholly of sound and which has the following characteristics—
(a) its content is aimed mainly at audiences in the United Kingdom;
(b) access to it is on-demand;
(c) there is a person who has editorial responsibility for it; and
(d) it is made available by that person for use by members of the public (whether or not for payment).”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 45.
Amendment 47, in clause 48, page 91, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 93 and insert—
“362BG Meaning of “relevant internet radio service”
(1) In this Part, “relevant internet radio service” means an internet radio service for the time being included in the list maintained by OFCOM under subsection (2).
(2) OFCOM must establish and maintain an up to date list of the internet radio services in relation to which the condition in subsection (3) is satisfied and their providers.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that the provider of an internet radio service—
(a) has given notice to OFCOM requesting that the service be included in the list, and
(b) has not since then given notice to OFCOM under subsection (4) or (5).
(4) The provider of an internet radio service included in the list may give notice to OFCOM requesting that the service be removed from the list.
(5) The provider of an internet radio service included in the list must give notice to OFCOM if—
(a) that person ceases to be the provider of the service,
(b) that person ceases to be the provider of the UK radio service to which it relates, or
(c) the service ceases to be provided.
(6) A notice given to OFCOM under this section must—
(a) be sent in such manner as OFCOM may require;
(b) contain such information as OFCOM may require.
(7) OFCOM must publish the list on a publicly accessible part of their website.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 45.
Amendment 51, in clause 48, page 92, line 11, after “time” insert
“to a material extent only”.
This amendment would make the definition of an “internet radio service” less restrictive so that it can account for time lags or small differences in output.
New clause 3—Regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content equivalent to the regulation of radio selection services provided for by section 48 and Schedule 9 of this Act.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend primary legislation.”
Kirsty Blackman
I will be fairly brief. Amendment 45 is about the scope of regulation of the selection services, and about internet radio services, including on-demand and internet-only content provided by the BBC or Ofcom-licensed radio stations.
There are some issues with the definition, given the changing nature of radio and listening; the fact that people listen to services on demand and to internet radio; and the possibility of a time lag between internet or digital radio broadcasting, and broadcasting on analogue services. Some services are in scope only if they are broadcast on digital radio at the same time as being broadcast on the internet. If there is a time lag between the two, then they are not broadcast at the same time—and they may be broadcast only a few seconds apart. I would like clarity from the Minister on whether “at the same time” means “sort of at the same time.” If someone accidentally listens to the radio via two different methods at once, they may find that what is being played is slightly out of sync. I might do that when I move between the car and the house, or move between listening on my mobile phone to listening on my television. I may have different ways of listening to a service.
To be fair, I do not differentiate between listening on the internet and listening to digital audio broadcasting radio. If someone asked me whether what was coming through my car speakers was being streamed through the internet, coming from DAB or on an analogue service, I probably could not say. All I know is that I am listening to Northsound Radio, or BBC Radio Scotland; the method I am using does not make a difference to me.
There is also some stuff here about Ofcom-licensed radio that is broadcast only on the internet. That is also important, because again, people listening to Classic FM have no idea whether the programme is available only on DAB or on the internet. They just know that they are listening to Classic FM. For those people, the definitions do not matter; nor do they matter for licensing. Classic FM and BBC radio are licensed in the same way, through Ofcom, whether people listen to them online or via DAB. They are held to the same standards. The question is therefore whether the Bill does what the Minister and the Government intend: ensure that regulations and protections are in place, whether programmes are broadcast via digital radio, the internet or analogue services.
Stephanie Peacock
I will begin by addressing amendments 45 to 47 and new clause 3, which I tabled. I am disappointed that on-demand and podcast listening appear to have been excluded from the new radio protections. As the BBC points out, it is somewhat unusual that the Government have recognised the need to legislate in the Bill for on-demand TV content, and acknowledge its growing role in people’s viewing habits, yet have neglected to recognise the same patterns emerging for audio content and the rise of podcasts, and are failing to provide appropriate protections as a result. Some 10 million adults listen to podcasts every week, and there are estimates that in just 3 years’ time, there will be more than 28 million podcast listeners in the UK. Likewise, of BBC Sounds’ 417 million plays between October and December 2022, 193 million were on demand. It seems somewhat counterintuitive, therefore, that the Bill tries to protect the future of radio through a clause that does not pay any attention to one of the fastest growing ways of listening to audio.
To use an example provided by Radiocentre, under the current system, a user would be able to tune in to the LBC breakfast show with Nick Ferrari but could not be guaranteed access to the hugely popular podcast “The News Agents”. The same applies to on-demand radio: a user could listen to “World at One” or “Today in Parliament” live, but cannot be sure of catch-up access. Of course, given the breadth of podcasts available, it makes sense that any change might begin with ensuring access to podcasts associated with Ofcom-regulated stations. That would give a reasonable limit, so that platforms are not given the extra burden of onboarding a number of unregulated services that are not already within scope of the Bill. However, given the popularity of podcasts and the Government’s intention to protect valuable UK audio content, excluding podcasts altogether seems like missing a huge opportunity. I hope that the Minister understands that that is a contradiction, and will lend his support to some of the amendments.
My new clause 3, and amendments 45 to 47, make very similar requests of the Government on this topic, though new clause 3 is less prescriptive. If the Minister chooses not to support these amendments, it would at least be a good opportunity for him to explain why podcast services have been excluded. I point out again that the last chance we had to create media legislation was 20 years ago. What if another opportunity does not arise for 20 years? Does he not think that it will seem rather out of place for there to be no protection for on-demand audio content? Many measures in the Bill were crafted specifically to allow for future-proofing and a forward-looking vision. This is one area where such a vision has unfortunately been lacking, and I hope to rectify that through the amendments, with the support and co-operation of the Committee; I know that many of its members are in agreement with me on this.
On amendment 51, there have been various concerns, during the Bill’s formation, about the definition of an internet radio service, and the reference to programmes being provided in the same way and at the same time as the broadcast service. I am therefore glad that since the draft Bill, tweaks have been made to ensure that adverts are disregarded when it comes to considering whether a programme is being provided at the same time as a broadcast service. That change will have come as a great relief to providers of radio services that rely on a certain level of customisation when it comes to adverts. However, I know that Radiocentre and others still have concerns that the Bill does not account for minor differences in output, or time lags. Will a small difference, such as a time lag between a broadcast and an online radio station’s output, be considered a breach of the definition, and exclude a station from being designated as an internet radio service? At the very least, I hope that that was not the intention of the wording. It is important to clarify that explicitly in the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
I understand the intention behind the amendments, but the purpose of the Bill is to protect the public value of live licensed radio, as secured within the regulatory framework. The effect of the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Barnsley East would extend the scope of the regime to content that, notwithstanding its source, is unregulated. That would significantly broaden the scope of the legislation and risk placing disproportionate burdens on the platforms, as well as potentially delaying the implementation of the regime by Ofcom. It would also exclude similar content produced by independent producers and distributed as podcasts.
The hon. Lady raised the issue that Nick Ferrari’s show on LBC might fall within the regulatory framework, but that Jon Sopel and Emily Maitlis might fall outside it. The effect of the hon. Lady’s proposal would be to bring “The News Agents” within the scope of the framework, because it is produced by Global, but “The Rest is Politics” with Rory Stewart and Mr Campbell would be outside the regulatory framework because it is produced by Goalhanger and is therefore not captured by the measure.
Andy Carter
I want to set out where I think there may be problems. Historically, many radio stations have created what is called “split content”. That could be during ad breaks, for example—if someone is listening on FM, they would hear one set of adverts, but if they are listening on AM, they would hear a different set of adverts. In the situation where a radio station decides to broadcast a set of adverts on FM—perhaps a local set of adverts aimed at Warrington—but decides to put national adverts on its internet streaming platform, because it is heard all over the UK, there would be two very different programmes going out for two or three minutes. That is where there is some concern about different content for a period of time; while it is being broadcast live, different content is inserted into the stream. That is somewhere where there is slight confusion.
Sir John Whittingdale
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is getting at, but the provisions of the Bill are about live radio, and I think that the example he gave would be captured, because it is still live radio. The provision relates to non-live radio in the form of podcasts. I take the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I am happy to follow it up with a bit more detail, if that would be helpful.
As I said, the purpose of the Bill is about live radio, which remains the main way in which audio content is consumed. The Government committed, in their response to the digital radio and audio review, to revisiting those issues.
Kirsty Blackman
We understand that public service broadcasters, whether they are providing that public service on radio or television, should have a commensurate level of prominence. Does the Minister not agree that those people who have gone through the hoops to be Ofcom-licensed should have more prominence? That is partly the idea behind the amendments on licensing the “The News Agents” podcast, for example. It is produced by someone who has gone through the hoops to get those Ofcom licenses, whereas the other podcast—I forget its name—
Kirsty Blackman
“The Rest is Politics” would not be licensed, on the basis that its producers have not jumped through those hoops to meet the standards required to get Ofcom licensing.
Sir John Whittingdale
But the podcast is not subject to the regulatory requirements. It is absolutely the case that “The News Agents” is produced by a broadcaster that holds an Ofcom license, but that does not mean that the requirements of the licence apply to the content of the podcast.
Sarah Owen
Does the Minister not find it slightly perverse that the top-billing podcast, “The Rest is Politics”, which is the most listened-to podcast, is not subject to the requirements, yet one that is not the most listened to is subject to the requirements?
Sir John Whittingdale
Under the terms of the Bill, neither of them will be. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the regulatory regime to cover live radio, in whichever format it is consumed, but I do not think that podcasts—I am depressed to hear that “The Rest is Politics” is the top podcast on the charts, but there is no accounting for taste—should be subject to regulation, despite high listener numbers. As I say, we are happy to keep the matter under review, and the Bill allows for the amendment of relevant definitions. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 51 relates to the definition of “corresponds” in proposed new section 362BG(4). I recognise the amendment’s intention, and it is correct to say that there may sometimes be a very small difference between when an internet radio service is received by a listener and when the corresponding licensed broadcast service is received. That is why proposed new section 362BG(4) refers to when programmes are broadcast and provided by the station, rather than when they are received. It is not the Government’s intention for stations to fall out of scope of the protections because of very small discrepancies.
In any event, we consider that it is clear that very minor time-lags of up to a few seconds are not to be interpreted as not being “at the same time”, and we expect Ofcom to interpret the provision accordingly. However, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has raised an important issue as to whether minor differences in output between versions of substantially the same programming should be allowed and, if so, whether the provision could be amended in a workable way. We are happy to consider the issue further with the industry and Ofcom. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley East for tabling new clause 3, and we recognise its intention, which is to ensure that listeners can access a wide range of audio content on their connected devices. The provisions in part 6 of the Bill are being put in place to protect the public value of live, licensed UK radio. Although the options available to listeners have grown over recent years and will continue to do so, live radio remains the main way in which audio content produced by broadcasters is consumed. The provisions also reflect the fact that the regulatory framework that is in place for BBC, commercial and community radio services secures the ongoing provision of their public value content.
The new clause would extend the scope of the regime to unregulated content. At this stage, without a fuller understanding of the online audio market, it would risk significantly broadening the scope of the Bill. In particular, it would place disproportionate burdens on the platforms, without a clear means to ensure that the regime protects content that is of public value. In addition, it may risk significantly delaying the implementation of the regime. For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clause, and I hope that the hon. Lady will consider not pressing it.
Kirsty Blackman
I accept the Minister’s reassurances on amendment 51. His comment on the small time delay is helpful and clarifies the intention of the Bill. His clarification to the Committee is incredibly helpful. I also appreciate his making clear that he would be keen to work with Ofcom, Radiocentre and other interested parties on how the provisions could be improved, if they could. I hope that both Ofcom and Radiocentre hear that, and can put the case to the Minister about the potential for improvement. I understand that the Minister is keen to get the Bill right, and for it to work as intended.
I want to follow up the point that the shadow Minister made about the asymmetry between on-demand services—the fact that on-demand radio services are not within the scope of the Bill but on-demand television services are. If I want to listen to Radio 5 Live’s “Wake Up to Money”, I either have to get up at 5 o’clock in the morning, which is not my favourite thing to do, or I can listen to it on demand, which I did fairly regularly for a number of years. I would expect the same protections for that service as for watching “Question Time” the next day. It is reasonable for members of the public to assume that the same regulations apply. They are both BBC programmes that were broadcast live. I was probably not awake to see both, because I do not stay up for “Question Time”—I very much love staying in my bed for as long as possible.
I should be able to catch up with those programmes on demand, and it makes sense for them to have prominence as public service broadcasts. If I ask Alexa to play “Desert Island Discs” from Sunday, I expect it to play “Desert Island Discs” from Sunday, not the best of “Desert Island Discs” or a particularly popular episode from last year. In the same way, I would expect today’s “Wake Up to Money”, not last week’s episode, Sunday’s round-up or whatever else.
The asymmetry will be confusing for members of the public, who expect the same level of protection, particularly for BBC services, because people have a huge amount of respect for and attachment to the BBC, as well as other public service broadcasters. The BBC is paid for by the licence fee and there is the charter; there are many reasons why it sits so highly in people’s hearts and minds. Why is there therefore not the same protection for television and radio on-demand services, at least for things that were broadcast live and can be considered repeats? I have included the BBC alongside the Ofcom-licenced services in the amendments because it often plays repeats or on-demand versions of programmes that were broadcast live on the radio, although that does not apply to some of the podcasts.
I plan to press amendment 45 to a vote, and the Minister will have an opportunity to speak again if he wishes. I would appreciate it if he took into account the fact that members of the public will not understand the difference between the television and radio requirement, and may be poorly served if they are not able to access the on-demand services they want. Will he commit to consider at least the repeats issue—I class it as repeats, because that is the conversation that we had when we discussed on-demand television services and meeting the public service broadcast requirements? Essentially, that is what a chunk of the Bill is about. Even if we were to remove things that are not broadcast live, such as “The News Agents” podcast, and take into account only things that are broadcast by either the BBC or Ofcom-licenced radio live and then played afterwards on catch-up, people would be able to access the services they want with the protection they want. When they say, “Alexa, please could you play ‘Desert Island Discs’ from Sunday?” they expect to get “Desert Island Discs” from Sunday, rather than something totally unrelated or something like the best of “Desert Island Discs”, which is clearly not what they wanted to listen to at that moment in time.
Sir John Whittingdale
To some extent, the question is where we draw the line. The Bill is about live radio. The hon. Lady has put forward a different category of programming, so we now have three additional categories.
We have the category of what was live programming, which is available on a catch-up, on-demand basis. She gave the example of “Desert Island Discs”, but other examples are “The News Quiz” and various programmes that have gone out in recent days which people want to listen to a little bit later. We then have the category of programming that is not being broadcast live, but is nevertheless produced by a licensed broadcaster—“The News Agents” is an example. We also have the category of programming that is not produced by a licensed broadcaster, which extends into the world of podcasts, of which there are potentially millions. I think it would be extremely difficult to move that into a category of licensing. It is a question of where we draw the line, and the Government felt that the clause addresses a particular challenge, which is to protect live radio from the platforms taking advantage by either charging or replacing ads and so on.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate what the Government are saying about drawing the line, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that that leaves us with a contradiction between audio and visual? For a Bill that is aiming to future-proof, it fails to do that.
Sir John Whittingdale
The regime that the Bill introduces for TV public service broadcasting has slightly different objectives from the regime that we are introducing for radio. In the case of radio, as we have debated, it is much more to do with ensuring that things like advertising are still supplied by the broadcaster, rather than being replaced by the platform, so that, for instance, there is no possibility of the platforms charging radio stations. They are slightly different objectives. It could always be said that there are distinct differences between the regime for audio and the regime for visual, and I think that is going to be inevitable. As I say, this is something where consumer habits are changing and we will of course keep the matter under review. There are powers to make amendments, should they prove necessary in future.
Kirsty Blackman
To be fair, the third category that the Minister mentioned is not something that I brought up. It is something that he has included as a category—not me. I am still clear that there is asymmetry between the on-demand services. I understand that he is trying to protect access to live radio, and I get that. Surely the Bill is also trying to protect access to live TV? It is trying to protect access to public service broadcast.
The Minister and the Government have agreed and understood that people are watching live TV on catch-up. They are saying that a broadcaster’s public service obligations can include on-demand services because of the number of people that are watching television on catch-up. It is exactly the same with radio. I do not understand how he can suggest that the line be drawn where it has been. To me, protecting live radio and live television means protecting access to those on-demand and catch-up services for the same programmes that someone would be listening to on demand.
Andy Carter
I am fairly sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying, although I have to say that there is a slight difference, as there is no provision in the Bill for public service elements of a licence to be delivered through on-demand services. There is a difference, I am afraid, and I think the Minister is right in that respect.
Kirsty Blackman
There is provision for public service elements of television to be delivered through on-demand services in the Bill. I do not see why people would not understand that there is the same benefit in accessing this stuff on demand. On radio programming, whether I listen to “Wake Up to Money” at 5 am or 3 pm, I am still getting the same public service benefit from listening to that. I can understand why the BBC, when it is having charter negotiations, might be saying, “We produce this programme, however many people listen to it at the time. Many people listen to it on catch-up, so this is part of the public service benefit and public service good that we provide for the licence fee as part of our charter obligations and as part of our relationship with the Government and with the general public.”
Turning to the amendments that I have tabled, there possibly are different amendments that could have a similar effect on on-demand services and catch-up. I would appreciate some flexibility from the Minister. I understand that the Government are trying to legislate for live radio, but they have chosen to draw an arbitrary line. It would be better if the line were slightly further over than it is. We will have to disagree, so I would like to press amendment 45 to a vote.
The Chair
Before we vote on amendment 45, may I check Stephanie Peacock’s intentions for new clause 3?
Stephanie Peacock
It depends somewhat on what happens with the amendment; I know the vote will come later. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made the case in some detail and, in my intervention, I also made the case on this contradiction. I completely accept that there is a slight difference between audio and visual content, but, again, I am concerned about the lack of future-proofing. My intentions therefore depend somewhat on this vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 48, page 93, leave out lines 26 to 28.
This amendment would remove the proposed new section 362BH(4), which provides for powers that could in future prohibit or restrict radio stations from levying charges on voice assistant platforms.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 52, in clause 48, page 94, line 27, leave out
“the provider of the selected service agrees”,
and insert
“requested by the provider of the selected service”.
This amendment would clarify that pre-roll advertising would only be allowed if it is something the radio provider has requested.
Amendment 48, in clause 48, page 95, line 3, at end insert—
“(5A) The provider of a radio selection service must provide providers of internet radio services, at their request, with effective, high-quality, continuous and real-time access to, and use of, aggregated and non-aggregated data, including personal data (subject to subsection (7)), that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant radio selection services by users.
(5B) For the purposes of the personal data referred to in subsection (5A), providers of radio selection services must provide for such access to, and use of, personal data only where the data are directly connected with the services offered by the relevant provider of internet radio services through the relevant radio selection services.”
This amendment and Amendment 49 would require designated radio selection services to provide radio stations with effective, high quality and real time access to user data that is generated by listeners of those stations.
Amendment 49, in clause 48, page 95, line 7, after “(4)” insert “or (5A)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 48.
Amendment 53, in clause 48, page 95, line 12, at end insert
“or impose any other conditions which would have the same effect”.
This amendment would strengthen the “no charging” provision on voice assistant platforms so that it covers non-financial charges that they could levy on radio stations.
Kirsty Blackman
It is me again, with further amendments on radio.
Amendment 50 would remove the powers that could, in future, prohibit or restrict radio stations from levying charges on voice assistant platforms, which is not unreasonable. I will not say too much about it, as it pretty much speaks for itself.
Amendment 48 concerns designated radio stations and data. It is particularly important for the BBC but also for commercial radio platforms. There is no form of consistent or coherent legislative or regulatory ability for radio services to access high-quality aggregated or non-aggregated data about listeners. Particularly for the BBC, accessing that data and being able to prove how many people are listening to radio services is difficult when none of the platforms has any requirement to provide it. I understand commercial sensitivities and why platforms would like to keep the data and not share it, or at least why they would be uncertain about sharing it, but public service obligations require these organisations to understand the data they receive so that they can make sure that they reach the audiences they wish to reach. If Radio 5 Live is mostly listened to through tech platforms rather than through radios, how can the BBC say how many people are listening to it? How can it understand what its listeners want if it is not able to access data on how many people are really enjoying listening to “Wake Up to Money” or BBC Radio Scotland’s “Sportsound”. If it does not have the flexibility and the ability to access data, it cannot put on the programmes that people really want. It cannot move and change with changing listener habits and cannot ensure that the general public are provided with the best possible services.
With commercial radio stations, it is slightly different. Obviously, they want to appeal to their audiences, but they have to be able to make the case to advertisers about how many people are listening to their services. They have to be able to access some of the data to see who it is that they are appealing to and who is listening to their services. If a shop sells lots of clothing, it will keep an eye on how much clothing is sold—what is selling, what is doing well—and it will buy less of the stuff that is not doing well. The amendment simply asks for a level of parity to some of the information available.
Andy Carter
There is something really interesting around data sharing, particularly for a commercial station’s audience. Commercial stations sell advertising based on the number of ears listening. If all of the data is controlled by the platforms and there is no way for radio stations to access that data, the ability for a commercial operator to continue to sell advertising is significantly limited. Where we have operated previously in a linear environment, diaries placed in people’s homes provide a certain level of data. But the ability for online services to provide much more transparency around the audiences that they deliver is controlled by a third party, and that becomes incredibly dangerous and difficult. So I think there is something in data sharing that we should perhaps consider. The issue also exists for many other forms of media as well. It is similar for TV, for example—it is not just limited to radio.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. It is not just limited to radio, but the BBC has control over iPlayer and can see how many people are viewing it, whereas it has much less control and understanding in relation to things streamed through tech platforms. We cannot stream BBC programmes other than through the iPlayer, but its radio programmes can be streamed other than through BBC Sounds.
To give a level of reassurance on the data sharing, it is not about sharing personal data that people do not consent to being shared. If we set up a new mobile phone, for example, it asks if we are willing to share data and information. I would ask for data sharing to happen only for people who have consented to their data being shared, which a lot of people do.
Lastly, I want to touch on amendment 52, which is about pre-roll advertising. The amendment would clarify that pre-roll advertising would be allowed only if it is something that the radio provider had requested. I think that is the direction that the Minister and the Government are going in, anyway, but we need clarification about pre-roll advertising because I would like the provider of the selected service to agree to it.
We have mentioned already the basis on which commercial radio is run, how advertising pays for commercial radio and how it is able to produce its services and sell them because it can provide adverts that are relevant to people. If every time we listen to Classic FM, we get an advertisement that Classic FM has not consented to, we might end up in a situation where people say, “I don’t want to listen to 30 seconds of adverts. I will just listen to something else.” It should be Classic FM that is making that choice, not the tech services through which it is being streamed. Radio providers should be the ones making the decisions, because it should be their judgment whether it is worth playing those 30 seconds of advertising, whether that will turn people off, and whether it is the right commercial choice to include it in their service. It should be the providers’ choice, rather than that of the tech platforms. Amendment 52 relates specifically to that.
Stephanie Peacock
All the amendments in this group refer to the relationship between internet radio stations and radio selection services. As I have mentioned previously, striking the right balance between the two groups will be integral to the success of the regime as a whole. It is with that in mind that I will address amendments 48 and 49 together, before looking at amendments 52, 50 and 53.
On amendments 48 and 49, data is among the, or possibly the most, highly valued assets in our modern, tech-forward society. I am well aware of that, having served as shadow Minister for Data not too long ago and, having sat opposite the Minister for a lengthy discussion on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, I know he is too.
Data is key to innovation, unlocking benefits for users and growing an organisation more broadly. It is also crucial for creating the mutually beneficial advertising partnerships on which commercial radio naturally relies, alongside many of our other creative industries. I realise the vital importance of radio stations being able to access data for their audiences, regardless of the fact that such audiences might be listening through a smart speaker. I therefore appreciate the intent of amendments 48 and 49, which seek to ensure designated radio selection services provide stations with user data.
It was my understanding, however, that the need for data was one of the primary reasons for including preferred routes as part of the clause. Indeed, the BBC told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that
“having the ability to play out through our preferred service means that we then get that data to allow us to improve our services. That is why it is such an important provision that should remain in the Bill”.
I am therefore keen to understand from the Minister whether it is his understanding that the requirement for smart speakers to provide a service through a preferred route inherently includes a guarantee that data will be accessible to radio stations as a result. If not, I hope the Minister can take on board what the amendments are trying to achieve and provide us with a comprehensive reassurance that radio stations will have access to user data as they deserve.
I turn to amendment 52. Unlike the draft version of the Bill, the published version signals that pre-roll advertising might be allowed, subject to the agreement of a station. That means that an advert or branded message of the smart speaker’s choosing could play on a smart speaker before the requested radio station begins playing. That is one of a number of changes from the draft version that I believe has helped alleviate some of the strong concerns tech platforms held about this part of the Bill.
On the other hand, Radiocentre, which represents commercial radio, has worries about the new addition. In particular, it cites the difference in bargaining power that radio stations may have in comparison with a tech firm, fearing that may result in the phrase “subject to the agreement of a station” being abused through effective coercion. That would effectively mean that radio stations are forced to take on adverts before their content starts playing.
I understand the concern and am supportive of the way the part as a whole has sought to redress the power imbalance between radio and platforms and secure a healthy future partnership between the two. However, I hope that Ofcom’s ability to enforce the regime more broadly as a result of the Bill will provide protections against abuse of the system, so long as Ofcom is appropriately empowered. There should be protections against any situation where a radio station is forced to allow a pre-roll advertisement against its will.
Can the Minister confirm whether the Bill does enough to ensure that will be the case and provide assurances that the protections for radio stations to refuse will be properly enforced? If he can—and I hope he will—I believe the amendment may not be necessary. After all, it is hard to imagine a situation where a radio provider would freely request a pre-roll advertisement, and I worry that, as a result, the amendment may have the counterintuitive effect of disrupting tech platforms’ precarious acceptance of the part more generally in its published version, compared with its draft.
Amendment 50 seeks to remove the restriction that would mean radio stations cannot charge smart speakers for their services. Conversely, amendment 53 seeks to extend the equivalent restriction on platforms to cover non-financial charges. It is my understanding that the premise of the relevant sections of the Bill is quite simple: to ensure that neither party charges the other. That seems fair to me, as it applies both ways. Can the Minister confirm whether this part looks to ensure that neither radio services nor smart speakers can charge the other when carrying out their duties under this part? If that is the case, any change to that arrangement, as sought by these amendments, may cause an unfair imbalance where it is currently an equal measure.
However, by way of reassurance for radio services that may be concerned about their bargaining power, I hope that the Minister will outline explicitly the protections in place throughout the Bill to ensure that the regime will be enforced with integrity. It is, of course, important that radio stations can be carried by platforms regardless of any power imbalance, and without having to face any unnecessary charges or burdens. That will provide certainty for radio stations and clarity for platforms, both of which need to accept and understand of the regime if it is to work as intended.
Sir John Whittingdale
I will start with amendment 50. As the hon. Member for Barnsley East has set out, the whole purpose of the regime we are putting in place is to ensure that the provision of live radio via smart speakers or similar devices is not monetised by either party and that there are protections for radio stations from having to sadly face charges imposed on them by platforms. At the moment, we agree that it is very unlikely that a station would be in a position to extract charges from a platform; the reverse is the case. However, in the widespread consultation we had—the hon. Lady has also referred to the discussions she has had with platforms—it was felt that nevertheless there did need to be some fall-back protection in place. If the hon. Lady’s proposed amendments were to be made, there would be no ability for the regime to be updated in the future, were the market to develop in such a way as to make it a realistic prospect. We think it is important to have that safeguard power should we one day encounter a situation where radio stations sought to extract charges from a platform.
Any exercise of the power within the Bill is subject to consultation, as set out in proposed new section 362BH to the Communications Act 2003, and it would also need to be approved by each House through the affirmative procedure. We nevertheless think the power is an important one, and I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley East will consider not pressing her amendment.
Turning to amendment 52, we do not think there is a need to change the wording of the current provision. There are a number of ways through which a station can reach its listeners via their connected devices. They can do so directly, through the use of a service operated by the platform; there are, in particular, means such as the Amazon Alexa radio skills kit, which offers an extremely effective way—particularly for small stations—to provide their content via the internet. Some of the aggregators, such as Global Player or BBC Sounds, act as a portal through which a number of different stations provided by the same operator can be made available. Others, such as TuneIn, bring together a range of different stations from different providers.
It will be for each station to decide the option that best fits its needs and to take advantage of the protections offered by the Bill. Some of those options may involve the inclusion of a short period of advertising before the radio station is played. However, the provisions in proposed new section 362BI are clear that advertising cannot be imposed on a station—it must be agreed to. This will ensure there remains scope for mutually beneficial arrangements, while ensuring that radio maintains control over the content that reaches its listeners. For that reason, I do not think the amendment, as the hon. Member for Barnsley East suggests, is necessary.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the argument the Minister is making, and I did not really want to interrupt, but for clarity, these amendments are in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, not mine.
Sir John Whittingdale
I do apologise. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was endorsing them, but I will direct my remarks particularly to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North.
Stephanie Peacock
If the Minister was listening to my speech, he would know that I am more sympathetic to his position than to that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but it is a fine balance between both the platforms and the radio.
Sir John Whittingdale
And indeed a fine balance between the Government and the SNP. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying her position; I direct my remarks particularly to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North.
The Government absolutely recognise the intention behind amendments 48 and 49, but we do not think it appropriate to include such provisions within the Bill. We absolutely acknowledge that it would be of benefit to radio stations to be assured of access to listener data above and beyond the data that radio stations collect themselves, from monitoring their own streams or from surveys such as those by Radio Joint Audience Research. The provisions in the Bill are being put in place to address issues specific to radio, namely securing BBC and Ofcom-licensed commercial and community stations’ ability to access their listeners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South made clear, the issues raised in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North could apply across a wide range of sectors and are therefore more appropriately addressed in the context of the Government’s wider work on competition in digital markets.
I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will, to some extent, be reassured by the provisions in proposed new section 362BI that allow radio stations to nominate a preferred route for their service to be delivered to listeners, provided that the route is not unduly burdensome for the platform to deliver. I take the point from the hon. Member for Barnsley East about the importance that some stations attach to the ability to designate a preferred route. These measures do provide scope for a route through which—subject to a listener’s consent, for example through logging in—a broadcaster may be able to access valuable data to enable it to further improve its service. For those reasons, we do not support the amendment; I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will not press it.
In addressing amendment 53, it may be helpful to set out the context of the overall regime. At the moment, platforms and radio stations both benefit from carriage: the platforms provide radio with another way to reach its audiences, and listening to radio is one of the main reasons why people buy devices such as smart speakers. At this stage, there is no evidence to suggest that the platforms are seeking to charge stations for access, but as more and more listening shifts online, there is a risk that the balance will shift in favour of the platforms, creating an economic incentive for them to monetise the content to which they provide access.
Proposed new section 362BI will address the issue by limiting the scope for platforms to use their position to monetise the carriage of radio in the future. In the event that they seek to do so in ways that might not be covered by these provisions, or indeed by the ongoing work within Government on competition in digital markets, the new provisions will provide the Secretary of State with powers to intervene. In particular, proposed new section 362BP(2) will enable the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations
“about the terms and conditions that may be offered by the provider of a radio selection service to the provider of a relevant internet radio service for or in connection with the use of the service to access the relevant internet radio service”
and
“about the charges that may be imposed by the provider of a radio selection service”.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will not press her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister for that. I make it clear that there is not a fine line between the two parties; there is a gaping chasm. However, in relation to the Bill, I think we are largely pointing in the same direction.
Kirsty Blackman
On almost every issue we have raised, there have been slight differences between us and the Government, but we are generally happy with the direction in which they are going. I am only disappointed that it has taken 20 years to get to a Media Bill, and I am very keen for the next Media Bill to come more quickly, because things are changing very quickly. The need for changes in legislation to keep up with the changing shape of our world will come more quickly than in 20 years’ time. I made exactly the same case during the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023. It should have been created when I was first using the internet in the early ’90s, rather than waiting until 2022 or 2023.
Sir John Whittingdale
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 48, page 102, line 11, after “service” insert
“, or—
(b) a person who was but is no longer a provider of a relevant internet radio service,”.
This amendment and Amendment 13 enable OFCOM to give a provisional notice of contravention to a former provider of a relevant internet radio service.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 13 to 15.
Clause stand part.
Schedule 9.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am grateful to hon. Members for their participation in this debate on part 6, which is an important part of the Bill. It is based on the findings of the digital radio and audio review, taking account of the way in which radio listening is changing, as we have discussed, and in particular the awareness of platforms acting as a gatekeeper with the potential ability to direct listeners away from UK radio content towards other services, such as their own music playlists or third-party services that have paid for prominence or that seek to leverage value in charges.
Our published impact assessment sets out how the economic relationship between stations and platforms will change as an increased share of listening moves online. That shift will increase the economic incentive for platforms with a significant share of radio listening to seek to monetise the carriage of radio services, for example through requiring radio to give up a fixed share of advertising inventory. The ability of UK radio to continue to deliver public value to its listeners would be endangered if platforms were able to do so effectively.
The purpose of these provisions in the Bill is to put in place a targeted package of measures that will require the major platforms to ensure that UK radio stations remain available to their listeners on request, and that will prevent those platforms from inserting or overlaying their own content, such as advertising or charging for access. This will ensure that UK radio remains accessible to listeners on their connected audio devices, while providing scope for innovative collaboration and partnerships between stations and platforms.
The measures do not go as far as those proposed in the digital radio and audio review. For example, they do not include measures on access to data transparency of algorithms or self-preferencing of services. Those are wider cross-sectoral issues and, as such, are more appropriately addressed through the wider work that is ongoing within Government relating to competition in digital markets.
The measures in this Bill focus on broadcast radio. Internet-only radio-like services and other online audio are not within the scope of the Bill. Our priority is to protect the public value of radio services that are subject to oversight and sanction from Ofcom, for example through the broadcasting code. We have also listened carefully to the practical concerns issued by the tech platforms during consideration of the draft Bill. We have made a number of changes to ensure that the effect of the measures is reasonable and proportionate while reflecting the policy intention to secure radio’s position in the long term as it continues to transition from an analogue to a digital future.
The provisions inserting proposed new sections 362BA to 362BE into the Communications Act 2003 therefore provide a framework for the identification of “radio selection services”—the voice-activated software underpinning connected audio devices—and then the process by which such services can be designated. The significance of voice activation is that, in large part, it enables platforms to take on a gatekeeper role; it is often the voice assistant intermediary through which listeners may be directed away from radio. It will be for Ofcom to consult and to advise the Secretary of State on which platforms should be designated.
The provisions in proposed new sections 362BF to 362BH set out that the live online streams of BBC and licensed commercial and community stations will be able to receive the protections set out under the regime, provided that those streams correspond to the station’s broadcast service and that the station has opted in to the regime. The protections do not extend to on-demand content produced by stations, or to other unregulated online-only content. We recognise that the audio market, and listening habits, will continue to evolve, so the provisions in proposed new section 362BH allow for amendment of the relevant definitions, which will allow this regime to keep pace with that evolution. [Interruption.] It is not that dramatic! Proposed new section 362BH also includes a specific reference to stations seeking to charge the platforms for provision of their services. Although, as I have said, there is no evidence to date of stations being in a position to do this, the provision recognises that potential risk and clarifies our expectation that the carriage of radio services should not be monetised by either party.
Proposed new section 362BI sets out the duties that will be imposed on designated radio selection services in relation to those radio stations that are within scope of the regime. It will be supported by the code of practice prepared by Ofcom in accordance with the Bill. The first duty, set out in subsection (1), essentially says that when a listener asks for a radio station, they should receive that station. The second duty is that the station should not be interrupted; while brief identifications or pre-roll adverts are permitted, once the station is up and running it must be allowed to continue. The third duty is the default route protection. The fourth duty is that stations must not be charged for the provision of their live services. Finally, the intention is not to prevent a user from setting their own preferences, where available, or using the device for other means.
Government amendments 12 and 13 are technical amendments to correct a drafting omission in proposed new section 362BS, which deals with provisional notices of contravention that Ofcom may issue to enforce requirements. The new provision covers only former providers of radio selection services; it does not cover former providers of a relevant internet radio service. Unless the amendments are agreed to, it will not be possible for Ofcom to issue a provisional notice of contravention to a former provider of a relevant internet radio service. The amendments deal with an obvious gap in the enforcement mechanisms; I hope, with this explanation, that hon. Members can support them.
Government amendments 14 and 15 are also technical, and will correct a drafting omission. I hope that they will similarly be supported.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mike Wood.)
11.24 am
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Media Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2023 - (12 Dec 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendments 13 to 15
Clause stand part.
Schedule 9.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I am pleased to finally address clause 48, which I am happy to support. I will begin by outlining why this part of the Bill is so important.
The introduction of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill was welcomed by Labour, which has led the way in calling for large tech companies to be properly regulated and for the need to ensure competition in digital markets. However, although the DMCC Bill contains a package of measures to protect consumers, enhance innovation and unlock growth, it is cross-economy legislation that is not tailored to the unique challenges faced by UK radio services.
The Government have recognised that in an age of shifting consumption habits, there is a need for provisions that protect our public service broadcasters, so it was absolutely vital that the Media Bill did not miss the opportunity to provide protections for radio, too. As has been mentioned, radio stations are of great importance to 50 million weekly listeners from all corners of the country, so it is vital that as technology rapidly evolves, people in the UK are guaranteed access to the radio services they know and love. The new regime set up by the Bill does not seek to give radio undue benefits, but rather looks to preserve the current state of play, in which such services can be listened to at first request and without unneeded interruption. That is for the benefit of listeners.
That means that voice-activated platforms cannot play their own playlists or services when a customer requests an Ofcom-licensed radio service, or overlay their own advertising into radio broadcasts without the permission of the broadcaster. Interruptions will be allowed only if a listener has explicitly made a request to be notified, for example through an alarm or call. That is important if radio services are to reach their listeners and continue to secure advertising revenue, and important for platforms, which will be able to ensure that their customers’ requests are dealt with precisely. Indeed, it hardly seems favourable to platforms to allow their customers to become frustrated after not receiving a service that they have requested multiple times through a voice command.
Importantly, the Bill has retained the requirement on designated radio selection services to use a broadcaster’s preferred way of delivering their station to listeners —for example, they might want it delivered via the BBC Sounds app, or through the Global Player. That vital safeguard will ensure that radio services can access the valuable data they need to improve their services, innovate and best serve their audiences. However, I recognise that platforms have been concerned about the number of routes they might be expected to deliver. Google said in evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that it can take around a year of engineering and tech work to onboard a preferred route, particularly because listeners can ask for a station in various ways; for example, a listener could refer to the same service as “6 Music”, “BBC 6” or “BBC Radio 6”, or use one of a number of nicknames. However, as Radiocentre has argued, the vast majority of stations are covered by a small number of apps.
The explanatory notes to the Bill clarify that a preferred route may be ruled out if it is “unduly burdensome”. That balances radio services’ needs with platforms’ ability to realistically cater for those needs. I am hopeful that this clarification will provide a solid basis on which the regime can be built.
On radio selection services, the definition in the Bill is designed to capture smart speakers, but it can be amended by the Secretary of State via the affirmative procedure. We discussed why an ability to amend the definition is so important during our debate on the inclusion of car entertainment systems. I am also pleased that there is now a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult Ofcom when making regulations to alter this definition, as the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended. However, there has been some confusion about the existing definition and whether the regulations will apply to smart TVs and streaming players using voice activation. Can the Minister confirm whether such devices will be included? If not, could they be in future?
Turning to designated radio selection services, as I said in debate on my amendments 32 and 33, it is a shame that the CMS Committee’s recommendations on delegated legislation were not accepted. I am pleased, however, that it seems that there will be mechanisms for de-designating devices, to ensure the exclusion of legacy devices. That is beneficial for platforms and broadcasters, who would find it quite a burden if requirements applied where devices were no longer supported.
I do not have any particular problems with the lines in the Bill relating to the meaning of “internet radio service”, or the list of relevant internet radio services, particularly as there is now a power in the Bill to amend that definition through the affirmative procedure. However, as has been discussed, the Bill misses the opportunity to bring within scope podcasts and IP-only services.
Finally, I would like to raise concerns passed on to me by TuneIn, a radio aggregator that allows listeners to easily access online the radio stations that they want to listen to. It worries that without an explicit “must offer” requirement, the Bill risks unintentionally making it legal for a radio station to deny its service to any platform or device. TuneIn warns that, without a requirement on radio broadcasters to ensure that their services are always offered to platforms, devices and apps, there can be no guarantee that radio will be freely accessible across those platforms. That could threaten the entire premise of the regime outlined in this clause and, of course, potentially damage TuneIn’s business as a radio aggregator. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Department has considered the concerns of TuneIn, and whether he can guarantee that the Bill will ensure that radio is freely accessible across all platforms, rather than just a handful of platforms.
To conclude, there has been lots of contention over this part of the Bill, but I am pleased with its intent to protect radio services, and with the changes that have already been made to improve it and make it more workable. There are a few changes to delegated legislation that I would have liked to have seen, and a few questions to be asked around scope, particularly when it comes to the exclusion of podcasts and the devices covered. However, overall, I welcome the inclusion of this part in the Bill, and I look forward to seeing the regime in action, so that listeners across the country can continue to enjoy their favourite, trusted radio services.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
We have had a useful debate on one of the central parts of the Bill, and although the hon. Lady described it as one of the more contentious parts, I think there is widespread agreement on it. We were very grateful to the CMS Committee for strongly supporting the inclusion of these measures in the Bill, and since then, we have had extensive consultations with both the radio sector and the platforms. Some of the concerns expressed by platforms were not entirely justified, and I hope that we have been able to reassure them.
This part is focused on live radio broadcast, but obviously we will monitor the development of consumers’ listening habits, and there are powers available to broaden the scope of the Bill if it becomes clear that that is necessary. However, in summation, I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her support, and to the rest of the Committee, and commend clause 48 to the Committee.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in clause 48, page 102, line 12, after “service” insert
“or (as the case may be) a relevant internet radio service”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 12.
Amendment 14, in clause 48, page 103, line 12, after “service” insert
“, or
(b) a person who was but is no longer a provider of a relevant internet radio service,”
This amendment and Amendment 15 enable OFCOM to give a confirmation decision to a former provider of a relevant internet radio service.
Amendment 15, in clause 48, page 103, line 13, after “service” insert
“or (as the case may be) a relevant internet radio service”—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 14.
Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 49
Penalties under Parts 3A and 3B of the Communications Act 2003
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 49 inserts proposed new schedules 16A and 16B, as set out in schedules 10 and 11, into the Communications Act 2003. These new schedules make further provisions about financial penalties and the liability of joint entities in relation to designated internet programme services, regulated television selection services, relevant internet radio services and designated radio selection services. In particular, schedule 16A sets out the principles by which Ofcom will assess penalty amounts and maximum penalties for non-compliance with the requirements on providers of those services set out in parts 2 and 6 of the Bill. For the BBC, S4C or a person who fails to comply with an information notice, the maximum penalty is £250,000. In all other cases, the maximum penalty that Ofcom can impose against providers of services is the greater of £250,000 or 5% of the provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue.
As is the case under the existing prominence regime, Ofcom will have responsibility for enforcing the new online prominence framework and that relating to radio selection services. It is therefore important that the regulator has a range of enforcement tools at its disposal for tackling contraventions, including the ability to impose a financial penalty. We believe that these provisions ensure that Ofcom can take enforcement action against the relevant provider in a proportionate and effective manner.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 49 introduces schedules 10 and 11, which provide further information about enforcement and how it relates to the new prominence regime for our public service broadcasters, as well as the new regime for radio services on smart speakers and voice-activated platforms. I will speak briefly about both schedules in turn.
Schedule 10 sets out how penalties for failure to comply with the relevant regimes will be calculated. The ability to issue penalties is an important backstop that will ensure compliance with the regime while incentivising mutually beneficial commercial partnerships. However, to secure the integrity of the regime, it is important that there is consistency and fairness in how the backstop can be used, so it is good to see set out in legislation the principles that Ofcom must apply when determining the amount of any penalty, as well as how maximum penalties will be calculated. It is right that these should have the potential to be significant—they can amount to either £250,000 or 5% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue—so that they can serve their purpose as an effective deterrent. I am also pleased that the schedule allows for those amounts to be adjusted, should they need future-proofing in any way. Any change would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would allow for scrutiny. Overall, I believe that schedule 10 is a necessary consequence of the regimes that the Bill sets up, and I have no particular issues to raise with the way that they have been drafted.
Schedule 11 is an important extension of the backstop powers awarded to Ofcom. It sets out the liability of parent entities and subsidiaries, and explains how confirmation decisions, penalty notices or provisional notices may be issued to them. Having that clarification in the Bill will hopefully make for a clear enforcement framework for Ofcom, and will make clear the responsibilities on those to whom the rules apply, so I welcome the inclusion of the schedule, which is necessary to the introduction of the two prominence regimes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 50
Awards of costs
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 50, page 112, line 33, at end insert—
“(4) This section does not have effect until both Houses of Parliament have passed a motion in the form ‘That this House is satisfied that an effective alternative method is in place of persuading publishers to become members of an approved regulator; and therefore approves the repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.’”
Kirsty Blackman
I will speak fairly briefly. Clause 50 is contentious. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the lack of accountability of the press, particularly the national press. After the Leveson inquiry, independent regulation of the press was recommended. Impress was set up, and that system is working well; over 200 newspapers signed up to it, but not one of the national ones did. The whole point of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was to ensure that newspapers signed up to Impress, and were regulated by that independent regulator—it is not the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which is not an independent regulator.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, and I hope, time permitting, to speak on clause stand part. The amendment refers to “persuading”. Does she have any suggestion that she can share with the Committee on how publishers might be persuaded, given that although this sword of Damocles has been hanging over them for a very long time, none of them has signed up? Has she had any conversations with publishers of the national or regional press about how her ends might be achieved?
Kirsty Blackman
It is incredibly difficult to find a way forward. The hon. Gentleman is right that the issue has been left hanging. Perhaps the press never believed that the Government would implement section 40 and make it work. Maybe the sword hanging over them was not big enough. Whatever has happened, it has not persuaded them to sign up. My key request is that the Government persuades them to sign up, using whatever methods are at their disposal. It is important that we have independent regulation, and that newspapers sign up.
To illustrate the point, IPSO upholds fewer than 1% of complaints that are brought to it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been through the IPSO process, but it is incredibly complex and difficult. It is supposedly set up in such a way that anybody can access it, but without the advice of a lawyer, it is very difficult for a person to ensure that their concerns are heard and their complaint is upheld by IPSO.
The Government should use all the tools at their disposal. They should be having conversations and doing everything that they can to persuade newspapers to sign up. Section 40 should be removed only when there is an alternative—unless, of course, the Government are going to totally dump the idea of having independent press regulation and just give up on this.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Surely one of the reasons for what my hon. Friend describes is that IPSO exists as an alternative. As she says, less than 1% of complaints are ultimately upheld—the figure I have is 0.3%--with cases taking on average almost six months to reach a ruling. There is a disincentive effect, and the turnout says it all.
Kirsty Blackman
That is absolutely the case. It is very difficult for people to interact with IPSO in the first place, so a significant number of complaints never even get to IPSO, never mind going through the process and then not being upheld. The current situation is concerning, but it is for the Government to ensure that the newspapers are properly regulated. It is for the Government to enact and ensure compliance with the outcomes of the Leveson inquiry. I would like to hear more from the Government about what they plan to do to ensure that newspapers are properly held to account and properly regulated, and thus increase the level of trust in our media and, as a result, in our democracy. Those two things are inextricably linked.
Amendment 41 is about trying to find a way forward. The Government will have to persuade the newspapers to sign up, and they will have to persuade the Houses of Parliament that they have done enough to ensure that the newspapers will sign up. If all the newspapers signed up, it would be easy to persuade the Houses that whatever method the Government put in place had actually worked. That is the outcome I would like to see: everybody signed up. Then neither House would have any problem passing this clause to get rid of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Rob Butler
I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but, with great respect, I disagree with her. I will outline why I disagree with her and why I support clause 50. I do so from a couple of perspectives: first, as the current chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries chaired before me, with rather more success and aplomb, I suspect; and, secondly, as one who spent the first 15 years of his career as a journalist. I also strongly supported the print media in its original campaign against state regulation, it is fair to say, including the provision of some professional advice at the time.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act has never been commenced. I suggest that, to some extent, that shows it is not necessary and it is therefore appropriate to repeal it. However, there is also an important point of principle here: freedom of the press is sacrosanct and must be seen to be sacrosanct. I am quite sure that each and every one of us on this Committee has seen articles about ourselves in newspapers or online that we disagreed with, that were not wholly accurate, and that we really did not like, but if those articles are fundamentally wrong or harmful, legal sanctions are already available to deal with them, notably the laws of libel. There is also IPSO, which I will come on to in a moment. The fact that newspapers publish articles that are sometimes uncomfortable is not in itself reason to impose the draconian sanction that section 40 would have wielded.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North suggests persuading newspapers to participate, but we have had a very long period in which it has been clear that they are not persuadable; any persuasion would therefore effectively be enforcement, which in turn is effectively state regulation. That is why we have been in this difficulty for a long time. When I spoke about this on Second Reading, I was asked why newspapers did not avoid the prospect of paying huge court expenses by signing up to an approved regulator under our royal charter, which is what the hon. Lady is suggesting. The answer is simple: not a single national or regional newspaper or magazine of any significance is willing to do that as a matter of principle, because they see it as state regulation. I have a great deal of sympathy with that perspective.
The secretariat for our APPG on media freedom is provided by Reporters Without Borders, which is a highly respected advocate for freedom of the press worldwide that campaigns tirelessly for journalists’ voices to be heard, sometimes at considerable risk. Reporters Without Borders was calling for the repeal of section 40 as long ago as 2016, and it continues to do so today. Its submission to the Government’s consultation on repealing section 40, which was held way back in 2016-17, stated:
“Section 40 would introduce an unprecedented chilling effect for publishers and journalists in the UK, leading to self-censorship and a reduction in public interest reporting. The essential role of the press in our democracy would therefore be undermined, as well as the scope for any writer to investigate matters of concern and national interest for the public.”
When the public were asked in that same consultation, they expressed a resounding desire for section 40 to be repealed: 79% of direct responses favoured full repeal, and the most common reason given was the “chilling effect” it would have on the freedom of the press.
Kirsty Blackman
When I was a councillor back in 2007, there was an article in the local newspaper that said that a fellow councillor and I had requested that Irn Bru be provided in the Members’ Tea Room. In fact, all that had happened during the course of that meeting was that a Conservative councillor had asked for Earl Grey to be provided. We went to IPSO, which said that the newspaper was allowed to write that story because it was just the cut and thrust of political discussion, even though it was blatantly false. If IPSO is so unable to uphold the truth, is there any point in anyone going to it?
Rob Butler
Strictly speaking, I would suggest that that was libel, so there were legal routes available, but—to pre-empt the point that the hon. Lady might make—I accept that that is a very lengthy and expensive process, and that it might be a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I would say that IPSO was wrong in the case. I am very open about it: if something is said that is patently untrue, IPSO needs to hold its members to account, and what the hon. Lady said to some extent undermines that. That is what IPSO needs to take on.
The News Media Association has provided us all with a briefing, much of which is compelling. I will not risk the wrath of Committee members by reading it out in its entirety, but I highlight a couple of points. For example:
“Section 40 would cost the national and local press an estimated £100 million a year to tell the truth. This would be particularly devastating for local publishers.”
In my earlier contributions in Committee, I have been clear that I am concerned to ensure that local news is genuinely local; I got very close to the position of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on that point at one stage. We should not do anything that makes local news coverage more difficult.
There are perfectly legitimate concerns about behaviour of the press and opportunity for redress, but the regulatory landscape has fundamentally changed since section 40 was introduced. I worked with some newspapers at the time, and they sat up and took notice when the threat of this legal sanction was over them. Publishers and editors have recognised that they have to face up to their responsibilities, and IPSO is much tougher than what was there before. There are serious sanctions, including, ultimately, the £1 million penalty. I completely hear what the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Arfon have said about the difficulties of getting through that. There may be more to do to make IPSO effective and easily accessible, but that does not mean that we have to have state regulation, which would be going much too far.
Hywel Williams
How does the hon. Gentleman expect IPSO to be persuaded to be more amenable?
Rob Butler
What is influential is the understanding of where public opinion is. The thought that the public had had enough was effectively what played a very big part in influencing the regulation of the press. The press did not ignore Leveson; they were very conscious of what was going on. I would certainly have no hesitation in telling people in the media, “You need to recognise that what you have is not quite enough to satisfy legitimate public concern.” Particular examples are helpful; hon. Member for Aberdeen North has given me one, which I shall not hesitate to quote if I have such a conversation.
It is worth also saying that there have been two independent reviews of IPSO. They stated that it was effective and independent, notwithstanding hon. Members’ comments. The second found that IPSO’s
“supportive, but challenging engagement to improve standards”
was
“exactly what an effective regulator should be doing”.
There is an argument that, even if it is not perfect, the press has cleaned house itself.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the case being made by the hon. Gentleman and I understand his position. However, on his point, he is sort of blurring the lines between a state regulator and an independent regulator. He is using the term “state regulator” for Impress when the whole idea, outcome and recommendation from Leveson was to have an independent regulator.
Rob Butler
That is not how the press has seen Impress, because it is set up by statute. The press’s argument has always been that it is effectively state-sanctioned and state-imposed. We can call it independent, but the press has never believed that Impress truly would be independent.
As I said, I have to be brief as, with the Committee’s permission, I have been summoned to an important meeting in a few moments, so I apologise for a short absence. My final comment is that at a time when we see freedom of the press under ever-increasing threat around the world, not least in Russia, repealing section 40 and demonstrating that the state should have no direct role would be a powerful sign of the UK’s commitment to a media free of Government shackle or interference. I consequently oppose the hon. Lady’s amendment and fully support the clause standing part of the Bill.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Following my hon. Friend’s speech, I want to speak briefly on the issue, in which I have taken an interest over many years. The Minister is nodding and he will remember that I served as a member of the Committee he chaired in 2011 looking at the phone hacking issue and the inquiry that was held at that time. Twelve years or more have passed since then, and the media landscape now is very different.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that having a statutory regulator for the press is not compatible with our media traditions in this country. The threat of commencing section 40, with newspapers having to pay their own costs and those of the claimant even if they won the case—such a provision does not exist elsewhere in English law—would impose an onerous burden, yet the threat of commencement has not forced newspapers to seek to create or go into regulatory bodies for the press. The debates we have here on statutory regulation of the media and the debates we continually have when BBC charter renewal comes up show that whenever we create a structure, no matter how arm’s length or benign, Members of this House have points of view about how it is operated, what goes in it and how it should change or be improved. That will continue to be the case. A statutory regulator is not compatible with having a free press.
When we had the Leveson inquiry, the idea of newspapers’ business models being hollowed out by big tech platforms that would destroy their ad-funded business model was not something we considered. Newspapers were then seen as being all-powerful, extremely wealthy and well able to pay whatever charges were levelled at them. The situation is very different now.
The other issue, which I am familiar with as a former chair of the APPG on media freedom, is the issue of lawfare, whereby wealthy people, particularly oligarchs, take spurious legal action against newspapers because of content they do not like, without worrying about whether the case meets any kind of threshold. The libel laws are not absolute; they are not an absolute true-or-false test. To win, the claimant has to demonstrate that what a journalist reported has materially damaged them and their reputation, but very wealthy people do not care about that. They are quite happy to enter into such legal cases now, and even the threat of such actions deters editors from publishing stories that might be in the public interest, for fear of the almost certain legal challenge that will come back against them from people with bottomless pits of money who do not care whether they win or lose. They just seek to grind the publication into the ground with ongoing legal costs.
Commencing a regime that may open the door to yet more litigation from people who, on the whole, can easily afford it anyway, which makes the chances of success greater and which makes the cumulative impact of the costs on those publications even greater, would diminish the power of the press considerably. That would lead to a chilling effect, which was never envisaged when the Leveson report was commissioned, of inhibiting the press for fear of the cost that would come from simply doing their job and reporting the truth.
Of course, the press make mistakes and get things wrong. Newspaper editors have legal liabilities for what they publish. Members of the Committee know from our lengthy debates on measures such as the Online Safety Act 2023 that it is easy now for people to publish all sorts of stuff for which they have no legal liability—and, before the Act was passed, nor did the platforms that pursued it. The challenge that many people face, be they in the public eye or members of the community, is far more likely to be harassment and intimidation through co-ordinated attacks on social media than reporting a newspaper they do not like.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the online world is now regulated differently from newspapers as a result of the Online Safety Act? I agree with the Online Safety Act and agree that there should be more regulation online of things that are illegal, but we do not have a change in the regulation of newspapers to ensure truthfulness and lack of harm, whereas we do have some more of that in the online world.
Damian Collins
That is why it was important that there is an exemption for media organisations from the regulatory powers that Ofcom will have through the Online Safety Act. The reason those exemptions were there was that newspapers already have liability for not only the copy printed, but the adverts they accept and run. The newspaper or magazine editor is legally liable for advertising as much as they are for the articles they commission. Those liabilities and that transparency just did not exist for a lot of online publications, and it could be difficult to see who was behind it.
The challenge with the Online Safety Act was to recognise that the platforms were acting as distributors and promoters of the content—even for a lot of the content that is spam-related or comes from misinformation networks and hostile foreign states. If companies like Facebook are actively promoting that content and highlighting its existence to its users, they should have a liability for it. Newspapers and magazines already had those liabilities because it was clear who was publishing them. In the Online Safety Act, to qualify for the media exemption, it has to be clear who they are, where they are based and who the editor is, and therefore the transparency, liability and risks exist already. They did not in the online world, where many of the publishers were hidden and used that anonymity to spread lies and disinformation.
With that, the onerous costs that lawfare brings to newspapers, and the hollowing out of their business model by the ad platforms that distribute their content for nothing, there is an urgent need to have some sort of compensation mechanism for news organisations, so that local newspapers, national newspapers and magazines get fair compensation for the free distribution of their content across the web. Those are the challenges we face now, and those were things that were never envisaged at the time of Leveson.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has said many times in the debate, things move pretty fast between media Bills. This is another example of how things have moved fast again. This amendment to the law and removing section 40 from the statute books reflects the need for us to change the law to reflect the media world that exists today.
Stephanie Peacock
When Leveson produced his report over 10 years ago, he attempted to strike a careful balance between two important competing objectives: enforcing press standards and protecting the free press. As such, although the inquiry paved the way for the existence of an approved press regulator, it was decided that membership in such a regulator would be voluntary rather than mandatory for news publishers, with incentives put in place to encourage active take-up of membership. One of the major incentives to encourage membership was introduced in the form of section 40. Where papers had not signed up to an approved regulator, they would be vulnerable to paying their legal opponents’ costs where the judge considered it reasonable to do so, even if they were to win the wider case. If they were signed up to a recognised regulator, however, they would be protected from that.
Despite being introduced in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, section 40 has never been commenced and would be repealed by clause 50. We appreciate that section 40 is not a particularly well-drafted piece of legislation. Representatives from and of the press, including the NMA, have long argued that it is morally wrong to attempt to persuade them to sign up to external regulation on the basis that they would have to pay the legal fees of both sides, even when they had won the case. They say if the section was commenced, it would prove financially ruinous to them as on principle they would never sign up to such a regulator.
With over a decade passed, the media landscape has changed significantly since the Leveson report was published, as we have discussed. Almost every major press news outlet has introduced some form of regulation, whether individually or through the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which was not anticipated when the law was drafted. Publishers face significant new challenges that threaten the ability of the industry to carry out its vital work, from inflation and falls in advertising revenue to the rise of social media and the ability to share disinformation more easily online.
Amendment 41, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, acknowledges what we will do when section 40 is repealed. It remains important that we have a press that is accountable for its reporting and meets the highest ethical and journalistic standards, but given the poor drafting of section 40 and the fundamental imbalance of costs, I believe that those questions are best answered outside the matter of repeal itself. On that basis, I will not stand in the way of this Bill as a result of the Government’s decision to repeal section 40.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe, and for Aylesbury, set out some of the background to this issue in two extremely well argued speeches. This is an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I have been living with for over 10 years.
The Leveson inquiry came out of what was undoubtedly a serious abuse by the press, which resulted in criminal prosecutions and some convictions, and a general acceptance that the existing system of press regulation by the Press Complaints Commission had failed. However, the royal charter and section 40 were constructs of the then Liberal-Conservative Government; they were an attempt to find another way of dealing with the issue that would be acceptable to the press but did not represent state regulation. A royal charter was created, and the Press Recognition Panel was created, which would authorise an independent regulator and confer on it the advantages that section 40 gave.
The understanding was that the vast majority of the press would sign up to the independent regulator, and that perhaps one or two of the more recalcitrant, hard-line—probably red-top—tabloids might stand out and would need persuasion, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said when speaking to her amendment. Section 40 was about persuading those one or two remaining outliers to join the system. I must say that I still feel slightly ashamed, because I was persuaded to support the establishment of section 40 after a long discussion with the then Prime Minister.
What none of us, or at least hardly anybody, anticipated was that there would be unanimity across the whole of the media—across all the national newspapers, including those that were certainly not sympathetic to the Government, nor had committed any particular sins of the kind being looked at by Leveson. The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent—none of them was prepared to go along with that. It was not just the national newspapers that did not join, but all the local and regional papers; the big groups such as Newsquest, Reach and Johnston Press did not join.
The number of publications that chose to sign up to the regulator, which was created in order to qualify for recognition by the panel, was and is pretty small as a proportion of the industry. I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said that there were 200 publications now signed up. Most of them are niche and very small. There is nothing wrong with them; they are doing a good job, and it was their choice to join, but I am afraid that the system has failed to persuade the vast majority of publications to go along with it.
The opposition of the vast majority of publications meant that the system had failed to deliver what was intended. It was my choice, when I was Secretary of State, not to implement section 40. We announced that the Government would not bring in the order required for the powers in section 40 to come into effect. Ever since then, it has been sitting on the statute book unused, and in its place we have a new system of self-regulation.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North kept talking about the need for independent regulation. Some may have criticisms of IPSO, but IPSO is an independent regulator. It is a self-regulator, and it is outside the statutory framework. There will be decisions taken by IPSO that I do not agree with, as there were by the Press Complaints Commission, and one will never be entirely satisfied, but as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury pointed out, IPSO has been considered quite carefully by an independent assessor, and was found to be independent and delivering the kind of principles in the editors’ code that it was set up to enforce.
Stephanie Peacock
It is curious that the Minister is critiquing the Opposition’s position. The Government might be in trouble on the vote in the main Chamber today, but we are not yet in government. I think I outlined quite clearly in my speech that we do not oppose the repeal of section 40, and we appreciate that it has not worked. I also acknowledge that the media landscape has significantly changed, and any future consideration of the challenges of the press should take into account advertising, misinformation and the real challenges for local news. As much as the Minister tempts me to go into more detail, I remind him that he is still in government.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am not sure that has cast any greater light on the Opposition’s position, but it was helpful to hear more from the hon. Lady about her position. At least we know where the SNP stands; the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made it absolutely plain that the SNP is happy to support our removing this pressure on newspapers to join a state-approved or recognised regulator, but only if we put in its place another mechanism that will put equal pressure on them, and that might prove more successful, as she said, in persuading them to join up to the recognised regulator. She and her party may accept the criticism of the existing position, but at least we understand that she still wants Government pressure on newspapers to join a state-recognised regulator. That is the principle we cannot support. I am afraid that in my view her amendment is no better than the existing system. It removes one point of leverage on the press, only to replace it with a yet unspecified alternative.
I do not think it is right that Government should be involved in regulation of the press; I think it is very dangerous. Even the rather convoluted and complicated mechanism of the royal charter still represents state involvement. That flies in the face of belief in the importance to democracy of the freedom of the press, which we on the Government side regard as paramount. I am therefore absolutely committed to supporting clause 50 and the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Kirsty Blackman
I will take this opportunity to apologise, as I might have said something wrong. I might not have, but I will apologise in case I did. It might not have been a legacy press regulator that made the Irn Bru comment; it might have been the Standards Commission for Scotland. Unfortunately, it was so long ago that I cannot find online who said it. My apologies if I did get it wrong. I thought I would try to make that clear as mud for the Committee.
Turning to the Minister’s points on regulation, I completely understand his discomfort with section 40. I feel that we are in ideologically different positions. It would be slightly better if the Prime Minister had less of a hand in appointing senior figures at the BBC. We do not want to see things like that happen. If the Government want the press to be entirely Government-regulation free, that is the key point of the BBC charter that I would look to change.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am very interested in that, because it has long been established that while the board of the BBC consists of some individuals who are independently appointed, the chair is a Government appointment and, of course, the BBC board member for Scotland is appointed with the approval of the Scottish Government. All the Administrations in the UK are involved in appointments to the board. The BBC is a state-owned and state-funded broadcaster, and therefore is in a completely different position from a free press.
Kirsty Blackman
I was trying to highlight the inconsistencies in the Minister’s position. He is now saying that the BBC is a different case and therefore needs to be regulated differently. That is fine, but I had not received that clarity from what he said before; he pretty much said he was uncomfortable with some things to do with the BBC charter because of the level of Government involvement. Now I understand that he rationalises that on the basis that the BBC is a different case because of its state funding. It is helpful to have that clarity.
A number of different words are being used in relation to the regulator. We have heard “independent regulator”, “state regulator” and “self-regulator”. It would be helpful to go back to the Leveson recommendations, which I understand were for an independent regulator—that is the way it was phrased. If the Minister and other Government Members are making the case that Impress is not an independent regulator but a state regulator, state-approved regulator or state-sanctioned regulator—all phrases that have been used here—then I am not sure that they can make the case that IPSO is an independent regulator, as well as saying it is a self-regulator. I am happy enough for them to suggest that IPSO is a self-regulator. That is fine, but I do not think it can claim the title of independent regulator. If the Government also believe that Impress cannot claim the title of independent regulator, I think there is a clear disparity in that position. The Government should be happy enough to say, “Neither of these are independent regulators, but we are happy with the self-regulation mechanism currently in place, and we are happy to continue with the self-regulation system.” If that is the Government position, that is absolutely fine, but painting Impress as a state regulator or painting IPSO as an as an independent regulator is wrong: IPSO is a self-regulator, and Impress is an independent regulator.
I understand the Minister’s concerns, but I do not necessarily agree with him. He summed up our position really well. We are concerned about the lack of recourse for the public, and about the current regulation system. We do not feel that it is strong enough. I understand the Minister’s position on media freedom, and his feeling that the Government should not intervene to set up even an independent regulator that would require newspapers to sign up to regulation.
I absolutely agree that things are a bit better than they were pre-Leveson. Things may tip over again. Should an issue like the phone hacking scandal emerge, or should members of the public be harassed or struggling as a result of newspaper attention, another inquiry should be set up to determine what an independent regulator should look like. A recommendation for an independent regulator is not enough; there must be clarity on how that should be set up, and that should take into account what has happened on section 40. If a properly constituted inquiry requires that an independent regulator be set up, that must be done with an awareness of the fact that Impress was not able to get national newspapers to sign up.
I appreciate that we have had a debate on amendment 41. I appreciate all the points of views from Members. It is important to discuss the issue, whether or not the repeal was in the manifesto of the Minister’s party. I will not push amendment 41 to a vote in this sitting, but I may do so on Report.
Sir John Whittingdale
I want to be clear: I am not criticising Impress. Impress is an independent regulator. It has a code of conduct that its members subscribe to. It adjudicates and carries out the function of a regulator, just as IPSO does. The only difference is that IPSO decided not to apply for recognition from the Press Recognition Panel, whereas Impress did apply and achieved that recognition. It is the principle that divides the two, not in any way their performance as regulators.
It is arguable—this has not been put to the test—that IPSO might qualify for recognition, if it chose to apply. In many ways, it is already compliant with the conditions. However, it decided that it did not wish to achieve recognition, so it remains outside the system. To be honest, that is why the system has failed: because the regulator that the vast majority of newspapers belong to decided that it simply could not apply, even though there was a good chance it might have been recognised. The carrot and stick in section 40 have clearly failed to provide the persuasion that the hon. Lady was looking for. I just want to be clear that I am not in any way suggesting that Impress is not a perfectly proper and independent regulator; it is the system that has failed.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 41.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Amendments of broadcasting legislation: UK’s withdrawal from EU
Sir John Whittingdale
The clause introduces schedule 12, which sets out minor and technical amendments to existing broadcasting legislation in relation to retained EU law. These are straightforward fixes to ensure that legislation does not become inoperable following the UK’s exit from the EU.
Part 1 of this schedule removes references to the audiovisual media services directive from the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Broadcasting Act 1996. Part 2 of schedule 12 amends part 4A of the Communications Act 2003 to remove references to the European Commission, obligations under the audiovisual media services directive, and to other European legislation.
Stephanie Peacock
It is important that our legislation addresses issues of retained EU law. As such, I have no particular issues with the contents of the clause or with schedule 12.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
New Clause 1
Delivery of public service content on relevant television services
“After section 264A of the Communications Act 2003, insert—
“264B Delivery of public service content on relevant television services
(1) Ofcom must monitor the extent to which the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is met in respect of relevant television services.
(2) If Ofcom considers that the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is not being met in respect of such services, it may set whatever programming quotas it considers necessary to ensure that the remit is met.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘relevant television services’ means—
(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC;
(b) the television programme services that are public services of the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of section 207);
(c) every Channel 3 service;
(d) Channel 4;
(e) Channel 5.””—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This new clause would give Ofcom powers to measure the delivery of public service content on the linear services of the public service broadcasters, and set quotas if it considered the current level to be unsatisfactory.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am very pleased to speak to this new clause. As the shadow Secretary of State outlined in her speech on Second Reading, the Bill is welcome but misses the opportunity to consider how we can secure the future of UK public service media for school-age children. The issue was brought to my attention by the Children’s Media Foundation, which I have been pleased to meet more than once. It has done a huge amount of work on understanding patterns of media consumption by children, and how those patterns might impact their chances of viewing public service media. I place on record an explicit thank you to the foundation for that work, and I hope that it will be picked up further as a result of the new clause.
If we all agree that public service content is important for adults, as I believe we have done time and again throughout the Bill’s passage, I think we can agree that it is equally, if not more important for children. Certainly, the kind of high-quality public service content that our public service broadcasters can provide for children has powerful potential and has, for the last 75 years, been the envy of the world. It can promote wellbeing, give children an understanding of where they live, teach them British values of tolerance, provide entertaining forms of education that supplement their learning at school, and show a diverse range of role models. Ultimately, public service media can encourage children to value culture and crave knowledge—valuable characteristics for citizens to have when they come of age.
However, due to several connecting factors, this sort of content is under threat. As technology has rapidly evolved, the children’s content landscape has fundamentally changed forever. Children as young as toddlers have access to new devices and platforms. They can navigate apps on tablets and choose content that they would like to watch. That gives them access not only to video on demand services such as Netflix and Disney+, but to platforms such as YouTube and TikTok. The popularity of these forms of content are such that Ofcom estimates that less than half of 3 to 17-year-olds now watch live television. Similarly, there are potentially 9 million school-age viewers, but the top-rated programme on CBBC in any one week may have as few as 50,000 viewers, and similar numbers will request that programme on iPlayer. That number is a fraction of what we would hope it to be, given the importance of children’s public service content, which has been outlined.
As well as declining viewership, there has arguably been a decline in the amount of children’s content produced that could genuinely be considered to be public service. When there are budget constraints, UK-focused dramas or documentaries that reflect the unique lives and concerns of British children are often the first to go. The volume of first-run, UK-originated children’s programming on PSB channels dropped to its lowest level in 2022; it was down to 518 hours, compared to 640 hours in 2019. Furthermore, producers can save money by localising animated and puppet shows; what might initially appear to be a British programme with wider societal value may in fact be an international production, with personalised snippets to attract a bigger pool of funders.
It is not that the industry is unaware of the problems surrounding children’s public service content. Certainly in 2022, when the Government brought the young audiences content fund to an end, more than 750 creatives and executives from the UK children’s content industry signed an open letter, and campaigned to extend the fund for another three years. The likes of Channel 5 and Paramount are also working hard to keep up their Milkshake! offering. They are increasing their spend on children’s programming year on year, just to keep provision at the same level, but where there is a need to meet commercial demands, valuable children’s content will inevitably continue to suffer.
There is almost nothing in the Bill to show that this combination of concerning trends—declining viewership alongside declining content quality—has been identified, and there are no meaningful measures to stop the problem escalating. Children’s content is included in the new simplified remit in the very first clause, but that does little to increase accountability or individual channels’ contribution to creating children’s public service content, or to recognise changing trends in how children consume their media.
It is for all those reasons that the Children’s Media Foundation argued that we must urgently accept that children’s public service media are under threat and rethink how we can best protect them as part of the passage of the Bill. As a result, I propose that the Government conduct a review to better understand how we can secure children’s content long into the future.
Such a review would be an opportunity to ask bigger questions than the Bill currently allows for. For example, do we need to go to where the children are and broaden our concept of public service media for children, encouraging and promoting such content on the likes of Netflix, YouTube and TikTok? Do we need to learn the lessons from the ambition of the Online Safety Act 2023 and consider how algorithms serve content to young people, perhaps adjusting them to ensure that they promote diversity of thought rather than simply more of the same? Should we set targets for PSBs to hit a number of hours consumed rather than a number of hours produced when it comes to public service media for children?
I do not claim to have the answers to all these sorts of questions, but I do believe that they need to be explored. The UK must address the reality of the matter and accept that a new approach will be needed if we are to ensure that valuable content reaches the eyes and ears of young people across the country. I hope that is something that the Minister can acknowledge and I look forward to hearing his response.
Kirsty Blackman
Specifically on this issue, I agree with the points made by the shadow Minister. I think that asking for a report into this issue is the most sensible way forward, rather than saying that we have got all the answers. Looking at this issue in the whole would be very important.
When my children were younger, we relied a lot on CBeebies; the kids spent a lot of time watching CBeebies rather than anything else. Now that they are a bit bigger, they have forayed into the world of YouTube; when we are considering content on these platforms, at least with CBeebies parents know for certain that there will be no swearing and nothing inappropriate on that channel. Not everything on it is necessarily educational, but it is all funny or good, whereas on YouTube there is an absolute load of nonsense at times, and there are a number of shows on Netflix or Disney+ about which I have had to say to my daughter, “No, you can’t watch that. It’s just nonsense.”
There is value in ensuring that children have access, and easy access, to appropriate content and in encouraging parents to ensure that their children are—well, having gone through the Online Safety Bill, I know that we need to ensure that parents are aware of what their children are consuming on the internet and aware of what they are watching, and that they are taking decisions to manage that content and to ensure that children have good access to it. If the public service broadcasters’ shows for children are more easily accessible, parents will have fewer issues in ensuring that those are the shows that their children see.
Lastly, I will give a wee plug for “Newsround”, which a significant number of schools show in school. It is incredibly important and a really key way in which children are able to access news content in an age-appropriate way that explains the background and the information that they are being provided with. Therefore, I agree entirely with the shadow Minister that it would be sensible to have a report on this issue, and that a watching brief definitely needs to be kept on it.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Just to add to those points and those made by the shadow Minister, I have often relied on the third parent that is CBeebies, as I imagine many other Members and many of our constituents have as well. I want to talk about the quality of such television and about its educational impact on children, ranging from young children to teenagers.
As has been alluded to, the quality of the BBC’s programmes, particularly on CBeebies, is just a trusted fact. I know as a parent that I could quite happily leave my three-year-old in front of CBeebies. She does not love Peter Rabbit, but I know that it is a safe and secure watch for her. I know that there will be no inappropriate advertising or any inappropriate life lessons or swearing, which I cannot guarantee on other services or channels. There are brilliant CBeebies programmes and characters, such as Mr Tumble, “Bluey”, “Newsround”, which has already been mentioned, and “Dog Squad”, which is a new firm favourite.
As the shadow Minister said, most children now know their way around an iPad, a tablet, a computer or a phone like the back of their hand, and they access all this content in a way that we could not when we were younger, including through Netflix or YouTube. That is a particular concern, because the adverts on YouTube and other online streaming platforms are not always age appropriate. Particularly during the cost of living crisis and in the run-up to Christmas, that is another burden for parents to deal with. It is a huge annoyance that there is this reliance on advertising, and sometimes product placement, which is not always healthy for children, in movies and TV shows.
On the educational impact, I have concerns about how young children watch these programmes. There will need to be access to repeated viewings for the educational impact to be fully felt when it comes to things such as GCSE “Bitesize” or learning letters. One episode of “Yakka Dee!” or “Sesame Street” will not teach my child the entire alphabet. With that in mind, it is important that we have a review of the impact on young people to protect the quality and standards of children’s television.
Sir John Whittingdale
I suspect that the entire Committee agrees that it is important that children have access to public service broadcast content. The educational value of children’s television is hugely important, and it is indispensable for happy parenthood. It is for that reason that proposed new subsection 264(5)(c) of the Communications Act 2003 puts children’s television front and centre of the public service broadcasting regime. That will ensure that the public service remit can be fulfilled only by the public service broadcasters collectively producing a wide range of children’s content, including original content that reflects the lives and concerns of children and young people in the UK, and helps them to understand the world around them. The inclusion of children’s content as part of the remit will ensure that the needs of children feature prominently in Ofcom’s regular reporting. That will also complement its strengthened powers in respect of under-served content areas.
Although the provision of public service children’s programming is key, children—and especially older children—do of course watch other kinds of public service content as well, whether with their parents or on their own. As the hon. Member for Luton North set out, children access public service content via a wide range of devices. The Government agree that internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access TV, and that certainly applies to younger audiences, perhaps even more so than for any other group. On online advertising, I have recently been chairing a separate initiative—the online advertising taskforce—whose purpose is to ensure that online advertising does not advertise illegal products, and that children do not see advertising of inappropriate products.
The Bill tries to create flexibility by allowing our PSBs to deliver their remits across a wider range of services, including in new on-demand and short formats. We have made it clear that our PSBs must serve all audiences, and that extends not just to the content they make, but to how they choose to distribute it. These changes will ensure that our public service remit stays relevant and continues to reflect how audiences, including children and young people, are accessing PSB content.
We have to remember that PSB content has to be funded. All speakers paid tribute to the BBC’s output in this area, including CBBC and CBeebies, which are a core part of its output. Of course, the BBC receives public funding and is required under the charter to deliver content of that kind. It is more challenging for commercial television, as those broadcasters are dependent on advertising funding. I merely observe that the more we impose restrictions on what can be advertised to children, the more there is a detrimental impact on the amount of revenue gain by commercial broadcasters, which will influence their decisions about how much they invest in children’s programming.
That was one of the reasons why we previously established the young audiences content fund, which was designed to address the fact that almost all the children’s content was being produced by the BBC. The fund was there to support the commissioning of children’s content on other channels, and it proved very successful. It was a three-year pilot, but the Government continue to remain committed to the principle. I hope that, one day, it might be possible to resurrect something of that kind.
Stephanie Peacock
If it was a successful pilot, why did the Government not continue it?
Sir John Whittingdale
It was a successful pilot funded by the BBC, because it was licence-fee funded. Personally, I would have liked it to continue, but the BBC obviously was under financial pressure and put up a strong case that it could not continue to fund it. The principle that it was seeking to address remains an important one, and the Government have tried to provide alternative support, through things such as tax relief, for the production of children’s content. I share the hon. Lady’s sadness that it was brought to an end after three years, but it was always intended to be a pilot, and viewers will still be able to see content produced by the fund for some years to come.
Kirsty Blackman
On a point of order, Mr Vickers. I have to leave for a very important meeting, and I know that a number of new clauses in my name are coming up. I want to advise the Chair that I have to leave and am happy for those new clauses not to be pushed to a vote in Committee. Hopefully, making this point of order will mean that the sitting can end slightly earlier.
Sir John Whittingdale
I hope that the sitting can end very soon in any case; I think we have pretty much concluded the debate, and the remaining clauses are relatively technical.
I think the best people to conduct the review that the hon. Member for Barnsley East has called for are Ofcom. Ofcom has given a commitment in its planning work to take an in-depth look at how the market is best serving the interests of children, which I think will give us the insight that she wants. For that reason, I do not think her new clause is necessary.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the Minister’s point about it being harder for commercial stations than it perhaps is for the BBC—of course, I made a point of praising Channel 5 and Paramount in my comments. I asked a number of quite broad questions about children’s television. I hope that Ofcom will consider them, but I am not sure that the Bill mandates it to do that. For those reasons, I would like to push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sir John Whittingdale
I do not intend to detain the Committee at great length. Clause 52 gives the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to make amendments to other existing legislation, which is needed as a result of changes contained in the Bill. If the proposed changes are to other primary legislation, the regulations will be subject to debate in both Houses. If the proposed changes are to secondary legislation, the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.
Clause 53 authorises expenditure from the Bill. It covers the possibility that increased spending by Ofcom might require the payment of grants to incur or meet liabilities in respect of capital and revenue expenditure, or the possibility that the Secretary of State makes a grant to S4C.
Clause 54 sets out the Bill’s territorial extent. The Bill will extend and apply to the United Kingdom, except for the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which will extend and apply to England and Wales.
Clause 55 provides for the commencement of the provisions in the Bill. The majority of the provisions will be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State. The provisions that come into force on the day on which this Bill is passed will be the regulation-making powers in relation to the prominence of television selection services and the general provisions in the Bill, such as the clauses dealing with the power to make consequential provisions, financial provision, extent, commencement, and the title of the Bill. Clause 50, which repeals section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, will come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The rest of the Bill will come into force when the Secretary of State decides.
Finally, clause 56 establishes the short title of this legislation, which, when enacted, will be the Media Act 2024. I commend clauses 52 to 56 to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I am pleased to have reached the final stages of our Committee. I have no issue with the clauses in this group. Perhaps I could seek your guidance, Mr Vickers, on whether it would be appropriate to say a few words in conclusion, or perhaps on a point of order.
The Chair
There will be an opportunity later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 53 to 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Stephanie Peacock
I would like to make some concluding remarks. Overall, the Media Bill is a piece of legislation that we very much look forward to seeing on the statute book as soon as possible, and I hope there is no further delay in its passage. There are, of course, some areas where I would have liked further progress, but I am really pleased to have welcomed through many of the measures, from the prominence regime to the establishment of the first video-on-demand code and rights.
I conclude by putting some thank yous on the record. I thank the Chairs, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South, the Clerks of the Committee and all members of the Committee. It is particularly worth noting the work done before the Bill was introduced, by the CMS Committee and all the stakeholders, and in particular by Anna Clingan from my office, who has worked incredibly hard on all the speeches. I look forward to continuing the process of scrutiny on the Floor of the House, probably after Christmas.
Sir John Whittingdale
I join the hon. Lady in expressing my thanks. This is a very important Bill that has been in the making for a long time. There has been a lot of support for its provisions from right across the media sector. The fact that the Committee has spent just three days debating it in no way suggests that it is not an essential and important piece of legislation; instead, I think it shows that there is remarkable agreement across the Committee. While we may differ on specific detail in general—even on the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act—it appears that there is pretty much cross-party agreement. I hope that that will continue when the Bill moves up to the other place.
I wish to thank all the members of the Committee for their contributions and support. I thank you, Mr Vickers, and the hon. Member for Bradford South for chairing so effectively. I thank the Clerks for doing an excellent job in preparing the amendments and keeping the whole thing on schedule. I also thank my officials in the Department, who have been working on this Bill for quite a long time. It is a great tribute to them that we have managed to get it through this part of its passage through Parliament so smoothly.
With that, I thank the Committee once again, and wish everyone a happy Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Media Bill
Tuesday 30th January 2024
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 January 2024 - large print - (30 Jan 2024)
16:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 194 / Noes: 294 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 295 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:12 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 20 / Noes: 288 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 284 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We were going to begin with new clause 1, but Hywel Williams is not here, so I instead call George Eustice to move new clause 3.
New Clause 3
Consultation on section 50
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a call for evidence seeking views on alternative incentives to encourage publishers or regulators to seek recognition under the terms of the Royal Charter for the Self-Regulation of the Press.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s formal response to evidence submitted in response to the call for evidence required by subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State may not make an order under section 55(3)(ga) bringing any part of section 50 into force until the report specified in subsection (2) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”—(George Eustice.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Brought up, and read the First time.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Evaluation of nations-based production—
“(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 286 (regional programme-making for Channels 3 and 5)—
(a) in subsection (1)(d), at end insert “except where the company is a new start-up and has registered itself as being primarily based in that nation”;
(b) after subsection (1)(d) insert—
“(e) Ofcom must require a broadcaster listing a production as being based in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales to demonstrate prior to production that a production company has—
(i) a substantial base (consisting of a specified number of staff) within the nation;
(ii) a commitment to remain within the nation for a specified amount of time;
(iii) had a presence within the nation for at least 36 months.”;
(c) in subsection (3)(d), at end insert “except where the company is a new start-up and has registered itself as being primarily based in that nation.”;
(d) after subsection (3)(d) insert—
“(e) Ofcom must require a broadcaster listing a production as being based in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales to demonstrate prior to production that a production company has—
(i) a substantial base (consisting of a specified number of staff) within the nation;
(ii) a commitment to remain within the nation for a specified amount of time;
(iii) had a presence within the nation for at least 36 months.”
(3) In section 288 (Regional programme-making for Channel 4)—
(a) in subsection (1)(d), at end insert “except where the company is a new start-up and has registered itself as being primarily based in that nation.”;
(b) after subsection (1)(d) insert—
“(e) Ofcom must require a broadcaster listing a production as being based in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales to demonstrate prior to production that a production company has—
(i) a substantial base (consisting of a specified number of staff) within the nation;
(ii) a commitment to remain within the nation for a specified amount of time;
(iii) had a presence within the nation specified for at least 36 months.”.”
New clause 4—OFCOM review of on-demand programme service regulation measures—
“(1) As soon as practicable after Chapter 2 of this Act comes into force, OFCOM must carry out a review of its on-demand programme service regulation measures.
(2) This review must take account of—
(a) the size, and
(b) the turnover
of the services to which these regulations apply and assess whether the current application of the regulations is the most effective means to achieve the policy goals of this Chapter.
(3) In conducting the review described in subsection (2), OFCOM must consult with relevant stakeholders, including public service broadcasters, on-demand programme service providers and any other stakeholders as appropriate.”
This would require OFCOM to conduct a review of the Bill’s new on-demand regulatory code. The review must take account of the sizes and turnovers of the regulated services, and assess whether the current regulatory approach is effective in achieving the policy goals of the Bill. The review would have to be conducted in consultation with relevant stakeholders.
New clause 6—Age rating standards—
“Where Tier 1 providers use an age rating or other classification system to comply with the duties imposed on them by or under this Act for the protection of audiences from harm, they must—
(a) apply the age rating or classification system used by the video works authority based on their classification guidelines; or
(b) apply an age rating or classification system that is judged by OFCOM to be—
(i) based on a transparent set of appropriate standards;
(ii) applied consistently across content; and
(iii) informed by regular consultation with the UK public.”
This new clause ensures that, where age ratings are used by Video on Demand platforms, those ratings are the same as the ones used by the British Board of Film Classification or meet equivalent standards of rigour, transparency, and objectivity.
New clause 7—Adequate on-demand coverage to be available—
“After section 101 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, insert—
“101ZA Provision of adequate on-demand coverage
(1) The purpose of this section is to secure, in relation to a listed event, that if any person makes available on-demand coverage of the whole or any part of that event, adequate on-demand coverage is made available widely and free of charge to members of the public in the United Kingdom, whether by that person or another person.
(2) In this Part, in relation to a listed event or part of such an event, “on-demand coverage” means audiovisual content consisting of coverage of, or excerpts from, that event (or a combination of those), where—
(a) a person makes a range of such content available to members of the public, whether through a relevant service or otherwise;
(b) selections from that range can be made by the user and viewed at a time chosen by the user (even if it may be viewed only within a period specified by the person making it available);
(c) the selected content is received by the user by means of the internet; and
(d) the content otherwise meets any criteria or requirements specified (either generally or in relation to particular listed events) by regulations under section 104ZA;
and “on-demand rights” means rights to make on-demand coverage available for access by members of the public in the United Kingdom.
(3) Any contract entered into on or after the day on which section [Adequate on-demand coverage to be available] of the Media Act 2024 comes into force under which a person acquires on-demand rights is void so far as it purports—
(a) in relation to the whole or any part of the event, or
(b) in relation to access by means of the internet, in the United Kingdom,
to grant those rights exclusively.
(4) For the purposes of this section, on-demand rights are granted exclusively if the person granting them—
(a) has not granted any such right in respect of the whole or, as the case may be, that part of the event to more than one person, and
(b) is precluded by the terms of the contract from doing so.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), rights are not to be treated as having been granted to more than one person where the only persons to whom such rights have been granted are connected with each other.
(6) No person may provide on-demand coverage of a listed event unless authorised to do so under subsection (7), (8) or (9), even if that person is authorised to include live coverage of that event in a relevant service by subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section 101.
(7) The provision of on-demand coverage of a listed event is authorised by this subsection if—
(a) on-demand rights have been acquired by the provider of a relevant service falling within section 98(1)(a);
(b) that relevant service includes live coverage of that event; and
(c) the on-demand coverage provided that provider—
(i) constitutes adequate on-demand coverage of the event, and
(ii) may be accessed free of charge.
(8) The provision of on-demand coverage of a listed event is authorised by this subsection if—
(a) on-demand rights have been acquired by one or more persons;
(b) those persons are not connected with each other;
(c) the on-demand coverage provided by at least one of those persons—
(i) constitutes adequate on-demand coverage of the event, and
(ii) may be accessed free of charge;
and
(d) the person or persons who have acquired rights to provide the adequate on-demand coverage satisfy the requirements in relation to that coverage of any regulations made under section 104ZA for the purposes of this paragraph.
(9) The provision of on-demand coverage of a listed event is authorised by this subsection if OFCOM have consented in advance to such provision.
(10) OFCOM may revoke any consent given by them under subsection (9).
(11) The code drawn up by OFCOM under section 104 shall include guidance on the matters which they will take into account in determining whether to give or revoke their consent for the purposes of subsection (9).
(12) Regulations under section 104ZA (regulations about coverage of listed events) may include provision—
(a) specifying (either generally or in relation to particular listed events) any criteria or requirements that content must meet in order to be regarded as on-demand coverage for the purposes of subsection (2)(d);
(b) for determining for the purposes of this section what (whether generally or in relation to particular circumstances) is to be taken to represent the provision of adequate on-demand coverage of an event for the purposes of subsection (8)(d).
(13) Failure to comply with subsection (6) shall not affect the validity of any contract.
(14) Subsection (6) shall not have effect where the person providing the on-demand coverage is exercising on-demand rights acquired before the commencement of this section.
(15) In this section, “on-demand coverage” and “adequate on-demand coverage” are to be construed in accordance with regulations under section 104ZA.
(16) For the purposes of sections 104A (provision of information) and 104B (penalties for failure to provide information), any person making available, or wishing to make available, on-demand coverage of the whole or any part of any listed event shall be treated as a person who is within subsection (5) of section 104A.””
This new clause would secure that, where possible, adequate on-demand coverage of listed events, such as clips and excerpts, is made available free of charge to audiences in the United Kingdom.
New clause 8—Protection of digital terrestrial television—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that—
(a) the licensed public service channels continue to be broadcast via digital terrestrial television to as many of their intended audience as is reasonably practicable; and
(b) a sufficient number of digital terrestrial television multiplex licences are issued to deliver the licensed public service channels via digital terrestrial television and support a diverse range of commercial digital terrestrial television channels.
(2) OFCOM shall reserve sufficient frequencies for television broadcasting services accordingly.”
This new clause would place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure that public service television channels continue to be broadcast via digital terrestrial television (DTT) and that sufficient licences are issued to keep the platform viable. It would also require Ofcom to make spectrum available accordingly.
New clause 9—Review of children’s access to public service broadcast content—
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on how to ensure that children have access to public service broadcast content.”
This new clause would require a review of how to ensure children have access to public service content, given their viewing habits.
New clause 10—Digital rights to listed events—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Broadcasting Act 1996 to make provision for coverage of listed events which is not live coverage.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
New clause 11—Delivery of public service content on relevant television services—
“After section 264A of the Communications Act 2003, insert—
“264B Delivery of public service content on relevant television services
(1) OFCOM must monitor the extent to which the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is met in respect of relevant television services.
(2) If OFCOM considers that the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is not being met in respect of such services, it may set whatever programming quotas it considers necessary to ensure that the remit is met.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “relevant television services” means—
(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC;
(b) the television programme services that are public services of the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of section 207);
(c) every Channel 3 service;
(d) Channel 4;
(e) Channel 5.””
This new clause would give OFCOM powers to measure the delivery of public service content on the linear services of the public service broadcasters, and set quotas if it considered the current level to be unsatisfactory.
New clause 12—Regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content equivalent to the regulation of radio selection services provided for by section 48 and Schedule 9 of this Act.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend primary legislation.”
New clause 13—Gaelic language service—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, review whether a Gaelic language service should be given a public service broadcast remit.”
New clause 14—Age Classifications—
“When considering the adequacy of age ratings, OFCOM must assess whether any age ratings used by providers are—
(a) widely recognised by the UK public;
(b) underpinned by a transparent set of standards;
(c) informed by regular consultation with the UK public.”
New clause 15—Establishing a Broadcasting and Communications Authority for Wales—
“(1) A Broadcasting and Communications Authority for Wales (“the Authority”) is established.
(2) The Authority must perform the following functions—
(a) support for the broadcasting and media sectors serving audiences in Wales;
(b) oversight and accountability for public service broadcasting in Wales;
(c) facilitation and development of the production of content by broadcaster and media outlets in Wales;
(d) promotion and preservation of the Welsh language, identity and culture in broadcasting and media output;
(e) support for and development of English language content made in Wales and ensuring that it is relevant to Welsh audiences; and
(f) any functions the Secretary of State considers necessary to support further devolution of broadcasting policy to the Welsh Government.
(3) In performing the functions under subsection 2 the Authority must have regard to—
(a) public interest journalism;
(b) content for children and young people; and
(c) sport content and national events.
(4) In performing the duties under subsection (2) in relation to broadcasting and media matters in Wales, the Authority must consult—
(a) relevant Ministers in the Welsh Government;
(b) Members of the Senedd; and
(c) members of the public living in Wales.
(5) Section 1 comes into force at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) In preparation for the establishment of the Authority a shadow authority may be established in line with the functions set out in subsection 2 after the passing of this Act.
(7) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the appointment of officers to the Authority.”
This new clause creates a new independent Welsh Broadcasting and Communications Authority with responsibility and oversight for broadcasting and media matters in Wales to help reflect and meet the needs of Welsh audiences.
New clause 16—Listed Events—
“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 97 (as amended by section 299 of the Communications Act 2003), after subsection (1B) insert—
“(1A) The following events must be included in Group A of the list drawn up under subsection (1)—
(a) the Olympic Games;
(b) the Paralympic Games;
(c) the FIFA World Cup Finals Tournament;
(d) the FIFA Women’s World Cup Finals Tournament;
(e) the European Football Championship Finals Tournament;
(f) the European Women’s Football Championship Finals Tournament;
(g) the FA Cup Final;
(h) the Scottish FA Cup Final;
(i) the Grand National;
(j) the Wimbledon Tennis Finals;
(k) the Rugby Union World Cup Final;
(l) Six Nations Rugby Tournament Matches Involving Home Countries;
(m) the Derby;
(n) the Rugby League Challenge Cup Final;
(o) any match involving the national teams of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England pertaining to qualification for the events listed in paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f).””
This new clause would make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to place the list of sporting events in Group A of listed sporting events, ensuring they are available on free to air television in their entirety. The events consist of all current Group A events plus the home nations World Cup and Euro qualifiers.
New clause 17—Consultation on listing of events—
“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 97(2), after paragraph (b), insert—
“(ba) Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig (the Gaelic Media Service),”
(3) In section 104(4), after paragraph (b), insert—
“(ba) Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig (the Gaelic Media Service),””
This new clause would add Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig (the Gaelic Media Service) to the list of organisations which must be consulted when the Secretary of State is drafting or amending listed events and Ofcom is drawing up its related code of guidance.
New clause 18—Listed Events Fund—
“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 104ZA insert—
“104ZB Financial matters arising from the listing of events: the Listed Events Fund
(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a fund (the “Listed Events Fund”) with the purpose of minimising the consequential financial impact of the listing of events on sporting governing bodies who would otherwise suffer egregious financial distress.
(2) Payments from the fund shall be limited to governing bodies and other sporting rights holders who maintain their registered office in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England and whose primary geographic area of responsibility lies within one of these territories.
(3) The Secretary of State, following the revision of the listing of events in Group A, shall invite governing bodies and other organisations who could reasonably assess their turnover or income as dropping as a result of an event being listed in Group A (and who qualify under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section) to apply to him for payment from the fund.
(4) No organisation with a reported turnover of greater than £50 million per annum for the financial year in which any subvention may be paid shall be entitled to payment from the fund.
(5) The amount laid down in subsection (4) may be varied by the Secretary of State on an annual basis, but may not increase by a rate greater than that of the Retail Price Index as measured at any point in the three months previous to any proposed variation.””
This new clause would provide a fund under the auspices of the Secretary of State to be paid to governing bodies or other broadcasting rights holders who may experience financial detriment as a result of listing under Group A.
New clause 19—Diversity in the workforce of the public service broadcasters—
“(1) OFCOM must produce a report each year detailing diversity in the workforce of the public sector broadcasters (“PSBs”).
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) a breakdown by protected characteristic of the numbers of people in the workforce of each PSB;
(b) the percentage of the workforce on and offscreen who have various protected characteristics as deemed relevant by OFCOM;
(c) if the percentages reported under paragraph (b) are not reflective of the population as a whole or on a regional basis, a statement from each broadcaster on how they intend to increase diversity in their organisation.
(3) OFCOM may request any information they require from the PSBs in order to compile the report under subsection (1).
(4) Provision of data to enable OFCOM to produce the report under subsection (1) is to be considered by OFCOM when it assesses the extent to which a PSB has fulfilled its public service broadcasting remit.”
This new clause would require OFCOM to produce an annual report on workforce diversity within the PSBs.
New clause 20—On-demand programme services—
“(1) OFCOM must report to the Secretary of State each year on the percentage of people who are watching on-demand services that do not fall under the definition of on-demand programme services in section 368A of the Communications Act.
(2) If OFCOM reports concern that the definition is not providing protection for public service broadcasters on on-demand services that are being widely accessed by the public—
(a) OFCOM must write to the Secretary of State, and
(b) the Secretary of State must make a written statement to Parliament on how the Secretary of State intends to remedy this matter.”
This new clause would require OFCOM and the Secretary of State to keep under review the adequacy of the definition of on-demand programme services in section 368A of the Communications Act 2003.
New clause 21—Delivery of public service content on relevant television services—
“After section 264A of the Communications Act 2003, insert—
“264B Delivery of public service content on relevant television services
(1) Ofcom must monitor the extent to which the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is met in respect of relevant television services, including level of programming from a diverse range of genres including, among others, education, entertainment, music, arts science, sports matters of international significance, religion and specialist interests.
(2) If Ofcom considers that the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is not being met in respect of such services, it may set whatever programming quotas it considers necessary to ensure that the remit is met.
(3) It is the duty of relevant television broadcasting services to prepare and publish a statement annually on their performance in the provision of public service content.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “relevant television services” means—
(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC;
(b) the television programme services that are public services of the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of section 207);
(c) every Channel 3 service;
(d) Channel 4;
(e) Channel 5.””
This new clause would give Ofcom powers to measure the delivery of public service content on the linear services of the public service broadcasters, and set quotas if it considered the current level to be unsatisfactory.
New clause 22—Duty to report on workforce diversity and equality requirement—
“(1) Public service broadcasters (“PSBs”) must prepare and publish a statement on a workforce diversity and equality strategy within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) A workforce diversity and equality strategy must comprise a plan setting out how PSBs are taking appropriate steps towards improving diversity and equality within the workforce in the period covered by the plan, which must cover not more than three years.
(3) In particular, a workforce diversity and equality strategy must state a PSB’s objectives and priorities for the period it covers.
(4) A workforce diversity and equality strategy must include a summary and an evaluation of the activities and initiatives pursued or commissioned by a PSB in the exercise of its functions under subsection (1) in the period to which the strategy relates.
(5) Before the end of the period covered by a workforce diversity and equality strategy, PSBs must prepare and publish a strategy for a further period, ensuring that each successive strategy covers a period beginning immediately after the end of the last one.
(6) In preparing or revising a workforce diversity and equality strategy, a PSB must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.
(7) OFCOM must prepare and publish a report on workforce diversity and equality strategy statements produced by PSBs set out in subsection (1), in particular—
(a) summarising what actions a PSB is planning and taking in the exercise of its strategy under subsections (1) to (3);
(b) assessing what progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and priorities set out in a strategy in the relevant period.
(8) The first annual report by OFCOM on workforce diversity and equality is required to be published within a period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(9) OFCOM must prepare and publish subsequent reports on PSBs’ strategies and progress against them every three years thereafter.”
This new clause introduces a requirement for PSBs to publish objectives on the promotion of diversity and equality among the workforce and for Ofcom to monitor and report on PSB performance on meeting this requirement.
New clause 23—Duty to report on media literacy requirement—
“(1) Public service broadcasters (“PSBs”) must prepare and publish a statement on a media literacy strategy within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) A media literacy strategy is a plan setting out how PSBs are taking appropriate steps towards improving levels of media literacy among audiences in the period covered by the plan, which must be not more than three years.
(3) In particular, a media literacy strategy must state a PSB’s objectives and priorities for the period it covers.
(4) A media literacy statement must include a summary and an evaluation of the activities and initiatives pursued or commissioned by the PSB in the exercise of their functions under section (1) in the period to which the report relates.
(5) Before the end of the period covered by a media literacy strategy, PSBs must prepare and publish a strategy for a further period, ensuring that each successive strategy covers a period beginning immediately after the end of the last one.
(6) In preparing or revising a media literacy strategy, a PSB must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.
(7) OFCOM must prepare and publish a report of the media literacy strategy statements set out in subsection (1), in particular—
(a) summarising what actions a PSB is planning and taking in the exercise of its strategy under subsections (1) to (3);
(b) assessing what progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and priorities set out in a strategy in the relevant period.
(8) The first annual report by OFCOM on media literacy is required to be published within a period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(9) OFCOM must prepare and publish subsequent report on PSBs’ strategies and progress against them every three years thereafter.”
This new clause introduces a requirement for PSBs to take appropriate steps in relation to improving levels of media literacy among their audiences and for Ofcom to monitor and report on PSB performance on meeting this requirement.
New clause 24—Duty to report on viewer and listener consultation requirements—
“(1) Public service broadcasters (“PSBs”) must prepare and publish a viewer and listener consultation strategy (“consultation strategy”) within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) A consultation strategy is a plan setting out how PSBs are taking appropriate steps towards improving levels of engagement with audiences in the period covered by the plan, which must be not more than three years.
(3) In particular, a consultation strategy must state a PSB’s objectives and priorities for the period it covers.
(4) A consultation strategy must include a summary and an evaluation of the activities and initiatives pursued or commissioned by the PSB in the exercise of their functions under section (1) in the period to which the report relates.
(5) Before the end of the period covered by an audience consultation strategy, PSBs must prepare and publish a strategy for a further period, ensuring that each successive strategy covers a period beginning immediately after the end of the last one.
(6) In preparing or revising a media literacy consultation strategy, PSBs must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.
(7) OFCOM must prepare and publish a report assessing PSBs’ consultation strategies, in particular—
(a) summarising what actions a PSB is planning and taking in the exercise of its strategy, and
(b) assessing what progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and priorities set out in a strategy in the relevant period.
(8) The first annual report by OFCOM on PSBs’ consultation strategies must be published within a period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(9) OFCOM must prepare and publish subsequent reports on PSBs’ strategies and progress against them every three years thereafter.”
This new clause introduces a requirement for PSBs to produce a strategy and objectives for increasing levels of consultation with user listeners and for Ofcom to monitor and report on PSB performance on meeting this requirement.
Amendment 81, in clause 1, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
“(iii) a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content so as to permit fulfilment of the public service remit for television in the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland”.
This amendment would require OFCOM to report on whether a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content in Gaelic is televised to meet the public service remit for television.
Amendment 1, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(5A) In assessing the extent to which the requirements of subsection (5)(b)(i) have been met OFCOM must have particular regard to the importance of content recognising the culture and heritage of those parts of the United Kingdom recognised under the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.”
This amendment requires OFCOM to have regard to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities when reporting on the fulfilment of the public service remit through audiovisual content by the public service broadcasters.
Amendment 86, page 3, line 13, leave out from “appropriate” to end and insert—
“level of programming from a diverse range of genres including, among others, education, entertainment, music, arts science, sports matters of international significance, religion and specialist interests.”
This amendment would add detailed description of the range of genres which Ofcom must report on whether the public service broadcasters have made available.
Government amendment 19.
Amendment 79, in clause 3, page 7, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) which is broadcast via UHF frequencies that can be received by a minimum of 98.5% of the population of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment amends the definition of public service for Channel 3 and Channel 5 to include an obligation to broadcast via digital terrestrial television, on the basis of the already existing licence requirements applying to PSB DTT multiplexes.
Amendment 80, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(d) which is broadcast via UHF frequencies that can be received by a minimum of 98.5% of the population of the United Kingdom.”
This amendments amends the definition of public service for Channel 4 to include a obligation to broadcast via digital terrestrial television, on the basis of the already existing licence requirements applying to PSB DTT multiplexes.
Amendment 82, in clause 8, page 9, line 29, at end insert—
“(c) a duration such as OFCOM considers appropriate of those independent productions are commissioned from smaller studios”.
This amendment would require OFCOM to require licensed public service channel regulatory conditions to include commissioning from smaller studios.
Amendment 83, page 9, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulatory regime for Channel 4 includes the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing that, in each year, not less than 35% per cent of Channel 4's total expenditure on qualifying audiovisual content is allocated to independent productions made by independent production companies with annual turnover not exceeding £25,000,000.
(1B) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1A) by substituting a different figure for the annual turnover specified in that section.
(1C) Before making regulations under subsection (1B), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) OFCOM,
(b) Channel 4, and
(c) independent production companies that are likely to be affected by the regulations.”
This amendment would require that at least 35% of Channel 4’s annual expenditure on qualifying audiovisual content be allocated to productions made by independent producers with annual revenues smaller than £25m. It also provides the Secretary of State the power to amend, following consultation, the revenue figure defining the production companies to which the requirement applies.
Amendment 84, page 10, line 15, before “commissioning” insert
““annual revenue” means the reported revenues published in the annual accounts of the respective independent production company, covering the most recently available period of 12 months;”.
This amendment would insert a definition for the purposes of Amendment 83.
Amendment 85, page 10, line 17, at end insert—
““independent production companies” has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991;”.
This amendment would insert a definition for the purposes of Amendment 83.
Government amendments 20 to 40.
Amendment 88, in clause 25, page 30, line 30, at end insert—
“(4) On the date on which section 21 comes into force, the Secretary of State must revise the list maintained for the purposes of Part 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 so that it includes—
(a) at least one cricket test match each year between the months of May and September;
(b) at least one cricket One Day International match each year between the months of May and September;
(c) all other currently listed Group A events.
(5) The events listed under subsection (4) must be allocated to Group A.”
Amendment 5, in clause 28, page 41, line 10, leave out “an appropriate” and insert “a significant”.
This would require that designated internet programme services are given significant prominence within regulated television selection services.
Amendment 78, page 42, line 3, at end insert—
“(f) any local digital television programme service that OFCOM determines is willing and able to offer an internet programme service.”
This amendment includes local digital television services within the prominence framework for designated internet programme services where OFCOM determines a service is willing and able to offer such a service.
Amendment 87, page 42, line 21, leave out “an appropriate” and insert “a significant”.
This amendment would require a provider of regulated television selection to give significant prominence to designated internet programme services.
Government amendments 41 to 49.
Amendment 6, page 69, line 1, leave out clause 31.
This would retain section 295 of the Communications Act 2003, which restricts C4C’s involvement in programme-making.
Government amendments 50 and 51.
Amendment 18, in clause 38, page 79, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) When considering the adequacy of age ratings, OFCOM must report on the extent to which any age ratings used by providers are—
(a) clear and well understood by consumers;
(b) underpinned by a published and transparent set of standards; and
(c) informed by regular and substantive consultation with the UK public.”
This amendment sets conditions to be used by OFCOM when reporting on the adequacy of the age ratings classification systems used by providers.
Government amendment 52.
Amendment 7, in clause 44, page 83, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment and Amendments 8 to 13 would broaden the scope of the requirements placed by the Bill on local radio broadcasting licences, so that the current scope of local material as news, information and other spoken material is retained.
Amendment 8, page 84, line 6, leave out “news and information” and insert
“news, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Amendment 9, page 84, line 23, leave out “news and information” and insert
“news, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Amendment 10, page 84, line 24, leave out “news and information” and insert
“news, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Amendment 11, in page 84, line 26, after “news” insert
“, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Amendment 12, page 84, line 34, after “news” insert
“, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Amendment 13, page 84, line 36, after “news” insert
“, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Government amendments 53 to 59.
Amendment 2, in clause 50, page 114, line 7, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(2) Section 40(3) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is omitted.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State the option in future of commencing subsection 2 of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Acts 2013.
Amendment 3, in clause 55, page 115, line 25, leave out “50” and insert “(Consultation on section 50)”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 4 and NC3, would require the Secretary of State to consult on alternative incentives to encourage publishers or regulators to seek recognition under the terms of the Royal Charter for the Self-Regulation of the Press, and to lay a report on the consultation before Parliament, before section 50 could be commenced.
Amendment 4, page 115, line 35, at end insert—
“(ga) section 50 (but see section (Consultation on section 50));”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Government amendments 60 to 74.
Amendment 17, in schedule 5, page 145, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) persons designated by the Secretary of State as the responsible authority under Section 4(1) of the Video Recordings Act 1984;”.
This amendment ensures that the British Board of Film Classification is consulted by OFCOM when drawing up the Video on Demand codes.
Government amendment 75.
Amendment 14, page 146, line 34, leave out “40 per cent” and insert “80 per cent”.
This would require Tier 1 on-demand services to provide subtitling for 80% of their on-demand TV content from the second anniversary of the publication of the accessibility code.
Amendment 15, page 146, line 36, leave out “5 per cent” and insert “10 per cent”.
This would require Tier 1 on-demand services to provide audio-description for 10 per cent of their on-demand TV content from the second anniversary of the publication of the accessibility code.
Amendment 16, page 147, line 1, leave out “2.5 per cent” and insert “5 per cent”.
This would require Tier 1 on-demand services to provide sign language presentation or translation for 5 per cent of their on-demand TV content from the second anniversary of the publication of the accessibility code.
Government amendments 76 and 77.
George Eustice
There are a number of new clauses and amendments in my name that I wish to speak to, but principally among them I will speak to amendment 2, which relates to the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Acts 2013. With the will of the House, I will press the amendment to a Division later today, but first I will briefly address some of the other amendments.
Amendment 1 is not actually linked to the debate about section 40, or indeed the Leveson inquiry; it is about something very different. It simply states that Ofcom, when considering and assessing the public service remit, should also have regard to the framework convention on national minorities. That is because the current framework acknowledges the importance of languages in this country and their recognition under the framework convention on minority languages, but it omits the framework convention on national minorities. That is of particular importance to places such as Cornwall, Scotland and Wales, where the culture and identity goes beyond just language. I hope the Government will consider addressing this matter in the other place as the Bill progresses.
New clause 3 addresses the simple reality that although the Government have said that they intend to repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, Ministers have confirmed to me that the Government remain committed to the continued existence of the royal charter on self-regulation of the press. That royal charter was established by David Cameron when he was Prime Minister, in response to the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry. Conservative Members voted to put in place section 40 in order to create an incentive to join the royal charter. Given that the Government have said that they want to repeal section 40, which created that incentive, but that they remain absolutely committed to keeping the royal charter, surely they should at the very least have a call for evidence to examine what other possible incentives might encourage publishers to join that royal charter.
If the Government did not believe in the royal charter on self-regulation of the press, they would simply bring forward Orders in Council to disband the royal charter, as is provided for under article 10 of the charter. The Government do not want to do that, so if they remain committed to the royal charter, let us at least explore those options. They could include giving publishers access to arbitration so that they can get a fairer share of the advertising revenue for the news content they produce. That remains an open problem; some Government legislation seeks to address it, but it could go further.
I wish to focus principally on amendment 2, since that is the one I intend to press to a Division. The amendment would simply put in place a more precise cut to deliver the Government’s objectives. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 had two parts. The first part—subsection (2)—created an incentive for publishers to join because it gave them protection against those with deep pockets. There was a carrot and a stick in section 40. The carrot was that if, for the sake of argument, a Russian oligarch threatened a publisher and said, “We’re going to get Carter-Ruck to write expensive letters to you. We will see you in court if you publish this,” that publisher would have had protection because they would have been able to say to the rich and powerful, “We have confidence in our story and are going to run it, and if you don’t like the story, we will see you in arbitration; we won’t see you in court. If you insist on taking us to court and bypassing that arbitration, you will pay the publisher’s costs as well as your own.”
That was the carrot—the bit that the press never objected to. No one ever raised an objection to that. But there was also a stick—subsection (3) of section 40. The stick basically said that publishers who do not join a recognised regulator have more cost exposure to ordinary citizens who have had their lives and privacy violated and have no redress other than to bring legal action. The press never objected to the carrot; they only ever objected to the stick. Because they are a glass-half-empty type of industry, they of course tended to focus on the bit they did not like rather than the bit they did like, and they lobbied furiously to have that part of section 40 removed.
Then we come to the 2017 Conservative manifesto—let us be honest: it was not the best manifesto the party has ever drafted. Probably due to a drafting error, that manifesto pledged not just to remove subsection (3) of subsection 40, which was all that was required and which would have delivered the spirit of that manifesto commitment, but committed to remove the entirety of section 40, which was completely unnecessary.
Amendment 2 would remove the stick but retain the carrot. It would remove subsection (3) of section 40. In that, it would deliver everything the press have ever wanted, and therefore also satisfy the Government’s intentions.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
This is a point that I have often made. The hon. Gentleman’s “carrot”, as he calls it, seems very similar to anti-SLAPP legislation, which has been welcomed generally on both sides of the House, and I cannot see why anyone who supports anti- SLAPP legislation would not also support amendment 2. I certainly will support it and I hope that it gets support across the House.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who truly believes in a free press, as he and I do, would want to ensure that we can protect genuine investigative journalism, and that the rich and powerful would not be able to intimidate and bully publishers with limited financial resources—many of them losing money—into not running a story that was essentially true.
Were amendment 2 to be agreed to, those publishers that chose not to sign up to a recognised regulator would have nothing to lose; they would be no worse off than they are today. Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, has had a very strong position that he would never join a recognised regulator. It would be open to him not to; he would be no better and no worse off than he is today, as if something ended up in litigation he would not be paying both sides’ costs.
A publication such as Private Eye, which famously has never joined anything, would also be free to stand aloof from any kind of regulator, and it would be no better or worse off than it is today. Publications such as The Daily Mail, which have wealthy benefactors standing behind them—people with deep pockets who are willing to pay for litigation and backfill the loses that such companies make—would be no better or worse off than they are today, in that they could decide not to join a regulator.
However, those small, plucky publishers that do not have wealthy benefactors standing behind them, and that seek to do genuine investigative journalism that might attract the attention of those threatening legal action, would have the option of joining a recognised regulator, so that they could get protection against that type of strategic litigation brought by the rich and powerful—people with deep pockets—against them.
So I say to the Minister that I can deliver everything that the Government seek, in a way that is fitting with the spirit of the Conservative manifesto but that keeps open the option of small publishers being able to gain some protection.
Let me remind the House why we ended up with section 40 in the first place. There was a public outcry about what was called the phone-hacking scandal—the widespread recognition that a culture had developed that enabled publishers to hack into people’s phones. It was David Cameron, the Conservative Prime Minister, who established the Leveson inquiry. It was David Cameron who chose Lord Justice Leveson to chair it, because Lord Justice Leveson was known as somebody who was not hostile to the press. Lord Justice Leveson invested huge amounts of his time in coming up with a very sensible set of proposals. It was David Cameron who then said we would implement those proposals, with cross-party support from all parties in this House, and it was the Conservative Whips Office that actually whipped the Conservative side of the House to implement section 40, as David Cameron wished to happen.
Let us remember that in that Leveson inquiry, dozens of victims of phone hacking came forward to give evidence, and they did so because the Prime Minister had set up an inquiry and they felt that it was sincere and genuine, and that they could contribute. We all have had constituency cases in which people have been through extraordinary tragedy, and it is painful for them; but often people who have been through such tragedy want to know that something good has come from it. Many of those witnesses who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry were the parents of children who had been murdered, who had had their life rifled through by the media, and they wanted something good to come out of that; so they went through the trauma and the painful experience of sharing those experiences, to try to help Parliament wrestle its way to a sensible compromise.
So let us have no nonsense from the Government Front Bench, trying to create some sort of wedge issue. This is a provision that the Conservative Government put in place, and the royal charter on self-regulation was a very Conservative approach to dealing with the challenge.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. He is making a strong case for his amendment, but I have one nagging doubt in my mind. I understand that he believes that if his amendment is agreed to and we remove the stick, newspapers will be protected from the rich and powerful, but what protection would remain for those who are not of means; those who do not have the money that they can risk in litigation to take on those publishers who may have defamed or libelled them, but who are not members of a regulatory body? This is not just about the rich and powerful. There could be people who do not have any money who are affected by newspapers, and I am not clear how, in his new landscape, they would be affected.
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but I am seeking to reach a compromise. His argument is for keeping section 40 in its entirety, so that those who do not have financial means and who face a publisher who refuses to act within any kind of reputable regulator would have some redress in the courts. Of course, in section 40 there was only a weighted presumption in favour of a particular approach to costs. It was never a hard and fast rule.
My right hon. Friend makes a strong case, but I am seeking to form a compromise with the House and with those on the Government Front Bench, and if it is their intention to do what the press want, they can accept my amendment and still look the press in the eye and say, “We gave you everything you wanted, which is the removal of the stick.” Maybe they hope they will get some positive coverage as a result of doing this favour; I suspect they will end up being disappointed by that between now and the general election. Nevertheless, I am trying to make a compromise with them. I hope that the Government will look seriously at this.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend help the House by saying whether he has had any communication with The Guardian or Private Eye on this proposal?
George Eustice
I had multiple conversations with lots of publishers when the original Leveson architecture was put together, particularly around the royal charter. I know that Private Eye has always objected to joining anything at all, and it would be completely unaffected by the proposal. It is not a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, and it was never a member of the Press Complaints Commission. It has always remained entirely aloof, and there is nothing in the proposal that affects its position. Nor would anything in the proposal affect, say, The Spectator, which also has a view that it would not join a recognised regulator.
As I said, small publishers that want to do genuine investigative journalism and that do not have people with deep pockets standing behind them could benefit from the proposal by signing up to a recognised regulator. Many of them are already members of Impress, which is the recognised regulator at the moment, but others may form different regulators or encourage IPSO to join and seek recognition, so that they can benefit from that cost protection.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I would like to run through a number of the amendments in my name, which have largely been promoted by the National Union of Journalists. I will also say that new clause 2 appears to be part of the unfinished business of Leveson, which we need to move on fairly swiftly to ensure that people have proper redress and protections, while maintaining the freedom of the press.
I want to cover a number of issues in my amendments, such as the protection of public service broadcasting, diversity within the sector, media literacy and the demands for consultation on media changes. New clause 21 would add a detailed description of the range of genres that Ofcom must report whether the public service broadcasters have made available. It would also give Ofcom the responsibility to measure the extent of public service broadcasting across specific genres and the ability to set quotas if it felt that specific genres were not covered adequately. It comes from a campaign by the Voice of the Listener & Viewer to protect the requirements in the PSBs’ remit to broadcast programmes within specific genres.
Section 264 of the Communications Act 2003 sets out in some detail the requirements on public service broadcasting across a whole range of different genres, including “cultural activity”,
“the extent that is appropriate for facilitating civic understanding and fair and well-informed debate on news and current affairs,”
religion and so on. I will not go through the full list—it is very detailed.
The problem is that the Bill, as it stands, updates that position, but with a generalised list of what will be taken into account and protected in terms of the genres of audio-visual content. There is a general concern that that could lead to a number of specific areas, such as science or religion, becoming vulnerable. There will still be a variety of genres that there is no specific requirement on public service broadcasters to broadcast.
The Select Committee carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill raised the matter in its discussions. It felt that the Government’s replacing the list of specific commitments required of a public service broadcaster with a general remit was a “step too far”. The Government’s response was that their amendment was simply a simplification. Even the Chair of the Select Committee said the simplification of the remit and enforcement of it for Ofcom would come at a considerable cost. A number of pieces of evidence submitted to the Committee drew attention to areas where the requirement on public service broadcasters could be significantly weakened, even to the point of the overall removal of content.
I will quote the example given by Anna McNamee, the executive director of the Sandford St Martin Trust, about what is happening with regard to the coverage of religion. She said:
“In 2003 ITV successfully lobbied Ofcom for its PSB quotas for arts and religious content to be removed”
and, unfortunately:
“In 2015 Ofcom noticed that ITV’s provision of religion and ethics had all but ceased.”
The lesson from that drawn to the Committee and the Minister’s attention was that there was:
“No quota: no obligation to do so”
and that, under competing pressures, individual genres and sections of broadcasting would be deleted overall.
What we felt was needed in the legislation was a statutory requirement that, where there is an identification of societal value of a particular genre, Ofcom would be able to track the PSBs’ performance and ensure that the distinctive content is available to audiences. That is a reflection of Ofcom’s own concerns so far. It has noticed a decline in the provision of those genres. Broadcasting legislation—until this Bill—has set out what is considered societally valuable content and defined the remit of Ofcom and PSB in that way. Unfortunately, this generalised statement within the Bill fails to enable that to happen in the future.
My new clause 21 would provide Ofcom with stronger powers, with a clearer remit of what should be protected and the ability to set quotas if it considers current levels in certain genres to be unsatisfactory. It should allow the regulator to stem the significant decline of those genres since 2013.
My new clause 22 would place a duty on public service broadcasters to publish their objectives on the promotion of diversity and equality among the workforce and on Ofcom to monitor and report on the public service broadcasters’ performance on meeting that requirement. That comes out of an analysis of what is happening with regard to the diversity of the workforce in broadcasting.
If public service broadcasting is to represent all sectors of the UK population, the workforce should be truly representative. That is a general view that has been expressed across the House. Ofcom has recognised that broadcasters with advanced data collection practices tend to have more representative workforces. The new clause would further empower Ofcom to specify what kinds of data companies should be required to monitor and publish, therefore ensuring that they are looking at the impact of their diversity policies.
Some of the figures on the lack of diversity in broadcasting are quite startling. If we take class as an example, people from working-class backgrounds are under-represented in the broadcasting sector. Some 28% of employees who provided data were from a working-class background, below the UK population figure of 39%. In terms of gender diversity, men remain dominant in most senior roles, in particular the important roles of director—74.5%—and writers, with 67.3%. The number of women in senior roles has actually dropped in recent years from 46.8% to 45.4%. That has been declining continuously over the past four years. The figures for ethnicity are also pretty stark in terms of the lack of representation. Again, we are finding that without adequate monitoring, there has been a lack of any form of influence to improve the situation.
The Creative Diversity Network ran a project called Diamond to monitor diversity, but a number of the unions did not participate because the broadcasters had failed to share their statistics. Nevertheless, there were significant contributions made by individuals working offscreen and onscreen, reflecting people’s concerns about the lack of diversity in terms of gender, ethnicity and disability. There are stark figures that demonstrate the lack of representation in public service broadcasting. This new clause is simply intended to ensure that adequate statistics are provided and data collected, and that Ofcom’s monitoring and intervention powers are strengthened.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I once met a young lady who was keen to work in television and she told me that she wanted to be a presenter. However, because she wears a hijab, she was sure that she would never get to be a presenter—she had never seen any presenter wearing a hijab. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel, as I do, that transparency in reporting those figures would help make clear to everybody what diversity is lacking?
John McDonnell
The reason for this new clause—I am not pushing it to a vote or anything—is to encourage the debate further, because we seem to have hit a brick wall, or a glass ceiling, whichever hon. Members prefer. Part of the reason those attitudes persist is the lack of ethnic minorities, particularly in senior positions. The figure for black, Asian or minority ethnic community members in all senior roles is just 13%, an under-representation compared with the population; for senior producers it is 5.5% and for heads of production it is 7.4%. South Asian representation offscreen at all levels has actually fallen to 2.4%, less than half of the figure in the population as a whole, which is around 5%.
The reason for this new clause is to stimulate debate because, in addition to the failure of the existing system to maintain levels, we are going backwards in some areas. Not only is the number of people with disabilities in senior roles at a low level, but it has not changed in four years. There needs to be greater intervention and more powers to monitor and to require the delivery of statistics, and there needs to be proper participation by public service broadcasters in that. Ofcom also needs the ability to intervene more effectively.
Just quickly, because other hon. Members want to speak, I will say that new clause 23 is intended to place on public service broadcasters a duty to report on media literacy. It would introduce a requirement for public service broadcasters to take appropriate steps to improve levels of media literacy among their audiences and allow Ofcom to monitor that to see how the public broadcasters are pursuing that media literacy requirement. The reason for this new clause is that things have moved on since the Communications Act 2003. I remember that debate at that point was around teletext; the huge expansion of social media had not been anticipated, still less the arrival of artificial intelligence.
I do not think I need to stress in this House the importance of countering misinformation, disinformation, fake news, conspiracy theories and the like across social media, or the need to raise the issue of media literacy more widely. Public service broadcasters have an even greater role and duty now not only to provide impartial and accurate information, but to increase media literacy and make greater efforts to reach all age groups in the UK, particularly young people.
The BBC’s Marianna Spring, as people will know, is charged with covering some of these issues for the BBC, and a number of other broadcasters try independently to check the veracity of factual claims or to make an assessment of the credibility of sources, particularly in areas where there is conflict around the world. However, there is a need now to be more explicit about the issues that people face in the interpretation of media. For that reason, it is time for a duty to be placed upon public service broadcasters to develop media literacy strategies, which will enable the receivers of their broadcasts to better understand and better cut through some of the misinformation that is being purveyed.
There has been debate in this House already about the need for a greater recognition within the media itself of the threat posed by artificial intelligence. We have already seen the danger of artificially generated news stories and images, with reports of inaccurate data being used to inform artificial intelligence-generated stories, false attributions to journalists and creators, and people discovering that their likenesses have been used without their knowledge or consent. That is why the NUJ is trying to encourage the debate about who is responsible for raising the levels media literacy. New clause 23 would simply put a statutory duty upon public service broadcasters to develop and publish a strategy for what they are doing to raise media literacy, and give Ofcom a role in monitoring that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
For information, I intend to call those who have tabled amendments before other Members.
I call Sir John Whittingdale.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have an amendment that I would like to speak to. It might be slightly unusual for the person who was the Minister taking the Bill through Committee then to seek to amend the Bill on Report, but I am sure it is not unprecedented, and I hope my amendment is nevertheless helpful to the Government. It is certainly my intention that it should be.
I have taken the Bill through Committee, and it has already been subject to a lot of scrutiny by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in this House and in the other place, and with the publication of a draft Bill. I am therefore slightly surprised to see the number of Government amendments that have been tabled. Most are relatively minor and technical, and I welcome the measure that would correct the anomaly around independent national radio, requiring it to continue to broadcast on AM, even though fewer and fewer people are now accessing radio by those means. It is right to remove that anomaly.
Amendment 78 addresses local television, which was the invention of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). Although it has had a somewhat chequered history, it is successful in a number of areas across the country, particularly outside London. Rightly, the Government have consulted recently on whether they believe there is a long-term future for local TV, and I am optimistic they will conclude that they would like it to continue. The Bill will ensure that those broadcasters that the Government regard as making an important contribution should continue to thrive in a different media landscape. That is the purpose of the prominence provisions, which safeguard public service broadcasters to ensure that whatever means viewer choose to access television, they can find those public service broadcasters easily. Local television is not currently included on the list of channels that should have due prominence. As we move forward into an age when more and more people rely on internet protocol television to access channels, it will become increasingly hard for them if local TV is not obviously available on IPTV sets.
I have a Sky Glass television, which is an IPTV set, and at the moment I cannot get local television on it at all. One reason for that—and the reason the Government have previously given for not including local TV on the list of channels to be given prominence—is the absence of an app to deliver local TV. When I was filling in for the Minister over the past few months I had a meeting with local TV and was told that an app will be forthcoming quite soon that will allow local television to be received by IPTV. The Government suggested in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) that they see a difficulty with that, and that because there are a large number of local television channels it would be difficult to give all of them individual prominence. However, I am assured by local television that they intend to come forward with a single app, which will be available on a number of major platforms and ensure that a specifically chosen geographical location in the country will receive the specific local TV channel that is appropriate for that area. We are only talking about one app. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in his letter that the Government will continue to monitor the situation and consider increasing the availability of local content.
As we know, media Bills do not come along every day, and this is our single opportunity to update the law covering the range of media services. It is likely that there will not be another opportunity for some considerable time. My amendment would allow Ofcom, at a future date, to recommend the inclusion of a local TV app, as and when it emerges, in the prominence regime. It would ensure that the Bill future-proofs the regime so that it can be amended in such a way. I hope the Government will consider adopting that measure. I understand it is unlikely that they will accept my amendment, but I ask the Minister whether she will continue to look at this issue and, if the Government believe it is appropriate, consider tabling an amendment to that effect in the House of Lords.
On new clause 3, regarding the abolition of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, I was slightly surprised to learn from my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) that the inclusion of a firm pledge to repeal section 40, which was not just in the 2017 Conservative manifesto but repeated in that of 2019, was a drafting error. It did not strike me at the time that either the initial pledge or the second one were drafting errors.
George Eustice
Is my right hon. Friend saying that there were no drafting errors in the 2017 manifesto?
Sir John Whittingdale
There may have been—I am not quite sure which others my right hon. Friend might be referring to, but I am pretty certain that that was not one of them.
George Eustice
Nobody ever said that they objected to the cost protections for the press contained in section 40. The arguments against section 40 were always shorthand arguments that essentially claimed falsely that it would require publishers to pay the costs of others—and that only related to one small part of section 40.
Sir John Whittingdale
My right hon. Friend is right, but as I think I pointed out on Second Reading, not a single major publisher has chosen to apply for recognition by the Press Recognition Panel through joining a recognised regulator.
George Eustice
But is that not precisely because the Government failed to move the incentives that encouraged people to join?
Sir John Whittingdale
As the Minister responsible, who said that we would not implement section 40, I had considerable talks. It was made plain that if the Government had implemented section 40, no major publisher would apply for recognition. My right hon. Friend talked about the carrot and stick, and his new clause would require the Government to look for alternative incentives to encourage publishers to apply for recognition, even if the existing carrot and stick were removed. He did not go into detail in his speech about what alternative incentive there might be; it sounded slightly like a reference to Marlon Brando’s making “an offer you can’t refuse”. The press have been absolutely plain: they object to any regulator that carries the stamp of Government approval. That is the fundamental principle that has caused every publisher to say that they will not apply for recognition.
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend knows that it is not a Government regulator. The Press Recognition Panel was established by the royal charter on self-regulation of the press. The Conservative party established that as a royal charter rather than a regulatory body for precisely that reason—to accommodate that wish of the press.
Sir John Whittingdale
I did not suggest it was a Government regulator, but nevertheless, any regulator that requires Government approval through the Press Recognition Panel is viewed by the press as having a Government stamp of approval, which they regard as unacceptable. My right hon. Friend spoke about the discussions he had, but he would agree that the stick and the carrot at that time were thought to be necessary to persuade red-top publishers such as The Daily Mail and The Sun to join a regulator recognised by the PRP. What I do not think he anticipated—indeed, nobody anticipated it at the time—was that not a single major publisher would agree to co-operate with the regime that was being put in place. That includes The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer and the Financial Times. Not one major publisher said that it would co-operate with the system that was put in place, so it has plainly failed. For that reason alone the Government should revisit the issue, remove section 40, and instead encourage those who do not currently accept the ruling of an independent regulator to join the one in existence, which is IPSO. I know that my right hon. Friend and I will not agree on this point, but his suggestion that it was somehow an oversight to include a commitment to repeal in the manifestos of 2017 and 2019 is simply not correct. He will be aware that there is unanimity among all the major publishers that section 40 represents an attack on media freedom. It is not just the publishers who hold that view; many campaigning organisations, such as Reporters Without Borders, have actually downgraded the UK’s press freedom rating because of the existence of section 40, and it is certainly viewed as an infringement of media freedom.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
This is one of the issues on which my right hon. Friend and I agree. May I suggest that those who wish to follow this up afterwards read a book called “The Laughter of Triumph”, by Ben Wilson? It is about William Hone and the fight for a free press back in 1817. The press should not be forced into any Government regulation; there should be the law of the land, and that is it.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that this is not the only issue on which we agree, but it is certainly one on which we hold the same view. For that reason, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) will press his new clause to a vote, because I shall not support him on it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We should remind ourselves why we are here: it is because those who were described by Alan Bates, the leader of the Horizon scandal complainants, as “small, skinny people” needed redress against the huge, overbearing press. The Hacked Off website pointed out that in 2021, only 0.6% of more than 14,000 complaints were upheld by IPSO—only 88 cases in total, which is a minuscule number. Is that a sign that the system is working?
Sir John Whittingdale
I do not think success can be judged simply on the number of complaints upheld. Indeed, as we have seen in other organisations, such as the BBC, we may find that a large number of those complaints relate to a single issue that has generated a great deal of concern. It is not as simple as, “There were x thousand complaints, and only so many were upheld.” Generally, however, IPSO is definitely an improvement on the Press Complaints Commission, which went before it. It is not perfect—no regulator ever is—and I myself have criticised it for not having yet imposed any fines, but the atmosphere surrounding the behaviour of the press is very different from what it was when, for instance, Hacked Off was created, and when I chaired the inquiry on phone hacking, which led to the establishment of Sir Brian Leveson’s report.
I do not want to detain the House any longer. I intend to press the Government, but not as far as a vote; I should say that I urge the Government to look at ways in which they can support local television through my amendment. Given the point about section 40, I cannot support the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I want to express my gratitude for the fact that the Bill has been prioritised in this new term, and is progressing quickly. For our public service broadcasters in particular, this legislation is long overdue. I want to refer to my amendment about the language surrounding prominence for PSBs such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. The Bill gives public service content an “appropriate” level of prominence on online services, which should make it easier to find not only the apps that take us to the BBC or ITV on a smart TV, but to find those channels on the traditional TV guide with which we are all familiar. However, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee made the suggestion, which I have tabled in the form of an amendment, that the word “appropriate” is perhaps unhelpfully subjective, and should be replaced with “significant”. The prominence of PSBs is an existential issue that should not be underestimated, so I ask the Government to consider that suggestion as the Bill progresses.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. I strongly agree with him: the issue cannot just be left in the air, given the importance of public service broadcasting. I therefore think that the guidance for Ofcom should be stronger than the Government have recognised so far. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what they propose to do about that.
Jamie Stone
I thank the right hon. Member for her intervention.
Let me move on to the subject of Channel 4 and the removal of the restriction on in-house production. I have concerns about that change to Channel 4’s model, which has worked extremely well for a long time, although the previous Secretary of State was not so keen on its existence—or, at least, its future. Channel 4 has historically supported the independent production sector throughout the UK, in places such as my constituency in the far north of Scotland, but there are concerns that allowing it to create its own content could destabilise the sector. Given the Government’s track record on Channel 4, my ultimate fear is that this could be used as a stick with which to beat the channel, although I hope that does not happen. That being said, Channel 4 and the independent production sector are integral to each other, which is why I am glad to see the channel’s qualifying independent commitment to the sector increased to 40%, and to hear that any changes are likely to be very gradual, allowing the market to adjust accordingly. That can only be a good thing.
I come to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) on listed events. The Government must take his proposal forward, so that major sporting events such as the Olympics, the Euros, Wimbledon and the World cup remain free to air in their entirety. In an increasingly digital-first world, digital rights must be included in the listed events regime. Let me turn to a subject that is close to my heart. Earlier this week, Ben Stokes said that England’s test win over India was his “greatest triumph” since he had become England’s captain. I think we can all take pleasure in that, regardless of which of the four corners of the United Kingdom we inhabit. I acknowledge the nod from my colleague on the Scottish National party Benches, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), for which I thank him courteously. I feel that this sort of shared cultural moment should be available for everyone to watch on free-to-air television. My amendment would enable people to see a cricket test and a one-day international on free-to-air TV each summer, and I hope that Members will strongly consider supporting it.
On the subject of local radio—something that I have mentioned in the past, and was beaten up about when I was a councillor long ago—I tabled amendments 7 to 13 to broaden the scope of the requirements in local radio broadcasting licences, so that the current scope of “local material” as
“news, information and other spoken material and music”
is retained. If only I could have heard myself say those words all those years ago! I can see the good that it does. It would not be right for the BBC to be left as sole provider of local speech radio. On a similar point, I welcome part 6 of the Bill, which safeguards the future of the industry with relation to voice-activated smart devices.
Local radio is integral to upholding democracy—a point made many times by many of us in this place. It provides trusted news and information, particularly during an emergency, as we saw during covid, and also provides entertainment. That is especially important to my constituents, who, as may be imagined, often face long drives across very large rural areas.
New clause 3 and amendments 2 to 4 relate to section 40 and our press, a subject already mentioned by a number of Members today. Ten years ago, all the parties made commitments to the victims of press abuse that we would introduce the system of regulation recommended in the Leveson report to protect the public from press wrongdoing. We in this country benefit from a vibrant and rich media, as was pointed out in an urgent question earlier today, but whereas our broadcasting media are the envy of the world, our print media languish at the bottom of international league tables when it comes to public trust and confidence. However, the Government now seek to repeal section 40, although they have no plans to replace it with any alternative mechanism of independent and impartial regulation. That not only leaves local and independent newspapers unable to defend themselves against expensive litigation in the form of strategic lawsuits against public participation, but makes it harder for a normal person to take legal action against a large publisher. As they say, those with the deepest pockets win.
These amendments offer two ways forward. New clause 3 and amendments 3 and 4 would permit the repeal of section 40, but not before there has been a consultation on alternative incentives for the Leveson system. Amendment 2 would repeal the part of section 40 that would disadvantage unregulated newspapers, but keep the part that protects local independent titles that have done the right thing and signed up to regulation. Under either of those amendments, national newspapers would face no detriment at all for their potentially bad behaviour—there is no free speech reason to object to them—but they allow us to show our support for the victims of press abuse and for the underlying principles of independent regulation.
Many sensible amendments have been tabled to this Bill, and I am glad that the majority of us in the House and, indeed, the industry are singing from the same hymn sheet. The world and the way in which our media operate have changed beyond recognition since the Communications Act 2003, and I and my party will be very pleased to watch this Bill make its way swiftly through both Houses, so that our legislation at last reflects the world we live in today. I close by paying tribute to Members for the great efforts that have been made on all sides of this House to make sure that this legislation is fit for purpose.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Father of the House.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for previewing the suggestion that time-shifted excerpts from listed events be available through public service broadcasters. I regret that test matches are not presently listed events, because I think that this country would have wanted to see the remarkable parts of the test match in India this week.
Some people may have only read press descriptions of Ben Stokes doing a backhanded flip to the wicket. That can be well described by people such as Neville Cardus and his successors, but it is even better to watch it in real life.
I believe that the number of listed events should be expanded. However, as the BBC and others have reminded us, the number of people watching events on the other side of the world at midnight or four in the morning might be 400,000, whereas those who would want to watch those events the next day might be 4 million or 14 million.
I believe that the new clause should be accepted, and I hope that the Minister will say some comforting words. Like many others, I do not propose to push my new clause to a Division today, but I do hope that the Government will respond by tabling an amendment or a new clause in the House of Lords that has the same effect. I could read out my full briefing, but the point has been well made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and may be made by others.
What is the reason for embracing the future? It is not just about linear television; there is the opportunity for other rights. So many rights are bought by commercial businesses outside this country. What do they care about what happens in one part of the world broadcasting framework? We must have a requirement to stop those who think they can make money by making most people not watch key events, and making those who do watch pay a lot. People should be able to watch coverage on ordinary public service broadcasting.
My belief is that, for major events, the competition between the public service broadcasters will be sufficient to ensure a fair return for those who buy the rights. I do not believe in having an unrestricted auction, so that people can buy rights that will exclude most people in the country from watching sporting events of great importance. There have been examples of rights holders—Sky has done this well—making an event available on normal public service broadcasting, as well as on their own service, when one of our national teams has got into a final. I pay tribute to Sky for doing that.
I want to follow up on the words of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who talked about genres in public service broadcasting. I thought I would table an amendment or a new clause that does what he argued for. I believe that Ofcom should have an explicit duty to make sure that public service broadcasters are held to account and explain how they are meeting the requirements for the various parts of public service broadcasting. Public service broadcasting can be very interesting and fully commercial; a large number of people may want to watch it, and it may be very popular, but not necessarily. Religion, science and many other areas listed in the right hon. Member’s amendment 86 are important.
I say to the Government: pay attention to what he has said, look to Colin Browne for what viewers and listeners have said, and accept the amendment, so that the requirements are explicit, and the responses by the public service broadcasters are open.
I believe that we can make a success of this Bill. I know that broadcasting regulation is normally about 10 years behind the technology, and I remember that about 30 years ago, David Mellor had to change a virtually complete Bill on Report because so much had changed between the Bill being drafted and its Third Reading in the House of Commons. I believe that we can make a major change, and I can sum this up to the Government in words that someone has offered me, which are absolutely right:
“Don’t let this opportunity pass by. The time to act is now. Once these moments go behind a paywall, that’s the final whistle.”
Let us make all major events available to all people, at least in excerpts, so that they can watch them in daylight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I refer hon. and right hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank all colleagues, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Eltham (Clive Efford), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), for their service on the Public Bill Committee and for doing really diligent and careful work.
In general, my colleagues on the Labour Benches and I are supportive of this Bill. It has been too long in the making, and the delays have held back the UK’s world-leading public service broadcasters. They have also affected the productivity of the creative industries as a whole, and the public service broadcast sector is such a large and important part of the creative industries and their commissioning. The last time broad changes were enacted for our public service broadcasters was in 2003. I think we can all agree that the world is now a very different place, but better late than never. Broadly speaking, I believe this is a good Bill, and we support it.
Our public service broadcasters are a fundamental part of British cultural life. If we did not have them, we would want to invent them, and this Bill gives them and the wider broadcasting industry the tools they need to survive in the modern world. The Bill contains crucial measures to ensure that UK broadcasters can thrive in a digital age by protecting radio services when they are accessed on smart speakers, and by ensuring the fair prominence of public service broadcasters on smart TVs. I will return to the question of prominence shortly.
However, the Bill does not take full advantage of the opportunity it creates to shape the broadcasting industry for the next decade. Although we will not seek to disrupt or delay the passage of the Bill, there are areas where we believe it can and should be strengthened and improved. I hope the Minister will listen to our suggestions in the new clauses and amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East.
New clause 9 concerns children’s television. For many children and young people, public service broadcasting is an important part of how they learn and in particular how they learn to understand the world—it is a central part of how their curiosity is ignited. The Bill as drafted fails to recognise that importance by neglecting to try to understand how the viewing habits of children and young people are changing. Provision for children by public service broadcasters is under threat because so few children now watch live TV. The top-rated programme on CBBC attracts as few as 50,000 viewers. Children carry entertainment in their pockets, and they can and do switch between various apps and platforms in a matter of seconds, which is understandably affecting investment in children’s programming.
That creates a vicious cycle: as investment and resources decline, so too does the quality of the output. Instead of trying to provide high-quality, uniquely British public service content for children, broadcasters are then forced to prioritise profitable content that offers little public value and can be sold internationally. Our new clause 9 would enable the Government to take an important first step, recognise the problem and explore routes forward. It would be a shame not to take advantage of this opportunity to shape children’s programming for the future, in what is supposed to be a forward-looking piece of legislation. I ask the Minister to give that some consideration.
The Bill also fails to go far enough on age classification. The hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) have tabled amendments in this area, for which I thank them, alongside our new clause 14, which shows the breadth of feeling across the House. All these amendments look to tackle the same underlying issue, which is that there is no consistency in how age ratings are currently used on streaming sites. Parents and children alike deserve to be able to have full confidence in age ratings so that when they pick something to watch, they can trust that it will be safe and age-appropriate. Ratings must be easily understood and recognisable by the public and underpinned by a transparent set of criteria that take into account British attitudes on everything from swearing to violence and anything else we might think of.
New clause 14 does not, in my view, overengineer the issue. It does not require every on-demand service to use any specific age rating provider, although we should collectively recognise that the British Board of Film Classification is a great example of best practice. Our public service broadcasters already follow stringent rules, which may mean that age ratings are not appropriate for their content, but where age ratings are already used, there should be clear criteria against which Ofcom can measure their success and quality.
The Bill also falls short when it comes to digital rights to listed events. Listed events have already generated some debate, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by other hon. and right hon. Members about various sporting events. This legislation is supposed to contribute to the future-proofing of public service broadcasters, but I feel that to do that it needs to go further. Our new clause 10 seeks to address that. The rights to broadcast moments of national sporting importance are offered first to channels such as the BBC and ITV, enabling the broadest possible range of British people to watch the likes of Wimbledon and the Olympics.
We agree with the aim of the Bill, which is to protect and modernise the system, while making a few changes to ensure that it is appropriate in the digital age, but unfortunately the Bill falls short in this regard. By not extending the regime to include online clips and highlights, the Bill risks preventing thousands upon thousands of people from feeling the joy of watching British athletes or cricketers compete on the world stage, particularly when those competitions are happening far away, as happened this week with Ben Stokes and co. Considering that the next men’s football World cup and the next two Olympics after Paris 2024—
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Gavin Newlands
The shadow Secretary of State mentions sporting events. In addition to protecting the Six Nations for us all in group A, would she accept the principle that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish football fans should have the same access to their national teams as English fans do at present?
Thangam Debbonaire
Of course I would, and I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East said in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to press me on a specific aspect, I am also happy to confirm that we would support the new clause tabled in his name if it were pushed to a vote. I will be interested to see whether colleagues in his party will support our new clause on Gaelic broadcasting, as they seemed not to vote for it in Committee. It will be interesting to see whether they take up that challenge as well.
It is likely that, even in the near future, key sporting moments will take place in the middle of the night in this country. Despite the fact that Conservative Ministers ordered a review of this in 2022, there is simply nothing in this Bill as drafted to update the listed events rules so that clips or highlights from those events do not get stuck behind a paywall. Our new clause 10 seeks to guarantee that action is taken on this issue, but it is flexible enough to accommodate whatever mechanisms are identified as most appropriate following their review. I also note new clause 7, in the name of the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), which is more prescriptive than ours but addresses the same issue.
If Ministers cannot lend their support to either of these amendments, they should at the very least publish the response to the review in full. It would be helpful if the Government took up the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East that criteria be published, so that we get a clearer sense, rather than having this ad hoc debate—sympathetic though I may be to certain sporting events. There is the question of national fairness—that is a principle—and also the question of what criteria we should use to add to the listings regime.
New clause 12 seeks to fix another problem with the Bill, which is that it fails to take the rising popularity of podcasts into account. I have mentioned podcasts before on the Floor of the House, and it gives me great pleasure to mention them again when discussing the regulation of selection services for audio content. Some 10 million adults listen to podcasts every week. It is emerging as a format that encourages collaboration, new partnerships, interesting discussion and the presence of a range of politicians and other personalities who have something interesting or unique to say. It seems counterintuitive, therefore, to exclude this fast-growing audio medium from the Bill. For example, the Bill as drafted guarantees access to the LBC breakfast show with Nick Ferrari but not to “The News Agents” podcast. Some of us will be listening to both, and we expect similar treatment for both. This new clause would simply provide that consistency.
New clause 11 is designed to ensure that public service content is available to linear services as well as online. Part 1 of the Media Bill introduces new measures to allow public service broadcasters to meet some of their remit requirements through their online services and on-demand channels. Given that streaming and on-demand are growing rapidly, this seems a reasonable forward-looking change. However, there are still millions of people who watch their television through a traditional broadcast set-up. This group of people primarily includes older residents, families in rural areas and those struggling with bills as a result of the cost of living crisis. It is crucial that they can still access public service content as usual. This new clause would give Ofcom the means to assess whether public service broadcasting delivery on linear services was adequate; and, if it found that provision to be inadequate, it would have the power to set binding quotas.
I have already mentioned new clause 13, which encourages the Secretary of State to consider and take advice on whether a Gaelic language service should be recognised as a public service broadcaster in its own right. This was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East in Committee. BBC Alba, the Gaelic language television service provided by MG Alba and the BBC, is a huge asset, providing a wide range of high quality programming for Gaelic speakers to enjoy and sustaining around 340 jobs, half of which are in economically fragile areas. However, despite apparent cross-party support for the service, Gaelic language broadcasting is still not recognised in legislation across the board in the same way as other minority language services are. That is not to say that Gaelic language broadcasting can be directly compared to Welsh broadcasting, for example, but it is an acknowledgment of the importance of language to our cultural life. Language is a daily expression of our history, and Gaelic language broadcasting is an important forum for that expression. It should therefore be considered for recognition in law.
Jamie Stone
I really hate to say this, but it is worth pointing out, in the context of Gaelic and Welsh, that the situation for Gaelic is very precarious indeed. It is strong enough in some of the Western Isles, but we need to remember that it needs to be nurtured big time now.
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid and valuable contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East, the shadow Minister with responsibility for media, has met those bodies recently. We understand the points that he is making and take them fully on board. This new clause, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend, is not prescriptive as to how we break the cycle; it leaves multiple options open to the Secretary of State.
I turn to clause 50 and the amendment tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who made his points earlier. The phone hacking scandal led to section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. That scandal involved egregious acts, and the treatment of victims of crime or tragedy by some sections of the media was a disgusting abuse of power. We all say that that should never be repeated. The majority of British journalists are decent and honourable, but there are some who even now continue to drag the good name of that profession into disrepute. That profession is a cornerstone of our democracy and it is important that the public are able to trust it, but at the moment we are at risk of the public losing faith in the profession of journalism, as was certainly also the case before section 40 was created and before that scandal was exposed.
We on the Labour Benches want a press that is regulated in a way that makes it accountable for its reporting and that meets the highest ethical and journalistic standards. We want to see a financially sustainable free press in the UK that can carry on holding power to account. Clause 50 repeals section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, but if the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth pushes his amendment 2 to a Division this evening, we will support it, because it offers a way through by keeping some of what he refers to as the carrots. Indeed, by removing some of the sticks, his amendment would incentivise more publishers to join up with an approved regulator, for the reasons that he has outlined much more coherently and clearly than I can now. We thank him for working co-operatively with us.
Sir John Whittingdale
It is interesting to hear that the Opposition intend to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), as they abstained in Committee. If a future Labour Government repealed section 40, would they put in place an equivalent or similar measure?
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am speaking about amendment 2, which we will support for the reasons that the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth set out.
I want to see publishers protected from defamation cases brought by Russian oligarchs and other wealthy individuals or corporations looking to evade scrutiny in the public interest. The Government have promised to do more to protect people from SLAPPs, but they have yet to come forward with concrete proposals. We would like to see those measures brought forward, as they are needed to secure our free press. We also look forward to seeing the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) on this subject.
It is an important principle that ordinary citizens should be able to access justice. As the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth said, amendment 2 would remove the stick. If that encourages more publishers to join the approved regulator, it would create more compliance with the arbitration scheme, which is another reason why we support the amendment. How will the Government protect publishers from SLAPPs and give complainants access to justice?
I acknowledge the amendments and new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). In addition to covering many of the issues that I also support, he clearly cares about the care that public service broadcasters should take in consulting and fully representing their audiences in both their workforce and their output. I ask every culture, media and sport organisation I meet, “Where are the women? Where are the people of colour? Where are the people from working-class communities?” Those questions have to be answered both horizontally and vertically, and my right hon. Friend made that case extremely well.
Before closing, I wish to raise a couple of concerns with the Minister on Government amendments 37 to 39. Those amendments appear to lack clarity and purpose, and they may weaken the position of public service broadcasters in future negotiations with commercial broadcasters. I urge the Government to reconsider them, and at least to make it clear to the House what problem they are trying to solve.
We support the Bill in general terms. I hope Members will join me in supporting the amendments I have outlined, including amendment 2 tabled by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and our new clause 13 on Gaelic. We feel that these amendments would strengthen the Bill, benefiting people across the country and helping to support our broadcasters in the coming years.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in support of amendment 18, tabled in my name and the names of other hon. Members.
I generally welcome this Bill as a valiant attempt to bring the law and regulation up to date in a fast-moving sector of our society, namely broadcasting and on-screen entertainment. I will focus on part 4, which deals with on-demand programme services and, in particular, clause 38, which will usher in a comprehensive review, to be undertaken by Ofcom, of audience protection and the production of a video on demand code.
This welcome Bill reflects how many people watch their entertainment today. My two oldest grandchildren, aged 19 and 18, rarely watch anything on television, but they are always on their tablets or smartphones. They have no concept of seeing what is on the box in the evening, and maybe even recording it, as my wife and I still do. They simply source and download what they want to watch, when they want to watch it, via video on demand.
It is therefore important that we ensure the very best protection is in place, not so much for them—they are both adults now—but for my 12-year-old granddaughter, my seven-year-old grandson and even my two-year-old granddaughter, who has her own tablet on which she watches “Peppa Pig” and “The Wheels on the Bus”—I can confirm that the wheels go round an awful lot. [Laughter.] After 20 years, I am so sick of hearing that song.
Ensuring adequate audience protection measures for video on demand is vital, and clause 38 makes a commendable start, but I believe that amendment 18—shades of which are mirrored in amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House, as was mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State—would enhance that protection. The amendment contains the following reasonable provision:
“When considering the adequacy of age ratings, OFCOM must report on the extent to which any age ratings used by providers are—
(a) clear and well understood by consumers;
(b) underpinned by a published and transparent set of standards; and
(c) informed by regular and substantive consultation with the UK public.”
I do not think that is asking too much, and I therefore hope the Government will consider it carefully.
The Government have said that the Bill’s objective is to bring in
“stronger protections from harmful or age-inappropriate shows through a new Ofcom…Video-on-demand Code”.
Amendment 18 simply sets out objective criteria to achieve this aim with regard to age ratings. All it requires is that age ratings are clear, transparent and reflect UK expectations about what is age appropriate. That is not a high bar to expect services to meet.
As others have said, we are very fortunate in the UK to have a tried and trusted classifier of content, namely the British Board of Film Classification, which has been age-rating our movies ever since I first went to the pictures in Tiverton to see James Bond in “Thunderball”—I wonder how many colleagues remember that underwater film—and probably for a lot longer than that. The BBFC now rates online content and video on demand.
Opinion polls and surveys tell us that parents understand and trust the BBFC’s rating system. My informal survey of parents in my constituency over the past few weeks has confirmed that. It is the gold standard, and the threshold against which Ofcom can consider the sector as a whole. It is therefore reassuring that Netflix, Apple and Amazon all use BBFC ratings for their video content.
Amendment 18 would not force every content producer to use BBFC ratings, but it would help to ensure that each rating system is fit for purpose. That is the bare minimum we can do to prevent commercial VOD services from exposing children to harmful content because, sadly, all is not well in this sector. It grieves me to say that that is particularly so in relation to Disney.
The current ratings free-for-all has seen Disney+ classifying scenes of sexual abuse as suitable for nine-year-olds and scenes of graphic, misogynistic violence or offensive antisemitic stereotypes as suitable for 12-year-olds. That is lower than it classifies some of its “Star Wars” and superhero content. Until we hold services to a minimum standard, we risk eroding public trust in age ratings as a child-protection measure, and thus perpetuating this entirely preventable harm.
The problem with Disney and Disney+ is that, for most of us, the brand conjures a sense of safety and security that is no longer warranted. When people of my generation hear the word Disney, we think of “Bambi” or “Cinderella”, so the thought that our grandchildren are in the next room watching a Disney+ video is intrinsically reassuring. But that would be an error of judgment, because much of its content is now dark and explicit.
Disney’s rating system is very different from the BBFC’s, and it is based on a Dutch system. Transparency and consistency must be part of the new VOD code, and Ofcom should consider the current lack of coherence and consistency in its review and future work.
Amendment 18 does not seek to change the scope of the Bill or prevent new innovations in audience protection. It is not about mandating any particular solution. Most of us know and respect BBFC age ratings, but nobody will be forced to adopt age ratings where they are not appropriate or not expected, such as on services operated by public service broadcasters. It is purely about setting objective benchmark standards to ensure that, where age ratings are used, they are effective for the purpose of child protection. As that is the stated purpose of the Bill, I hope the amendment will attract Government support.
It is not my intention to divide the House on amendment 18, but I hope that the excellent Minister will introduce similar amendments in the other place. If she does not, I am confident that similar amendments will be tabled in the other place that are likely to be supported, and I certainly would not vote against them when they come back to this place.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to respond briefly to the issues just raised by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter). I wonder whether he has looked at my new clause 20. The definition of “on-demand services” is not as he imagines. In the Communications Act 2003, it covers only those services whose “principal purpose” is the provision of programmes, so services such as those on the iPad or consoles would not be covered by the legislation as it stands. The legislation is specifically about those whose principal purpose is to do with providing programmes. It will cover Fire sticks, for example, or Sky Glass, as was mentioned by the Minister, but it will not cover those people watching on a PlayStation or on-demand services on iPads, so the prominence regime would not apply for those who are not watching on something whose “principal purpose” is television.
Anything in the Bill that relates specifically to on-demand services, therefore, even when it comes to age ratings or some of the other requirements we are putting on on-demand services, will apply only to Sky Glass, Fire TV and those sorts of things. That is why I tabled new clause 20, which would amend the Bill to recognise how quickly things move, as a number of Members have pointed out. The way that we consume media changes very regularly, and it has certainly changed dramatically in the 20 years since a media Bill was previously proposed.
I therefore ask Ministers to look at the definition of on-demand services and consider whether it continues to be appropriate; if it does not, new clause 20 would ensure that Ofcom is able to regulate all those places where people watch television. I originally tabled the new clause because of the incredibly high percentage, comparatively, of people in Scotland who watch television exclusively on consoles, without the PSB prominence that we might expect in services that are specifically for streaming TV.
I will speak to a number of the amendments tabled by Members across the House, starting with those tabled by the SNP. I have covered my concerns about the definition of on-demand services, and generally I do not think that the Bill as drafted is all-encompassing enough. The issue of smaller studios, which is covered in our amendments 82 to 85, was raised with me by the Media Reform Coalition. Having quotas for independent studios is good, but some broadcasters have a predilection to using only the super-indies, which account for about 20% of the companies that make independent productions; the smaller indies account for about 80%. Some broadcasters commission almost everything from that 20% of the market, from companies such as Endemol. Those companies do a great job, but they cannot be considered to be small independent studios. Amendments 82 to 85 would encourage public service broadcasters to move outside the scope of those largest independent studios and to give some of their work to smaller studios, which would have significant regional benefits.
New clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), looks at how the regions are accounted for, the production hours in each of the regions, and making sure that productions are genuinely regional productions, rather than a lift-and-shift from somewhere else. Those issues are important. Looking at the quota system for stuff being done outside the M25, for example, is not enough. Amendments 82 to 85 would augment the regional quotas recommendations proposed by the hon. Member for Arfon. If broadcasting companies had to look at the smaller independent studios, it would naturally encourage an increase in regional production.
I have one last point to make about the SNP amendments that has not been covered so much by other people. New clause 22, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is similar to my new clause 19 on the diversity of the workforce. That is incredibly important. I made the point in an intervention that I am concerned by the lack of diversity in public service broadcasting. I am concerned by that lack of diversity on and off screen. It is important to look at both areas when considering the future of PSBs. This is not about sticks, nor is it about carrots; it is about transparency. It is about ensuring that all individuals are transparent about whether they are meeting the test of having something that looks like the general population. It is clear that Parliament does not match the diversity of the population, given the incredibly large percentage of men in comparison with women still in this place, even though it has been going in the right direction. However, we need people on screen to reflect the population.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I emphasise the point that the hon. Lady made earlier in respect of the Gaelic language. In terms of language planning, extending the domain of a minority language is extremely important. That domain encompasses the media, including television and radio. She is perfectly right to argue for Gaelic television to be picked up in Aberdeen as well as in the Western Isles.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for backing up my point. I think we are very much on the same page. I am pleased at how much Welsh language TV has changed and moved in recent years. I congratulate him on his personal work to ensure that that happened. He was very clear about the history in Committee, and it was incredibly interesting to learn about that.
I support the amendments about age ratings. I agree that there should be consistency to them and that Disney tends to duck its obligations, which makes it more difficult for parents to make sensible decisions.
The shadow Minister talked about children’s television and the way that children access some television. Children in more deprived households are less likely to have access to smartphones or online systems, and therefore the only way they can access good children’s content may be through the public service broadcasters and their free-to-air services. I want to reinforce the shadow Minister’s point that it is incredibly important to protect those services because of the discriminatory and differential impact their loss would have on the most vulnerable children and those who are least able to access educational programming and have access only to free-to-air services as they air.
It is important to protect children’s television and ensure the provision of good-quality children’s television. I continue to talk and think about the importance of CBBC and CBeebies when my children were young. Other services are available but 10 or 12 years ago, those channels were at the centre of what children and families were watching. I hope that they continue to produce high-quality, useful and interesting programmes. Sometimes we just need to sit our children down in front of the TV and have a few minutes. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is thoroughly recommended at times.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington tabled new clause 21, about genres. We agree that there are issues with their removal from legislation. I hope that the Government will agree at least to keep a watching brief on that and that they are willing to ensure that Ofcom can change the genres covered or encourage extra genres to be added in a slightly easier way than is currently possible. The process for making changes is onerous and if problems are identified, it will be difficult for the Government to walk back from the position that they are including in the Bill. Giving Ofcom more flexibility to increase the number of genres would be helpful.
Let me deal with the issues about section 40 and the lack of independent regulators. I met members of Hacked Off yesterday. I have been speaking to the organisation throughout the Bill’s stages, and I tabled an amendment on the subject in Committee. I have concerns about the Government’s position on section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I understand that, as the temporary Minister—if that is the correct term—the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) said, the provision was a manifesto pledge. I still do not think that it is the right thing to do. We still have significant issues with the Independent Press Standards Organisation. The right hon. Member cannot say that Impress is a state regulator and that it is not independent while at the same time stressing that IPSO is an independent regulator. Either they are both independent or neither of them are. A press-backed regulator and a state-backed regulator would be closer to my definition. I believe that IPSO is not independent, as do many people, if we look at the results and the number of people who go through IPSO processes and do not get the recourse that they hoped for or that natural justice would give them.
I spoke to an individual yesterday whose daughter had died. The seconds before the young woman passed away were filmed and posted on a national newspaper’s website. IPSO found that that was not intrusion into grief. It is against natural justice that that could happen. The individuals from Hacked Off and those who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry were told clearly by those in charge at the time, “We will make changes. We will ensure that there is recourse.” They were promised by those in the most senior positions that change would happen, yet 12 years on, those people are still waiting for any meaningful change to occur. Given everything that they have been through, they should not have to continue to fight simply to get the press to behave with a little compassion and common sense. I have massive concerns about the Government’s position, and I will support the amendments that the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) tabled. I have a slight preference for new clause 3 over amendment 2 because the new clause is very similar to the one that I tabled in Committee. However, I am happy to take the morally correct position and support amendment 2.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) will cover the sports issues.
Clive Efford
I have been perusing new clause 18, which the hon. Member tabled. It would establish a fund to compensate sports governing bodies for loss of income for sale of TV rights. Would that be a levy on the sports governing bodies, which the Government would redistribute, or would the money come from general taxation? It is not clear how it would be paid for.
Kirsty Blackman
I do not mean to be difficult, but the amendments are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and I was saying that he will cover the information about them. I am sure that he would be willing to take an intervention on that point and provide the answer. I have magnanimously allowed him to lead because I know very little about sport. He knows far more about it than me, so it made sense for us to divide up the amendments.
I want briefly to cover terrestrial television and specifically new clause 8, which the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) tabled, and amendment 80, which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and I tabled. The Scottish Affairs Committee did an excellent piece of work on that, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and the rest of the Committee on all their work. The Committee found that about a third of users in Scotland access television only through Freeview or digital terrestrial TV. Our amendment asks about the percentage of people who access television through means other than terrestrial TV. My biggest concern, which I made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, is about the potential for terrestrial television services to stop accidentally. If the Government refuse to make a commitment about those services’ future, we could end up with the networks degrading accidentally, with nobody willing to make investment in them because the Government have not been clear about their future. I would like the Government to make clear statements about what those services will look like in future. We want to ensure that our constituents can continue to access them and that there is no impact on the most vulnerable and those who live in the most rural areas.
The Bill tries to strike a balance between the rights and the responsibilities of public service broadcasters. Everything that the Government do in regulating them is about striking that balance. They outline the recognised public service broadcasters’ rights and their responsibilities to show certain genres and provide high-quality television. As a result of fulfilling those responsibilities, those broadcasters have the right to prominence on on-demand services. It is reasonable to consider public service broadcasters as different from other broadcasters because they have those responsibilities, which others do not share.
The changes to radio are also important. It was good to hear cross-party commitment to and positivity about radio in Committee. In the recent extreme weather events, people have relied on the radio. They need to know, for example, that a tree has fallen down on North Anderson Drive and that they cannot access the Haudagain slip road. My friend, who lives in Oxfordshire, had no electricity because of a recent storm, and could get updates only by listening to their car radio. Radio is incredibly important for resilience and I am pleased that Members across the House recognised that in Committee.
As I have made clear, the SNP will not oppose the Bill on Third Reading. Changes, which are long overdue, need to be made. However, there are some gaps in the Bill, including issues around future proofing, that have not been adequately addressed. As the shadow Minister did, I thank everyone on the Bill Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Arfon.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate about this important legislation, and to hear cross-party support for the Bill and the work done in Committee, on Second Reading, in which I took part, and now on Report. I warmly welcome the Bill and the work done by the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries and her team, as well as by the interim Minister, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), in the early stages.
I will focus on new clause 8, which I tabled. The new clause looks at what is not in the Bill and what has been omitted, which I hope the Minister will consider during her summing up and in the Bill’s remaining stages. Protection for digital terrestrial television and radio broadcast services that people receive via an aerial needs to be written into the Bill. New clause 8 would put in law for the first time a legal protection for these crucial life-line services. It would put a duty on the Government to keep issuing multiplex licences and on Ofcom to make available sufficient radio spectrum.
Currently, these services are guaranteed only until 2034, with the risk that they could be switched in 2030 —in just six years. Ministers hinted at Second Reading that these services will have a longer shelf life than 2034, which is welcome. However, I will focus my remarks on the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, and our report, which I will come to, because at the Committee, the Minister said:
“What happens after 2034 is a live question.”
I agree that it a “live question”, which is why we need a live answer to the issue.
I welcome the Minister’s positive comments in Committee and those of the Secretary of State on Second Reading—indeed, I quoted a speech by the Secretary of State. There is a lot of positivity about what I am hearing from the Government and I hope they will go a step further by taking on the conclusions I have come to in new clause 8.
No one is pushing against the tide on the growth in streaming, but terrestrial television, often referred to as Freeview, and broadcast radio still account for the bulk of viewing and listening across the United Kingdom. I come to the issue from a Scottish angle, as I represent a Scottish constituency and am a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, where we discussed this at length, but the issue affects people across the United Kingdom. Research from Ipsos in 2022 showed that most adults had watched digital terrestrial television in the last year and 43% of adults watched digital terrestrial television every week. Some 76% listened to broadcast radio weekly.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was right to highlight the very good Scottish Affairs Committee report on the subject and she mentioned the issues. As the report says on page 13:
“Almost a third (31%) of households in Scotland only used Digital Terrestrial Television services…to watch television in the first quarter of 2022.”
Paragraph 33 highlights correspondence to the Committee from Laurie Patten, director of strategy and regulation at Arqiva, who argued that
“Scotland’s greater rurality than the UK average, its island communities, and its comparatively older population”
make terrestrial TV services especially important in Scotland. That is why we made that issue so prominent in the report. I have continued to raise the matter with Ministers, and proposed new clause 8.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North was right to say the issue is important not only to people in rural communities and older populations, and that it has an impact on some of the most vulnerable in society. The campaign group Broadcast 2040+ has assembled a coalition of groups representing those who rely on broadcast services the most. They include older people, who rely disproportionately on terrestrial television. Some 80% of those aged 75 and above only watch their media, news and programmes through that means, and they often struggle to access IP content.
Age UK is a member of the coalition. Their charity director, Caroline Abrahams, said:
“While broadcast TV and radio is enjoyed by many across the UK, it is especially important for older audiences particularly those on low incomes living alone. Many older people value the current universal services and would struggle to afford alternatives such as subscriptions services.”
Because they are free to air, they are also a lifeline to people on lower incomes or living in digital poverty, who often struggle to afford the additional cost of subscription streaming services and the cost of superfast broadband connections that are required to access them. Elizabeth Anderson, chief executive office of the Digital Poverty Alliance said:
“For the millions living in digital poverty in the UK, TV and radio broadcast services are vital sources of news, public education and entertainment. The universality of access to broadcast services must be paramount. Whilst many services have seen a rush to digital only delivery, applying this to TV and radio when so many lack the devices, skills and connectivity packages to access internet based media would simply push millions of people deeper into financial and social exclusion.”
Jamie Stone
The hon. Gentleman’s words strike a chord with me because he highlights exactly the issues in my vast, far-flung constituency. In the straths and glens of Sutherland, Caithness, Ross and Cromarty, there are many folk who cannot afford such services, precisely as he is saying. I am glad he is saying what he is saying, and I am listening with very great interest. It is important that this issue is aired.
Douglas Ross
The hon. Gentleman represents an extremely rural part of northern Scotland. My constituency is not quite so rural, but many people in Moray experience similar challenges to those of his constituents in the far north.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points and I am hesitant to interrupt him. Although I would not sell his constituency short, my constituency is also very rural. Our constituencies, in common with many of the rural constituencies in Scotland, are very low down the league table of superfast broadband coverage. As much as people might be able to afford or want streaming services, they do not physically have access to them—at least, not yet. Does he agree that makes his new clause even more important?
Douglas Ross
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point and for supporting my new clause 8. I will come on to not just the affordability but the availability of superfast broadband to get streaming services.
I highlight the importance of broadcast services for rural constituents, including mine in Moray, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). Graham Biggs, chief executive of the Rural Services Network, has amplified that point, saying that the
“issue of safeguarding DTT and radio is of fundamental importance to rural areas where the population is much older than the national average and the least well served by broadband connectivity. We strongly support the Broadcast 2040+ campaign.”
I have been extremely encouraged by the work of that campaign to get some movement from the Government on the issue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan highlighted, the issue of broadband connectivity is of huge concern to constituents in his area, as well as in my Moray constituency. Large parts of Scotland and rural areas around the UK do not have reliable, high-speed broadband, so streaming TV is not an option. I have little confidence that the problem will be solved by 2040, particularly given some of the problems we have seen with the roll-out of the R100 programme in Scotland.
Even if that roll-out succeeds, all the targets are met and high-speed broadband is delivered across the country, the other measure that we must look at is broadband take-up. EY has recently undertaken a study on that, predicting that regardless of whether high-speed broadband is rolled out, more than 5.5 million properties in the UK will still not have a high-speed broadband subscription in 2040—well beyond 2034 as specified by my new clause. The report makes a number of other worrying findings and paints a compelling picture of the genuine dependence that millions of the most vulnerable members of our society have on broadcast services to stay connected and in touch. Any move towards an online-only system of TV distribution, without the option of digital terrestrial television, would put a significant group of people at risk of being left behind.
As for why I have tabled new clause 8 and why am I looking for certainty from the Government, both they and Ofcom are conducting reviews of the TV market. Ministers have urged us to await those findings, but 2034 is not far away and if these services are to remain, it is crucial that we attract investment and ensure that they remain commercially viable. To do that, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North correctly said, they need certainty from the Government. The danger is that without that longer-term certainty, beyond 2034, where the Minister has accepted there is a live question, broadcasters might run down their services and the technology might not be updated. If they get certainty from the Government, they can put in investment to ensure people are not without these crucial services and are not left isolated. If the commercial viability of the service is lost while millions of people are still relying on it, there is a real risk that, perversely, the Government would have to step in and use taxpayers’ money to keep the service going. My constructive proposal would not only help keep people connected but, in the long run, perhaps save taxpayers’ money. Surely it is better to provide the longer-term guarantee now that would enable that investment and deliver a good-quality, universal service for years to come.
I thank the Minister, the interim Minister and the Secretary of State and others who have listened to my concerns on this issue. I met the Minister just last week and I will continue the dialogue on this, because it is a crucial element that we should be debating in this House. I hope we will get some movement from the Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) said, Media Bills do not come along often, so this is an opportunity for this Minister, this Government and her Department to put my new clause 8 into the Bill and give that guarantee going forward. That would allow the investment to be made and secure the commercial future for DTT, ensuring that people in Moray, across Scotland and around the UK can continue to rely on those services for many years to come.
Hywel Williams
First, may I apologise for my late arrival to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker? I seriously underestimated hon. Members’ capacity for brevity on the previous business. This afternoon, I would like to speak to my new clause 15 and to refer briefly to new clause 1 and clause 28. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her work with me in Committee—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It will not be possible for the hon. Gentleman to refer to new clause 1, because he was not here to move it at the beginning. He is fine to speak to new clause 15.
Hywel Williams
Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. New clause 15 seeks to establish a broadcasting and communications authority for Wales. That new independent body would have responsibility for and oversight of broadcasting and media matters in Wales, seeking to reflect the needs of Welsh audiences. Under my new clause, a shadow authority would fulfil the functions of that body before its establishment 12 months after the passing of this Act. The report by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales recommended that move. Some Members will know that the commission was set up by the Welsh Government and is under the chairmanship of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. It reported last week, and one of its conclusions was that there is a need to look at the devolution of broadcasting. An independent authority to regulate would be an integral part of that provision. Recent events have shown that there is a real need for such an authority in Wales. Some Members will know about the internal issues at S4C, the Welsh language channel, which make the argument that the current broadcasting framework is unsustainable.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case, and the events of the past week involving the commission vindicate the position he has taken. The recent difficulties in S4C have been very damaging for the channel. My firm view is that if the matter had been in the hands of Welsh Government Ministers and the Senedd, which can provide scrutiny and accountability, we would not have got to the damaging state we are in.
Hywel Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, with which I entirely agree. Even Welsh Conservative Members concede that the arguments for reserving powers over broadcasting have been undermined by what has happened, and by the Department’s actions—or inactions. We are concerned about S4C, and its funding has plummeted since 2010. The decision to fund it through the licence fee led to a 40% reduction in staff. In 2015, its chief executive officer, Ian Jones, warned about the effects of huge funding cuts and called for “tegwch” or fair play. That was a valuable contribution from him.
S4C’s independence is clearly at stake. We need to remember that there was a substantial and hard-fought campaign during the 1970s to establish the channel. Indeed, we had a discussion about that in Committee, in which the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) made some interesting points. I had the opportunity in the interim to consult the Cabinet papers, which I obtained from The National Archives. They show how the threat by the then Plaid Cymru leader Gwynfor Evans to go on a hunger strike was integral to the then Prime Minister’s decision to change course and allow the people of Wales our own channel. The Cabinet papers are very interesting to read, and I hope you will indulge my quoting briefly from them, Madam Deputy Speaker.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Am I correct in remembering that the Conservatives had promised a separate channel in their manifesto, and had broken that promise until Gwynfor Evans threatened his hunger strike?
Hywel Williams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point; that is what I am coming on to. However, a further argument arises from that unhappy episode, as I will show by quoting from the Cabinet papers. They state that the then Home Secretary, the late Willie Whitelaw, said that the Government
“would withdraw its plans to share Welsh language programmes between two television channels. Instead the programmes would, for an experimental period of three years, be broadcast on one channel as had been proposed in the Party Manifesto.”
That is the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.
What is more interesting is that the papers say that Willie Whitelaw
“still thought that the previous plans were preferable but he had agreed to change them in response to representations, put to him by Lord Cledwyn and others, of the views of informed and responsible people in Wales.”
The interesting point is the reference to
“the views of informed and responsible people in Wales.”
In fact, in the same Cabinet meeting, the Secretary of State for Wales said:
“Gwynfor Evans, the leader of Plaid Cymru, was threatening to go on what he called a ‘hunger strike’”,
before going on to say that there could be
“much tension and unpleasantness in Wales later in the year, if he persisted in this intention, and there would be a danger that Plaid Cymru would fall into the hands of extreme left wing leaders”,
mentioning no names. However, later on in the Cabinet papers, the Secretary of State for Wales said that it had been made clear in the press that the change been made in response to
“moderate opinion following very wide consultation in Wales.”
That is the point I want to make. The argument I am making for a Welsh broadcasting authority reflects settled and responsible opinion in Wales. As I said, the constitutional convention has met and taken evidence very widely over two years, and has come to the conclusion that broadcasting should be devolved to Wales.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for giving us a history lesson on the hard work of Gwynfor Evans. Anybody who is interested in this period in the history of Wales should watch the great drama that S4C recently commissioned on the life of Gwynfor Evans, and this campaign in particular. I was at Crymych rugby club at the weekend with Rhodri John, the actor who portrayed Gwynfor in the drama.
Hywel Williams
I can indeed recommend that production for anybody to have a look at; it is very interesting. I can also recommend the biography of Gwynfor Evans, which makes similar points.
The media industry in Wales is more than S4C. We have fantastic production companies, including Cwmni Da in my constituency, news outlets and radio—all kinds of things. The proposed authority would unite the media landscape in Wales under one regulatory roof and safeguard it from harms, including from large conglomerates. It would also focus on areas that are important to the people of Wales. The Labour Welsh Government’s expert panel on a shadow broadcasting and communications authority for Wales proposed that public interest journalism, sports and children’s media be areas of specific focus due to their cultural significance, position in relation to Welsh language ambitions and impact on long-term sustainability, among other reasons. The Welsh Government therefore propose a shadow broadcasting and communications authority for Wales. I look to those on the Labour Front Bench, as potentially the next Government, to give us reassurance that it is their intention to establish that authority, as well as the intention of the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff.
Wales needs to have a say on its own media landscape to ensure that what works for us is what we get. Prominent commentators such as Professor Tom O’Malley and Mike Birtwistle have said that S4C should be built on shared principles of social partnership, public interest and democratic pluralism; that is, as they say, the Welsh political tradition. An independent regulator for Wales would be better equipped to regulate, defend and promote our national broadcasting and media industry in Wales and ensure that those values are represented. That is my argument in favour of a broadcasting authority.
I will say a few words on the prominence of S4C on the selection services—a point that I also raised in Committee. S4C’s content must be readily discoverable and prominent on television services, but I seek assurances that the “appropriate degree of prominence” will not lead to the limiting of S4C’s coverage to specific audiences, thereby depriving people of a wide range of broadcasts. This language matches that of the electronic programme guides code, which allowed S4C to be on channel 166 on Virgin Media in Wales until 2021. The Government should provide clear principles to guide Ofcom in drawing up the new prominence code, so that public service broadcasters’ designated internet programming services appear prominently and are easily discoverable on screens.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I rise to support new clause 6 and amendment 17, both in my name. The Bill is a substantial piece of legislation and I fully support what the Government are seeking to do through it to bridge the gap in regulation between linear television and internet-based on-demand platforms.
Nobody would argue against the principle that we want to protect children from watching age-inappropriate or harmful content. That is, after all, why Parliament over many years has brought in legislation that mandates age ratings on cinema releases, restrictions on children buying DVDs and videos and, importantly, until the relatively recent past, a watershed for broadcast TV. The watershed, of course, ensures that programmes broadcast before 9 pm are generally suitable for children.
However, now that the vast majority of content watched by children and adults is accessed through on-demand streaming services, the watershed has become increasingly redundant. It does not matter if a programme was originally broadcast live after the watershed; once it is available to stream online, it can be viewed by anyone of any age at any time. That is why we urgently need to apply the same standards of child protection to on-demand video as we do to cinema releases, physical DVDs and linear TV.
While a time-based watershed clearly cannot be adapted for video on demand services, we are very fortunate in this country to have world-class expertise in applying age ratings to video content. The British Board of Film Classification has been empowered by Parliament, through the Secretary of State, to apply age ratings across all cinema and DVD releases in the UK. The BBFC does an excellent job of this, as colleagues have mentioned, and is a global leader in its field. It has produced a system of age ratings that the vast majority of the British population recognises, trusts and understands. Importantly, its ratings are based on regular consultation with thousands of people across Britain to ensure that they meet audience expectations.
We have the relevant age rating expertise already in this country, but as it stands, the Bill will not make use of that expertise. Amendment 17 would address this matter very simply by explicitly requiring Ofcom to consult the BBFC when drawing up the video on demand code. The code will set the rules for streaming platforms, including in relation to age ratings. Why would we not want to ensure that our world-renowned, Government-appointed experts are consulted as part of that?
There was a similar amendment to the Online Safety Act 2023 that required Ofcom to consult with the Children’s Commissioner, and I can see no argument against applying the same principle here. Getting age ratings right is incredibly important, as they will likely become one of the main audience protection measures that platforms employ and will, of course, future-proof the Bill. If parents do not trust the ratings, they will ignore them, and we will then not achieve our aim of protecting children.
That brings me to new clause 6 in my name, which is similar to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), and I will reiterate some of his points.
Kit Malthouse
I am very supportive of the theme of my hon. Friend’s amendment. She made an extremely important point about consistency for parents. Those of us who are lucky enough to have children find ourselves in a forest of different media that they consume, some of which seem to decide the rules and ratings on their own—of course, there are websites to go to for third-party reference. Does she agree that it would be sensible to have a standardised view for parents, to manage consumption by their children, as it is the parents’ primary duty to manage that? We have seen in the past that the wider media industry will constantly push the boundary to try to get more under the wire for consumption by younger and younger people, such as in the deterioration of the watershed on terrestrial television. If an organisation such as the BBFC sets the tone and the standard, that must apply online as much as offline.
Miriam Cates
I agree with every word. The very important factor behind the BBFC is that parents trust it. It even has an app to search for any film or DVD, and it will tell parents not only the rating but exactly why it is there—swearing, violence or whatever. That detailed knowledge is crucial not only to gain parents’ trust but to create an industry standard, as my right hon. Friend said. If we have no industry standard, some companies will try to get around the requirements if there is a commercial advantage. The Bill should set out exactly that.
Gavin Newlands
I rise to commend my new clause 16 to the House, and to speak to new clauses 17 and 18, and amendments 79 and 80.
This summer will again see Scotland again in the finals of the men’s European championships in Germany. Thanks to listing, every game from the finals will be available free to air on the BBC and STV/ITV. However, once this summer’s Euro 2024 final concludes and Scotland have safely tucked away the Henri Delaunay trophy in the Hampden trophy cabinet, we will be back to the current set-up, which will maintain a paywall for the Scotland men’s national team games.
Last April, I hosted a roundtable summit on how to make progress on getting all of Scotland’s national team matches on free-to-air TV. Two things were clear: as it stood, that would not be an easy or quick fix, with umpteen moving parts and vested interests in the room; however, there was also a willingness to look realistically at what could be done with the right will and resources. We saw how grassroots participation rates in English cricket slumped when the England and Wales Cricket Board signed a deal with Sky and put almost the entirety of the first-class game behind a paywall. The lack of public interest was such that the ECB effectively had to invent an entire competition, purely for terrestrial television, as a shop window for the sport. I assume that we are all aware of the Billie Jean King quote:
“You have to see it to be it.”
No one at the Scottish Football Association, STV, Viaplay, the BBC, UEFA or anywhere else involved in football rights is sitting there plotting to do in Scottish football fans. They are all rational actors, working within the system created by the UK Government and UEFA to achieve their own goals.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the unanimity of opinion. I should tell the House that the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the Senedd’s Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee have all called for the Six Nations rugby tournament to remain free to air for broadcasting. Indeed, the Welsh Conservatives have a whole Senedd debate on that matter tomorrow. Last week, I met a senior executive from BBC Cymru Wales, who said that losing the Six Nations, for example, which is currently shared with ITV, will be a blow both to the BBC and to the audience.
Gavin Newlands
I will come to the potential issue facing the Six Nations a bit later in my speech, but in the meantime, I am very much looking forward to visiting Cardiff this Saturday to watch Scotland beat Wales in that very competition.
Clive Efford
It is just that the hon. Gentleman’s extensive list of events neglects to mention cricket. I wondered whether there was a reason why he had excluded cricket from his list.
Gavin Newlands
All I have sought to add to the list is the Six Nations competition and any and all qualification matches for all home nations’ national football teams. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I am indeed a fan of cricket, which is probably not a majority position in Scotland. It is obviously not one of the main sports in Scotland at this time, although the SNP will be backing amendment 88, tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), despite the fact that its proposed new clause 25(4)(a) would cover only the English cricket team, given that Scotland does not yet have test status—it is only a matter of time, I am sure.
Gavin Newlands
I was going to go back to football, but I feel that we are staying on cricket, so I will.
Jamie Stone
I thank the hon. Member for his generous remarks. Whether it is cricket, football or whatever, getting people to watch sport in the way that is being advocated so strongly means that they might become more inclined to take part in that sport themselves, which could ultimately improve the health of Scotland and the health of the nation.
Gavin Newlands
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point: the power of sport is simply huge. Participating is obviously the best thing for the health of the nation, but viewing a sport—whatever sport it is—is likely to drive up participation rates. We have seen the opposite with the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Sky contract.
If I can cycle back to football for a second, the problem for Scottish football fans is that sometimes the goals of those involved—again, I am talking about UEFA, the BBC, Viaplay and all the stakeholders—do not coincide with maximising access. What is needed is a change to the system that would change those goals for the better for our fans. The system is currently short-changing fans in Scotland, while elsewhere on these isles, it is a very different story. Football fans in England enjoy free-to-air coverage of their national team via the current deal with Channel 4 and the forthcoming deal with ITV. Viewers in Wales enjoy free-to-air coverage of their national team thanks to S4C’s sub-licensed Welsh language coverage, and viewers in Northern Ireland get free coverage of the Republic of Ireland via RTÉ broadcasts—while many in Northern Ireland welcome that, I appreciate that, for others, it is akin to having England games broadcast in Scotland on Channel 4 and STV. Scottish fans, though, are left with the prospect of paying subscription providers to see their team in action. That is very unlikely to change without amending legislation to level the playing field for Scottish supporters.
Similarly, these days, we are used to murmurings about the Six Nations being moved from its current home on the BBC and STV/ITV to behind a paywall. The airtime available to rugby union fans on free-to-air TV is already incredibly low: last year’s world cup was a four-yearly aberration. As we all know, the Six Nations is a ratings winner and rugby’s big annual shop window to the wider public and the players of the future. Even old relics like me can be convinced to play again—although, having tried to do so last year, it would have been very much for the better if I had not.
Gavin Newlands
Stupidity, not a mid-life crisis—yet.
Italian supporters are guaranteed to see their team on free-to-air TV; Ireland supporters will see their team on free TV, as will France supporters; but Scotland, Wales and England supporters face watching a blank screen if the rights are allowed to lapse into subscription TV’s hands. The Welsh Affairs Committee, which has already been mentioned and on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) sits, had it right when it recommended in its report on broadcasting in Wales that
“the Government adds the Six Nations to Group A of the Listed Sporting Events, to ensure its status on terrestrial TV.”
Obviously, that is proposed in new clause 16.
These islands will host the men’s Euro 2028 championships, and there is a reasonable chance that all five countries might qualify. Viewers in England, Ireland and Wales will be able to see their teams live and in full throughout the qualifying campaign without paying a penny—beyond the licence fee, in case anybody wanted to challenge me on that. My amendment would guarantee that right to all across these isles through a simple amendment of the existing legislation, extending the protections that exist to protect “events of national interest”, in the words of the 1996 Act. Scotland’s journey in the past few years under Stevie Clark has shown how much interest there is across Scotland, and it is time that the legislation reflected that.
I am grateful to Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats for their support for the new clause. I hope that Tory Back Benchers who have been espousing the power of sport and arguing that sport should be shown on free-to-air TV will join us in the Lobby this evening.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I would like to address a number of the amendments we have been discussing—some I support, some I oppose. Let me start on a positive note with new clause 7, which was tabled by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The new clause seeks to introduce protections for digital on-demand coverage of listed events, including clips and highlights of those events, and allows for time-shifted viewing. That is increasingly important for audiences, as it would enable viewing on multi-use devices or the viewing of events that take place overnight in other time zones, as we often see with the Olympic games and sometimes the World cup, depending on where they are in the world.
There are practical examples of how that change would make a difference. At the Olympic games in Tokyo, the gold-winning performance by BMX specialist Charlotte Worthington was watched by only 400,000 people because it took place in the middle of the night, yet in the days that followed, different forms of short-form coverage of the race generated a nearly tenfold increase in views. It is not just about time-shifting; that can also happen just because that is how people absorb content these days. For instance, for the 2022 Commonwealth games in Birmingham, the TV reach was about 20% lower than for the 2014 games in Glasgow, but there were about six times more on-demand views of digital clips. The problem is that without enhanced regulatory protection, what should be shared national moments risk being lost to many people behind a paywall. This Bill is a genuine opportunity to safeguard the future of listed events, as they are now viewed, for future generations.
As it stands, the Bill offers no protection for digital on-demand rights, yet, as I said, that is now a key way in which many people consume such events. I support the new clause because it would ensure that, where possible, adequate digital on-demand coverage of listed events, such as those clips and excerpts, is made available free of charge to audiences in the United Kingdom. I pray in aid the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I am a member. When we looked at this question, we concluded:
“Digital rights should be included as part of the Listed Events regime to reflect sweeping changes in how audiences consume content since the original legislation was passed. We recommend that the Government includes provisions in the Bill to enable digital rights to be included in the Listed Events regime without the need for further primary legislation.”
I know the Government recognise the issue and have consulted the industry about it, but a year later they have not yet reported on the findings of their review.
If those protections were brought in, they would broadly mirror the framework that currently provides protection for live coverage. The new clause seeks to ensure that, where rights holders grant rights for digital on-demand coverage, it is not done on an exclusive basis and there is an opportunity for audiences in the UK to enjoy that coverage for free. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West has said he will not press his new clause to a vote at this stage, but I hope the Minister is listening and that the Government will take this away and move an amendment in the other place that meets the needs that my hon. Friend is trying to meet.
I also support amendment 78, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), which offers the possibility for local digital TV services to be given the protections of the prominence regime. I think he undersold the historic nature of having the Minister who took the Bill through Committee moving an amendment on Report. He said he was sure it had happened before, but I am absolutely sure it is the first time any Minster who took a Bill through Committee stage because of maternity cover has tried to amend it on Report. For parliamentary procedure nerds, that alone makes it an historic moment, but there are also great merits in his suggestion. While I am referring to him, I note that there have been various descriptions of him from those on the Opposition Benches as a “temporary Minister”. I should say to the House, from some experience, that all Ministers are temporary at all times. The only permanent thing in any Department is the permanent secretary.
Reverting to the substance of the amendment, local TV is an increasingly important part of the landscape. It is still very small scale, by its definition, and it has had a rocky past, but there is clearly a market and a demand for it, and it is increasingly becoming part of the broadcasting landscape. The only thing I would add, since the amendment was spoken to so well by my right hon. Friend, is that it must apply to genuinely local stations. It is important to establish that caveat.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend about local television. People talk about specified channels and programmes for languages, but there are many areas, such as my constituency and his, where it is important that local viewers get a chance to see their specific areas and discussions relevant to them, rather than just regional television. That is why it is important that local television should be included.
Damian Green
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There are distinct markets for regional TV and local TV. In some parts of the country the regions are so large that large parts of what national broadcasters tend to regard as local TV are not local to people and do not register with their interests, whereas local TV can genuinely do that, as local radio does and has always done.
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend will know that the royal charter on self-regulation of the press, which the Conservative party established, is still alive and well, and the Government have no plans for its dissolution.
Damian Green
My right hon. Friend’s amendment seeks to revive the argument from more than 10 years ago, but I think that argument has gone. The world has moved on and the press has moved on. We had a discussion about whether regulation or the application of the law is the appropriate way to do this, and I submit that the reason why press behaviour has changed is simply the effective application of the law, and the fact that many newspaper groups have had to pay huge amounts of money because they broke the law in behaving the way they did 10, 15 and 20 years ago. That led to the change in behaviour. Where my right hon. Friend and I would come closer together is on SLAPP cases, and the need for legislation to allow individuals not to be intimidated by rich publishing companies. I know the Government have committed to introducing legislation to see those sorts of cases dismissed at the earliest possible stage, and I urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to do that as soon as possible.
While I am in sceptical mode, I similarly question the need for the various new clauses, proposed by Members in all parts of the House, that would mandate a more rigid system of age classifications for programmes already regulated by Ofcom. I absolutely get the intention behind them, which is to protect children from unsuitable content, but I am instinctively wary of suggestions that would mean one regulator having to consult another before introducing a code of conduct. Ofcom has considerable powers, and it can operate those powers. I do not think it sensible to try to tie this down to any particular age classification system, not least because some public service broadcasters, who are pretty responsible in not trying to expose content that is unsuitable for children, operate systems of protection that do not rely on age classification. ITV has its guidance system, and many broadcasters operate a system involving a PIN that sensible parents will keep from their children so that they can be protected at home.
Lia Nici
Is that not exactly the point? We have world-class regulation in the British Board of Film Classification, which gives us a benchmark. A good arrangement would be for broadcasters and other platforms to register with an organisation like the BBFC and have to pay a registration fee, and for the regulator to regulate that rather than the other way round. My right hon. Friend talks about responsible parents, but we need to guide the people who do not know what to look for, who are not media-savvy, and who need some guidance. Even our public service broadcasters do not always get it right, and sometimes there is content that really should not be seen by those aged 15 and under.
Damian Green
I take my hon. Friend’s point, but I return to my original point. Given that the Bill and indeed our whole regulatory structure are based on Ofcom, and given that the Bill seeks to give Ofcom proper powers to provide, in this instance, protection for children in an appropriate way, introducing another different system would, I suspect, lead to more confusion rather than less.
Miriam Cates
That is precisely what the Bill will do: it will introduce a different system. At present Ofcom is responsible for regulating the public service broadcasters, which it does through the watershed, and the BBFC is responsible for DVDs and cinema. We now have a completely new landscape which resembles the DVD landscape much more closely because it is available on demand. It is therefore sensible to introduce an age-rating system based roughly on what the BBFC does, because the BBFC, not Ofcom, is the expert in that field.
Damian Green
I fear that we may go down a rabbit hole. Ofcom is the expert in that field, but the system is based on film classification. The age-rating system is designed for a situation where a person goes through a door and someone makes a guess whether that person was 16 or 18 or 12, for instance.
Miriam Cates
I take my right hon. Friend’s point. However, the BBFC classifies not just films but items that are streamed directly and never released in cinemas by tagging every rateable incident, such as a swear word or an episode of violence, and uses that system to come up with a verifiable, standardised rating that everyone understands. It is exactly the same process as the one that is used to verify a video on demand, and it is what Netflix already uses to rate its own videos.
Damian Green
Netflix uses it, but, as my hon. Friend herself said earlier, Disney does not. There will of course be differences. I think that overregulating will just lead to disadvantages for people who are trying to produce content, and that insisting on one system that is partly designed for one mode of operation may well not work for another operation. If Ofcom does its job effectively it will achieve what we all want to see, which is age-inappropriate content not being available to children. As I have said, involving more than one regulator normally leads to confusion and worse regulation than would have existed otherwise.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who, like me, is a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He speaks with authority on many of these issues, although I did not agree with everything he said. However, I certainly agree with him about broadcasting highlights of major sporting events, and I hope the Government are listening.
I welcome the position taken by Labour Front Benchers, who have said they will support amendment 2. I am delighted that they have been listening to those of us who have been involved in this issue for a number of years and who have supported the work of Hacked Off. I claim only a minor supporting role; other Opposition Members have done far more than I have. None the less, I have been at those meetings and in those discussions. At times, I have taken part in debates in which I have committed to support the aims and objectives of people who have been fighting hard through Hacked Off, and I am delighted that we are not closing the door on them completely today.
I commend the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) not just for his amendments, but for the way he has negotiated with others on this issue to get us to what I consider to be a compromise position—one that can allow us to go forwards and not close the door completely on the issue of an independent press complaints system. As he described earlier, his amendments remove the stick element, which is the element that is most opposed by people working in the press. I think it would have given them the incentive to join a proper independent complaints system. None the less, it is a sticking point and, in this compromise, removing it is the right thing to do at this stage.
Then there is the issue of the carrot. Many of us have taken part in debates in this place about SLAPP orders, which enable those with a great deal of wealth at their disposal to abuse our legal system in order to shut down independent reporting that exposes wrongdoing and shines a light into the places that need it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. Friend underestimates his own role in this area, which has been very strong. I suspect that, like me, he wishes that we were seeing section 40 commenced rather than repealed today, as I am sure do the McCanns, the Dowlers, Christopher Jefferies and all the other historical victims of press abuses. Given that we are going for the carrot rather than the stick—the carrot is better than nothing—can my hon. Friend explain why there is not universal support for that across the House?
Clive Efford
I will leave it to others to explain why they are adopting their position, but I do take issue with some of the assertions that have been made by some Government Members, who say that the current system is an improvement on what we had before. As I pointed out earlier, the IPSO system received over 14,000 complaints in 2021, but only 88 of them, or 0.6%, were upheld—less than 1%. I challenge anyone to say that it is a satisfactory situation to have so few complaints upheld.
I met a mother, Mandy Garner, for the first time yesterday. Her daughter was killed in a hit-and-run. In the 24 hours after Mandy was given the news and tried to relay it to her family, the Daily Mail went down to the scene of the crime and managed to purchase CCTV footage from a nearby shop that showed the accident taking place. The Daily Mail did not actually show the moment of impact in the media, but within that 24 hours, it posted that recording for people to watch under a clickbait headline.
That happened in 2020, 10 years after Hacked Off started its campaign. Mandy described her experience in an article:
“the Daily Mail published the CCTV footage of my daughter’s last moments the morning after her death with a lurid clickbait headline—just as we were trying to explain to our other children what had happened. I complained that it was an intrusion into grief and therefore in breach of IPSO’s code on this. I thought it was an open and closed case. Clearly, it was a breach. If it wasn’t, what actually would constitute a breach?”
Months of to-ing and fro-ing with the Daily Mail followed, while Mandy was mourning her daughter. She went on:
“Eventually…IPSO ruled that it was not a breach of their code. One of the reasons given was that you couldn’t make out my daughter’s face because the footage was ‘grainy’”.
There was nothing about how the footage would impact on the people who knew what had happened and knew who was involved, or about the family’s concern that the brothers and sisters of the young woman who had died would see the footage. If that is a satisfactory complaint system, I fail to understand what people think we were seeking to achieve when we went through all of Leveson and supported setting up the royal commission.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend and fellow Cornishman, the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). It would simply put a requirement on Ofcom to ensure that due regard was paid to the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities when assessing the fulfilment of the public service remit. This is of particular interest to us Cornish, because it is almost 10 years since the Council of Europe formally recognised the Cornish as a national minority and the Government accepted that recognition. This was a historic moment for those of us from the west of the Tamar, because although the Cornish have historically been recognised by this place as distinct from the English, this was the first time for a very long time that the Government had also recognised that. The Government said that the Cornish would be given the same recognition and status as the other Celtic nations of the UK—the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. Over the last 10 years, we have been grappling with what that means in application. It is disappointing to say that, at times, the Government have been criticised by the Council of Europe for not doing enough to deliver on this new recognition and status.
The Bill gives the Government a straightforward opportunity to do something fairly simple yet tangible that would give meaning to the recognition of Cornish national minority status. It is clear that Cornwall has a history, heritage and culture that is distinct from England’s, and distinct within the UK. It is unique in many ways, and we have far more in common with our Celtic cousins around the fringes of the UK. We have our own language, and it has seen a revival over the last 10 or 20 years, with many schools now promoting the Cornish language and holding workshops. UNESCO has upgraded Cornish from extinct to critically endangered. It is important that we recognise and seek to continue this progress.
George Eustice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting amendment 1. He makes a powerful case for why Cornwall is unique and different. Does he agree that if the BBC had due regard for the framework convention on national minorities, it would take a very different approach to local radio? At the moment, the BBC treats Cornwall like any other part of England.
Steve Double
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point that I was going to make. There is clearly a role for the BBC in helping to protect, promote and inform about Cornish culture and the Cornish language. Measures in this Bill could be strengthened to ensure that the BBC plays that role, thereby helping the Government to fulfil their responsibility to give due recognition to the Cornish.
We have seen a revival and fresh interest in Cornish culture and history in recent years, some of which is down to the hugely successful “Poldark” series, which, for many, has brought to life the history of Cornwall and its role in the industrial revolution. Other programmes have also helped to put the spotlight on our unique Cornish culture. I think particularly of “The Fisherman’s Apprentice”, in which Monty Halls went to live in one of our very small fishing communities to highlight both the historical and modern-day struggles of such places.
We are looking for programmes that present a picture of the true Cornwall and our history, heritage and culture, not programmes that present the idealistic, picture-postcard view of Cornwall, and that are just adverts for more second homeowners. We have rich, deep and strong heritage and culture in Cornwall, which is what we want to present and protect. In this day of increased multiculturalism—I do not want to go down that rabbit hole—and with all that is happening in the world, it is important that we do everything we can to protect the uniqueness of our Cornish culture. It is clear that broadcast media can play an important role in helping us to do just that, and in helping the Government to give real meaning and value to the recognition of Cornish national minority status in the UK.
I am not calling for our own Cornish station, just as Scotland and Wales have particular stations—I am not going that far—but more could be done to set an expectation that the BBC will give due regard to Cornish protected national minority status in its public service broadcasting responsibilities. That is simply what amendment 1 would do. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth does not intend to press it to a Division, but I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to the points that we have made, and to the purpose of the amendment, and to look carefully at whether the Government can adopt the measure or something similar as a clear sign of the importance that they place on protecting and promoting our Cornish culture and heritage.
John Nicolson
I agreed with all of that, except I am not quite sure how four countries can be described as a fringe. Rather, I would call us the anchor holding the Anglo-Saxon peninsula otherwise known as England in place.
During the lengthy passage of the Bill, we on the SNP Benches have engaged with the UK Government in good faith. We all want a healthy, functioning, responsible and free media. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) covered many aspects of the Bill in detail, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat anything that she said, so I will concentrate on the aspect of language.
Historically, the Conservatives have expressed great support for the Gaelic language. Indeed, at my suggestion, the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I sit, has launched an inquiry on the future of Gaelic and other minority languages in these islands. Therefore, one piece of UK Government recalcitrance has been striking: why have the UK Government been so resistant to making statutory mention of the Gaelic language and of Gaelic services? We all agree, cross party, that this beautiful, ancient and vibrant language makes a vital contribution to our cultural life, and we know that its vastly positive impact dwarfs the miserly public expenditure on it.
I come from a long line of Gaelic speakers. Neither of my grandmothers had English as their first language—my mither’s mither was from Scotstoun and spoke Scots, and my faither’s mither came from the island of Harris and spoke Gaelic. I am the first generation not to speak the language at all. That is all too common a story in Scotland, where prejudice against and punishment of Gaelic speakers has seen the language retreat to the heartlands. Gaelic broadcasting has been vital in slowing the language’s decline by introducing it to new generations of young Scots, nurturing a more enlightened attitude towards Gaelic across Scotland and the United Kingdom.
Gaelic programme producers have offered their expertise; they volunteered to engage with Members during the drafting of the Bill and amendments to it. In particular, I mention John Morrison and Donald Campbell of MG Alba. It is therefore disappointing that the UK Government have not drawn sufficiently on that expertise and heeded the calls to reaffirm explicitly their commitment to Gaelic in the digital age. MG Alba, in its written evidence, said that the Bill
“will create a visible disparity in the treatment by Parliament of Gaelic and Welsh broadcasting,”
meaning that
“the Gaelic language will continue to be invisible in statute and, as a result, continue to suffer from unclear status and uncertain funding.”
I wish to record the disappointment felt among Gaelic broadcasters and the wider Gaelic-speaking community.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Member agree that one of the best ways for language lovers to cherish and build up languages, minority languages in particular, is to avoid what sometimes happens, which is the greater politicisation of minority languages? That becomes divisive, and people react badly.
John Nicolson
I do agree. I see no reason why languages should be party political. They are a shared cultural asset. When I look online, I am astonished to see people who do not share my constitutional position sometimes attacking Scots or Gaelic, as if it belongs to us and not them. The language belongs to all of us, as do the other national minority languages.
I hope that we will highlight some of the important shortfalls and opportunities when I join my friend the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and cross-party colleagues in taking evidence from expert witnesses during our minority languages inquiry.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
I thank Members for their contributions to today’s debate, and indeed during prelegislative scrutiny and the Bill’s passage thus far. The Bill has fantastic support. I have worked on it since 2021 and I am pleased to be back in post, taking over from the interim Minister—whom I prefer to call the eminent, knowledgeable knight and former Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale); but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said, we are all temporary in this place. I am glad to take the Bill through its final stages, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon for his work and his defence of our position on section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. He is in the curious position of amending a Bill for which he was once Minister. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, our right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon is breaking new parliamentary boundaries.
As we all know, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access broadcast content, but our public service broadcasters and radio services are governed by laws written 20 or more years ago. The Bill is vital to enable our PSBs to continue to be world leading in their content and to serve UK audiences, while also driving growth in the creative industries across the UK.
I shall briefly address some of the issues that have been raised, but I will first deal with the Government amendments. They are minor and technical and seek to ensure that the existing policy positions are properly operational. I have written to Members with more detail. I am glad to have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, particularly for the radio amendments.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for his sustained interest. He is a passionate campaigner and has been pushing on section 40 for many years. The Government recognise the intent of his amendments, but their effect would not be to repeal section 40, but to delay its repeal while a consultation takes place. We feel that that would be at odds with our double manifesto commitment to repeal section 40 in full, notwithstanding my right hon. Friend’s view that the manifesto was not the best that we have produced and that there may have been some drafting errors in the publication.
George Eustice
I understand that new clause 3 would delay the commencement of clause 50, but that is not the case with amendment 2, which would simply remove one part of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Julia Lopez
We have concerns about my right hon. Friend’s amendments as a package. One issue is about delay, but another is about some of the smaller publishers that do not wish to be part of a regulator. That has been debated at some length this afternoon.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon is pleased about the Government amendment on AM. We discussed the matter together. I note his points about local television. He kindly accepts the unlikelihood of our accepting his amendment, but we will continue to consider his representations.
As always, I am glad of the support of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). He suggested that the proposal to privatise Channel 4 was part of a vendetta, but it was borne of a fundamental concern for its sustainability. We have put forward measures in the Bill to give Channel 4 greater freedom. We want the channel to survive and to have the flexibility to continue doing what it does. To the point raised in relation to those new powers, it will be granted the freedom to produce its own content, but it does not have to use them if it does not feel that is necessary.
On public service content being prominently and easily accessible, as is already the case in the linear space, we want PSB content to be as prominent as possible, but there is a question in relation to appropriate language. As has been discussed at length, the core aim is to secure prominence for PSB services and content online, but for it to be flexible, operable and proportionate, so that we can design the Bill for innovation and consumer choice. We are giving Ofcom the power to establish that balance.
The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and others, raised the issue of digital rights. We recognise the intent behind the amendment to bring digital rights within the scope of the listed events regime. The Select Committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), made a recommendation that would support that outcome. While there is a great deal of support in Parliament for that and I am sympathetic, it is a complex issue.
We have seen how technical just the Government amendments to close the streamer loophole are. Adding digital rights would be a much bigger change, bringing more complexity. It is important that we maintain the right balance between access for audiences and the commercial freedoms that allow rights holders to reinvest in their sport at all levels. We want to get the balance right, and our priority is the impact on the public. It is important that audiences can watch and celebrate major sporting moments, but broadcasting rights provide sports’ national governing bodies with essential income, enabling them to invest in their sports, whether at elite or grassroots levels. We want to fully evaluate the issue, including how it could be best delivered, before considering legislation that enacts any particular conclusion. I assure Members the issue is under careful consideration and we have not yet made a decision.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The House will have listened with interest to the Minister’s response to the points made by Members from across the Chamber, but the Government have got to try to sort this out while the Bill is before Parliament. We want to hear from her that the Government are capable of coming to the Lords with an amendment or new clause that does not get rid of the interest for the commercial bidders, but says that, when digital and reproduction rights come up for sale, the interests of people in our country, our team and the sports that we regard as important, whether they are new or old, established ones, are taken into account. The House will not be satisfied unless the Government come forward with a proposal about what they can either agree with the rights holders or the potential rights bidders. The House of Lords will be right to insist on something that addresses that issue, and we want to support them.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate that my hon. Friend wants to put down a marker on the issue—I have heard that, and so has the Secretary of State. I maintain that the issue of rights is more complex than one might imagine. We want to get the balance right, and we will continue to look at that.
Moving to the amendments on the issue of age ratings, we are in complete agreement on the need to protect children and vulnerable audiences from harmful and inappropriate video on demand content. I have two children; I have pushed for children to remain in the remit and for there to be protections for them. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about the importance of public service broadcasters and access to them. A fundamental driving force of the Bill is that we want children to be able to continue to access public service broadcasters.
For the first time, we are bringing mainstream TV-like, on-demand services in the scope of a new video on demand code, to be drafted and enforced by Ofcom. I welcome the general support for the Bill given by my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter). Ofcom will be getting new powers under the Bill to look at broader protection measures and to mandate specific approaches in the code, if deemed necessary, which could be BBFC age ratings. We are trying to move to a more outcomes-based approach rather than a prescriptive approach. We think that there has been great innovation in the space of parental controls, which have often been more effective than a badge rating. However, I have heard what has been said in the House today and we will continue to listen on this subject.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North also raised the issue of protections for viewers watching on devices such as PlayStations. I simply wish to reassure her that the definition of “on-demand programme services” is not platform-specific; Disney and Netflix viewed on a games console would be covered. She also raised questions about the size of producers of content. Smaller producers are not keen on some of the proposals that she has made, as they are concerned that they might one day be larger producers and therefore be penalised. We would not want to disincentivise their growth.
Let me move on to Scottish broadcasting in general. We believe that the Bill will bring significant benefits to the Scottish broadcasting sector and creative economy. I do not underestimate the vital role that our public service broadcasters play in supporting that Scottish screen sector. The Bill contains provisions to encourage our PSBs to broadcast programmes in indigenous, regional and minority languages, such as Gaelic, by including them in our new PSB remit for television. I know that this is extremely important to numerous Scottish Members in this House, and I hope the Government’s efforts here are recognised. The partnership between MG Alba and the BBC is particularly significant for Gaelic language broadcasting. I can assure Members that the ongoing provision of Gaelic will be a key consideration as the Secretary of State and I progress the BBC funding review and the forthcoming BBC charter review. Of course, Scottish audiences will also continue to benefit from the prominence provisions in the Bill.
The Government are also aware of Members’ concerns about being able to access TV via terrestrial means, and I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) about that directly. The Bill does not include provisions on that, but I wish to reassure the House that the Government remain committed to the future of DTT and to protecting the millions of households who continue to rely on it. That is why we have legislated to secure its continuity until at least 2034, but let me be clear that 2034 is not a cliff edge for DTT. We have allowed the renewal of the current multiplex licences so that they last until the end of 2034, but that does not mean that DTT will not continue after that point. Even if the Government simply sat on their hands, Ofcom would still be able to re-advertise the multiplex licences, and our public service broadcasters could continue distributing their linear channels over DTT. Furthermore, specific primary legislation would be required to remove the multiplex licensing regime, for example.
We are always keen to make sure that major sporting events are publicly available as widely as possible, which is why we have the listed events regime, but this is a balancing act. It is another issue where we are trying to find a course through. Sports rights holders use income from the sale of rights to the benefit of the wider sporting sector. A lot of sports do not want the listed events regime to be opened up. I know that the Scottish National party likes the idea of a Government listed events fund, but SNP Members do not acknowledge the distortive effect it would have on the value of rights, nor do they say who would pay for it. I suspect that the UK taxpayer would and, once again, SNP promises would be paid for by everybody else.
Gavin Newlands
These SNP promises were to protect all governing bodies in the UK, not simply Scottish ones. I just want to correct the record on that. Will the Minister not admit that devolved sporting governing bodies are unfairly disadvantaged, given the size of our TV network, and therefore our free-to-air broadcasters are unable to bid, win and secure the rights? By contrast, the English Football Association, for example, has a large TV market, where we have seen ITV, then Channel 4 and now ITV again show the games.
Julia Lopez
I bow to my ministerial colleague the sports Minister on the intricacies of sports funding. However, on the listed events regime, it is for the Scottish Government not only to make a recommendation to us if they want to expand that, but to have the discussions with Scottish sporting bodies as to whether that is actually something they want.
I will finish by responding to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I am glad to say that culture and heritage are directly addressed in the updated public service remit for television. Ofcom is therefore required to ensure that public service broadcasters collectively make available content reflecting the cultural interests and traditions of the UK and different local areas within the UK, which I would expect to include Cornwall.
I thank you again, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members present for their contributions to the debate. I am grateful for the scrutiny the Bill has received; it has benefited greatly from the expertise of everybody in this Chamber. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I understand, Mr Eustice, that you wish to withdraw new clause 3.
George Eustice
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Gaelic language service
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, review whether a Gaelic language service should be given a public service broadcast remit.”—(Thangam Debbonaire.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Julia Lopez
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am glad that, as we finish the Bill’s passage through this House, it is with the same enthusiasm and cross-party support as when we began. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) told me that he had enjoyed the Public Bill Committee, which is quite the achievement. While we have made some changes to refine and clarify the intentions of the measures, the Bill and its aims remain relatively unchanged. This is in part down to the considered and thoughtful contributions from industry stakeholders following draft publication and throughout the pre-legislative scrutiny process.
I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for his efforts to prepare and introduce the Bill. I am grateful for his enthusiasm and thoroughness in ensuring that the Department continues to deliver for our broadcasters and journalists. He is a true champion of these industries and I know how appreciative they are of his work. Even now, he sidles up to me in the Lobby trying to get his particular issues over the line.
I would like to extend my particular thanks to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for its thorough pre-legislative scrutiny earlier this year. I thank all the stakeholders for the time they gave as witnesses to the inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and Baroness Stowell of Beeston have all, in their respective Chair positions, played a vital part in the Bill’s passage and I thank them for their work thus far.
I should also like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), for Aylesbury, for East Devon (Simon Jupp) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter) for their thoughtful and considered engagement. On the Opposition Benches, I extend my particular thanks to the hon. Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for the constructive way in which they approached the Committee scrutiny of the Bill.
Before the Bill moves to the other place, I should also like to say thank you to the significant number of DCMS policy officials and lawyers for their work in preparing such a substantial Bill alongside my parliamentary counsel. Finally, as is customary—and also because I mean it—I want to say thank you to the Bill team from DCMS: Victoria MacCallum, Charlotte Brennan, Lisa Bourke, Mollie McHale, and Elie Pelling. I would also like to thank Myrtle Macpherson and Liam Hunt from private offices, who have supported us throughout this process. We have a truly talented media team in DCMS, and I am grateful to them for all the work they have done and for the patience they have shown throughout the years we have been working on this together.
We have discussed the significance of the Bill at length. When it receives Royal Assent, we will launch a wide-ranging programme of secondary legislation to fully implement its measures. We will see further considered collaboration between the Government, industry and Ofcom as these new reforms are implemented. I look forward to seeing this important legislation come into force, and to supporting industry and Ofcom as we move into a new era for broadcasting.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire
I join the Minister in celebrating the collaborative and consensual approach to the Bill, although I am disappointed that the Government chose not to support the excellent amendments that we either tabled or supported. I am sorry that there has been no movement yet on SLAPPs, to which I hope we will return.
I thank everyone who has contributed today, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Clive Efford) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). I also thank my colleagues who sat on the Public Bill Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who did such a brilliant job on the Front Bench, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and for Eltham.
I also thank the Select Committee members who did such a great job of coming up with good ideas, and who were so thoughtful and considered in their work. I thank the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for being willing to communicate with me on possible amendments. I thank colleagues on both sides of the House who have been open to listening to difficult arguments.
The Bill’s stakeholders are many and varied. Some broadcasters are thrilled to bits and others still have questions, but they have all been willing to take time to talk to us. We have looked at a wide range of measures that we know are necessary for broadcasters, but section 40 has been difficult for many people. I respect the fact that people have approached this with serious intent, purpose and commitment.
We probably will not vote on Third Reading, because we all agree that the Bill is necessary. As the Bill goes to the other place, section 40 will be removed and we will not stand in its way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East outlined in Committee and as I reiterate now. However, we have missed an opportunity this evening for a more nuanced version of that repeal, and we are disappointed that amendment 2 did not pass.
There is a further discussion to be had about how we can protect the provision of trusted public interest journalism in the modern age. If we are in government after the next general election, Labour commits to working with the Press Recognition Panel, IPSO, Impress and anyone else we need to work with to ensure the highest standards of ethical journalism. Whether it is online disinformation undermining our democratic institutions, the decline of local press outlets or the rise of SLAPPs, all these issues have to be taken seriously.
For now, our aim must be to ensure the passage of this Bill so that these important measures reach the statute book. The film and TV industries remain crucial to our economy, contributing more than £18 billion in 2020 alone and supporting 280,000 jobs across the country. It is right that we update the law after 20 years, so, as well as thanking colleagues, I thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office, who have worked incredibly hard to ensure the Bill receives proper scrutiny by assisting us in drafting amendments.
I thank the public service broadcasters, UK radio stations, TV and radio platforms, podcasters, viewer representative groups and all the other stakeholders. And I particularly thank the Hacked Off campaigners, who have been willing to speak so generously and openly about their often painful experiences.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading. As the Minister said, it was quite fun and enjoyable to serve on the Public Bill Committee—although the Whips Office should not see that as a hint that I want to be on every future Public Bill Committee.
The Media Bill is an important piece of legislation, and a key theme throughout its passage has been the importance of prominence for our public service broadcasters—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. I should declare that I have worked for three of them, and I am sure that Channel 4 will one day complete the set. That is not a hint that I will be looking for a new job in a year’s time, perhaps much to the Opposition’s chagrin.
I am extremely pleased with the new regime to ensure appropriate prominence for public service broadcasters, but I wanted to say a word about it. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that there will be detailed consultation on the work with Ofcom, but it is important that Parliament sets out clearly to the regulator what we mean by prominence. I look forward to the Government taking a robust stance to ensure that Ofcom feels entitled and empowered to adopt a muscular approach. It must be bold with the TV manufacturers in expressing the will of this place to ensure that the PSBs really are featured prominently.
We need look at only one recent example of television to prove the value of PSBs: the drama that has made the headlines in recent weeks, the ITV programme “Mr Bates vs. The Post Office”. It highlighted an injustice to millions of people who had not previously been aware of the Horizon scandal, despite the fact that it had been covered in many news media and that the Government were already working extremely hard to provide redress and recompense for postmasters well before the drama was aired.
“Mr Bates” has had an immediate and important effect, but the programme could only have been made by a PSB. The nature of that story is such that, yes, it is of massive interest to the UK audience, but its international appeal as a television programme might be less evident. ITV recognised the significance of the scandal, put serious money into it and took a commercial risk that would likely not have been approved by a non-PSB. That speaks to the value of the legislation before us.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this issue, but it is also right to highlight the role of the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). For 18 months before that broadcast, the Minister worked hard. We need to recognise that his 18-month contribution coincided with the ITV programme, and the two came together at the right time.
Rob Butler
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. As I said, the Government had been acting well in advance of the drama, but the programme made the public aware in a way that the news had not been able to. The Government made serious efforts—he is right to draw attention to the incredible work of the current Minister with responsibility for postal services—to achieve recompense and redress, but the TV drama made the public aware of the scandal and the need for redress.
Channel 5 has pointed out that public service content relies on “easy access” for viewers. Without the reforms in the Bill, the significant risk is that proper public-value content will be harder to find for audiences. That cannot be tenable. I am delighted that the Bill seeks to overcome that. It is imperative that Ofcom ensures and assures prominence for our PSBs, as the House expects.
I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I will just say that public service broadcasting is one of the things that makes this country special. There is a Britishness about our broadcasting system and market that is unique. The Bill recognises and protects that, and I am delighted to support it.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to say a few thank yous, but I will first talk about the Bill briefly. We need a Media Bill. I am glad that the Government are doing their best to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities with the PSBs, as I said earlier. It is important that the Bill updates the existing situation and improves things for internet access services. It includes many welcome steps forward.
I still have the concern I expressed earlier about the definition of on-demand services. I appreciate what the Minister said—for example, that Disney+ is covered by it—but if we look at TV viewing apps on a PlayStation, the order of the apps or of the programmes is not covered by the definition. Because a PlayStation is mostly for playing games, its on-demand TV section is not covered. I think more can be done to future-proof the definition and update it to ensure that it covers everything that the Government want it to cover. It should cover the ways in which people generally watch television, especially those methods that increase as time goes on. I do not want to be overly critical, but I wanted to flag that point again.
Coming to the thank yous, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) for his work and that of his team, especially on listed events. He has been working on that campaign ever since I have known him, and I am certain that the rejection of his new clause today will not result in him sitting quietly. He will continue to speak on behalf of Scottish football fans, although Six Nations rugby was also an important part of his speech.
We did not take oral evidence, which is fairly unusual for a Bill Committee that starts off in the House of Commons. I understand the Minister’s reasons for that decision, which involved the pre-legislative consultation that took place. However, several organisations were disappointed not to have the opportunity to give oral evidence directly to the Committee. I thank all those organisations that came forward. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned quite a few.
Many organisations have worked incredibly hard to ensure that Members of Parliament know their views. I particularly thank Broadcast 2040+, the Media Reform Coalition, BBC Alba, STV, Channel 4, BBC, Amazon and Hacked Off, members of which I met on several occasions, particularly about the amendments that we discussed today. I hope that we get close to what was promised to those who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and to a resolution that means greater fairness for everybody. Unfortunately, it feels as though the Bill is not the place where that will happen. It is clear from views across the House that change needs to happen to ensure that people get the redress and justice that they hope for.
I thank all those who have put time and effort into trying to improve the Bill. I thank all the staff who have worked on the Bill, whether those on the Government’s Bill team or the Clerks who have done their best with the messy amendments that I sent them and asked them to make into something that looks vaguely sensible. Those staff are never mentioned enough. I thank all those who have had an input into the Bill.
Damian Green
I congratulate the Minister and the Department on getting the Bill this far. If I may be presumptuous, in the unavoidable absence of the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I thank the Minister for her kind remarks about the Select Committee’s contribution to the scrutiny of the Bill.
This is probably the appropriate time to note the Bill’s historic nature. It is 20 years since the House passed an equivalent Bill. Twenty years ago, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat and Twitter or X—whatever we call it these days—did not exist. The entire landscape has changed completely. Regulating with tools that are 20 years out of date is impossible. That is why it is important that the Bill is future proofed. The thought occurs to me that if it takes 20 more years before the House comes back to the subject, by then we will doubtless get sound and vision beamed straight into our ears and eyeballs after pressing the chip that will have been implanted in us. Regulating that will be even more difficult. I was pondering which Minister will be here in 20 years to cope with that, and it will almost certainly be my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who has done the job on and off for several decades already. I have every confidence that he will still be doing it perfectly well in the 2040s when we next come back to the subject.
I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) about the importance of public service broadcasting, which is one of the glories of this country. That is something that we have got right over many years. I hope and expect that the Bill will allow us to continue to get it right for many years to come. I wish the Bill well for the rest of its passage.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
May I simply say that if the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) is here for the next Bill, I hope that I will be in the Chair to see it?
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Media Bill
Wednesday 31st January 2024
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 January 2024 - large print - (30 Jan 2024)
Media Bill
Wednesday 28th February 2024
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 January 2024 - large print - (30 Jan 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I do so at a time when the UK’s media landscape faces enormous technological change, but in the face of which I am proud to say it is thriving. British-made programmes are watched and enjoyed by audiences at home and across the globe. Our public service broadcasters not only produce fantastic shows which keep audiences glued to their screens but inform and educate them, and project British values and the best of British creativity around the world.
Similarly, our radio environment is exceptionally rich and diverse—there is a radio station for everyone. UK radio stations provide an incredible service, again not just entertaining their listeners but disseminating local news and information throughout the country. That is something that we want to value and protect.
We should also celebrate the thousands of excellent and exciting job opportunities that the sector creates across the United Kingdom, and the billions of pounds that it adds to the economy. This is a pro-growth Bill. It will not only enable people to continue to watch and listen to the content that they love but help to grow our world-leading creative industries and maintain their status as world leaders.
It has been more than 20 years since the last major piece of broadcasting legislation reached the statute book. The world has changed significantly since then, as have the ways in which we consume media. The growth of the streaming giants, smart televisions and online radio has completely changed consumers’ demand and expectations. Our world-renowned media industry has embraced the challenge, adapting rapidly not just to survive but to thrive.
His Majesty’s Government have heard the passionate support for the Bill from the industry and from Members of both Houses of Parliament. I am delighted that it is now before your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to working with noble Lords from across the House to ensure that it delivers for our brilliant media sector and for viewers and listeners.
The Government are grateful to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in another place for its thorough examination of the Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny last year. We were pleased to accept the majority of the recommendations set out in the committee’s two reports; there is no doubt that those have improved the Bill before us. I also thank the Communications and Digital Committee of your Lordships’ House—under the expert chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston and, before her, of my noble friend Lord Gilbert of Panteg—for the work that it has carried out on the many areas relating to the Bill. Its reports on public service broadcasting and on the future of journalism and, most recently, its inquiry into the future of news have helped to shape the Bill and the Government’s wider work in this area.
The Bill has also benefited from extensive engagement with industry and with Members of both Houses. We have heard from public service broadcasters, commercial broadcasters, the radio and news media, radio and television selection services, on-demand streaming platforms and Ofcom throughout the drafting of the Bill, in its pre-legislative scrutiny and during its passage through another place. Together, that has helped to produce a Bill that incorporates their views and addresses their challenges, and one which we hope will work for everyone. We are very grateful for the time and effort that everyone has gone to while working with us on the Bill.
I thank Ofcom for the work that it has undertaken to get the Bill to this stage. Its research in this area and its close work in supporting the drafting of the Bill have been invaluable. It has already made clear its plans for implementation in the materials that it published earlier this week. The Government look forward to continuing to work with Ofcom on the remaining stages of the Bill and on the implementation of its provisions.
I turn to what the legislation does. The Bill supports our public service broadcasters to ensure that they are able to provide high-quality content to United Kingdom audiences for years to come. As it stands, our public service broadcasters are governed by laws written more than two decades ago. Part 1 of the Bill seeks to modernise the framework for public service television. This will ensure that our public service broadcasters are encouraged to focus on what makes them distinctive, while having the flexibility to serve audiences across the UK with high-quality programmes on a wider range of services.
Many noble Lords, like countless people beyond your Lordships’ House, are passionate sports fans. We want to make sure that fans are able to continue to watch the biggest sporting events that this country has to offer. That is why we are modernising the listed events regime to protect viewers’ access to the major sporting events that define our nation. We are extending the protections that the regime offers for live listed events coverage in line with where audiences choose to watch it. TV-like services providing live content to audiences in the UK via the internet will now need to comply with our rules. We are also making qualification a public service broadcaster benefit, recognising the role that these broadcasters play in delivering national sporting moments, and providing certainty in the future.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with prominence. We know that audiences value public service content. We want to make sure that it is always available and easily accessible for them. As is the case in linear broadcasting, the Bill ensures that public service content is made available and easy to find on modern platforms such as smart televisions, set-top boxes and streaming sticks. Not only will that improve the audience experience but it is a vital reform for the sustainability of our public service broadcasters.
Part 3 contains measures specifically designed to support the sustainability of Channel 4. The Government are clear in our intent to support Channel 4 in continuing to make ground-breaking, unique and distinctively British content for years to come. Some of the means to do that can be found in the Bill, such as the measures to strengthen the broadcaster’s governance arrangements and allowing it to make more of its own programmes. Others can be found in the memorandum of understanding undertaken between the Government and Channel 4 when the Bill was introduced in another place on 8 November last year.
The Government have also worked closely with Sianel Pedwar Cymru—S4C—to make sure that it has the tools it needs to continue to provide Welsh language content. I am pleased to say that the Bill will implement in statute recommendations from Euryn Ogwen Williams’s 2018 independent review into the future of the broadcaster. This includes allowing S4C to broaden its reach and offer its contents on new platforms across the United Kingdom and beyond, and updating its public service remit to include digital and online services. S4C will be able more easily to adapt to market change, maximising the benefits to its audiences, and to continue to deliver high-quality content.
The ways in which we watch television have changed a great deal in recent decades. Watching several episodes of “Coronation Street” back to back was once possible only during an omnibus on Sunday afternoons; now people can do it with a few clicks on ITVX, any day of the week and any time they choose. The growth of video on demand services has been extraordinary, but we know that audiences would like to see these services held to the same standards that are required of normal television services. That is why we are introducing a new video on demand code, drafted by Ofcom, by which the streaming giants will be required to abide. Noble Lords will, I know, be pleased to hear that this code will better protect children and uphold the standards that we see on our linear services. In addition, Ofcom will have a new duty to review and ensure that all on-demand services’ audience protection measures are effective and fit for purpose. We are also making sure that streamers provide greater access to their programmes by increasing the amount of subtitled, audio-described and signed content available on their services.
Turning to the radio industry, I am sure that noble Lords will welcome the provisions for radio in Part 5 of the Bill. These seek to boost the growth of our fantastic radio industry by reducing regulatory burdens and costs on commercial radio stations, and supporting investment by broadcasters in content and the long-term sustainability of the sector, while also strengthening protections for the provision of local news and information. As with television, we have seen a shift in how people enjoy the radio. While traditional broadcast methods remain popular, recent years have seen rapid growth in listening via devices such as smart speakers, too. The Government want to encourage innovation in the growth of new technology, but we also recognise the need for protections for radio and the huge public value that it provides, as noble Lords have often raised in our exchanges in this House. Again, we are grateful to the radio industry and to technology companies for their engagement on these measures.
Finally, in Part 7, and fulfilling a manifesto commitment, the Bill will remove a threat to the freedom of the press by repealing Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. That section has not been commenced; if it were, it could force publishers to pay the legal costs of people who sue them, even if they win. Members of your Lordships’ House, along with Members of another place, have taken a strong interest in the practices and culture of our free press over recent years. There now exists a strengthened, independent self-regulatory system for the press. But, as the manifesto on which the Government were elected makes clear, we will make sure that the heavy-handed measures of Section 40 are not able to stifle the independence or threaten the sustainability of the British press.
I am mindful that my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean has tabled a regret amendment to the Second Reading. I will listen to his reasons for doing so when he rises shortly. Let me pre-empt his comments, if I may, by assuring him that the Government take this issue seriously.
Under the Enterprise Act 2002, the Secretary of State has powers to intervene in media mergers on certain public interest grounds, including where there are concerns about media freedom and freedom of expression. The Government also already have tough powers, including through the National Security and Investment Act 2021, to address foreign interference and to scrutinise—and, if necessary, intervene in— acquisitions on grounds of national security. The Bill before us has only one clause pertaining to the press: the repeal of Section 40, which I have just mentioned. It is concerned with the removal of burdensome obligations on news media outlets and not press ownership, which is beyond the scope of the Bill. As my noble friend will be aware, there are ongoing discussions and amendments to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill on this issue.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their involvement in and support for the Bill as it has made its way to your Lordships’ House. I look forward to the debates ahead and the scrutiny that we will give it, and I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will start with a reference to the amendment to the Motion laid by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I fully understand the noble Lord’s frustrations. Concerns and questions over this issue have been raised multiple times in both Houses. I have asked previously whether the Government have any plans to review rules on media ownership and to date have received no answer. We recognise the Government’s response that they are awaiting the conclusion of investigations by the CMA and Ofcom. However, I wonder whether the Minister can offer an opportunity, perhaps outside of this debate, for noble Lords to raise issues and hear from the Minister or Secretary of State on this. That said, we have waited 20 years for the Media Bill in front of us. I will focus my remarks on the substance of the Bill which has finally reached us, but I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, later in the debate.
The Minister has fairly set out the rationale behind the Government’s Media Bill but, of course, he has not given us the full story behind its arrival here in the Lords. We were promised this particular piece of legislation a long time ago. Finally, two years ago in the 2022 Queen’s Speech, details were provided of a media Bill, although this turned out to be a draft Bill published in March 2023. Some commentators have said that this has been in the offing for nearly 10 years. I do not intend to try to embarrass the Minister; the delay is embarrassment enough.
We would certainly have had a Bill earlier in this Parliament if it had not been the subject of internal wrangling about the future of Channel 4. However, we are pleased that the Government saw sense and dropped their desire—or the desire of the former Secretary of State—to privatise it. I suspect that if they had pursued that course, they would have upset the whole public sector broadcaster eco-structure. I suspect that it would have also made the Minister’s job today a whole lot harder.
It was way back in 2003 under the previous Labour Government when the legislative framework for public service broadcasting was renewed. So much has changed, as the Minister said, since the Communications Act 2003. As the Government have rightly asserted, much has changed in the media landscape. We now have on-screen entertainment divided into linear broadcasting and on-demand streaming services. Broadcast radio has also changed, with the public being able to choose how they access on-air services. The Government have argued that these changes make it essential that public service broadcasting, on-demand programme services and commercial radio have a new regulatory framework. We agree wholeheartedly with that. For that reason, we support the Bill.
The Bill is important, as the Minister has said, because it brings media legislation into the digital age. Although the Bill lacks a commanding overall vision for broadcasting in the UK, the PSBs believe—and we think they are right—that it is in good shape as currently drafted and it will enable that sector to thrive and develop, not just here but will enable us to compete internationally, where our public service broadcasters are much admired.
The PSBs and other stakeholders are all rightly keen that the Bill passes into law as quickly as possible, so that they can have the long-awaited certainty they need for programming, commercial and long-term planning. However, that should not detract from our duty as legislators to ask questions of the Government and, where appropriate, to seek to amend the Bill. However, I assure the House and those listening eagerly to the debate that we support the Bill and will be looking to work on a cross-party basis to get it on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
We are also conscious that with advertising revenue shrinking in a highly competitive market, the commercial PSBs will not welcome any additional undue cost burdens being placed upon them. Several, including Channel 4 and ITV, have indicated that to remain sustainable as businesses, they will have to reshape their business model.
There are a number of key issues the House will want to scrutinise carefully, including prominence for our PSB services and ensuring that audiences are protected and have access to varied and high-quality content. We will want to ensure that Ofcom is empowered to achieve what is being asked of it as a robust regulator and, of course, that the legislation is future-proof.
We are pleased to see the case for prominence being updated has been recognised by the Government. Clause 28 is hugely important to the PSBs, extending it to cover services not currently included, such as interfaces on smart TVs, set-top boxes and streaming sticks. Given that Ofcom recommended this back in 2019, it is long overdue. This should make PSB content prominent on both linear and on-demand services and make public service content available and easy to find across the full range of television platforms.
We are aware that, in another place, some Members—notably, the chair of the DCMS Select Committee, Caroline Dinenage—made the case for a different wording for “prominence”. They argued that, instead of “appropriate” prominence, it should be “significant”. I am sure that the House will want to probe to ensure that the word “appropriate” is flexible and robust enough to do the job for the PSBs. It might be useful if the Minister could fill out in a little more detail the thinking behind the language used. I am not sure that Sir John Whittingdale’s clarification in the Commons quite did the job.
On assuring quality content for our audiences, we welcome the simpler, streamlined public service remit and believe that the Bill will enable a broader reach of audiences across a wider range of platforms. We will have questions to probe the genres included, or not included, in the remit, ensuring that the right safeguards are in place. We will also want to consider the details of Part 4 on video on demand regulation for both the industry and the audiences who access the services, including the tier model and age ratings.
On future-proofing, we welcome the listed events reforms, which will strengthen the role of public service media within the regime. However, this is one of the key areas where future-proofing the legislation comes into play, on the issue of digital rights for listed events in particular. Attention to digital rights will be necessary to enable UK audiences to come together for our biggest sporting events, whether this is online or through traditional linear broadcast outlets. Future-proofing will also be a key issue when we consider radio provisions in the Bill, including access to on-demand content and access through services other than smart speakers—particularly in cars, where car manufacturers can effectively become the default gatekeepers of radio access.
This Bill was much delayed in the 20 years since the Communications Act 2003. More generally, given the pace of change in the media world, can the Minister say today that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to match the changes and challenges that we can immediately foresee? Perhaps the Minister can assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State will keep under regular review the platforms through which PSB content can be viewed? This will surely be essential, given how technological developments are likely to work alongside shifting markets and audience expectations.
As I made plain at the outset, we are pleased that Channel 4 privatisation has been dropped. The Government have made two changes that materially affect Channel 4. The first is to place a sustainability duty on the company, and the second is the removal of the existing publisher-broadcaster restriction. The first change, relating to the duty, is, I hope, limited to ensuring the channel’s financial security and stability. Perhaps the Minister can say something about that when he comes to wind up. The lifting of the restriction on Channel 4’s ability to create content directly is clearly significant. I noted, as I am sure other noble Lords will have done, the careful response adopted by Channel 4 to this new freedom. The channel, having rightly made the argument about privatisation upsetting the broadcasting eco-structure, will not want to disrupt that same eco-structure through rapid expansion of in-house production, having carefully built up its commissioning role over the past 40 years.
With others, we are considering carefully what might need amending in the Bill. As well as the areas that I have referenced, there a few amendments that we feel are important in addressing possible gaps to the legislation. One that seems particularly important, given concerns about the viewing habits of children and young people, was that relating to a review looking at ensuring that they have access to public service content. With the dominance of smartphones and social media among young people as a means of viewing TV content, this would seem vitally important. We also support having a review within six months of the Bill passing into legislation on whether a Gaelic language service should be given a public service broadcast remit.
I finally come to the Government’s decision to bring forward the repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, relating to the Leveson provisions. In my opinion, it sits rather oddly in a Bill about broadcast media. But we are aware that this measure has manifesto cover from 2019 and we have not sought to remove it. From conversations with key stakeholders and noble Lords, it seems fair to say that the debate in this House will not focus solely on the question of repeal but will instead look at a range of possible amendments. In the Commons, Labour supported an amendment laid by George Eustice MP that would retain an incentive for newspapers to sign up to an approved regulator. This will, I am sure, be part of our conversations going forward. Ensuring access to justice and a free and important press is very much a live and current issue, and I look forward to hearing from noble Lords across the House today on that point.
In conclusion, this Bill is much needed and long overdue. The PSBs need it, the media world needs it, and it is welcome. Our approach will be to carefully listen to the arguments over points of contention. We have no intention of disrupting the architecture of the Bill or its main provisions. If we have an argument with the Government, it is simply this: instead of spending the last four years running down the excellence of our PSBs, they could have better spent that time promoting their strengths internationally and celebrating their role in helping make the UK the arts and culture superpower that we truly should become.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, the Media Bill is good, but it can be better. That is what I trust we will achieve during its passage here.
We are so fortunate with our PSBs, which form a miraculous ecosystem that lies at the heart of our nation, our common understanding, our daily lives and our conversations. It is not only our unique selling point but the birthplace and cauldron that nurtures the extraordinary talents that we boast in this country. It is no mystery why the streamers have streamed here: tax breaks and talent. Paramount, among others, has spoken out about the importance of PSBs to inward investment. It says: “We have a special place in the UK market as a huge investor each year across film, pay TV, PSB, Channel 5 and streaming. We have always been very clear that PSBs are the cornerstone of the UK content sector and that is what makes it so attractive for inward investment”.
Budgets are being squeezed, and our PSBs are up against a proliferation of streamers with global competitors worldwide with very deep pockets; so, as we welcome the brilliant and differing content and jobs and inward investment that the streamers make, we need to ensure that the pure size and commercial power that the streamers have cannot simply ace them out. British dramas are great exports but are also important to our nation, as we recently saw with “Mr Bates”, but they are so much more. We want to make sure that we can keep making brilliant programmes like that, “Happy Valley” and “Line of Duty”, and that audiences can find them easily and significantly.
The elements of betterment to the Bill are no mystery: prominence, listed events, live coverage clips, fair coverage, Channel 4’s change to remit, genres, smart speakers, unfettered access, content classification, Section 40, video on demand, local radio and local content and accessibility, among others. We and others across this House will undoubtedly lay amendments to test these and many more.
The modernised mission statement for our PSBs replaces the original 14 objectives with four generalised requirements. We are concerned that removing Ofcom’s responsibility to monitor the delivery of content in specific areas of public benefit may see these less commercially viable, but vitally important, areas decline. The current Bill is framed in consumerist, rather than societal, terms. “Inform, educate and entertain” is a long-standing, overarching aim for our PSBs. Ofcom will have a statutory duty to measure delivery of this content if it is in the Bill, not in quantitative terms but overall.
I turn to prominence. How that word has gained prominence in my life in recent days—in fact, I would say it had gained “significant” prominence, not simply “appropriate” prominence. I literally do not understand what the Government have against “significant” rather than “appropriate”. If the PSBs are not there, right at the front of the queue for viewers’ attention, they simply will not get it. So I very much hope that the Government may move on that in due course. “Significant” will give more power and impetus to Ofcom to ensure that UK viewers and listeners can continue to access high-quality programming and journalism from our PSBs in an ever more cluttered media offering. I also could not help but notice that Amazon, in its evidence, prefers “appropriate” to “significant”—which makes me think that “significant” is definitely what we need.
By the mid-2030s, 80% of Brits will get stuff online, and we are concerned that big shopfronts such as Amazon and Google will sell that visibility—will sell their shopfronts and prominence. The Bill has to intervene in that market, because it is clear that these gigantic superpowers may obliterate all before them if left free to roam. While I love Amazon and Netflix—actually, I love all of them; I have far too many subscriptions for the time available to use them—I also love and value our ecosystem of creativity.
Amazon MGM, for example, which is the production and distribution arm, says that it has supported more than 16,000 full-time permanent jobs in 2022 and is creating new facilities at Shepperton. That is all brilliant, its investment goes right across the nations and it is working with film schools; but if we are not careful and we do not protect our PSBs, the cauldron of talent that is nurtured and grown by the BBC and others will be eaten up and will one day disappear. The very golden egg of whatever is in the water that grows our very British talent—I am sorry for those mixed metaphors —will have disappeared.
We are very happy that the Government cancelled their decision to privatise Channel 4, but we are concerned about what the change to empowering it to make its own programmes may do to the diversity and sustainability of the UK’s world-leading independent production sector and the employment and creativity it generates in the nations and regions. To date, Channel 4 says that that will not happen for at least five years, but as a publisher-broadcaster it does not produce its own programmes but commissions them instead every year from more than 300 independent production companies across the UK. Although it has come to rely on a few of the bigger ones it has created, for that investment in start- ups, it is very good that it does not have a list of preferred or approved production companies. That must not be put in jeopardy. It is the cauldron of our creators, and its future is vital in the role it plays in enabling small, new, inventive, adventurous programming. I think Margaret Thatcher had something to do with that.
The Bill makes it clear that listed event primary beneficiaries are terrestrial, and the existing regime makes it harder to hide behind a paywall. The Bill says the same should apply to streamers, but we need to extend that regime further in terms of digital rights, to clips and catch-up. People are increasingly accessing through digital and watch more and more after an event, using clips and catch-up, so these must not be hidden behind a paywall.
Undoubtedly, we will have to address the removal of Section 40, and on this we will find disagreement across the House. For these Benches, it is a bulwark against the overweening power of the press, let alone the inaccuracy and bias that already populates its titles. That power cannot remain untrammelled.
On radio, we need to ensure fairness in the choice of station, not unfair direction by owners of the appliance. There should be no charging of radio stations licensed by Ofcom, and we need to protect against overlaid unauthorised advertising. It is important that we have our own choice of what to listen to, be that national or local, entertainment, news, or other information. As this era of shifting and changing listening and viewing habits marches on, much of it online, we need to safe- guard the irreplaceable part radio plays in our lives. As smart speakers become more and more dominant, we need to ensure that such safeguards are in place.
On the nations and regions, local content is so important. We must ensure that appropriate and relevant material, not just local news, can reach local areas. We need diverse voices, and Welsh language and Gaelic broadcasting.
On inclusion, we need to be aware that millions still rely on free-to-air, but it is guaranteed only up to 2034. No long-term protections are in place and loss of these services would hit the most vulnerable, who are already disadvantaged by digital exclusion in so many ways. TV is a mainstay of the old, those without family and those who are lonely, as well as lower-income households, people living with disabilities and those in rural areas. Clear safeguards in law are needed.
Before I finish, I will say a little about Ofcom. It is growing and growing like Topsy, so I trust it will have the wherewithal not only to manage but excel at its task, employing the best for what will be a heavy responsibility going forward. Moreover, it is vital that dispute resolution is clear and attainable in the Bill. Ofcom needs to be empowered and powerful, and any issues need to be dealt with swiftly and strongly. To date, this has not been a noticeable feature of Ofcom, but it needs to be as it gets more and more responsibility.
We have something very special in this country. It is always difficult to put it into words, but it is part of our national identity; our cohesion; our unique selling point. We need this Bill to guard against any loss of that identity, or any damage to the creative furnace that is so important to our nation’s future. I and my colleagues look forward to working on the Bill and making it better than ever.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
At end insert “but this House regrets that the Bill does not make provision concerning the ownership and control by foreign governments of newspapers in the United Kingdom”.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, this is the Media Bill; it is 176 pages of very good stuff, as the Minister, my noble friend Lord Parkinson, said. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on this occasion, when I can agree with almost everything she says. It is 176 pages, but it does not address the elephant in the room, which is not foreign ownership of newspapers and media outlets. The elephant in the room is foreign Governments being able to own media outlets, including newspapers.
My noble friend, very helpfully, said he would make a few remarks on the amendment, and said it is outwith the scope of the Bill. How can it be outwith the scope of the Bill? Surely, it is an absolute principle that foreign Governments should not be able to own newspapers. In his opening remarks, my noble friend said that there are various procedures whereby the Secretary of State can assess national security or other matters. Surely, the most important matter that concerns us is the freedom and integrity of our press, the jewel in our nation’s crown, which we have always revered.
I owe the House an apology. I feel like something of a hypocrite, because I do not like tabling regret amendments at Second Readings of Bills. I have done so only because I could find no other way of drawing the seriousness of this matter to the House’s and the Government’s attention. I am most grateful for the comments from the Labour Front Bench: that across and in every corner of this House, noble Lords are concerned at the idea that the Daily Telegraph could fall into the ownership of a foreign Government. Yet the Government are doing nothing about it in the Bill, which I believe they could.
Without wishing to upset my colleagues who are responsible for our diplomacy, I can think of few other countries less suitable—totally unsuitable—to own a newspaper than the UAE. I know that my former colleague George Osborne and others have been very active, arguing that it is not the Sheikh or a foreign Government, because they have set up a structure to own it. We have a saying in Scotland: “He who pays the piper calls the tune”. In this case, the amount being paid is very considerable. It is a while since I did valuations of companies, but I would struggle to get beyond £400 million for the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator, and very considerably more than that is being paid. That does not strike me as an investment opportunity; it strikes me as an influence opportunity, and that is what I believe is behind the acquisition, and why a substantial premium is being offered.
Do the Government really believe that this can be right for a Government of a country like the UAE, which has a dreadful record on censorship and editorial influence, and which is noted for its threats to free expression and accurate presentation of news? It is a country that locks journalists up because they say things with which the Government disagree, and a country which—I believe—is listed as 145 out of 180 countries on the freedom index. Is it really going to be our Government’s role and our role as a nation to achieve the distinction of being the first country in the world— I believe—to allow a quality newspaper with a large readership to be owned by a foreign Government?
I hear what my noble friend says about the scope of the Bill. I confess that another reason why I have moved this amendment is that I am having an interesting dialogue with the Public Bill Office as to whether an amendment can be made which is within the scope of the Bill. As my noble friend pointed out, I have never seen a Bill with a Long Title like it—it is like a shopping list. Included on that shopping list is the repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act. I am not sure whether I voted for that; I suspect I did, because, as noble Lords know, I am a very loyal supporter of the Government. I am sure I voted for it, and I am sure it was explained to me that it was essential to have some independent ability to look at the conduct of our newspapers. I seem to recall that there was a bit of a row, and the newspapers—and others—argued that it was essential that we should not have newspapers or other publications in our country subject to government control. I am at a loss to understand why, if the Bill provides for removing that, it is impossible as a consequence to discuss the impact of allowing a foreign Government to have ownership of a newspaper when those controls have been removed because the Bill provides for the abolition of Section 40. I am not a clerk; I am not even a lawyer. However, it seems to me to be completely illogical, and I cannot understand why the Government are going along with this view. The Government’s duty is to maintain a free press in our country and to make sure that our press is not subject to undue influence, which I presume is why this provision is in the Bill in the first place. Taking it away removes any possibility of independent regulation— I support that, even if I voted for it before out of loyalty to the Government. Allowing foreign Governments to have ownership without that protection seems to be very difficult to justify.
A free press is a central part of a free country. If we allow the UAE today, why not other states tomorrow? Why not North Korea? My noble friend might say that the Secretary of State will look at that, but there is a principle here. It is a principle which ought to be clearly in the Bill. I do not want to take advantage of the fact that I am moving an amendment to the Bill to exceed the speaking time, so I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I declare my interest as a director of a film and TV production company that works regularly with studio streamers and broadcasters, including the PSBs.
I welcome the Bill and, like others, wish it had been with us a little earlier. The focus of my remarks will be to question whether the Bill has kept up with changes in the media landscape. First, however, I add my support to recommendations made by the pre-legislative committee in the other place. At Second Reading, Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chair of the committee, said that the removal of the genre list
“was something that the PSBs themselves did not want to linger on in their evidence to us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/23; col. 248.]
The fact that they did not wish to linger on it should make us nervous. Their silence is evidence that a narrowing of the list will likely result in a downgrading of religious, arts, science and children’s programming, among others. It is true that the PSBs can take a somewhat creative view of what constitutes such programming; I once directed a film about sex workers in New York for the religious strand of Channel 4 television, so, clearly, the genres cannot be claimed to be too restrictive. However, the fact that this broad remit exists and is engraved in legislation is at the heart of what is most unique about our public broadcasting ecology.
I know that the Minister has a deep concern about the arts and hope that the House already has his ear on that issue, but when he responds, can he explain both the rationale for narrowing the genres and where the Government imagine broadcasters will find room for religious or children’s programming? If we downgrade the breadth of what PSB means, in effect, we downgrade much of what the Bill seeks to protect. These categories are central to our collective understanding of how we see ourselves and our world.
Similarly, I fully support the committee in wishing prominence to be “significant” rather than “appropriate”. Ministers in the other place argued that it may not always be appropriate to make something prominent, let alone significant. Even if you can work out what that means and it is occasionally the case, it can be dealt with by the overarching duty in the Regulators’ Code for Ofcom to be proportionate. Meanwhile, the cost of not requiring significant prominence may, over time, render the prominence measure entirely ineffective. Let us imagine, in the near future, that broadcast is consumed using connected eyewear allowing us to walk into immersive environments or that each of us has an AI-derived personal programme; “significant” would drive innovative solutions as technology changes, while “appropriate” serves up an unimaginative status quo.
The same future-proof reasoning should mean that both digital on-demand services and app stores are in scope of the legislation. If, as is often the case, an app store is the gatekeeper or first port of call for content, but its terms require a 20% or 30% cut in revenue, the Bill, in effect, gives poor digital real estate to the PSBs and leaves the most lucrative sites profiteering from their content or carrying none at all.
That leads me to my final point: simply, that I am not sure that the Bill represents a vision of media fit for our age. We are about to suffer a tsunami of synthetic material in which the guesstimate of large language models provides a further fragmentation of any consensus about the truth—witness last week’s pause on Google’s Gemini image generator after it created German soldiers from World War II incorrectly featuring a black man and an Asian woman. Those of us in this Chamber know how preposterous that is, but that is simply not the case across all UK demographics or user groups. Similarly, damaging disinformation from all quarters about the war in Gaza is circulating in our schools, and the false citations and assertions swamping our academic community undermine the very rigour on which it stakes its reputation.
In this picture, we know that the consumption of news and PSB content is falling rapidly, particularly among children. Yet the Bill does not even begin to tackle the provenance or labelling of media content, does not set out expectations about misinformation or disinformation, and does not contain a must-carry component for YouTube, app stores, Facebook or Instagram. While those things appear to be out of scope of the Bill, as a veteran of the then Online Safety Bill, the digital markets Bill and the data Bill—and because Ministers have already promised that there will be no AI Bill—I ask the Minister to tell the House where they sit.
Finally, I understand that the BBC is not held in the same high regard by all in government as it is by the public. But in a world in which media is so fractured and toxic, the Bill could have usefully reimagined the role of our national broadcaster as a scaled-up alternative to the platforms. Imagine the UK offering a PSB to educate, entertain and inform across a broad range of genres—news, entertainment, education and digital services—from a genuinely trusted media voice. It would be a real alternative to those chasing advertising revenue to the detriment of the quality, social cohesion and security of our ever more fractured world, in which the audience is seen principally as a user/consumer rather than as a citizen. This is an investment that should have been made a decade ago but even now the BBC remains one of the few public assets that could be a global phenomenon. It could be world beating.
Neither culture nor politics is a zero-sum game. It does not follow that if social media or streamers have content, we need none of it in our collective hands; nor does it follow that, because this generation of the young has been hijacked by the persuasive design strategies of an advertising business model, that should form our blueprint for the next generation. The PSB system offers the opportunity of a contemporary and collective vision of what binds us. This is a crucial time in which money rules, politics is discredited, nations states are weakened, and the international community is divided by layers of self-interest and proxy wars. It is a time in which something that can be shared may also, at its finest, allow us to discern a collective path to a very much brighter future.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my register of interests, particularly my work with broadcasters.
It is always a privilege and a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. When she was speaking about the need for labelling in terms of AI and future-proofing, it struck me that instead we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time looking at classics, reclassifying them and putting out warnings on them— I think “Mary Poppins” is the latest.
I thank the Minister for his introduction of this important Bill; I say from the outset that I fully understand and welcome the need for updating the legislative basis for broadcasting in the UK. I also associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on foreign government interference—it is important that we describe it as that—in our media and the importance of a free press here in the United Kingdom.
I will speak principally about one area, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has already referenced: the public service broadcasting commitment for traditional broadcast television—linear television. As the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee report said in March 2019, public service broadcasting is as vital as ever, and indeed, recognition was made of the need to keep PSB prominence on both linear and on-demand services. That is the area where I have concern.
The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill suggested a number of changes, including retaining the PSBs’ obligation to provide specific genres of content. It noted that as currently drafted, the genres of religion, international matters and science were removed, while retaining news and current affairs. That leads to fears, which I share, that that could mean a decrease in the provision of less commercially successful content. Given the Bill’s desire to give PSBs greater flexibility in how they deliver their remit, I do have concerns about its likely impact, particularly on religious, cultural and ethical programming.
We all want British broadcasters to compete more effectively with their international digital competitors. However, there are major public service concerns, which are shared not only by those who value public service programming but by those who are digitally deprived and wish it to be accessible to the widest possible audience.
At present, the Bill enables broadcasters to move much of their religious and ethical programming, such as it is—we have already heard a very good example of that—to digital only, where it will be inaccessible to a significant section of the population. In the case of the BBC, some licence fee payers will be paying for programmes that they cannot view. That is an important thing that we need to take cognisance of.
In the present climate of severely reduced broadcasting budgets, such a move will mean that programmes will be less widely viewed and fewer will be made. If we believe that it is vital for a healthy democracy that we have a shared knowledge and understanding of the beliefs of different faiths, and of the particular role of Christianity in our history and culture, that is a retrograde step. We should not abandon terrestrial broadcasting too quickly. For example, if the recent ITV drama series on the Post Office scandal had been available only on digital, it would not have had anything like the impact that it has had. Everyone benefits from shared broadcasting experiences, whether we are old or young, rich or poor, of differing faiths or none. Television will always deliver fantasy, entertainment and crime, but there needs to be a space for deeper things.
Frankly, there is evidence that those people who commission TV shows continually underestimate the appetite of the general public to explore spiritual and ethical issues. That ignorance of other faiths and of the importance that faith plays in the lives of so many of us is dangerous for society. There has never been a more important time in the United Kingdom to inform, educate and entertain. We should look very carefully in Committee at an amendment which brings those genres back to public service broadcasting so that the broadcasters have an appropriate amount and range of programmes—on religion and other beliefs, which I have a particular interest in, science, culture and arts, social issues, matters of international significance and matters of specialist interest. I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate such an amendment in Committee.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. I will come to my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment and the important issue it raises in a moment. First, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his efficient opening speech. I welcome this long-awaited Media Bill. The Communications and Digital Committee that I have the privilege of chairing has been calling for many of its measures for several years.
The Bill is in good shape, and I would not advocate for any substantial amendments. However, there are still questions about the consequences of its changes and how well the public service broadcasters are currently responding to their strategic challenges. As my noble friend the Minister said, my committee’s current inquiry is about the future of news and how the news industry is responding to strategic challenges, such as falling audience trust, impartiality in a world of evolving social divides and the impacts of tech platforms on news media business models. These are big challenges which are unlikely to solve themselves. I am sure that many of the points that are made today will also come up in our session with the public service broadcasters next week.
PSBs must serve all audiences across the United Kingdom with high-quality programming. The changes to the public service remit for TV are understandable and I hope they will provide the direction and flexibility to deliver the remit more efficiently. But such changes must not become an excuse for cutting back content that is more difficult to produce or addresses an area of market failure—the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, gave a powerful illustration of some of those genres. As our inquiry on the future of the BBC emphasised, PSBs fulfil a vital function in providing valuable content that would otherwise disappear, particularly as they face growing competition from international streaming giants. Although I am content with the changes, for Ofcom to be effective in ensuring the public interest is best served through them, the broadcasters must provide clarity on how they will interpret their responsibilities, including what they will not do, as well as what they must.
The prominence provisions to ensure content is properly carried and easy to find on various devices, including audio devices, are also crucial to the future of PSBs. I am particularly pleased that the measures for radio and smart speakers were included in the Bill; the world is changing fast, connected devices are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, and our regulations need to keep pace.
Radio is an area where there are legitimate concerns about the BBC’s proposals to spin out new digital stations from Radios 1, 2 and 3 that will compete with existing similar offerings from commercial stations. It comes at the same time as the BBC appears to be transitioning away from local radio to local websites, which struggling local news industry representatives say is impossible to compete with. Moreover, BBC local radio, at its best, is the ultimate example of distinctiveness in a crowded marketplace. These changes underscore the need—as called for by my committee—for the BBC to set out a refreshed strategic purpose and clarify what changes are necessary for it to continue delivering for all audiences so this can be used to inform decisions about its future funding.
More broadly, making changes to help our broadcasting sector thrive involves striking a balance. The structural changes in the market pose a growing challenge to all UK providers, and we should not be shy about championing and supporting things that make the UK’s broadcasting sector distinctive and internationally valued. The Bill has done a good job here; but, equally, it must not mean that PSB status can be taken for granted. The PSBs must continue to demonstrate the value of what they provide, and that includes doing a better job of serving all audiences across the country and showing that they are responding to people’s concerns, particularly around impartiality in news and other genres. There is more to do here, and we should continue to press for improvements because these organisations and institutions exist for the benefit of everyone.
Finally, I want to state my personal support for Clause 50 of the Bill, which repeals Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act.
I will turn at this point to my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment and the matter of independent media. We are all aware of the issues around foreign Governments owning print or broadcast media. Personally, I agree with my noble friend: I have no problem with foreign businesses owning UK media; they are a large reason why we have a thriving media environment that is financially independent of government. But I do have principled concerns about ownership by foreign Governments or outfits under significant government control. That is materially different, and raises big questions about foreign policy, editorial independence and the relationship between an outlet’s owners and its coverage.
We need to have confidence in our media. Having foreign Governments own such a critical and sensitive part of our nation is not only unnecessary and troubling; if it was allowed to happen, it would completely undermine public confidence in our free press. At the moment, there are no automatic measures to prevent this, which does not seem right. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has argued that this Bill is the right vehicle to do something about this. In principle, I agree and I had assumed the same, but like my noble friend I have also had extensive discussions with the Public Bill Office, which has also advised me that such an amendment would be out of scope. I certainly look forward to my noble friend continuing his discussions with the Public Bill Office.
Instead, I have tabled an amendment to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill. That amendment states that foreign Governments should not be allowed to buy our news media organisations unless the Secretary of State and relevant regulators have agreed the proposal and it has been confirmed by Parliament by the affirmative procedure. In other words, it cannot happen unless Parliament says so. That amendment, which I have tabled and has been co-signed by my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lords, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, is a serious one, and I expect the Government to take it seriously. To that end, I ask my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues to meet me and my co-signatories as soon as possible, because it is due for debate on Report in less than two weeks, on Monday 11 March.
As to this Bill, I am very pleased it has made it this far. I support it and urge all colleagues to support its speedy passage through Parliament.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I will confine myself to one clause in this Bill, Clause 50, which will repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. That is the dross that makes an otherwise jewel of a Bill a complete disaster.
I do not know why the Tories changed their mind—well, I do, but I will not guess here. They were strong supporters of the Leveson solution, which was agreed with all parties when it was introduced. Then, of course, they changed their mind. I should say that I speak with a certain inside knowledge on this because I was deputy editor of two national newspapers and I understand the strength of feeling on all sides.
We are now 11 years on from the Crime and Courts Bill. The Government dithered and dodged whether to repeal it. What did they do from 2013 to 2017? Absolutely nothing. Seven years ago, they promised repeal in their manifesto. What happened? Absolutely nothing. Then they promised it again in their 2019 manifesto. What did they do? Absolutely nothing. Then suddenly in this, the last year of the Parliament, they have introduced repeal into this Bill, in which it does not belong in any context.
Why the decade-long delay? In the early years, it was because the Government could not decide what to do. Then they quite fancied having a legislative threat to hold over the newspapers, to blackmail them into doing their will. That was not very successful with some of them, but it was with others. Then the Government made their manifesto pledge in 2017 but did not do it, and then it was included again in the 2019 manifesto.
So nothing happened for 13 years until it was introduced in this year, 2024. Why is this a special year? Because we will have an election; that is why. We are getting this clause after a decade of doddering and dithering because the Tories hope to bribe the press with this pourboire.
I am sure that Ministers hope that the Government will use every possible manipulation to prevent the likely disaster for the Tories at the next election—I suggest noble Lords keep their eye on the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. This clause is not a piece of considered legislation: it is a straightforward bribe to the newspapers. Ministers know this perfectly well, so they say that things have changed for the better since Leveson, so we do not now need it. To me, change for the better is not terribly obvious, with Mirrorgate, Harrygate and countless cases of slurs against individuals.
I recently had the pleasure of meeting Danielle Hindley, who was charged with being a “rogue beautician” by the Mail on Sunday in 2017. It ruined her business and her life. Only by going to court and winning—which was a terrifically risky thing to do—was the newspaper’s story revealed as completely misleading and lying. Under the Leveson clause, the Mail on Sunday would either have had to become a registered newspaper under the PRP and so protected against damages, or remain unregistered under IPSO, the latest of the public regulators designed by the press.
I am delighted to see the IPSO chair, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, here—I have much regard for him—but was it really sensible of IPSO to appoint a man who had been a Minister in this Conservative Government as an impartial regulator? No, of course not.
IPSO’s failings have been widely and decisively exposed. Most recently, on 22 January, the Press Recognition Panel published its latest review of the regulator. Item: IPSO does not meet the Leveson report criteria for a regulator’s independence from the press that funds it. Item: as a result, IPSO is kept on short commons by the press funders, so it cannot do the job that it is supposed to do, even if it wanted to. Item: the laws are written by the newspapers, which are supposed to be bound by them. By the way, has there ever been regulatory capture like that? The noble Lord, Lord Grade, is here; I do not think he would allow that to happen to Ofcom.
IPSO has never fined the press or introduced a standards investigation into the press. In the five years from 2018 to 2023, it investigated 3.82% of the complaints it received. It upheld 0.56% of those, around 1 in 200— yes, noble Lords heard that right.
I even took the experimental step myself of complaining to IPSO—in my ultimate memoirs I will no doubt produce the correspondence. Not only was it quite extraordinary that it turned down my complaint but, having read the letter 23 times, I still cannot understand a single word of its grounds for doing so. It is a phony regulator, designed to provide the fig leaf that the press wants to cover its worst excesses.
There is an effective regulator, Impress, but it covers mostly minor publications. If there were a will, there would be a way to expand Impress to do the job. Instead, we have IPSO, the repeal of Clause 40, and a press whose daily distortion leaves the public to be smeared at will.
I am pleased to say that my party voted against this on Report in the Commons—and I am very pleased to say that the Tory, George Eustice, voted with us, as he has been a very coherent critic. I hope that a Starmer Government will start at the beginning, implementing press reform as outlined by Leveson and reinstating Clause 40. This year is the 100th anniversary of the election in which Labour first took power. I do not think that we will be waiting another 100 years for the next Labour Government, and I hope that they deal with this hypocrisy and the disgraceful bending of the truth by the press and restore it to the very great thing that it once was.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I will start by saying that I think the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, are absolutely unanswerable. This Bill includes some welcome measures in support of our public service broadcasters, particularly on prominence, but I intend today to identify the issues that the Bill should address but does not.
One hundred years ago, both main parties had the wisdom, in contrast to their US counterparts, to create a single, publicly funded public service broadcaster, the BBC. In the 1920s, a Conservative Government even had the wisdom to deny Winston Churchill his wish to take over the BBC during the General Strike, thus cementing its independence ever since. When ITV was launched in 1955, with Churchill now Prime Minister, it was of course commercially funded, but very heavily regulated, with substantial public service obligations. Ten years later, I joined the creative hothouse of Granada TV as a graduate trainee, and a few years later, LWT.
In subsequent decades, ITV would give the BBC a real run for its money: in current affairs, the investigative “World in Action” and “This Week”, both in peak time; an authentic northern voice with “Coronation Street”; “Brideshead Revisited”; the anthropological masterpiece “Disappearing World”; “Spitting Image”; and the first ever recording in the Cavern of an unknown Liverpool group. One of the greatest of ITV’s achievements—indeed of all global culture—was Melvyn Bragg’s painstaking chronicle, over three decades, of the world’s most renowned artists: Bergman, Sondheim, McCartney, Satyajit Ray, Walton, Lean, Callas, and many more.
ITV spent as much money on its local programmes as it did on its network. At LWT, the “London Programme” employed a young Peter Mandelson before his change of career, and was as well resourced as a network current affairs programme, famously rooting out corruption in the Met. ITV made Britain’s first programmes for ethnic minorities, with two young novice producers: one Trevor Phillips, the other Samir Shah. Whatever happened to them? ITV raised the BBC’s game too, forcing the somewhat highbrow broadcaster of the 1950s to embrace and brilliantly develop popular entertainment and drama programmes of quality: “Morecambe and Wise”, “The Two Ronnies” and “All Creatures Great and Small”.
Channel 4 was launched in 1982, when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister. Again, it was a deeply wise decision by government not to have an ITV2, pressed at the time, but rather, another publicly owned public service broadcaster, mandated to innovate and break the mould. And it did: “Gogglebox”, “Big Brother”, “Saturday Live”, “Dispatches”.
Of course, we had and have the contemporary BBC itself: the BBC of John Ware’s revelatory “Panorama” last week on Hamas; the BBC of unsurpassed coverage of the Coronation; the BBC of “Dad’s Army”, “Absolutely Fabulous”, “The Office”, “Fawlty Towers”, and “Fleabag”; the BBC of “Gardeners’ World” and “Countryfile”; of “Horizon”; of the Proms and “The Archers”; of the whole life’s work of David Attenborough.
No other country in the world comes even close to matching the dazzling success of British public service broadcasting. Though a BBC executive at the time, I attended—to criticism—Sky’s opening night in 1990. I unequivocally welcome the streamers for the explosion of riches they bring, but they are an expansion of choice and are not, and never will be, a substitute for what 100 years of UK PSB has brought us—for the PSBs, unlike the streamers, are rooted in British culture, identity, creativity, expression, experience and values.
It is horrific to apprehend that these very same PSBs are facing an existential threat. ITV has seen its share price fall by almost 80% since 2015, and—forgive me—is a shadow of its former self. Channel 4’s revenues fell by 20% in real terms in the decade following 2010. Since the pandemic, it has seen an uplift, but it is currently signalling stormy seas ahead.
The BBC is a prime victim of the culture wars, the governing party over the past 14 years wholly lacking the wisdom of its predecessors. From 2007 to 2022, BBC licence revenues declined by around 27% in real terms, yet in the same period the BBC has been handed further responsibilities which were previously funded by government. In 2014, it was required to fund most of the World Service from the licence fee; from 2018, some over-75s licences; and, since 2022, the whole cost of S4C. In all, these cuts and obligations add up to a 33% drop in real terms of the funding for core BBC programming. Unavoidably, the BBC is pulling back in every area of programming, and for me that is a personal tragedy.
Yet, in spite of these reverses, 96% of the population still consumes the BBC every month. On average, UK adults consume BBC services for around 17 hours per week, more than Netflix, Disney and Prime combined. Moreover, licence payers do so for a bargain £13 per month versus the Netflix subscription of £18 per month and the mighty £105 paid by a football fanatic such as me who wants to be able to watch any Premier League match across the three services that now carry Premier League games live. My football obsession now costs me six times as much as I pay each month to consume the BBC.
In conclusion, I look not just to the Minister, who is young and, I think, probably redeemable, but to other Front Benches and to all sides of this House, and I issue a challenge: whatever form a new Government take after our imminent general election, one of our national priorities simply must be to identify how we can ride to the rescue of one of our most precious and hard-won achievements of the past 100 years: British public service broadcasting.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is a pleasure but somewhat daunting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I agree with every word he said. I strongly welcome the Bill. It is timely and necessary. The regulatory framework that governs public service media, not just broadcasting, is in urgent need of updating, given the accelerating changes in technology, media consumption and the wider media ecosystem in the 20 years since the Communications Act 2003. I commend the excellent Library briefing for this debate. It was very helpful.
A number of things that are on my mind have already been mentioned, so I will move swiftly on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, have already noted, I understand that the intention to drop Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act will almost certainly proceed. It was a manifesto commitment by the Government. However, I will not be the only person to want to put on record that arguments by press agencies about freedom of speech can ring somewhat hollow. Leveson worked on this for good reasons. Freedom of speech and press freedom must not be confused with press protectionism. Victims of press misrepresentation and abuse must be forgiven for suspecting that government can easily be captured by business.
Leveson did not address public concerns for the good of his health. The promises of Leveson still stand. How are they to be fulfilled if Section 40 is dropped? The problem it sought to address has not gone away. Using this Bill to drop the Leveson commitment will not solve the problem that Leveson addressed, and it will not go away. I endorse the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about press ownership, but I urge a wider and deeper public debate about media ownership per se.
In this speech I shall focus on four points that I urge the Government to pay attention to as we proceed: prominence, genres, metrics, and language. Many noble Lords will address the question of PSB prominence so I will not labour that point here, but if PSB is to be properly valued as part of our media and democratic landscape, it needs particular attention when ensuring that people can see, quickly and easily, where to access it. PSB cannot play an equal role in a commercial battle with companies whose endgame is simply to make money. I think the Government agree about this prominence priority, so it does not need to be pressed further here.
I endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about language. Please can the Minister tell us what “appropriate” means? Who judges what is appropriate in which circumstances and according to which criteria? In common conversation the word might be useful—it is unspecific and creates space and flexibility—but this is legislation. Noble Lords have asked many questions, in recent legislation passing through this House, about the use of this undefined word. I ask that it not be swapped with “significant”, a word that is commonly used but meaningless unless you say what it signifies. Something can be “significant of” something, but it being “significant” tells us nothing. Perhaps “substantial” or “substantive” would work. Maybe this is pedantic, but it is important for another reason involving metrics that I will come on to in a moment.
My main concern about the Bill has to do with genres, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has already mentioned—or rather the lack of them. The current Bill has dropped specific reference to genres that might be described as “minority interest”, such as children, the arts, science, and religion. I will be specific: guaranteeing space for religion is not about propaganda for any particular faith or religion. The point is simply that you cannot understand the world if you do not understand religion. Religion is not about worldviews or beliefs alone but about prime motivators for individual and communal decisions and behaviours, about how and why people see the world as they do and how their priorities, rituals and communalities shape our societies. In broadcasting terms, that embraces drama, comedy, and current affairs; it is not all about “Songs of Praise”. This is not trivial. The fragilities of our world at present make attention to religion more important than ever, not less.
That brings me to the related issue of quotas, or metrics. I understand the point made by the DCMS Secretary of State at a recent Communications and Digital Committee meeting that the Bill aims to build flexibility in a rapidly changing media environment, but she was not able to answer questions about how the aspiration to ensure adequate PSB coverage might be measured. What are the metrics that Ofcom might use to measure whether or not PSB commitments are being fulfilled? I understand the point about flexibility, but I want to know how Ofcom can do its job in this respect. What are the metrics? There have to be some, surely. If they are not percentages or numbers of hours, what are they? If you cannot measure, you do not know whether commitments are being fulfilled. On Monday Ofcom wrote of the Bill:
“It makes changes to our existing responsibilities—including to our regulation of commercial radio and how we ensure that public service broadcasters deliver against their quotas”.
That makes my point beautifully. If there are no quotas, how can Ofcom ensure that?
In conclusion, I support and welcome the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me a few days ago to discuss it. But I have specific concerns, which I will continue to address, along with others, when the Bill comes to Committee.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate even if—he will forgive me—I did not agree with every word he said. I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and director of the Regulatory Funding Company, and note my other interests set out in the register.
In the 14 years that I have been in this House, I have never known a period during which we have had such a rollercoaster of legislation impacting on the media. It is like the fabled number 11 bus: you wait for ever, then four Bills come along all at once. Indeed, there are arguably five Bills if the Private Member’s Bill in another place on SLAPPs is included. Each Bill has been incredibly important and this last one, which we embark on today, is no exception. I strongly support it. It has been a long time coming—two decades—and I hope that we can help it on its way to the statute book speedily and intact. The pace of change in the media landscape is ferocious and history will judge us harshly if we delay in any way these vital changes; they are needed now.
Like other legislation that we have considered, particularly the Online Safety Act and the digital markets Bill, this Bill has already undergone extensive and detailed scrutiny, as well as widespread consultation across the industry. It comes to us, perhaps unlike some other legislation, in pretty good shape. While scrutiny is important, like my noble friend Lady Stowell, I do not believe there is any case for fundamental change to its shape or terms.
One thing we must ensure is that the Bill is future-proofed. As we have heard, the Communications Act 2003 has sat on the statute book for over 20 years, without any mention of the internet in it. That is perhaps one reason why media markets are now so fundamentally flawed as a result of the growth of the giant tech platforms, to the detriment of consumers and content providers. To make sure that does not happen again, we must ensure that there is a regular review of the Bill’s terms and impact, particularly in regard to PSB content.
PSB content is a vital component of UK media, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, and we have seen its power recently in exceptional drama from ITV. But the future of PSB is at serious risk because in the distorted global media market we have, it is the unaccountable platforms which increasingly determine what UK audiences see. Without action, PSB content could disappear from view on global online platforms and that would be unconscionable. We must protect it at all costs and the Bill is a vital step. We should make sure that we do nothing in this legislation which adds to the regulatory burdens and costs on PSBs if we want them to thrive—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made very effectively.
Ofcom’s role is central to that. While Parliament will set out the framework, it will be the regulators, as with the Online Safety Act and the digital markets Bill, which have to do the heavy lifting, and they will have a great deal of discretion. During the passage of this legislation, we should send a strong signal to Ofcom —it is very good to see my noble friend Lord Grade in his seat—and we expect it robustly to implement its terms, particularly in regard to prominence and dispute resolution, and to do so without delay. We must hold it to account for that. The recent introduction by Amazon of global standard terms requiring all content providers—including PSBs—to provide 30% of their advertising revenues shows how important this is.
On the subject of Ofcom, one issue that concerns me is the potential for the Bill to create a new form of complaint tourism industry, with people from outside the UK able to complain under both the standards code and the privacy and fairness code. That has serious implications for the breadth of content available to UK audiences. It will also be a significant burden on Ofcom, which is already facing the huge extra responsibilities of the Online Safety Act. I believe that complaints should be accepted only from UK residents or, at the very least, that there must be a mechanism to assess to what extent the codes are being used inappropriately for content tourism, with adjustments to the complaints regime made accordingly. My noble friend Lord Grade already has enough on, and we do not want to add too much to his burden.
The other area of real importance in the Bill is the future of radio, which plays a huge part in the lives of so many UK households. I strongly support the measures in Part 6 to ensure that audiences can access their favourite radio stations on voice-activated devices when they ask for them, but again, we need to make sure that the legislation is future-proofed so that our good intentions are not outpaced by the speed of market change. There is a strong case for broadening the scope of the Bill to include online-only radio content provided by Ofcom-licensed stations. For example, the award-winning Virgin Radio Pride summer pop-up, which provides a dedicated platform to celebrate the LGBT+ community, as well as discussing important issues impacting on LGBT people, would not be covered by the Bill’s protections. The Bill can also go further, through minor technical amendments, in addressing the imbalance of power between the giant tech platforms and UK radio stations in a number of areas, including access to data, non-financial carriage charges and the insertion of platform advertising before radio stations.
I would like to take up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who, I am afraid, seems to be stuck in a past which has long since vanished, but I have not really got time. There is little that I want to say about the repeal of Section 40 except this: it was one of the most odious and shameful pieces of legislation ever put on to the statute book in this country in the modern democratic age. It sought, for the first time since 1695, to hold a gun to the head of the free, independent press in the UK and say, “Join a state-backed regulator or we will close you down”. That would have had the real-world commercial impact of forcing publishers, particularly regional and local ones, to pay the costs of a libel or privacy action even if they won. It would have punished newspapers and their websites for telling the truth and utterly destroyed investigative journalism. It would have been completely incompatible with our commitments under the ECHR.
The result of all that is that it has severely dented the UK’s once-shining reputation for press freedom. If it had ever been implemented, it would have been the day that liberty died in this country. For all those reasons, it must not be allowed to stand a moment longer on the statute book. The repeal of this abominable legislation is long overdue and all credit is due to the Government.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and, in confessional spirit perhaps, remind noble Lords that I was the founding chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. I strongly support the Bill in principle and am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, who is an indefatigable campaigner for press freedom. Like him, I welcome the fact that my party is, somewhat belatedly perhaps, acting on its repeated manifesto commitment to abolish Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
We hear a lot from critics of the press about how the newspapers can and should be accountable to politicians and Parliament. But let us not forget the vital role that a free press plays in holding us—Parliament and the politicians—to account, too, in its unique position as what my old schoolfriend Sir Brian Leveson termed a critical witness to events. A free press is vital to our nation. As fake news continues to spread across the e-media, our traditional publishers and publications continue to play that so-important role in holding power to account, exposing all forms of hypocrisy and improper behaviour.
In the 10 years since I departed from IPSO, the ever- diminishing piles of newspapers in newsagents’ shops silently testify to the continuing decline and influence of the printed press, the local and regional press in particular. After a period of frenzied and desperate consolidation, that has all but vanished across vast tracts of our nation. In this age of rampant fake news, the consequential loss of accountability should alarm us all.
I vividly recall the debates we had at the time of the Leveson report, before and after I took over the reins of the old Press Complaints Commission. There was general agreement that the PCC was a complaints handler and not a regulator, and that it urgently needed to be replaced by something more powerful. I engaged fully with Lord Justice Leveson and his inquiry. When he published his final report in November 2012, Sir Brian restated his desire for
“the industry to work together to find a mechanism for independent self-regulation that would work for them and would work for the public”.
Having read the report from cover to cover, I expressed my hope that it would be implemented in full. In almost all respects, the Leveson report has been implemented.
The attempt to find a solution that was fully acceptable to all broke down principally on the question of how, or indeed if, a new regulatory structure should be validated. When we first discussed this legislation, various voices, including my own and that of my noble friend Lord Black, warned that the major newspaper publishers would not and could not be coerced into anything that smacked of statutory regulation. Our warnings may have been unwelcome—indeed, I think it is the only time I have been heckled in this House—but they were founded in truth.
For the Prime Minister of the day—now the Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Cameron—and the press media, using a statutory body for that purpose was a bridge too far. The use of a royal charter at least limited the legislative basis required to underpin the new system, but Section 40 was deemed a necessity, supposedly providing both an enticing carrot and a persuasive stick.
Noble Lords have received a number of lobbying messages from the taxpayer-funded Press Recognition Panel, which has recognised the organisation Impress, which mainly regulates micropublishers, but to which IPSO has never applied for recognition. The tone of these messages was strikingly partisan and almost polemical in places. The thrust of the argument is that IPSO has failed because of the relatively low number of complaints it has upheld. I confess that I have not kept in touch with every detailed aspect of IPSO’s operation since I departed 10 years ago; I rely on my noble friend Lord Faulks for that, as he is the present chair. However, I do know that progress should be measured not by complaints upheld, but by behaviour improved.
When asked about the relationship between politicians and the press, the late and much-lamented former leader of the Liberal Democrats, that fine and witty man Charles Kennedy, responded ruefully but with a characteristic twinkle in his eye: “Dogs and lamp-posts, dogs and lamp-posts”. He did not enlighten us on which was the dog and which the lamp-post, but we must surely work that out for ourselves. Personally, I think the casting swaps over not infrequently.
Section 40 has never been activated. Had it been, it would have been ineffective at best and, far more likely, counterproductive at worst, with unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences that would have necessarily impinged on press freedom, while doing nothing for the individual citizen. I wish it could have been dealt with earlier. Let us crack on with removing this unnecessary and potentially damaging measure once and for all.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a television producer who has worked for all the public service broadcasters.
Like many others, I welcome this long-awaited Bill. The television and film industry has been one of the great successes of our economy. Our public service broadcasters, together with the BBC, are national treasures and admired across the world. What I treasure most is their ability to reflect our country back to ourselves, to stimulate national discussion and to ensure a light is shone on unreported communities and unheard voices.
This view was so well expressed in the actress Samantha Morton’s very moving acceptance speech at this year’s BAFTA awards. She told the audience that watching Ken Loach’s film “Kes”, about poverty, was a seminal moment for her. She recognised her own upbringing and finally saw her own experience reflected on screen. She said:
“You see the stories we tell, they actually have the power to change people's lives”.
She added that the film had transformed her and drawn her into the industry.
Television has made wonderful strides in the last few decades since I joined the industry in the late 1980s. It has provided employment for people from many backgrounds and, thanks to the move out of London, brought work to the nations and regions. The stories they tell have indeed replicated Samantha Morton's experience. However, in the last 18 months the industry has been struck by a shocking downturn in commissions. They are few and far between. Independent production companies are closing down for want of work, and experienced technical and production staff are leaving the industry. Channel 4 has admitted that a 9% reduction in advertising revenue has forced it to call a slowdown in commissioning. In reality, this has meant vanishingly few new commissions. Channel 5 and ITV are not much better. ITV’s head of policy Magnus Brooke called it “past peak TV”.
The resulting effect on the workforce has been dramatic. BECTU, the television union, this week published a survey of workers in the industry, which has revealed that 60% of the respondents across the industry were not working, while 88% were finding it very difficult to make a living. The result has been an exodus of talent. The huge strides made in the last few decades in bringing women and people from ethnically diverse backgrounds into the industry are being reversed. The BECTU survey shows that 40% of women are thinking of leaving the industry and half of black respondents are thinking of following suit. This Bill must do everything it can to protect those unheard voices and ensure that the industry continues to shine a light into the corners of this country that are not normally seen.
I want to praise the Government for bringing forward measures in the Bill such as digital prominence for PSBs, which is so badly needed. However, the privilege of the status of public service broadcaster must be reciprocated by providing distinctive content, which is so important to our national sense of being. In this very competitive marketplace where streamers are bombarding viewers with drama and advertising revenue is declining, the pressure will be on the PSBs to commission only popular shows by big production companies with proven records. Like my noble friends Lady Kidron and Lord Birt, my concern is that the Bill is so vague in many areas designed to protect this distinctive content.
The last Ofcom review of PSB content was published in 2020, so it is already out of date, but it is the best official indicator of the state of factual programming. It said that PSB provision of and investment in arts, religion, formal education and children’s content is low. My fear is that the BBC is increasingly going to become the channel of market failure programmes, although even there it seems that the commissioning of factual science, arts and religion has almost dried up.
The Bill not only drops the “educate and inform” mission for PSBs; it is also particularly vague on their public service remit. The Government inserted Clause 1(6) in the other place in response to these concerns. It is a permissive clause calling for a range of “appropriate” genres of content to be made available by PSBs. It is one thing to permit PSBs to broadcast a range of genres, but being so vague about what they are supposed to be gives the measure no meaning.
I would be grateful if the Minister explained what an “appropriate” range of genres means in the absence of a mission to educate, entertain and inform. I am echoing concerns already expressed in the other place. The Culture Committee, in carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, warned that replacing a list of specific commitments required of public service broadcasters with a general remit was “a step too far”. The Government’s response was that the amendment was a simplification. Without a firm list of genres that need to be covered, what is the incentive or capacity for Ofcom to judge whether the PSBs are sticking to their public service remit? I imagine that news and children’s content will be measured, but what about the rest?
I ask noble Lords to take these concerns seriously. These distinctive genres need to be protected, because they create commissions and jobs in the very communities which the Government say they want to foster. Channel 4 has a vision statement that talks of elevating unheard voices from diverse communities, to encourage emerging writers and producers from different points of view. I have to praise the Government for not going ahead with their policy to privatise Channel 4, but I want to ensure that the company recovers from its present commissioning drought, and that the Government, together with Ofcom, ensure that it continues to commission from as wide a range of small independent production companies as possible, because that is where the freshest and newest ideas are coming from.
Once again, the Bill is very vague on how this is to be achieved. It talks about
“an appropriate range of independent productions”,
and
“an appropriate range of programme made outside the M25”.
I applaud the sentiment, but I fear the vagueness. I know that the Minister will tell me that appropriateness will be decided by Ofcom, the expert regulator, but, as parliamentarians, I think we have a duty to steer Ofcom.
In 2022, production companies with turnovers of more than £25 million annually received 70% of Channel 4’s primary commissioning spend. The channel, despite its mission statement, has been too risk-adverse in its commissioning. Its new licence agreement states that 35% of productions for Channel 4 will be made by qualifying indies—those not partly owned by a UK broadcaster. But these indies could include Banijay, a huge production company with massive annual revenues. More needs to be done to guarantee that smaller indies are protected. There are various ways in which the threshold could be calculated, but I ask the Minister to engage seriously with protecting these small but unheard voices.
Similarly, I applaud the Government for emphasising the need for local radio, regulated by Ofcom, to be protected in the digital world and for encouraging locally collected news. As online listening hit over 26% of listeners last year, I encourage the Government to extend the scope of these protections to cover all online services and podcasts generated by these stations. I really would not like to see these digital offerings diluted by commercial interventions by the platforms, either in charging a fee for carrying them or superimposing endless advertising on them.
I also applaud the Government for focusing on regulating voice-activated services, and ensuring that the platforms do not have too much power to promote their own content over that of the audio provider. However, I think that the Government ought to bring into scope in-car entertainment systems that are not voice activated. It would be good to get a steer from the Minister on this and not to leave all future-proofing to regulations.
This Bill does so much to propel our world-class television and radio services into the digital world. I hope that it will pass with all speed, but I ask the Government to protect the small players in the audio-visual industry and to ensure that they have a place in the increasingly competitive digital sphere.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the Second Reading debate. I declare my interest as a member of the board at Channel 4 and an adviser to Boston Ltd.
As the late, great David Frost had it, “Let’s talk telly”. The invention of television allows us to be entertained by people in our living rooms—by people we would not allow in our home. I can give another perspective from another David, latterly of this parish: the great Lord Puttnam, in his review of only a few years ago, pre Covid, talked about more people watching television, not necessarily on television. And finally, I refer to possibly an even slightly greater legend, Jeremy Isaacs, really defining what any channel should be shooting at: something for everyone, some of the time.
Broadcasting at its best entertains, educates and informs, but its greatest power, perhaps, is to empower change. “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, Channel 4’s “It’s a Sin”, and indeed—why not?—the London 2012 Paralympic Games coverage, were all about driving change and enabling active citizens, communities and cities across all of our four countries that make up, at our best, our United Kingdom.
It is the mention of the Paralympic Games that takes me to the first provision in the Bill worth comment—that of listed events. It is so important in such a fractured, divided and often divisive time, particularly post Covid; it is those events that bring us together to find common chat, common conversation and common cause. So what is the plan for digital on-demand rights? If they are just stacked behind a paywall, it will be increasingly unscalable for so many in our communities right now.
On the question of “prominence” that many other noble Lords have rightly mentioned, and the choice of “appropriate” or “significant”—neither word does the trick. The Government are seeking for “appropriate” to do quite a deal of heavy lifting—more than it is capable of. Although the word is not “significant”, there are a number of legal terms which will do this job and be far more appropriate, rightly, than “appropriate”.
To turn to some of the genres themselves, others have been mentioned, but I make a play for science. If we are to be a so-called science superpower, and if we are going to enable all citizens to have an informed view and feel part of the AI future now, to understand the risks but also the opportunities, one would imagine that we would want some role from our PSBs in that journey. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly pointed out, if we are not going to look at those elements here, or indeed in any of the other Bills—and, as my noble friend Lord Black pointed out, we have had a few of them—we are seemingly not addressing not just an elephant but a whole algorithmic herd of elephants coming towards us. To give more than a nod to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, if we do not address it, we really are at the “Edge of Reason”.
Can the Minister say something more about “must offer, must carry”? How will it not turn into a mere revenue gouge for carriage?
Tuning in to radio, I am pleased to see the provisions in the Bill on a medium which has meant so much to me over so many years. But how will this work in terms of some of the current aggregator services that sit between the stations and indeed the smart speakers? Similarly, I applaud the ambition in the Bill that one can simply call a radio station on a smart speaker and, rightly, immediately it will appear. How will this work in situations such as the BBC stations, where one is required to log on and sign in? That gives nothing in terms of speed, or a frictionless, efficient service, and indeed asks questions as to why that would in any sense be necessary.
On access and accessibility, I note the provisions in the Bill around putting access service provisions for subtitles, sign language and audio description on the streamers. Would my noble friend the Minister not agree that we can go further with this, both in terms of linear and on-demand and streaming services, particularly with what technology can enable us to do with the provision and creation of these access services? It does not need to be seen as a post-production burden, or an additional cost on the programme makers, the prodcos or, indeed, the channels. If this is integrated and thought through from the outset, why not have all new programmes fully accessible to all—not least for those channels where we are all licence payers?
As other noble Lords have mentioned, we are again through this Bill putting a lot on to Ofcom. I am duty bound to ask the Minister whether he can reassure the House that it will have the resources that it needs to effectively undertake these new tasks, along with all the other requirements that have been put on it in just the last 12 months.
Finally, in a media Bill I am interested that there is no mention whatever of media literacy, media competency and all those key, important issues. I know that we discussed this at length in the Online Safety Bill, now Act—but would not one imagine a key role that the PSBs could play in fostering increased media literacy and media competency?
It is a positive Bill, and I support much of it. Prominence, provenance, trust, truth, accessibility and access services—if we want the PSB ecosystem to thrive in the decades ahead, to enable, empower and unleash all the creative talent and indeed all the individual and collective talent of all of us as citizens, we need to legislate for that. The Bill goes quite a way in doing that; fortunately, there is still plenty more for us to consider when we come to Committee.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, every now and then in this House, you can look down the speakers’ list and think, “I wonder what that person will say”. I looked at the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and thought how he and I would want to talk about listed events, and access in terms of both disability and technology—I was absolutely right. The noble Lord has done it, and probably better than I will, so noble Lords have saved themselves a couple of minutes of listening time—let us look on the bright side.
I start with the listed events structure. We have them; we have kept them. There will always be some disagreement about what should be included. I do not think that this is the right time to go into that but, certainly in the modern world, as has already been said, you do not just watch an event; you do not even watch a replay. You often watch segments—it does not matter what you call them; you might call them highlights, blocks, teasers, the continuous parts of an event—and these are a part of the normal viewing experience for those people who are not usually watching on television but on another screen, such as a computer or smart device. Unless they are brought into this structure properly, we will in fact be saying that we are getting rid of part of the listed events’ ability to reach everybody. The fact of the matter is that there is general agreement that these are big cultural moments, such as sporting events, which are a big cultural part of our society and should be there.
I hope that the Government will be receptive to strengthening this aspect, so that it goes a little further. The aim is there, but I hope that they will make sure that the whole thing is there in the Bill and that it properly covers the way that we consume this information now. This is what we need to make it mean something.
There are also problems about, for example, the big one—the Olympics. The Paralympics have already been mentioned. With multi-event sports, the structure is difficult and it needs another little look. If we have got it wrong in our concerns, the Minister will be able to tell us and we shall all go away happy. That may happen—we will see. This is something that I think we must guarantee is done properly and that the full effect is taken on board.
When it comes to disability and sport—I remind the House of my declared interest with Microlink PC; it usually operates in the business environment, but we also deal with the technology—just about everything can, fairly cheaply and fairly quickly, have better disability access added to it. It is not difficult any more; you can do it quickly and easily. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to say, “This is comparatively easy to do; go do it”. There has not been much else raised in this House on that; this is not the big issue that it was last time we discussed it. I think that people will think that some of this is now done. I would expect that all of it could be done without too much cost or too much intervention. That is my suspicion; I may be wrong, but it can be done comparatively easily.
I hope that the Minister will give us assurances that this will become a norm for people. It should be a norm: if you are broadcasting, you make it accessible; you make it as accessible as you can. There is the defence of reasonableness: if something is terribly difficult, maybe we do not do that—yet, but it is coming. I hope that the Minister will be able to engage on that.
I could wax lyrical—shall we say, second-rate lyrical —on some of the broadcasting requirements and genres, but those two issues that I have raised should be enough for the Government to improve the Bill considerably: making sure that everyone can get to it, and that the big sporting and cultural events are universally accessible. I would leave comparatively happy; my noble friends on the Front Bench may not be quite so happy on such a minimal diet, but that is for them to decide. I hope that the Bill goes through and I hope it is improved.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, like everybody who has spoken, I welcome the Bill. It must be a joy to be on the Front Bench for the Department for Culture—unlike being on the Front Bench for the Home Office. I think we all wish that it could have come earlier, but the conundrum in this sector is that, whenever it comes along, it will almost certainly already be out of date. This sector is moving so quickly and in so many directions simultaneously that, whatever our best efforts, we will always be following, rather than leading—but better late than never.
I will speak briefly on three areas: first, the challenge of understanding, mapping, decoding and anticipating such dynamic sectors; secondly, the enormous cultural, financial and political advantages of being the creator and home of one of the world’s most highly regarded public sector broadcasters; and, thirdly, the need for consistency and clarity of approach on child protection, an issue that quite rightly took up an awful lot of our time last year when we discussed the Online Safety Bill.
First, so much of the online world, which is now the principal driver and flywheel of modern media, is being tweaked, transformed and disrupted by the propellant of technology. This will be amplified and accelerated in ways that we can scarcely imagine by the effects of artificial intelligence. I wonder how our successors in Parliament in 25 years’ time will view the framing, ambition and content of the Bill. I am broadly supportive, much to my surprise—I can feel the much-missed and lamented Lord Judge raising his eyebrows as I say this—of some of the Henry VIII powers in the Bill, since speed of response and action to adapt will be essential to this legislation remaining relevant and effective. Part of me wonders, however, whether we will be regarded as well-intentioned dinosaurs attempting to craft evolution as we would wish it to be, rather than as it will actually happen. We must have mechanisms to enable Parliament to have appropriate oversight in real time.
Others have spoken about the need to future-proof the Bill. It will never be perfect, but I think we need to spend much more time than perhaps the Government have anticipated in trying to think through the ramifications of the way that this world is evolving.
Other noble Lords have mentioned—indeed, the Labour Front Bench very kindly came to the Cross-Bench meeting today, and this was one issue we all agreed on—that we lack an overarching strategy and vision for media and communications in this country. Such a strategy and vision need to be completely apolitical but that we can all understand and sign up to. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, spoke to great effect in that area.
Secondly, I suspect all of us have had the BBC, in its myriad forms, as a constant backdrop to our life. It permeates our individual and collective memories, marks key milestones and transition points, and is generally regarded, not just by us but, importantly, by citizens of other countries, as not just a national treasure but a benchmark for public sector broadcasting excellence and a tangible element in how they view our culture, politics and place in the world.
Like others who have spoken, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Foster, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I am worried by the decision to narrow the public sector broadcasting remit across a range of genres. I acknowledge that to maintain standards and high-quality output across such a broad range of genres is challenging at the best of times, and now is certainly not the best of times, but it is the very breadth and accumulated knowledge and experience across these genres which make the BBC so much more than a news broadcaster with add-ons. They give it cultural heft and a rich history and are a key element in building the creative industries which are such a vital part of our economy. I put it to the Minister and those on the Benches behind him and in his party that if anything should be a poster child for levelling up, it is our public service broadcasting, which is effective right across the United Kingdom and outside.
I am not going to sing, but I think the singer-songwriter Joni Mitchell encapsulated what many of us feel when she wrote, I think in 1970,
“Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone”.
I am sure that your Lordships will be diligent and persuasive in mapping and articulating the dangers in discarding and diluting so much of value: we can be rather profligate in taking things for granted and not acknowledging its true worth.
Thirdly, when it comes to child protection, I am uncomfortably aware that this generation of under-18s is the most technically savvy in history, and the generations ahead will be even more so. If they wish to gain access to content of almost any kind, they will invariably find ways that all the best efforts of legislators, regulators and platforms had not anticipated. Let us be realistic: that is the world we live in. How do we deal with this? We must acknowledge the reality that we are always going to be reactive rather than proactive. I think we need to find ways of involving young people very directly as we look at this world and understand it; they have a far better understanding of it than we do. We must work very closely with other international jurisdictions, platforms and regulators; working together, learning from one another and acknowledging, above all, that the online and media worlds which children inhabit are borderless. It is futile for any nation state to proudly declare that somehow we are going to build a Trump-like wall around us and everything within it will be wonderful. The world is not like that.
I look forward to our discussions and to working across the House with other noble Lords in trying to ensure greater parity of approach across child safety. I do not think that there is a silver bullet; we can and must do better, but I am concerned that, as we pile more and more responsibility on to Ofcom, we are perhaps being unrealistic in our expectations. We need to be careful not to delegate a lot of responsibility for what we are trying to do to a regulator that is going rapidly into territory in which it has not hitherto had much experience. Like most of us, it is unlikely to get everything right first time.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I am glad to be able to speak in this debate, and thank the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his comments. It is an honour to follow him.
In conversations I have had in recent weeks, it is clear that there is a strong desire across this House to ensure the Media Bill progresses positively through its legislative processes, in part because this is, as noble Lords have said, a Bill that acknowledges the vastly changed broadcasting landscape over the past 20 years. Given the rapidly developing technological nature of the communications landscape, it is understandable that the Bill aims to give flexibility and adaptability where needed. The point I wish to make is about the absence of clear statutory provision for languages in this Bill, in particular for Gaelic. Other noble Lords have already referred to this in the debate.
The issue of provision also relates to a matter that other noble Lords have already raised about quotas and genres. I fully understand the desire to reduce burdens and increase the potential for creativity in the PSB sector; this is a Bill for growth, as the Minister has said. However, I ask the Minister to consider asking the Government to strengthen language provision in the Bill, rather than have it left in the rather precarious state it now finds itself in. Leaving it to Ofcom to assess —through counting objections to the absence of language provision, for example—is an unhelpful consequence of a lack of statutory recognition.
Members in the other place have made similar points regarding Gaelic—covering the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland—Irish, Scots, Ulster Scots or Cornish even, and of course Welsh. I recognise, with others, that it is not realistic at this stage to ask the Media Bill to provide a funding solution. However, the Bill could ask Ofcom to ensure that there is sufficient new Gaelic content to enable delivery of a Gaelic television service with a public service remit. This would mean that Ofcom’s annual reports would highlight where there are deficits in the delivery of a Gaelic service, thereby providing an incentive to address those deficits. MG Alba, the PSB provider that delivers Gaelic media content across diverse platforms, is, as other noble Lords who are speaking in this debate may indicate, caught in a difficult place, because while there is good will, there is no statutory provision for a Gaelic language service. There is an opportunity here to do something about this, and for good reasons.
In that regard, I turn briefly to the reasons for the statutory basis for language provision. In my maiden speech last November, I referred to my background of living and working in New Zealand. A week or so after my maiden speech, and bearing in mind the time of year—later in the year—I came across my noble friend Lady Goldie cheerfully humming a tune. I recognised the tune, though could not immediately place it, but she told me that it was a Māori language Christmas carol from New Zealand, “Te Harinui”, or “Great joy”. This brought home to me the global nature of our context and the way in which music and language convey memories of place, culture and identity. In the New Zealand context, the PSB remit for the Māori language stems from the belief that language is
“at the very heart of Māori culture and identity and for that reason alone, it must be preserved and fostered. It provides a platform for Māori cultural development and supports a unique New Zealand identity within a global society”.
New Zealand’s national indigenous media organisation, Whakaata Māori, in its own words
“promotes, revitalises and normalises the Māori language by taking a digital-first, audience-led approach in the delivery of educational, entertaining and engaging programming”.
There is a level of intentionality about this which has everything to do with creativity and growth. It is not about burden, but about acknowledging and honouring the place of language as a means to uplift the whole national identity—and by this I mean, in this House, every part of the United Kingdom. The whole point of the digital revolution is to make every sector more accessible, helping us tell the rich story of our diverse cultural and linguistic landscape, but this does need, I think, a statutory basis.
In conclusion, I commend the Government for this Bill and I hope the Minister will be able to look seriously at these concerns about language provision. I look forward to working with him and other Members of this House as the Bill progresses. I finish with a Gaelic thank you: “Tapadh leibh”.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. I draw attention to my registered interests, in particular having recently stood down as commissioner for culture at DCMS, where I had the great joy of working closely with my noble friend the Minister. I remain there as an expert adviser to the film and TV production restart scheme and chairman of the department’s culture and heritage capital initiative.
I might take a slightly different approach. I welcome the Bill hugely, but I hope that in Committee we achieve a careful balance to avoid overregulation and complexity—we do love regulation. It is quite frightening standing in front of my noble friend, the chairman of Ofcom, while I talk about this, but I hope he will poke me in the back if I say something wrong.
This creative industry is dominated by successful businesses that are international and mobile. The change in technology over the last two decades has been massive, as has been pointed out many times. This is largely down to an immense amount of research and development, and huge capital investment. One of my favourite examples is when I lived in New York in 2000, I used the Netflix postal DVD delivery service. At that point, when it ran out of money, it proposed selling itself for $50 million to Blockbuster, a video-rental store chain. When I looked yesterday, Netflix is capitalised at $250 billion—which, for scale, is three times the value of BP—and Blockbuster is now one nostalgia shop in Bend, Oregon.
Technology will probably continue to move at an even faster pace, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned, and keeping up with the regulation from our side will be a non-trivial task. I imagine, in the next year or so, noble Lords will be standing in their drawing rooms and they will say, “Show me some thrillers in German”, or “Bring me some cricket”, and up it will come, totally bypassing any EPG. Even though we can mandate for prominence, it is going to be very hard to achieve any effect with prominence in the future.
Viewer habits are changing. Generation Z, for example, spend 50% of their viewing time on short films on Instagram, X or TikTok. The other day I asked YouTube how many people in the UK can make a living with a YouTube channel. It is an extraordinary number: this may not be completely accurate, but from memory it was 75,000 people—that is a lot of channels.
Of course, there are some fantastic parts of the Bill, and I commend DCMS, the Ministers and the officials who have seen the Bill through multiple iterations over that period. I thank particularly one official, Victoria MacCallum, whom I know very well, who led the team which did this work. The other place had a good debate, and the work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has secured great improvement to the Bill. I also, oddly, in the context of the business side, support the Clause 28 amendment, proposed by my right honourable friend the Member for Maldon, to protect smaller businesses by bringing local TV and any future public service channels within the prominence framework, and that is something we might consider in Committee.
I welcome the revision of Channel 4’s remit; it is essential if Channel 4 is to survive, thrive and be sustainable. The idea that it can get involved in its own production and own IP, and begin to build a library of value, is a good thing, but it will not be easy for it, as we are seeing in today’s advertising market.
When considering the regulatory clauses in Committee, I would like us to think about trying to balance regulation with maintaining this thriving economic sector. We should be proud that the Amazons, Netflixes and Apples of this world invest so much in this country. We have all had the notes and, in a way, I have some sympathy with the streamers when they point out tricky features, such as trying to maintain impartiality when you have a giant catalogue of thousands of titles that have been around for a number of years. Something that was impartial 10 years ago may be partial today, and that will be hard for them to maintain. They also make the point, and it is something we should discuss, that the tiering system may not be ideal and we may want to regulate all providers, not just have poor Ofcom decide who is in tier 1 and who is not, at any point.
This is a very significant sector. We are debating broadcast regulation but there is a correlation between local production spend and, for example, the reported Netflix production spend of $1.5 billion a year here. All these companies, including Amazon and Apple, make stuff here. The size of the creative industries in this country is £126 billion of GVA, as we saw in the McKinsey report of late 2023. To give that some context, that is three-quarters of the size of the financial services sector. This is an important and rapidly growing sector, with 2.5 million jobs in it; hence the Treasury saying that this sector is one of the great five economic sectors for growth for this country. We protected it well during Covid, and I should namecheck the outstanding Film and TV Production Restart Scheme, which made sure that production could happen all the way through Covid.
These companies move their investment very quickly; many other countries would also like to host those businesses and their production. In my view, we have to have three conditions in this country for them to stay here. We need a highly skilled and experienced workforce—which we have; that is necessary but not sufficient. We need a good exchange rate; we have very little control over that, but it drives business—particularly this business. We have a very sophisticated tax relief system which has been developed over many years; £1.7 billion of tax relief went to the creative industries in 2021-22, and that is an essential component of this business.
I am trying to get across that we are lucky to host this huge sector. I hope my noble friend the Minister agrees that we have to make sure that this finely balanced environment does not become less attractive through onerous and costly regulation.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my declaration of interests in that I do occasional work for the BBC and Channel 4, and other media outlets, which are declared on my register. I am also chair of Sport Wales.
I am interested in many aspects of the Bill; in particular, how sport will be treated. I was delighted in 2020 when His Majesty’s Government added the Summer and Winter Paralympics to the “crown jewels”. This was a really important moment for the sport’s movement and the athletes. For a long time, while other countries were catching up on the media coverage of the Paralympic Games, many international athletes, friends and families used the British coverage to get up-to-the-minute updates. Just today, the International Paralympic Committee and Paris 2024 announced that media rights holders in more than 160 countries and territories plan to broadcast the Paralympics this year. I am in no doubt that the free-to-air coverage in the UK has helped the transformation of other jurisdictions, and we have much to be proud of.
The Bill introduces a new special clause for multi-sport events which was not in the draft Bill and was not subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny in another place. It would apply to four current group A events: the Summer Olympics and Paralympics, and the Winter Olympics and Paralympics. The new clauses would have the effect that Ofcom consent would not be required for multi-sports events if a service in one category has full rights and a service in another has what is termed “adequate live coverage”. The Bill does not define adequacy and it is not clear that adequacy would mean the same thing to a PSB as to a commercial subscription service. A concern would be that “adequate” might equate to “incomplete”; for instance, by carving out particular sports such that they are available only on pay-to-view services, or by significantly limiting the hours of broadcast or transmission times available to a free-to-air broadcaster.
I ask the Minister about the ability of Ofcom to make regulations and what might constitute “adequate” live free-to-air coverage. At the moment, I am not reassured that the balance is quite right. It could remain possible, for instance, that some key Olympic and Paralympic events and moments will be lost behind a paywall; for example, a cycling gold medal or the‘ women’s 100 metres final would be available only to those who can afford to subscribe. If this were the case, it could widen the divide between male and female athletes or give some sports less reach. Seeing elite athletes perform is important, to offer some inspiration to younger people.
Is it His Majesty’s Government intention, with the multi-sports clauses, to facilitate partnerships between public service broadcasters and commercial pay broadcasters? This might be considered a curious sort of intervention, given that the BBC and Discovery are quite happily partner broadcasters for the Olympics right now, without these clauses. In fact, many listed events now have co-rights holders; these are sometimes more than one PSB—such as the BBC and ITV for football—and sometimes they are a free and a pay broadcaster. These partnerships are already allowed and, indeed, encouraged by the current legislation.
Does the Minister see any issue where the Government are inviting Ofcom to make regulations that will likely set two live streams as the ceiling for free-to-air coverage and potentially weaken the PSBs’ hand in any negotiation with rights holders or commercial broadcasters? If that is the case, it cannot be in the wider interests of the UK public. There are already many challenges in negotiating sports rights without making it any harder.
I am also interested in what may happen to digital on-demand rights within the regime. The way that many of us watch or consume sport is rapidly changing. As many noble Lords have mentioned, we are no longer sitting around one TV in the living room as a family. If no reference to digital on-demand rights is included, it seems unlikely that two live streams free to air, but with no catch-up or digital clips available for free, would be sufficient for audiences. An unintended consequence of the multi-sports clauses, and exclusion of safeguards around digital on-demand rights in the regime, could be to make the investment case for PSBs so weak that they are no longer inclined to bid for these crown jewels and they de facto become an all-paywalled affair, or with minimal skeleton free-to-air live provision, so that many UK audiences may miss out altogether.
I am also interested in exploring prominence, as other noble Lords have done, and the difference between “significant” and “appropriate”. Like many noble Lords, I support the Welsh language and Gaelic, but as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has already raised, we do not go anywhere near far enough in provision for those who require British Sign Language. I hope that we never go into another pandemic, but a huge frustration for me was that we could not provide British Sign Language at 5 pm on the media outlets that were updating the country about what was happening. This is simply not good enough.
Finally, have His Majesty’s Government given any consideration to using the Media Bill to update the Communications Act 2003 to safeguard linear TV, which is still an important and familiar viewing route? This would also support audiences as the digital transition continues.
I will be tabling and supporting amendments that cover these issues, and very much look forward to Committee.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former director of the British Film Institute, and that my younger daughter’s partner has recently joined a media company whose interests are engaged by the Bill.
This Bill, the first media Bill for over 20 years, as many have commented, has been widely welcomed across the industry. However, it is worth bearing in mind that it comes at a time when we have been looking in depth at the social media industries through the Online Safety Act, when we are still considering changes to the rules governing personal data through the DPDI Bill, and when we are looking at the competition powers required by the CMA in relation to digital media under the DMCC Bill. I make that point because it is confusing for all concerned—I guess that even the Minister has some difficulties in working out which day, which Bill, or which speech he should be giving; I certainly feel that.
Until recently, such Bills were all largely under one set of Ministers at the DCMS. The complication that we have now is that this has been lost because of the machinery-of-government changes. I worry that it is causing unnecessary fragmentation of effort in key areas for the UK economy. It also bears on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and his frustration at being unable to tackle the mass of material which is going through, and where he may be ruled out of court and out of the Bill. I hope his points are made, thought about and addressed in some way over the next few weeks.
While I am whingeing, I could also say that, like others, I worry that we are not dealing with AI at all. It seems to be a blank in the Bill but also in the briefing notes and material, and the speeches we have heard so far. We all know it is there. It is a problem, but we do not know how to deal with it, and we are just blanking it off.
While we are concerned about that, we could join with the regret of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that we did not use the Bill in a positive sense to try to place a context as a whole around the BBC. We all accept that the BBC is the jewel in the crown that we are talking about, but we never discuss or even consider how to safeguard and future-proof it as it goes forward.
Finally on these whinges, I hope that others will pick up the point made elsewhere about the question of Gaelic and minority cultures. That is so important, as is genre. I hope that will come through, but I do not have time to deal with it myself.
We know, as Ofcom states, that the
“UK’s broadcasting and media landscape is one of the most diverse, creative, and vibrant anywhere in the world”.
It is not an accident. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, UK broadcasting policy has evolved on a broadly bipartisan basis since the founding of the BBC a century ago. There were some rocky passages in policy development in the last few years, but luckily, what we have before us today is, by and large, a continuation of that bipartisan approach, and I fully welcome that.
My noble friend Lord Bassam made a number of good points. His context is the one I want to follow, but freed from my responsibilities on the Front Bench, I do not have to cover everything and will cover only three points. The first is the timing of the DTT and IP switchover. A lot of the lobbying that we have received in the run-up to this debate has focused on the timing and the impact of the TV delivery system changing from DTT to IP. Clearly, further discussions are required, and we know they are going on. However, the key policy questions that we ought to be addressing are absent from the Bill, and I wonder whether that is right. For instance, is it right to push back the changeover until the mid-2030s? Is there any flexibility on that? There will be huge consequences if we miss the optimum timing—the tipping point—and do not bring forward when needed the substantial regulatory changes to drive the scale of industry co-operation which will be required across TV and all other content. Has this been factored into the thinking? What scenarios have been contemplated? Has any assessment been made of the investment required by both the public sector and private investors? The digital switchover plan comes to mind, but I do not see that anywhere in the documentation around this. Could the Minister comment on that?
The need to drive digital inclusion for those living in remote areas must not be forgotten. For those whose skills are not up to the challenges of internet provision, what will we do? Some of the figures are extraordinary. There are 3 million households still without broadband, of which over 2 million comprise mainly older people, who are unlikely to be able get their technical skills up to the level required. Even more worryingly, 1 million households are on low incomes and will not be able to afford to upgrade themselves. These are issues which I do not see in the Bill; I hope that we will be able to come back to them.
There has been a broad welcome for the proposal in the Bill for the reform of PSB prominence. As the Minister said, the current rules, which reflect the technology and usage patterns of the early years, are out of date, but the principles on which they stand need to be brought forward, and it is good to see them in the Bill. As others have said, I worry that the approach seems to be less concerned about radio, which is such an important part of our everyday life. The Bill seems unlikely to resolve some of the concerns raised about voice services and podcasts.
On Section 40, I do not wish to go into detail, because I take it for granted that its elimination will take place. Personally, I regret it slightly—my name was on the original amendment. By some weird quirk of fate, because of the rush to get it through, it happened to be patched into a Bill I was doing—I think it was the higher education Bill. It was nothing to do with it, so that might give some hope to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that you can get these things through if it is necessary.
When he comes to respond to this debate, the Minister owes the House some sense of what is happening under the post-Leveson regulations. I do not want to get into the main issues; we need to know more about what the Government’s thinking is before we can come back to that. Is it true that the Government remain committed to the continued existence of the royal charter on self-regulation of the press? If so, what role do they see for the Press Recognition Panel, established under the royal charter to provide the independent oversight of the system that it does? Have they any concerns about the system, and if so, could they set them out, so that we are aware of the issues that they have on this? What do the Government make of the PRP’s recent annual report comment that:
“Because most publishers remain outside of the recognition system”—
and some do not even have a complaints system—
“complaining about news publishers is not straightforward”?
These are really important issues for those who have been put in a bad place because of the press. I think that we will hear more of that from other speakers. We need answers.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the Bill. As has been said, we have waited a long time for it, so it is important to get it right; we will not have this opportunity again for some time. We have seen new technology, changed consumer habits, different ways to access media and increased global competition. At the time of the last media Bill, streaming was only a brave or madcap idea, so it is imperative to do it right. I welcome the Government’s ambition to support our media to enable them to compete and continue to serve their audiences with high-quality content. We are also fortunate to have a Minister who gets it.
I welcome the Bill’s efforts in granting greater flexibility and prominence to public service broadcasters; protecting our well-trusted radio services, which I will come to later; and further diversifying, and ensuring greater inclusivity of, our media landscape. However, I also want to draw attention to a number of concerns. I was not aware of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. However, the UAE Government’s recent proposed bid to take over the Telegraph and the Spectator has indeed raised questions and concerns about the ownership of UK news companies and assets, particularly their acquisition by organisations in foreign jurisdictions that may differ in their regard for the freedom of the press.
Many foreign owners of media outlets have had a positive effect, bringing considerable investment, and have kept an arm’s-length approach. That being the case, we should be concerned about the motivations of a foreign Government and investors trying to get their hands on a media title or titles. Trust in news media has already plummeted, and the buying of British news organisations by a foreign Government is likely to lead to an even greater decrease in trust.
Turning now to media literacy, the changing nature of the media landscape has been widely discussed, especially the importance of countering misinformation and disinformation. Naturally, increasing media literacy provides an answer to those challenges. Conversations need to be had about who should be responsible for raising levels of media literacy. I firmly believe that the Government have an important role in increasing trust in and future-proofing our media by educating consumers to be critical and media literate. During consideration of the Bill in the Commons, Labour’s John McDonnell tabled a proposed new clause on media literacy, which he did not push to a vote. However, I encourage the House to pick up that clause. We should indeed seize the opportunity the Bill provides to place a duty on PSBs to develop their media literacy strategies, which in turn will enable consumers to navigate the media competently and cut through misinformation.
It would be a good idea to introduce a requirement for PSBs to be involved in improving media literacy among their audiences, and for Ofcom to be responsible for monitoring that requirement. If the aim is to ensure that the Bill will stand the test of time, we need to adapt to the expansion of social media, especially the rise of artificial intelligence and complex algorithms. With the rise of those phenomena, the role of PSBs in providing impartial and accurate information has become even more significant. However, if PSBs are to combat misinformation, their role goes beyond merely providing impartial and accurate information; it also entails trying to improve levels of media literacy, particularly of their younger consumers.
It is time for a greater recognition of the threats posed by AI and misinformation. Increasing media literacy is an important step towards understanding the challenges faced in interpreting media, and, consequently, a step towards combating phenomena such as echo chambers and filter bubbles. There definitely is a role for PSBs to play in that regard.
Unfortunately, we cannot easily regulate or halt the large-scale changes in the media landscape; however, we can educate people to navigate and understand those changes. As I have mentioned, streaming has become a natural way to watch programmes. Many families subscribe to one or two providers, as well as having the PSBs. Netflix and Amazon use the British Board of Film Classification to rate their programmes, while Disney has a different classification system, which can cause confusion for parents. It is important that we use the same classification system across the board, and it seems logical to me that we use the BBFC, which is known and understood.
We used to have a vibrant local independent commercial radio sector. Gradually, the sector has lost local skilled workers as local technicians, DJs and presenters have been made redundant. Programmes are aggregated, syndicated and made in London, with just a little bit of local news, weather and traffic on the hour. That is not local radio; that is the big providers taking over local radio and using it as a national network. What a great pity we have allowed that to happen. I wish that the Government and Ofcom had been far more rigorous in that regard.
I end by asking what the Government’s view is on GB News, a news channel that is not balanced or impartial. Can the Minister remind me how many complaints against the channel Ofcom has currently decided to investigate? Can we imagine the outcry if there were a “Labour Red Rose News Channel” or a “Lib Dem Liberty News Channel”, with the presenters being politically partisan in their views? It just would not happen. Interestingly, while Ofcom has investigated GB News on a number of occasions, this week a group of senior broadcasting veterans said that the broadcasting regulator was failing to enforce impartiality rules properly for a channel that sometimes uses Conservative MPs to interview their own parliamentary colleagues.
We have a media that is admired throughout the world, creates jobs, innovates, and is part of our amazing creative industry sector. The Bill will enhance it and keep it safe for the next 10 or 20 years.
Lord Dunlop (Con)
My Lords, I join in the refrain and say that I, too, welcome the Bill and share in the widespread cross-party support for it. As we have heard, it has been a long time in gestation and has benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny. There is now a strong desire across the UK broadcasting industry to see the Bill progress swiftly through Parliament. As we have heard, it is over 20 years since the Communications Act, and the media landscape is unrecognisable from two decades ago. UK creative industries are globally successful, and public service broadcasters are at the heart of the ecosystem. They compete internationally with new global platforms that have deep pockets and are increasingly the gatekeepers of content discoverability.
Our choice and competition are good; yet, if PSBs are to compete effectively, it is surely right that their video-on-demand services enjoy the same visibility as their linear services do now. As we have heard, there is a question as to whether “appropriate prominence” needs to be strengthened to “significant prominence”, and I, like others, will listen carefully to the debates to come. As with so much of this Bill, a lot depends on how Ofcom discharges its extensive responsibilities, including ensuring appropriate regional prominence. For example, Scotland-based viewers watching via a Samsung TV or an Amazon Fire Stick need easy access to a prominently positioned STV Player app.
My main point concerns Gaelic language broadcasting, about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle spoke thoughtfully. Gaelic is a valuable part of our cultural heritage; it continues to be important for Scotland’s cultural life and has always enjoyed cross -party support. A Conservative Government—thanks, I think, to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—set up the first Gaelic television fund in 1991, with funding of £9.5 million per year. In today’s money that would be worth £25 million, almost double MG Alba’s current budget.
The White Paper recognised that
“certainty of … funding is important for MG ALBA being able to deliver for Gaelic speakers”.
The reference in the Bill to public service broadcasters providing sufficient content in a recognised regional or minority language, including Gaelic, is welcome. However welcome, the Bill’s protection for Gaelic broadcasting is incomplete, in contrast to the extensive—and very welcome—provisions for S4C. There are, of course, more Welsh language speakers than Gaelic speakers. Could this possibly be because there is a link between 40 years of consistent support for Welsh language broadcasting and a renaissance in the Welsh language?
The Bill facilitates the delivery of public service content in a fast-moving and competitive digital age. With the right support, Gaelic broadcasting has an exciting opportunity to engage the next generation of young, would-be Gaelic speakers. However, if the Gaelic television service lacks prominence and discoverability on new digital platforms, there is surely a risk of it withering on the vine.
Under the Bill, Ofcom determines what is sufficient. For me, this raises two problems. First, there is no yardstick for judging sufficiency, and the status quo is clearly not a helpful guide. The Gaelic TV channel, BBC Alba, is run by the Gaelic Media Service, MG Alba, in partnership with the BBC. The channel achieves great success, despite increasingly tight funding constraints. MG Alba’s static £13 million budget will by 2026 be worth half what it was when it started in 2008, and the channel’s total budget of £23 million compares with S4C’s index-linked funding of nearly £90 million a year, plus programming worth £20 million annually from the BBC. Despite these constraints, BBC Alba pulls in a loyal weekly audience of nearly 300,000—not far off what S4C achieves.
Gaelic broadcasting is being asked to compete with one hand tied behind its back. Under current funding arrangements, only a quarter of content broadcast is new—one hour 40 minutes per day—and just three hours of new drama is commissioned a year: one evening’s-worth of box-set viewing. S4C commissions 60 hours of drama for television and three hours of digital, and receives a further 63 hours from the BBC.
The second problem is that Gaelic broadcasting falls foul of one of the rough edges of Scotland’s devolution settlement. On the one hand, broadcasting is a reserved matter. The statutory underpinning of MG Alba is UK legislation. A UK regulator, Ofcom, is the arbiter of sufficiency. Yet, on the other hand, the function of providing MG Alba’s funding is devolved to Scottish Government Ministers, who are not answerable to Ofcom: split responsibilities, with MG Alba falling between the cracks. So can my noble friend the Minister say what happens if the level of Gaelic content Ofcom deems sufficient is more than can be financed with current BBC and Scottish Government funding levels?
The Government argue that the future of Gaelic language broadcasting is best considered as part of the BBC’s charter review. Yet BBC Alba is a joint venture where one of the parties—MG Alba—is not covered by the charter. In any case, a new charter is four years away and must deal with a plethora of other competing issues.
Gaelic broadcasting faces a very uncertain future if the can is kicked down the road—the opposite of what the Government recognised as being important in the White Paper. That is why more explicit protection of Gaelic broadcasting in the Bill is needed. I hope my noble friend can respond constructively to a very legitimate concern, which I believe with good will is soluble.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and, given what I intend to cover in the second half of my speech, it is something of a coincidence, too. I refer the House to my registered interests. I note that those relevant to this Bill have now ceased, but I retain many friends in the production sector.
Like others, I broadly welcome this overdue Bill but will highlight today two areas in which I hope we might see some improvement during the later stages. The first is the reduction in the public service remit for television, with news and current affairs the only genres named, and Ofcom required only to monitor whether content reflects the lives and concerns of different communities, cultural interests, traditions and localities.
I share the concerns of other noble Lords about the missing genres, but my point is slightly different. It is that the phrase “content that reflects” is a poor substitute for the more detailed text it has replaced. It does not inspire or demand the innovative approaches, techniques and formats that the UK’s production sector has developed in fulfilment of PSB requirements over decades and in which it now leads the world. Gone are references to high quality, to educative value, to professional skill or editorial integrity, or to the “supporting and stimulating” of diverse cultural activity through the treatment of visual and performing arts. The obligations in Clause 1(5)(b) of this Bill could arguably be met by a series of talking heads in a locked-off shot—as long as that included heads that talked from time to time in a recognised regional or minority language.
In his opening remarks, the Minister celebrated the success of the creative industries and their impact on jobs and the economy. However, as my noble friend Lord Colville set out, the sector is going through what the Film and TV Charity has called
“one of the most sustained periods of financial uncertainty in its 100-year history”.
BECTU reports 68% of film and TV workers currently out of work, with 30% reporting no work at all over the last three months. In this context, the changes give rise to concerns. Without a clear requirement for PSBs to invest in programmes that are more than “reflective of” but genuinely innovative in approach, content and format, how will government protect the future viability of a sector that it expects to drive growth in the economy and in the workforce?
I now join the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, in high- lighting the missed potential for this legislation to cement the future of Gaelic language broadcasting. I have no interests to declare in this regard other than my enjoyment of BBC Alba, whose programmes range from a celebration of rich cultural history, language and people to the innovative, the quirky, and sometimes the brilliantly off the wall.
The 2022 White Paper recognised
“the hugely valuable contribution that MG ALBA makes to the lives and wellbeing of Gaelic speakers across Scotland and the UK”,
the importance of the language to the protection of Gaelic culture and the need for “certainty of future funding”. Yet the Bill fails to convey that there is, and must be, a Gaelic TV service with a PSB function and continues an uneven approach to the Welsh and Gaelic languages. Both have television services, in fulfilment of UK obligations under Article 11 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, but only one is provided for by Parliament, with Gaelic language television nestled under the BBC’s portfolio.
The Bill gives Ofcom the decision on what level of Gaelic language content is sufficient, while offering no clarity on what “sufficient” means. However, as we have heard, the responsibility to provide funding to MG Alba—one half of the joint venture that is BBC Alba—is devolved to Scottish Government Ministers, who are not answerable to Ofcom. Given that sufficiency —of both quantity and quality—is directly related to funding levels, it is hard to see how this circle gets squared.
The Heath Robinson-like structure of the funding and accountability flows is hardly the future certainty the White Paper said is needed, and it is not surprising that MG Alba is concerned about sustainability. Yet, despite this precarity, much has been achieved: in 2022-23, £9.8 million was spent directly with 24 production companies on the creation of 407 hours of programming, and £9.1 million of that went to the independent production sector, nurturing talent and skills in the Gaelic language and creative sector. MG Alba has created over 340 jobs, nearly 200 of them in the highlands and the Western Isles.
In the other place, Sir John Whittingdale linked the greater support for S4C and Welsh language broadcasting to the fact that there are 1 million Welsh speakers in the UK, compared with 100,000 Gaelic speakers in Scotland. However, as we have heard, the two services enjoy similar reach. In 2023, S4C’s reach increased to 324,000, while BBC Alba enjoys a reach of 300,000 adult viewers each week in Scotland.
In pressing the importance of Gaelic language services, I am not arguing for any diminution of support for S4C—far from it. There is very good evidence that language and culture is kept alive through representation. A 2017 S4C report said that the channel had been
“instrumental in stabilising the Welsh language since the 1980s”,
giving the language
“status and prominence”
and allowing Wales and its people
“regardless of background, to portray, express and see themselves represented on screen”.
The recently published Welsh language strategy action plan continues to highlight S4C as a key mechanism for growing the number of Welsh speakers. Broadcasting clearly has an important role to play in the preservation and advancement of language, identity and traditions. The omission of specific references to a Gaelic PSB in the Media Bill risks perpetuating historical marginalisation and fails to acknowledge historical disparities in political recognition and funding, compared with other language initiatives. Crucially, it undermines efforts to preserve and promote Gaelic language and culture, which are such precious and integral parts of our collective heritage.
I look forward to working with other noble Lords from across the House to see how these two concerns might, in future stages of this Bill, be redressed.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I think that we can all agree that the Media Bill is warmly welcomed and that the sooner we can get it on to the statute books, the better. My remarks, surprisingly, are offered from a Scottish perspective, and I declare an interest as a board member of Creative Scotland.
I hope that the Minister will ensure that this Bill does not inadvertently upset the finely balanced infrastructure of the screen sector in Scotland or ignore the best interests of the Scottish consumer. Many noble Lords, including the Minister, joined me the other day at a lunch with STV, which was were very supportive of the Bill. Prominence for PSBs across all user interfaces is essential for smaller PSBs such as STV. This is important on linear and on-demand services, so that STV Player is available and easy to find across a range of platforms. I welcome these protections in the Bill.
Like other noble Lords, I am not sure that I fully appreciate the differences between “significant” and “appropriate” prominence. MG Alba and Gaelic broadcasting, as we have just heard, would, I am sure, be content with either. I join fellow noble Lords in being concerned that the only mention of Gaelic—note that it is “GAL-ick” if talking in a Scottish perspective, please, not “GAY-lick”—is within Part 1 of the Bill, which asks Ofcom to adjudicate on whether there is sufficient minority language content. This feels inadequate compared with the protections for S4C.
I want to highlight my concerns for the Scottish independent sector of the proposed changes to Channel 4’s remit. Channel 4 has a strong commitment to representing the whole of the UK. It has a long-established role as an innovator in the creative industries and its purpose is to be different. The arguments against privatising Channel 4 rested on its unique model. Channel 4’s own website says:
“Our content is the key to Channel 4’s success. As a publisher broadcaster we don’t produce content in-house, we commission it – helping independent production companies across the UK grow and nurturing new and existing talent”.
At the moment, we are being asked to rely on safeguards from Channel 4 that any move into in-house production will be a gradual one. Compare this to the BBC, where 16% of its content is from the nations and regions. At the moment, only 9% of Channel 4’s current content meets this level, so just giving Channel 4 the power to produce programmes, uncapped and without measurable quotas on the level of, for example, locally produced content required on PSBs, risks undermining the independent production and distribution sector which Channel 4 itself acknowledges is the key to its success. I hope therefore that we can give this issue some further thought as the Bill progresses through this House.
I also have concerns that the Bill does not serve the best interests of the Scottish consumer in what it does not cover. The Scottish Affairs Committee reported that almost a third of households in Scotland used only digital terrestrial television—DTT—services. Currently, these services are only guaranteed until 2034. The universality belief that lies behind public service broadcasting in the UK should hold true in any future model, as no one must be left behind.
A recent study by EY predicted that, regardless of rollout, more than 5.5 million properties in the UK will not have a high-speed broadband subscription in 2040. The one report that the Minister did not mention from the Communications and Digital Committee, the recently published Digital Exclusion, which I was privileged to be a part of, noted that even if rollout continues across the UK, many of the most vulnerable in our population will remain unable to access good-quality broadband services.
DTT is free if you pay your licence fee, yet currently these services, described by the Digital Poverty Alliance as “a lifeline”, have no guarantee of certainty to ensure that people are not left further isolated. I appreciate that DCMS has a broadcast framing, but our committee’s report highlighted the lack of a joined-up strategy for digital inclusion across government. Can the Minister say whether research on network rollout, take-up rates, gigabit provision and providing IP connectivity to geographically hard-to-reach households has been considered before rejecting a commitment to supporting DTT? I hope that the Government can reconsider, so that the commercial viability of the Freeview service is not lost while millions are still relying on it.
Many Scottish Members in the other place have lamented the omission of Scottish national sporting events in the proposed listed events regime in the Bill. I suspect that this is partly because, miracle of all miracles, our national football team has qualified for the Euros this summer. However, on a more serious note, the Bill’s removal of existing obligations for PSBs to provide socially valuable but perhaps not so commercially valuable content—for example, about religion and belief or science and technology—could have very negative unintended consequences. I associate myself with the remarks of everybody else who has spoken about that. I have written a list, which is endless. The Covid pandemic and recent events have demonstrated that, in today’s world, an understanding of science and religious literacy matter more than ever before.
I hope that this Bill enjoys a smooth and rapid progress through this House. I hope that it is not like the Online Safety Act, as it is now, where it was not until the very last moment of its passage that it was appreciated that your Lordships had made some very good points and the Minister eventually moved a number of welcome amendments. I live in hope that things might be a bit smoother for this Bill.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the previous speakers, who have been advocating for more emphasis and importance to be ascribed to Welsh and Scottish television. As a Cumbrian, we do not have any regional dialect television, but I live in hope.
I am also delighted to support the Bill, and simultaneously slightly depressed because we heard from a number of speakers that the previous Bill covering this was 20 years ago. Well, I was the Minister sitting where the Minister sits now on the Bill before that. On that occasion, I told your Lordships, who I do not think really believed me, that we were on the cusp of a revolution. We are now dealing with the effects of much of that revolutionary change. Everything has morphed and evolved, and all the hardware that we were talking about are now forms of computer.
There is a single universe of multiplicity, variables and variations behind the subject that we are discussing. It began with the moving image. I am glad to say that radio is now increasing its prominence, and I would never have guessed at the popularity of podcasts, with some of them so important to people who work in the Palace of Westminster.
Then, as now, there was a vigorous debate about public service broadcasting, and in an era of almost limitless quantities of information, it is just as important —arguably more important—given the volume of material that is available and washing around in the digital space. At the centre of it, a core of curated and moderate material is very important.
It is equally important that it is not from a single monopoly supplier, and it must be from independent organisations that are free from either domestic or foreign political control. I entirely agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about the control of newspapers by foreign Governments or their fronts. I assume that he would agree that, were that to go ahead, the Government would deserve to lose the next general election.
These matters underpin our civic society and freedoms and rightly sit at the heart of the Bill and our discussions. Since much of this is, in one way or another, paid for by all of us, it follows that access should be free to the user and made simple, and the material should be didactic and give some pleasure as well.
I feel like I am the Grinch at Christmas, but we are in a world where excessive prominence is given to sport. I enjoy sport and it has an important place in our society, but it seems all politicians go weak at the knees at the mention of it. There are a range of things behind paywalls that matter to people, and we need to recognise that. A system where people can come together over subjects that they value is part of the project’s raison d’être; we must recognise there are other things beyond sport.
When we look at the media from the perspective of this Chamber—and the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, made this point—we sometimes forget that media is big global business, and that we must, as a nation, have our share of it, and the policies surrounding our media must support this and our media’s contribution to our national prosperity and global influence. This depends on having trained and skilled entrants into the industry, and we must recognise that, first, we have a good record in this country and, secondly, it is expensive, but it will be even more so if we do not get it right. Equally, we must make sure that the working capital of the media industry is not killed off by public parsimony, greed or confiscatory taxation. Outcomes are capable of being measured not only in strict financial terms.
In some ways, the digital world is a kind of Wild West, but it is neither the public bar nor simply a private domain. Private matters can go viral, and private point-to-point communication can become as publicly available as deliberately broadcast material. In this country, we have a limited jurisdiction over the interface between the virtual and territorial worlds, and we must find ways of dealing with often difficult, ever-changing problems for lawmakers, Governments and regulators.
Some of the problems with the material that we are dealing with and the extent of it—we have recently discussed in this House digital markets, this Bill, data protection and artificial intelligence—occur within the context of Brexit repatriating to this country a significant amount of regulation that was previously dealt with at European level, which is an unnoticed aspect of this. The effect is that all these things are connected, are complicated, move quickly and are always changing, and I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Mendoza, that one of the great challenges we face as a nation in this sector is how can we properly legislate in a timely manner in a fast-changing world.
What is clear from the Bill is that much of this will be done by secondary legislation, but there is considerable dissatisfaction, which is entirely legitimate, with the way Parliament handles these things. Setting aside general constitutional principles, I wonder whether our system of scrutinising secondary legislation is doing this properly on a technical level for the individuals and commercial sectors affected. I also wonder—and I do not know if they will thank me for suggesting it, and I rank it no higher than a suggestion—whether, on a rolling basis, the Communications and Digital Committee could have a standing role in examining the substance of these things. I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, in front of me is sceptical about that.
Finally, I turn to Clause 50. I chaired a local newspaper group for 10 years and one of the characteristics of the newspaper industry, based on its traditions of investigative journalism that this House has always endorsed, is the great suspicion of the Government of the day. I am surprised by the apparent nonchalance of the national press about what looks like an attempt in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill to corrupt our legal system. The changes in this Bill will proceed; on the other hand, there is hard and soft law, and if the abuses that undoubtedly took place are going to be kept under control in future, it is important that the soft law—if that is the way we are going—deals with the problem. The difficulty is there is not sufficiently wide public confidence in the self-regulatory system that is in place. There still are abuses from the national newspapers, although not what we saw previously, but the confidence is not there, and they need to look at themselves to see if they think they can improve their standing in the wider world, which underpins their acceptability and long-term sustainability. Maybe a bit of blood on the carpet will help.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that we are still on an advisory speaking time. The noble Lord made a very important point about parliamentary oversight of the powers delegated or devolved to regulators through various pieces of legislation that have gone through Parliament in the last few months. The solution is to expand our existing Select Committee capacity to manage that and not to try and manage it through our existing capacity, because we do not have the relevant resources and we need more. I have tabled an amendment to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill precisely to meet that objective, and I urge the noble Lord to support it when it is debated in a couple of weeks’ time.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
I was delighted to hear what the noble Baroness said. My remarks were clearly justified because they elicited that remark from her and got her on her feet to tell us all about it.
Lord Bethell (Con)
It is always a great honour to speak after my noble friend Lady Stowell, who spoke powerfully of the need for more resources for our committees, which I endorse. It is also a great honour to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I will lean into his comments, and those of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, about the ownership of the Telegraph Media Group. Foreign ownership of our media assets is a long and proud British tradition, one that I am proud to defend, but the ownership of British media assets by an overseas Government is a different matter altogether and something I do not welcome at all, and I very much share the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on that matter.
I will speak on one specific subject: minimum standards for classification. As many noble Lords may know, 40 years ago Parliament passed an incredibly specific piece of legislation to regulate age ratings given to film and video content: the Video Recordings Act, a really thoughtful piece of legislation that is widely recognised around the world. It gave the Secretary of State the power to designate the British Board of Film Classification as the national authority for age ratings. It has done that job for the decades since then.
In the 40 years since then, our system of age ratings for cinema and home releases has become the most widely recognised and best understood in the world. Our independent classification guidelines are fully transparent and informed by regular consultations with the public. They are highly endorsed by viewers themselves. It is because of these high standards that parents instinctively know the difference between, say, a PG and a 12 and something for older viewers. That is why over 90% of them trust the BBFC ratings.
So I ask the Minister: why is a system that works so well not applied in the digital world? I have a particular interest in this key question of the application of rules in the real world and in the digital world. Why is the digital world of content in some way exceptional, in that content hosted on digital platforms is treated differently from that hosted in the real world? We do not leave it up to Warner Bros, MGM or Universal to decide the age ratings of the films they produce, or to Odeon or Showcase to decide whether nine year-olds are allowed to see this or that film, or to HMV to decide which DVDs they can buy, so why do we leave it to Disney+ to mark its own child protection homework?
Although Netflix and Amazon Prime have chosen voluntarily to work with the BBFC to use its age ratings system, to great success—I must pay tribute to their efforts—the same cannot be said for other platforms, notably Disney+. It refuses to publish its classification guidelines and there are numerous examples of it age-rating highly inappropriate content as suitable for children. Unfortunately, therefore, we cannot rely on the good will of these platforms and treat them like our domestic public service broadcasters; nor can we rely on Ofcom to, off its own bat, come up with a set of regulations of equivalent strength to those that Parliament has endorsed.
It should be our job as legislators to set the rules of the game and the job of Ofcom to referee the match. Instead, in its current form the Bill gives Ofcom not only complete control of the rulebook but the power to rewrite it whenever it likes. This is an issue not of media freedom or light-touch regulation but of child protection, so only the very best is good enough.
It would be a complete failure on our part to abrogate our responsibly to protect children from harm by not including some form of minimum standards in the Bill. I know this was discussed at some length in the other place, with various amendments proposed, so I flag to the Minister and the Chamber that it is my intention to table an amendment to close this gap. This is our one and only chance to have any influence over the regulation that is being outsourced almost entirely to Ofcom. Setting minimum standards for child protection is an important step, and I hope very much that the Minister will engage with those supporting this approach to work towards a common approach to change the Bill.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, I will comment on the Bill where it affects newspapers and publishing. It is some years since the Leveson inquiry exposed the culture of lawbreaking by the press. We all must admit that there has been a transformation in the way the press behaves, thanks to both public and regulatory pressure.
There are two regulatory bodies. The first is Impress, which is recognised by the Press Recognition Panel and founded under royal charter. Impress includes much of the regional press but few of the nationals. It has established a good reputation. It is not, as claimed by some, government- or state-backed.
The other regulatory body is IPSO, which was created by the press, for the press. It is controlled by newspapers and, I am afraid, replicates much of the structural failings that plagued the old Press Complaints Commission. But one reason it has worked at all is because there is this threat of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 being introduced. This has hung over the newspapers as an incentive—or perhaps a threat —to conduct themselves properly.
The Government now seek to remove this section. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister said it was in the 2019 Conservative manifesto—a manifesto from a Conservative Prime Minister and former journalist. That was four years and three Prime Ministers ago. Why does my noble friend think it is necessary to remove it now? Are the Government really so confident that it will never be needed? Is it not a safeguard for the future behaviour of the press? IPSO’s Editors’ Code of Practice, created by an industry-dominated committee, does not meet the requirements for a standards code under the Press Recognition Panel.
This is nothing to do with blocking free speech. Section 40 was aimed at providing financial incentives for newspaper publishers to join an approved regulator. If enacted, it would not, as claimed, force publishers to pay both sides’ costs in court actions if they win or, indeed, if they lose—if they join, that would not come into play—nor would it create an unprecedented barrier to justice because it would apply only if they do not join an approved regulator.
It was disappointing that, during the passage of the Bill in the Commons, the Government rejected an amendment from the Conservative MP George Eustice that would require the Secretary of State
“to consult on alternative incentives to encourage publishers or regulators to seek recognition under the terms of the Royal Charter for the Self-Regulation of the Press”.
We have all seen failures of governance in the water industry and in the gas industry, which come under independent regulators. Those failures were exposed, quite rightly, by the press, but in their own case they want to self-regulate—something they would never condone for any other industry.
It is true that the worst behaviour resulted in criminal cases and some expensive civil actions, but the Press Recognition Panel does not believe that Section 40 should be removed without equivalent or alternative mechanisms being put in its place. I believe that to be the case. It also points out that the definition of a recognised news publisher is confusing where it relates to content coming under the remit of Ofcom, but I will leave that to my noble friend to sort out.
Might the Minister also accept an amendment to include anti-SLAPP measures? Does he not agree that Section 40 currently gives protection to publishers from excessive costs from those using SLAPPs? Without Section 40, how can newspapers be protected from outrageous claims by Russian oligarchs for vast amounts of money? I hope he might consider that. It may be that it could be dealt with under another Bill.
There are other issues in the Bill that I look forward to dealing with in Committee, but I cannot finish without talking about my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment. I agreed with much of what he said. I have a confession to make. There is nothing new about foreigners buying national newspapers to achieve influence. My great-grandfather bought the Observer. The only reason he bought it was to have undue influence. Why else would you buy a newspaper? Looking at other occasions since then, Roy Thomson—a Canadian—bought the Times. He sold it on to Rupert Murdoch, an Australian. The Telegraph was sold to the noble Lord, Lord Black of Crossharbour—another Canadian.
The amendment from my noble friend Lady Stowell might work—I hope it does—if my noble friend Lord Forsyth does not get his amendment accepted. However, I would say as a fallback for my noble friend that, in the past, press barons were given a peerage. I suspect that, this time round, the Sheikh did not put in a bid to acquire a peerage. However, if he was offered one and had had a chance to come to your Lordships’ House to listen to the four hours of debate we have had this evening, that might put him off buying the Telegraph.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I too will speak about Clause 50. I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, with whose views on this clause I agree.
The repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act has been lobbied for by national newspapers for over a decade. Other noble Lords have questioned why it should appear now in a Bill about broadcasting. The Minister asserted that the purpose is to remove “burdensome obligations” on the press, but, as the Press Recognition Panel’s briefing explains, joining an approved independent regulator would protect them.
I have spoken on the issue of press standards for a number of years. I declare an interest, as I am co-party to a civil claim against a newspaper group about alleged hacking of personal data. The claim is at the pre-trial disclosure stage. As many in your Lordships’ House know, my family suffered relentless intrusions and inaccuracies after my daughter was attacked in 2005. Although the circumstances of what happened to my family were unique, the experience of coming up against large and powerful newspapers bullying and abusing ordinary people is not.
The noble Lord, Lord Black, used the phrase “odious and shameful”. Perhaps I should gently suggest that that is exactly what wrongdoing by the press is. It is an abuse of power by a very powerful industry. That is why, in 2013, all parties made promises to implement the Leveson system of independent regulation for newspapers and news websites.
The lack of independent regulation of the press and its online operations is anomalous among other industries. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is right: there is insufficient confidence in current self-regulation. We regulate medicine because it matters to our health. We regulate law because it is critical to upholding justice. Thanks to the Online Safety Act, we regulate social media, because we as citizens have responsibilities in how we treat each other online. But the media matters too. It is an important industry. It is, sometimes with good reason, described as the lifeblood of democracy. While we recognise the importance of a healthy broadcast media and require the regulation of broadcasters, we do not do so for newspapers and their websites. This is an oversight that undervalues and underestimates the importance and power of the press.
Please do not be fooled into believing that these problems are all historic and everything has changed—a narrative so often repeated by the press that one just might be tempted to believe it. In the years since Leveson, barely a week goes by when we do not hear of another invasion of privacy, distortion of the truth or other discriminatory content. We should be clear what the repeal of Section 40 will mean unless there is an alternative mechanism to underpin independent press regulation. It would be an endorsement of the status quo: that national newspapers prefer membership of IPSO, which upholds fewer than 1% of the complaints it receives. It is run by the press and has never investigated or fined a newspaper. Those of us in the Chamber committed to press freedom might think that IPSO, even if it cannot protect the public, could at least safeguard press freedom. I do not think it can do that either, as it features active parliamentarians as its chair, on its rule-controlling body —the regulatory funding body—and on its appointments panel. These are noble Lords for whom I have respect.
Let us be clear that support for Leveson is support for free speech, for the highest ethical standards in journalism, and for regulation totally free from political oversight. By contrast, repeal of Section 40 is a tacit endorsement of IPSO’s model: a complaints handler controlled by the press and run by parliamentarians. I suggest that that compromises press freedom.
Independent press regulation is better for the public and for the press. That is why more than 200 local and independent newspapers are signed up to Impress. Many of them are investigative newspapers for whom press freedom is not just an empty slogan but an essential foundation of their journalistic work. I have spoken about this issue on a number of occasions. The Government often give the same response to amendments seeking action on press standards. They say, “Not in this Bill, and not at this time”. So why now?
The point has been well made already. I hope the Minister will reflect on the coherence and appropriateness of using this legislation to attempt to dismantle the Leveson system. In every other respect, it is a Bill that promotes the public interest. In respect of the press alone, it profoundly compromises the public interest. I believe it is important that journalists and the public have protection from the consequences of a powerful, unaccountable, unregulated newspaper industry, which, through online readerships, reaches more people today than ever before. I hope the noble Lord will reconsider the Government’s approach.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, technically, we are debating my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment, and I fully support his intervention. I am grateful to the Minister for his succinct explanation of the Bill. My sole interest in the Bill is Clause 50, which seeks to repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I agree that, if the section is not to be commenced, it should be repealed. It was a sword of Damocles hanging over the press, and not just in the way my noble friend Lord Astor referred to.
Noble Lords will recall that, during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018, the House agreed to my amendment—with the help of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins—which would have commenced Section 40. My noble friend Lord Black and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, were never able to explain how the state could interfere with the approved regulator, which is currently Impress, although there could be another one. At the time I was, and still am, very grateful for the support of noble Lords on the Labour and the Liberal Democrat Benches.
So far as Section 40 is concerned, my party appears to have a complete and utter lack of moral courage. As observed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the Conservative-led Government put the 2013 Act before Parliament, and Section 40 was agreed with a large majority. Then the Government got cold feet because of a little bit of pressure from the press.
I have to say that the News Media Association is far and away the most effective trade association I have encountered in my time in public affairs. For instance, during my 2018 campaign, it skilfully made sure that my name was never mentioned in any newspaper—with one exception, which was, of course, a positive reference. This minimised my exposure outside the House, which was quite brilliant tactics.
It is true that Clause 50 meets a 2019 manifesto commitment, but two Prime Ministers later. However, it uses these words:
“section 40 … which seeks to coerce the press”.
If we took out the stick component of Section 40, to which various of my noble friends have referred, but kept the carrot component, which Ministers conveniently and shamefully forget to mention, we would be completely compliant with the Salisbury/Addison convention. I cannot see what any objection to a carrot-only Section 40 might be. I will be tabling such an amendment, but I do not think it would be profitable to send it to the Commons because there is no possibility of honourable Members being able to agree to it an election year.
Let no one think that I am an enemy of the free press. I am not. I was motivated to get involved by the heavy advertising and lobbying—presumably by the NMA—which was extremely economical with the truth in respect of how Section 40 worked. In other words, it omitted to refer to the carrot component. My personal view is that, with one exception, it should not be possible to sue a properly and effectively regulated newspaper. The exception is where the damage from a libel is irreversible—for instance, if a contract is lost or a firm goes bust. Otherwise, the remedy should be that the newspaper has to retract with due prominence.
Let us take the Post Office Horizon scandal: my understanding is that Computer Weekly could have revealed more and earlier had it not been for legal constraints. We should remember that one of its targets was a very large IT company with almost limitless legal resources.
We know that there are serious economic difficulties in the newspaper industry, and in addition we have a proliferation of unreliable sources of news. That is causing us serious problems. Surely the market opportunity for newspapers is to be a reliable, properly regulated source of information. We need the comment “it must be true; I read it in a newspaper” to be a wise one and not a naive one.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will not pursue the noble Earl’s angle on this Bill. Quite clearly, the Bill has the support of the House for a Second Reading tonight. As I understand it, the BBC welcomes this Bill, but it has a couple of caveats, one regarding digital on-demand coverage of listed events and the other the question of how Ofcom interprets “appropriate prominence” rather than “significant” prominence, which was recommended by the culture Select Committee.
Having said that, let me become more parochial. At one time, we could depend in this House on a phalanx of Welsh speakers in such a debate; we have one on the Woolsack, but not many others around tonight. We are outgunned by the Gaelic lobby; that is a step forward for Scotland, certainly. Had our late colleague, Lord Elystan-Morgan, been with us today, he would most certainly have welcomed the Bill, but he would also have added his reservations with regard to some Welsh language issues.
In my early days in this Chamber, the Welsh language channel S4C faced being emasculated by the DCMS. Lord Elystan-Morgan and I had received strong letters from Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, the Welsh Language Society, reminding us that Gwynfor Evans had threatened to starve himself to death to secure an independent Welsh language television service, which led to the creation of S4C. It asked what we were going to do. The outcome was that we secured a meeting with the DCMS Minister, then Jeremy Hunt, for a deputation including our two late colleagues Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Roberts of Conwy—a cross-party phalanx of Welsh speakers. The Minister agreed to reconsider, and within five days the threat to S4C was removed.
I refer to this episode to underline three issues very relevant to the Bill before us tonight. The Bill’s implications for broadcasting in Wales are significant. There remains an ongoing fear that S4C, whose resources have been reduced in real terms—I point this out to my Scottish friends—by 40% over the past decade, could be squeezed out, and the Welsh language marginalised. I noted there was a similar squeeze on Gaelic television mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and their analysis has a resonance in Wales. I gladly support their efforts in support of the Gaelic language.
The recent report of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, chaired by former archbishop Rowan Williams and Professor Laura McAllister, called for a “stronger voice” for Wales in broadcasting matters. This in no way impugns the work of Dame Elan Closs Stephens, the former chair of S4C, who stood in as chair of the BBC over recent months; she has done outstanding work for the BBC and indeed for Wales. But we should have systematic safeguards in place, and not have to depend on outstanding individuals to defend our corner.
I will highlight two other issues. The first is quotas; Clause 14 of the Bill is relevant to this, though limited to areas outside the M25. The BBC has specific quotas for each of the nations, and Channel 4 has an out-of-England quota. But ITV and Channel 5 are not formally required to have any content produced outside of England. In practice, ITV Wales does produce its own content, but this has eroded over recent years from the halcyon days of HTV so that it is now far short of what we would ideally expect.
Ofcom acknowledges that in 2022 only
“3.4% of qualifying first-run network spend”
across all public sector broadcasters
“was allocated to programmes qualifying as Wales productions”,
but even this may be misleading. TAC, the body representing independent Welsh television producers, has pressed for tighter rules over productions which qualify as “made in Wales”. It warns of a real danger of companies “brass-plating” a Welsh dimension, whereas in practice they have only a token link with Wales. MPs on the Welsh Affairs Committee have asked whether Ofcom is regulating adequately to close this loophole and whether Ofcom’s base criterion is adequate for these purposes. They proposed that this loophole should be tackled in the present Bill. Disappointingly, the Government responded that they see no need to legislate in this area.
The Welsh Affairs Committee also recommend adding the Six Nations live coverage on television
“to Group A of the Listed Sporting Events, to ensure its status on terrestrial TV”.
The Government responded:
“As sports policy is devolved, it would be for the Welsh Government”
to go after this matter. Will the Minister tell the House what response they have received from the Government of Wales? Does the UK Government’s eagerness to pass responsibility over to the Welsh Government not reinforce the case, presented by the archbishop’s commission’s report, that there is a case for devolving greater powers to Wales in these matters?
This apparent unwillingness of the UK Government to safeguard Welsh interests has fired new calls for broadcasting to be devolved. I recognise that the BBC has done much over the years to serve Wales and the Welsh language, but that cannot be said of all broadcasters who seek to reach a Welsh audience.
A new clause was proposed in the other place by my successor as MP for Caernarfon, Hywel Williams—incidentally, today is the 50th anniversary of my being elected for that seat. That new clause provided for the establishment of a new broadcasting and communications authority for Wales. The Welsh Government’s expert panel has proposed a shadow broadcasting authority for Wales. This could involve the establishment of an independent regulator for Wales. Do the Labour Front Bench support that policy being advocated by their colleagues in Cardiff?
One argument in favour of such a move has been the low level of interest shown by the DCMS in the difficulties that S4C has experienced recently. When I was on the board of S4C a couple of decades ago, the DCMS was swift enough to insist on my removal when I mentioned that I might be re-entering politics. That is in stark contrast to its slothful approach and lack of interest in recent difficulties. This all fires up demands for Wales to take greater control over broadcasting matters that affect our nation.
The present Bill is necessary, but some aspects need to be examined, and I shall welcome an opportunity to do that in Committee.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important Bill and it is much needed after 20 years, but some outstanding issues need to be addressed. I very much support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about foreign ownership; there is the issue of SLAPPs, which are used to silence journalists who are doing legitimate stories; and we do not seem to have any long-term strategy for the media in this Bill.
National newspapers urge us to resist any amendments that would lead to some form of independent regulation. They claim that such regulation would stifle our free press. That is despite the fact that 200 papers have already signed up with it and do not seem to have any problems with that regulation.
People think sometimes that newspapers do not count, and they point to the decline in the number of people buying newspapers on a daily basis. That decline has to be looked at against the online content and the amount of people who are seeing that, and the effect that newspapers have on the media the following day—they set the agenda for the rest of the media, which follow without any question.
Some people in Britain believe that we have a free press, but our press, by and large, is owned and controlled by the rich and powerful—individual corporations and their executives. They control the editorial and political direction. They are answerable to nobody and are not accountable; they should be.
When the hacking scandal broke, the Government set up the Leveson inquiry. The report was supported by all political parties. What they did not say at the time was that they would support the recommendations as long as the press barons agreed to everything that they wanted to do. So there is a cynicism that has been created by the fact that, after Leveson produced his report, every politician and every political party got behind the recommendations and slowly the press barons were able to water it down so that it did not mean anything any more.
The press tells us there is no need for Leveson now because it has improved its practices and complaints procedures. It is not so. I went to meeting three weeks ago and heard from a woman whose child was knocked down and killed in a hit-and-run accident. A national newspaper sent a reporter to the scene of the crime. The reporter managed to get CCTV coverage of the event from a local shop. The national paper followed the story up with an article on the issue and provided a link to the CCTV footage so that people could watch what had taken place. When the woman complained to the regulator, she was told to take the matter up with the newspaper first. She did. After six months, she contacted the regulator again and informed it that she had made no progress over the six-month period and that she was even more stressed due to the lack of action by the newspaper. She was informed by the regulator that, if she was that stressed, perhaps she should consider dropping her complaint. That does not seem to me as though it was being investigated properly.
If we look at the facts about the regulator, only 0.3% of complaints are upheld. It has the ability to fine its members up to £1 million if they are found to have broken the rules and regulations. Not one national newspaper has been fined. I think that says a lot about that regulator and shows a lot about why we need to change the system. Many individuals and families continue to face intrusion, harassment, abuse, sexism and discrimination against different groups. There are still more than 1,000 legal cases of hacking that are being dealt with by the courts. These are people who do not want to be regulated. I suggest to Members that it is crucial that there is some sort of independent review of how they manage their affairs.
I do not believe that Parliament should have direct involvement with regulation, but it is surprising. People say that they do not want politicians to be involved in this decision, but they are quite happy to have political appointments. There are a couple of people who are ex-Tory Ministers on that body. If we look at how the public would see that, they would see the performance and the appointments and would know what is going on. There is too close a relationship between major newspapers in this country and one political party. They are not unbiased; they are politically motivated and they have their own agenda. I urge Members to support amendments that do something about this. It is a national scandal. It was a national scandal when Leveson was set up, and it has not changed yet. There has not been any improvement in the way that daily newspapers conduct their business or deal with complaints.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this long-awaited Media Bill and declare an interest as per the register. The children’s television sector is in crisis. Ofcom has identified a dramatic shift in viewing habits among young people, particularly those over the age of seven. This, together with the long-term reduction in commissioning of original UK content for children, has led to a situation in which children and young people are essentially lost to public service broadcasting.
However, this Media Bill does not address these issues. The Media Bill should focus on the spaces where children are watching media now, not the spaces they have deserted. We need to ensure that our children can find public service content in places where they are now spending their screen time, which is on non-child-friendly, unregulated platforms. This crisis largely affects school-age children, where the migration of the audience to online services has reached alarming levels. High-quality, pre-school content is relatively robust, because parents control viewing on on-demand services, such as CBeebies and Channel 5’s “Milkshake!”
For older children, the problem of audience loss becomes acute. Live-action content that reflects the lives and concerns of British children is the hardest hit and is at risk of disappearing from commercial PSBs altogether. The BBC, which is the biggest provider of UK content for school-age children, has decided to focus more resources on animation to win back young viewers lost to streamers and video-sharing sites. The Children’s Media Foundation’s recent consultation revealed that the kids audience is no longer finding relevant, targeted, UK public service content, so is flocking to services such as YouTube and TikTok and watching adult content. Alarmingly, the consultation also showed that this fundamental shift in viewing is likely to be a contributing factor to the post-pandemic crisis of childhood, with severe implications for the personal well-being of a generation of young people. The lack of relevance or connection in the content contributes to a sense of isolation and increases levels of anxiety and mental health challenges.
Over the past 75 years, high-quality UK content for children has been a huge British success story and the envy of the world, but, over the past 20 years, consumption by children of traditional, regulated PSB content has been in freefall. This is partly due to the explosion of choice children have in their hands via new devices and new platforms and to the 2007 ban on advertising HFSS food to children, which saw commercial PSB investment in children’s content decline by 40% over the following decade.
Children have deserted PSB kids’ TV because they easily can, because of the affordability of technology and, crucially, because they have control of their own devices. Added to the mix is the huge rise of unregulated advertising and subscription video-on-demand platforms such as YouTube or TikTok, as well as Netflix and Disney+, where children are watching content aimed at international audiences and dominated by US content. Who do we want to be role models for our children: influencers and extremists on social media or the diverse and inclusive performers and characters on public service children’s television?
What is the answer? One was the powerful and relatively low-cost intervention of the Government’s three-year pilot of the young audiences content fund. This successful fund, which has now ended, supported the creation of quality, distinctive content for audiences up to the age of 18 on public service broadcasters and their online platforms. When I secured more powers for Ofcom in relation to children’s TV programmes in the Digital Economy Act 2017, I was pleased that ITV increased its investment in partnership with this fund. Sadly, that content got relatively small audiences on CITV and ITV Hub because revenue was very limited, partly due to restrictions on the products that can be advertised to children. Ultimately, these pressures led to the recent closure of CITV.
In contrast, YouTube alone takes in around £50 million a year in advertising revenue with unregulated children’s content. It is very difficult for PSB broadcasters to invest in kids’ TV content. They do not have the scale of kids audience or a fraction of the revenue from kids’ content that they once had. This can be addressed only by public funding in one form or another without top-slicing the licence fee, perhaps with enhanced tax incentives, a levy on streamers and online services, Lottery funding or public funding from appropriate sources.
We need regulation to ensure prominence for content rather than services on video-sharing platforms, so the Bill should empower Ofcom to consider the extension of prominence regulation not only to PSB services on streaming on-demand platforms or smart TVs but to video-sharing platforms, using algorithms and recommendation systems. Perhaps the Government should consider a public service algorithm to give prominence to certified regulated content. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views on this idea.
Let us take this golden opportunity to make the Media Bill more future-focused on our children’s media reality by reflecting what young people are already doing, which needs support and regulation, with a public service system fit for the 21st century. Once the last children have totally abandoned regulated broadcast television for an unregulated media landscape full of content with little relevance to their lives, a vital part of the fabric that contributes to our quality of life in the UK will be irretrievably lost.
Lord Hall of Birkenhead (CB)
My Lords, it is important to hear so much affirmation today that one of the United Kingdom’s great assets is its public service broadcasters. In my previous roles I was always struck by how much they were admired outside this country. When you occasionally went abroad, people would say to you how much they would like a BBC, too. That is good for the UK, and actually very good for the soul.
It is great that we have been able to reflect on what these broadcasters—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5—deliver for us: of course the news that our democracy depends on to inform our citizens but also, and we have heard this a lot, local news, regional news and programmes in the languages that are also important on these islands: S4C and BBC Radio Cymru in Wales, BBC Alba and Radio nan Gàidheal in Scotland.
Think also of the dramas that reflect who we are, our concerns and our identity. A number of noble Lords have mentioned ITV’s recent, brilliant “Mr Bates”. I do not believe that would ever have been made by the streamers. PSBs also make services and programmes that are unifiers, which act as a sort of national glue. We saw that very strongly during Covid, and we see it when they deliver sporting events such as the Six Nations rugby over the weekend—not always with the results you want but certainly with the coverage. I could go on. What our public service broadcasters are doing is not only necessary but extremely popular. People on average spend six hours and 15 minutes a week watching BBC TV or iPlayer. That is more than Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ combined. People want the PSBs.
At the same time, public service broadcasters are helping the broader audio-visual sector to grow. For example, Cardiff has been transformed over the last generation into a thriving media city. And this is a sector that is globally successful, as we have heard, with the PSBs at its heart. It is something that we really are world-class at. So there can be no doubt that British democracy and society, and our economy, would be worse off without the public service broadcasters. Where do we want our culture to be determined and reflected in all its breadth? We will need public service broadcasters more in future, not less.
That is why the Bill is welcome and important. It seeks to ensure that the British public will continue to have access to this extraordinary breadth of programming and services that reflect who we are. We all know how the environment in which our audiences are consuming television and radio has been transformed in the 20 years since the last Act. We now live in a world of apps, smart TVs and streamers, something hard to imagine back then, so it is really good that the streamers—which, let us be clear, offer so much to our audiences—will be regulated alongside the UK broadcasters. I have long argued for a level playing field, and I hope that the code that is talked about in the Bill will be just that.
As a former deputy chair of Channel 4, I too am pleased that Channel 4 is now safe to pursue its own future. I am pleased that it is being allowed to produce some of its own programmes, although I am sure it will do so without damaging its important role as a commissioner for independent producers. My hope, along with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is that it will focus on growing a new generation of small independent producers.
I really am pleased that radio has a section all to itself. Radio or audio—call it what you will—is often sidelined, but we all know it is thriving and important. Again, the Bill recognises the changes in the way that radio or audio is consumed, ensuring that, for example, on voice-controlled speakers it will be easy to find the PSBs. That is really important. I have been keeping a close eye also on the systems used in cars, where about one-quarter of all listening occurs.
I welcome the Bill’s commitment to ensuring that the UK’s biggest sporting events are freely available to everyone across the UK. These listed events are an important part of the national conversation. Here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson: it is a pity that at present the Bill does not take into account the viewing of these events in an on-demand world. Catching up with events, maybe because they are late at night in a different time zone, is a significant way in which people now use media. I think the Government recognise that and have consulted on it, and it would be great if they could help us on this.
There are two other areas where I welcome the Bill but hope that more work can be done. The first is around genres. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron: this goes to the very heart of why public service broadcasting matters. We want our public—our citizens, our viewers, our listeners—to be able to find programmes and information on as wide a range of issues as possible. “What do our audiences need?” is one of the questions that public service broadcasting is out there to answer.
The Bill sets out provisions to ensure that, among other things, audiences have access to news, current affairs and content that reflects their lives and concerns. But the Bill does not define in a more granular fashion what that means and what the remit of public service broadcasting is—to provide, for example, programmes in education, science, the arts and religion. Faith, as we have heard, is so important for matters of international significance.
One of the great benefits of the public service ecology is that it is not just the BBC doing this: other broadcasters contribute in their own way. The Communications Act 2003 defined those genres, and maybe looking to incorporate those definitions could be helpful. Without data, and without defining those genres, I am not sure how we know whether what we want to happen happens.
Then there is the question of prominence itself. Let us use plain English and talk about the “discoverability of content”—that is horrible—or how you find the PSBs. This is so important, and that is why the Bill is so important. I urge the Government to be as strong on what prominence means as possible. We should give Ofcom the most powerful language we can to ensure that our audiences can find the public service broadcasters that we are so proud of. I, for one, argue that we should mirror the buttons I have on my handsets at home for Amazon and Netflix. Why not a button for our public service broadcasters? This is why I urge that the language should be tougher than “appropriate prominence” and instead should speak of “significant prominence”.
Finally, I am concerned that so much in the Bill is, necessarily, being handed to Ofcom, which I admire. It will need resources, skills, determination and robustness for the battles over what prominence actually means. It will be taking on teams of lawyers and others from the streamers, TV set manufacturers and so on. The more powerful the message from here, the more power Ofcom will have for what it has to do.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a broadcaster on Times Radio, chairman of Marlow Film Studios and chairman of Common Sense Media in the UK. It is a great pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hall. I loved working with him when I was a junior Culture Minister many years ago.
Many noble Lords have said during the debate that this is the biggest media Bill for 20 years. Of course, the last big media Bill, in 2003, created Ofcom. It was genuinely a very big media Bill and Ofcom has indeed proved itself to be an effective and robust regulator. It has increased its reach and powers, even to the extent that it now sits in your Lordships’ Chamber, keeping watch over the debate to see that we stick to the rules and give it appropriate praise. It has taken over the regulation of the BBC, which I oversaw and was very much in favour of. But when it comes to broadcasting, interestingly, Ofcom is wrestling now with the difficult question of impartiality—particularly some of the challenges posed to it by, for example, new and innovative stations such as GB News, which is testing the boundaries.
Interestingly, there does not seem to be much room in the Bill or this debate to discuss impartiality, or indeed the Broadcasting Code itself and whether it is up to speed. I am not putting forward a specific view here. There is a particular recognition by Ofcom that the broadcasting landscape is changing as more people are able to start television channels, but a debate on how the Broadcasting Code should adapt to this changing landscape is perfect for this House.
This is not a very important or very big Bill. That is not an insult to either the Government or the Minister, because we are simply tweaking the edges. In my view, the biggest media Bill we have had since 2003 was the Online Safety Act, which gave Ofcom very important powers to regulate the content of platforms. That, of course, encapsulates the change we are debating, because we are now a country that watches streamed content, and people are moving in their droves online. That is what the consumer is doing naturally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, pointed out in her robust speech on the quality of children’s programming, for which she has been a staunch advocate for many years.
It is true that, as my noble friend Lord Mendoza said, the streamers make great investment in the UK but the link to the public service broadcasters is important. Many of the senior executives you might meet from these big companies trained at places such as the BBC, so we still provide not just quality broadcasting but quality broadcasting executives to the streamers. It seems that at the heart of this debate is the support for our PSBs, particularly the BBC, no matter how much it annoys us. The existential question at the heart of the debate, which we have to address, is: what are we going to do when all the content we consume as British subjects is owned by the Americans? It will be on Netflix and Disney; it will be on Amazon, Apple and YouTube. If we are to preserve British cultural content, if we believe that to be important, we are going to have to support as best we can the BBC and the public service broadcasters. That may mean asking difficult questions such as whether their three streaming services should be allowed to merge— presumably in the face of opposition from the Competition and Markets Authority —and whether we can bring a degree of scale to this debate in order to have any sense of competition.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, mentioned that he was pleased that radio has its own section in this debate, because radio is something I am passionate about. While I might have used this opportunity to big up Times Radio, what I actually want to talk about is Global. I was delighted to see that the founder of Global, Ashley Tabor, got a CBE while the chief executive, Stephen Miron, who has led it for 16 years, has just announced that he will be stepping down and becoming the chairman. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, one of our own, is the current chairman. It is a great British success story because we love radio in this country. Global took some assets such as Capital Radio and has turned them into real broadcasting powerhouses. It has been helped to do that by a process of deregulation, so I am pleased to see that the Government are continuing that process.
Behind deregulation lies the ability to trust the broadcasters to know where their audiences are and to use technology to provide local content—not necessarily having to be based locally, but still able to present local content. On that point, I would challenge how we have debated genres for public service broadcasters, because if we sit in this Chamber and decide what we think are important parts of the broadcasting genre land- scape, we will end up disappearing down a rabbit hole. I would err on the side of deregulation simply to give our broadcasting companies, whether public service broadcasters or commercial, room to thrive.
Specifically on radio, I would love to hear the Minister’s views on switchover. I avoided the date for switchover like the plague. There is nothing worse than having a person of a certain age with eight FM radios, one in the garden shed, coming at you if you tell them that they have to buy a digital radio. It seems that, rather like DTT, this should be led by the industry. I am a passionate supporter of community radio and would be interested in the Minister’s views about its future. I would also challenge the BBC because, again, if there is any area where the BBC can have a major impact, it is on local radio. I simply do not understand why it keeps pulling back from local radio and making such a mess of it.
The regulation of video on demand is fascinating. I would love to see how it is to be implemented in practice—how to effectively regulate a library of content with things such as impartiality or a watershed. I am delighted that Channel 4 can now invest in its own content. The debate on privatisation, which again I was open-minded about, proved to be an enormous and costly distraction for Channel 4. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Bethell that the British Board of Film Classification should be given a monopoly on ratings; I should say that Common Sense Media provides excellent ratings, which are loved by British parents, and there should be a choice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that the one issue we have not debated, partly because we do not have any answers, is the impact of artificial intelligence on content.
I end by congratulating my noble friend Lord Forsyth on moving his amendment. I did not realise that if you put in a regret amendment, you get to speak at the beginning and the end of the debate. I put the House on notice that I will be putting down a regret amendment on every Second Reading of every Bill that comes before your Lordships in future.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely agree with my noble friend that no one should be given a monopoly on minimum standards. However, my amendment will be advocating that there should be minimum standards.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I look forward to supporting the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, this has been, as usual, an interesting and incredibly well-informed debate. But it has presented us with a significant problem. Many noble Lords have spoken about the urgent need to get on with the Bill as quickly as possible. At the same time, many suggestions have been made about areas in the Bill that require improvement, including the very important issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about which we are very sympathetic, as my noble friend Lord Storey has already pointed out. I hope that the case for speed will not lead to justifiable concerns being brushed aside. After all, the previous Bill is 20 years old, and we may have to wait a further 20 years for another Bill. It is vital that we get this one right and ensure, as far as possible, that it is future-proof.
I echo the words of the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Hall and Lord Vaizey, and, it would appear, Joni Mitchell. Nowhere is this more important than ensuring the long-term security of our public service broadcasters, from which we all benefit, and which help to drive our enormously successful creative industries. Our understanding of what was expected of a PSB was very clear in the 2003 Act. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, who appear to be welcoming the streamlining—as they put it—of the PSB remit, many other noble Lords, including my namesake, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Hall and Lord Russell, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, and all of those on these Benches, have a different view.
We believe that the Bill is much less clear about what is expected from a PSB because changes to Section 264 of the 2003 Act will remove the Reithian values of inform, educate and entertain. They remove many of the genres expected to be covered, from music and the arts to science and religion. All we now have is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, the vague requirement of a range of appropriate genres. In response in the other place to similar concerns, the Government argued that it is in the royal charter for the BBC and in the licences for the other PSBs that such expectations will be covered. But can the Minister confirm that Parliament has absolutely no say on those documents? If Parliament is to have a say on what it wants of PSBs, surely we should look again at this issue.
The Government have also argued that Ofcom will cover this by looking at the delivery of genres across all platforms. Can the Minister confirm that the Bill provides no statutory duty for Ofcom to do this, as I believe it should? Does he also agree that, without specifying genres, it would be very difficult for Ofcom to do the necessary monitoring?
A further example that many noble Lords have touched on where there is a need for future-proofing in the Bill is in respect of radio. I suggest one small addition that I believe we should consider: to keep pace with the change in listening habits, the legislation should be extended to cover those issues that have already been raised. These include: non-broadcast online content, such as catch-up radio; online-only radio stations; podcasts; and the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hall, of in-car radio.
Many noble Lords have raised the vital importance of prominence across all platforms. At a later stage I will be asking questions about the implications of the proposals. I wonder, for example, whether TV remotes, such as my current one, will still be allowed to have a large Netflix button without a PSB one. Much more importantly, if Ofcom is to be the guardian of prominence, it needs a very clear steer from Parliament about what Parliament intends. We share the view that “appropriate” prominence will not help Ofcom. The right reverend Prelate may also be right that “significant” prominence is not the right word either. I hope that we will get together and find the appropriate language so that Ofcom knows what it is that your Lordships and Parliament want.
We also welcome the proposals to update the listed events regime, as my noble friend Lord Addington said, along with others, including the noble Lord, Lord Hall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. There is a need for the regime to be further extended so that audiences can view time-shifted content on PSB video on demand platforms.
A House of Commons Library briefing explained this very clearly back in February 2023. It said:
“If for example the Olympic 100 metre final was broadcast live in the middle of the night on the BBC, but all streaming and catch-up rights were sold to a different broadcaster and kept behind a paywall, then a culturally relevant event might not be available to a wide audience on a free-to-air basis”.
I hope the Minister will consider supporting amendments to cover this concern.
I was very taken with the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on minimum standards for child protection. He made a very powerful case. He argued that we should not be relying on the good will of the numerous VOD platforms; nor should we rely on Ofcom. I noted his remarks. He said that it should be our job as legislators to set the rules of the game and the job of Ofcom to referee the match. I do not think any of us would disagree with that. We certainly believe in that, and we will work with him to ensure that some minimum standards are on the face of the Bill.
Many noble Lords referred to Ofcom. I confess that I am not quite as sanguine as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about Ofcom’s ability to take on yet more responsibilities. After all, it has become something of a dumping ground for all the regulatory duties that have been incrementally imposed on it since it opened its doors back in 2003—all on top of its core functions around spectrum allocation and the monitoring of content. I certainly believe that we should be considering dividing this unwieldy behemoth into two regulatory bodies, one devoted to infrastructure and one devoted to content—but that is for another Bill at another time.
Given Ofcom’s huge responsibilities, and given that there is so much that it has to do, it is not surprising that even tonight concerns have been raised about, for example, its ability to cope in relation to its regulatory approach to the new breed of opinionated news channels, such as GB News. Does Ofcom have the resources and competence to carry out its additional responsibilities? What can the Minister tell us about additional resource allocations to Ofcom to fulfil these further responsibilities?
One other point that we will certainly press is that, however illustrious its current and previous chairs have been—and it is lovely to see the noble Lord in his place—there is a legitimate disquiet over Ofcom’s independence from government. Whether true or not, perception matters. We believe that the time has come to overhaul the appointment process to ensure that Ofcom is wholly independent and transparent, and we will move amendments to this effect.
It is well known that, on these Benches, we opposed the privatisation of Channel 4 and were incredibly pleased when the Government backed down. But we have some concern about the proposal which will enable Channel 4 to produce in-house programmes, as it could end up undermining the very basis of Channel 4 to support, especially, new and up-coming media companies—the indies—as it has so successfully done over many years. While Channel 4 has suggested that it will not immediately go ahead with in-house production, I hope the Minister will agree that, if and when it does, there should be a quota of minimum qualifying spend still going to SME indies.
On Part 4, several noble Lords have commented on the proposal to repeal Section 40 without any alternative proposal. On these Benches, we disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Black, and we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the noble Lord, Lord Watts, the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and others, who want Section 40 not only retained but implemented. Doing so would guarantee access to justice to the public and incentivise press membership of a truly independent regulator, thereby ensuring no backsliding into unlawful and unethical press practices of the past. Perhaps most importantly, it would protect newspapers from chilling and meritless litigation, otherwise known as SLAPPs. The case to retain and implement Section 40 is overwhelming, and we will pursue it in Committee.
This is a necessary and important Bill, but changes are needed, and we will seek to make such changes during a later stage—but we will commit to doing so as quickly as possible. Given, as my noble friend Lord Storey pointed out, we have a Minister who truly gets it, I am confident that we can quickly agree to such changes and rapidly get this much-needed Bill on to the statute book.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, as one might have expected, this Second Reading debate has been a classic House of Lords debate—well informed, well judged, and correctly identifying those areas of the Bill that require greater scrutiny. I thank all the organisations that have beaten a path to our door, the Library for its briefing, and the Minister for making himself available for discussions at an early stage.
There seems to be universal acknowledgement that this Bill is much needed, if not urgent, and that it is in relatively good shape as it comes before us—which is more than can be said about a lot of the legislation that we have to deal with from time to time. Along with other noble Lords, I can remember the Bill from 20 years ago, and I remember the discussions about the care that we needed to take in amending it. I remember a discussion about the fact that the internet was not in it, and that we would have to look at it again quite soon. In your Lordships’ House, “quite soon” seems to be 20 years—and 20 years ago, what was a smart device? What was an iPhone? What was a tablet? It was something that you took when you had a headache. YouTube did not exist at all, Amazon was a relatively small online retailer which, if I remember correctly, was actually making a loss at the time, and Netflix delivered videos and DVDs by mail order. Even in 2003, however, we knew that the media, tech and communication world was moving very fast and we knew that we would need legislation to keep up with that change. That challenge remains the same today.
On these Benches, we believe that the Media Bill is essential to securing the long-term future of our public service broadcasters. I do not think that I could express it any better than the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Hall—Birt and Hall sounds like a music hall act, actually. More than that, it gives confidence to our nation’s wider creative economy. We are concerned that the Bill gets on to the statute book as smoothly and quickly as possible. I therefore repeat the offer made to the Secretary of State by my honourable friend Thangam Debbonaire MP during Second Reading of the Bill in the Commons. She said:
“I start by making her an offer: I will work with her on a cross-party basis to get the Bill into law as quickly as possible, subject to the proper scrutiny that would be expected from His Majesty’s Opposition”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/23; col. 234.]
My noble friend Lord Bassam and I make the same offer here in your Lordships’ House to the noble Lord the Minister.
As I say, we profoundly believe that public service broadcasters remain at the heart of the UK’s media ecosystem, providing content that enriches our culture, society and democracy; and that radio remains resilient, despite the environment in which it operates changing almost beyond recognition. It falls to us to pass legislation that both recognises the immense way in which technology and audience behaviour has changed and preserves the future of our valued PSBs and radio stations for years to come.
Britain’s public service broadcasters must be fully equipped with the tools they need to thrive in this intensified era of internet and on-demand television. I am sure that the Minister understands how frustrating the delay has been to everyone involved—much of it down to the pointless war about Channel 4. I suggest that this Bill may go some way to restoring the trust of our PSBs and other players in the Government and their intentions.
I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam, who I think gave the House a good gallop round the main issues, as did the Minister at the beginning of this debate, for which we should all be grateful. I echo him in saying that the first issue that we will need to explore is of course those proposals ensuring that PSBs are always carried and given prominence on smart TVs, set-top boxes and streaming sticks. The Commons explored whether “appropriate” prominence, as it is described in the Bill, goes far enough and we will surely do so here. Many noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and others, raised this, and the point that everyone has been making is that we have to ensure clarity in the mandate to Ofcom: what it means and how it should work. My honourable friend Steph Peacock MP commented in the Commons that the definition of PSB is that it is easily discoverable and promoted to audiences. That is what we need to be looking for.
The Bill gives significant discretion to the Secretary of State in how the new prominence regime is scoped and implemented. Given the turnover of DCMS Secretaries of State, and indeed the antics of Nadine Dorries when she held the post, we might want to look at how that discretion might operate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that he might want to be careful what he wishes for in terms of Henry VIII powers in this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out that misinformation and toxic material have not been dealt with and addressed. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, rightly raised the need to hear unheard voices.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, in particular referred to children’s TV. That is an issue that we are going to have to take very seriously indeed. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made a very powerful speech. Children’s TV makes a significant contribution to the economy and provides quality jobs, but it is also a key part of our soft power, promoting tolerance, logic and fair play to children all over the world. The Government need to consider the wider consequences for public service broadcasters if children are not consuming as much content as they used to.
We all have to think about how unhelpful it is for the long-term interests of our public service broadcasters if a generation of children is growing up not actually experiencing their content, and what we should be doing about that. It also provides a challenge to Disney+ and the other video-sharing platforms: do they care about the quality of content that our children are consuming on their platforms too?
As we are all aware, and as several noble Lords have said, the BBFC does a trusted job with its ratings system. We are aware, for example, that Netflix uses the BBFC system to rate its output, but of course that is not the case for all. I think, like other noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, explained it to us—that we will have to explore the issue of assured standards of transparency and accountability that will lead to trust in ratings for parents, in particular, and of this being regulated by Ofcom in a fair and robust manner.
Like many here, radio is important to us, and vital in many communities. It is to be welcomed that Parts 5 and 6 are in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Stevenson said, I think we will need to explore the future-proofing of the proposals before us. I was particularly struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said about local radio. For example, we will need to look at expanding the scope of regulation to cover non-voice activated in-car information systems. The current clauses cover only linear, or live, radio, rather than on-demand and online content provided by UK broadcasters. As listening continues to adapt, the legislation should be future-focused and extend to online content, such as catch-up, online-only stations, and podcasts. This was a key recommendation of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee pre-legislative scrutiny report published in July 2023, and I think we need to pick that up.
I turn to sports. The final report of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee said that there is a need
“to close the loophole that allows an unregulated streaming service to buy the rights for a listed event and put them behind a paywall”.
We be looking, along with others, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, at Clauses 20 to 25 with an eagle eye. Do they cover clips, do they extend to digital and on demand, and is live linear safeguarded sufficiently?
I too thought that S4C would be more prominent than Gaelic. We will be joining others in seeking clarity from the Government about the Gaelic language service and whether it should be given PSB status, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I say to others that I do not think that S4C was outgunned, because it is certainly absolutely treasured on these Benches.
We will be seeking clarity also on the removal of the specific requirement on public service broadcasters to include programming on “religion and other beliefs”, as specified in the Communications Act 2003. This legislation will replace that with a more generalised requirement
“that the audiovisual content made available by the public service broadcasters … appears to OFCOM to be … a sufficient quantity … that reflects the lives and concerns of different communities and cultural interests and traditions within the United Kingdom”.
The question is: does this requirement sufficiently protect programming on the range of religious and non-religious views in the UK, and could it result in essential programming being overlooked? I would like some discussion with the Minister and the Bill team about that issue.
In conclusion, I think that Ofcom will need muscular implementation of this legislation and, like other noble Lords, I will need reassurance—I think we will all need reassurance—about its resourcing and expertise to do that. Take AI, for example. Ofcom will have to deal with the question of how algorithms serve our content, and how will Ofcom know what is being promoted by the algorithms that are supposed to serve our content? These issues were raised only about halfway through the debate and I hope that they will be material.
I am about to say something which will probably only show how technically illiterate and old I am, but we now have one of those rather large and fancy, supposedly smart, televisions in our home. It seems to be incapable of working out my preferences and still presents me—with prominence—programmes that I would never watch in a million years, have never accessed and do not particularly want to watch. My son tells me that it can be remedied; however, the television is supposed to be smart and it should be able to learn— I should not have to put up with a lack of prominence of the things I actually want to watch. I am hoping that, during our discussions, I can realign my understanding and learn how it is supposed to work. It might be my ignorance and lack of technological expertise, but it seems to me that if it is a smart television, it should be able to do that job for me.
On the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, he knows that we on these Benches are sympathetic to what he has to say. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I look forward to working with the Minister and noble Lords as we move forward with the Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the widespread support that has been expressed for the Bill from across your Lordships’ House, and the recognition of the important difference that it will make for our much-valued broadcasters and media organisations. I reassure noble Lords that I do indeed get it, and I share the warm appreciation that they have expressed for our public service broadcasters.
In fact, my very first paid employment, at the tender age of 14, was playing the part of a French ghost named Guillaume, in a children’s television programme which was broadcast on ITV on Halloween in 1997. As well as getting to film that in a château outside Dijon, I was paid £400, a princely sum for a 14 year- old, which I used to buy a television set of my own, for my room. That was the TV set on which, two years later, I watched the seminal Channel 4 drama “Queer as Folk”, the 25th anniversary of which we mark this year, and its ground-breaking importance is still keenly appreciated by so many people.
I share the strong sentiments that noble Lords have expressed about the importance of public service broadcasters, the programmes they produce and the fulfilling jobs they support and sustain. I am grateful to noble Lords for their enthusiasm for the Bill and look forward to working with them in the many areas in which they have set out their interests.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Foster, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, focused on the changes to remit and the question of genres. I reassure noble Lords that the Government recognise the importance of a diverse media sector in the UK, where audiences can select from a wide range of programmes, according to their own tastes and interests, and indeed to have those tastes and interests expanded. Our public service broadcasters have an important and distinctive role to play in helping to achieve that. To ensure that the regulatory framework supports these outcomes, the Bill replaces the 14 overlapping purposes and objectives to which public service broadcasters must contribute with a new, modernised remit. It is intended to provide a much clearer sense of our public service broadcasters’ distinctive role in the sector.
At the same time, it has always been our intention that the revised public service broadcasting framework, including the new remit, should retain the requirement on our public service broadcasters to produce a wide range of programmes. The Government have listened to the views expressed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in another place; in particular, the committee’s concerns that the remit is not clear enough on this point. As a result, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, noted, we have added an explicit requirement that our public service broadcasters should, together, continue to make a range of genres available.
Ofcom will continue to collect and publish data on the prevalence of different genres; we have retained the current requirement under Section 358 of the Communications Act, which, among other things, requires Ofcom to report annually on the availability of principal genres on television and radio services. At present, Ofcom fulfils this duty in its annual communications and markets report, which last year reported on 15 key genres including religion and belief, arts and classical music, and educational content. We expect this reporting to be retained.
Moreover, should Ofcom identify a problem with the spread of genres, including in relation to religious programming—which a number of noble Lords mentioned —then the Bill allows for the remit to be updated, and indeed for the creation of additional quotas for underserved content areas. I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that the House does indeed have my ear on this, and I hope that she and others will recognise from the changes that we have already made to the Bill in this area that it also has the ears of my ministerial colleagues.
I agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made a powerful speech about the importance of children’s television, and I strongly agree on the importance of ensuring that our children continue to have access to the public service content, indeed as does my colleague Julia Lopez, the Minister in another place. She spoke passionately there about the profound and positive impact that high-quality, original British programming can have. As the noble Baroness noted, children now have access to an endless library of global content at their fingertips. While there is some great programming out there for them to access, a lot of it can be generic and lack substance. That is why the Bill includes specific measures to ensure that original British children’s programming, which reflects the world around children here in the UK, remains front and centre of the public service remit.
A number of noble Lords rightly focused on the provisions and the benefits in the Bill for Scotland and the Scottish broadcasting sector and creative economy. The Government are clear about the incredibly valuable contribution that the Gaelic media service MG Alba makes across Scotland and the rest of the UK. Its partnership with the BBC is particularly significant for Gaelic language broadcasting. I assure noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and my noble friends Lord Dunlop and Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, that the ongoing provision of Gaelic broadcasting and the future of MG Alba will be key considerations as we take forward the BBC funding review and the forthcoming charter review concluding in 2027. The right time to consider these issues is during the review of the royal charter, given the closeness of the link between the BBC and MG Alba. We will provide further details in due course on our timeline for that important review. The Government certainly—
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He is making a very important point, and we respect the way it has been expressed, but is it not also the case that the negotiations between the Government and the BBC are limited to those two participants, and therefore the role for Parliament is not clear? Could he perhaps explain what contribution we could make as Parliament?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Through debates such as the one we have had today, and through Questions, which I am always happy to answer from this Dispatch Box on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to set out our thinking. As I say, once we have set out more details on the timetable for that review, I am happy to provide updates to the House on the Government’s thinking as we take those discussions forward.
I and the Government certainly agree with noble Lords on the importance of Gaelic language broadcasting. The Bill will help to ensure that audiences are able to access content in languages other than English, as well as content which is so culturally important to people across the UK, for decades to come, by including it in the new public service remit for television for the first time.
Not wanting the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to feel outgunned—and I point to my noble friend Lord Harlech on the Government Front Bench for this Bill—I also highlight that the Media Bill will implement legislative reforms following the independent review of S4C, which took place in 2018, to reform S4C’s remit, governance structures, commercial powers and audit arrangements. It also provides for changes to the statutory content arrangements set out between the BBC and S4C, to add greater flexibility. These changes will help to deliver the Government’s manifesto commitments to support Welsh institutions such as S4C and to support the Welsh Government’s ambition for a million people in Wales to be able to speak Welsh by 2050.
A number of noble Lords focused on the issue of “significant” or “appropriate” prominence, which was extensively debated in another place. One point that has been lost in the debate so far is that the test under the existing linear prominence regime is already one of appropriateness and not significance. The overwhelming evidence that we have received is that that test has worked well, so I suggest that the question is not why “appropriate” is better than “significant” but why the Bill should move away from terminology that is widely understood and has delivered for audiences.
The Government agree on the importance of ensuring that public service content is prominent and easily accessible on major TV platforms. As is already the case in the linear sphere, public service broadcasters’ applications, and the content they provide, should be among the most prominent on the platform, whether that is on the home page, in search results or through the recommendations, such as those that currently confound the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
In addition to that core aim of securing prominence for public service broadcasters’ services and content online, the regime must also be operable and proportionate to allow for innovation and consumer choice. For example, it must account for the differing requirements of audiences in different parts of the UK. While it remains important that designated STV services receive prominence in Scotland and designated S4C services are prominent in Wales, it would not, for instance, be appropriate to require those services to be given the same degree of prominence outside Scotland and Wales.
As the Government set out in our response to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s final report on the Bill, we have looked carefully at whether requiring “significant” prominence would be preferable to requiring “appropriate” prominence, and we concluded that the descriptor “significant” would not be sufficiently flexible or operable. For instance, it would not address the question of regional prominence that I have just outlined. As any visitors to their local department store can attest, there is now a huge range of potential user interfaces and routes to content available from modern televisions. As a result, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach to delivering prominence, and we believe that “appropriate” prominence—as determined by Ofcom in its code of practice, and with flexibility built in—is fundamentally the right choice.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, asked whether we would the keep the list of regulated television selection services under review, and I am very happy to say that we will indeed do so.
The noble Lord also asked about how the Government intend to measure the sustainability of Channel 4. As part of the reform package agreed with Channel 4 last year, both it and the Government agreed to updates to the financial reporting information that Channel 4 provides to my department and UK Government Investments, the Government’s corporate finance specialists, on a quarterly basis. While there is no perfect way to measure an organisation’s sustainability, that information will help to support our work in considering how best to enable Channel 4 to remain at the centre of British broadcasting for many years to come.
Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that there is more to life than sport, I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others for underlining its importance to very many viewers across the country. I assure the noble Baroness that there is no intention to weaken the public service broadcasters’ hand in negotiations; rather, we will ensure that partnerships between them and commercial broadcasters can function effectively to deliver the best outcomes for audiences and rights holders. Ofcom will have the ability to bring forward regulations, including on adequacy. We recognise that it is vital that broadcasters maintain complete editorial control of live broadcasts when they enter into partnerships, so that they have the freedom to make decisions about what events to screen for the British public.
My noble friend Lord Holmes touched on digital rights for listed events. Legislating to include digital rights is a very complex issue; not only is it technical in nature but a balance needs to be struck between securing the right access for audiences and the commercial freedoms that allow rights holders to reinvest in sport at all levels. The Government believe that it would be more appropriate to evaluate that issue through the digital rights review before considering any potential legislation that would enact any particular conclusion. I hope that he and other noble Lords will be reassured that the issue remains under careful consideration; I am sure that we will debate it in Committee.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Why do we need to wait for that review? It seems that we know enough about this and what the problems are, so why not deal with it now? We cannot wait for another 10 years, or however long it takes.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have set up the review because there are important questions to consider, and it is worth considering them properly. As I say, there is a complexity here in striking the right balance. The review is looking into that and more, and from it may flow some suggestions for necessary changes in the law. It is right that we complete the review and look at that picture in the round. As I say, I am sure we will touch on this in Committee, and there are emerging areas which noble Lords will want to press, but we think it is right to complete the review, which is a logical consequence of setting it up.
The Government are also keen to ensure that sporting events are made available for the public as widely as possible. That is why we have the listed events regime. We acknowledge the interest that fans have in watching our sporting teams compete. It is important, again, that that regime continues to strike the right balance between accessibility and the ability of sporting organisations to generate revenues, so that they can invest in sports at all levels. We believe that the current list of events works well to deliver the right outcome and that it strikes an appropriate balance, so we have no plans to review the list at this time.
My noble friend Lord Bethell spoke about the importance of age ratings for television content, and we are in complete agreement on the need to protect children and other vulnerable audiences from harmful and inappropriate video-on-demand content to which they might be exposed. As people move to a digital world, so must our regulation change. That is why, for the first time, we are bringing mainstream TV-like on-demand services in scope of the new video-on-demand code. That will be drafted and enforced by Ofcom, which has a long track record of regulating broadcast television to ensure that it is age appropriate, and protects those who may be more deeply affected by what they see or hear. In addition to creating this new code, the Bill gives Ofcom new powers through its audience protection review duty, so that it can provide guidance and report on and deal with any providers it considers are not providing adequate protections.
Taken together, these changes mean that the on-demand streamers will no longer be marking their own homework; that, rightly, will be for Ofcom to assess and do. The British Board of Film Classification, which my noble friend mentioned, does a fine job and the Government encourage all services to consider using it when reaching decisions. However, it is not the only source of effective child protection. Many streamers, including our public service broadcasters, for example, have very effective child protection measures in place and do not use BBFC age ratings. We do not want inadvertently to discourage services from investing in, developing and using the most effective child protection technology that is available and becomes available, which includes but is not limited to age ratings. The Government’s overriding goal here is to ensure that effective protection is in place as the outcome, rather than specifying from the top down how that should be done.
The measures in the Bill will ensure that all streamers are given the incentive to place child protection at the heart of their product development, rather than just relying on the regulator to tell them what the bare minimum is they can get away with. For example, protections such as parental controls and warnings, in addition to age ratings, can be more effective than any individual age-rating system. However, we are listening to what my noble friend and others are saying and have been listening to the debate in another place as well, and we look forward to continuing to debate these issues as the Bill progresses.
My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood raised concerns about the risk of complaints tourism arising as a result of Ofcom’s regulation of video-on-demand services. As with existing broadcasting regulation, how these rules are implemented would be for Ofcom to set out. However, to be clear, Ofcom will be regulating only on-demand providers’ UK libraries. In addition, following feedback from providers during pre-legislative scrutiny, we have already considered the issue of complaints tourism. The Bill now ensures that Ofcom will be able to consider the length of time that content has been available when considering complaints, which will reduce mischievous accusations. However, this is not new territory. Ofcom has a long history as an international regulator, and we have full confidence that it has the expertise and powers to deal appropriately with complaints of this nature.
More broadly, noble Lords rightly asked about the additional responsibilities Ofcom has taken on in recent years. As they know from our exchanges on the Online Safety Act, the Government are invested in Ofcom, which has taken on many more staff to cover its additional responsibilities. We are confident that it has the capability and resources it needs. Like others, I am very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, attended our debate on the Bill today. Ofcom will continue to be accountable to Parliament. The Bill extends its powers in areas it has much experience in regulating. My department has worked closely with Ofcom throughout the drafting process. As I said in my opening speech, we are very grateful for the contribution it has made.
I am grateful to some—not all—noble Lords for expressing support for the repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act. Views differ on this across your Lordships’ House but, as I said, this is a government manifesto commitment. We worry that commencing Section 40 would risk creating a chilling effect on freedom of speech, undermining high quality journalism and causing serious damage to local newspapers. The Government consulted on repeal in 2016. A huge majority of respondents, some 79%, including press freedom organisations such as Reporters Without Borders, backed repealing Section 40, many arguing that it could have stopped publishers undertaking valuable investigative journalism or publishing stories critical of individuals, for fear of being taken to court and having to pay for both sides. However, I look forward to the further debates that I am sure we will have.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the Press Regulation Panel. As he knows, that was established through a royal charter on the self-regulation of the press in 2013, which is separate from the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The repeal of Section 40 will not affect the Press Regulation Panel. Any press regulator can apply to be recognised by the panel. The panel will continue to recognise, review and report on Impress. It can also recognise other press regulators, should they choose to apply.
My noble friend Lord Astor asked how we can prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation if we repeal Section 40. If enacted, Section 40 would protect only news publishers which are members of an approved regulator. SLAPPs typically target individuals instead of their employers and can target people other than journalists, including consumers, tenants or victims of sexual assault. Many SLAPPs never reach court as their intention is to silence people before the case is pursued. As I hope my noble friend knows, the Government are taking broad action against SLAPPs to create a changed culture and raise awareness of them, alongside legislative change. The task force on SLAPPs that we established published its workplan in December, outlining action from government as well as from media and legal organisations to tackle SLAPPs. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, which received Royal Assent in October, includes measures to tackle economic crime-related SLAPPs, which we believe represent up to 70% of all these lawsuits. The Government are also supporting a Private Member’s Bill introduced in another place by Wayne David MP, Second Reading of which was last Friday. It has cross-party support, and we will update the measures in the 2023 Act to cover a broader scope, blocking SLAPPs across all types of litigation.
I am conscious that I am reaching the end of my time, so I will turn finally to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked whether a meeting with the Secretary of State might be possible. As he will appreciate, at the moment she is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in relation to this matter, so she is very restricted in what she can say. A meeting would not therefore be helpful. However, I and other Ministers have kept your Lordships’ House and the other place updated as much as we are able to while that legal process unfurls. I pointed in—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Does the Minister have a sense of the timetable for this review to be completed?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
If I may, I will point the noble Lord to the answers we have given which set out some of the timelines; there are different timelines under the different Acts and the work that Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority do. I will set them out, rather than try to give them off the top of my head, but I have answered questions from this Dispatch Box before and will continue to do that and through Written Questions where possible.
I pointed my noble friend Lord Forsyth to the Enterprise Act and the National Security and Investment Act, which cover the actions available to the Secretary of State, including where she has concerns about media freedom and freedom of expression. As my noble friend indicated, his lively discussions with the Public Bill Office and his resorting to this regret amendment reflect that this is not a matter for this Bill, but, as the contribution from our noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston showed, she has had more success with tabling an amendment to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill. I would certainly encourage them both to continue their conversations with my noble friends Lord Camrose and Lord Offord of Garvel.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I am grateful for what my noble friend has just said, but am I to take it from what he said to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that the DCMS is not going to engage in this matter at all? Am I to direct my questions to the noble Lords who are responsible for the DMCC Bill?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As it falls to my noble friends Lord Camrose and Lord Offord to take that Bill through, it will be more fruitful to have the discussions with them—they will be having them on behalf of the whole Government. But, as my noble friend will appreciate, because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role, she is limited in what she can say, and so it limits what we can say. I am very happy to continue to answer questions on the process while my noble friends continue their discussions with my noble friends who are answering for the Government on the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill. I look forward to the discussions with my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who I hope will not press his regret amendment this evening. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I need to test the opinion of the House because every single speech has supported the view that foreign Governments should not be able to own British newspapers. I thank the Minister for the excellent way in which he summed up the debate. I might just suggest to him that there is a distinction between the Secretary of State acting in a quasi-judicial capacity on this proposal that has come for the Daily Telegraph and what I was trying to convey, which is that this should be a matter for Parliament, not an individual, to decide.
The issue is whether, in principle, it is right or wrong for foreign Governments to own our newspapers; that is a matter for the Government as a whole. I have a splendid suggestion to make, which is that the Government can release us all from this quandary by simply accepting the amendment from my noble friend to another Bill. When the Minister says that it is a matter for other Ministers, it is not; it is a matter for the Government as a whole, and it is perfectly clear from what has happened tonight that he can convey to his colleagues that there is unanimous support for the idea that we should prevent foreign Governments acquiring British newspapers.
I say to my noble friend Lord Vaizey that I would not encourage him in the process of tabling regret amendments—it is a very unusual procedure. The reason that I did it was to convey to the Government the strength of feeling on all sides of the House about this. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Media Bill
Wednesday 8th May 2024
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 44-I(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (7 May 2024)
Baroness Bull
“(c) which maintains the high general standards with respect to the programmes included in them, and in particular with respect to—(i) the contents of the programmes,(ii) the quality of programme making, and(iii) the professional skill and editorial integrity applied in the making of the programmes.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to reinstate the requirement in the Communications Act (2003) for public service broadcasters to maintain high standards in terms of content, programming making and professional skills in order to fulfil the public service remit.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 2, 3 and 7 in my name. I declare any relevant interests in the register, noting that while my own media interests have ceased, I retain many friends in the creative industries. I am grateful for the cross-House support of my cosignatories and to the Citizens’ Forum for Public Service Media and UK Music for supporting my amendments.
The Minister noted at Second Reading that PS broadcasters are governed by laws written over two decades ago. Clause 1 aims to update and simplify the framework by amending Section 264 of the Communications Act 2003 and replacing what the Minister described as
“14 overlapping purposes and objectives … with a new, modernised remit … intended to provide a much clearer sense of our public service broadcasters’ distinctive role ”.—[Official Report, 28/2/24; col. 1119.]
My four amendments share a common purpose, which is to reinstate some of the wording from the 2003 Act, precisely in order to protect the distinctiveness of our PSB content and the qualities that make it, to quote the Secretary of State, attractive to national and global audiences as well as a key driver of our creative economy.
I am not opposed to modernisation; indeed, it would be odd if something written 20 years ago could not benefit from a little updating. My concern is that the process has gone too far, stripping out obligations that are the essence of our public service broadcasting. Section 264(5) and (6) of the Communications Act is replaced by Clause 1(5) of the Media Bill, but aside from Clause 1(5)(a), which protects news and current affairs and references production quotas, very little survives. One paragraph is left to act as a near “catch-all” for what has gone, requiring
“content that reflects the lives and concerns of different communities and cultural interests and traditions within the United Kingdom, and locally in different parts of the United Kingdom”.
This is fine in itself, but reflecting “the lives and concerns” does not equate to the nuanced, if overlapping, requirements of the older Act. What we lose are vital obligations, covering quality, the Reithian principle, PSBs’ fundamental role in the success of the UK’s creative industries as well as the educative value of public service broadcasting—in essence, the very things that distinguish and define PSB.
Amendment 1 would reinstate the requirement to maintain high standards in content, quality of production and
“the professional skill and editorial integrity applied in the making of the programmes”.
These high standards have driven quality products, innovative formats and original programming, under- pinning the domestic success and, in turn, the global popularity of British media productions. The terms of trade paved the way for this success, but it is widely acknowledged that it is the high quality characterising the products of British PSBs that has made a difference in this story. Yet the Bill strips out a requirement for standards, quality and skills. The obligation that remains, to reflect
“the lives and concerns of different communities … interests and traditions”
could be adequately met by a locked-off shot of a talking head, as long as that head talked about a diverse range of subjects and, occasionally, in Gaelic or Welsh.
Removing requirements for standards risks diminishing the experience for audiences and impacting public perception of PSBs. It also risks their global competitiveness and economic value. Of course, reducing production quality reduces the need for skilled creatives, thus further undermining a sector already under threat. It is directly counter to the intention of the Bill.
My Amendment 2 goes to the heart of public service broadcasting, reinstating the Reithian mission, to “inform, educate and entertain”. These three foundational elements are absent from the Bill, in effect limiting the definition of the public service remit to a narrow focus on news and current affairs, regional and children’s content, and original, regional and independent productions. By focusing on “market failure” content that commercial providers need not bother with, it fails to uphold the fundamental principle that the purpose of PSBs is to serve society in its broadest sense with culturally, democratically and socially valuable content across a wide range of subjects.
The Reithian principles have served for almost a century and they represent far more than an outdated belief that “Auntie knows best”. In the words of Professor David Hendy, the Reithian philosophy is a view of broadcasting
“as something that should strive to do more than simply reflect the present state of affairs: it was something that needed to imagine other ways of being in the world”.
Reith’s three little words are vital because they encompass the important possibility of television expanding the interests of audiences beyond their own lives and concerns and into those of others. This is education in its widest sense and, over the life course, it is what many people value about public service broadcasting. In this age of misinformation and disinformation, “inform” and “educate” are surely more relevant than ever.
I jump next to Amendment 7, as it leads directly from this point in that it would reinstate a requirement for PSBs to provide programmes on educational matters, of an educational nature and of educative value. Clause 1(5)(c) of the Bill replaces references to education with the same catch-all, referring to a range of content that
“reflects the lives and concerns of children and young people in the United Kingdom, and … helps them to understand the world around them”.
That is another laudable aim, but it is not the same as content intended to educate or have inherent educative value. The wording in my amendment, which is again lifted directly from the 2003 Act, is important for three reasons. First, it makes a distinction between programmes that reflect the lives and concerns of children and educational programming which might teach them something outside their life experience and beyond their concerns. Secondly, it encompasses the role of public service broadcasting in lifelong learning. Thirdly, it recognises the broader concept of educative value—sometimes concealed in entertainment—which is perhaps a defining feature of PSB content.
GK Chesterton famously noted:
“Humor can get in under the door while seriousness is still fumbling at the handle”.
The same is true of education in the hands of skilled programme makers, insightful commissioners and public service broadcasters. Let us think of Channel 4’s “It’s a Sin”, the “I Am” series, ITV’s “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, and seminal dramas such as “Cathy Come Home” or “I, Daniel Blake”. I would even point to the educative value of the gossip in soap opera pubs and cafés. When Sonia discussed Section 28 in the Albert Square caff all those years ago, we knew that the issue had moved into a different kind of mainstream. None of those programmes originated in an education department, but they have each been educative, shaping public discourse, dispelling myths, fostering intercultural understanding, changing attitudes and offering us new ways to consider the world and ourselves.
Of course, the responsibility for educational and educative content is distributed across the PSB landscape, with different channels assuming different responsibilities, as agreed in their operating licences. The amendment does not seek to mandate all PSBs to deliver “educational programmes” in any narrow sense, but it seeks to reinstate the fundamental educational purpose and educative value of PSB content. I find it hard to believe that the Government intended to remove any use of “educate” from this clause, and I hope the Minister might be able to reassure us when he speaks to this group.
Finally, Amendment 3 would reinstate the requirement for public service broadcasting to reflect, support and stimulate cultural activity, in all its diversity, in the UK. Since its inception, public service broadcasting has enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the cultural and creative industries, supporting—and being supported by—a thriving creative sector. This amendment, again lifted from the 2003 Act, enables three societal and sector impacts.
First, it ensures wider and more equitable access to the rich diversity of UK arts and culture by presenting drama, comedy, music, visual and performing arts on screen—a point articulated by UK Music, which supports this amendment. Secondly, it inspires active engagement in arts and culture, stimulating people from all backgrounds and across all ages to get involved as participants, audiences or as a career choice—I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, whose Amendment 33 addresses the important issue of workforce diversity in the sector.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 1 to 3 and 7, to which I have added my name, and in doing so, I declare my interest as laid out in the register as a board member of Creative Scotland.
The Bill will set the standard for public service broadcasting and is much welcomed. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has spotted that currently the Bill removes any overarching principles for public service broadcasting, which I believe is a glaring omission.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has just excellently introduced, the Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain have been at the foundation of our public service broadcasting for over 100 years. These overarching principles mean that the values, objectives and practices of public service broadcasters are very different from those in the private sector.
A 2022 report by the Ada Lovelace Institute highlighted the importance of the Reithian principles that guided public service broadcasters in what stories they chose to tell, how they were told and presented, and what programmes were commissioned. By extension, they reflect, support and stimulate the nation of the UK in all its diversity and creativity, and therefore support our world-leading creative industries.
Public service broadcasters already face criticism that they do not sufficiently reflect the public whom they serve, which is why the BBC and Channel 4 attempted to address that by moving parts of their workforce and commissioning outside London—but more of that in amendments to come. In contrast, private organisations such as Netflix are designed to maximise market share and shareholder revenue. They use recommendation systems to drive user engagement with their content. They may have some consideration of social values, but public service organisations are currently legally mandated to operate with a particular set of public interest values at their core. Without these amendments, we would lose that. PSBs are building their own recommendation systems to compete in this new digital age but, as the Ada Lovelace Institute report highlights, they will not work unless public service broadcasters are clear about their own identity and purpose.
Amendment 3 reinstates the role of PSBs in supporting our creative industries in all their diversity. The regional production of drama, comedy, music and other visual and performing arts programming plays a vital role in enabling new talent to be heard, local creative economies to be sustained and regional culture to be supported. The UK’s network of PSBs provides a platform for artists, musicians, songwriters, producers, composers and choreographers, enabling them to reach a wider audience and to gain exposure. For example, many people’s first experience of ballet is only through the Christmas Day ballet production. It is a two-way relationship: as government and funding bodies encourage live performing arts companies to make the most of digital viewing opportunities, it is in partnership with the broadcasters that those skills can be developed.
Amendment 7 recognises that education is not solely the preserve of children and children’s broadcasting. Education is a crucial part of the public service broad- casting requirements. Several of the statutory requirements set out in Section 264 of the Communications Act 2003 relate to educational objectives. The noble Baroness’s amendment picks up on them and ensures that PSBs continue to have a role in lifelong learning.
Engaging adults in lifelong learning, to ensure that we continue to invest in the development of crucial skills, is a theme that emerges from numerous Select Committee reports from your Lordships’ House. Lifelong learning is vital to the success of the UK economy. Broadcast media has a unique power and reach as a medium for inspiring adults to take advantage of learning opportunities and can engage unconfident learners who would not normally consider the possibility of lifelong learning. It is therefore essential that requirements are in place that encourage broadcasters to produce high-quality educational programmes and to give them sufficient prominence to attract viewers.
This is our opportunity to ensure that we clearly define public service values for the digital age. Public service broadcasters are already delivering against the Reithian principles and—as far as I understand from my conversations with some of them, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said—we believe that they have no objections to these amendments. As a group, the amendments seek to ensure that PSBs continue to provide content considered of value to society, if not to the shareholders. I wholeheartedly support them and hope that the Minister will too.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I support the first four amendments in this group—Amendments 1 to 3 and 7—and will not repeat what has been said so far in the excellent two speeches. However, I support them for a different reason: I think that they lay the ground for later amendments, particularly Amendments 9, 13 and 32. I will make a serious point about those amendments now, partly because I may have to be on a train when the Committee gets to them.
If we take seriously the Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain, it means doing what the inscription from George Orwell outside the BBC spells out: that people are enabled to be confronted by, or to hear and see things, that
“they do not want to hear”.
That is essential to public service broadcasting and democratic education. That is also why, when we get to Amendments 9, 13 and 32, it becomes so important to cite in the Bill some of the genres that need to be not just glossed over or assumed but recognised as essential to inform, educate and broadcast in an entertaining way. As was said earlier, not everything has to be serious; often we are informed and educated by being entertained. The reference to “EastEnders” was pertinent: we gauge the public conversation by what we see being conversed about in things such as soap operas.
That is why—I would say this, wouldn’t I?—portrayal of religion is so important and needs to be named, as well as children, the arts, science, and so on. These are often called minority interests but in fact, because something is of interest to minorities does not mean that the majority should not be aware of what those interests are. Whenever we talk about religious broadcasting —I refer to my previous interest as the chairman of the Sandford St Martin Trust for nine years—it is not about proselytism or propagating a particular world view; it is recognising that you cannot live in the world and understand it if you do not understand religion. That should be obvious, given what is going on in the world at the moment. We cannot understand the Sunni/Shia divide and how that impacts on politics in the United Kingdom if we do not get informed and educated about that. So it is not about proselytism; it is about education, social cohesion and so on.
That raises another question that I wish to put at this point. How is Ofcom supposed to be able to report on whether PSBs are fulfilling their remit if there are no metrics in the Bill to say what fulfilment of the remit might be? At Second Reading we were told that it will be left to “flexibility”. Flexibility is as flexible as you want it to be, but it is quite possible to go through a whole year and just have a subjective account of what constitutes, for example, religious broadcasting or children’s broadcasting, which puts it into a narrow silo and which, for example, counts out entertainment as a medium for these things. If there are no metrics, how are we and Ofcom to know whether the remit has been fulfilled? I have been told that it cannot be the number of hours you allot to a particular genre, or a percentage quota. I am very happy with that, but what are the metrics going to be? There have to be some; otherwise, it is totally subjective.
We can speak nobly about creative industries, the creative process and what ought to constitute public service broadcasting, but if we do not put some detail in and nail down those things, name the genres and say something about metrics other than flexibility, we cannot guarantee that the remit is being fulfilled.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support all my noble friend Lady Bull’s amendments.
The world has changed somewhat since about a century ago. My great-grandfather, Stanley Baldwin, who was the then Prime Minister, would go round to Cowley Street, just around the corner, sit down with Sir John Reith, as he then was, and discuss in some detail exactly how best to use the radio to deliver what he wanted to deliver. He was the first Prime Minister to use public sector broadcasting as a means of mass communication to the electorate. Things have moved on somewhat since then, to the extent that I believe that in recent times certain members of the Cabinet have even refused to appear on the public sector broadcaster, which is a strange development, to put it mildly.
I did some research, and I do not think it is an accident that 43% of the 35 speakers at Second Reading referred directly to the issue we are talking about in this group of amendments. If one wants a metric for the depth, strength and breadth of feeling across the House about this set of principles, that is evidence enough.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, primarily as chair of Peers for the Planet. I rise to speak to Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who very much regrets that she cannot be here this afternoon.
After listening to the contributions on the first four amendments in this group, I hope—it does not always happen in Committee—that my comments on Amendment 8 will continue the conversation that has been started about overarching principles. This amendment reflects two of the enduring principles which have underpinned our world-class—my noble friend used the phrase “world-beating”—PSB regime: discoverability and trust. Ensuring prominence for public service broadcasters in a digital world is a welcome reform in this Bill. In ensuring that PSB content is discoverable, we need to do what we can to maintain and strengthen public trust in the content that is discovered. I am particularly grateful to the Royal Society for its support for Amendment 8. Its briefing recognises the importance of science and scientific credibility in our national broadcasting framework. It also recognises the risks posed by concerning trends in misinformation.
Amendment 8 would amend the Communications Act 2003 to require Ofcom, in carrying out its functions, to report on the provision by public service broadcasters of accurate and timely science-based public information, and of countering misinformation, including—but not exclusively—on matters such as public health, climate and the environment, which reflect key existential threats of our time.
The effect of Amendment 8 is cross-cutting; it is not genre specific—that is a debate we will have later in Committee. It emphasises the important of good science and the need to tackle misinformation across the totality of PSB output, a theme that has already emerged. It sits alongside a number of other strategic objectives in Clause 1(5) of the Bill, which encapsulate important outputs of the PSB regime, such as “facilitating … well-informed debate”, reflecting diverse cultural concerns and traditions, and the concerns of children and young people, as well as original and regional production.
The need for this amendment is well documented. In its recent report Trusted Voices, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee notes the rise of information on public health issues such as Covid-19, water fluoridation and 5G, alongside climate change. It states:
“The Covid-19 pandemic made clear just how vital it is to be able to access authoritative information. In February 2020, the World Health Organisation warned that, alongside the outbreak of COVID-19, the world faced an ‘infodemic’, an unprecedented overabundance of information—both accurate and false—that prevented people from accessing authoritative, reliable guidance about the virus”.
In this context, the committee emphasised the importance of trusted voices from the scientific community and the role of the media in providing those trusted voices. Recent research from Ofcom further underlines why those trusted voices matter: it found that adults and children “overestimate” their ability to spot misinformation, with “only two in 10” adults being
“able to correctly identify the tell-tale signs of a genuine”
social media post. Worryingly, there is a similar pattern among children.
The damage caused by misinformation in relation to health issues is also well documented. A 2022 study covered in the bulletin of the World Health Organization found that:
“Incorrect interpretations of health information, which increase during outbreaks and disasters, often negatively impact people’s mental health and increase vaccine hesitancy, and can delay the provision of health care”.
This year, a Lancet study indicates that infodemics create damage beyond the negative outcomes for any specific health epidemic,
“such as reduction of public trust in health institutions and economic burden due to increased morbidity and mortality, including costs that take away resources from other public health activities”.
Damage caused by misinformation on climate change is similarly concerning. The Global Risks Report 2024 by the World Economic Forum ranked misinformation as the biggest short-term risk to human society, and extreme weather events as the top long-term risk. Those two findings underline that one of the greatest risks to society is obscuring the facts on climate change. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report in 2022 was very clear:
“Rhetoric and misinformation on climate change and the deliberate undermining of science have contributed to misperceptions of the scientific consensus, uncertainty, disregarded risk and urgency, and dissent”.
It also found that misinformation, in turn, is impacting on climate policy decisions.
Everyone agrees that, since the PSB regime was last reviewed, the world has changed. We are now, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, to look to the future and the effects of that infodemic. The evidence on the level of, and the damage caused by, scientific misinformation is deeply troubling. Some of it can be measured in data, but much of it is much more insidious. Surely the roles of the media regulator and the PSBs in the coming years become more, rather than less, important in responding to this challenge.
Amendment 8 is a proportionate and workable amendment to future-proof the PSB regime. It provides a clear strategic steer on the responsibility of the media sector and its regulator, without being overly prescriptive. The crucial role of science in our cultural and public discourse is something on which most of us agree. If we want a powerful regulator such as Ofcom to take into account the importance of science, and the clear dangers of scientific misinformation, we need to tell it to do so, and we need our public service broadcasters to support trusted voices and be trusted themselves.
I hope the Government will give this amendment serious consideration.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 33 in my name. I start by apologising for not being able to speak at Second Reading.
Despite good will, good intention and lots of work by activists, the UK’s creative and cultural workforce still does not reflect the diversity of the UK population. Ofcom already undertakes monitoring for PSBs in this area, and this amendment updates the legislative framework accordingly to ensure that this continues. Its own report on diversity and inclusion in broadcasting, published last year, notes that well-intentioned policies are not always actioned. It also draws attention to the fact that there is often a lack of diversity at senior management level in broadcasting organisations across the board. If PSBs are to represent all sectors of the UK’s population, then the workforce should be representative at every level.
Speaking as someone who comes from a television background, I know that diversity is not just about on-screen representation, but those behind the scenes: researchers, technicians, producers, directors, commissioners, and director-generals—there has not been a single woman or person of colour yet in 100 years. Women and people from minority ethnic groups and those with disability,
“remain underrepresented at senior management level: in TV 42% and in radio 36% of senior managers are women, while in TV 13% and in radio 7% are from minority ethnic groups”.
These figures matter, not just because a diverse senior management demonstrates to the workforce a real commitment to diversity at every level, but because a senior management team dictates the culture and practice of the organisations that they run. The more diverse that team, the more it will understand and promote diverse values in their workforce and diversity on-screen.
Despite the positive fact that a higher proportion of people from underrepresented groups are being recruited, broadcasters continue to struggle to retain these staff, with women, disabled workers and people from minority ethnic backgrounds leaving in disproportionate numbers. Ofcom itself has recognised that those broadcasters
“with advanced data collection practices tend to have more representative workforces”.
This amendment will further empower it to specify what kinds of data companies should be required to monitor and publish.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. From these Benches, I congratulate all who have already spoken and the Government on bringing this Bill forward. It is much-needed, and I welcome it, with the caveats already addressed today.
The Government talk about streamlining and simplification. There are advantages to this approach—all of us dealing with bureaucracy and form-filling know that—but there can be oversimplification, and this is what has happened here. These amendments are to ensure that, while we both update and future-proof our incredibly valuable broadcasting media, we do not lose the principles that have made it so unique and internationally renowned. They address the need, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said, for specific genres; I know we will come on to that in greater detail. In particular, they reinstate the Reithian principles—to inform, educate and entertain.
The wording in the Bill as drafted limits the definition of the public service remit and fails to capture the full range of objectives and benefits currently delivered by the PSB system, as well as dismissing what has been a founding principle of public service broadcasting in the UK for more than 100 years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, mentioned.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter—I thank her for the name check—which I have put my name to in support. I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, in everything she said in her speech. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
When I started my career in television, more than 50 years ago, diversity and inclusion was not a priority for public service broadcasters. I personally had to break down so many barriers to get diversity on the agenda to where we are today. Thankfully, enormous strides have been taken and the diversity landscape has been transformed, both in front of and behind the camera. Although we have not yet reached what I call “diversity nirvana”, we are well on the way. Broadcasters such as ITV have made huge progress with their diversity and inclusion strategy and should be applauded.
But, talking to people across the industry, the big concern is the redundancies that are sweeping throughout the industry, combined with the slowdown in commissioning, which in turn will lead to many production companies going out of business and will therefore have a negative effect on all the diversity gains over the past few years. As ITV and Channel 4 look for new financial models and tighten their belts, they need to make sure that they do not take their eye off the ball when it comes to diversity and inclusion, because most TV workers are freelancers and work for independent production companies. So perhaps some programme-level data is necessary in order for us to properly see how many of the PSBs’ full-time staff are from under- represented backgrounds and how much of their programming is made by diverse talent from the freelance community.
Adeel Amini, a series producer and the founder of The TV Mindset, said, “While PSBs have certainly been saying all the right things regarding diversity, their impact on the ground level and on the wider industry structure as a whole has been harder to see. In fact, many people from underrepresented backgrounds feel like the industry has gone backwards. Given the current crisis, they feel they are being squeezed out quicker than ever before. This particularly applies to roles at mid and senior level, with not enough representation at decision-making level. It’s important that diversity is seen not as a box-ticking exercise, but something that demands accountability if we are to change the fabric of this industry and make it truly welcoming and inclusive to all”.
Amendment 33 is very much the start of making this process a reality.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I shall just slip in on the back of the excellent speech on diversity from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, because this is a subject very close to my heart. I think Amendment 33, put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, is very telling in calling for public service broadcasters to put forward a diversity strategy.
But I would go behind the amendment and say that, in my experience, it is often the case that public service broadcasters can hide behind a strategy, and a strategy can often be an excuse for inaction. I remember that when I first got involved in the diversity in broadcasting debate, which is now more than a decade ago, I was very struck by the fact that, when we had a meeting with the broadcasters—there were three main broadcasters in play: ITV, BBC and Sky—the BBC came in and said, “We totally get what you’re saying and we’re going to produce a strategy”. ITV came in and said something in between. Sky came in and said “We’re just going to go for 20%”—and it did go for it, in terms of people both in front of and behind the camera. So it is very important that the Minister himself gets very engaged with the broadcasters, because if they simply put strategic documents on his desk, nothing will change.
The other important part of any strategy that is legislated for in this Bill is that it brings forward proper, in-depth statistics about what is happening in broadcasting in terms of diversity and equality. On that point, I would like the Minister to update me on the Diamond network, which was the measurement standard put in place in the mid-2010s in which broadcasters had to report for every production. It gradually included the independent producers, because that was another thing that we discovered made life more difficult, because you then had to go to all the independent production companies and bring them within the system. What has happened to the Diamond system? What kind of statistics is it throwing up that reveal what is actually happening in broadcasting?
I am fully aware that, when one talks about diversity, there may be a small element of the public—perhaps a Venn diagram overlapping with Garrick Club members—who regard talking about diversity as some sort of woke totemic point. But the point is that we live in an extremely diverse country. It is so important—and it really emphasises why this Bill and broadcasting are still so important, no matter how diverse and fragmented broadcasting has become in terms of platforms—that people in this country are able to tell their stories and see themselves represented. Equally, to echo the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, it is not just the people in front of the camera; it is the people making the programmes and making the decisions about what is commissioned. You can have as many diverse people as you like appearing in a television programme but, to be blunt with the Committee, if the people commissioning the programmes are all white, those are the stories that will get told.
As far as the other amendments are concerned, since I am on my feet, I am obviously very much in favour of the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, put forward about putting back the Reithian principles into broadcasting. But I simply say at the beginning of what will be a mammoth session of days and days of scrutiny of this Bill that I am also very deregulatory minded. It is important for the Committee to be aware as much as possible that broadcasters sit under a plethora of regulations and there must also be a mindset as we debate this Bill that we do not simply put every single issue and principle that we care passionately about—albeit I am now massively contradicting everything I have just said—into the Bill, because technology is changing rapidly, costs are rising, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, hinted, and putting a lot of people under pressure, and people need flexibility. To a certain extent we need to trust our broadcasters, for whom quality programme making is to a certain extent embedded.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, capped by a single show of dichotomy from the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I am sure that most of us found it both entertaining and enlightening, in line with true Reithian values.
As we draw this debate to a close, we should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on tabling her amendments in this group. As we have heard, they broadly relate to the Reithian principles that have under- pinned public service broadcasting for much of the last century. We on the Labour Benches have co-signed Amendments 1 to 3 and 7. Additionally, we support Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We also support Amendment 33 on diversity. On reflection, having spoken to my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I feel that we should have had a separate debate on the whole issue of diversity. It is merited in the context of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, underlined the importance of workplace diversity, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. There is much to think through about what we see and how it is measured to ensure that our public service broadcasters reflect the diversity of our great nation.
I turn to the Reithian principles. My honourable friend Stephanie Peacock in another place said that she welcomed the attempts to simplify the remit of PSBs. I made a similar observation at Second Reading. As we have heard, a number of commentators have argued that this may have the unintended consequence of leading to rather more restricted content. The Communications Act 2003, which this part of the Bill seeks to update, gave a fair expression of the PSBs’ Reithian principles. Over time, these have become partly enshrined in particular genres. These amendments attempt to take the debate beyond genres and to talk to the issue of the fundamental purpose of public service broadcasting, in particular the purpose of broadcasting in a multimedia world now tackling the challenges of the digital age and digital content.
At Second Reading I said that, while the Bill was very welcome—it continues to be very welcome—and for the most part highly supportable, it seemed to lack an overarching purpose and principle: an abiding vision, if you like. As we have heard, Lord Reith believed that PSBs should “inform, educate and entertain”. The 2003 Act sought to flesh out what that meant. Labour enshrined those principles in legislation. In that regard, it did a more than serviceable job. This new legislation seeks to do it slightly more flexibly. Flexibility is one thing, but I think we need firm statements of principle and purpose. These amendments move to set Reithian standards and values in a more modern context.
We want public service broadcasters to retain high standards of content. We want them to maintain high- quality production and editorial integrity, as referenced in Amendment 1. We want to see content that meets the Reithian dictum of informing, educating and entertaining, while recognising the role of the sector in stimulating, reflecting and supporting the cultural and creative industries.
Finally, these amendments take us to the educative purpose of public service broadcasters and help promote a culture that values learning as a lifelong activity to serve all. Together, one could paraphrase a sort of John Prescott-ism and place old-style Reithian values in a modern setting. For that, and for the other reasons I have set out, we are very happy indeed to support this group of amendments. We hope to receive some words of encouragement from the Minister. I do not think public service broadcasters will object at all to this renewed obligation. It does much that will help Ofcom in its periodic reporting on this aspect of the public broadcasters’ remit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for starting our deliberations in Committee in such a careful and considered way. We have already had allusions to Chesterton, Orwell and Sonia from “EastEnders”, so we are off to a good start.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his, as ever, thoughtful and considered response. I am not sure that I completely share his view that broadcaster-specific agreements are the place to house such fundamental principles; I would imagine that they should be there in an overarching sense. He says that the current regime demonstrates the challenges of measuring, but it also demonstrates the opportunities of succeeding, because it is indeed the high quality and innovation of UK productions that has led to global success, as has been well evidenced over the last two decades. It is a long evening ahead for the Minister, so I will not dally, but I will certainly accept his invitation to ponder and reflect, and take that as an opening to continue to discuss some of these amendments.
If I may, I will say very briefly that the point of Amendment 3 in my name is absolutely not to reinsert a list of activities; it is that cultural activity is stimulated, supported and reflected. That is a slightly different point; it is achieved by presenting those services, but that is not the end in itself. I know that my noble friend here will be talking a lot about that in a moment.
So, in accepting the Minister’s invitation to ponder and reflect together, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Teverson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that each of the individually recognised regional or minority languages receives a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 4 and 5 are in my name and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for adding his name to them. We are of course moving on to the area of indigenous minority and regional languages. Proposed new subsection (16) in Clause 1 lists those languages. There are six of them: Welsh, of course—I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the Benches—and we have Ulster Scots, Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Irish and, sixth and last to be listed, Cornish.
I am a resident of that area, Cornwall. I am English rather than Cornish, but I have lived there for some time and Cornish is a very important part of the culture of that far south-west peninsula. Many noble Lords will have visited Cornwall during their holidays, or maybe during vacations as children to its beaches or whatever. The Cornish language is of the Celtic family. It is actually nearer to Breton than it is to Welsh, but it is an important part of that family. It has been revived and is an important part of culture these days. Cornwall Council often uses Cornish in its public notices and publications.
What I want to emphasise in these amendments is, first, to welcome very strongly the fact that Cornish is named in the Bill as a minority and regional language. It was first recognised in 2002 by the Council of Europe’s convention on regional and minority languages and this is the first time, as I understand it, that it has appeared in British legislation. I very much welcome that. But it is my belief, having read through proposed new subsection (5), that there is an issue about this. It is around not just Cornish itself but those other regional and minority languages as well.
New subsection (5)(b) says that
“the audiovisual content made available by the public service broadcasters (taken together) includes what appears to OFCOM to be … (ii) a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content that is in, or mainly in, a recognised regional or minority language”.
That reads to me as if, in a practical sense, we could have hours of Welsh broadcasting, which clearly I would welcome, but that could be taken together as a substitute for these other minority languages as well. That is now the Bill reads to me and I do not think that is the Government’s intention. I will be interested to hear from the Minister his own interpretation. That is also why, in my Amendment 5, instead of saying
“a … regional or minority language”,
I have said “each” regional and minority language.
There is a strange bit of grammatical use in new subsection (5). It puts “taken together”, which is what I see as contentious, in brackets. I have looked very briefly through the rest of the Bill and have found no other key provision that is in brackets. My theory is that, when the Bill was put together, those brackets were not normal brackets: they were actually square brackets and there was a question about whether that phrase—the two words “taken together”—should be in the Bill. Then, somehow, they have been translated into normal brackets and so have appeared in the written part of the Bill. I would love to think that that was the case.
Of course, the Government’s statute writers are normally absolutely perfect in what they do, but I genuinely believe this is not what the Government intend. It is really important that each of those minority and regional languages is represented sufficiently in the public broadcasters’ output. On that basis, I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he agrees that that is the intention or whether we could have a further conversation to try to get this right. I beg to move.
Lord Dunlop (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 6 and 10 in my name and the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I am very grateful to those noble Lords for their cross-party support.
These amendments are designed to address an urgent problem. They seek to provide more explicit protection for Gaelic-language broadcasting within the Bill. Gaelic broadcasting faces a crisis—and I do not use that word lightly—caused by decisions over the allocation of responsibilities when the Scottish Parliament was established. As a result, there is no reliable mechanism for resolving funding and operational matters.
Gaelic broadcasting is provided by the BBC Alba channel, a joint venture between BBC and the Gaelic Media Service, otherwise known as MG Alba. The channel is resourced by the BBC’s contribution to the JV of content and people, valued at £10 million per year, and MG Alba’s annual budget of £13 million per year. Its funding is provided by the Scottish Government via Ofcom. The effect is to split responsibility for Gaelic broadcasting. Broadcasting is a reserved matter. The statutory underpinning for MG Alba is UK legislation—the Communications Act 2003—and Ofcom, the UK regulator, is arbiter of whether enough Gaelic is being broadcast. However, funding responsibility for the forerunner of MG Alba was devolved in 1999 to Scottish Ministers, who are not answerable to Ofcom.
The consequences of this split are clear to see. In 1991, a Conservative Government set up the first Gaelic television fund of nearly £10 million a year; today that would be worth £25 million, almost double MG Alba’s current budget. The Scottish Government have chosen to freeze MG Alba’s budget for the last 10 years and, if that trajectory continues, in two years’ time its budget will be worth half of what it began with in 2008. These arrangements do not provide Gaelic broadcasting with a sustainable future, with all the potentially adverse consequences for Gaelic as a living language, because, make no mistake, education and broadcasting are the twin pillars of its survival.
Let us consider for a moment the practical implications. First, viewers increasingly consume content online rather than via the traditional linear services. To succeed, Gaelic content must be prominent and visible on the new digital channels that people actually use. Digital transition requires investment. I see the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in his place, and S4C has been provided with ring-fenced funding to develop its digital services, but BBC Alba has not.
Secondly, if Gaelic broadcasting is to engage the next generation of young would-be Gaelic speakers it needs to be able to create new content and not rely on repeats which are increasingly dated. BBC Alba can afford only to broadcast one hour and 40 minutes of new content per day and to commission three hours of drama per year.
Thirdly, one of MG Alba’s potential advantages is the freedom to invest in co-productions with commercial producers, yet it lacks the funds to be an attractive investment partner of any scale for commercial producers.
MG Alba commissioned EY to assess its future funding requirements. EY’s report suggests that an annual budget of around £25 million is required—in effect, restoring the value of the original Gaelic Television Fund —to put the business on a sustainable footing. Unfortunately —this is the main point of my amendments—there is no forum for evaluating this report because Gaelic broadcasting, MG Alba in particular, currently has no formal mechanism for ensuring that its needs are assessed in a holistic way.
This is the context for the amendments tabled in my name, which are supported by both the BBC and MG Alba. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, new subsection (5)(b)(ii) in Clause 1(2) places a duty on Ofcom to assess whether public service broadcasters, taken together, are producing
“a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content that is in, or mainly in, a recognised regional or minority language”,
specified as including
“Welsh, the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland, Irish, Scots, Ulster Scots or Cornish”.
This is very welcome. It does not, however, provide sufficient protection for Gaelic broadcasting, which will otherwise, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, be swept up in a generic assessment of minority languages across all PSBs.
Amendment 6 therefore obliges Ofcom to consider specifically the needs of Gaelic broadcasting when making its assessment of sufficiency. Without this specific obligation, Ofcom could determine, for example, that an on-demand curated collection of Gaelic content is sufficient, rather than what is necessary to sustain a Gaelic media service, with at its beating heart a schedule of live daily news, sports events, and topical and lifestyle programmes.
Amendment 10 would bring the Gaelic Media Service into the scope of the PSBs to be assessed by Ofcom. Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, addresses the same issue. This is a very modest and narrowly focused amendment. The Gaelic Media Service would be considered a PSB only for the purposes of assessing Ofcom’s duties in new subsection (5)(b)(ii).
In practical terms, the proposed designation would formally include MG Alba in the scope of Ofcom’s five-yearly review for the period 2019-23, which will start later this year. This will provide a yardstick of sufficiency and a mechanism, which is currently missing, for assessing the needs of Gaelic broadcasting in the round. The affect is more limited than making BBC Alba a PSB in its own right, so Ministers can be reassured that, in agreeing to this amendment, they would not be creating—however great it is—another S4C, with all the associated legal, financial and other obligations, not least for the BBC, that this entails.
The other feature of these amendments is that they would tie the Scottish Government more explicitly into the process for putting Gaelic broadcasting on a more sustainable footing. MG Alba is under a statutory responsibility to provide a wide and diverse range of high-quality programmes in Gaelic. Scottish Ministers have a statutory duty annually to provide Ofcom with a sum they consider appropriate for MG Alba to discharge its responsibilities. However, there is no guidance to or formal expectations of Scottish Ministers in this regard. By bringing MG Alba within the scope of Ofcom’s assessment, Amendment 10 would establish a direct link with Scottish Ministers’ statutory funding responsibilities.
Should Ofcom determine that there is insufficient Gaelic content, the BBC and MG Alba, and by extension its funder, would be obliged to respond to Ofcom. This would create an expectation for the first time of Scottish ministerial participation in a more formal, transparent and joined-up process to consider the overall sufficiency of Gaelic media content.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to participate in the debate. I assume that the time warning was wrongly put here, as we are in Committee on a Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Well, I hasten to add that I have no intention of going beyond that time. If that is a new rule, of which I was unaware, I certainly think it is a highly retrograde step because in Committee we should be exploring all the implications of all amendments. That is something we will no doubt return to at another time.
I welcome this debate and these amendments, particularly the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, moved his amendment and made reference to Wales as well as Scotland. I do not intend to go in depth into the Scottish context. I welcome the fact that amendments have come from that side of the Committee, with their intentions shared in other parts of the Committee, no doubt. I discussed some of these matters with friends in the Scottish National Party but, quite frankly, I feel incapable of addressing the Scottish context, which is very different from the Welsh context in terms of structure and the location and strength of the language in the country as a whole.
I would like to make this point at the beginning of my remarks. On page 6 of the Bill, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, it says
“‘recognised regional or minority language’ means Welsh” ,
et cetera. But Welsh is not a minority language. Welsh is a national language in Wales and is officially recognised as such in statutes passed by Westminster. Therefore, it is inappropriate for that terminology to be used in this context.
In saying that, I should perhaps clarify, in case there is some uncertainty about it, that I come from a very different background to most Members in this House. Welsh is my first language; Welsh is the language that I speak almost all the time at home; Welsh is the language of 90% of my community and village, and 70% in the county in which I live. I have two children and six grandchildren. All six grandchildren speak Welsh as a first language; those six grandchildren have two grandparents who are Welsh-speaking and four who are not Welsh-speaking. That is the reality in Wales today: Welsh is a language that has been grasped by people of Wales, in Wales, but also by people have also moved into Wales. It is part of their heritage. In fact, there are 20 Welsh-medium schools in Cardiff now, teaching through the medium of Welsh. That is the reality.
Welsh is a language that has a diversity within it as well. People come on holiday to Wales and they see Jason Mohammad on Welsh television. The sound is off in the pub, so they turn it up to hear what he is saying. They are amazed when they find that Jason Mohammad is, of course, speaking in Welsh. He is one of the Welsh community, a fluent Welsh speaker, and he learned it as a second language. We have rappers, such as Sage Todz, who raps in Welsh and in English. There is no problem with that. They are an ethnic part of the Welsh community, and the language belongs to the whole of Wales. It belongs to those who speak Welsh and to those who do not speak Welsh, because it is part of our culture.
There have been changes in places such as Merthyr Tydfil, where I lived before I entered Parliament. The language was almost dead when I was there. It is partly thanks to television and partly thanks to education that things have changed since then. We will be coming on to some of these aspects in a later bank of amendments. However, I want to make the point as strongly as I can that the context of the Welsh language is a very different one to being treated as a minority language or a regional language.
This does raise questions in relations to Welsh and to Gaelic, whether they should be seen just in a Scottish context—or in a part-of-Scotland context for Gaelic—or in a Welsh context—the whole of Wales, as far as Welsh is concerned, where it is an official language throughout the whole of Wales—or should they be seen in a British context? That is the implication in some of these amendments. If they are being seen in a British context, do they have a claim to existence, in respect and with regard to nurturing, within England itself?
There was a time when I was on the board of S4C —the Welsh language television service—where some of our programmes were being picked up in England, particularly things like rugby, understandably, where there were audiences of 100,000 and more from within England. That raises the question: how many people in England actually speak Welsh? We do not know that, because in successive censuses—in 2001, 2011 and 2021—there has been a refusal to ask that question in England. It may be 100,000; it may be 200,000; it may even be half a million. We do not know.
We know that many, many young people leave Wales to look for work, and they live in England. They tune into S4C, and, of course, it is very much easier to do that now than when I was on the board in earlier times. The fact that there can be audiences of that scale indicates that a question must arise if you are talking about minority languages. What is the position of minority languages such as the Gaelic language and the Welsh language in England? What intentions will there be to find out how many speakers there are? What are the appropriate requests and demands of those? In terms of television, which we are discussing, there is now no problem: television knows no boundaries, and Welsh-language television can be seen in the United States, in Patagonia or wherever, because of the facility technology affords to it.
There are a number of questions that arise in that context. This is not the time to follow this through, but they run through to questions as to whether the Welsh language and the Gaelic language should be available, in some schools at least, in conurbations in England if we are saying that the Welsh and Gaelic languages are British languages. I just assume that this is the position from which the Government come on such matters. In which case, what are the Government going to be doing about it?
I am grateful for these amendments being tabled because it puts into context our interpretation of the words “regional or minority language”, which are on the face of the Bill. I suggest that this needs to be thought through again, in order for it to have a respect, or even a meaning, as far as we in Wales are concerned.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Creative Scotland. I thank my noble friend Lord Dunlop for his work to champion the Gaelic Media Service and add my support to his amendment.
I just want to respond a little bit to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that the Welsh and Scottish situations are not the same. No, they are not, and we feel rather hard done by because, as the noble Lord said, the two pillars of education and broadcasting have done much to support the Welsh language. I think that my noble friend Lord Dunlop’s amendments are just trying to reverse what I call the devolution deficit that has done no favours to the Gaelic Media Service.
We heard at Second Reading about the economic benefits of MG Alba. It sustains 340 jobs in the Highlands and Islands and produces gross value added of over £17 million. It is very interesting today that the Scottish Government’s new Deputy First Minister is not only a fluent Gaelic speaker and the first-ever Scottish Minister for Gaelic, as my noble friend said, but she also has responsibility for the economy. Despite its impressive economic record, however, MG Alba is facing a huge generational challenge at this very moment of having to transition to a digital service on its existing funding.
My noble friend Lord Dunlop has already set out that Scottish Government Ministers have been very vocal about their so-called strong and consistent support for the Gaelic language service. What I support about my noble friend’s amendments is that, by denominating the Gaelic Media Service as a public broadcaster, they are not committing the UK Government to funding, but they could ensure that the Scottish Government are held more accountable for their—in real terms—dwindling support for MG Alba.
If the Minister is minded in his reply to say that this issue should wait for the BBC charter review, I respectfully warn him that he is in danger of conflating two issues. The Media Bill is the appropriate place to confirm that there should be a Gaelic broadcaster. It is the place that confirms again that there should be a Welsh language public broadcaster, so why not Gaelic? The charter review would simply be a mechanism for the delivery of this. Frankly, if MG Alba has to wait another two years, it may be too late for the future of the Gaelic Media Service.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise humbly to take part in what has been a very rich and informative debate. I would particularly single out the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I apologise that I did not take part in the Second Reading of this Bill due to other commitments. I declare for general purposes for the whole of this Bill that I was formerly an editor of the Guardian Weekly and spent 20 years as a journalist, so that is the background that I bring into this.
We have uncovered some important technical drafting detail here, both from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and I hope that we will certainly be seeing some government amendments on Report addressing those issues. However, I really just wanted to offer general Green support for the importance of having linguistic diversity broadcast across these islands, and I really wanted to stress that this is a terribly important issue.
We were talking in the last group about the British broadcasting ecosystem having a general claim to being world-leading. I am afraid that English characteristic monolingualism is something of a global joke. It is really important that we acknowledge that there is multilingualism on these islands, and it needs to be supported and encouraged.
I experienced a monolingual environment in the Australia of my childhood. Having exposure to only a single language impoverished my youth. Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Ulster Scots, Irish and Cornish are treasures of these islands, and they need support. They preserve tradition and knowledge, and they contribute to cultural diversity.
I note that, last week, the Scottish Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee heard evidence on the proposed Scottish Languages Bill, which aims to establish official status and improve educational support for languages. The chair of the professional association for Gaelic secondary teachers noted that Gaelic-medium education is, in effect, now stopping at S1 or S2. In 2023, only 1% of primary school pupils were in GM education, but 46% of primary school pupils in the Western Isles, for example, are in Gaelic-medium education and 54% study Gaelic. If we are going to have broadcasters that truly serve across these islands, we clearly need to see the delivery of all these languages.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to respond to this group and speak to my Amendment 11. I think that, by now, the Minister will be aware of the strength of feeling about these matters in the Bill. Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 10 all address the place of minority languages—I hesitate to use that word, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said; I certainly have some sympathy—in public service broadcasting today and in the future.
The preservation of the Gaelic language through public service broadcasting was debated at Second Reading and discussed at some length in the Commons. The subject is important. It exercises people in Scotland and throughout the rest of these islands. There is concern about the lack of a requirement for Gaelic language public service broadcasting. There is no requirement for a minimum amount and no requirements relating to new content. There could, for example, have been a requirement in the Bill for the BBC to produce new Gaelic language content.
That is important because language is the cornerstone of culture. It is not just a way of communicating but a daily expression of history and stories reflecting ways of life, values and heritage as it is spoken. The diversity of the languages in our nations and regions is therefore a living, breathing expression of the rich identities and traditions that we are lucky to carry with us.
However, understanding that requires an understanding of the risk of losing such a language, be it Gaelic or Welsh. That is very unlikely, but, if they are not spoken, nurtured and passed down through the generations, that rich culture would be at risk of being lost. With that recognition in mind, I think it is good that we are discussing this absolutely at the top of the Bill. We believe that the Bill and legislation more broadly seem not to recognise Gaelic language broadcasters in the same way as they recognise, for instance, S4C, which we absolutely support. This is despite there being cross-party support for recognising them, both here and in Scotland. For example, Clause 17 talks specifically about the quota for S4C.
When Ofcom published its sixth review of BBC performance, mentions of the Gaelic service totalled four lines in an 80-page report—and that came from the need to assess BBC Alba only as a BBC portfolio service, which is what the BBC operating agreement does. Given the importance of the service to Gaelic speakers, it would seem appropriate to see it acknowledged and assessed properly, so I hope the Minister might be able to lend his support to the new clause we are putting forward. If he chooses not to, I would like to hear from him about the measures the department is taking to support Gaelic broadcasting in the way it deserves and needs.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as several noble Lords have noted, the indigenous languages of these islands are crucial to the lives of those who speak and cherish them. As my noble friend Lord Dunlop and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, that includes holders of high office and substantial majorities in certain parts of the UK. The Bill seeks to ensure that people are able to access content in those languages, as well as content that is culturally important to them, for many decades to come. However, I note the sad paradox that the number of Welsh speakers has declined since devolution rather than grown.
I turn to Amendments 6, 10 and 11. As some of my noble friend Lord Dunlop’s amendments recognise, the Gaelic Media Service, MG Alba, already has a statutory function under the Communications Act to ensure that a wide and diverse range of high-quality Gaelic programmes are available to people in Scotland. I recognise his and other noble Lords’ keenness to ensure that we do not lose such a valuable function. That is why Clause 1 makes clear in legislation the importance of having programmes made available in the UK’s indigenous, regional and minority languages, including Gaelic, by including it in our public service remit for television for the first time. Moreover, elsewhere in the Bill, we make it clear that public service broadcasters must contribute to this remit and that they will be accountable for the extent of their contributions.
As my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie noted and anticipated, His Majesty’s Government are formally considering the funding of minority language broadcasting, including Gaelic, as part of the BBC funding review launched in December. As part of that review, we have already asked MG Alba for a range of evidence, including its assessment of the sustainability of its current funding model and of how any changes to the BBC’s funding model could affect it and minority language broadcasting more broadly. I acknowledge what she said about timing vis-à-vis the Bill, but we feel that it is right to wait for the funding review to conclude and then to consider the overall future of MG Alba and the ongoing provision of Gaelic language broadcasting. Given the closeness of the link between the BBC and MG Alba, we think that these considerations are best made alongside the upcoming review of the BBC’s royal charter, for which we will set out further details of the timeline in due course.
In addressing his Amendments 4 and 5, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to the Cornish language. I recognise the importance that regional and minority language programming plays in representing the rich and diverse tapestry of culture across the country, including in the noble Lord’s home of Cornwall. Amendments 4 and 5 would require each of the UK’s six public service broadcasters to provide a sufficient quantity of programming in each of the six regional or minority languages that are now recognised and set out in the Bill. Adding further rigour to the legislation regarding regional and minority languages is an ambition that the Government share with the noble Lord, which is why we have, for the first time—as he noted—listed Cornish and a range of other languages in this legislation. His amendment would require each broadcaster to provide content in each language stated in the Bill, a proposal that we think would be excessively onerous on the public service broadcasters. It would result in a situation where, for example, S4C would be obliged to broadcast in Ulster Scots and STV in Cornish, which is not, I am sure, the outcome he seeks. There may be some confusion here and it might be easier to clarify it—particularly regarding the choice of brackets—in a format where we do not have to try to describe the shape of punctuation. I will happily do that with him. The choice of parentheses is not a drafting error: “(taken together)” is the formulation used in the Communications Act and indeed elsewhere in Part 1 of this Bill, but if it is helpful to speak about that outside the Chamber, I am happy to do so.
The Bill already puts new obligations on Ofcom to monitor whether a sufficient quantity of minority and regional languages is provided. In our view, any additional obligation on broadcasters would be excessively burdensome. Given the provision already made in the Bill in respect of Gaelic and other languages, as well as the further work I have outlined, although I echo what noble Lords have said about the importance of these languages, the culture and tradition they represent for people and our shared anxiety to make sure that they are passed on to new generations and shared with many—not just in the places where they are currently commonly spoken, but where others can hear them and learn them too—I am afraid that I am unable to accept the amendments noble Lords have proposed in this group. I am happy to continue to talk to them about these important issues, but I hope that, for now, they will be willing not to press them.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I invite the Minister to comment on the question of whether the Welsh and Gaelic languages should be counted in the 2031 census in England. If they are regarded as British languages, as is suggested in the context of the Bill, surely, they should be.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Questions relating to the census are a matter for colleagues in other departments, but I shall happily take the noble Lord’s point to them. I imagine that he has raised it with them directly, but I am happy to let them know that he has raised it again today.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. In fact, I worked with Mebyon Kernow on this amendment, and it would probably also criticise me for not referring to Cornish as a national language rather than a minority one—but that is how it started with the Council of Europe in 2002. I suspect that Gaelic language proponents are also not particularly happy with the Minister’s reply.
I agree absolutely with the Minister, in that I am not expecting Cornish to be broadcast sufficiently in Northern Ireland, even though I would love that to be the case. The purpose of my amendment is not that all languages should be broadcast everywhere, but that there is an obligation in each of the regions, nations or areas that the relevant language should be sufficiently broadcast. It seems to me that the Bill does not say that, so I shall have a further conversation, and I thank the Minister for his help in that area. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(6) The requirements in this subsection are that—(a) that the relevant audiovisual services (taken together) comprise a public service for the dissemination of information and for the provision of education and entertainment, (b) the range of audiovisual content genres made available by the public service broadcasters (taken together) include but not be limited to content about—(i) religion and other beliefs,(ii) science,(iii) arts and cultural content,(iv) social issues,(v) matters of international significance, and(vi) matters of specialist interest, and(c) there is a sufficient quantity and range of programmes within each genre.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would statutorily require OFCOM to report on whether public service broadcasters have made available an appropriate amount and range of programmes in named societally valuable public service genres both on broadcast channels and on their online Broadcast Video on Demand (BVOD) platforms. Without specifying these genres in law OFCOM will not be required to monitor them.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I declare an interest as a freelance TV producer who has worked for all four public service broadcasters. I thank the Voice of the Listener & Viewer and the Media Reform Coalition for their support in putting this speech together, and the commercial public service broadcasters for their information. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have attached their names to this amendment.
I welcome a lot of the Bill. However, I have tabled this amendment because I am convinced that the public service remit set out in Clause 1 is not worthy of the name. The White Paper says that it replaces the
“outdated set of fourteen overlapping purposes … with a new, shorter remit, focussed on the things that”
the PSBs
“are uniquely positioned to deliver”.
Unfortunately, this new remit does not deliver either of those things for audiences or for the industry.
I degrouped this amendment so that noble Lords would have a chance to direct their speeches specifically towards the need for genres within public service broadcasting. In looking at Clause 1, I ask the Minister: are the Government really not going to insist that our commercial PSBs commission and broadcast any content on science, on the arts, on social issues, any content of international significance—or, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said earlier, any content on religion? In a society where there is a desperate lack of knowledge about those matters, surely the media, which has been so privileged and protected in this Bill, should be mandated to battle against ignorance and bring illumination and context to the lives of people in this country. It has never been more important than now to have reliable information easily accessible by everybody. Surely, this is the antidote to the swirl of fake news and conspiracy theories which so dominate the internet.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I hope it was fairly clear from what I said at Second Reading that I would be very likely to support the amendments that we heard in the first group and, in particular, to support Amendment 9, which has just been so powerfully introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.
Many of us at Second Reading, as has been reiterated already today, believed that we had a very good understanding of what a PSB was from the Communications Act 2003. Our fear is that the Bill that is now before us is much less clear because of the changes that have been made to that Act, removing the Reithian values and removing the list of genres—from music to the arts, from science to religion. All we now have is a vague requirement of a range of appropriate genres.
These points have already been well made in our deliberations today, so I will not repeat the arguments for them. I wish to pick up just one point: namely, where does Parliament have any say in the future in what will happen to our public service broadcasters? From the debates that have taken place both in this House, at Second Reading, and in the other place, we know that one of the Government’s arguments about this streamlined arrangement for PSBs is that we should not be worried because, as far as the BBC is concerned, much more detail will be provided within the royal charter and, for the other public service broadcasters, it will be provided for within the licences. However, I asked a question at Second Reading to which I did not get an answer. It was a simple one: does Parliament have any say whatever in the royal charter or the licence agreement? My understanding is that the answer is no. I hope that, when the Minister responds on this group, he will confirm that I am correct, and I hope that, in doing so, he will acknowledge that that argument means, therefore, that there is no opportunity for Parliament to have a say on this important issue.
In response to the first group of amendments, the Minister told us that there was a second way in which we need not be concerned. He told us about the rather pointless, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, pointed out, five-yearly “high-level”—as the Minister called it—review, because so much would have changed. He pointed quite rightly, however, to the annual report that Ofcom would have to do, collecting the annual statistics on the genres covered. We should get some confidence from that, because he pointed out that that is contained in Section 358 of the Communications Act, which will be continued.
Well, I had a look at Section 358, which talks about annual reports with statistics on the genres covered, but I noted that, very interestingly, that Section 358(3) states:
“In carrying out a review … OFCOM must consider, in particular, each of the following”—
and the first is
“(a) the extent to which programmes included during that period in television and radio services are representative of what OFCOM consider to be the principal genres for such programmes”.
So Parliament is not going to have a say there, either.
We look to the Bill itself, which also talks about the new streamlined way in which the whole approach to PSBs is set out and how Ofcom will review it. Clause 1(5)(b) states that the requirements of this subsection are
“that the audiovisual content made available by the public service broadcasters (taken together) includes what appears to OFCOM to be … a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content that reflects the lives and concerns of different communities”—
and so on. So, yet again, we have a Bill before us that refers back to a previous Bill and also to something where Ofcom is making decisions on issues in which Parliament has not had the opportunity to be involved.
These amendments are the only opportunity for Parliament to have its say. I, for one, strongly believe that we need to give very clear guidance to Ofcom on what Parliament believes is the appropriate role for a for a public service broadcaster. This amendment gives that very clearly. It would reinstate what was contained within the Communications Act 2003. I very much hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept not only the amendment but the legitimate role that Parliament has in saying what it believes should be the guidance given to Ofcom for the review that it carries out into the nature of our public service broadcasters.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which, as he has explained, seeks to define what an “appropriate range of genres” actually is. What worries me is that his amendment has a list and, without that, I do not think that there is any definition of what we think an appropriate range should be.
We are not alone in believing that new subsection (6) is inadequate in its lack of clarity over both what an appropriate range of genres is and how it is going to be monitored by Ofcom. Concerns have been expressed through briefings to noble Lords from the Citizens’ PSM Forum, which welcomes and endorses these amendments. The only change that I suggest is that instead of “religion and other beliefs”, I would prefer “religion and other faiths”, as I think that will ensure that conspiracy theories and the like are not accidently captured by this.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer Green support for Amendment 9, which I think has already been very powerfully argued for. I also note the degree of lobbying, from the Citizens’ PSM Forum, already referred to, but also a number of other groups and individuals who have contacted me about this, indicating that they regard this as terribly important.
I will focus on science, because I think that science broadcasting, in terms of socially valued public service genres, really deserves to be stressed. This picks up points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the first group, in the context of our climate emergency and all the other exceeding of planetary boundaries threats that we face. I am speaking in the context where today’s Guardian reports that a survey of IPCC scientists notes that the majority view is that we are heading towards 2.5 degrees of global heating. I remain an optimist and I do not necessarily agree with that—it is a question of social innovation and change—but what is clearly crucial is that the public sector broadcasters provide the scientific information and context that the public need to understand the debates and the issues.
I declare my position here as a science graduate from 1987. Much of what I was taught in my science degree I now know to be utterly out of date. One thing that may not apply to the other aspects of this—certainly to the first point here—is that science changes with lightning speed. Most of what I was taught in soil science I can now regard only as absolute junk. Much of what I was taught in genetics has been utterly overturned. If we are to have a public who are informed about these really crucial issues, science programming can be difficult, controversial and very expensive but it is crucial that there is a remit in the Bill that we need this from our public sector broadcasters.
Personally, I try to keep up to date with a whole range of podcasts. I can recommend to noble Lords “Big Biology” or the New Books Network “Systems and Cybernetics” channel, but they are not necessarily terribly accessible and it is really important that we have public sector broadcasters providing the content that informs the public on scientific issues.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 9. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, said, a clear definition of the genres, rather than the vague “appropriate”, is necessary to ensure commissioning from the PSBs across a full range of programmes and proper oversight from Ofcom. As my noble friend Lord Foster mentioned, the Minister said earlier that the Bill has not removed Section 358 of the Communications Act, which requires Ofcom to collect information on principal genres, but it does not define what these genres are, so we return to the essential fact that, if not specified, Ofcom will not be required to monitor this crucial content in quantitative terms.
Specifying genres provides guarantees for a future we cannot predict. It does not take a lot of imagination to envisage the slippery slope. With the genres gone, there are two likely consequences. First, the commercial PSBs will seek to diminish their commitment and will lobby accordingly, exactly as ITV did with regional current affairs programmes. Secondly, Ofcom will have less discretion to hold them to account if it is under no obligation to monitor individual genres.
I return to the pre-legislative DCMS Committee report and to what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said so forcefully, that removing the requirement on commercial PSBs to provide specific genres for UK children’s content
“led to significant reductions in the production of original children’s TV, and we are concerned that the draft Media Bill’s removal of the specific reference to other genres will lead to similar reductions in content, particularly in the less commercially successful areas”.
That is from the committee’s report, but we all agree on it, I think.
I have one rather off-the-wall question, having listened to the very interesting debate about language: can we please find another word instead of “genre”? Maybe there is a Welsh, Gaelic or Cornish word that we could use instead.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, if I may contribute briefly to this debate, I would not go as far as saying that I support the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, but I think it raises some interesting questions. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about the role of Parliament in making clear its expectations of Ofcom in discharging its responsibilities in regulating broadcasters is an important one and I will be very interested to hear more from my noble friend about the Government’s position on that.
One of my concerns more generally—I have raised it in the context of other Bills—is how we as parliamentarians can do our job properly in overseeing and properly holding regulators to account for the powers and responsibilities we give them through legislation. What the amendment really does, for me, is expose what I see as quite a strategic challenge, and I will be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says about this, because I find it a bit of a dilemma. On one hand, the vaguer the obligations on the public service broadcasters become, the harder it is to argue for the privileges they enjoy as public service broadcasters; on the other hand and by the same token, the more prescriptive the obligations on them are, the harder it becomes for them to compete in the modern media world. It gets to the heart of quite a dilemma. On that basis, I am very keen to listen to my noble friend, because I find this one of the knottiest and most difficult things to come to a hard and confident position on, in terms of the questions it raises. I look forward to what my noble friend says.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
When the Government first released Up Next, the White Paper that preceded the Bill, it made no reference to genres such as entertainment, drama, science and religion being removed from the remit, as they have been in this Bill. That is why this is an important question, and why we were very keen to add our name to the amendment from the noble Viscount. As other noble Lords have said, we have seen the effect—particularly with children—of what happens when we do not have specific mention of genres with which we can hold the regulator to account.
It is good that the public service broadcasters have issued reassurances that the new remit will not significantly impact on programming in the removed areas, but I agree with the noble Viscount that the addition of “appropriate range of genres” to the Bill is a small protection. We believe the removal of references to specific genres is still a matter of concern. We think that there is no guarantee, therefore, that Ofcom will be held to account to monitor. In many ways, this is what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds was talking about when he mentioned the matrix: how do we know that things have been delivered properly? That is why we support this amendment.
We do not propose that every genre would have to be addressed by every provider, but I hope the Minister can take on board what Amendment 9 proposes. Simplifying the remit is a worthwhile objective, but not if it is done at the cost of the kind of content that sets our public service broadcasters apart.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Viscount degrouped his amendment to give us a chance to look at genres again and in more detail. There was much overlap with the debate we had on the first group, so I hope he will forgive me if I am relatively brief and do not repeat myself but allude to what I said previously. It has, however, given noble Lords the opportunity to ask further questions and make further points.
Let me turn first to what the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, asked about the royal charter. It is not quite as simple as he expects. The Secretary of State must lay the final terms of reference for the royal charter review before Parliament, and a draft of the proposed charter and framework agreement must be laid before Parliament and debated by each House. Both Houses can, of course, hold the Government to account—as they do—for the way they go about their work on charter renewal. I hope that gives the noble Lord some further detail.
In relation to the question posed by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, there is no change to Ofcom’s accountability to Parliament through this Bill. It is accountable to Parliament and routinely appears before Select Committees, such as the one she chairs in your Lordships’ House.
On the question of genres—which I will continue to refer to in the Norman French because I do not know the Welsh or Gaelic words for it yet—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes. The point is, as my noble friend Lady Stowell put it, echoing the point raised by my noble friend Lord Vaizey in the debate on the first group, to strike the right balance with a streamlined remit that gets to the heart of what it is to be a public service broadcaster and does not dilute that. As I mentioned, we have added a new subsection (6) making clear that public service broadcasters must together produce a range of genres in order to fulfil the public service remit. Although we do not object to any of the specific genres that have been mentioned, we are concerned that reintroducing further granularity would serve only to complicate the role we have given Ofcom in regulating this important area.
We are confident that the streamlined remit treads the right line between providing the broadcasters with the flexibility to meet the new challenges of a market that changes very rapidly, as the noble Viscount is right to say, and ensuring that a wide range of genres will continue to reach our screens. The Bill ensures that Ofcom has the tools it needs to ensure that public service broad- casters continue to produce that wide range. It can take enforcement action, should it judge that a licensed public service broadcaster has failed to fulfil its public service remit, which includes making an adequate contribution to the overall public service remit for television.
My noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie asked in what circumstances the Government would consider using the delegated power in the Bill to add a quota for an underserved genre. That is set out in new Section 278A and follows a recommendation from Ofcom in its reports under Section 229 or 264 of the Communications Act. We would of course carefully consider any such recommendation alongside any other information from Ofcom, such as information from its market report conducted under Section 358, and information provided by the public service broadcasters and other providers in line with the process set out in new Section 278A.
With those further points, and reiterating my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull—which gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the distinction she was trying to make in her amendment and the relisting of genres that we value and are familiar with—I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support on this amendment. I think it proved that I was right to degroup it so that we could have a specific discussion about the need for genres.
The Minister said that it is going to be fine because we have Ofcom, which will oversee the remit and make sure that the PSBs give us good, broad content. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, warned us, this does not give Parliament anything like enough power to hold Ofcom to account. This is an issue we have had in this Chamber a number of times, on different Acts. We discussed it quite a lot on the Online Safety Bill and were very concerned by the enormous powers that were given to Ofcom and the inability to control them. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, suggested a parliamentary committee that could look at the way Ofcom carried out its powers.
There is obviously a battle between regulation and competition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said. The Minister is obviously content that new subsection (6) in particular is going to help direct the PSBs to deal with this problematical and knotty area. However, I remain unconvinced and extremely concerned that the fiercely competitive economic environment in which our PSBs find themselves will drive them inexorably away from serious factual programming and towards entertainment.
I hope that between Committee and Report the Minister will meet me and other noble Lords to discuss this issue, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Media Bill
Wednesday 8th May 2024
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 44-I(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (7 May 2024)
Baroness Thornton
“Review of children’s access to public service broadcast contentWithin six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on how to ensure that children have access to public service broadcast content.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require a review of how to ensure children have access to public service content.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I also enthusiastically support Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.
These are important matters. If the Bill is to look to the future, we must address the issue of what is happening to our children. On Second Reading in the Commons, my honourable friend Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow Secretary of State, said that the Bill is welcome but misses the opportunity to consider how we can secure the future of UK public service media for school-aged children. She echoed the Children’s Media Foundation’s concern that legislators are failing to recognise the realities of young people’s viewing and how this will impact on public service loyalty in the future.
We should thank the Children’s Media Foundation because it has done a huge amount of work on understanding the patterns of media consumption by children and how those patterns might impact on their chances of viewing public service media. If we all agree that public service content is important for adults, we can probably agree that it is equally important, if not more, for our children. Certainly, the high-quality public service content that our public service broadcasters can provide for children has powerful potential. For the last 75 years, it has been the envy of the world. It can promote well-being, give children an understanding of where they live, teach them British values of tolerance, provide entertaining forms of education to supplement their learning at school, and show a diverse range of role models. Ultimately, public service media can encourage children to value culture, crave knowledge and value characteristics of the citizens they have to become in due course.
However, due to several connecting factors, this sort of content is under threat. As technology has rapidly evolved, the children’s content landscape has fundamentally changed for ever. Children as young as toddlers have access to new devices and platforms. They can navigate apps on tablets and choose content they would like to watch. It gives them access not only to video on demand services, such as Netflix and Disney+, but to platforms such as YouTube and TikTok. The popularity of these forms of content are such that Ofcom estimates that less than half of three to 17 year-olds now watch live television. Similarly, of potentially 9 million school-aged viewers for the top-rated programmes on CBBC, there will be as few as 50,000 viewers in any one week. Similar numbers will request that programme on iPlayer. That number is a fraction of what we would hope it to be, given the importance of children’s public service content.
As well as declining viewership, there has arguably also been a decline in the amount of children’s content produced that could genuinely be considered to be public service. It is not that the industry is unaware of the problems surrounding children’s public service content. In 2022, when the Government brought the young audiences content fund to an end, more than 750 creatives and executives from the UK’s children’s content industry signed an open letter and campaigned to extend the fund for another three years. The likes of Channel 5 and Paramount are also working hard to keep their “Milkshake!” offering. They are increasing their year-on-year spend on children’s programming just to keep provision at the same level but, where there is a met need for commercial demand, valuable children’s content will inevitably continue to suffer.
There is almost nothing in the Bill to show that this combination of concerning trends and declining viewership, alongside declining content quality, has been identified. There are no meaningful measures to stop the problem escalating. Children’s content is included in the new, simplified remit in the first clause, but it does little to increase accountability or individual channels’ contribution to creating children’s public service content, or to recognise the changing trends in how children consume their media.
For all those reasons, the Children’s Media Foundation argued that we must urgently accept that children’s public service media are under threat and rethink how we can best protect them as part of the passage of this Bill. As a result, we propose that the Government conduct a review to better understand how we can secure children’s content long into the future. Such a review would be an opportunity to ask bigger questions than the Bill currently allows. For example, do we need to go where children are and broaden our concept of public service media for children, encouraging and promoting such content on the likes of Netflix, YouTube and TikTok? Do we need to learn lessons from the ambitions of the Online Safety Act 2023, and consider how algorithms serve content to young people—perhaps adjusting them to ensure that they promote diversity of thought rather than simply more of the same? Should we target PSBs to hit a number of hours consumed rather than a number of hours produced when it comes to public service media for children?
We do not claim to have the answers to these sorts of questions, but I believe they need to be explored. The UK must address the reality of the matter and accept that a new approach will be needed if we are to ensure that valuable content reaches the eyes and ears of young people across the country. I hope the Minister can acknowledge this, and I look forward to his response. I beg to move.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I fully support Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I have added my name, but I rise to speak to my Amendment 34, which says:
“Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on how to ensure that children have access to culturally relevant and age-appropriate original UK … content, and”—
importantly—
“how such content might be funded”.
The Children’s Media Foundation has summed up the two problems with UK children’s content as being about finding and funding, and we need to solve both. This amendment is very important as it is imperative that the Bill looks to the future and reflects what young people are doing now in their viewing, not what they used to do.
I have spoken previously about the crisis we face with respect to children’s media. At a time when our children are struggling to make sense of the world around them, we have allowed public service media for children to wither on the vine. A lack of investment and a failure of regulation have led to the current situation in which children and young people are no longer accessing this sort of age-appropriate and culturally relevant media content that can help them to navigate the challenges of growing up.
As adults, we quite rightly expect to have access to media content that speaks uniquely to us—dramas, factual programming and entertainment that embody the culture, values and concerns of our society. Why is it, then, that we seem prepared to deny our children the same opportunities? How can our children develop and grow to become citizens of this country if we continue to allow a media environment that fails to support or promote similar public media for children?
I am sure the Minister will say that this point has been considered by the Government and that the Bill is designed to ensure that our public service broadcasters will be required to offer the children’s audience appropriate levels of audiovisual content. But I am afraid that misses the point. My amendment would require a review to determine how we can ensure that children can access culturally relevant and age-appropriate, original UK content wherever they are watching or listening. The wording of the proposed new clause deliberately makes no reference to television services or to public service broadcasting, because I am afraid that for children and young people the old PSB system is simply irrelevant. They have no loyalty to our traditional broadcasters and very little interest in their platforms, except for the purposes of family co-viewing, which remains important and valuable.
I am concerned that the Bill in its current form does not address the needs of the children’s audience. When it comes to children’s personal viewing, as reported in great detail by Ofcom, the vast majority of their media content is found on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube and TikTok. That is where we must turn our attention if we hope to create a new public service ecosystem that meets the needs of children.
If we allow the Bill to remain focused solely on the provision of content by public service broadcasters, it will have failed the children’s audience from the outset. We have to ensure that this does not happen. There is a crisis of childhood and this Bill has a part to play in addressing the roots of that crisis. The current media lives of children and young people have impacted on their mental well-being, their engagement with society and culture, and the formation of their values. Some of that is the result of harmful content, and the Online Safety Act will go some way to address this, but surely we must also find a way to provide constructive and life-enhancing content to counteract any negative content that may find a way through to our children.
Here in the UK, we have one of the most creative and child-centred media production sectors in the world. We need a review to consider how to create conditions that will facilitate growth in children’s media production. This new content will, in turn, help our children cope with the unique challenges they face in the 21st century media landscape. But without appropriate funding, there will not be anything to see so it is vital that we find ways of increasing the revenue available for original UK children’s content, now that the Young Audiences Content Fund has, sadly, ended.
My amendment seeks to set in motion a process that will determine how children can once again have access to the same range of culturally relevant, trusted and life-affirming content that was made available to previous generations, in a form and on platforms that reflect the way that children and young people live today. So what are the solutions to finding suitable content? Ofcom has identified a dramatic shift in viewing habits among young people, particularly children over the age of seven. Our young people are now consuming content in so many different ways and via a variety of devices. They are flocking to services such as YouTube and TikTok, and watching content designed for adults. We have to work out how children and young people will find culturally specific and original UK content on those platforms in future.
Regulation could be one solution. It is very difficult for regulated commercial PSB broadcasters to invest in kids’ TV content. They do not have the scale of kids’ audiences, or a fraction of the revenue from kids’ content, that they once had. The ban on HFSS advertising some years ago speeded up the decline. The PSBs have been replaced by services such as YouTube, which alone takes in around £50 million a year in advertising revenue around unregulated children’s content.
If the young audiences fund is not coming back— I think it should—perhaps we need to look for inspiration from other countries which have put levies on streamers. EU rules allow countries to impose investment obligations to support local content and language. In France alone, Netflix has agreed to invest at least €30 million a year, either directly or through contributing to local film funds. I am encouraged by how this type of intervention could be used to help fund original UK children’s content. Interestingly, Australia is currently consulting on a proposal that would require streamers to invest 10% to 30% of their Australian revenue in Australian drama and children’s content.
I also understand that, for the first time, it has been suggested that such an obligation could be imposed on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube. This idea has been floated by the Government in Belgium, which will shortly be taking over the presidency of the Council of the EU, and which may therefore influence future EU policies—hurrah.
It is this type of thinking that we will need if our children are going to see the best UK-originated culturally specific children’s content, as we all did when we were growing up. I ask the Minister: will the Government consider these common-sense interventions at the same time as my amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton? The crisis is upon us and we need to act fast before we reach a point of no return. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Thornton, for their important contributions on the value of public service media for children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has also personally made huge contributions to this industry, not just through her time as a presenter—I count myself as one of her proud “Playschool” babies—but through her valuable championing of legislation in this space. This is a good opportunity for me to congratulate her on the wonderful news of the BAFTA Fellowship, the academy’s highest honour, which will be bestowed upon her this weekend. It is in recognition, as BAFTA has said, not just for her work on screen but her work in your Lordships’ House and outside it on the legislation that touches these important areas.
I will refer to both noble Baronesses’ amendments together. I strongly agree with them about the importance of ensuring that our children continue to have access to high-quality, original content which is relevant to their lives. The Government recognise that children’s television has a unique social and educational importance; it can be used to reflect and share our values and to support learning and development in a way that is fun and compelling for young people. My honourable friend Julia Lopez, the Minister for the Bill in another place, also feels passionately about this issue and has spoken about the significant impact that culturally relevant, original British programming can have on our children.
We are, however, aware of the challenges increasingly being faced by the children’s media industry, which the noble Baronesses alluded to. The way that our children are accessing content is changing rapidly, with shifts away from the traditional linear schedule and an almost endless digital library of global content easily accessible to them.
That is why we have included specific measures in the Bill to ensure that original British children’s programming, reflecting the lives of young people here in the UK, remains front and centre of the public service remit. I hope that sends a clear signal about the importance of high-value children’s programming being available to families across the UK on a free-to-air basis.
These updated remit requirements will complement Ofcom’s existing powers relating to children’s content. For example, the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, did on the Digital Economy Act 2017 resulted in the introduction of a section to the Communications Act specifically on this topic, allowing Ofcom to publish criteria on the provision of children’s programmes if it sees fit. This is supported by several of Ofcom’s ongoing reporting duties. In this way, the legislation already provides for considered assessment of the provision of the types of valuable content we have debated in this group. As the independent regulator, Ofcom is well placed to consider the broader market and how children are accessing content in an increasingly digital world. Of course, it has the powers given to it through the Online Safety Act, during the passage of which we debated some similar topics. It already has a wealth of experience in this area.
Ofcom’s current duties and reporting will continue to give us an invaluable insight into the challenges faced by the children’s television industry. This will be key to helping both the Government and industry to consider in the round, and in more detail, whether further work is needed in this important area. We will of course do that. In addition to this, as the noble Baronesses mentioned, organisations such as the Children’s Media Foundation have been doing some fantastic work recently to convene industry partners to look to the future and consider these important questions in more detail.
Amendments 12 and 34 would require reviews into children’s access to culturally relevant and age-appropriate original content, and children’s access to public service broadcast content respectively. Given the specific reference to children’s content, which we already have in the Bill, and given the extensive powers that Ofcom has to report and act in this space, as I have mentioned, as well as the updates we have made to allow flexibility to the ways in which the public service broadcasters can fulfil their remits, I am not persuaded that we need the amendments that the noble Baronesses have put forward. I would, however, certainly join them in recognising the importance of high-quality children’s programming, and I am glad for their continued vigilance in this area. I would be very happy to keep talking to them as we continue our scrutiny of the Bill, but I hope I have been able to reassure them that we have tried to cover this already in the Bill as it stands.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for her wonderful peroration and saying exactly the right things. I thank the Minister for his answer, but I confess to being disappointed, because if this Bill is about future-proofing, then it really does need to address what our children will be doing in the next few years in terms of what they are watching, what they are consuming and what they are hearing. I do not see anything in this Bill that is going to mandate Ofcom to do that kind of exercise of reviewing that. This is about the quality of what our children are viewing, and we certainly are not giving them any guidance on that. There is nothing in this Bill that does that. I do not think so: I have not seen that. That is what this amendment is about.
I am disappointed, and I hope we can continue to talk. Perhaps the conversation needs to be with Ofcom about what it thinks its remit is with regard to children. Perhaps that is the next conversation that we need to have. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“Delivery of public service content on relevant television servicesAfter section 264A of the Communications Act 2003, insert—“264B Delivery of public service content on relevant television services(1) OFCOM must monitor the extent to which the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is met in respect of relevant television services. (2) If OFCOM considers that the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is not being met in respect of such services, it may set whatever programming quotas it considers necessary to ensure that the remit is met.(3) For the purposes of this section, “relevant television services” means—(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC;(b) the television programme services that are public services of the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of section 207);(c) every Channel 3 service;(d) Channel 4;(e) Channel 5.””Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would give OFCOM powers to measure the delivery of public service content on the linear services of the public service broadcasters, and set quotas if it considered the current level to be unsatisfactory. This is to ensure access to content for viewers reliant on linear TV services.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 13 in my name hopes to force a discussion raised by these Benches and by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. The amendment seeks to introduce a safeguard so that, if Ofcom believes that delivery of PSB content on broadcast linear services is less than satisfactory, it will have the powers needed to set a quota to ensure that a certain proportion of public service content remains available to linear audiences through a broadcast signal. In short, quality should remain available to those families up and down the country who rely on their TV rather than watch online content.
This new clause makes no prescriptive requirements on how that should be achieved, nor does it set a specific figure on how many programmes might be available; it simply allows Ofcom to monitor the effects of the Bill. There is, and there is likely to remain, a section of the population for whom a broadcast signal is their sole connection to media, news, entertainment and information. Therefore, it is important that those people— some of whom more likely to be older citizens, families in rural areas and those struggling with bills as a result of the cost of living—are able to access their media. My husband regularly updates, as I told the House before, so I have ended up with an enormous television screen and lots and lots of choice willy-nilly, but I know that that is something that lots of families may not be able to afford.
This case has been argued extensively by the campaign group Broadcast 2040+, which is made up of a number of concerned organisations. We recognise that the direction of travel is that people are watching content online more than ever, but that does not mean there should be diminishing content on broadcast linear services, especially where that content caters to a local audience. That belief goes beyond the Bill and into wider worries about the impact that a digital-first strategy would have on traditional means of broadcasting, and, as a result, on audiences.
My new clause, therefore, introduces this safeguard and gives Ofcom the power to take action and monitor the effects of the Bill. As well as encouraging the Minister to accept this new clause, I also ask him to update us on whether the Government intend to support linear broadcasting beyond 2034, and, if they do not, what plans they are putting in place to manage possible transition away from linear services. This is just the beginning of the conversation. I beg to move.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 32, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for her support and for adding her name. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interest in the register as a board member of Creative Scotland.
My Amendment 32 seeks to protect the provision of digital terrestrial television—DTT. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, outlined, the current provision of DTT is due to run out in 2034. Without this amendment, we could see a decline in the universality of free-to-air public service broadcasting and the further exclusion of vulnerable parts of our population who are already digitally excluded. This amendment safeguards the long-term future of these services to ensure that broadcast TV and radio that is free at the point of consumption will continue to be available across the UK.
The recent World Radiocommunication Conference in Dubai secured digital terrestrial television’s place as the exclusive primary service in the crucial 470 to 694 megahertz frequency band across ITU region 1. This has secured reliable access to the radio frequency spectrum and regulatory conditions needed to deliver broadcast services such as DTT across the UK, and it solidifies their central role in the broadcasting landscape. However, I note that a further debate on spectrum use and future needs is scheduled for 2031, meaning that the call for certainty to 2040 and beyond is even more vital.
Let me be clear that I am not trying to act against the tide of progress towards IP delivery of television. However, I have spent far too much time looking at digital exclusion—most recently as a member of the Communications and Digital Committee of your Lordships’ House—not to understand the fatal flaws in believing that broadband provision will be the universal answer within 10 years. Our committee’s recent Digital Exclusion report noted that, even if rollout continues across the UK, take-up would not necessarily follow. Social broadband tariffs are still expensive; they are an additional monthly cost for the financially vulnerable—often with half the speed—and far too many people who could benefit from them do not even know that they exist.
Living in Scotland, I appreciate the fragility of the broadband network: how easily it is adversely affected by the weather and how so many parts of the country do not receive the speeds that are advertised by the providers. In fact, just this afternoon, I picked up on an email from a colleague from Alzheimer Scotland who has just done a piece of work on the impact on the elderly and vulnerable of BT moving all the telephone lines to digital. It is a shocking piece of work, looking at how this group has been left behind and how the telecom companies’ assurances about addressing the needs of vulnerable people have not been fully acted on.
A recent study by EY predicted that, regardless of rollout, more than 5.5 million properties in the UK will not have a high-speed broadband subscription in 2040. In contrast, DTT is free if you pay your licence fee. Yet, currently, these services, which the Digital Poverty Alliance describes as a “lifeline”, have no guarantee of a secure future. The Ofcom Online Nation report confirms that 6% of UK adults lack an internet connection at home. This is higher in Wales and Scotland, higher among older audiences—20% of people over 65 do not have an internet connection at home—and higher among people with disability, 11% of whom do not have one. As things stand, these populations face the threat of terrestrial TV being switched off forever within a decade, and many of the most vulnerable and excluded are in danger of being left further isolated.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 32, to which I have added my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, has made an excellent case—I am not sure that I need to speak, but I am going to regardless—for the longer retention of this significant broadcasting platform, which serves millions of households and is a vital lifeline for the many who will become members of the digitally excluded if there is no extension to the current regime. According to statistics from Ofcom, in 2021, around 7% of United Kingdom households relied solely on DTT for their television viewing, and it is currently accessible to 98.5% of the population—pretty much everyone. If and when this goes ahead, those who rely on DTT and cannot for whatever reason—whether it is poverty or otherwise—transition to satellite, cable or internet-based services will be cut off, and the people in that position will obviously be the most vulnerable or poorest.
Television plays a central role in the lives of many people, including me; I love television. It provides entertainment and information, as well as a sense of shared experience and companionship. For those who are not tech savvy or have no access to alternative forms of television, it will be devastating. Transitioning to those alternatives is expensive. Potential upfront costs for equipment such as satellite dishes, set-top boxes and smart TVs for households on limited budgets will be unaffordable. We will be looking at an increase in social isolation and loneliness and loss of mental stimulation and cognitive function, as well as loss of emotional well-being and stress relief. There will be a cessation of access to information and news and physical health impacts.
I assume that this is a probing amendment at this point. I hope that the Minister will agree to extend the deadline for the termination of DTT but will also say something about financial or other support for those who are literally dependent on DTT and who will be adversely affected by its termination should the Government not be swayed by the amendments.
The ending of DTT would also have implications for the broadcasting industry. Distribution strategies will need to change. There will probably be a need to renegotiate contracts with distribution partners and to invest in new technology to deliver content over alternative channels. There may be a loss of advertising revenue; costs to consumers for subscription fees to alternative services; equipment and infrastructure costs for both consumers and suppliers; and an economic impact on related industries, because the broadcasting industry is interconnected with various other sectors of the economy, including advertising, content production and technology manufacturing. Losing DTT will have ripple effects throughout those industries, leading to job losses, reduced investment and decreased economic activity.
We will also see the exacerbation of the digital divide, as so well documented, as the noble Baroness said, in the Communications and Digital Committee’s report, Digital Exclusion. There will be increasing disparities in access to television services between different socioeconomic groups. While urban areas may have access to a wide range of alternative services, rural and remote areas will have limited choices and poorer quality of service, which would further marginalise communities that already face barriers to accessing digital technology.
Further, DTT plays a critical role in emergency broadcasting, warnings to the public and so on. Having just gone through the Covid experience, we know how important that is. The loss of DTT could compromise the effectiveness of emergency broadcasting systems, particularly for individuals who rely solely on over-the-air broadcasting. The loss of DTT, which supports public service broadcasting, could also diminish the availability of programming that serves the public interest—we heard how vital that is in our earlier debate on the first group of amendments—including educational content, cultural programming and programming for minority audiences. It could also reduce diversity in the media landscape, particularly if alternative platforms prioritise commercial interest over public service obligations, which I fear may be the case.
The Broadcast 2040+ campaign, as has been mentioned, is fighting this corner and has two core messages to deliver to the Government. The first is that broadcast services are relied on by millions of people and must be protected, and the second is that the Government must act now to safeguard these vital national assets for the long term, into the 2040s and beyond. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to address the issues that I have raised, and I look forward to his response.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I was going to speak to these amendments, but they have been so comprehensively covered by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Fraser, and my noble friend Lady Featherstone that I will just say that I support the amendments and I hope that the Minister has listened and will respond positively.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her brevity. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses who have taken part in this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for tabling Amendment 13, which has facilitated an important debate about the provision of linear TV by our public service broadcasters. That is an important aspect of a wider debate about the future of the UK’s television distribution infrastructure.
With regard to linear television, in bringing forward this Bill, we have looked to strike a careful balance between allowing the public service broadcasters to deliver their content more flexibly and ensuring that this continues to suit the needs of audiences across the UK. Indeed, new Section 264(4)(a) of the Communications Act, introduced by Clause 1 of the Bill, requires that, for the remit to be fulfilled, the public service broadcasters must make available content in a manner that satisfies
“as many … audiences as practicable”.
I am glad to say there is an existing requirement on public service broadcasters to deliver a linear service, and they must use this, at a minimum, to deliver their news and current affairs quotas. This is a requirement in primary legislation, which Ofcom is required to report on and enforce. In sum, we know that many viewers still want to receive linear television—for example, over digital terrestrial television, satellite or on a hybrid TV—and the public service broadcasters are required to meet this need. I hope that what I have said today has reassured the noble Baroness that adequate protections for linear television are already in place, and that her Amendment 13 is not needed.
As for Amendment 32, from my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, I know that she has had the opportunity to discuss some aspects of the Bill with my honourable friend Julia Lopez, the Minister in another place, and I am grateful for her engagement on this issue. I know that she and other noble Lords are as keen as we are to ensure that our television distribution infrastructure continues to serve audiences across the UK. Her amendment looks to protect the future of digital terrestrial television, or DTT, the technology that underpins the popular Freeview platform. I am glad to reassure her and other noble Lords that the Government remain committed to the future of DTT. We know that millions of households across the UK rely on it, and we expect that situation to continue over the next decade. That is why we have legislated to secure the continuity of this infrastructure until at least 2034, as she mentioned.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others that this legislative commitment does not mean that DTT will automatically cease in 2034. The framework that supports its provision is set out in law, so even if nothing were done, Ofcom would still be able to re-advertise the multiplex licences, and our public service broadcasters would still be required to continue distributing linear channels over digital terrestrial television. In fact, to turn off DTT, there would need to be specific primary legislation; for example, to revoke the multiplexing regime. Should the Government of the day—who may still be us in 10 years’ time, or who may be somebody else—seek to bring forward such legislation, I have no doubt that your Lordships’ House would want to provide robust scrutiny of it. Given that legal position, my noble friend’s Amendment 32 would have limited effect, but I appreciate that it is also focused more broadly on ensuring that audiences across the UK remain protected and covered, and I am glad to say that that is our focus too.
To ensure that we continue to put audiences at the heart of policy in this area, of course we need to understand how their preferences are changing over time, because as many more people choose to watch some or all of their television online, and as the connectivity that allows them to do so gets better over time, the economic and public policy rationale for supporting DTT changes. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last year a project to consider the future of TV distribution, and it is why, just this morning, my honourable friend the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries, Julia Lopez, used a speech at the Digital Television Group’s annual summit to provide an update on the progress of this project, including sharing some of the early outputs of the independent research project we commissioned. I will be very happy to share a copy of my honourable friend’s speech if noble Lords would like to see it.
This project is taking a broad approach and must be allowed to consider all possible options for the future of broadcasting in the UK. For in this situation, even a decision to maintain the status quo would, in the context of changing viewership, have quite serious consequences. Audiences are at the heart of this project and, as Julia Lopez announced this morning, we will be launching a new project to engage viewers and make sure that we understand their perspectives. We have also commissioned a six-month independent research project from a consortium led by academics from the University of Exeter. We hope to be able to publish this research in the coming weeks, to help inform this important and continuing debate.
By taking the time to complete this project before making legislative changes, and working with world-class researchers in this way, we will be able to make an evidence-based assessment of what will best serve audiences across the UK, now and in the future. I hope that, on the basis of those reassurances, my noble friend will feel able not to press her amendment, but I know she will continue to maintain her scrutiny of this area of the Bill, not least through her work on your Lordships’ committee, as she mentioned.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. As she was speaking, I was thinking, “Oh, I wish I’d said that”. It was a very coherent laying out of the issues. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for her support.
It is clear that this is a process, and a discussion will be needed all the way through it. I hope that Broadcast 2040+ is involved in some of the research and consultation that the department is doing, because there are 5.5 million premises that do not have high-speed broadband at the moment, and whose critical traditional TV and radio services have to be protected. We have to be able to take that into consideration.
The thing that troubled me a little about what the Minister said—which was reassuring in many ways—is that this is a very permissive matter for Ofcom. It is permitted still to make and advertise the licences. The question then is why it would do that. What are the criteria it would use for doing that? Those are the issues we need to tease out. We probably need to do that in the next little while because of the process of this Bill, which is about future-proofing. We are talking about how we ensure that linear television and radio, and so on, are still available to those who need it in the future. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(2A) After subsection (1), insert—“(1A) The regulatory regime for Channel 4 includes the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing that, in each year, not less than 35 per cent of Channel 4’s total spend on qualifying audiovisual content is allocated to independent productions made by independent production companies with an annual turnover not exceeding £25,000,000.(1B) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1A) by substituting a different figure for the annual turnover specified in that section.(1C) Before making an order under subsection (1B) the Secretary of State must consult—(a) OFCOM,(b) Channel 4, and(c) independent production companies that are likely to be affected by the order.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would add an “SME Guarantee” for Channel 4 commissioning, requiring that at least 35% of Channel 4’s annual spend on qualifying audiovisual content is allocated to productions made by “indie” producers with annual revenues smaller than £25m. This amendment also provides the Secretary of State the power to amend, following consultation, the revenue figure defining the production companies eligible under the SME Guarantee.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance television producer who works for small independent production companies making content for public service broadcasters. I am also an officer of the Channel 4 APPG, so I speak as a critical friend to the channel. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for putting his name to this amendment. I also thank the many small independent companies to whom I have spoken, as well as Tom Chivers from the Media Reform Coalition, and Channel 4 itself.
I put down Amendments 14 and 15 to Clause 8 because I want to ensure that Channel 4 focuses its commissioning on future support for the SMEs. I hope the amendments will encourage the channel to expand its present commissioning process, which too often rewards large suppliers with large commissions. There will be much argument about the level of the cap below which companies qualify as SMEs. However, subsections (1B) and (1C) of this amendment give the Secretary of State the power to be flexible and alter the threshold figure if it proves to be too low for small drama producers, for instance, but only after she has consulted Ofcom, Channel 4 and independent companies.
Amendment 15 requires the criteria to be extended to an annual revenue of £25 million a year over five years. This would mean that a single large drama commission would not adversely affect a company’s status as an SME by pushing its annual revenue in a single year over the £25 million mark. The information on the company’s revenue will not be hard to find; it will be readily accessible in Companies House.
Channel 4 was set up in 1982 by Mrs Thatcher’s Government in order to break the duopoly of BBC and ITV. Its purpose was to disrupt the television ecosystem, which it did wonderfully well. Its aim was not just to have content different from the existing public service broadcasters and to reach new audiences, but to allow a thousand flowers to bloom. As Mrs Thatcher’s deputy, Willie Whitelaw, said:
“We must aim for a channel that says something new in new ways”.
He added:
“We must seek to provide an outlet for the talent of independent producers”.
Channel 4 has been very successful in encouraging thousands of people across the television industry to leave their comfortable staff jobs in the other public service broadcasters and take the risk of setting up small, independent television production companies. It created a culture in the media where independent producers became risk takers and small business owners, supplying a channel which aimed to reach minorities and poorly served audiences.
For much of the last few decades, Channel 4 has been at the centre of nurturing Britain’s independent television sector, which is the engine of our world-beating creative economy, the seed corn of the industry. But the media environment has changed dramatically in the last few years, both in content commissioning and in the supply side of the industry. Hundreds of small companies, which make up the lifeblood of the industry, have been bought up by mega television production companies such as Banijay and All3Media, which is owned by the American company Warner Brothers.
It is not surprising that these big companies have been so successful. In 2022, over three-quarters of Channel 4’s UK commissioning spend went to production companies with turnovers in excess of £25 million per year, while just 21% went to producers with annual revenues of under £25 million per year, despite these smaller companies making up more than half of all independent production companies in the UK.
Unfortunately, the latest figures, from 2022, show the percentage of Channel 4’s spend on commissioning from those bigger companies to have increased from 64% in 2020 to over three-quarters two years later, while the figures for the under £25 million companies have gone down from 36% in 2020 to 26% in 2022. This has happened at a time when Channel 5—which is privately owned—commissioned an amazing 81% of those smaller companies, a figure which has gone up even further in 2022.
This is contributing to the crisis in the industry, with commissions to smaller indies, and regions, collapsing. The latest BECTU survey of its members estimates that nearly three-quarters of its members are not working. Some 30% have not worked in the past three months, while 34% have had less than a month’s work since November 2023. As a result, there is a dramatic exodus from the industry, which has been one of the beacons of our economy. In February 2024, 37% of the respondents to the BECTU survey said that they were planning to leave the industry, with 40% of women and half of black respondents saying that they were going to look for work outside the sector within five years.
The money to build these small companies comes from the terms of trade, set up to ensure that they get the majority share of the back-end revenue from further sales of these programmes. This comes only from commissions by British broadcasters. US companies pay a straight production fee and keep all the back-end profit, so the Bill needs to focus on ensuring that British broadcasters support the future of up-and-coming content suppliers across the UK. The BBC is carrying much of the burden, but I and many other colleagues have fought hard to ensure that Channel 4 remains in public ownership. That mission having succeeded, the emphasis must be to encourage the broadcaster to support the next generation—the seed corn of television production.
I fear that Channel 4’s attitude can be summed up in its submission to Ofcom when renewing its 2024 licence, in which it said that
“the UK production sector continues to be significantly smaller outside London”,
with
“fewer production companies, often smaller in scale, and therefore with less capacity to develop creative ideas and produce them”.
This statement also relates to Amendments 16 and 17 in the next group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, which will support quotas for commissioning in the regions and nations.
I have been talking to small indies across the country and have been told horrendous stories of the Channel 4 commissioning process—or lack of it. One told me of a series being cancelled just three weeks before filming was due to start. Others had the extreme difficulty of getting programme ideas through the channel’s commissioning process.
I want to balance my statements by pointing out that Channel 4 is capable of commissioning astonishing programmes from small production companies, such as “The Push”, from a small Leeds-based company, Candour, which had good ratings, and told an important story from a diverse community, but there are not nearly enough of these. The channel did point out to me that its emerging indie fund has invested £17 million over the last four years, to identify and nurture emerging talent and to help them grow their businesses. The fund also provides guidance to selected indies about the Channel 4 commissioning process, to provide them with the skill set to pitch for further work. This help must, of course, be welcome, but it is not revenue from commissions.
This great channel, which is still one of the jewels of public service broadcasting, is battling against the headwinds of a fiercely competitive television economy. As it is a publicly owned company, I call on the Government to push it further in supporting SMEs and to help to bolster the future of our creative industries. Channel 4’s slogan is “4 All the UK”, and I ask the Minister at least to look at Amendments 14 and 15, to ensure that this publicly owned channel does just that.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I point out that I did not speak at Second Reading. I was here until 6 pm and then went off to speak at a long-standing engagement at Queen Mary University of London.
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I put my name to Amendment 14 because I strongly support his campaign, as he has explained it, to make sure that we do not get stampeded or bamboozled into policies because the world is changing, globalising and internationalising and we therefore think that certain things are inevitable. One of the things that we enjoy in the British broadcasting environment is that, for 100 years, we have been bucking the market. It was a Conservative Government that created the BBC as a public corporation safeguarded by a royal charter. It was a Conservative Government that introduced ITV as a confederation of regional television companies. Even today, ITV retains some of the DNA of that regional network; I still consider myself as coming from “Granada land”, and you can still find some of that company’s ethos in ITV today. As was pointed out, it was a Conservative Government, under Mrs Thatcher, that created Channel 4. Let us not be bullied; we have a good record of making television that is national—in the broadest sense—and distinctly British and that sets standards for others around the world.
Unfortunately, I cannot stay for the debate on the next group, but I crept into the meeting that was held on it. I felt like a Sassenach in the gathering of Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish people, putting the point, which has been proved time and again with a little nudging by government, that there is talent out there in the regions. But if you leave it just to the market, you have to make some effort to get results, because London is such a massive black hole of energy.
I am sometimes teased by my colleagues when I refer to the fact that I was on the Puttnam committee that gave pre-legislative scrutiny to the 2003 Act. One of the great advantages of the House of Lords is having that kind of perspective. When I look at that, I see that it was amazing that we got so many things right when we were not just looking through a glass darkly at what was happening. There was no internet and none of the technologies that have been developed in the last 20 years. In that Act, there were still various safeguards for making sure that our broadcasting ecology retained a British stamp to it—a British DNA—and that is why I support this amendment now.
I do not think that the idea for Channel 4 was to create a whole new industry of successful British indies, but that is what it did. It was perhaps too successful, in that many of those indies, as was referred to, were then swallowed up by other companies or themselves became big—not little—minnows.
However, that is the great effort: if we can keep this diversification of commissioning in Channel 4, and in the other countries and the regions, we are distorting the market to a certain extent but beneficially, by forcing it to find the talent in the regions and in the smaller companies. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in his intervention earlier referred to the crude market forces “squeezing out” those opportunities. I therefore hope that Channel 4 will think again.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 14 and 15 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Culross, seek to finesse the Channel 4 commissioning regime that has worked so well for this highly innovative channel. I was one of the sceptics when Channel 4 was first thought of, and I remember writing an article which challenged the model. However, I have been proven wrong over those 40-plus years.
As the noble Viscount explained, he seeks to add an “SME guarantee” by virtue of Amendment 14 to the commissioning process to further stimulate the growth of indie production houses, in particular those with revenues of less than £25 million. Amendment 15 qualifies this to average out the £25 million cap over a five-year period.
The first amendment would require at least 35% of the channel’s spend to be on companies with a revenue of less than £25 million. We on these Benches can see some merit in this approach, and certainly in the direction of travel, given that the strength of Channel 4 has been the diversity it has brought to production, and that it has led to far more production outside the M25 and the south-east.
I am highly conscious that Channel 4 is thinking long term about the removal of the publisher/broadcaster restriction and its potential impact on independent producers. The channel is keen to protect the ecology of small production companies. It argued in a briefing earlier in the year that a move to in-house should be gradual, over a five-year period, and should not alter the value it places on the importance of independent production houses. As it says, its partnerships with indie producers have led to these companies growing, expanding and owning their intellectual property. Moreover, it has helped to spawn a whole new industry.
I can see that increasing the qualifying independent production quota from 25% to 35% would probably strengthen the indie sector, so today we would do well to listen to the Minister’s responses as to the workability of the amendments. I think we all share a common view—I hope we do—that the uniqueness of the Channel 4 commissioning model is of immense value to TV production generally and the development of the market, innovation, and the high production standards that UK TV is internationally renowned for. The Channel 4 approach has helped to give an edge to that. The question is, ultimately, whether this is the most appropriate way of protecting that reputation and ensuring that we have a sustainable independent production output.
The noble Viscount has done us a service this evening in tabling these amendments. We know that we must be very careful in tweaking the commissioning approach; as the noble Viscount said, there are industry concerns that we must listen to, and we have to find the best way forward to protect something that has become uniquely valuable in TV production. It is something that we support right across the House.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The diversity of our world-leading television production sector is one of the main reasons that it is so successful. We have companies of different sizes operating all over the UK, focusing on genres ranging from specialist factual to high-end drama and everything in between. Last year, these companies delivered the highest sector revenues on record: just under £4 billion. Smaller producers are, of course, hugely important for ensuring a healthy production ecosystem, and the current regulatory regime for independent production has been very successful indeed in promoting and supporting them. Boosting this independent sector was one of the purposes behind the design of Channel 4. I do not want to make the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, feel old, but I was not around to be a sceptic at the time of those debates—they happened before I was born. But Channel 4 has, as I have said from this Dispatch Box, done a great service over the last four decades, and the regulatory regime has supported that too.
PACT, the industry body, estimates that there are more than 250 independent producers with an annual turnover of less than £1 million operating in the market today. Its statistics also show that 75% of independent producers have an annual turnover of less than £25 million. These are the producers that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had in mind, particularly with his Amendments 14 and 15. The issue of providing further support for smaller independent producers is one that we have looked at closely, most recently through our work on the mitigations to accompany the removal of Channel 4’s publisher-broadcaster restriction, which noble Lords have noted.
The clear message from the sector when we did that was that the measures which singled out smaller producers specifically—for example, via a turnover threshold, as the noble Viscount’s Amendment 14 proposes—would not be welcome on the grounds that they would be anti-competitive and penalise success. Producers want an incentive to win more commissions and grow their businesses, not to stay small. Those we spoke to also raised concerns that such measures would be difficult for Ofcom to enforce and could lead to increased monitoring and compliance costs for the regulator. Although these issues are addressed in part by the additional flexibility which the noble Viscount offers through his Amendment 15, the overarching concerns that we have with this approach still stand.
The Government recognise that this is a challenging time for producers and the production sector because of the slowdown in commissioning activity as a result of the downturn in the television advertising market, and we are taking steps to support producers and the production sector at this time, including the generous tax reliefs across studio space and visual effects, investing in studio infrastructure, supporting innovation and promoting independent content through the UK Global Screen Fund, but, for the reasons I have set out, we do not feel that we are able to support the amendments which the noble Viscount has put before us, but we are grateful for the opportunity to have this debate.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I think we all agree that we want to try to encourage the diversity of Channel 4, which has been so successful in creating a vibrant independent sector. But the truth is that the small indies that I have spoken to are having a really hard time. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord McNally, for talking about the diversity of the production sector and the role that the channel has played in helping that to develop. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the regulatory regime as it stands having been successful in developing the market, and that his work with PACT and other producers has delivered a message that the sector and small producers do not welcome any kind of threshold, which I am suggesting in this amendment.
All I can say is that I have spoken to a great many small independent production companies across this country. They are really struggling; they are having a really hard time getting their commissions even looked at, let alone getting any kind of positive response. I ask the Minister to go back and talk to some of the smaller ones—not just PACT, but some of the smaller indies as well. I know that the Conservative Government see themselves as being on the side of entrepreneurs, so I encourage the Minister to do all he can to support the courageous and determined men and women who have set up these independent production companies across our country and made the sector so successful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Media Bill
Monday 20th May 2024
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 44-II(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (17 May 2024)
“(4A) After subsection (6) insert—“(6A) When determining the number of hours OFCOM consider appropriate under subsections (1) and (3), they must ensure that the number of hours would result in at least 50% of programmes broadcast, measured both by hours and expenditure, being made outside of London and 16% from the nations of the United Kingdom other than England, in proportion to their relative populations.””
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 16 and 17 in my name and in doing so I declare my interests as laid out in the register as a board member of Creative Scotland. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, who has added her name, has asked me to apologise to the House as she cannot be here in time today due to a prior engagement in Northern Ireland, but she wanted me to indicate that the points I will be making have her strong support from a Northern Irish perspective. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle for their support, which is greatly appreciated.
Never before have I stood up in this House and felt such a weight of responsibility on my shoulders. My amendments have the backing of all three devolved Administrations, the screen agencies of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, industry bodies from across the nations and regions as well as countless numbers of independent production companies. The noise outside this Chamber and outside London is deafening, and it is united.
The Media Bill is to be welcomed, and I know the Minister and the Secretary of State—and, indeed, all of us—wish it to pass quickly. However, if it passes unamended, it will have ignored the vibrant but delicately balanced screen ecologies in the nations and regions of the UK, and it risks removing the foundations upon which those thriving screen sectors have been able to build: namely, commissions from PSBs, the very channels for whom representing the lives and experiences of the nations and regions of the UK should be at their heart.
According to the Office for National Statistics, around 68 million people currently live in the UK. About 10 million people live within the M25, but, like much of our politics, our media can often be seen as being too London-centric. My amendments seek to ensure that public service broadcasters provide a suitable range of programmes for the roughly 58 million people who do not live in London, and that a proportionate share of those programmes are made outside London by the talented people who live and work all across the UK. That these should be measured by both hours and expenditure would ensure that PSBs did not simply fulfil their regional quotas with low-value daytime live discussions.
Section 287 of the Communications Act 2003 required Channel 3 to provide a sufficient amount and a suitable range of regional programmes, including news and current affairs, regulated by Ofcom quotas obligated by its licence. If it were not for those quotas then the plurality of news in the nations and regions provided by ITV and STV, in addition to that of the BBC, would be lost. Equivalent requirements and national and regional quotas apply to the BBC under the BBC framework agreement.
The BBC and Channel 4 have already responded to criticism that they do not reflect the public they serve by moving part of their workforce outside of London to regional centres in Salford, Leeds, Bristol and Glasgow. During the debate around the proposed privatisation of Channel 4, its chief executive, Alex Mahon, speaking at the opening of the channel’s new studios in Leeds, argued that privatisation would inhibit the channel’s plans to expand outside London and help the levelling-up agenda. Ms Mahon led a campaign against privatisation by declaring that Channel 4 was “for all the UK”, and regional producers in the nations and regions stepped up to support it. However, as soon as privatisation was taken off the table, Channel 4 abruptly stopped developing its commissioning capacity outside London, recently making its most senior commissioner in Leeds redundant and losing one of its small Glasgow-based commissioning team.
Ofcom requires that the BBC must ensure that in each calendar year at least 16% of the hours of network programmes made in the UK are made outside England, and at least 16% of the BBC’s expenditure on new network programmes is applied across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is in line with the three home nations’ share of the population. My amendments would simply extend those requirements to all public service broadcasters, ensuring that these public assets deliver fairly for all the UK.
If we do not have such regional quotas then we risk not having any of the production centres of which we are so rightly proud, and in that case Amendment 54 from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, becomes somewhat academic. As much as I wish to support him in requiring Ofcom to ensure that the out of London nations and regions production criteria support inward investment in regional production centres, while encouraging the pipeline of talent from across the UK to thrive, without national and regional quotas the only option to fulfil any regional out of London production would be by brass-plating.
Channel 4 is a commercially funded but publicly owned PSB. It does not produce regional news content as ITV and STV do, but to date it has played an extremely important role in the success of the UK’s creative industries, pioneering innovation in, investing in and stimulating the production sector and acting as a world-leading accelerator. However, despite Channel 4’s “for all the UK” campaign, it has had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Ofcom into accepting the rise of its out of England quota to only 9% in 2020, and it has recently argued for that 9% minimum to sustain across the next decade, on the basis that producers outside London are too small.
This Bill will remove the existing publisher/broadcaster restriction and give Channel 4 valuable new flexibility to make some of its own content. While I understand the Government’s desire to ensure that Channel 4 is able to grow and better compete in the age of streaming giants, they are giving away the very thing that makes Channel 4 unique among PSBs, at no cost to the taxpayer but of considerable importance to the regional creative economy and independent production sectors. They are doing so without demanding anything in return. As a publicly owned PSB with its own stated strong commitment to represent the whole of the UK and to stand up for diversity across the UK, surely the Government must ensure that Channel 4 fulfils this remit for the benefit of the UK as a whole, supporting the sustainable growth of the industry outside London and across all four home nations.
My amendments do nothing other than echo the voluntary commitments that Channel 4’s chairman and chief executive have already made. In November last year, Sir Ian Cheshire issued a statement saying:
“Channel 4 remains entirely committed to its presence, programme-making and impact across the Nations and Regions. This includes its commitment to regional producers, voluntary investing 50% of its commissioning budget outside of London”.
I am asking the Minister therefore to write this voluntary commitment into the Bill, along with a separate nations’ quota in line with that of the BBC. According to the independent producers’ industry body, PACT, increasing these quotas to 50% outside London and 16% outside England would cost Channel 4 only an additional £136 million over 10 years—just over 2% of its anticipated budget for new programmes across the next decade. The benefit to the creative economy across all the UK, to British audiences and to Channel 4 itself would be significantly higher.
Channel 4’s resistance to increasing national and regional quotas to match the BBC’s has caused what I can only describe as a real stushie among the independent producers, the freelance TV talent, the devolved Administrations and the screen agencies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, all of whom have written to Ofcom—and I am delighted to see its chairman in his place—and made public their desire for national and regional quotas and their support of my amendments. I am grateful to the three screen agencies—Screen Scotland, Northern Ireland Screen and Creative Wales—and PACT, as well as the many independent producers who have engaged with me and many other noble Lords in preparation for this debate, and who recently felt so strongly about this that they made the effort to come to the House to brief us in person. I can only apologise to them that voting on the safety of Rwanda rather truncated our discussions on that day.
The independent producers who recently wrote a public letter to Ofcom, urging it to reconsider the lifting of the current production 91% “made in England” production quota for Channel 4, are long-term, trusted suppliers of Channel 4, ITV and the BBC, as well as Netflix, Disney+, Sky, Amazon and National Geographic among many others. They cannot be dismissed as being “too small” for the PSB broadcasters to work with. The key to fostering and safeguarding the regional TV production sector lies in securing network commissions, not just ad hoc regional talent and skills schemes.
Quotas work. Both the BBC and Channel 4 have met them regularly and this has fostered significant economic and creative growth across the UK since 2003. Quotas are critical to ensuring that the infrastructure of the thriving creative industries that have been so successfully built up over the last two decades is maintained and not jettisoned. Quotas are essential to ensuring that our PSBs truly reflect, on-screen, the voices and stories of the people they serve throughout the different parts of our United Kingdom. This is in the best long-term interests of those broadcasters. If the Minister is not minded to accept my amendments as tabled today, I ask him and his team to work with me and the regional agencies to ensure that the commitment to representation throughout the UK for public service broadcasting is reflected robustly within the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. I agree with very many of the points she made, particularly the emphasis that she has. I wish to speak to my Amendment 54, which stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Smith of Llanfaes and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, whose support I welcome. It proposes a new clause entitled “Evaluation of nations-based production”, and was tabled by my colleague Hywel Williams MP in Committee in the other place but did not get debated.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. I am also an officer of the Channel 4 APPG.
I am pleased to have put down my name to Amendments 16 and 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie. I very much support the principal aim of these amendments, which is to push content commissioning towards the regions and nations. I will also focus my comments on the publicly owned Channel 4.
These amendments complement my amendments in the previous group, which demanded more support for small independent television producers. The majority of SMEs are in the regions and nations, which Channel 4 should support. In doing so, it will support SMEs. These small companies are the lifeblood of the television production industry. They are often in areas where stories and lives are not covered by the mainstream media. It is in these places that the untold stories from an underserved audience will spring. After all, fresh ideas and stories from places overlooked by the metropolitan-based companies are surely central to the PSBs’ remit.
The production base in the nations and regions has come a long way in the last 20 years. With the growth of STV and the establishment of a Channel 4 lifestyle programmes production base in Glasgow, there has been a big increase in the number of people employed in the industry in Scotland, but the regional hubs in Cardiff and Scotland are struggling in the present climate. Now is the time for Channel 4 to play its part in the continued expansion of production talent across the industry.
It is a long-held view by many in the industry that it is expensive to commission from the nations. They say that staff have to be sent up from London, with all the extra costs that incurs. Surely, the response to that is to ensure that Scottish and Welsh independent companies are commissioned. They will employ producers and talent they know and trust, who will most probably be local. They will carry out post-production locally and employ indigenous Scots, Welsh or Yorkshire editors, graders and sound engineers in facilities houses based near them. The aim of these amendments is to build a big enough indigenous talent base that local staff can be employed and their work can go some way to reflect the parts of the United Kingdom they live in.
The present crisis of commissioning in the industry, for both scripted and unscripted programmes, has meant that not just small companies but medium-sized companies are closing. As a result, the Scots, Welsh and regional facilities houses are also closing and struggling. The lack of work has meant that people are leaving the industry, and the promises of expanding production bases in the regions and nations are dying. At this rate, the naysayers in the industry will be right: it will be too expensive to produce programmes in the nations and regions, because talent will have to come from London and the south-east, if not from abroad.
In my speech on the first day in Committee on the need for Channel 4 to focus on commissioning from SMEs, I read out the channel’s submission to Ofcom for licence renewal, which claimed that the smaller scale of the production sector outside London meant that the companies in the regions and nations were not able to develop or realise big ideas. This statement reflects badly on Channel 4’s view of television production in the parts of the country affected by Amendments 16 and 17. Not surprisingly, Scots indies responded that, far from being unable to develop and deliver big ideas, they were capable of making programmes for the biggest streamers and broadcasters in the world. I can say from personal experience of working with American commissioners that they are very demanding. If a company can supply a streamer or an American broadcaster, it can almost certainly supply Channel 4.
However, unfortunately, while those international commissions prove that the indies in the nations have talent and capacity, the revenues generated from them are not sufficient to sustain the production bases. They often pay a straight production fee with little back end, unlike the terms of trade that British channels use when dealing with indies, guaranteeing them the back-end revenue to build their businesses.
The letter by the Scots production companies continued:
“As a publicly owned public service broadcaster with a stated ‘strong commitment to represent the whole of the UK’ and ‘to stand up for diversity across the UK’, Channel 4 must fulfil its remit for the benefit of the UK as a whole and support the sustainable growth of the industry outside of London”.
The CEO of Channel 4, Alex Mahon, responded shortly afterwards, in April this year, when she told the Creative Cities Convention in Bristol that there had been questions about making the quota bigger. She said:
“We will try and do more because we need to think more carefully about how we represent people on air. It is time to make that shift to support companies more sustainably”.
Since then, Channel 4 has issued a statement to me, saying that
“we are announcing that we would support, in principle, a managed timely and carefully considered increase in our commitment to programme making in the nations”.
However, Channel 4 did not go any further on the detail of this proposal, or reveal by how much it would increase its spend in the nations and regions. It is leaving it up to Ofcom to decide the appropriate quota.
Once again, Parliament is leaving an important decision to be made by Ofcom. As Bills pass through this House giving Ofcom increasing power, it is beholden on us parliamentarians to give the regulator guidance. Parliament, not Ofcom, should decide the national and regional quotas for content commissioning. We must do what we can to encourage one of our great public service broadcasters to stand by its chief executive’s words, to support companies more sustainably and to increase the quota to the nations beyond 9%. I ask the Minister to support the figure of a 16% quota in the nations and 50% outside London.
Channel 4 reset itself in 2020, with the slogan “4 All the UK”. At the time, Ofcom increased its quota for the nations from 3% to 9%. However, now is the time to go further. Channel 4 aims its commissioning strategy at fewer, bigger, better programmes. I ask noble Lords to consider where that leaves the middle ground—the hundreds of hours of television annually filled by content with a medium spend. These companies are the backbone of the industry outside London and are suffering from the present commissioning strategy. As one of the leading figures in Scottish television, Alan Clements, who runs the independent production company Two Rivers Media, said:
“If you make your corporate slogan 4 All The UK, then you really need to walk the walk as well as talk the talk”.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 16 and 17, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, to which I am pleased to have added my name in support.
Our country is one of diversity. The four nations that make up the UK include many regions, each with its own culture, sense of humour, accent, concerns and interests. As public service broadcasters are owned by the whole of the UK public, it is important that they truly reflect the public they serve in all their regional diversity.
I regrettably could not be present for the first day in Committee to support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, seeking to ensure that our PSBs reflect the diversity of this nation through the protection of Gaelic broadcasting, which is part of the wider landscape that these amendments speak to. I hope that I will be present to express my support on Report.
With Channel 4’s current quotas, 91% of its production is reserved for England and 65% for London. Its London-centric attitude to production is confirmed through its claim that
“the UK production sector continues to be significantly smaller outside London … there are fewer production companies, often smaller in scale, and therefore with less capacity to develop creative ideas and produce them”.
Along with independent production companies across the country, I dispute this. The BBC has not faced difficulties adhering to its higher regional quotas, and indeed demonstrates that significantly expanding production networks outside London is possible and yields positive results that attract interest and further investment.
Ensuring support for the creative sector outside London requires intentionality. New and smaller production companies cannot grow without regular and sustained employment. Implementing quotas would ensure that these businesses receive regular income in the longer term, allowing them to grow while nurturing local talent and skills.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, outlined in her excellent speech, quotas work. The BBC now aims for 60% of its TV production to take place outside London by 2027-28, and its production bases in cities throughout the country demonstrate how the industry is capable of diversifying its production locations, employing staff from local economies. These amendments would simply place the same quotas on other public service broadcasters.
In March the Government confirmed funding towards the development of Crown Works Studios in Sunderland—a very welcome investment. The potential for the north-east in this sector is at last gaining recognition. It should be partnered with legislation to ensure that studios outside London, such as Crown Works, are fully utilised by public service broadcasters. With Northumbria University ranking second in the Guardian’s latest university league table for film production, our region is not lacking in talented, skilled and creative minds in this sector; what is lacking is opportunity. Those who want to pursue a career in broadcasting are being pulled away from the region to London, taking their skills with them. Those who remain in the region face a lack of opportunity. For many, their talent and potential are left unfulfilled. These amendments seek to change this narrative.
By placing a requirement on Ofcom to ensure that PSBs produce 50% of their programmes outside London and 16% outside England, in proportion to each UK nation’s relative population and measured by both hours broadcast and expenditure, these amendments would equitably spread opportunity across the country’s regions. The different regions and nations throughout the UK are rich in creative skills, and we are all left poorer if we continue to neglect them.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments is of great importance to the independent television production sector in Wales. Amendments 16 and 17 relate to how much commissioning is done outside of London by channels 3, 4 and 5. Amendment 54 relates to the issue of brass plating. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for tabling these amendments. I have added my name to Amendment 54 and support all three amendments, as do my colleagues on these Benches.
Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru represents the independent sector of Wales and is made up of some 50 companies of varying sizes. They produce content for BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky. They also produce almost all the original television and online media content for S4C. Their continued success helps the Welsh and UK economies. They do, however, rely on the continued support of our UK public service broadcasters, including Channel 4, which has brought greater resource to working with TV production companies throughout the UK in recent years. Over the last five years, the resource from Channel 4 has never fallen below 54% in the commissioning of out of London hours, and never below 45% in spend. Channel 4 has committed to a future level of 50% of spend and hours outside of London against the 35% requirement in its licence, and has created hubs throughout the UK to enable this. There is nothing to indicate that it will deviate from this commitment.
I can understand the disappointment felt by many in the sector who have learned that Ofcom has not opted to raise the out-of-London quota from its present level of 35% in its proposed new licence for Channel 4. It appears that Ofcom perhaps does not recognise that Channel 4 has changed its commissioning structure and approach. This failure to recognise the reality of Channel 4’s current out-of-London commissioning commitments leaves the independent television production sector in Wales in a quandary. It believes that the 35% quota level set by Ofcom is not fit for purpose.
The reality is that Channel 4 has, over the last five years, achieved a level of out-of-London hours commissioned of between 54% and 66%. To retain the 35% level within the new licence is very much in direct contrast to the current reality. Amendments 16 and 17 would put a commitment in the Bill to the 50% figure for hours and spend by Channel 4.
Amendment 54, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, deals with brass plating and calls for a new clause to be inserted after Clause 36. This new clause would protect Wales’s production companies. These companies are set up by local production and business talent, have their headquarters in Wales, employ locally and spend in their communities. However, the present situation allows a TV company from outside Wales, or any of the devolved nations, to establish a small satellite presence in the nation in order to win a network PSB commission and qualify for the out-of-London commissioning quota. This, of course, is what is referred to as brass plating.
Welsh independent production companies acknowledge that the aim of the present system is to grow production services around the UK and that, in so doing, it seeks to ensure that a wide range of voices, stories, talent and perspective is delivered to UK audiences. But there are concerns within the sector in Wales that brass-plating has a number of downsides, which have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. First, the profits from the production flow back out of Wales, leading to less investment in the sector in Wales. Secondly, talent ends up being recruited from outside Wales, limiting the opportunities for Welsh production talent to work on UK-wide and international shows. Thirdly, in some cases, the programme will have less of a Welsh identity or even make factual errors.
Amendment 54 ensures that there are clearer guidelines as to what constitutes a substantive base in a devolved nation, that there is a commitment by a production company to remain in the nation for a specified amount of time and whether a production company has had a presence in the nation for at least 36 months. The independent television production sector in Wales is clear that these amendments are not a deterrent to inward investment. That inward investment is welcome, but on its present basis it encourages a hit-and-run approach by companies from outside Wales and puts Welsh independent production at a disadvantage.
Taken together, these amendments seek to regularise how much commissioning is done outside London and seek to create a more level playing field for those independent production companies operating in the devolved nations.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I support all three amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and agree with almost all that has been said already. I apologise to the Committee for having been unable to speak at Second Reading, so I shall be brief.
This amendment seeks to ensure that production companies which claim to have a base in Northern Ireland, Scotland—and of course Wales—in order to win their share of out-of-London commission, do genuinely have a base in wherever they claim to be. Naturally, the focus of my concern is for the impressive TV and film production sector in Wales, although my comments could apply equally to the other devolved nations.
There are some 50 TV production companies in Wales active at any one time, making shows for all the UK public service broadcasters, including the Welsh language channel, S4C, so very useful for us Welsh learners, with or without its subtitles. Some are also involved in international coproduction and commissions. Indeed, Cardiff is the third-largest production base in the UK.
Indigenous TV production companies invest heavily in the Welsh sector, spending in the local economy, training and developing staff as well as investing in facilities. For example, Rondo Media recently partnered with S4C and Creative Wales to set up the Aria Film Studios in north Wales. We also have Wolf, Dragon, Swansea’s Bay Studios and Gorilla—there is a theme here—Wales’s largest post-production company, based in Cardiff Bay. This makes it all the more the important that brass-plating—that is, as we have heard, companies setting up a small satellite presence specifically to win a PSB commission—is prevented.
Although Ofcom already publishes guidelines which set out three criteria, any two of which should be met to qualify, it is felt that although the letter of the guidelines might be being followed, perhaps the spirit of them not so much. This amendment is not intended in any way to inhibit inward investment. It is more designed to ensure that there is a clearer guideline as to what constitutes a substantive base in terms of the company being well established in Wales. This means not only that more talent can be homegrown, but that the profits from Welsh productions may flow back into the sector in Wales, providing a virtuous circle. It might also have the additional benefit of ensuring that mistakes are not made in relation to Welsh culture, nor stereotypes reinforced. I wholeheartedly support all these amendments.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 16 and 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie. I will not repeat the excellent arguments that she and her co-signatories and indeed others around the Committee have already made. I would like to briefly underscore one important aspect of her amendments: the importance of regional production and commissioning in levelling up opportunities for creatives and communities.
On the first day in Committee, I spoke to my Amendment 2, which aimed to recognise and enshrine the symbiotic relationship between public service broadcasting and the broader stimulation of a thriving creative economy across the UK. What gets shown on screen is a very important part of that, and Amendments 16 and 17 would help to ensure that programmes indeed reflected the lives and concerns of communities across the UK, as the first clause requires.
The impact of the amendments goes beyond what is seen on screen; they would also impact what we see on the ground—marked regional inequality in the creative industries, which has worsened since the pandemic. The policy and evidence centre’s 2023 report, Geographies of Creativity, revealed that the concentration of the UK’s creative industries in London and the south-east remained unvaried throughout the pandemic. The same cannot be said about the creative industries outside that area. The north-east presents a particularly worrying picture, as it experienced a growth rate of 81% between 2011 and 2019, the highest across the country, but the most severe decline during the pandemic. The region’s share of the UK’s creative economy was 1.9% in 2011, rising to 2.7% in 2019 but falling back to 2% in 2022. The pictures in other regions outside London and the south-east are not dissimilar. That data tells us something compelling: while the creative industries hold immense economic potential across the UK, that economic potential is at risk without adequate support and protection.
Lord Dunlop (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendments 16 and 17, introduced persuasively by my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and, not least, to add another Scots voice to the many Welsh voices that we have heard already.
The independent production sector has naturally been concerned about the implications for Channel 4’s commissioning role of the removal of the existing publisher-broadcaster division. However, following the decision not to proceed with privatisation, providing Channel 4 with the flexibility to make its own content is a logical step that deserves support. As my noble friend made clear, one of the strengths of Channel 4 is its commitment to represent the whole of the UK in all its diversity. It would be a backward step if, in giving Channel 4 greater flexibility, its role as an innovator and investor, stimulating the production sector in all parts of the country, was compromised. We often question whether our news media organisations sufficiently reflect the full diversity of the UK, and the same concern exists for the making of programmes. That is why we ask the BBC to meet quotas for network programming outside England and in each of the home nations.
As we have heard, there is tremendous creative talent outside the M25, including a vibrant sector in Scotland. That is also why some of the biggest global brands commission programmes from independent producers in the nations and regions, as indeed Channel 4 has done historically. However, if in this new world producers in the nations and regions are to remain at the forefront of the minds of Channel 4 commissioners, quotas as proposed by my noble friend are a proven means of providing them with the right incentives without unduly constraining Channel 4’s future room for manoeuvre.
Channel 4, while commercially funded, is a public asset. I believe that quotas are a proportionate measure to reflect its special place in our media landscape. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to work with my noble friend Lady Fraser to provide the reassurance that the independent producers in the nations and regions are seeking.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, one of the great values of Committee stage for Ministers and regulators is that it gives them a warning of trouble ahead if they do not listen to what is said during it. This debate has been a very good example of that. I do not think Parliament is satisfied yet that we have the balance right in the ecology that we are trying to create.
It is interesting to remember that our broadcasting system is a child of Parliament and not of government or regulators. Over the last 100 years, Parliament has tweaked the market to do various good things. It created a national broadcaster under royal charter; most social historians would say that the BBC as created did much to unify the nation—it certainly brought certain accents to the fore, such as those of Wilfred Pickles and JB Priestley, which had not been heard before in London.
We are at a kind of turning point again. Of course, we are going through a revolution, the management of which is perilous for many in the major companies. As has been said in some of the briefings to us from ITV and others, the more we put demands and conditions on public service broadcasters, the more difficult it is for them to compete. It is about getting a balance right between the benefits we get and the benefits we give to PSBs and their ability to compete in this rapidly changing world.
I went to the meeting that the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, organised, and it was very interesting to hear the passionate interventions from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. However, as has also been said today, the development of talent outside London has also been significant. I still think of myself as coming from “Granadaland”; it is very difficult now to realise just what an impact Granada had on the north-west and on its confidence. In a way, there was no great plan, but it was a magnificent piece of genius to create ITV as a federation of regional companies, and from those regional companies came many benefits.
I am not sure how deeply Willie Whitelaw and others thought when they created Channel 4 and gave it that commissioning role, but it has certainly had a massive impact on the creative sector. I want us to make sure—this is the only intervention I make on this—that the Minister accepts the invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and that Ofcom, if it is listening, also realises that there is deep concern in Parliament that what comes out of the Bill retains what has been one of the great benefits of our development of the media, which is that we have found, nurtured and developed talents in the regions. The real danger in saying that we are going to concentrate on big productions and so on is that we get the bland and the international, and not what has been the great benefit of the development of our television and our broadcasting—the talent and the voice of the regions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this debate has been a fascinating example of how the nations and regions are well represented in the Committee. We have heard contributions from Wales, Scotland, Newcastle and across the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, argued very persuasively that quotas work. These amendments are aimed in a targeted and precise way at the hours and expenditure on programmes broadcast that are made and produced outside London. Amendment 17 additionally reflects this by reference to
“the nations of the United Kingdom”.
Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, seeks to ensure that there is a proper evaluation of companies that claim to operate in the nations of the UK by reference to criteria based on staff numbers, a published commitment to remain and a background of time spent in that nation.
We on these Benches have a great deal of sympathy and offer our encouragement and support to the principle behind these amendments. The last 20 or so years have seen, as we touched on in earlier debates, the growth of production outside London. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us, regional production was a great strength of the federated ITV companies. Their big opportunity in the late 1950s and 1960s led to such great companies as Granada Television and Harlech Television. Surely the latter is the only time that a Lord has given his name to a TV company, but the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—who is in his place—was clearly a pioneer. Independent production companies now work from all over the country; although some of them are suffering the difficulties that have developed from the direction of travel for advertising revenue, that is one of the great strengths of our media landscape.
The Government have chosen to change the way in which the provider of a licensed public service channel delivers its regional production quotas. The key question for the Committee and the Government to consider is whether the percentages set out in the amendment are the right ones for Ofcom to work to and how best to ensure that the necessary flexibility is retained within the quota system. We see regional production in the context of reflecting the diversity of the nations that make up the UK—diversity in a wider sense—and the need to reflect better our rich regional cultural diaspora, which a number of noble Lords have made wonderful reference to this afternoon.
It is also important to ensure that we recognise the value that TV production can bring in levelling-up. Why should TV production be concentrated in the wealthier parts of the UK and overconcentrated in the south-east and London? There are big disparities in regional wealth in this country—some of the biggest, largest and most extensive across Europe—and TV can do much to address that. To their credit, the PSBs have all made attempts in the last decade or so to decentralise production and bring about a transformed media landscape—Channel 4 in Leeds and Glasgow, the BBC with its MediaCityUK, and ITV devolving some of its production and major locations. As legislators, surely our role is to strengthen and enhance this. For that reason and others, these amendments are very welcome. I hope that the Minister responds positively to the spirit of these amendments.
On the issue of regional TV and its importance to production, has the Minister given any thought to the future of the 34 hyperlocal TV services licensed by Ofcom? These small operators were enabled by Labour’s Communications Act 2003, but they are not included in the definition of public service channels. These small channels do an important job in local news production at a time when, as we all know, local news is diminishing. Collectively, their reach is considerable, with over half a million viewers. Is this omission an oversight by the Government? If it is, would the Minister agree to meet and discuss this with representatives of the local TV companies to see what can be done to reinstate their public service broadcasting designation? I appreciate that this is not an amendment before us this afternoon, as no such amendment has been tabled, but debates on the Bill might be the opportunity to give a little sunshine to local TV companies and for the Government to put that on record.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I hear often talk about how we need an assembly of the nations and regions, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said, we have had a great display of that today from your Lordships’ Committee, with contributions from across the United Kingdom.
As I set out on our first day in Committee, His Majesty’s Government are committed to stimulating growth in our world-leading production sector throughout the length and breadth of the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, there is a long and proud tradition of that happening across the UK; he gave many examples from Wales, understandably, and pointed to the north of England as well. We have this month lost Gudrun Ure, who played the eponymous Super Gran—a production I enjoyed in my childhood, made by Tyne Tees Television and filmed along the north-east coast in Whitley Bay, Cullercoats, Tynemouth and many other places. It was a powerful example of the emotional pull of TV production in inspiring tourism and encouraging people to visit but also in bringing production closer and, I hope, awakening sparks in people wherever it is made.
As noble Lords have alluded to, it is important to point out that the picture at the moment is a strong one. In 2022, all of our public service broadcasters exceeded their regional production quotas, and some significantly so. We have seen good and significant growth in production outside England and outside our capital. Production spending in Scotland is now worth over £266 million, supported by developments including Channel 4 opening one of its creative hubs in Glasgow in 2019. Television production in Wales continues to make impressive strides forward, with the proportion of hours of BBC content produced in Wales increasing year on year, in part thanks to major productions such as “Wolf” and the rest of the menagerie of animals that my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist mentioned. Northern Ireland’s production industry is making a significant contribution, as shown by the rise in hours of content produced there and broadcast on public service broadcasters, which has increased consistently over the past five years. The BBC, Channel 4 and Channel 5 all increased their production expenditure in Northern Ireland in 2022. The growth in production outside London in recent years is a great success story, and our public service broadcasters have been one of the significant contributors to that growth.
We are also encouraged by commitments to go further, such as the BBC’s pledge in its BBC Across the UK strategy to increase its production expenditure outside the capital to 60% by 2027, and Channel 4’s pledge to continue to spend 50% of its main channel commissioning budget outside London. However, it is right that we keep this progress under review, and I welcome the opportunity we have had to debate these issues this afternoon, thanks to the amendments that have been tabled in this group.
Let me start by addressing Amendments 16 and 17 in the name of my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and acknowledge the support that she expressed on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, with whom I have had the opportunity to discuss some aspects of the Bill outside the Chamber. The regulatory system proposed in the Bill will continue to support the success of the industry in several ways. The Bill is explicit in Clause 1 of its intention to recognise the need for programmes produced outside London through our new public service remit. Underpinning this is the detailed system of quotas on which this amendment focuses. This system already creates the mechanisms to hold public service broadcasters to account, and the success of the UK production sector demonstrates this.
The level of these quotas is set by Ofcom, which has broad powers to amend them as it sees appropriate. Should the success of the UK production sector not continue, Ofcom has the power to take action. It could, for example, increase regional production quotas over time, in much the same way as envisaged by the amendments that my noble friend has proposed, or it could tie the quotas to population shares. I can see why it might be tempting to pre-empt or constrain Ofcom’s consideration of these matters and to legislate directly as these amendments suggest and as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, set out in his contribution.
I agree with the noble Viscount that there is an important role for Parliament. We are all grateful that the chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, is in your Lordships’ House and is in his place to hear these debates. Even if he were not a Member of your Lordships House, Parliament has the opportunity to express its views directly and indirectly through the Select Committees and through my department. I hope the noble Viscount would agree that it is also important that Ofcom can act with agility in this dynamic and often fast-changing sector.
It is essential that Ofcom has the flexibility to calculate regional quotas on broadcasters independently, weighing the evidence and balancing the different equities in the sector. That approach allows Ofcom to alter quotas smoothly over time to react to developments that it sees. As the financial position of both the public service broadcasters and the sector more broadly changes over time, we want Ofcom to be able to take this into account and adjust quotas accordingly, without the need for primary legislation on each occasion.
However, I reassure noble Lords that I, and my colleagues in DCMS, have heard the strength of feeling on this issue from the sector, particularly in relation to Channel 4’s “out of England” quota, which is set at 9% of eligible programmes and expenditure. I note that Ofcom is currently consulting on the terms of Channel 4’s next licence, which will come into force from 1 January next year, and also that Channel 4 has said that it would support a managed and carefully considered increase to its programme-making commitments in the other home nations. His Majesty’s Government look forward to the outcome of the licence renewal process and seeing how the sector’s concerns have been addressed.
For our part, the Government will continue our broad support for the screen industries across the United Kingdom through generous tax reliefs, as we saw in the last Budget and previous ones, through investment in studios such as the Crown Works Studios, which the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle rightly reminded us of, supporting innovation and promoting independent content through the UK Global Screen Fund.
We want to see the production sector continue to thrive. When it comes to our public service broadcasters’ contribution to that goal, we believe that the existing system of regional production quotas, which, as I say, our public service broadcasters can and do exceed—some of them significantly—remains the best way to continue to drive the growth that we have seen in recent years in every part of the UK.
For these reasons, I am not able to accept the amendments that my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie has set out, but I accept the invitation that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reiterated on her behalf and, if I may, I extend it to the noble Lord, Lord Grade, or one of his colleagues at Ofcom, so that we can talk in more detail and, I hope, seek to reassure her further about how the existing system provides for the concerns that she has set out.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made a good point about Parliament being consulted. I wonder if the noble Lord could say something about how both Houses—and Select Committees—could be consulted and considered in the question of quotas and the distribution of regional production. I do think that is an important element of this debate, and I am sure noble Lords around the Committee will want to hear something positive on that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I hope the meeting I have just indicated I am very happy to hold will be an opportunity to do that, with representatives of both the Government and Ofcom present, and an opportunity for noble Lords to ask questions on the issues of quotas, and not just in relation to the Bill that is before us. As the noble Lord says, Select Committees on an ongoing basis allow for the scrutiny of Ofcom’s work.
Turning to Amendment 54, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I recognise the intention behind his amendment, which seeks to address concerns about the programmes that our public service broadcasters are counting towards their regional programme-making quotas. As he and my noble friend Lady Bloomfield said, this has been referred to as “brass plating”, and I am grateful in particular to the Welsh Affairs Committee in the other place for exploring this issue in its recent report, Broadcasting in Wales. As he noted, the trade association TAC has also raised this issue and has done so with my department directly.
My officials have raised the matter with Ofcom again following the publication of the Select Committee’s report. Ofcom has confirmed that, in order to qualify as a regional production, relevant productions must meet two of three criteria. These include the “substantive base” criterion, which is one of the focuses of the noble Lord’s amendment. However, productions are not able to rely on this criterion alone; they must also meet one of the two other criteria relating to production spending. Ofcom has also confirmed that it strengthened and clarified the requirements associated with the “substantive base” criterion when it updated its guidance on regional productions for public service broadcasters in 2019. This guidance came into effect for productions broadcast from 1 January 2021.
Having reflected on this advice, we remain of the view that Ofcom has the necessary powers to identify, examine and, if necessary, close any loopholes related to the regulatory regime for regional programme making. We do not, therefore, see the need to legislate in the area of the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am grateful to the Minister for the consideration he and his officials have given and the discussions that have taken place. Would he, however, accept that those at the sharp end have perhaps the most detailed knowledge of the problems that arise and the means used by some people using brass plating to get around regulations? Would he be prepared to meet some of these people to understand more directly the exact nature of this problem and some of the ideas they have that might be useful in overcoming them?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Perhaps if the noble Lord has some examples, he might like to bring them to the discussion with Ofcom that I mentioned. It would be helpful for the regulator to hear, as well as for us in government as policymakers to understand and see, whether it is on the enforcement and assessment side or the policy-making side that we need to consider this further. I hope he will be able to join us for that.
Lord Empey (UUP)
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, assuming there are a few scraps left for the rest of us, could the Minister tell us what infrastructure role is played when the quotas are being assessed? Some infrastructure needs to be on a massive scale, even a national scale. To what extent is that taken into account when the quotas are being assessed?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
To qualify as a regional production, at least two of the following three criteria must be met: a production company must have a substantive business and production base in the UK outside the M25; at least 70% of the production budget, excluding some specific costs, must be spent in the UK outside the M25; or at least 50% of the production talent, by cost, must have their usual place of employment in the UK outside the M25. Two of those three criteria have to be met for the assessment to qualify.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly used the opportunity to point to the importance of local television providers. The Government recognise the important role that they play, such as Latest TV in his home city of Brighton, in providing excellent local news and content, often to viewers who are digitally excluded. That is why we introduced secondary legislation earlier this month to give Ofcom powers to renew the licences for the local TV multiplex and local TV services. This legislation was informed by the results of a public consultation and will ensure that local TV services continue to receive the valuable regulatory benefits they have received since 2013. That includes not only access to and prominence on Freeview but prominence on regulated electronic programme guides for simulcast satellite, cable and internet protocol television services. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to raise that in the context of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Might the noble Lord be prepared to meet them at some point? That might have some value.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, either I or, I am sure, my colleague in another place who has direct responsibility for this, not just in relation to the Bill but more broadly, will be happy to speak to them further.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lord, I thank everybody from around the Committee who contributed to this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, I think we have given due warning of trouble ahead to the Minister. I am grateful for that. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, reminded the Minister of the very strong feelings in the sector across the nations and the regions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, despite the rosy picture we may be able to paint, there are marked inequalities in the system. To ensure that this moves in the right direction we need intentionality, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned.
I note that the Minister mentioned figures up to 2022 and the creative hubs in the regions, but they are no good if the commissioning relationships are not made from those hubs. I put to my noble friend that that is what the sector has been concerned about since 2022. Frankly, Channel 4 sees quotas as a target, not as a minimum—the figures from PACT show that it is just making it, year on year—so they do work and it is important that we build on what is there and do not jettison it.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his offer of further discussions with us and Ofcom, but I am mindful of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam: where is the parliamentary scrutiny and where are we setting this? We have heard the strength of feeling. Do we really want to leave it to Ofcom yet again? As many Peers said, we need to ensure that the spirit, not just the letter, is setting the right direction. I thank the Minister for his offer of further talks. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures that section 368J(4), (5) and (7) of the Communications Act 2003 applies for determining the qualifying revenue derived from a non-UK on-demand programme service.
“(aa) where it is a service that forms part of a designated internet programme service, it satisfies the conditions in subsection (2AA), and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to Clause 20 at page 24, line 5, add to the requirements for a relevant service which is part of a multi-service designated internet programme service (see section 362AA(10)(c), inserted by Clause 28).
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to address the government amendments which I have tabled in this group: Amendments 19 to 24, 27 and 28, and 36 to 41. These, although numerous, are all minor technical amendments to provide Ofcom with the necessary tools to ensure that the regime delivers for audiences. The amendments will close off any opportunity for non-public service broadcaster services to qualify. They will update the provisions on contract voiding and provide consistency in definitions, in line with changes that were made to the Bill in another place. They will enable Ofcom to specify that audiences should be able to continue to watch events from the beginning or to rewind while an event is in progress—perhaps including debates in your Lordships’ House—in its adequate live coverage regulations; and they will ensure that Ofcom has appropriate flexibility to determine any penalties. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords can support these amendments and I look forward to noble Lords making the case for the other amendments that they have tabled in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 25, 26 and 30, which are in my name. I draw attention to my interests in the register: I am also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Media Group.
Whether it is Wimbledon, the Olympic 100 metre final, the Euros joy and World Cup despair of the Lionesses, or the optimism of the FA Cup, listed events have a special place in people’s hearts and memories—but how and when we watch these big sporting moments that can unite nations and encourage participation, social cohesion and pride is changing. Thanks to the listed events regime, devised in the mid-1990s, major sporting events are freely available to all audiences, especially those who cannot afford to watch sport behind a paywall—great if you can watch in real time on your TV, but currently there is no protection for digital on-demand coverage of these much-loved events. If no action is taken, anyone who wants to watch, say, Team GB on their tablet or smartphone or see the highlights could miss out, especially with events taking place in different time zones.
At Tokyo 2020, the gold medal-winning performance by BMX specialist Charlotte Worthington was watched by just 400,000 people at the time, as it happened overnight, but in the days that followed different forms of short-form coverage of the race generated nearly a tenfold increase in views; and, while the TV reach to the 2022 Commonwealth Games in Birmingham was about 20% lower than for the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games, there were around six times more on-demand views of digital clips. Soon, digital and on-demand viewing will be the norm for watching legends being made. Looking beyond Los Angeles 2028 and Brisbane 2032, could Great Britain’s medal successes be behind a paywall?
Now is the time to not miss the opportunity. The Media Bill offers a once-in-a-generation chance to protect these moments for all of us, however, whenever and wherever we watch, and I am seeking to bring the regime up to date to safeguard the future of listed events for the next generation. The new clause will give enhanced regulatory protection so that these shared national moments are available to us all, making sure the benefits of watching on your TV in real time are afforded to clips and highlights, and will allow for time-shifted viewing, enabling people to watch on tablets and smartphones; and it would secure, where possible, adequate digital on-demand coverage of listed events made available free of charge to us here in the United Kingdom.
Audiences are changing. For Wimbledon in 2023, BBC coverage was streamed 54.3 million times on iPlayer and BBC Sport online—a new record. The men’s singles final peaked at 11.3 million on BBC1, with streams up by 58% on iPlayer, and the women’s singles final peaked at 4.5 million on BBC1, with streams up by 85% on iPlayer. For the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup, 12 million watched England’s Lionesses versus Spain on BBC1, with an additional 3.9 million streams on BBC iPlayer and BBC Sport online. There were 25.7 million streams on BBC iPlayer and BBC Sport online across the tournament—a 75% increase on the 2019 World Cup.
It is not just the BBC that wants to see this. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee recently concluded that
“digital rights should be included as part of the listed events”
and an independent report commissioned by Ofcom last year concluded that
“as expectations about the availability of live and secondary coverage of sporting events of national interest changes, we think that the current linear TV-centred regime risks failing to take into account the increasing popularity of secondary coverage”.
We know the Government recognise the issue and consulted industry a year ago, yet nothing has been done. Please do not let this opportunity pass. The time to act is now.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this is a large group, as the Minister said in his opening comments, dominated mainly by government amendments. We are grateful to him for his explanation of the effects of the amendments, which we broadly welcome, although we have some questions about them. In particular, I would like a more precise understanding of the meaning of the Minister’s Amendment 19; I had hoped it might make our Amendment 29 irrelevant, but I do not think it does. All of us in the Committee are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for tabling Amendments 25, 26 and 30, and I look forward to hearing something positive about them from the Minister.
We on these Benches have two amendments in this group: Amendments 29 and 31A. Amendment 29 would have one simple effect: it is designed to make provision for the coverage of listed events, which is not the same as live coverage. As the noble Baroness has explained, the position regarding the Olympics is, frankly, ludicrous: unless you are able to catch the live coverage of an event, you cannot view the same event on catch-up TV or in an edited highlights programme. Where the Olympics, a World Cup or similar events are in time zones that are 12 or 13 hours different from the UK’s, the position is even more ridiculous: sports fans are forced to become insomniacs—and worse—to watch blue-ribbon events within the Olympics programme. I am sure that was never the intention when the listed events regime was created, and I hope that we will hear from the Minister today that this peculiar state of affairs will be put right.
Amendment 31A seeks to insert a new clause. This reflects the concerns brought up by internet providers about the quality of listed events in the face of competing demands on our internet system. As we consider these changes to listed events, it is important that we also consider the audiovisual quality of digital delivery. Our frameworks must ensure good reliability to support a viewing experience worthy of the importance of these live events. Can the Minister answer the question that the new clause asks about how we ensure that listed events get their fair share of internet infrastructure as we see the digital share of television viewing rise further? That is especially true for listed events but it is worth asking more generally as well.
In the same vein, Amendment 30, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is of course one that we support, although it seems to be a more belt-and-braces version of our own. I am not wedded to a particular form of words, and if the noble Baroness has spotted a deficiency that requires plugging and her amendment achieves the same end as ours, we will happily support it at a later stage.
We are sympathetic to Amendment 31 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Cricket misses out in terms of coverage, and that is surely the minimum that we should expect for this much underrated summer game. Test and one-day format cricket have the ability to capture the national mood and imagination, and the nature and rhythm of cricket, with its rolling narrative, is surely worthy of a more advanced listed billing. I have never understood why test matches are not listed; the Ashes series, with its long national rivalry involving Australia, certainly should be. As a devoted cricket fan and participant in 60-plus seasons, I make a strong plea to your Lordships’ Committee to listen to this argument. I appreciate that my case is highly subjective but the recent Ashes series in the last 15 to 20 years have been compelling, and there is a compelling case for this event to be listed as well.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is a series of issues around the importance of sporting events being listed as cultural assets. If you do not do it in a way that holds the full panoply of technology as it stands today, you are going to miss out on the principle. As somebody who lost quite a lot of sleep trying to follow the Tokyo Games, et cetera, I am slightly annoyed that I did not add my name to all the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on the importance of overnight digital and highlight coverage. Live is usually preferable but you will not be able to see everything. For events that have multiple sports, you should not be able to see everything; it is a chance to see sports you do not otherwise see. It is a chance to see the panoply of sporting events going on.
We really need an undertaking from the Government that they are going to take this seriously. Is it a step back to try to get your video recorder set for the right time? I do not know, but that is the alternative. You either make sure that this is available or you accept that people will miss out. Once you have legislated to say that they do not, you will make sure they do. Can we have an undertaking here? I prefer my amendment to the one from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on this, but his amendment certainly would be better than nothing. However, I much prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
As to the one on cricket, I wondered whether the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, would be containable, and it was not. I think that probably tells you why cricket should be there. Cricket is a major sporting event in this country. When the cricket team does well, the whole country has a lift. It is something unique; it is that bit of cultural capital that we keep. Anybody who doubts that, just go and watch what happens when we do well or badly. It is there; it fits into that structure. Other sports may do it, but I think cricket has a special place in the summer for this. Can the Government undertake to say how we are going to start to address this?
These are genuine issues, raised to make something that the Government have agreed to work. If we can get some firm commitment that they are going to take all these concerns and put them into something solid, I for one will have to withdraw on this; if not, we will be going back to it. We have no real choice. You are talking about sport’s place in our society as a cultural activity and something that touches the whole nation. If we are not going to do this properly, why are we doing it at all?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to express my support for Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I think she has captured, very importantly, how the character of watching major sporting events has changed over recent years, certainly a great deal since the Communications Act 2003, when I had the pleasure of working with Lord Puttnam and others in another place on that Act—the Standing Committee and the Puttnam commission—back then. Of course, when we are looking at listed events, people were understandably focused on the live coverage in those days because that was predominantly how people watched sporting events. That has changed and we must adapt the structure of the legislation to match that.
I will come on, if I may, to the difference between Amendments 29 and 30. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred kindly to Amendment 30 and I think there are advantages. I note that Amendment 29 somewhat suggests that the noble Lord and the Opposition Front Bench have started to write amendments a bit as a Government in waiting in a way in which we tend to see the Government thinking it a very good idea for Ministers to have the powers to do things however they wish. I think now the Opposition Front Bench wants to have similar sorts of powers—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
We are not in the habit of getting ahead of ourselves.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I know that the noble Lord is sticking to the line to take, and nothing is being taken for granted. I completely understand. However, he will understand why I favour the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson: because it incorporates the structure of this proper legislative reform in relation to on-demand services. It does not apply where somebody has access to on-demand rights and makes them available in a number of places to unconnected persons. That would not necessarily fall to be regulated because it is not exclusive, and the use of exclusivity is really important. It reflects what is done in relation to existing live events. Equally, if it is made available free to air or free of charge, it would likewise not need Ofcom’s permission; again, that is like live events.
The amendment very carefully addresses itself to the listed events—major events of national importance—where they are intended to be available on demand, exclusively by those rights holders only and by nobody else, and behind a paywall. This means, in effect, they are not available as most people would expect to see national events in the catch-up and on-demand world of broadcasting that we now live in. It is an excellent amendment and demands close attention by the Government. I urge my noble friend to consider whether this is now the time to make this additional change to the structure of the regulation of listed events.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, surely at a time when we want children to get away from the telly and actually do sports, it is right that they be confronted by sports that they may know nothing about. Was it not curling, whatever that is, which became very popular and captured the imagination? Most of us could not believe that there was a sport where you push something along in that way.
There is a serious point about how children and young people know what sports are there. It is a bit like the inscription by Orwell’s statue outside the BBC:
“If liberty means anything … it means the right”
to be confronted by opinions you do not like, or something like that. That must go for sports as well, but I really need to make a confession. I live in Headingley; I have never been. Cricket is one of those sports that I suppose some people like. I have never understood it, but I would rather go to curling.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate must be an expert with a broom.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The House was stunned into silence by the revelation from the right reverend Prelate.
I thank noble Lords for the contributions they have made and the points raised on the other amendments in this group. We, of course, had a bit of a pre-match friendly during our debate on sport led by the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, on Thursday. Let me start with Amendments 25 and 26 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
The Government recognise the intent behind the noble Baroness’s amendments, and I know that she has had concerns about in particular the necessity of the new multisport provisions, whether “adequate live coverage” will meet the mark, and whether public service broadcasters will have the freedom to choose what they cover in the interests of their audiences. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to seek to offer her and other noble Lords reassurance on these questions.
First, on whether these provisions are necessary, the Bill introduces the concept of adequate live coverage for multisport events to ensure that partnerships between broadcasters which deliver for UK audiences can still go ahead in an age where dozens of sporting events can be taking place concurrently. We do not want inadvertently to create a regime which would prevent deals like the one currently in place between Warner Bros. Discovery and the BBC. Expansion of the scope of services covered by the regime to resolve the streaming loophole poses risks to these mutually beneficial partnerships between public service broadcasters and commercial broadcasters for multisport events. That is because the existing requirement for both parties to have the same coverage does not reflect the way that coverage is actually shared between them across different types of services.
There is no intention to weaken the public service broadcasters’ hand in negotiations, simply to ensure that partnerships between them and commercial broadcasters can function effectively to deliver the best outcomes for audiences and rights holders.
On whether “adequate live coverage” will hit the mark for audiences, it will be for Ofcom to make new regulations setting out what will be considered adequate. Following scrutiny and debate in another place, the Government amended to the Bill to set out the matters that Ofcom must take into account when defining adequate live coverage in its regulations. This is an example of Parliament giving direction to the regulator through legislation. This includes the forms of live coverage that would satisfy the interests of the public, and the desirability of facilitating arrangements which result in live coverage of listed events being shown on both public service and non-public service broadcasters.
To protect audiences’ interests, and in keeping with deals we have seen before, any partnership of this nature will require at least two live broadcasts on public service broadcasters. Ofcom is given the power to require more than two streams if it deems it necessary or appropriate, and it could also set requirements regarding the percentage of coverage or other considerations.
Finally, I think the noble Baroness, like me and others who have spoken, believes that it is vital that public service broadcasters continue to have the flexibility and editorial freedom to show the most incredible moments of these multisport events to public audiences. I reassure her and other noble Lords that the Bill enables Ofcom to require that “adequate live coverage” must allow the broadcaster involved to select what parts of the proceedings it wishes to show. It is vital that public service broadcasters maintain complete editorial control of live broadcasts when they enter partnerships so that they have the freedom to make decisions about what events to screen for the British public, and the Bill makes provisions for this.
For those reasons, I do not think that we need the amendments the noble Baroness has brought before us. However, I hope my words have provided reassurance about the checks and balances in place to deliver for audiences in the way she seeks.
Lord Addington (LD)
Is the Minister, in effect, saying that he is convinced that, under the current regime, catch up and clips will continue to be available, certainly when multiple sports are happening at different times? Will we get slightly better guidance on that? Will it be available for us to look it up and check on it—certainly before the next stage of this Bill?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, the Bill caters for the concerns that have been set out, but I will happily discuss that further with the noble Lord if on reflection he disagrees with the reasons I have set out.
I turn now to the noble Lord’s Amendment 31. The Government are keen to ensure that sporting events are made available to the public as widely as possible. That is why we have the listed events regime. We acknowledge the interest that fans have in watching the sports teams of our home nations compete. As noble Lords will appreciate, however, sports rights holders use income from the sale of broadcast rights for the benefit of the sporting sector more generally, so it is important that the regime continues to strike the right balance between accessibility and the ability of sporting organisations to generate revenues which they can invest in their sports at all levels.
The Government believe that the current list of events works to deliver the best outcome and strikes an appropriate balance. We therefore have no plans to review the list at this time. I know that will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but it is why I cannot accept his Amendment 31.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked me to say a bit more about Amendment 19. We have taken the opportunity, as recommended during the pre-legislative scrutiny process for the Bill, to take steps to ensure that the streamer loophole is closed. This was a major flaw in the current regime which allowed for unregulated online services to acquire listed sports rights, while leaving Ofcom powerless to do anything. The current drafting therefore ensures that all TV-like services providing live content to UK audiences are in scope of the regime. Amendment 19, and Amendments 20 to 22, are technical amendments to future-proof the regime by closing off an opportunity for non-public service broadcaster services to qualify through the back door. The amendments tie qualification for the listed events regime to the way in which qualification for prominence is decided.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I get the sense that the Minister is sympathetic to the point we have made here and that it is more a question of timescale. If the Government are looking at this, what sort of timescale do they think would be right for them to ponder the question more widely?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am loath to set out a precise timescale, but the noble Lord is right: it is a matter of looking at this more fully, as well as considering the complexities of how it could be borne out if it were concluded that that were necessary.
I hope noble Lords will see, through the government amendments in this group, that we have worked with parliamentary counsel to respond to the points that were raised by the Select Committee and Members in another place about the scope of services to be captured by the regime. We have now closed the streaming loophole, which could otherwise have seen live coverage intended for UK audiences disappearing behind a paywall without the protections that the regime offers. However, as I have set out, it is a complex matter that needs a bit more thought. I am happy to set out some of that thinking and to allow officials to do so with the noble Lord if he would find that useful. For those reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will understand that we cannot support her Amendment 30.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has tabled Amendment 31A. I agree with him that it is crucial that audiences are able to view their favourite sports live in whatever way works for them, whether that is on a traditional TV platform or over the internet. However, as new technologies such as internet protocol television—IPTV—become more prevalent, we need to ensure that they continue to serve audiences. This amendment would ask Ofcom to review the delivery of listed events and other audiovisual content online, with a focus on how internet service providers can work with broadcasters to deliver IPTV. As I have said in previous debates, my department has an ongoing programme of work on the future of TV distribution. As part of this, we are working closely with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to consider many of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has raised today, including the reliability and quality of content provision on IPTV. That work is also ongoing.
Ultimately, while I agree that the issues that noble Lords have raised are important ones, this is not a Bill which is focused on the UK’s digital infrastructure. By considering the issue with regard to only one internet service—namely, television—we risk taking a piecemeal approach to what is an important and broader policy issue. For that reason, I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord’s Amendment 31A either. I commend Amendment 19 to the Committee.
“(2AA) The conditions are—(a) that the relevant service is provided by—(i) the BBC or a person associated with the BBC otherwise than with a view to generating a profit,(ii) the provider of a Channel 3 service, Channel 4 or Channel 5,(iii) S4C, or(iv) a person associated with a broadcaster mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) or (iii);(b) that, where it is provided by the BBC or a person associated with the BBC, the service contributes to the promotion of one or more of the BBC’s public purposes;(c) that, where it is provided by a broadcaster referred to in paragraph (a)(ii) or (iii) or a person associated with such a broadcaster, the broadcaster’s latest statement of programme policy under— (i) section 266 or 267 of the Communications Act 2003, or(ii) paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 to that Act,states that the service will be used to fulfil the public service remit for the Channel 3 service, Channel 4 or Channel 5 or (as the case may be) S4C’s public service remit.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 20 at page 24, line 3.
“(2C) Section 362AZ12(6) of the Communications Act 2003 (meaning of references to a person associated with a public service broadcaster) applies for the purposes of subsection (2AA) as it applies for the purposes of Part 3A of that Act.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Clause 20 at page 24, line 5.
“(vii) it is not a service of the kind described in section 362AA(10)(c) of the Communications Act 2003 (internet programme services which provide programmes by means of an on-demand programme service or non-UK on-demand programme service and at least one other service).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment secures that “relevant service” does not include a service falling within section 362AA(10)(c) of the Communications Act 2003, inserted by Clause 28 (multi-service internet programme services that contain at least one relevant service).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to Clause 21 at page 25, line 21, alter the definition of exclusively granting rights to include live coverage of a Group A event.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 21 at page 25, line 16.
“(d) at least two of the second and further services are television programme services,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows relevant services which are not television programme services to be part of the adequate live coverage of a listed event.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Clause 22 at page 27, line 13.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a drafting error.
Baroness Thornton
“Review of broadcast content and Children’s literacyWithin six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on how audiovisual content providers are supporting children’s literacy.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause aims to probe the Government’s intentions regarding proposals around automatic subtitling.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Minister clocked the reluctant withdrawing of amendments. Perhaps there is further discussion to be had.
I rise to move Amendment 35A in my name; I will address the other amendments when I have heard the discussion that takes place. This is a probing amendment, and the reason we have submitted it is that, during the course of this future-proofing Bill that we are discussing, while we are addressing the issues of young people and children and the changes in their viewing habits and what that might mean for their development and learning, a discussion about subtitling seems appropriate.
The context for this question is twofold. First, a recent study from YPulse found that more than half of young people prefer using subtitles. According to the survey, more than half of Generation Z and millennial media consumers prefer subtitles. Through anecdotal evidence, having millennial and Generation Z living in my household, I can say that this is certainly true. If you are scrolling through TikTok or watching Netflix with a young person, you might notice more words on the screen. The use of subtitles is on the rise.
Secondly, researchers posed the question, “How does turning on subtitles help reading?” Studies have shown that turning them on supports various reading skills, including building on children’s knowledge of words, acquisition of vocabulary, reading comprehension, fluency and speed, and decoding skills. There is a campaign, which has been running for several years, that advocates for automatic subtitling on children’s television shows in order to promote literacy. That is why we would like to probe this further and raise those questions.
I understand the Government have considered this previously, and I want to probe further the Minister’s thinking on the subject and whether the department has considered alternative or related schemes to promote literacy in children and increase their vocabulary at an early stage. There has been research that strongly suggests that having automatic subtitling on children’s television helps to turn children into more proficient readers.
Young people—although not as young as I am talking about here—prefer to watch television with subtitles. A YouGov survey found last year that 61% of young adults use subtitles while watching television. Although an older audience may find it an odd way to consume television for those without hearing difficulties or who are learning a language, it does not appear to be something that young people are opposed to.
Have the Government considered targeting specific age groups who would benefit most from the change—for example, children who are just learning to read? Although we often talk about children’s television as a monolith, “Bluey” targets a very different audience from, say, “Blue Peter”. Would having subtitles for those at the early stage of reading be more appropriate than mandating the change across all ages? Is the Minister aware of any broadcaster or on-demand providers who have plans to implement such changes to their platforms?
If the Government come to the conclusion that it is not workable to make subtitles automatic, would they consider doing more to effectively promote awareness among families of the potential power of switching to subtitles? For example, has the DCMS or the Department for Education considered working with on-demand video providers to promote automatic subtitles on children’s shows in app, as part of their settings? I am thinking of an option that parents could turn on as part of parental controls. Could the DCMS work closely with the DfE to ensure that educators know the benefits and could pass them on to parents? Of course, watching television or films would never be a substitute for reading, but evidence shows it can be a useful and effective way to supplement it.
As so often with areas of policy that impact children, we need to think cross-departmentally about how best to promote their well-being and learning. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this point. On these Benches, we are simply interested in the department’s thinking at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to four amendments in my name in this group. Although there are four amendments grouped together, they cover three separate subjects, and I hope the Committee will forgive me if I go carefully through each of those three subjects.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that I am very supportive of her Amendment 35. Perhaps like her, I have had communications over several years from the campaign, Turn On The Subtitles, which is doing extremely good work in drawing attention to the way in which putting subtitles on by default and allowing people to be able to turn them off if they wish has been shown to provide huge benefit to children’s learning of reading.
I also say a huge thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He and I had a brief chat the other day about his amendments. I went away and had to put a wet towel over my head in a darkened room to try to understand them, and I did not get very far. I am enormously grateful that, today, I understood the arguments that he is making. They are very much in support of my Amendment 70.
My amendment seeks to apply the Ofcom standards code—which, as we have heard, is described in Section 319 of the Communications Act—to all on-demand programme services, to ensure that there is a consistency in standards objectives across all platforms. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we need to find ways to bring the Broadcasting Code and the current tier 1 standards code into unison. The problem is that Schedule 7, as currently drafted, will apply those standards only to tier 1 services, leaving a wide range of on-demand services entirely unregulated. It is worth recalling that the senior executive in charge of implementing the first system of VOD regulation at Ofcom, Trevor Barnes, warned last month:
“The Culture Secretary is given very wide discretion to decide who is, and who is not, caught in the Tier 1 net”.
The amendment removes that discretion and, therefore, offers far greater public protection.
As we have heard, Section 319 encompasses a broad range of standards objectives, including protection for children and protection from material that might cause harm and offence, but I will focus on Sections 319(2)(c) and 319(2)(d), which require that news be
“presented with due impartiality and … due accuracy”,
and, further, that the special
“impartiality requirements of section 320”
be applied—namely, that every TV and radio service must preserve due impartiality on
“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.
Those requirements date back to the very beginning of commercial TV in 1954 and have ensured that we have had a highly trusted broadcast media environment that has, so far, resisted the kinds of disinformation and polarisation that is so prevalent in online information services. Preserving that trusted environment not only depends on Parliament legislating for impartiality but requires a regulator that is prepared to do its job robustly and to implement that legislation without fear or favour. For most of its 20 years in regulating the linear world, Ofcom has done just that.
But here there is a spoiler alert—I note that the current chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, is in his place, and I suspect that he will not be particularly comfortable with the view that I hold. I think it is a matter of concern that, more recently, Ofcom does not seem to apply those rules with the rigour that Parliament has required, particularly in respect of GB News. Two examples will illustrate the problem, but there are many that I could have given.
On 13 January, the GB News presenter Neil Oliver used his programme to link Covid vaccines to the non-existent disease of “turbo cancer”, a wholly fictitious medical condition beloved by conspiracy theorists. That kind of dangerous disinformation, which went entirely unopposed on the GB News programme, should have been a slam dunk for a regulator charged with ensuring both accuracy and impartiality on licensed broadcasters. A month later, after multiple complaints, Ofcom delivered its verdict:
“In line with freedom of expression, our rules allow broadcasters to cover controversial themes and topics … We recognise that these brief comments were the presenter’s personal view and did not materially mislead the audience. We therefore will not be pursuing this further”.
It did not even bother with an investigation.
Last month, the same presenter hosted a journalist, Jasmine Birtles, who suggested that action against climate change was part of a “depopulation agenda” designed to
“remove 7.5 billion people from the world”.
There was no contrary view from either the presenter or other guests on the show. What was Ofcom’s response? It simply announced on its website that the programme
“did not raise issues warranting investigation”.
When challenged, it responded that the views expressed on the show
“were clearly presented as a personal opinion, consistent with the right to freedom of expression”.
I suspect that we all support the idea of freedom of expression—it is an Article 10 right—but there is no conflict between that right and an impartiality regime that ensures that all sides of any controversial matter are freely presented. That is the law of the land, and it needs to be upheld in both the linear and on-demand worlds.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I was not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, wanted to say anything further on the other amendments, but I am happy to come in now.
As noble Lords know, following extensive public consultation on the topic, the Government set out their intention to legislate to give Ofcom powers to draft and enforce a new video on demand code similar to the Broadcasting Code, to ensure that TV-like content, no matter how audiences choose to watch it, will be subject to similar standards. Many of the amendments in this group touch on that. In particular, all tier 1 services will have to comply with the new code. The Bill has been drafted to ensure that the mainstream on-demand services will be under similar obligations as traditional broadcasters, while simultaneously ensuring proportionality in these requirements.
I will address Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, which would bring all UK on-demand programme services under Ofcom’s current Broadcasting Code, including special impartiality requirements for
“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.
The Government have been clear about the importance of ensuring that new regulations for video on demand services are proportionate and fit for purpose, and that they take into account the unique characteristics of an on-demand environment, which the Broadcasting Code does not. There are some key differences between linear and on-demand television, and there are some specific elements of the Broadcasting Code that would be less practical to apply to video on demand services. For example, the watershed, which limits material that is more appropriate for adults to be broadcast after 9 pm, would not be effective for regulating streaming services, because its content can be chosen on demand by audiences, rather than being broadcast live at a particular time.
That is why we are giving Ofcom powers to design a new video on demand code rather than simply bringing these services under the existing Broadcasting Code. Importantly, the Bill also sets out a proportionate and practical approach to bringing on-demand services under the new code, capturing mainstream streaming services which target and profit from UK audiences. There are already over 270 video on demand services notified to Ofcom, and many of these simply do not provide TV-like content or are not widely accessible. It is essential that we balance audience protection with freedom of expression.
Extensive public and industry consultation shows us that the smallest and niche services, such as an on-demand service for a particular football team, could be unfairly and unnecessarily penalised by a blanket approach, with little or no benefit to audience protection and at a risk to the service’s sustainability. The Bill has been designed to ensure that regulation can be updated to add further, or even all, video on demand services into tier 1, if that is considered appropriate.
I hope that this explanation reassures the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that the video on demand code will have similar objectives to the existing Broadcasting Code but will be tailored to take into account the particular circumstances of audiences accessing content in an on-demand context.
I turn next to Amendment 58 from my noble friend Lord Lansley, regarding protecting audiences from being exploited by subliminal messaging—I wonder if he was trying to tell us something.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank your Lordships.
I thank my noble friend for raising this issue, as it gives me the opportunity to clarify on the record that the legislation as drafted will already enable Ofcom to draft the video on demand code to protect audiences from this type of harm. Ofcom is given an overarching duty to protect audiences from harm. The legislation does not need to list each and every potential type, although we are grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue for our consideration today. In addition, to further reassure him, on-demand programme service rules already specifically prohibit advertising which uses techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message subliminally or surreptitiously. These rules will continue to apply following Royal Assent to the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, began our debate on this group with her Amendment 35A regarding children’s literacy. The Government are committed to continuing to raise literacy standards, ensuring that all children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, can read fluently and with understanding. We are very proud of the leaps and bounds that we have made on this over the last decade and a half in government. By ensuring high-quality phonics teaching, the Government want to improve literacy levels to give all children a solid base on which to build as they progress through school, and help children develop the habit of reading widely and often, both for pleasure and for information.
My portfolio covers libraries, and I had the pleasure of asking my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton to conduct an independent review of public libraries, which of course begins with the importance of reading and literacy. We know that one of the most powerful engines of social mobility is reading for pleasure; I echo many of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, set out in her speech. We are currently refreshing the Government’s strategy for libraries, drawing on some of the recommendations that my noble friend Lady Sanderson made in her independent review, based on the consultation, round tables and discussion that she had with people across the country, from the sector and beyond.
The Department for Education recently made an assessment of the evidence behind the Turn on the Subtitles campaign, which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned. That assessment by the Department for Education concluded that the current evidence is inconclusive as to whether turning on the subtitles improves children’s reading. As the noble Baroness is aware, the Bill will look to improve subtitles provision on mainstream video on demand services. However, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we believe it should be the choice of parents and guardians whether their child watches television programming with the subtitles on.
We have discussed this with providers, which have been clear that the technology simply is not there in many cases to turn the subtitles on by default for specific programming, even for certain ages, as the noble Baroness suggests. Short of embedding the content with subtitles—in which case viewers would not be able to turn it off—and without the absence of conclusive evidence about the benefits, we do not think that would be appropriate. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the opportunity to talk about the campaign and the analysis which we have made so far.
On my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 43 and 59, on prohibiting political advertising on tier 1 video on demand services, political advertising is a fundamental part of any democratic system and is an established way for political parties and campaigners to connect with the public and have their message heard in a cost-effective manner, thus contributing to a level playing field among campaigners of different sizes and financial means. Paid political advertising on digital platforms such as YouTube and Instagram has been used by campaigners and political parties of all colours for some time, and is not objected to by the majority of those who campaign in that way.
In contrast, the legal ban on paid political advertising on television and radio, currently regulated by the Communications Act 2003, stems from a long-standing tradition which continues to be supported across the political spectrum. In considering any changes to the rules governing political advertising, the Government think it essential to consult political parties and to achieve cross-party consensus on an issue which directly affects campaigners from all parties and other campaigning groups. Regulation must be balanced with the rights of freedom of expression and public debate, which are both crucial to a thriving democracy, and no such consultation has yet been undertaken.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can I ask my noble friend two quick questions? First, have the Government engaged in any such consultation with the political parties in anticipation of this Bill, with a view to inquiring whether the ban on political advertising for broadcasters should be included for tier 1 services? Secondly, did he not tell us that the tier 1 standards code is for mainstream on-demand programme services, which are in that sense comparable with what we see in the broadcasting environment, not the more peripheral and digital access providers such as YouTube and so on?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is similar but different. We have not consulted the other parties on this issue, not least because my department does not have direct responsibility for the regulation of political advertising—that falls to others. Of course, we work across government on these issues, but the simple answer to my noble friend’s question is that we have not had that that consultation. On a matter such as this, it is important to do that on a cross-party basis and to try to seek consensus before bringing forward proposals, particularly in an election year.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
To clarify that, does that mean that the Government intend to have this consultation with the political parties about paid political advertising; in other words, are the Government thinking that they would like to change the rules and regulations?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
No, although if the other parties wish to talk about the matter which my noble friend has raised through his amendment, I am sure we would be happy to do so. However, without that consultation and cross-party conversation on it taking place, I would be wary of proceeding with it in the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again but as we are in Committee, perhaps I might be allowed just to press the point. Time is of the essence here. This is the Media Bill, and we anticipate that it should be enacted before the election. It could be brought into force before an election. We know that ITVX is in this position of providing what will be tier 1 services under the Bill, and that it has not excluded that it might take paid political advertising. That is quite a significant place for a public service broadcaster operating an on-demand programme service to place itself in. Is my noble friend saying that the Government are happy for this to happen, they are content for this to happen, or that they are simply not willing to do anything to stop it happening?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend’s second interjection allows me to clarify an important point on timing. If he intends for this amendment to be in effect before the next general election, I must say to him that that is highly unlikely. Even if cross-party consensus were reached swiftly and changes were made to the Bill, the provisions in Schedule 5 would come into force only following the drafting and implementation of the video-on-demand code, which is unlikely to happen before the next general election. He has raised an important issue, on which there needs to be cross-party consultation and consideration before anything is brought forward but, even if that happened very swiftly, it would be unlikely to be in place before the next general election. It is important to remember also that, during regulated election periods, campaigners are subject to campaign expenditure limits when promoting paid political adverts, which further protects the level playing field between campaigners, both online and offline.
Finally, Amendment 44, also in the name of my noble friend, would allow the Secretary of State to consider the purchaser’s commitment to the video-on-demand standards code in a media merger case involving a broadcaster. While I agree with his intentions of ensuring sufficient protections for audiences, I hope that I can reassure him that this is already sufficiently covered in the Bill, in particular and elsewhere. The Secretary of State already has powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 to intervene in media mergers on the basis of a need for high-quality broadcasting and a commitment to broadcasting standards more widely. In addition, the Bill gives Ofcom the necessary tools to regulate video-on-demand services, including information-gathering and enforcement powers. Similar statutory sanctions such as financial penalties that can be applied to linear broadcasters by Ofcom will also be available to apply to on-demand services. So, for these reasons, I do not think his Amendment 44 is needed.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. I am quite glad that I waited to make my comments until I had heard what the Minister and other noble Lords had to say when speaking to their amendments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster.
Let us first dispose of the probing amendment that leads this group. We have here a moving scenario about subtitles and we are just going to have to keep watch on that, because clearly the generations to come like subtitles on their television sets or whatever devices they are using. That is interesting, and I look forward to further research into how that might support educational purposes. I think we would all want that to happen. Some of the stakeholders have explained to me that the technology does not exist to do it easily.
Regarding the other amendments in this group, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has surfaced several very important questions. In terms of political advertising, on this side we are not looking to have any consultation on this, but we were seeking some clarity about whether there was a loophole in this Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, used those words—for the future. That question is still not answered, so we will need to watch that.
The main issue that these amendments, particularly Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, brought forward concerns robust regulators and scrutiny. What I am taking away from this debate is that there are questions about how Ofcom has conducted itself in recent times. Questions have been raised about how robust it is being, and about impartiality and those sorts of issues, and therefore the confidence that we need to have in Ofcom as we move forward with this piece of legislation. However, we will be coming on to that in later groups. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, put the case extremely well. We thought that his amendment, on the face of it, seemed a rather sensible move, so I suspect that we will return to discuss this issue in due course. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
(i) in relation to a financial penalty imposed under subsection (A1) or (B1), an amount determined by OFCOM to be the value of the rights to include coverage of the event in question in the relevant service at the time when the rights are acquired, and(ii) in relation to a financial penalty imposed under subsection (1) or (2),””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment specifies the method for determining the maximum financial penalty that OFCOM may impose under section 102(A1) or (B1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996.
(i) for “section 102(1)” substitute “section 102(A1) or (1)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consequential amendment relating to paragraph 16 of Schedule 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon Clause 23.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendments to Schedule 2 at page 124, line 14, and at page 124, line 20, remove definitions of terms and are further to amendments made in the House of Commons.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 2 at page 124, line 7.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 2 at page 124, line 7.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“54 “(1) Section 310 (code of practice for electronic programme guides), is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (3), insert—“(3A) Where a user interface gives access to one or more electronic programme guides, the practices required by the code must include the giving, in the manner provided for in the code, of such degree of prominence as OFCOM consider appropriate to electronic programme guides within the user interface (whether such guides are provided by the person providing the user interface or by other persons).(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), OFCOM may consider that different degrees of prominence are appropriate in relation to different electronic programme guides.”(3) Omit subsection (4)(f).(4) After subsection (8), insert—“(8A) In this section—(a) “user interface” means an electronic programme guide that, in addition to the facilities mentioned in subsection (8), includes a facility by which a user may find, select or access electronic programme guides;(b) for the purpose of the definition of user interface in paragraph (a), the description of a service in subsection (8) includes such services provided by means of apparatus.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to secure that OFCOM’s Code of Practice for Electronic Programme Guides (EPGs) gives EPGs prominence. Subsection (8A) defines a user interface as an EPG that – in addition to a traditional linear EPG –includes access to EPGs. This definition would include the means of accessing EPGs, such as remote controls. This amendment requires one short consequential amendment to the definition of “television licensable content service” in section 232 of the Communications Act 2003.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 42, 50 and 51 in this group. I again draw your Lordships’ attention to my registered interests.
The UK’s public service broadcasters—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5—and national broadcasters S4C, STV, and MG Alba, play an essential cultural, economic and social role, supporting British democratic values and underpinning the UK’s creative economy. They produce high-quality, distinctive content, informing, educating and entertaining audiences across the UK. Audiences support this. Seven in 10 UK adults want to see UK life and culture represented on screen. A similar number think that PSBs deliver well on programmes made for UK audiences. Six hours and nine minutes is spent watching BBC TV/iPlayer on average per person per week, which is more than Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video combined.
Currently, prominence is one of the main regulatory benefits provided to the PSBs, but the existing regime has not kept pace with technological change. It applies only to linear channels—for example, BBC One—delivered through the channel menu, also known as the electronic programme guide or EPG. The Media Bill updates the rules so that they will apply not just to PSB linear channels but to on-demand services such as BBC iPlayer. This is hugely welcome, but there is further opportunity to ensure that PSB prominence arrangements are future-proofed and watertight, protecting access to the content that people love and enjoy for future generations.
Amendment 42 is on the prominence of the EPG. While the Media Bill seeks to ensure that PSB on-demand services will appear prominently on regulated TV platforms, and PSB linear services within the EPG will continue to benefit from the existing prominence regime, there are no protections for the EPG itself. A growing number of IP-only households watch videos via a broadband connection. This is expected to exceed 50% of total households by the end of this decade. All this has led to more people watching content on demand. It does not mean the end of linear, which remains the single biggest way that people watch video content and delivers 82% of audiences’ consumption of BBC TV content. The familiarity of linear TV will continue to make it a popular discovery route for audiences, even as they move away from digital terrestrial television.
The PSBs have responded to the continuing need for live TV by investing in an online linear solution freely, but linear TV is being eroded. The EPG has been downgraded within TV user interfaces and the linear schedule hidden away. This comes at the expense of PSB. In internet-only homes, without a linear programme guide, the BBC gets just 22% of our normal consumption. The current rules do not enable Ofcom to support audiences by safeguarding this popular and familiar way of watching TV. The Government should use the Media Bill to update the Communications Act 2003 to safeguard linear TV, an important and familiar viewing route. This would also support audiences as the digital transition continues. The amendment would require Ofcom to give the EPG itself the degree of prominence that it considers appropriate. This is in keeping with the existing linear prominence framework, with high-level legislation underpinned by Ofcom guidance and codes. This is a flexible and future-proofed approach.
Amendments 50 and 51 concern the definition of “appropriate prominence”. The Media Bill gives PSB on-demands appropriate prominence but does not define what this means, leaving it open to interpretation. Ofcom will be the regulator of the prominence regime and sufficient direction and clarity about the outcomes that Parliament wishes to see is crucial in order to allow Ofcom to implement the rules robustly. As recommended by the CMS Select Committee, the PSBs should receive “significant” rather than “appropriate” prominence. The best way to secure this is for the Bill to set out explicitly what “appropriate” means. A further amendment to the Media Bill should also set out more concretely the areas of Ofcom guidance that the application of appropriate prominence should cover: for example, search, recommendations and personalisation, acting as a further safeguard. I beg to move.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 46 and 47 are in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. We had a bit of a knock-around on “prominence” at Second Reading—was it “appropriate”, “significant” or, as the right reverend Prelate ventured, neither? Indeed, he was right; the word itself should be enough, for the Oxford English dictionary defines it as
“the state of being important, well known, or easy to notice”.
We want the PSBs, on any screen that offers choices between PSBs and streamers, to be important, well-known, and very easy to notice. It is vital, as commercial operators do not always want us to choose the PSB, because their gods are commercial. As we know, things can get very small and difficult on-screen when customers choosing it means less income—think about how hard it is to find that tiny “unsubscribe” notice when we want to get out of emails from some commercial arrangement we no longer want. It is not in commercial entities’ interests to make life easy for us; that is why we have to mandate and prescribe “prominence”. We on these Benches do not believe it is sufficient to leave it to Ofcom to define. I have heard the arguments about “appropriate” being perfectly adequate, and we beg to disagree.
For clarity, I am trying to get across that we on these Benches believe that prominence must be defined in legislation to guide Ofcom, and not be left open-ended for it. That definition should be crystal clear: that in every and any situation where channel choice is being offered, the PSB logo or whatever should be of equal or greater prominence to any other choice offered on the electronic programme guides.
The dangers of not specifying what prominence means or seeks to achieve in the Bill could include a loss of funding. PSBs often rely on public funding or subsidies to fulfil their mandate of providing programming that serves the public interest; without prominence, they may struggle to attract viewership and advertising revenue, leading to financial difficulties that could jeopardise their ability to produce the sort of high-quality content we want them to. PSBs may find it challenging to reach a wide audience, particularly in a crowded media landscape where viewers have numerous options for their entertainment; that could lead to a decline in their influence and relevance, making it harder for them to fulfil their role as a source of impartial news, educational programming and cultural content.
The public service mandate could be undermined, as PSBs are tasked with providing programming that serves the public interest, including news, current affairs and educational content. Without prominence, they may struggle, and their content may be overshadowed by commercial broadcasters or streaming services prioritising profit. It could also be a threat to media diversity and cause a loss of trust and accountability. Lastly, if public service broadcasters are not given prominence in a democratic society, there are issues around this that could arise: an erosion of media pluralism, a threat to freedom of information, diminished public discourse, a loss of accountability, and the undermining of democratic values, social cohesion, education and lifelong learning, and cultural preservation.
As this is a probing amendment, I encourage the Minister to think about bringing back his own amendment as an instruction to Ofcom in dealing with prominence, to say that, however it writes it regulations, PSBs must have equal or greater prominence than any other offer on the screen.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, summing up from these Benches on the amendments in this group, I congratulate those who have spoken, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It crossed my mind as I was about to stand up that on the first day in Committee I was congratulating and following a prima ballerina and today it is an Olympian—which rather reduces my sense of myself. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is a remarkable example of what the Department for Culture, Media and Sport produces that we have as great legislators these great sportsmen and artists.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Baroness has said apart from the language point. Why is “significant” an improvement on “appropriate”, when neither of them are defined? “Significant” has to mean significant of something—we might think that it just means “a lot”, but it does not. It is as meaningless as “appropriate”, indefinable and cannot be quantified.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
To my mind, “significant” is very different from “appropriate”, which is a wishy-washy, woolly term, whereas “significant” is a specific term.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is not. If we went around the room and asked, “Please quantify it, or tell us what it means”, I think we would—
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
What word would the right reverend Prelate use?
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
I have struggled with it, but “substantial” or “substantive” might get us somewhere, rather than something that does not actually mean anything. The General Synod of the Church of England has a similar problem; it put “collegiate” in some recent legislation when it meant “collegial”—it had nothing to do with colleges. I worry about putting things in legislation that cannot be defined.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is nothing if not consistent. He has been raising what “appropriate” means in the Bill from the word go.
This group of amendments, and the debate which we have just had, is in many ways at the heart of the Bill. At its heart is the issue of our public service broadcasters as the cornerstone of our broadcasting sector in the UK, investing, as they do, billions of pounds in original productions and creating content that is trusted, valuable and entertaining for UK audiences. In return for the high standard of programming and investment that public service broadcasters provide, their channels have been made easy to find on linear television sets—to the benefit of audiences across the country. However, amid rapid changes in how viewers access television and content more generally, the prominence regime, which has not been updated for decades, is at increasing risk of becoming diluted and outdated.
It seems there are two major issues. First, public service broadcasters are in danger of being cut out of view, as noble Lords have said in this short debate, as global content players and platforms strike international deals with online platforms for prominence. Secondly, as a result, our public service broadcasters are at risk of being forced to concede increasingly material percentages of their revenue to those platforms simply to appear on them.
In this situation, it seems that almost everybody loses out—from audiences to the wider UK production economy, even the platforms themselves, which might find themselves in a position where they cannot promote the content that UK viewers most want to see. A new prominence framework for the digital era, therefore, was always going to be crucial. These amendments address how prescriptive such a new regime should be in legislation.
We on these Benches welcome that the Government have avoided explicitly spelling out what prominence looks like in the Bill or making primary legislation restrictive or resistant to future changes in technology and behaviour. Instead, we endorse a principles-based approach based on finding mutually beneficial carriage deals between what are branded “designated internet programme services” and “regulated television selection services”, with Ofcom able to provide a framework in which those negotiations can operate. Ofcom must show that it can and will undertake this important duty as a regulator. There must be strong dispute resolution and enforcement powers for Ofcom, including the ability to impose significant penalties as a result of non-compliance. That allows for maximum flexibility in both legislation and negotiations, as well as proper protections where agreements cannot be reached. It also allows for the regime to be expanded where necessary to capture new technology via which people might be watching television content. Platforms and PSBs have a history of successful negotiations, creating mutually beneficial deals and partnerships that it would be counterintuitive for the prominence regime to undermine.
We support the drafting, but we seek some clarity on the requirement to secure “appropriate” prominence. This was a major topic of discussion during the pre-legislative scrutiny process, with the majority of PSBs calling for this to be upgraded to “significant” prominence. The arguments were based mostly on the differences between linear and digital streaming landscapes.
I invite the Minister to provide a full response to the legitimate argument for “significant” prominence, and to outline the reasons why the prominence requirement has not been upgraded. What conversations have been had with Ofcom on how the detail of the regime will be set out in the code of practice to ensure that it meets its aims? We will need a strongly empowered Ofcom if the Bill is to succeed.
The BBC has consistently called for the possibility of including remote controls and multi-use devices in the prominence regime. I know that its latest thinking is that electronic programme guides could be given prominent buttons on remotes, rather than one PSB in particular. Though we are all keen to see this legislation on the statute book, our aim is that we fully seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that public service content is easily findable in the digital age. The Minister must assure us that that can be achieved and tell us how.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the introduction of the new online prominence framework is arguably the most important change that the Bill brings about in terms of ensuring that high-quality public service content remains available and easy to find online, and in helping to secure the future sustainability of the public service broadcasting system in the UK, of which we are so proud.
I will speak briefly about government Amendments 48 and 49 together. These amendments are to ensure consistency with Part 3A of the Communications Act 2003 in how the Bill describes the content and channels contained within the internet programme services that may be designated by Ofcom. These are technical amendments and I hope noble Lords will support them.
I now turn to the other amendments in this group that noble Lords have spoken to. The duty on regulated television selection services to give prominence to designated services goes to the very heart of the regime, so I understand why many noble Lords have strong views on this—as we heard today and at Second Reading—and why they are keen to ensure that the drafting delivers sufficient prominence for our public service broadcasters.
Amendments 46 and 47 seek to amend the duty on platforms to give designated services “appropriate” prominence to “significant” prominence. I can reassure noble Lords that a lot of careful consideration has gone into the exact wording used in relation to this duty on discoverability. We have consciously designed the new online prominence framework to ensure that it strikes the right balance between ensuring that important public service content is easy to find online and ensuring that regulation is operable and proportionate.
As I made clear on Second Reading, there is a reason why we chose to use “appropriate”—it is a well understood term that has been delivering effective prominence for our public service broadcasters in relation to linear broadcasting for two decades now. It is the term used in the Communications Act so is understood in this context, even if etymologically—lexicographically—we may continue the debate. We remain of the view that “appropriate” is the right descriptor for prominence and that any amendments to the drafting—including removing “appropriate” or changing it to “significant”—could have unintended consequences for the overall user experience. It is not the intention of the new framework to restrict innovation or undermine customer choice or personalisation, for instance.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this grouping. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for giving us a different set of words we can use. I am sorry my noble friend Lord Colville is not in his place; I am merely an occasional TV and radio presenter as opposed to someone who works in the industry. “Appropriate” and “significant” are part of the language of the media, which is rather like the language of your Lordships’ Chamber; it is quite subtle and not always easily understood by people who work elsewhere.
I also thank the number of broadcasters that got in touch with me once I had tabled the amendments, particularly ITV, which spent some time with me pointing out why it did not think my amendment would necessarily work. It is not opposed to strengthening the language to “significant” prominence, and none of us wants any unintended consequences from these amendments, but strengthening that might be something to look at. No doubt the strength of the regime will depend on Ofcom’s implementation regardless of the change. There is plenty more to discuss on finding the right terminology for this. I am slightly disappointed but not surprised that my enthusiasm for these amendments is not shared by the Minister, but I am likely to come back again at the next stage. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
“55A In section 324 (setting and publication of standards), in subsection (2)(a), for “teletext services”, substitute “news content, where it is provided by broadcasters in any format”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would place an obligation on OFCOM to consult those using news content provided by broadcasters, in place of users of teletext services, when preparing the Standards Code.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 45 is unrelated to the other amendments in the group, which is described as “miscellaneous”. I might be allowed not to venture any comment on the Government’s technical amendments and confine myself just to say something on Amendment 54A. In light of all the things we have heard about the changing nature of access to television and televisual material—and radio, I suspect—the reliance on digital access and the limitations on access to the wide range of programmes we presently enjoy for those who lack digital connectivity is an issue certainly worth exploring. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on tabling Amendment 54A.
My Amendment 45 is really just a probing amendment to find out about the process by which a consultation is to take place before Ofcom conducts its standards code. Noble Lords will recall that in Clause 26 we brought the legislation into line with reality and the public teletext services disappeared, so asking Ofcom to consult those who use it would be unnecessary—pointless.
Strictly speaking, consulting those who use television programmes and radio services is perfectly sufficient for the standards code. However, given the standards code and the requirements relating to news impartiality and news accuracy, the special impartiality requirements in Section 320 of the Communications Act, and the fact that the consultation on teletext was about, in a sense, the ways in which broadcasters give the public access to news, I thought it might be helpful to suggest that it might be a good idea for the consultation on the standards code, whenever it happens, to take particular account of how public service broadcasters, by whatever format, set out to give the public access to news, in line with the standards objectives. I am hoping that Ministers would commend that, whether we need to write it into the Bill or not, and that it might be given special attention rather than simply being ignored when we lose teletext and its reference to news in the standards code. I beg to move Amendment 45.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about the group being “miscellaneous”. It suggests it is a bit of a hotchpotch when, in fact, the noble Lord has already asked some very pertinent questions, which my noble friend’s Amendment 54A asks as well. It intends to probe the Government’s intentions to address digital exclusion relating to access to television. Quite a few of the stakeholders raised this issue with us as we prepared for this Bill; I think they will have done with other noble Lords as well.
The amendment asks the Secretary of State to
“prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the impact on the UK economy of addressing digital exclusion”,
including,
“an assessment of the impact of current and future levels of digital exclusion”
and
“an assessment of the likely costs of delivering a programme to … drive uptake of internet connectivity”—
an issue we have discussed in the House on many occasions—
“and digital devices to support access to television and … provide suitable support for skills development for those who need it in order to access television services”.
If the Bill is about the future and what might happen, we also have to address the fact that there will be millions of our fellow citizens who will not have access in different ways. We need to take account of that and work out how best we can approach it. That is what the amendment is about.
With his Amendment 45, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raises issues about how we look to the future to ensure that the Bill is comprehensive and covers the issues that need to be covered when preparing the standards code.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, “miscellaneous” is certainly one of those words that we use in your Lordships’ House and mean all manner of things by it.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his Amendment 45, which probes the Bill by seeking to amend the Communications Act 2003 to require Ofcom to consult those interested in news content provided by broadcasters in any format before setting broadcasting standards. As he set out, this aims to reflect the shifts we have seen in recent years towards digital news consumption. However, the Government do not believe it is necessary to make changes such as these to the requirements on Ofcom, which would blur the lines between the regulation of television on the one hand and the regulation of the press on the other. That is because we do not intend to amend the regulation of the press or of broadcast news content.
We are committed to protecting media freedom and the invaluable role of a free press in our society and democracy. As part of this, we are committed to upholding independence of the press and taking steps to preserve the existing system of self-regulation. That is why we are repealing Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, and why we acted, through the Online Safety Act, to preserve the ability of readers to access recognised news publishers’ content online. The world of television is naturally different. For almost a century, what we have seen on the small screen has been underpinned by a clear set of broadcasting standards. This is something that UK audiences have come to know and value.
In a sense, this amendment addresses one potential boundary issue: the treatment of news websites, and in particular those run by broadcasters themselves—into which category are they to fall? Our considered view is that, in general, such websites are the digital extension not of television but of newspapers. A number of factors point towards this, not least that they are text-based and, in sharp contrast to teletext, rarely accessed from a television set. Viewed in this way, it is clearly inappropriate to apply the Broadcasting Code to them. I thank my noble friend for his probing amendment, but I hope I have reassured him why we do not need to add it to the Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for Amendment 54A, and for starting an important debate on digital inclusion as it relates to television. I agree with them that it is essential that access to high-quality television is universal and should not be dependent on having a high level of digital skills. In previous debates on this Bill, we have already discussed the importance of ensuring that nobody is left behind. I hope I was able to reassure noble Lords that the Government have guaranteed the provision of digital terrestrial television until 2034 at least, and that to turn off this technology would require primary legislation. We know that a key benefit of this technology is how easy it is to use, and we will continue to protect the millions of households that rely on it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to those who participated in this short debate. I thought they raised some useful points.
I think my noble friend may have slightly misinterpreted Amendment 45. I was not in any way trying to extend the standards code to the online activity or websites of the press. I am not interested in that. If anything, what I am really interested in is that we have a number of broadcasters—the BBC, Sky, ITV—each of which has, in addition to its broadcast activity, significant online news presentations. This has not happened, and I am not accusing anybody of doing anything, but I know from past experience just how important it is who chooses what is regarded as the most important news at any given time.
The essence of many of these news online websites is that they are determining what the public are being told are the lead news stories at this moment. To that extent, although they are technically on demand because you can pull down the video clips from Sky News or from ITV or wherever, actually the presentation of those choices is important. I hope those broadcasters will continue to make responsible, impartial and accurate decisions, but if they were not to do so and they are broadcasters, I do not think the standards code would apply to them because this is not covered by their broadcast activity. However, I think it ought to: public service broadcasters, in so far as they are active in news promotion and presentation, should be accountable through the standards code for what they do.
I know my noble friend will recognise that this debate is part of a broader issue, which I want to pursue when I can, relating to the structure of the media public interest test and the importance of these tests in the standards code in relation to news generally and extending the media public interest to those who are responsible for the agglomeration and selection of content for news presentations on a wider set of platforms. I cannot do it in this Bill or in this amendment, but I hope to have the chance to do it sometime. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 45.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to Clause 28 at page 44, line 13, are minor drafting changes.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 28 at page 43, line 12.
“1A In section 393 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (6), in paragraph (a), after “137A” insert “, 362AG(7), 362AW”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consequential amendment relating to Clause 28.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest that I was a TV journalist and executive and worked for the BBC and ITV and made programmes for Channel 4.
We on these Benches are pleased that this Government’s attempt to privatise Channel 4 failed. However, one of the conditions of that attempt, removing its publisher-broadcasting status and allowing it to make its own programmes, has made it into this Bill as Clause 31, which we oppose.
As has been pointed out often to the Minister from these Benches, Channel 4 was created in 1982 by a Government led by Margaret Thatcher. Channel 4 certainly succeeded in fulfilling her business and economic philosophy, in that our world-beating independent production sector owes a huge debt to its creation. As for whether Mrs Thatcher was quite so happy with its creative content, I suspect not.
Channel 4 was conceived as a publisher-broadcaster, not like the BBC/ITV duopoly which existed at that time and made its own programmes in its own studios, but commissioning entirely from what was then a small and innovative band of producers. As a consequence, the television industry in this country diversified as it provided new and exciting opportunities to creative entrepreneurs throughout the UK. In the TV world, it empowered and nurtured small independent producers and start-ups—the companies we were talking about in our first debate today. It played a pivotal role in driving the growth, competitiveness and creative diversity of UK indies. These companies were one of the UK creative industries’ greatest success stories.
Channel 4 invests a greater proportion of its revenue in independent UK commissions than any other PSB or commercial broadcaster, and its publisher-broadcaster status has also meant that Channel 4’s commercial revenues are reinvested in UK content production. As well as being the incubator of our thriving independent production sector, Channel 4 is also the broadcaster of “Channel 4 News”. One hour of in-depth news and current affairs at the heart of peak time on a commercial channel is unheard of anywhere else.
And then, of course, there is its pioneering coverage of the Paralympics. I believe that Channel 4’s championing of this event has led to a worldwide change in the attitude towards disability—a view confirmed by Dame Sarah Storey on Radio 4’s “Desert Island Discs” this weekend about her experience at the Beijing Olympics. She revisited Beijing a year after the Olympics and went to a disabled sports club where she was told that the transformation in the way the disabled were treated in Chinese society was immeasurable.
Due to its expansion of digital channels, Channel 4’s viewing demographic is young and diverse. We believe the cost of establishing a new in-house production outfit would disrupt its business plan—these things that it has achieved—and take money away from commissioning from others.
I do not think we should change Channel 4. It was conceived for a reason: to grow the UK independent TV sector and to represent the voice of minorities. It has done that spectacularly. Channel 4 is a vital part of our creative economy, providing invaluable support to smaller independent production companies throughout the nations and regions, although, as mentioned earlier, this needs to be underpinned. It is a platform for exciting new programming, quality news and current affairs, and pioneering coverage of the Paralympics. Why change its remit?
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I too oppose Clause 31. Channel 4—what a brilliant initiative, how extraordinary, and what a success. It is a cauldron of innovative and original talent, fundamental to our brilliant, creative country, providing a stream of talent for use by all the others, streaming, literally, into our country. It was created to foster competition and innovation in the broadcast sector, and it did. The approach allowed independent production companies to compete for contracts to create programmes rather than relying on in-house production by the channel itself—an approach the Government now seem to want it to adopt. In that independence, it still had to maintain high editorial standards, ensuring accuracy and impartiality and fairness. It had to reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom and to fulfil certain public service obligations to educate, inform and entertain with social responsibility. That model, rather than an in-house production facility and staff, enabled Channel 4 to operate efficiently.
Of course there are challenges. Channel 4 itself had become a bit reliant on production companies that have now grown big, but it is a cauldron of creative opportunity. Right now it is not having the easiest of times, but if it was producing in-house, cuts would be swingeing and challenging. As a commissioning body, it can better cut its cloth to meet the vagaries and ups and downs of its and our economy.
If the Government’s desired change were to take place, it would reduce the opportunities for independent producers, impacting the diversity and range of voices represented. It would risk creative stagnation. It would have financial implications and require investment in additional production facilities, staff and resources at a time when it is cash poor. And any shift in its programming strategy would impact its ability to attract and retain audiences. There would also be an impact on the independent production sector if this significant source of commissioning independent production companies were to be reduced, particularly the smaller ones and the ones producing risky and innovative content.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the clause stand part debate tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for whom I have immense respect, is, I am sure, well intentioned. As she said, it relates to the primary purpose of Channel 4, which is to be a commissioning public service broadcaster.
The Government’s desire to enable Channel 4 to produce programmes in-house as well as through its tried and tested commissioning route is undoubtedly novel and a new departure for the channel, but it is not without risk. As I recall, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, reminded us, it was announced as part of the Government’s decision not to privatise the channel. We all cheered that, but we were left uncertain as to the real intent behind the announcement.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Clause 31 forms an essential component of our plans to support Channel 4’s long-term sustainability so that the channel remains an important and distinctive part of our broadcasting system for many years to come. It is always a pleasure to hear praise from the Benches opposite for the legacies of the Thatcher Governments.
The publisher-broadcaster restriction, as set out in Section 295 of the Communications Act, is unique to Channel 4 and prevents it from being involved in the making of programmes for the Channel 4 service, except to such an extent as Ofcom may allow. As a result, Channel 4 is significantly more dependent on advertising revenue than other commercial broadcasters—a point that we have touched on, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly reminds us, in the debates that we have had on alternative means for securing money for the channel’s long-term sustainability. In particular, two-thirds of Channel 4’s revenue comes from linear television advertising, the market for which is both highly cyclical and in long-term structural decline because of the declining number of people watching linear television.
In response to these challenges, last year the Government announced a package of reforms that would help to support Channel 4’s long-term sustainability while retaining it in public ownership. The removal of the publisher-broadcaster restriction is a key element of that package that will open up opportunities for Channel 4 to further diversify its revenues away from advertising by making its own programmes, should it choose to do so. The Government undertook an assessment of the impact of that and published it on GOV.UK. We will happily direct the noble Lord and others to that so that they can see the assessment that we set out when bringing the package of mitigations forward.
I understand the concerns set out by the two noble Baronesses about how the change might affect Channel 4’s support for the independent production sector across the UK, which were also raised when this issue was discussed in the other place, and we touched on it in our first group of amendments today. That is why, when we announced our intention to remove the restriction, we were clear that we would work closely with the production sector to ensure that Channel 4’s important role of driving investment into the sector would be safeguarded. The outcome of that work was a substantial package of mitigations that we announced in November, some of which, such as the introduction of new Channel 4 commissioning duties and an Ofcom-led review, are included in the Bill. Those mitigations, which also include increasing the level of Channel 4’s independent production quota, will be implemented in the event that Channel 4 incorporates a production company.
Channel 4 itself has welcomed the removal of the restriction and has said that in-house production could offer good long-term support for financial sustainability, while reaffirming its commitment to continue to invest in and champion independent producers, as it has done for the last 40 years. Ultimately, a stronger and more resilient Channel 4 will be best placed to continue playing its integral role in our broadcasting ecosystem for many years to come. By contrast, failing to remove Channel 4’s publisher-broadcaster restriction would mean passing up an opportunity to help it to deliver on that important ambition. That is why Clause 31 is an important clause and should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
What sort of costs does the Minister anticipate the channel will face in setting up its own production company? Has any estimate been made of that? What discussions have the Government had with the company to ensure that it can secure that in the most cost-efficient way?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I have no estimate of my own, but I will happily find out and provide the noble Lord with any estimates that have been made.
“21A In section 39 (interpretation of Part 1), in subsection (1), in the definition of “S4C” and “S4C Digital”—(a) omit ““S4C” and”; and(b) omit “each”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to Schedule 4 at page 134, line 18, add consequential amendments relating to Chapter 2 of Part 3.
“23A In section 105 (interpretation of Part 4 and supplementary provisions), in subsection (1), omit the definition of “S4C”.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 4 at page 134, line 8.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Age rating standardsWhere Tier 1 providers use an age rating or other classification system to comply with the duties imposed on them by or under this Act for the protection of audiences from harm, they must—(a) apply the age rating or classification system used by the video works authority based on their classification guidelines, or(b) apply an age rating or classification system that is judged by OFCOM to be—(i) based on a transparent set of appropriate standards,(ii) applied consistently across content,(iii) informed by regular consultation with the UK public, and(iv) well understood and recognised by the public.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to ensure that, where age ratings are used by Video on Demand platforms, those ratings are the same as the ones used by the British Board of Film Classification or meet equivalent standards of rigour, transparency, and objectivity.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Storey and with his permission, I move Amendment 57. It seeks to ensure that, where age ratings are used by video on demand channels—and I of course acknowledge that some adopt a different approach to audience protection—the ratings are the same as the ones used by the British Board of Film Classification or meet equivalent standards of rigour, transparency and objectivity. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who has worked tirelessly on this issue and whose amendments, while having the same effect as Amendment 57, provide much more detail on the procedures to be followed. We on these Benches support them, and the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
I welcome the Bill’s proposal to improve audience protection on streaming services through Ofcom reviews, but my concern is that the Bill does not specify on what basis Ofcom should consider measures to be adequate—echoing the point I made earlier on the need for Parliament to have a greater say in guiding Ofcom on the way it carries out its functions. This is a particular problem when it comes to age ratings, as not all age ratings are equally effective for child protection. The present lack of consistency risks undermining public confidence in age ratings in general and I know there is an unusual level of cross-party support on this particular issue.
In the ideal world—as I see it—all streaming content would carry a BBFC age rating. We expect this of cinema and DVD releases, so why not streaming? Netflix, Amazon, Apple and many others have demonstrated that this is achievable. However, in the interests of achieving consensus, at the very least there should be minimum standards to ensure greater consistency where services choose to use age ratings. This is essentially what all the amendments in this group seek to achieve. BBFC ratings are rightly trusted and valued by UK families. The BBFC is designated by the Government, accountable to Parliament and legally bound to take UK public opinion into account, which it does through extensive research. The BBFC is also fully transparent. It publishes its guidelines and provides detailed content advice to help families make informed choices. This is essential to the effectiveness of its ratings.
Streamers working with the BBFC automatically benefit from its transparency and consistency and from the massive public trust it enjoys. Netflix viewers understand what a 12 or a 15 means on Netflix because it means exactly the same thing as in cinemas or on DVD. I have looked at some of the services that do not use BBFC ratings, including Disney+, Paramount+ and Sky’s Now service. I did not find any information on their age rating criteria, nor any evidence of research underpinning their standards. The ratings these services apply are often misaligned with UK expectations. Even where films and series have a legally enforceable BBFC rating, they often choose to apply—bizarrely—a different rating. How can parents know which rating to trust when the BBFC says one thing and Disney says something different?
To give an example: “Beauty and the Beast”, the 2017 live action remake, was a PG in the cinemas and on DVD. It remains a PG online on those streamers that are working with the BBFC, including Amazon Prime and Apple TV, but on Disney+, for some reason, it has been reclassified as a 12+. Another example is “Bohemian Rhapsody”, the Freddie Mercury biopic. This has a BBFC rating of 12. Many families will have enjoyed it together at the cinema. It remains a 12 on Amazon, Apple and the other services that work with the BBFC, but on Disney+ it is 16+. This means that, if a parent wants to let their 12 year-old watch a film that is entirely appropriate for them, they need to set the child’s Disney+ profile to access 16+ content—but that would include many titles with a BBFC rating of 15 or 18.
At the same time, Disney classified a very sinister 2019 adaptation of “A Christmas Carol” involving graphic horror scenes and sexual exploitation as a 9+. While Disney subsequently took this title down, it was a serious compliance failure when it was released with this rating in the first place. But Disney+ is not the only offender. On Paramount+, titles rated BBFC 12 are routinely bumped up to 15+, putting them alongside much stronger material. Do family favourites such as “Mean Girls”, “Top Gun: Maverick” and various titles in the Transformers series really belong alongside violent thrillers and gory horror movies?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who put the case for this group of amendments incredibly well. I do not want to go over the ground he has already covered, but I would just like to endorse three key points behind them.
First, children should be afforded the same protections against inappropriate content, whatever channel they are on. As my noble friend the Minister will remember well, what goes on in the real world should apply also to the digital world and vice versa. Secondly, it is the role of Parliament—no one else—to set out the rules when it comes to issues as important as the safety of children. Thirdly, companies that wilfully and knowingly fail to take steps to protect children should face the consequences. Those are the three principles behind this group of amendments and I thank the noble Lord for putting them so well.
I also thank some of the companies and stakeholders with whom I have engaged in the drafting of these amendments. As noble Lords may have noticed, the amendments have changed quite a lot between Second Reading and our meeting today. The reason is that companies have made good points and we have adjusted the amendments to reflect some of those: I thank in particular Disney and Sky for the engaging, positive and constructive way in which they have conducted these conversations.
Amendment 60 is incredibly straightforward. It is to include the British Board of Film Classification as a statutory consultee when Ofcom is drafting new video on demand codes. Statutory consultees are very common. The Children’s Commission was added during the Online Safety Bill and the BBFC is highly respected. So I hope very much that that could be waved through by my noble friend the Minister.
Amendment 61 is really the main focus of my remarks today. It would bring in a minimum standard across all ratings across tier 1 services. It would allow providers to either use the BBFC’s world-class and highly robust system or—and this is a very important “or”—a system of their own that meets equivalent standards. That is the gap that this amendment seeks to fill.
Following discussions with the providers, it also includes a provision for services provided by linear broadcasters to use a system based on the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. If I can, I will briefly explain that point. Many broadcasters have a linear service that is quite reasonably overseen by Ofcom and have a Broadcasting Code arrangement. It seems sensible—to me at least—that those standards should apply to their VOD broadcasts as well. That was one of the changes we were pleased to make to the amendments we have laid.
Amendment 61 sets out the process by which Ofcom can assess the ratings systems that are not based on the BBFC’s and, following the discussions I mentioned, the ability for Ofcom to designate some content, such as news or live events, as exempt from age ratings. That seems like a sensible exemption to me. Amendments 62 to 66 are consequential on Amendment 61 and would extend Ofcom’s enforcement powers to cover breaches related to the minimum standards for age-ratings requirements.
During Second Reading, there were some concerns raised that it would be inappropriate to mandate a particular solution and that these amendments might go against the tech-neutral approach of the overall Bill. If that were the case then I would share those concerns, but I reassure noble Lords, who will see this from the text, that those concerns are based on a misunderstanding of both the intent and substance of these amendments. The provisions would apply only to tier 1 services that choose to use age ratings as part of their overall audience protection duties. No service would be forced to use age ratings against its will and the requirements would not apply to any service that finds a different or better audience protection measure, whether that is tomorrow or in 50 years’ time. Nor would it mandate a specific age-ratings system, such as the BBFC’s. In fact, my amendment provides a clear choice of three different approaches, one including a bespoke service to them, provided it meets the minimum standards.
That is what my amendments are really about. They aim to ensure that, in the same way parents know what PG and 12A mean when they go to the cinema or buy a DVD, they can trust the age ratings that pop up on their TV at home or on the basis of their parental controls. For that reason, I hope very much indeed that my noble friend the Minister will embrace this set of amendments.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 67 and 69 are in my name on the Marshalled List. Amendment 67 would add signposting measures to the audience protection measures which Ofcom must review under new Section 368OB of the Communications Act 2003. Amendment 69, in common with the amendments that have already been spoken to, would require Ofcom to consider whether age-rating systems used by a tier 1 service meet a set of minimum standards.
My amendments are very similar to those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. The key to our amendments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is the need for us to be consistent in the way that we deal with children and age rating, so that systems are easily understood by parents and fulfil the standards that we have in this country about child protection, wherever it is. The Minister will be aware of all this, since he lived through the Bill that is now on the statute book as the Online Safety Act.
I was slightly surprised when I received a briefing which was signed by many of the stakeholders in this area—a number of companies, but it also included the PSBs. It made an argument against the three sets of amendments that have been put down. I was rather struck by this—I think they were a bit naughty in this briefing, in my view. For example, they included the public service broadcasters, which are not affected by this; this is absolutely not relevant to them. I would like the Minister to confirm that that is absolutely the case: this is not about their content at all.
The briefing also makes various statements about the commitment that many of the companies have to collaborating with Ofcom during the passage of the Bill, but that they want to take into consideration “audience research Ofcom conducts”. If it is the case that these companies are all committed to this then I can think of no reason why they would object to the minimum standards that we have put in our amendments being in the Bill. We are not saying that they should necessarily adopt the BBFC standards; what we are saying is that they need to show that their age ratings are comprehensive, understandable and sensible.
Some of these big beasts, if I might call them that, which have objected to this are doing it because they are big beasts. Frankly, I am unimpressed by that. We know, for example, that the same thing happened when New Zealand was dealing with this issue. But guess what? They are all complying with minimum standards there and it does not seem to have been a problem. If they can do it in New Zealand, I cannot see any reason why we would not be able to do it in this country.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am in complete agreement with the noble Lords who have spoken about the need to protect children and vulnerable audiences from the harmful and inappropriate video on demand content to which they might be exposed. We are aware of the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere on the need to ensure that the protection measures used by on-demand services are robust, and that providers are rightly held to a high standard when delivering them.
This is a key issue that the Bill will address by bringing mainstream, TV-like on-demand services in scope of a new video on demand code. The code will be drafted and enforced by Ofcom, which has a long track record of regulating broadcast television to ensure that it is age-appropriate and protects the most vulnerable. Ofcom will also be required to conduct reviews of the audience protection measures being taken by all on-demand services, whether or not they are subject to the new code. I can reassure noble Lords that the concerns raised today are already well covered by the Bill as drafted. Ofcom will be given extensive powers to set standards, assess video on demand services’ audience protection measures, and take action that it considers appropriate. If audiences are concerned, they can complain to Ofcom and the regulator can, in the most serious cases, apply sanctions, such as financial penalties, or even restrict access to that service in the UK.
Amendment 67 would add
“information about where viewers can seek help and further resources if they have been affected by content”
to the non-exhaustive list set out in new Section 368OB(4), a subsection which provides examples of audience protection measures. I agree that signposting audiences in this way is an important measure that all services should consider using where appropriate. I am pleased to say that many already do. However, the Bill already fully enables Ofcom to review or provide guidance on any such measures. The Bill, as drafted, purposely provides only a non-exhaustive list of measures that Ofcom can consider. As a result, it enables Ofcom to take into account anything it considers appropriate, which can of course include signposting.
Amendments 57 and 69 look to set specific standards for services that use age ratings—namely, that age ratings are consistent, recognised by UK audiences, based on transparent standards and
“informed by regular consultation with the … public”.
Let me be clear: the Bill already gives Ofcom the power to set these standards, and others, through its new video on demand code. It will rightly do that through consultation with audiences, providers and interested organisations such as the British Board of Film Classification. Ofcom must keep those rules under constant review, so that they can be adapted to take into account changes in audience expectation and technological change. In our view, the important thing is to ensure that effective protection is in place, rather than necessarily specifying as a matter of statute that systems have to be provided in a certain way or by any single or specific organisation.
Amendments 61 to 66 take this quite a few steps further by proposing an Ofcom certification scheme for those services which want to use age ratings but choose not to use the BBFC’s system. My concern is not only that this puts another responsibility on Ofcom but that it could actively discourage providers from using age ratings at all to avoid the need to get such measures certified.
I appreciate, as my noble friend Lord Bethell set out, that he has updated his amendment following dialogue with a number of companies to provide a new option for existing linear broadcasters: reliance on the Broadcasting Code when age-rating their content. This creates challenges of its own, given that the Broadcasting Code contains very little information on age ratings as they are rarely used on linear television. It is also unclear why, if the aim is for a consistent set of standards, some tier 1 providers should be treated differently from others in this way.
Finally, Amendment 60 places an obligation on Ofcom to consult the BBFC every time Ofcom considers a revision of the video on demand code. Such an obligation would be unnecessary and potentially inappropriate. While the BBFC has some interest in the issue of age classification, the scope of this amendment would include areas where it has little or no expertise—to give a topical example, it would include due impartiality in news. I reassure noble Lords that Ofcom is already obliged to consult widely with appropriate organisations. We are satisfied that Ofcom and the BBFC already have regular conversations on a number of issues.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for his detailed response. Clearly, this is an issue we are very likely to return to on Report.
I have a couple of quick points the Minister might ponder on. He told us that Ofcom will be responsible for drafting the video on demand code. He said that will lead to Ofcom having extensive powers. But I am still left wondering how Ofcom is going to be made aware of the views of Parliament as it comes to draw up the code. How will we have any say in that code before it is finally put into place?
I confess that there were a couple of things the Minister said that slightly worried me. In response to a very simple amendment, which asked that one of Ofcom’s statutory consultees would be the BBFC, the Minister said, “We have discovered that Ofcom and the BBFC meet regularly”. I am sure they do, and I am delighted, but this Bill is meant to be future-proof and things could change later. I cannot understand why, if they meet regularly anyway, the BBFC cannot be listed as a statutory consultee.
Finally, it was slightly odd, given all the powers Ofcom has and how it will be able to do all this work, that when it comes to accrediting those who choose not to use an age-rating system, the Minister’s response appeared to be that Ofcom has too much on to take on that responsibility. I thought that was slightly odd. As I said, we are grateful to the Minister for his response, and I am certain we will be returning to this issue at a later date.
“(2) In section 393 of that Act (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (6), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) limits the information that may be published by OFCOM under section 368OB;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consequential amendment relating to Clause 38.
Media Bill
Wednesday 22nd May 2024
(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 44-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (21 May 2024)
Lord Storey
“(a) be made using a process OFCOM shall create within six months of the passing of the Media Act 2024 to enable application on a continuous basis, and”
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, my Amendments 71, 73 and 74 are concerned with local radio. For a moment I just want to remind people of the importance of local radio. In my own city of Liverpool, in the halcyon days there were two local newspapers, the Echo and the Daily Post, then along came Radio Merseyside—originally it was in two small almost cupboards in council buildings—and then, to a great fanfare, commercial local radio was established. The two print local newspapers and the two broadcast stations became an ecosystem. In those days, there were personalities presenting local news, current affairs and phone-in questions, and even attending local events. They had a local government reporter and they would vie with each other to get the best scoops and the best news.
Who would have thought in those wonderful days that now you would switch on your local commercial radio station and get a programme made in London, presented by somebody living in London, with production staff from London? You then discover that the local allowed input is probably just under a minute of local news and, if you are lucky, the weather and traffic news. Is that what local news is really about? Is that what we want in our country? I was fascinated to hear the Minister the other day quite rightly talking about the great successes of our PSBs, how they have embraced the whole country and how we have seen the establishment of production and of television studios in all parts of the country.
I wish the same was true of local radio. It is as if there are two furniture removal vans, one marked “radio”, which is heading towards London, and the other marked “television”, which is moving out of London and into the whole of our country. I received a letter from Radio Banbury, saying that a complaint was made that the former local radio station for Salisbury is no longer providing local news as required by its licence. The station is now owned by Bauer and runs as Greatest Hits Radio. Ofcom decided to take no action. One particular comment from Ofcom is of real interest:
“The Licensee explained that from 2 January 2024 it had planned to trial a ‘county’ bulletin for its stations in Wiltshire because it considered that the city-focused news bulletins for Salisbury ‘sounded jarring and parochial against industry-leading shows such as Ken Bruce and Simon Mayo’”.
As much as I like Ken Bruce and Simon Mayo, and think that there is definitely a role for commercial radio to cover the whole country, it should not be at the expense of our local radio stations. I hope the Minister considers my amendments very carefully. They are about saying that local stations that have been bought, almost ruthlessly, by Bauer or Global now get around the local news requirement by putting on a few minutes of local news, which is not really what this should be about.
The existing legislation within Section 314 of the Communications Act 2003 is being amended by the Media Bill so that the provision of local news and information is the only local requirement. It appears to regionalise the requirement, whereas existing FM licensees are held to a much tighter editorial area. A multiplex service covers a much larger area than the traditional FM coverage area. Under the current legislation, Ofcom allows local commercial licence holders to be compliant with just one 20-second local news story per hour. There is evidence that some stations have already moved to the regional model. Occasionally, traffic news is the only other evidence of information.
Existing legislation requires locally produced programming. FM licence holders are required to produce three hours each weekday from within their broadcast area. In recent years Ofcom has designed regions, aligned to the ITV regions, and the locally produced requirement is reached as long as the programme is produced within the region.
In reality, this means that stations as far apart as Banbury, Aylesbury and Winchester all share a local programme from Southampton. Often, there is no difference in the content, albeit the presenters are different. Aside from news bulletins, the content and music match that of all other stations in the network. The Media Bill removes the requirement for locally produced programming. It will leave local FM licensees allowed to operate as pseudo-national stations all day, every day, with the exception of 20-second regional news stories.
Ofcom last readvertised FM licences in 2019-20, allowing a fast-track process where current licence holders were not challenged. In 2020, the DCMS allowed unchallenged licence extensions for up to 10 years as long as the station committed to broadcasting on digital radio. At the same time, huge consolidation took place in the radio industry, with the main groups, Bauer and Global, purchasing radio stations across the country. For groups, paying to be on a digital radio multiplex is far cheaper and less risky than reapplying for their FM licence; most already have their service on DAB anyway. The result is that the vast majority of existing FM licences are held by the two big groups and are safe until 2030. At the same time, Ofcom is refusing to allow new applicants for FM licences.
If we want thriving local radio and if we want easy-listening competition for Radio 1 or 2, this is not the way to go about it. I am sure that, in our communities, we all want a radio station that is local.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, first, I need to apologise to noble Lords that I was not present at Second Reading. I am grateful to a number of local radio stations, and especially to Rob Persani of Rutland radio, which is where the Vale of Catmose is, for bringing to my attention the issue in Amendment 72. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who have put their names to the amendment. I also want to thank my noble friend the Minister for the meeting yesterday with the Secretary of State and the MP for Rutland and Melton, Alicia Kearns.
I support Amendments 71 and 73 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. The purpose of Amendment 72, however, is to ensure that Ofcom issues licences where there is no digital coverage. I accept that the wording of the amendment would need redrafting on Report to more clearly define the test needed where there are areas of no coverage. Applying for licences needs to be in the system outlined in Amendments 71 and 73. Ofcom does not need to run expensive competitions any more for FM licences, and it is not surprising that no new FM licences have been issued since 2009 if it has to run such a competition. As has been outlined, if you have a DAB licence, your FM licence is now automatically renewed. That simple process of renewal online with the payment of a fee could apply to new licences, rather than the expensive competition process that we had previously.
Commercial radio stations used to come in all shapes and sizes, so it is sad to learn, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, outlined, of the demise of local radio. “Much in little” is Rutland’s motto, and there are about 41,000 people living there, plus tourists. Rutland radio is a great way to find out what is happening in the local area, especially as you drive around, but it has areas where digital has no reach.
The vision of Ofcom for the digital switchover for local radio is called small-scale DAB—smaller areas where it issues what are called polygon licences. I assume for the purpose of Amendment 72 that, as with the internet, His Majesty’s Government’s policy is that everyone should have radio access. Looking at SS-DAB and FM, even if small-scale DAB was the answer technically, it is not small scale enough to work economically.
Instead of the one frequency that you need for an FM station—at a cost, I am informed, of around £15,000 plus your annual fee to Ofcom—under a polygon licence a station such as Banbury radio, as the noble Lord just mentioned, would have to buy three such licences for that small-scale area delineated by Ofcom, at triple the cost. The local economy of advertising, which is what supports those local FM radio stations, just cannot sustain that; the areas envisaged by small-scale DAB are just too big.
I am grateful that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will cover the more technical issues relating to small-scale DAB, but, as I have outlined, it does not reach everywhere. In a place such as Rutland, it comes in and out when you drive between the villages and the two towns—yes, villages and two market towns is Rutland. Alicia Kearns MP recited to us yesterday how the digital signal goes out for lengthy periods when driving around. SS-DAB is fine for areas of greater population, but those areas do not need it. Apparently, there are pockets all around the country where you cannot get digital radio. No one is sure precisely where all those are, but it would be interesting to know from His Majesty’s Government whether they have looked at where the gaps are and what the internet coverage is in those areas. I suspect that there is quite a lot of correlation, but it is merely a suspicion.
Internet radio is also not the solution for those areas. Statistics from the UK Consumer Digital Index from Lloyds Bank show that 2.1 million people in the UK are offline, and 4.7 million people do not access the internet. Age UK did a survey of over-65s, and 2.7 million people, which is about 22% of that age group, are not accessing the internet. That could be due not to lack of coverage but to disability, cognition failure or vision problems. They will continue to rely on digital or FM radio.
It was rather prescient that, only yesterday, we raised with the Secretary of State that national resilience needs FM. In the national resilience strategy, it turns out that FM is the most resilient form of communication, so we will not be switching off FM in the near future. In the event of power outage or solar flares, it is the most resilient. Today, it just so happens that the Deputy Prime Minister is outlining the preparedness of household strategies to boost national resilience. The advice is to boost your analogue capabilities and buy a wind-up radio—but to receive what? FM, of course.
Why not allow those who want a new licence to broadcast on an FM frequency that will remain for the foreseeable future? All the commercial risk is on the operators. It will not cost His Majesty’s Government a penny. Also, the more people who continue using FM radios, the more resilient households are. They will know that their FM radio works and will not be scrambling around in the back of the wardrobe to dust it off in an emergency—but perhaps I am only the person who, on reading the national resilience strategy, is wondering where the batteries are for that torch that I bought, and where the candles are that I bought when the Deputy Prime Minister last talked to me about resilience.
Finally—and to give my second “it just so happens”—your Lordships’ House has just had a repeat of an Urgent Question from the other place on South West Water. In areas with no digital coverage and an emergency that is not a power outage, sometimes there is time to communicate with your population—for example, if there is flooding or a forest fire. But if you need to tell the public, “Stop drinking your tap water”, that is an immediate message. I hope that His Majesty’s Government are looking at how South West Water managed to communicate with all its customers in the local area. Sadly, as we renew only 0.1% of our mains water network each year, instead of the 1% average on the continent, I think that such incidents will be more frequent.
Many in your Lordships’ House will know of “Rutland Weekend Television” by Eric Idle, but the local coverage of Rutland radio and other local stations is not a comedy; it is essential. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have some good news to tell your Lordships’ House on this amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 72, to which I have put my name, and also to support Amendments 71, 73 and 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. These amendments will do much to support local radio.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, has already explained to us the regionalisation of local radio and the destruction it has caused. This has not been helped by cuts at the BBC, which are forcing many of its stations to regionalise as well. In the area in which I live, East Anglia, BBC Suffolk and BBC Norfolk broadcast the same content for much of the day. These stations are not local; they are regional, and in some cases national. They have fired local staff and closed local studios, and as brands move towards national broadcasting there are fewer regional centres.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, it is an extremely surreal moment to stand up just as the Prime Minister is about to walk out of the door of No. 10, maybe to announce a general election for 4 July. Of course, if that does happen it means we will be dealing with these very important issues during the wash-up process.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I just wanted to let the noble Lord know that Downing Street is delaying the announcement for 10 minutes so that we can hear his speech in full.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am always grateful for suggestions from my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey.
The amendments that have already been debated are extremely important. I am particularly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for explaining the somewhat complex details surrounding the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments are really important in the context of going back to the sort of local radio stations we used to enjoy. He is also right to point out that a number of our debates have already demonstrated how important it is for Parliament to give a clear direction to Ofcom about its various activities.
I will concentrate on my Amendments 75 and 76. On Monday, I referred to the vital importance of Sections 319 and 320 of the Communications Act in creating an impartiality framework for TV and radio, building on earlier ones. That tradition of impartiality is the basis for the very high level of trust in our broadcast journalists—a tradition as vital for radio as it is for television. As I said on Monday, in an era of disinformation and conspiracy theories, spread so easily and quickly via social media, those impartiality requirements and the trust they engender in broadcast news and information are more important than ever. However, they are now under threat from a combination of a new generation of opinionated news stations and what appears to be the increasing reluctance of Ofcom to implement Parliament’s will.
Those impartiality rules, laid down by Parliament in 2003, are very clear. Section 319(2)(c) of the Act lays down that one of the standards objectives to be enforced by Ofcom is that
“news included in television and radio services is presented with due impartiality and that the impartiality requirements of section 320 are complied with”.
Section 320 states clearly that, for every radio and television service, due impartiality must be preserved in—this is critical—
“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.
In simple terms, I believe that means that the due impartiality requirements must apply equally to both news and what we might call current affairs.
Recently, however, Ofcom seems to be making a distinction, allowing greater latitude for current affairs programmes to escape the due impartiality requirement. The distinction was first raised on 21 March last year in an Ofcom blog posted by its then group director for broadcasting and online content, Kevin Bakhurst. It was headlined, “Can politicians present TV and radio shows? How our rules apply”. Mr Bakhurst stated that,
“generally speaking, if it’s a news programme, a politician cannot present”,
but
“They are allowed to present other kinds of shows … including current affairs”.
Yet that distinction between news and current affairs appears nowhere in the relevant statute; nor did it appear in Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code or in the guidance that accompanies the code, yet Ofcom now clearly sees a distinction.
Last month, looking further into the issue of politicians presenting programmes, Ofcom commissioned IPSOS to carry out some focus groups among audiences. One of the conclusions in the IPSOS report was:
“Participants thought they could easily distinguish between news and current affairs … However, in practice, the presentation and style of these types of content blurred the line between news and current affairs which confused participants”.
IPSOS concluded that:
“The most prevalent opinion was feeling uncomfortable with politicians presenting current affairs content”.
While Ofcom appears to want news and current affairs to be treated separately, audiences have difficulty distinguishing between the two, so, just as the 2003 Act intended, news and current affairs programmes should both be covered by Sections 319 and 320 of the Act. The arbitrary distinction that Ofcom appears to have made between news and current affairs has no basis in law. After all, both quite clearly relate to
“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.
Were the distinction to continue, it would significantly weaken the impartiality framework, so Amendment 75 makes it clear that Parliament always intended news to incorporate current affairs, in line with audience expectations.
This brings us back to the issue about partisan presenters. We have some outstanding radio show presenters with well-known political allegiances, including some from this House. I mention in passing the excellent programmes on Times Radio presented by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the newly ennobled noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika. We would not want to banish them from the air waves any more than we would want to banish, say, Nigel Farage from GB News. We are a liberal democracy, and we want to protect those contributions, but surely only if their shows live up to the same standards of impartiality required for news programmes.
Given the very high trust that audiences have invested in our broadcast services, as well as the clear audience discomfort with politically partisan presenters, we should seriously consider whether additional impartiality guardrails might be necessary for programmes hosted by well-known figures with well-recognised political allegiances. Amendment 76 addresses the rules around partisan presenters, whether on news or current affairs programmes, and it offers the simple proposal that the Secretary of State should review whether an enhanced duty of impartiality for such presenters might be necessary. The current rules around impartiality should not be allowed to be weakened by a regulator, certainly not without Parliament’s permission. Taken together, Amendment 75 and 76 seek to protect the legacy of trust which our broadcast media has taken decades to construct and which must not carelessly be disregarded.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
Well, if no one is going to fill the gap, I will. I can confirm that a general election has not yet been announced—in deference to the excellent speech on radio from the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I thought I would make a few brief remarks —while we wait for this imminent event—with some reflections on radio.
I was lucky enough to be the Radio Minister for six years in the DCMS and now I am lucky enough to be a broadcaster on Times Radio—which is duly declared in my register of interests—so I have seen both sides of the fence. Ofcom has had a fantastic team looking after radio for many years and they are great experts on it. They were very much on the front foot when we discussed some of the mechanics and the engineering needed to extend digital radio.
The watchwords for radio are that we in Britain have an extremely successful radio ecosystem. We love our radio. We are also very far in advance of many other countries. To all intents and purposes, we have a universal digital network, which not many countries have. We still have our FM network. We have a plethora of radio stations, from legitimate national stations to quasi-national stations—which are really a group of regional stations knitted together—through to local radio stations and community radio stations. One of the things that I wanted to do most as a Minister was to support community radio. There is not enough money for it; there should be more money for it and for the engineering to support it. It is truly local radio. I used to visit places such as Swindon community radio which provided a vital service. It was run by volunteers and, rather like hospital radio, it is a great gateway into the radio industry and lots of young people still want to work in radio. That is very important.
It is a good thing, as it were, that the Government never made a firm decision on whether to switch over FM to digital and have allowed the radio industry in effect to lead that process and wait for it to come and say when it might be ready—when the dual costs may be too much or it might be sensible to go to a purely digital system. The other important point about radio is that the BBC sits at the heart of that radio ecosystem. That is one the important reasons to support the BBC but, at the same time, the BBC should be very mindful of its place and, in my view, be leaning in to providing the kind of radio services that commercial radio cannot afford to provide. In particular, that is local radio.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that there is far too much broadcast regulation being made up on the hoof by Ofcom, without any guidance from Parliament. That is partly up to the Government to drive consultation and to frame the debate so that Parliament can have that debate and make some decisions. However, I accept that, as a Conservative Peer, broad- casting a show on Times Radio, it feels very odd to interview Wes Streeting about Labour’s health policy. The people who run Times Radio and who run other radio stations take their obligations to Ofcom very seriously. They have compliance departments and ask whether something will comply with Ofcom or cross a line. They are very mindful of the existing guidance that Ofcom prepares.
As I said in the Second Reading debate, we should not be misled in terms of thinking about this kind of regulation for opinionated news—if you like—a sort of hybrid. We should not be misled because we might not like GB News, because it is deemed to be a right-wing station. We should have a proper debate about whether there is room for opinionated news in the broadcast ecosystem, particularly as we are now so deep into such a rich information environment with social media.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I can usually spot a cunning plan when there is one afoot, and I fancy that our debate this afternoon is going to be overshadowed by events outside this House as the lectern has already been rolled out. This is an eclectic group of amendments which raise some important issues on radio regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, in Amendments 71, 73 and 74 seeks to establish a baseline of locally provided programmes. I suspect we all have some sympathy with this.
There was a time when local radio was genuinely that: local. I well remember, as a local government leader, a time when both commercial and public service broadcast—BBC—radio stations used to call me up to face a quizzical reporter or phone-in audiences on local issues. But it has been a while since those days, as less and less content is generated from a locality. Basically, “local” means anything but that, as the programmes can be made and broadcast anywhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, accurately described, and have no particular geographical audience.
Most commercial radio stations now work to the same format and are owned by fewer and fewer companies, with little or no community input. Sadly, they have contributed to the overall decline of local news as well. As we know, the BBC has much reduced its local services—several noble Lords have mentioned this—as part of its slimming down of local radio. It remains an open question as to how practical and workable the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, are in the current context, and that is a question for us to consider.
I turn to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, particularly Amendment 72, which I think we would all accept hits on a very significant issue. If we want to look at radio coverage in the context of levelling up—and I think we should—we clearly have a long way to go, because there are definitely issues of access. Last year, we passed legislation that in theory should enable better coverage digitally, but it remains the case that rural areas are still significantly disadvantaged. In replying to the noble Baroness, can the Minister update the Committee today on progress and how the Government see, and are seeking, other means to redress this widely perceived imbalance? Are there, for instance, any government targets in place that are designed to move the UK towards a more universal quality of coverage that will take account of rural and local needs?
Turning to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on radio news impartiality, I say that, yes, of course there should be careful consideration by Ofcom, both for television and radio, when current affairs shows are on either news stations or channels, or stations that focus heavily on news and current affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, seems to have introduced a new expression into our debate today: “opinionated news”. I thought that was a very good expression and not one I had heard before. I do not think that we can easily move away from challenging that. How we resolve the fact that politicians of a particular party host such shows in the face of regulations that are pretty clear on impartiality and balance is something we need now to seriously consider, and the noble Lord raises a telling question.
We must also ensure that Ofcom has the tools it needs to decide on impartiality when it comes to politically hosted shows. Perhaps the Minister could outline what discussions he and his department have had with Ofcom on this matter, because it is a matter of serious concern. We need considerable reassurance on this because, hand on heart, we cannot say that it is working as well as it should—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, says about Ofcom having a very good team covering radio. I am sure that is true and that great diligence is exhibited there, but we need to move on and ensure that Ofcom can get on with the job in a way that satisfies widespread public concern about impartiality rules.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that we are now at the section of the Bill dealing with radio and able to say that the state of radio in the UK is in good health. The medium continues to be attractive to new generations of listeners, while the proportion of adults who listen each week is virtually unchanged from a decade ago. I imagine quite a few people are tuning in right now to their radios across the UK.
However, UK radio also faces many more challenges than it did in the past, with competition from technology platforms and online streaming providers, and it is vital that stations large and small are able to adapt their services in response to listeners’ preferences, which is why the measures in the Bill regarding radio are so important.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his Amendments 71 and 73, which would require Ofcom to determine the licensing process for new local and restricted services licences within six months of the Bill’s completed passage. We would, however, consider such a requirement on Ofcom to be unduly prescriptive. As the UK’s independent regulator, not only for radio but also for spectrum management and specific frequency allocations, we believe that Ofcom should continue to have wide discretion in how it carries out its functions in respect of its regulation of radio services. We are not persuaded that overlaying new and prescriptive requirements on its duties is necessary.
My noble friend Lady Berridge, speaking to Amendment 72, referred to the meeting we had yesterday with my honourable friend Julia Lopez, the Minister for Media, Tourism and the Creative Industries. I was very grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for giving up their time to join us to discuss it. Her amendment seeks to ensure that, in areas defined as rural or in those that present a topographical issue—hilly or mountainous terrain or other things that get in the way of radio broadcast and limit the availability of digital services—Ofcom would be required to grant an FM licence to the organisation applying. That would mark a departure from the present licensing system, as we discussed yesterday, and create legal uncertainties about when this requirement applies and who would judge whether a particular area is unsuitable for a digital radio service.
Since 2003, Ofcom has had responsibility to secure the optimal use of the spectrum in determining where and how to license FM and other radio services. This amendment would conflict with that responsibility, especially in the case of areas where Ofcom judges that there may not be spectrum available to license further FM services.
Since 2010, Ofcom has successfully focused on developing community radio. A number of noble Lords rightly pointed out that this is greatly valued by people across the UK, with 320 services, the majority of which are on FM, across the country bringing an important degree of local choice and diversity. Ofcom has also focused on developing digital radio. Ofcom is currently focusing on small-scale DAB, which is now in its sixth round of licence awards, with 59 areas currently licensed, giving cost-effective opportunities for small commercial and community stations to broadcast on DAB as well as online. A number of these new multiplexes are located in more rural areas of the country, bringing new stations on air in these locations.
My noble friend raised very eloquently some pertinent points about the lack of services in more rural areas, such as the Vale of Catmose in her territorial designation. Ofcom has offered FM community radio licences in the most recent licensing round between 2017 and 2020 to people interested in developing community services. Although the most recent licensing round was a successful exercise, with more than 70 new community radio stations launching, rural areas with smaller populations may have specific challenges in being able to bring together viable proposals for community radio services, as my noble friend outlined in her speech.
With Ofcom’s licensing of small-scale DAB coming to a natural break point, I can tell my noble friend that we plan to work with Ofcom to look at the case for supporting new radio services in rural and remote areas and to assess possible options for helping to support these services get on air. To that end, my honourable friend Julia Lopez is very happy to write to Ofcom, asking it to provide advice on this, and to publish a copy of her letter. That can be done swiftly and I hope that, with that commitment to ask Ofcom to look at the case for supporting new stations in rural and remote areas, my noble friend will be content not to press her amendment and perhaps to continue to discuss this with us.
I turn to Amendment 74 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Like many who spoke, I recognise the important contribution that commercial radio stations play in delivering local news and other local information. The noble Lord’s amendment, which seeks to put in legislation the current requirements on local production and news drawn from the current Ofcom guidance, would be a significant change to the radio deregulation measures. It would reinstate the requirements for maintaining local production, resulting in higher costs for commercial radio broadcasters. By putting the current Ofcom localness guidance on a statutory basis, it would also limit Ofcom’s flexibility to develop new guidance that will set the expectations to enable Ofcom to hold stations to account for their compliance with the new locally gathered news and to adapt the guidance in future. Fixing these requirements in this way would result in additional long-term costs, which may have an impact on the financial viability of the sector and its ability to invest in content. It is worth noting that there are no similar provisions for the BBC under its royal charter or agreement.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
The Minister is missing the fundamental point. There is a simple question: does he believe, and is it the Government’s view, that the due impartiality regulations contained in Sections 319 and 320 of the Communications Act apply to both news and current affairs programmes?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will happily write to the noble Lord with more detail on that, but we think the Bill strikes the right balance.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
I do not wish to comment in any way, shape or form on the value or otherwise of any amendment to the Bill; I will just correct a statement. There is one code on due impartiality; the only difference between news and current affairs is that politicians are prohibited from being newscasters, if I can put it that way. The requirements for due impartiality are the same for news as for current affairs. The key word is “due”.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Perhaps the Minister can help here. I am wondering what a newscaster is, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will write on that point, having consulted the noble Lord, Lord Grade, to make sure that I give the correct definition.
I am afraid that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, will have understood, I am not able to accept his amendments and hope that he will be content not to press them.
Baroness Thornton
“(1) In this Part, “radio selection service” means— (a) a service provided by means of the internet which enables, or among other things enables, a user of the service—(i) to make a selection between internet radio services provided by different providers, and(ii) to cause a selected internet radio service to play,by giving spoken commands that are recorded by equipment connected to the internet, or(b) a service provided by an in-car entertainment system which enables, or among other things enables, a user of the system to cause a selected radio service to play, whether by giving spoken commands which are recorded by equipment or otherwise.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide that “radio selection service” includes an in-car entertainment system which a person must navigate to access radio while in their car, as well as voice activated speakers.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The last group was fascinating and, in a way, this debate moves us on to how to future-proof access to radio stations. I will also speak to Amendment 78, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 81 from my noble friend Lord Bassam.
In the course of discussions with stakeholders in preparation for the Bill, it emerged that there is an issue about radio selection services. It was expressed to us as a matter of some concern. Given that the Bill is about future-proofing, the amendments in this group address an issue with regard to radio selection services in car entertainment systems, through which a person navigates access to the radio as well as using voice activation. The Bill seems to address the issue of selection services only with regard to internet radio services, which are of course a new category of designated radio selection services. These services are voice assistance services that enable listeners to select and listen to internet radio services by using voice-activated audio devices.
These amendments address the issue of how people might access radio not through internet or voice-activated mechanisms. Certainly, my car is much too old to do anything quite so sophisticated. They also address what happens to FM, which is very important. What concerns us is the place of public service broadcasters in such a system. Who decides on that prominence? I imagine that car manufacturers might be quite pleased if they also knew who deals with the regulatory regime that would apply under these circumstances. I read the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, since the Bill itself is a bit dense on this matter. I cannot see where the issue of public service broadcasting radio is addressed. My first question is: can the Minister tell us that?
Who will ensure that car manufacturers are—“doing the right thing” is not quite the right expression—making sure that our public service broadcasters are not neglected? As an avid Radio 4 and Classic FM listener, I really want to jump between the two with the sort of ease that I can at present. These amendments seek to address such issues, as well as the mandate to Ofcom, the accountability of the Secretary of State and Parliament, and how that might be best achieved.
My noble friend’s Amendment 81 is also about future-proofing, and would require the Secretary of State, through regulations, to expand the new protection for on-demand and online-only content, such as on-demand listening and podcasts. This is a group of amendments some of which are probing and some of which address quite a serious matter, which I suspect will have to be looked at as time goes on. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks on them.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, radio is the background to my life; I have it playing at home, in the car and even when I am walking about, whether it is the BBC, Global’s LBC or Bauer’s Greatest Hits stations. I cannot be alone in enjoying this wonderful medium, so I am glad that today it is getting the attention it deserves.
The way we listen is changing, and Clause 48 recognises this with the acceptance that, in the future, most people will be listening to the radio online. It covers the Ofcom-regulated stations—BBC, Bauer, Global and others—which make up 85% of our listening, but the methods by which we listen to this medium are changing fast. I have tabled Amendment 78—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for their support—because I want to ensure that the way we listen is future-proofed, and that in the future online radio can be listened to wherever people are and on whatever device they want to use.
I very much appreciate that this clause is the Government’s response to fears that deals can be done between the manufacturers of listening devices, such as voice-activated speakers, to promote their own radio content, or even the content of stations which have paid them to promote their content over that of the Ofcom-regulated station. The clause’s “must carry” obligations for the top three voice-activated speakers takes its cue from the work that Ofcom has done on prominence in TVs, which has already been debated. However, my concern is that the focus on these three big voice-activated devices will be to the exclusion of other methods of listening to radio.
I also support Amendment 77, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the benefits of being able to listen to relevant internet radio services on in-car radio, which is not voice-activated and not covered by Clause 48.
Myriad different devices that might carry these stations in the future are also not covered. We need to be certain that our PlayStations, iPhones and even fridges, to name but a few devices, will carry these popular stations. For example, Sony Interactive Entertainment, which owns PlayStation, is a very competitive and successful company; it could do a deal with a youth station to the exclusion of other stations, stopping gamers accessing and being introduced to the joys of what is described in the new section inserted by the clause as “relevant internet radio services”. I know that the criteria for the “must carry” devices is set out in new Section 362BC(4) and that the Secretary of State can amend this section, but my amendment seeks to anticipate these changes, calling for a review of what devices people are listening on. The Government see this clause as a regulatory burden for the biggest speaker manufacturers, but I see it as protection both for the listening public and the nascent radio selection services.
I want to throw in another important thought here. The Government have been worrying so much about device manufacturers not carrying radio content that they have introduced a “must carry” burden on them. However, new Section 362BA requires an internet radio service to offer to a DRSS. There is no mandatory requirement for a relevant internet radio station to carry its service. I want the Minister and the Bill team to think very carefully about a world in which designated internet radio stations themselves do a deal with the big device manufacturers to carry their radio channels exclusively. I am sure that whenever this idea was raised during the drafting of the Bill, civil servants would have asked why a radio station would not want to be on a device.
Your Lordships have to look only at what has happened in television to see that content providers are just as active in creating monopolies for their channels as device manufacturers. Netflix and Amazon drove their own discreet prominence regime with specific TV manufacturers for vast sums of money, as noble Lords have already heard in the debate on prominence. It was the content suppliers that drove manufacturers to put a Netflix or an Amazon button on the channel controller and to ensure that they dominated the home screen.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which suggests that there should be a post-enactment review by the Secretary of State as to whether radio selection services should be extended to other devices. I fully support the case that he has made.
Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, gives us an example of some of the things that need to be done and included in the Bill. His amendment, which seeks to extend the protections outlined in the Bill, would help future-proof the legislation and ensure that it keeps pace with rapidly changing audio-consumption habits. It is worth pointing out that this change was a key recommendation from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Media Bill last year. Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which seeks to expand the scope of the regulation to cover non-voice-activated in-car infotainment systems, is another very good example of something that should be done now.
There is another area that should be addressed in the Bill that is covered by my Amendments 79 and 80. Amendment 79 would require voice assistant platforms to share data with broadcasters on the use of their radio services, and Amendment 80 would prevent tech platforms charging broadcasters for that data. The free flow of data is crucial—for commercial radio, community radio and even the BBC—in order to create a direct relationship between the listener, broadcasters and, in the case of commercial organisations, advertisers, to help them exist and grow.
Tech platforms are currently not obliged to share data with radio broadcasters on the distribution of their audio services. Any personal data shared between tech platforms and broadcasters would of course need to be subject to user consent and compliant with data protection legislation. Following consent, better access to data can help drive innovation in radio and audio services, unlocking new levels of personalisation and curation for the benefit of audiences. It is also vital for commercial radio broadcasters, as they depend on advertising revenues for their survival. Increased data transparency will therefore support commercial broadcasters of all sizes in taking advantage of targeted advertising, which is more attractive to advertisers and can command a higher price. In the long term, that would help to support the sustainability of the commercial radio sector as it becomes more reliant on online listening.
Access to data is currently inconsistent between tech platforms. For example, while Google and Apple provide virtually no data at all to radio broadcasters, Amazon provides some limited data through its Radio Skills Kit platform. However, there are important user insights that are not provided—such as age, gender, location and other interests—which would support the development of more personalised content.
This amendment would ensure a minimum standard for consistent, high-quality data to be shared with radio broadcasters by regulated radio selection services. It would also secure a minimum level of data access for all broadcasters, ensuring that tech platforms cannot engage in gatekeeping behaviours by revoking data access and/or charging broadcasters for the provision of that data. Without intervention, broadcasters will be at a disadvantage compared with the tech platforms, which have access to all the data generated by the listeners of UK radio on their voice-activated devices. In the long term, there is a risk that that data asymmetry could undermine the clear benefits that the Bill brings in levelling the playing field between UK radio broad- casters and large tech platforms.
There is a clear benefit to including data provisions in media sector-specific legislation, as they provide the most relevant opportunity to legislate for the specific challenges facing the media sector, without placing disproportionate burdens on the platforms to make significant changes to their data policies across all aspects of their businesses. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response not only to these proposals but to the others we have already heard.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As noble Lords have recognised, the provisions in Part 6 of the Bill are designed to secure the ongoing availability to listeners of UK radio services and will help to maintain the huge public value that radio provides as online listening continues to grow.
Turning first to Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the Government fully recognise how important it is that radio continues to maintain its presence in the car. On the provisions in the Bill, I confirm that, where a radio selection service using an in-car device is voice-activated and connected to the internet, it will fall within the definition of a “radio selection service” for the purposes of Part 6. Indeed, that is further clarified by new Section 362BB(2), which ensures that the assessment of whether the use of a radio selection service is significant can take account of specific usages, including the level of radio listening via that platform that takes place in a vehicle. Therefore, should a selection service have significant usage among in-car listeners, it would be subject to potential designation under this part of the Bill.
However, it is correct that there are no requirements on car manufacturers more generally, as the measures are focused on designated platforms that provide a radio selection service. Amendment 77 would extend the definition of “radio selection service” to include services not connected to the internet but accessed via the in-car system provided by car manufacturers. We are not persuaded that it is necessary to extend specific regulatory protections further, given that the evolution of systems and their integration into cars is ongoing, and given the progress made by the radio industry in the UK and across Europe in securing partnerships with car manufacturers and platforms.
However, we recognise that ensuring continued access to radio in the car will be an important part of the review of the radio market in 2026—to which the Government committed in their response to the digital radio and audio review of April 2022—and we will continue to keep the matter under consideration. New Section 362BA also contains powers to amend the definition of a radio selection service, if needed in future, as listening habits change. While I thank the noble Baroness for the opportunity to set that all out, I hope she will be satisfied and willing to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to Amendment 78, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I agree with the sentiment that the definition of a radio selection service could change as technology evolves and listening habits change. New Section 362BA also contains powers to amend the definition of a radio selection service, if needed in future. That could include amending the definition to include different ways in which radio stations are selected if a clear need arises in future. As I mentioned earlier, in their response to the digital radio and audio review, the Government committed to a further review of the market in 2026, and the growth and direction of online listening will be an important part of that review. While I am happy to talk to the noble Viscount, if he wishes, I think he will have discerned our reservations about the need for what he proposes, and I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
The Minister has not responded to my concern that there could be a stitch-up between the device manufacturers and the radio providers. Therefore, we should talk about whether there should be a “must offer” component in the Bill to ensure that the designated radio services actually offer their services. It is not just the device manufacturers that may need to be pushed, but, in a very competitive media world, the radio station providers.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said in relation to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, we are heartened by the progress made by the radio industry in the UK and in Europe in securing partnerships with car manufacturers and platforms. We considered representations for a “must carry” provision, including from aggregators, but we concluded that it was not necessary and best left to commercial discussions between radio station platforms and aggregators. If the noble Viscount wishes to speak further about that, I am happy to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, tabled Amendments 79 and 80, on access to user data. While I appreciate the intention behind his amendments and the support from both the BBC and Radiocentre for them, the Government consider that it would not be appropriate to include such provisions in the Bill. This part of the Bill contains provisions to address issues specific to radio, such as securing the continued ability of BBC-licensed and Ofcom-licensed commercial and community stations to access their listeners via voice-activated connected audio devices. By contrast, the issues raised in the noble Lord’s amendment are common across a wide range of sectors. The Government have been taking forward broader work on competition, including in digital markets. For example, the Competition and Markets Authority will gain powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill which could, in certain circumstances, be used to tackle the unfair use of data by the most powerful technology firms.
I hope the noble Lord will also be reassured by the protections that the provisions in new Sections 362BI(3) and 362BI(4) will afford. These measures will allow radio stations to nominate a preferred route for their service to be delivered to listeners, provided that that route is not unduly burdensome for the platform to deliver. As such, they provide scope for routes through which—subject to a listener’s consent; for example, through logging in—a broadcaster may be able to access valuable data, enabling them to improve their service. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate why we cannot agree to his Amendments 79 and 80.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for his Amendment 81, which seeks to extend provisions in Part 6 to cover a wider range of audio content that is accessible on connected devices by expressly including a power that would require Ministers to extend the provisions in Part 6 to online only and on-demand content. The amendment would require Ministers to bring forward secondary legislation within a specific timetable to broaden the scope of this legislation significantly, extending the regime to cover online radio and other audio content that is not currently regulated. This could include content that originated outside the UK and is available via the internet.
I have noted the points made about the need to future-proof the regime, and Part 6 includes a number of powers to enable the new regime to stay up to date to reflect market and listener behaviour. This includes the power to change the definition of a radio selection service. At the moment, the Government believe that there is no need for powers further to extend the scope to other on-demand audio content available online. That would significantly widen the scope of content covered and create additional uncertainty burdens on the platforms that might be designated without a clear reasoning or evidence that this was necessary on wider public value grounds. But the Government recognise that audio markets and listening habits will continue to evolve. That is why we have committed in our response to the Digital Radio and Audio Review to revisit in 2026 the issues raised in that review.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but how do the Government really envisage future-proofing to take account of those changes? That is quite important in this debate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Bill sets out the ability for Ofcom to assess the state of the market with the Digital Radio and Audio Review. We will do our own assessment of it and, through the Bill’s secondary powers, that work can be updated.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Is the Minister content that that point is covered by that? Is there sufficient flexibility in the legislation to enable that?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes. We recognise, and the provisions of the Bill acknowledge, that an increasing amount of listening is taking place online. It is not yet clear, however, what form the evolution is taking and, in particular, how the ongoing provision of radio’s public value, which has been fundamental to the strength of radio over the past century, will be retained. We have committed to that further review of the radio and audio market in 2026, and the growth and direction of online listening will be an important part of it. If it proves appropriate in due course, the provisions in new Section 362BA allow the definition of regulated radio selection service to be amended. The Bill provides for it in that way.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate because it is about future-proofing and the stage at which you need to undertake things. The Minister may need to think about taking powers that then may or may not be used. I thank him for his explanation and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“1A In section 393 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (6), in paragraph (a), after “362AW” (inserted by paragraph 1A of Schedule 3) insert “, 362BC(6)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consequential amendment relating to Clause 48.
Baroness Hollins
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment in my name which seeks to provide the same protection against court costs for a journalist working for a publisher which was a member of an approved regulator as would be enjoyed by the publisher.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 84 to 86 in my name, and my comments will be relevant to other amendments in the group to which I have added my name.
At the heart of these amendments are the recommendations of the Leveson report, which followed a 12-month public inquiry ordered by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in 2011. I received clarifications from Sir Brian Leveson that are highly relevant to the debate, and I will share them with the Committee before I speak to the details of my amendment. First, I declare an interest in that I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry about the personal and family impact of unacceptable behaviour by the media, and I am co-party to a civil claim against a newspaper group about alleged hacking of personal data. The claim is at the pretrial disclosure stage.
The Leveson report recommendations aimed to balance press freedom with the rights of the public. The chair of the inquiry, then Lord Justice Leveson, proposed a new regulatory framework that was independent of political influence and would protect people affected by press wrongdoing. Although some legislative progress was made, those recommendations have been returned to repeatedly in this place over the past 10 years, with some noble Lords asserting seriously flawed arguments against reform—for example, that Lord Justice Leveson proposed state regulation or that his recommendations would imperil the survival of news publishers.
Sir Brian Leveson himself has never publicly responded to those arguments. I wrote to Sir Brian to put these oft-repeated arguments against reform directly to him. I was grateful to receive a detailed reply from him and, furthermore, I am grateful that he has agreed that I and other noble Lords might quote him in Committee today. I have put this correspondence into the hands of the independent body established by the royal charter, the Press Recognition Panel. It is now available on the Press Recognition Panel website for those interested to read it in full. It is an extremely helpful letter that forensically takes apart falsity after falsity. First, Sir Brian makes it clear that the principle behind Section 40 did not originate from campaigners or politicians but was inspired by the testimony of a national newspaper editor. He describes testimony from a national newspaper editor who could see merit in a framework that encouraged parties to seek out low-cost arbitration, rather than the vast expense of court proceedings, and how this could protect publishers from rich and powerful litigants and, at the same time, protect ordinary people from rich and powerful publishers.
That is the symmetry of protection that lies behind Section 40. Some noble Lords, even speaking on behalf of the Government, have claimed that Section 40 would force publishers to pay costs, win or lose. But Sir Brian explains in his letter that this is not true. Other noble Lords will cover this point in greater detail, but I am going to quote briefly from his letter. He says:
“Neither my recommendation (nor, as I read it, s. 40) ‘forces’ news publications to pay costs when they win”,
and
“the Act does not require an adverse award of costs against a successful organ of the press which is not a member of an approved regulator”.
I put to him the argument made by some that the recognition system constitutes state regulation. He replied:
“I simply do not understand how this assertion can be made”.
He continues:
“As I understand it, the Royal Charter was specifically designed to ensure independence—independence of the press and independence of politicians”.
He then concludes that
“the suggestion that it is some kind of ‘state regulator’ of the press flies in the face of all that it was set up to do”.
Another argument commonly made is that the problems the inquiry addressed are now out of date. Sir Brian is scathing on this point. He says:
“My Inquiry was set up … to make recommendations inter alia for a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press … while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards. Allegations of libel, invasions of privacy, misuse of personal data remain equally as relevant today and are as pressing as ever”.
I conclude from that that the reason that national newspapers are opposed to the Leveson recommendations is because they are opposed to the principle of accountability. It was never about political interference nor the financial risk to publishers, objections which Sir Brian Leveson confirms in writing have no basis in fact.
My Amendments 83, 84, 85 and 86 would allow the partial repeal of Section 40. They would ensure that publishers inside an independent regulator would be protected from vexatious litigation while allowing the part of Section 40 which would disadvantage unregulated newspapers to be repealed. In other words, these amendments would retain the carrot of Section 40—that is, the protection it affords regulated publishers—while dispensing with that element which would provide access to justice for victims of press wrongdoing to which national news publishers so vehemently object. It is a heavy compromise, designed to meet concerns of the national press that many of us find somewhat disingenuous. However, given the Conservative Party manifesto commitment to repeal Section 40, it is a way, perhaps, of ensuring that we can still make some progress. If my amendments are accepted, there will be no detriment whatsoever to the interests of the national press, even if it declines to join an independent regulator.
In addition, my amendments support regulated, independent and local newspapers in addressing the threat of vexatious litigation known as SLAPPs. If His Majesty’s Government oppose them, can the Minister explain what specific objection could justify blocking the prospect of such a potent defence against SLAPPs for the local press? Indeed, my amendments go further than Section 40 in protecting press freedom from SLAPPs. They would also protect individual journalists from the threat of litigation where they have written for regulated publishers.
This package of amendments which I am supporting today would introduce unprecedented protection for our free press and the journalists working every day to expose the truth. These amendments would all retain compelling incentives for newspapers to abandon the industry-controlled IPSO and join a genuinely independent and effective regulator instead, and in doing so, they would protect members of the public who have been affected by intrusion, harassment or lies at the hands of the press. They would do so without threatening detriment or disadvantage to any publisher which refused to do so other than the reputational consequences of declining to make themselves accountable for what they publish.
Over 200 local and independent newspapers have sought the protection afforded to them under Section 40 by joining Impress, the independent regulator approved by the Press Recognition Panel. Your Lordships should not be in any doubt: repealing Section 40 in full would undermine the freedoms and interests of local and independent newspapers.
I commend Sir Brian on his intervention. He does not engage with the politics of the matter but has chosen to engage on the accuracy of the debate. He was sufficiently concerned to respond to my letter and to remind us of the facts. I hope that His Majesty’s Government are listening and will take the opportunities offered by these amendments to think again. I hope that the next Government will have higher aspirations for a safer and more ethical culture and an accountable press. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose name was to the amendment just so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. He had a back procedure this morning, is in great pain and has gone home. As he and I have been comrades in arms on this, I am glad to make myself a poor substitute for the great man.
Since we started this debate on the Bill this afternoon, the whole picture has been dramatically transformed by the Prime Minister’s announcement. There is to be a general election on 4 July. Why so? The Bill cannot complete its parliamentary passage by next Thursday, when the House is dissolved. That has a straightforward consequence: it goes into a procedure—I think it is called wrap-up, or it might be wind-up or whatever.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
I thank your Lordships very much. It goes into a procedure, called whatever everybody shouted a minute ago, and the fate of this clause, along with the rest of the Bill, will depend on what arises from that procedure.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 87 is grouped with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I also have Amendments 92 and 94. We have all been somewhat distracted by our mobile telephones concerning the next general election. I have been even more distracted by just having received the result of the 5.30 pm race at Kempton, where my horse came last. I hope that is not an omen for the future.
At Second Reading, I gave a full explanation of why Section 40 should remain on the statute book, so I will now address some of the misconceptions in that debate. It is worth remembering first that the inquiry led by Sir Brian Leveson was concerned that individuals without substantial means caught up in public interest events were unable to seek redress for defamation or unlawful intrusion into their privacy simply because they could not afford to litigate against an all-powerful press. At the core of the inquiry was the importance of the freedom of the press and the vital importance of freedom of expression.
At Second Reading, it was claimed that creation by royal charter is state control. It is the opposite. Royal charter was designed specifically to ensure independence for the press and independence from politicians. The Press Recognition Panel’s charter can be amended only by a two-thirds majority of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament. That is rather a high bar. I cannot see any way that it could ever be amended and for those three bodies to agree.
Sir Brian Leveson came to a meeting organised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It was extremely useful and helpful to hear what he had to say, particularly on Section 40. One thing he said was:
“It is important to underline that the Act does not require an adverse award of costs against a successful organ of the press which is not a member of an approved regulator (or indeed against an individual—oligarch or otherwise—who does not avail himself or herself of available arbitration provided by an approved regulator”.
In the Act, Section 40(3)(b) clearly allows the judge, where
“it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs”.
Sir Brian concluded that this provision deals with so-called SLAPP litigation fairly and appropriately, thereby providing a way of defeating an oligarch intent on pursuing aggressive expensive litigation in an effort to silence criticism.
The second contention, repeated by my noble friend the Minister, was that Section 40 could stop publication of stories for fear of being taken to court and having to pay both sides’ costs. Sir Brian and the noble Baroness have addressed this issue. Sir Brian said:
“Section 40 does not force news publications to pay costs when they win. The recommendation encouraged news publications to establish an independent arbitration mechanism to resolve disputes which would then protect them from those intent on going to court in SLAPP type legislation while also allowing those without means who have been libelled or whose privacy has been invaded to seek redress without incurring vast costs which could not be afforded”.
Therefore, failure to attempt mediation can be taken into account in cost arguments. Sir Brian added:
“In any event, as I recommended, there is an overarching discretion so that the judge can reach a just and equitable resolution of any costs issue”.
Section 40 does not threaten small publishers who would not be able to fight libel and privacy cases. The reason to join a recognised self-regulator is to allow small publishers to offer an arbitration and therefore protect themselves from adverse orders for costs if expensive litigation was chosen in an effort to force them to retract irrespective of the merits of the case.
It is clear that those without financial means are unable to take on the press. However seriously they have been defamed or their privacy has been invaded, they are denied a remedy. We have seen how many millions have been paid in damages against those who have been able to take on newspapers; we do not see the ones that have not been able to. We saw the case recently of a famous actor who had to withdraw a case because of the threat of costs.
They do not get a chance of redress, and certainly do not get one from IPSO. Section 40 provides a warning to wrongdoers to behave; take it away and I believe we will be back to a free-for-all. I believe that my noble friend Lord Black is wrong when he says that Section 40 would be holding a gun to the head of the free and independent press and claims that it would be incompatible with our commitments to the ECHR—as much as I often dislike that court. I do not think Section 40 impinges on press freedom. It is quite the reverse; it protects the citizen and protects the press.
I am afraid IPSO has not worked as well as it should. It is too similar to its predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission. It has never investigated or fined a newspaper; it lacks independence and, many say, effectiveness. It is important that Section 40 provides a useful deterrent that works. The final argument used against it is that it was a manifesto commitment, as my noble friend the Minister quite rightly said. But we have had three Prime Ministers since that manifesto, and most of them totally ignored the manifesto commitments of their predecessors.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and say to him that, while he unwisely backed the wrong horse, I know he is a very skilled and wise politician—too skilled to back the outcome of an election on day one. As I will talk about transparency today, I should declare an interest to the Committee, albeit a left field one: I am a current claimant in a voicemail interception litigation against News Group Newspapers.
To add to the surreal nature of this debate, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, I will address directly the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on the wash-up. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was a fantastic substitute for the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whom we wish well with his back procedure, particularly because he appears to be the only senior leader of any political party who has shown spine in this basket of amendments. I hope to convince both Front Benches to follow in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, this evening.
It is appropriate to ask both Front Benches whether they intend to follow the convention of Parliament to not rush through controversial clauses in Bills in the wash-up procedure. We are probably all united in the Committee that, whatever we think about Clause 50, it is certainly controversial. I will offer two other arguments about why we should proceed with caution in the wash-up procedure on this. First, much of the Bill will interfere with a regulated market, and in doing that we owe it to the consumers and providers within that regulated market to give full parliamentary scrutiny at all stages. I warn the Front Benches that the last time I remember Parliament deciding to interfere with regulatory matters in a wash-up was in 2005 with the Gambling Act, of which the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, will be aware. Some 20 years later, we are still dealing with the consequences of that rushed-through legislation. There is a third reason why we should proceed with caution in the wash-up. To add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about washing up: the electors now have us under the microscope, and if these clauses and amendments are rushed through by the Front Benches of both main parties, they will be airing their dirty linen in the wash-up, and that is a terrible start to a general election.
I have had sight of the letter from Sir Brian Leveson, quoted in this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others, and I can confirm that it is damning about the disingenuous arguments employed by the opponents of reform on this issue—and, it must be said, the Government. I speak to this group of amendments to make the case that, despite two manifesto pledges, in light of recent evidence not easily available to the Government at the time, the Government should pause to reflect on their proposal of Clause 50.
Many failures have been attributed to IPSO in this debate. I add one other: it failed to protect ordinary people thrust into the media spotlight after a bereavement. IPSO was recently found by the independent Press Recognition Panel to be failing children and the victims of crime caught up in newsworthy events. The Press Recognition Panel was set up by royal charter, under a system backed by all parties in both Houses where there is no input whatever from politicians in its appointment. It is far more independent than Ofcom or any other regulator. Do not forget that IPSO members are appointed by a panel that it appoints itself, and it is chaired by a former Government Minister. The IPSO board also has former editors appointed by the industry who have the power to veto, just like the old PCC. It is no wonder, then, that it sits idly by while some newspapers are still neck deep in disinformation, inaccuracy, intrusion and the monstering of innocent individuals.
As noble Lords have said, in its 10-year history IPSO has done a total of zero investigations of the type that Ofcom does all the time, and thus there have never been any sanctions—no investigations and no sanctions ever. It is true that the PCC did not have the power to investigate; IPSO has been given that power but has never used it. Nobody is holding these hugely powerful people to account. They do exactly as they like, with scant respect for basic human decencies, let alone their own codes, and there are no consequences. They have no predators, and that cannot be good for our country.
We know that some newspapers were hacking the phones not only of well-known people and their friends, employees and relatives but of murder victims and politicians, not because of some tip-off of corruption or wrongdoing but for two reasons, neither of which has a shred of public interest justification. The first of these was to sell newspapers: the privacy of thousands of people was sold for profit by newspapers systematically. The second was to manipulate politicians, as we appear to be seeing in the wash-up of this process today.
We now know that serious allegations have been made against News UK that members of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, including me, were hacked while it was investigating the company from 2009 to 2011. Gordon Brown has recently said that he believes he was hacked while Prime Minister and, even more egregiously, that News Corporation claimed, absurdly, that he and I were involved in conspiracy to acquire stolen company emails, which was why it deleted millions of emails and scratched its back-up disks during the police reinvestigation in 2011. Some newspaper groups have treated Parliament, the Leveson inquiry, the public and their own readers with contempt, and no one can have any confidence that IPSO, just a rebranded version of the discredited PCC, has the powers, or even the inclination, to identify and expose wrongdoing such as phone hacking or illegally obtaining private medical information or itemised phone records.
There is another serious issue that has come to light since Parliament set up Section 40: the way that some newspaper groups were found to have misled Parliament or lied to a public inquiry—or stand accused of doing so—and appear to have done so with impunity thus far. In the recent judgment of the High Court in the case of the Duke of Sussex and others v Mirror Group Newspapers, which is now owned by Reach plc, the judge found that members of the board and then legal department egregiously knew about, concealed and allowed to continue the industrial-scale criminal hacking and blagging that took place from the mid-1990s until at least the end of 2011—that is, during the Leveson inquiry and the Select Committee inquiries themselves.
The legal department was found to have lied to Leveson, and the evidence in the 2023 trial was rejected by the judge, who also found that the editors at the time knew about wrongdoing and concealed it—“without doubt”, in his words—and many lied to the Leveson inquiry.
As for News UK, in 2011, it was exposed as having lied for years, claiming that phone hacking was by only one rogue reporter on the news desk in 2005 and 2006. It was found in 2014, the year after the legislation that we are proposing to repeal today, that from 2000 to 2006 the whole news desk and the features desk were involved.
In 2014, after a public inquiry and passing that Bill, we learned that scores of people who had been convicted in stings by Mazher Mahmood, the “fake sheikh”, could have been innocent, when the trial of Tulisa Contostavlos collapsed and he was later convicted of trying to frame her. Dozens of his victims are appealing their convictions, and many bring hacking claims. Mr Mahmood was instructed to tail me for days when I served on the committee that started investigating phone hacking.
In 2016, the Privileges Committee of the Commons found that two senior executives had lied to the CMS Select Committee. Only yesterday, the managing judge in the News UK and News Corp hacking litigation allowed amendments to the claimants’ case to allege—these allegations are currently untested and denied or not admitted—that two very senior executives and several others lied to the Leveson inquiry and gave misleading evidence to Parliament.
I could go on, but I hope I have demonstrated that the suggestion that the press has cleaned up its act is for the birds, and that there remains a rotten core to many of our newspapers and a culture of impunity when it comes to their illegal behaviour.
For those reasons, I have tabled Amendment 87A and support the others in this group. They are compromises, all intended to move us closer to universal press membership of an effective, independent regulator which would protect the public from press wrongdoing in all its forms. Amendment 87A would introduce a new right of reply for the British public against misrepresentations in the press where the publisher is not a member of a truly independent and effective regulator.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that speech from someone who has had direct contact with the media over many years and has been abused by them himself, but there are many other people who have been abused in a similar way. I support this group of amendments, but I must be clear that I would prefer Section 40 to be maintained and to cover the issues that we are all addressing now. It is better than nothing, but it is not really the sort of protection that we should offer the public.
The press barons say that there is no need for regulation. They point to IPSO and the courts, and ordinary people are supposed to use one of those organisations. Quite frankly, as we have heard, IPSO offers no protection. In the investigations it has carried out, 0.3% cases are upheld, so the accountability is non-existent there. It can fine up to £1 million, but it has not fined anybody so far. It is quite clear that it is not effective for anyone who has a case of abuse.
I will not talk about celebrities, but I will talk about a woman called Mandy Garner. I have done this before and will again. Mandy’s daughter, unfortunately, was the subject of a hit-and-run accident. That is a tragic affair anyway, but it was made worse when the Daily Mail got involved. It sent a reporter down to the area and secured CCTV coverage of the child’s death from one of the shopkeepers. It then carried the story and put the link to that child’s death online for its readers. When Mandy objected to that and took a complaint to IPSO, it told her to go and see the Daily Mail. She contacted it and, after six months, she had made no progress with her case at all and went back to the regulator. She told it that she was even more stressed out now because she had made no progress whatever over six months. What did IPSO say to that woman? It told her that, if she was stressed, perhaps she should drop the case and not proceed with it. That shows the level of independent calculation going on with that body.
We need protection not for celebrities, because they can go to court and can afford to spend millions of pounds on legal fees, as we have heard, but for Mandy and many hundreds of people like her who cannot. I ask the Minister, the Government and our Front Bench this: what protection are they going to give to the public—to a future Mandy? Quite frankly, in what is proposed today, there is no protection for Mandy and people like her. It is a disgrace on Parliament that politicians are bullied and threatened to act in a way that is counterproductive to having justice in our society.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, it will not surprise many colleagues to hear that I oppose this group of amendments. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and director of a regulatory funding company, and I note my other interests as set out in the register. I have been very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for taking the time and trouble to talk these amendments and other issues through with me, and for his ongoing commitment to constructive dialogue, which I welcome. I wish him well and hope that he is better soon.
I will have some specific comments to make about Amendment 87A, but the main reason that I am opposed to everything in the group is that all the amendments derive their terms of authority from the concept of an approved regulator. That concept is something that I, as I have made clear many times in this House, find abhorrent and anathema to any concept of a free society, because, whatever Sir Brian Leveson may now say, the approval derives its authority from the state. I know that there will always be those who resort to sophistry to claim that the method of approval through the Press Recognition Panel is apparently independent of the Government but, in my view, that is plain nonsense. The concept of approval is set out in legislation: the Press Recognition Panel derives its authority from a royal charter, the terms of which are set by the Privy Council, the ultimate expression of state power and authority. It also receives taxpayers’ money, so it is in part funded by the state and therefore in part accountable to it. It is a state body. Regulators that seek approval from it are therefore irrefutably state-approved, and that is repugnant in a free society.
The press can never be free of the state in any form, whether Parliament, Government, Privy Council or a faux-recognition body doing their bidding if it is involved in any way in content regulation. That is why successive post-war Governments of all political colours, dating back from the Attlee Government in response to the first Royal Commission on the Press in 1947, have, for 65 years, up until Leveson, backed self-regulation by the industry. Section 40 and the introduction of the concept of approved regulation sought to change that by introducing the first form of what is, in effect, licensing since 1695. Fortunately, better sense has prevailed since that legislation was rushed through Parliament without scrutiny or consultation. We have looked into the abyss and decided not to fall into it. That is why Section 40 must go in its entirety. Whether it be carrots or sticks, the approval of content regulation of a free press is alien to a free society and the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy.
Amendments 84 and 85, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, seek, perversely, to retain the incentive for publishers to join a state regulator, while repealing the provision that would effectively bankrupt publishers that print the truth. But even this leaves publishers with an insidious choice between shielding themselves from government influence and limited protection from SLAPPs. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I have discussed, it is of course right that Parliament takes an interest in press regulation; no one disputes that. If noble Lords or Members in the other place want to have that debate, let us do so, but this Bill is not the place for it. This is an important Bill, and it is important that it goes through in the wash-up in its entirety, including the Government’s manifesto commitments.
The media world has moved on in every possible way since the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The way in which the press operates and is regulated has fundamentally changed, and its long-term future is probably under greater threat than ever before. We need to get rid of Section 40, lock, stock and barrel, and not keep it lurking in the dark like Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, as these amendments would do.
A whole host of international press freedom organisations, including the authoritative Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, Global Witness, and English PEN, have pointed out another reason for getting rid of Section 40 now: the signal it sends throughout the world. In a statement released yesterday, they said:
“Repressive regimes will be sent a clear message that the UK stands squarely behind freedom of speech. Freedom of speech with no strings attached. That message is critically important in the uncertain and dangerous world we all now live in … Never again must the UK go down this dangerous road”.
I want to say a particular word about Amendment 87A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest. I must admit that I was slightly surprised to see that he has put an amendment down relating to, in effect, a statutory right of reply to inaccuracies, given his own track record. Those he falsely accused of crimes —with stunning inaccuracy, to put it mildly—never had a right of reply.
I do not think any serious proposals in this area have been put forward since the mid-1980s, when our former colleague Lord Soley introduced them in a Private Member’s Bill. There is probably a good reason for that. Since 1990, there have been mechanisms for the redress of inaccuracies through a system of independent self-regulation, operating under a tough code of practice, on top of the laws of defamation. Today, IPSO has a strong record of getting inaccuracies corrected in a timely and prominent manner, along with an apology if appropriate. Furthermore, there already exist carefully delineated circumstances where the law provides for a right of reply—for example, following a defamation case—and data protection law, in addition to the Defamation Act, requires inaccuracy to be redressed. So, there is simply no need for such a measure as that proposed by the noble Lord.
Quite apart from that, the noble Lord’s proposal is wholly impractical. It would have the same effect as Section 40, had it been implemented, in simply allowing individuals to launch spurious and unfounded complaints against newspapers in order to gag them. It would be another version of SLAPPs, but without even having to bother a court to look at the merits of the case. It would be used by the rich and powerful to close down ongoing investigations and muzzle the press, and in doing so would weaken the public’s right to know and undermine investigative journalism. Frankly, this is simply another attempt to find some way to bully the press into a system of state-approved regulation.
It is time to move on from debates that are long past their sell-by date, to recognise the fundamental changes in the media in the last decade, to turn our backs on any attempts to impose state regulation on the media, and to get rid of Section 40 lock, stock and barrel. This Bill is an important piece of legislation for so many organisations and areas of the creative economy, and it is very important that it now goes through.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend, but first I declare my interests as set out in the register. As colleagues will know, I was the independent founding chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. I have listened carefully to the speeches that have been made, but I strongly agree with my noble friend that we are really going back over the debates we had a decade ago.
I want to go back to the first principles that my noble friend enunciated. In many ways, free expression is the bedrock of our society, but it is also a privilege—one not enjoyed by many millions of our fellow human beings, and which therefore must be matched by a sense of public duty and responsibility.
We are all familiar with all those egregious cases. As chair, like my noble friend Lord Grade, of the Press Complaints Commission, I found that it was powerless in many cases. I had to have face-to-face meetings with victims to hear for myself their harrowing accounts of their experiences. The PCC was powerless in many cases, particularly where criminal acts had taken place; it was up to the police. One of our sadnesses was that the police seemed so slow to act. Most of the phone hacking cases have now been resolved in the civil courts, but that should not blind us to the fact—I say this to all those who have spoken—that serious criminal acts took place, not just regulatory breaches. So far as regulation is concerned, the key question we have to answer is how to police culture and standards while maintaining independence of thought and deed. It is a very difficult balance.
The rock on which the system is built is the editors’ code, a living document that, as I understand it, is still recognised right across the world as an excellent code. I believe that IPSO has been very effective at holding publishers and publications to account. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said that IPSO had not been effective because there were a relatively low number of adverse adjudications, and those who have mentioned that have given specific examples. However, press behaviour has improved over the last period. The Press Recognition Panel, which has been lobbying us—lobbying me all the time—pretty hard, largely in its own interests, is funded by the taxpayer, as my noble friend pointed out. I am all for trenchant, highly politicised contributions to this important debate, but I wonder whether it is fair to ask the taxpayer to fund them.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My noble friend says that the PRP is funded by the taxpayer, but IPSO is funded by the newspaper industry. Which does he regard as the more independent process?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
When I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry, Lord Justice Leveson pointed out to me that it was up to the industry to fund the regulator. When I first gave evidence to him, he asked me to sit down with the main newspaper groups and find a way forward whereby they would fund an independent regulatory process. My noble friend is quite right: it is very important that the industry itself funds the regulator, but the regulator should be independent. That is what I reported in my second line of evidence to the Leveson inquiry, and that is what I believe I managed to achieve.
The proponents of statutory regulation invariably nod sagely and sympathetically when I say all this, but honestly, they have no answers. I believe that state interference is not the answer. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Watson—he sits on a committee with me and I have great respect for him—that Amendment 87A is state regulation in all but name. The system proposed would grind the free press into the dirt with both statutory interference into editorial decision-making and the prospect of endless and often frivolous litigation. Experience also tells us that the principal beneficiaries of such an arrangement would be not individuals who had been misrepresented or traduced but deep corporate pockets and their expensive lawyers, who want to challenge the press at every turn in a war of attrition.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest that I chaired a local newspaper company which also defamed me. In addition, I am a trustee of the Public Interest News Foundation.
My view of these amendments and the subject matter behind them is that, whether or not Section 40 remains on the statute book, the outcome will not be satisfactory. Freedom of expression is clearly very important. There is a whole range of activities that we are properly free to engage in, but the law of tort steps in when people step over the mark and start hurting others. In my view, the way in which the world has developed, and within it the press, has meant that, under certain circumstances, that boundary is stepped over, and that we collectively, as a society, ought to have effective remedies to deal with the consequences. Indeed, that is what this debate is all about.
That is not easy, as we know, but it is important that we remember that, although a number of big names, including participants here in the Chamber, have been affected by this, what really matters are the small men. In fact, it is not only the individual citizens but some of the very new, small media companies that are setting up. There are two slightly separate aspects to this subject. The first is the relationship of what I might call the small plaintiff versus a large media company. The other way round is if you have a small media company versus a large plaintiff. When I chaired the media company that I did, we had a defamation action against a very, very rich man who liked litigating. We found ourselves in a position when it was jolly nearly a matter of risking going bust or standing one’s ground and holding the position in the courts. Our opponent withdrew at the very last minute, but it was a bad moment to be at, and it was not a satisfactory position for a media company to be in.
My view is that Section 40 is a near miss. There is a case for having a proper, enforceable regime that is independent of the state. I do not buy the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Black, that if there is regulation it therefore follows, because of the nature of the society we live in, that that regulation is state regulation. After all, the common law was not put in place by the state. What we are discussing is an extension of old common law principles into circumstances that are very different from what they were in the Middle Ages.
Therefore, I think the right way forward is that the Government—whoever they will be on 5 July—should revisit this whole subject, because neither having Section 40 nor not having Section 40 is a satisfactory outcome. We need a form of regulation that is independent of interference from media companies, from celebrity and other pressure, and from any other outside concerns, and which is not only genuinely independent but recognised by everyone as such. That is at least as important, from a societal point of view, as making sure that the thing is not impugned.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I speak in opposition to these amendments and will voice support for the repeal of Section 40, which is long overdue. I heard the attack of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on newspapers. I wonder what Lord Brittan might have replied.
As a former newspaper editor, my support for repeal is predicated on the simple principle that any state control or direct influence over a newspaper’s editorial content is anathema to a well-functioning democracy. A newspaper’s fundamental purpose is to speak truth to power and to expose wrongdoing. The very existence, let alone the implementation, of Section 40 puts that key democratic function at risk.
We must remember that we are debating this pernicious provision in the context of a legal environment where newspapers already have to self-censor and spike stories due to the threat of financial ruin, with the rich and powerful bringing strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, as they are known. Section 40 would amount to state licensing of these lawsuits, with the rich and powerful able to force newspapers out of business for having the temerity to print the truth. This “truth tax” would be particularly devastating for local publishers, but even the better-resourced national titles would struggle to stay afloat if exposed to unlimited legal costs, even in cases that they won.
Criminal tycoons have frequently used the libel laws to silence their critics, control adverse publicity and suppress the truth about themselves. Among the worst offenders were Robert Maxwell and Mohamed Al Fayed. They set the scene and have been followed by others. To conceal their own criminality, global corporations, law firms and Russian oligarchs have threatened the media by exploiting Britain’s libel laws. Fortunately, some media owners, including Rupert Murdoch, risked millions of pounds to defeat those seeking to assert that their lies are the truth, but Section 40 would make any resistance futile: the rich would own their “truth” and newspapers would pay for criminals to peddle their lies.
Of course, the other side of this debate will claim that Section 40 attempts to protect publishers by giving state-regulated titles protection from legal costs. Yet Section 40 would in fact force publishers to choose between freedom from the state and freedom from the rich and powerful who try to bury their wrongdoing through abuse of the UK’s legal system. Therefore, even Amendments 84 and 85, which seek to repeal the part of Section 40 that penalises independent publishers while retaining the cost incentive to become state regulated, should not be countenanced.
SLAPPs require a legislative solution, and there is a Private Member’s Bill currently going through Parliament seeking to do just that, but the idea that fundamental press freedoms should be sacrificed to achieve this is repugnant. As a group of press freedom organisations in support of repeal, including RSF, English PEN and the Society of Editors, said yesterday:
“Journalists face a myriad of threats and challenges but their mission of holding power to account and reporting difficult or uncomfortable truths has never been more important”.
By repealing Section 40, we will not remove all those myriad threats, but we will at least ensure that it will not be the British state itself that inhibits a newspaper’s ability to print the truth without fear or favour.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think my interests have already been well and truly declared in this debate but, for the avoidance of doubt, I have been the chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation since 2020. I am not sure how appropriate it is for a regulator to extol its own virtues in a debate, and I do not propose to do so, but in view of the very trenchant attack on IPSO from a number of quarters, I think it may be helpful to the Committee if a few facts were presented before it.
IPSO regulates 90% by way of circulation of the newspapers published in this country. There was an attack on the organisation and, effectively, on those who work there. The young men and women who conscientiously look at complaints without any political bias or anything other than the conscientious approach you would expect from young people like that would be surprised and disappointed by many of the allegations that have been made against them.
The decisions that are made by IPSO are all published on its website. Details of the reasoning behind those decisions are available. IPSO provides advisory notices which help people, not only well-known people, but ordinary people who fear intrusion by the press, which I think is a successful aspect of what IPSO does. There is a board and a case committee, a minority of which has press experience. These are people whose identity is capable of ascertainment by looking at the website. Anyone can see what a wide variety of people they are. To suggest that they are somehow in the pockets of the press is unworthy.
Recently, there was an independent review of IPSO by a distinguished civil servant, Sir Bill Jeffrey. I invite critics of IPSO to read his report and his view of its independence. Independence is, of course, extremely important in a regulator.
As to the suggestion that effectively we reject the vast majority of complaints, of course many of the complaints that are made—
Lord Faulks
The appointment of Sir Bill Jeffrey was the result of a decision by the board. The identity of the board is available to anybody who seeks to find out who is on the board. If by that question it is suggested that Sir Bill Jeffrey was some sort of tame civil servant, I think he would be surprised to hear that, and his history of accomplishment and independence is something which I would be surprised could be satisfactorily impugned.
I was dealing with the suggestion about a vast number of complaints being rejected. Of course, a case has to come within the remit. A number of people are discontented with things they read in the press, but they do not come within the remit of a complaint which can possibly provide a breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The editors’ code comes from a body where the minority is of press interest. Very few people criticise the editors’ code, whether they criticise the press or the regulator.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Is it not the case that 80% of our media is owned by five billionaires?
Lord Faulks
I am not precisely sure of the figures. Certainly, the ownership of the press is a matter of record. I am not in a position to respond to that. It is perfectly true that it is a relatively minor group of people. I am not sure quite what that has to do with Section 40. We are talking about whether someone can make a complaint adequately and whether that regulator is independent. I ask the Committee to express the view that it is an independent regulator. There is a manifesto commitment. It is time that this provision is repealed. I understand from what I have read in an interview with the shadow Secretary of State that the Labour Party does not intend to amend the current system of press regulation. I look forward to hearing reassurance that this important Bill, including this provision, will be the subject of discussions in the wash-up.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will just speak briefly, because I know that we want to get to Front-Bench spokesmen. A lot of detailed arguments have been advanced by those who have tabled amendments in this group and I think they reflect the detailed nature of the measures proposed. I have listened to those arguments and also heard some of the examples of people who have had bad experiences of the media. I sympathise with a lot of what has been said but, when it comes to matters of principle—and I believe that freedom of the press is a matter of principle—I also have the view that there are some circles that cannot be squared.
It is worth us just remembering that, only a couple of months ago, when we were debating foreign power ownership, Lord Ashcroft did a poll which showed that two-thirds of British people do care about freedom of the press. I think we can all agree that people might not always love or approve of everything done in or by the British media, but the principle of a free press, free from government interference, is something that matters to them. I believe it is a principle that serves the public interest and therefore one that Parliament must uphold. For that reason, I cannot support any of the amendments in this group and I will support my noble friend the Minister in resisting them.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by saying that, while I disagree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, I agree entirely with him in his view that this Bill is not the right place for discussing Section 40. I am enormously grateful for the best wishes for a speedy recovery that have been passed to my noble friend Lord McNally and I know that he is bitterly disappointed that he cannot be here. He would have been proposing a very simple way forward —that Clause 50 should not stand part of the Bill. The implication of that would, of course, have been that Section 40 would have continued to be on the statute book. But he would have gone a stage further and argued that it would be certainly the view of these Benches that it should not only be retained on the statute book but also should have been implemented.
There have been all sorts of debates about and criticisms of the proposal that came from Sir Brian Leveson. We should accept that a great debt needs to be paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for the way in which she has forensically gone through many of those criticisms and debunked them. The one criticism that has not been debunked by her is that it is no longer necessary to have protection of the type that was proposed by Leveson because there is not really a problem now with what the press is doing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Watts, put it very clearly: there are still many examples of wrongdoing by the press. We need to be well aware of the implications of removing Section 40. There would be virtually no access to justice for victims of press wrongdoing. Ordinary people who find themselves defamed, have their privacy invaded or their grief intruded on by wealthy and powerful newspapers in search of higher circulation or clickbait will find themselves virtually helpless.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may well be right that the degree of wrongdoing has reduced. That does not alter the fact that it still exists and there needs to be a mechanism to help in particular those who do not have deep pockets to ensure that they can get justice. Therefore, it requires the Government—were they to be continuing—to make very clear what their alternative is to provide the protection for those very people. There may not now be the opportunity, given the announcement about the forthcoming election.
We have heard many alternative solutions put forward in the various amendments before us today. There is not now time to go through all the detail. So, on these Benches, we are very clear that the best way forward now would be for the Government to accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Black, that this is not the right place for a discussion of Section 40, that Section 40 should remain on the statute book and that a future Government—whichever party is in charge—should have an opportunity to discuss the right way forward to continue to provide the protection that is still going to be needed. I give way.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
Can I just make it clear that I did not say that this was not the place to deal with Section 40? I said this was not the place to open a whole debate about self-regulation. I was crystal clear that Section 40 needs to go in its entirety and I hope its repeal will go through with this Bill immediately.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I apologise profusely to the noble Lord if I misquoted him. Let me say therefore that it is very firmly my view that this Bill is not the right place for a discussion of Section 40 and all the ramifications.
With those relatively few remarks, I very much hope that the Government will consider that the removal of Section 40 should not form part of this Bill, should not form part of the wash-up discussions and should just be kept as it is and we can debate it at a future date, whether we are on the same side of the Chamber or the opposite side.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who have already spoken, outlining their rich and often diverging views on this important clause. I understand completely that there are very different views around the Chamber and we have heard them for the last hour or so. I will outline the Opposition’s view on Clause 50 and Section 40.
The Leveson report is now over a decade old. Responding to, rightly, the concerns of the time, Brian Leveson’s aims were to balance the competing concerns of protecting the free press—which the noble Lord, Lord Black, spoke eloquently about—while ensuring high press standards. We have heard noble Lords championing those during the debate this afternoon.
Therefore, while the inquiry helped bring about a press regulator, it did not enforce mandatory membership for news publishers. Rather, it made membership voluntary but introduced incentives for publishers to join, including consequences if they did not. Section 40, which has never been commenced, would make publishers who had not signed up to the regulator vulnerable to paying the costs of those they face in legal cases even if the wider case was ruled in their favour. Press groups have long pointed out the impact this imbalance would have on their ability to undertake free and fair reporting.
The media landscape is now much changed, although some of the issues that were present then clearly are today. It is to be expected that that would be the case some 10 years on. Challenges from the rise of social media, online consumption of media and the consequences of falling advertising revenue mean that we have seen a significant impact on the ability of the press to compete in the market and undertake its vital work.
Additionally, a self-regulatory system for the press now exists—something not anticipated ahead of the creation of Section 40 in the 2013 Act. This alone makes the situation different from 2013 and, taken together, these changes mean that it is right that Section 40 should not remain in the Act as it is. Thus, and for those reasons, we cannot support the clause stand part proposition tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and so ably and so colourfully supported by my noble friend Lord Lipsey.
On Amendment 87A from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his contribution, but we are unable to support his amendment. I know he will be disappointed at that and he made very powerful arguments and a powerful case in putting his amendment to the House.
In our view, Amendment 87A risks wrapping up publications in sometimes spurious legal disputes and opening the door to sometimes repeated and vexatious claims. It would also put the onus of determining factual inaccuracies on the High Court. We do not believe that to be the right place for this to happen.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, as ever, for her carefully thought-through contribution. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done, very ably and passionately, over many years. Outside your Lordships’ House, I look forward to digesting what Brian Leveson has had to say on this issue and, by extension, his contribution to this important debate. I shall speak to one of the noble Baroness’s amendments in particular: Amendment 84 presents an advantage in keeping parts of Section 40 that provide positive incentives to join a regulator and protections for those that do, while removing the part of Section 40 that has caused so much concern. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 83 and 86 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, which, if taken together, would intend not only to keep Section 40 on the statute book but to amend its subsections (1) and (2), so that the protections offered by subsection (2) apply not only to relevant publishers but to individuals employed by relevant publishers. This would protect journalists employed by news publishers which are members of regulators recognised by the Press Recognition Panel from having costs awarded against them in legal claims based on news-related material published by that publisher, regardless of the outcome.
As I understand it, the noble Baroness’s intention is that Section 40(3), which would make publishers that are not members of a PRP-backed regulator liable for costs in claims made against them, should not apply in the case of claims made against individual journalists employed by such publishers. If subsection (3) were to apply to such journalists, they would be unfairly held liable for the costs of claims, in contrast to their counterparts employed by members of a PRP-backed regulator. This is likely further to exacerbate the risks to media freedom and quality journalism posed by commencing Section 40.
The noble Baroness spoke powerfully against strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, invited me to say more on. We know that they are used as a deterrent to pursuing stories which expose wrongdoing due to the high costs involved with these lawsuits, making defending the case beyond the reach of those targeted by this form of litigation. The intention of her amendment appears to be to provide protection for only the cost of claims awarded against journalists employed by publishers that are members of regulators backed by the Press Recognition Panel, where material subject to the claim is news-related material published by the relevant publisher. As only one regulator, Impress, has sought approval by the Press Recognition Panel thus far, if enacted as amended in this way, Section 40 would protect only a small number of news publishers and journalists for the time being.
The Government believe that all journalists should be protected from SLAPPs, which are a pernicious form of litigation. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned, the Government have supported the Private Member’s Bill introduced by Wayne David MP in another place, which had its Second Reading there on 23 February. Furthermore, it is why the Government have committed to protecting media freedom and the invaluable role of a free press in our society and democracy more broadly. As part of this, we are committed to independent self-regulation of the press. For this reason, we do not consider that measures penalising publishers which are not members of a Press Recognition Panel-approved regulator are necessary or proportionate. Their commencement would constitute an intrusion by the Government into the freedom of the press.
I turn to the other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. Amendments 84 and 85 intend to remove only Section 40(3) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and to commence the remainder of Section 40, including subsection (2). Subsection (2) would protect publishers which are members of regulators recognised by the Press Recognition Panel from being liable for court costs awarded against them in legal claims, regardless of the outcome. The amendment is to commence subsection (2) within two months of this Bill gaining Royal Assent. Accepting these amendments would be at odds with the Government’s clearly stated position to protect media freedoms and to repeal Section 40 in its entirety.
I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Astor, whom I commiserate on his misfortune in the 5.30 pm race at Kempton Park. The Government have committed to a free and independent press and do not interfere with what the press can or cannot publish; that extends to endorsing regulators of which they should become members. Consulting on, with a view to creating, other incentives for the press to join a Press Recognition Panel-backed regulator that a consultation might identify would conflict with the Government’s position.
Indeed, the Government consulted on the repeal of Section 40 in its entirety in 2016 and the vast majority of respondents to that consultation backed repealing it. That was reflected in our last two manifestos. We therefore cannot delay repealing any part of the legislation that risks providing incentives for membership of an approved regulator. Incentivising a publisher to join specific regulators in any way is incompatible with protecting independent self-regulation of the press in the UK.
These amendments are unnecessary as the press regulation landscape has evolved since Section 40 was passed, as noble Lords have noted, with the establishment of two new press regulators and the decision of some publishers to use their own regulatory systems. In practice, as I say, the amendments would incentivise membership of Impress, as the sole UK regulator which has sought approval by the PRP. It is likely to lead to a chilling effect on publishers which choose not to join Impress. Accepting these amendments would not be compatible with the Government’s policy, so I cannot support them.
Amendment 87A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, would introduce a requirement on publishers which are not members of a Press Recognition Panel-backed regulator to publish a reply or a correction where they have published information containing a “significant factual inaccuracy”. The requirement is triggered by a demand made by an individual to whom the information relates. If the individual seeking the reply or correction is not satisfied with the publisher’s response, he or she would have the right to apply to the High Court for a determination of whether the publisher has complied with relevant parts of the section. The court may order the publisher to print a reply or correction, or to make another order as appropriate.
In practice, this amendment would incentivise membership of Impress and, as with the commencement of Section 40, it could disadvantage publishers which choose not to join it. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendments brought by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, or my noble friend Lord Astor and hope that they will not press them.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
As this may be the final opportunity before a possible change of Government, can I thank the Minister for his service to the country? He enjoys the support of all political parties on the creative industries. His contribution is immense and is deeply appreciated, particularly his support for the music sector. Can I press him a little on my question about whether the conventions of the parliamentary wash-up will be respected when it comes to controversial legislation?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words; he might be getting a little ahead of himself. It has been a pleasure to serve as Minister and I hope to continue to do so. I look forward to campaigning in defence of the arts and creative industries in the general election ahead. He will appreciate that I have been in the Chamber since the announcement was made, so I will have to disappoint him by saying that the discussions will be had in the usual channels and announcements will be made in the usual way.
Like other noble Lords, I was sorry to hear about the operation that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is having. I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery, so that he can be on the campaign trail soon. His amendment, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, seeks to remove Clause 50 in its entirety. I refer noble Lords to the comments I made earlier on why the Government do not believe that an incentive to join a PRP-backed regulator is needed. The failure to repeal Section 40 in its entirety would be at odds with the Government’s manifesto commitment. For this reason, it is important that this clause stands part of the Bill.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Can the Minister deal with the question I raised on how poor people can pursue a case if they do not have the legal means to get satisfaction through the courts?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The landscape has changed a great deal since these debates were had. There are multiple routes for people to do it, and we think that that is right. The debate is one that has gone on for a great deal of time. Passionate though the contributions have been today, they have not significantly added to the debate that has gone on for a long time. I have little more to add.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness deals with her amendment, I ask that my noble friend the Minister, when he finishes this debate and the letter from Sir Brian Leveson is placed in the Library, might look at it carefully. He was asked whether a regulator recognised by the Press Recognition Panel must be regarded as a state regulator, with all that that implies about government interference and the powers of censorship. He points out that he simply does not understand how this assertion can be made, as the recognition panel simply does not regulate the press. He goes on to say that Section 40 does not force newspaper publications to pay costs when they win. I think the Minister would find it helpful if he read that document. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, would find it even more helpful because—who knows?—in July he might find himself dealing with that issue from this side of the House.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will certainly read the correspondence. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for quoting from it. I think it bears reading in its entirety, which I will be glad to do.
To continue on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watts, there now exists a strengthened independent self-regulatory system for the press. The majority of traditional publishers are members of IPSO. Despite Section 40 never having been commenced, both Impress and IPSO offer arbitration schemes for legal claims relating to defamation, privacy and harassment. These schemes are either free, through Impress, or low-cost, through IPSO, for claimants. We do not think it likely that the repeal of Section 40, to which we have long been committed, would have an impact on access to low-cost arbitration.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in support of these amendments. The distraction of live election news during my speech probably contributed to me being misquoted by some noble Lords, so I repeat that my amendment would cause no detriment to the interests of the press. I am sad that the Minister has offered no options for protecting ordinary people. I trust that my arguments, and Sir Brian Leveson’s letter, will be read carefully, because a number of things that have been said are just not true. I hope that this will be reviewed carefully before proceeding to wash-up. It would be wise to remove Clause 50 before allowing an otherwise good Bill to pass. I hope that the Opposition have the courage to insist on this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
“OFCOM Chair discharging duties under this Act(1) Before appointing an individual as Chair of OFCOM, the Secretary of State must ensure that their preferred candidate appears before relevant select committees of both Houses of Parliament to set out how they would discharge their duties under this Act.(2) If a relevant select committee of either House publishes a report concluding that the candidate should not be appointed, and the Secretary of State decides to proceed with the appointment, they must make a statement to either House about why they are proceeding with the appointment, including but not limited to—(a) an assessment of that candidate’s ability to act independently in discharging their duties under this Act, and(b) a response to any findings or recommendations made in a report by a relevant select committee.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to increase parliamentary scrutiny of proposed OFCOM chairs in discharging their duties under this Act.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, we have spent a great deal of time during discussions on this Bill quite rightly talking about Ofcom—its duties and its vital role in supporting our creative industries and in protecting the public. Its primary purpose remains as laid down in the Communications Act 2003: to protect the interests of citizens and consumers. However, in recent years, it has become something of the proverbial Christmas tree on which we have chosen to hang a procession of new regulatory burdens and responsibilities, from regulating the BBC to overseeing online safety.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 91. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, outlined in his usual articulate manner the issues we are looking at in this group. We created Ofcom, and it is a hugely important regulator with a growing portfolio of responsibilities. This is a good time to look at whether it is being properly and adequately resourced, and supported in a way consistent with the enormous responsibilities it carries. In a way, that is what my amendment is about. There is a broader issue here than just Ofcom being accountable under this legislation. It is important that we have a good look at how Ofcom is supported to do its job properly. That might include looking at how the chair is appointed, or it may be a matter of resourcing.
We need to ask whether Ofcom is properly accountable to Parliament, in a way consistent with the important job it does. If we expect Ofcom to deliver robust regulation and protect our PSBs, viewers and listeners, we need to be sure that it is doing that job adequately and moving quickly when it needs to in order to deal with complaints and breaches of the regulatory framework for which it is responsible. So it is a question of confidence and accountability, and I want us to be confident that Ofcom is doing its job properly and has the right accountability to Parliament, given the growth in its work. I want to hear from the Minister that the Government are aware that this is not just business as usual for Ofcom now, because it is not.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I will address Amendment 88 first. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, brought up an important point about Ofcom’s impartiality and the process for appointing its chairman. I join him in commending the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, the current chairman, on his ongoing work to steer Ofcom through a time of great regulatory change—I acknowledge the change that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, alluded to in her closing remarks. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, he draws on his extensive expertise in the sector.
Given the trust we place in Ofcom to regulate our media sector, its independence and impartiality are of paramount importance. To that end, the existing processes ensure that the appointment of the Ofcom chairman is designed to give effect to just those objectives. The chairman is appointed by the Secretary of State following a fair and open competition. This appointment is regulated by the office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The chairman of Ofcom is designated as a significant appointment by the commissioner. This means that the advisory assessment panel, which advises the Secretary of State, must have a senior independent panel member to ensure its impartiality. This member must be independent of the appointing department and must not be politically active.
The parliamentary scrutiny of this process was enhanced in the update to the Governance Code on Public Appointments in February this year. The updated guidance specifies that, should the responsible Minister not follow the advice of the advisory assessment panel, she or he is required to write to the chairman of the Select Committee when she or he announces the chosen candidate, and must appear before the Select Committee if requested to do so.
Furthermore, the chosen candidate is required to appear before the Select Committee before he or she is appointed. These new processes, which I hope the noble Lord agrees will help to address many of the concerns he raised, will apply to all future appointments to the role. We believe that this process ensures robust scrutiny and promotes Ofcom’s independence. I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention in tabling this amendment and agree with him about the importance of the topic it covers, but, given that this process was updated as recently as February, I consider his amendment unnecessary and hope that he will be happy to withdraw it.
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for Amendments 90 and 91 relating to Ofcom reporting. Ofcom has been regulating television and radio broadcasters since 2003, and we have confidence in its ability to continue to do so in the face of the changes brought about by the Bill. I appreciate what lies behind their amendments, which would ensure that the scope of the regulator’s functions, powers and duties—as well as its resources and capacity to deliver on its programme of work—is regularly reviewed. I am glad to say that there are already existing legislative requirements for Ofcom to report annually on how it carries out its functions. This information is published and laid before both Houses of Parliament, allowing the public and Parliament alike an opportunity for scrutiny.
In particular, Ofcom is already required to prepare a report on the carrying out of its functions each financial year, under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Office for Communications Act 2002. This includes reporting on its work, performance and finances, as well as any other matters requested by the Secretary of State. The last such report was published last July. This existing requirement combines some of the issues featured in the noble Lord’s and the noble Baroness’s amendments. More widely, it allows Ofcom to give a complete overview of its work. I hope that will reassure them.
On the noble Lord’s particular questions, the approach we have taken in the Bill is in line with that of other legislation. We have set out clearly defined principles that we want Ofcom to regulate against, and we have provided it with the tools it needs to do the job. On granular decision-making, it is right that Ofcom make these decisions. It has considerable sectoral expertise and is in the best place to judge the impact of its regulatory decisions. Off the back of the Bill, it will run 11 consultations, which will give a wide range of interested parties in the industry and beyond an opportunity to feed into its operational decision-making. Ultimately, Ofcom is in turn accountable to Parliament in the ways I set out earlier in Committee.
It is crucial that we protect Ofcom’s role as an independent regulator and give it the discretion to do its job. That is the approach we have taken in the Bill. We want to avoid a situation where a huge amount of parliamentary time is taken up making granular decisions about what is on our televisions. Rather, Parliament should set the direction and Ofcom can regulate accordingly, and broadcasters can continue to operate independently in their editorial decisions.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister giving way, but I wonder whether he can answer the fundamental question that I asked him. Quite simply, if he is saying that the driving documents, if you like, are the royal charter and the licences, what is the mechanism by which Parliament has an opportunity to discuss and amend them, if it so chooses? I also point out that he may have an opportunity, since the noble Lord, Lord Grade, is now in his place, to reiterate the huge praise that has been heaped on the noble Lord’s head in his absence.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Certainly—to make the noble Lord, Lord Grade, blush. He will, I am sure, read the tiny portion of Hansard covering the part of the debate that he missed.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
He can frame it, indeed. I commend him for his presence in these debates and his occasional contributions, which have been very helpful. It has been extremely valuable to have him here for the passage of this Bill, just as it was for the passage of the Online Safety Act, which also gives a huge amount of new work to the regulator.
I had tried to address the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, by saying that what we have done is to allow Parliament to set the direction, but not to be so granular through parliamentary time. I will happily write to him to provide some more reassurance, if I am able.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am most grateful to the Minister for the very helpful response that he has given. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Review: impact of this Act on the ownership of UK broadcasters(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of provisions in this Act on the ownership of UK broadcasters, including their ownership by a foreign power.(2) The Secretary of State must consult such persons they consider appropriate in preparing the review under subsection (1).(3) The review under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament for debate.(4) A foreign power for these purposes of subsection (1) has the same meaning as in Section 70E of the Enterprise Act 2002 inserted by Schedule 6 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review of the impact of provisions in this Act on the ownership of UK broadcasters, including their ownership by a foreign power.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to move the final amendment to this Bill in Committee. Noble Lords will recall that we debated foreign government ownership of UK news at Second Reading, courtesy of my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment to the Motion regretting that the issue was not in scope of this Bill.
However, it was possible to protect UK newspapers and news magazines from being owned, controlled or influenced by foreign powers via the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill. I was going to say that I very much hope that the Bill gets on to the state book swiftly, but now we know that we are entering wash-up, I am sure that it will be top of the list as it is very nearly there anyway. The scope of the DMCC Bill did not allow us to close any gap in the legal framework that could allow a foreign power to own, control or influence news websites and our broadcasters. During the debates on that Bill, my noble friend the Minister said that the Government would bring forward secondary legislation to deal with online news and that we could deal with broadcasters in this Media Bill.
Before I return to this Bill, I would be grateful if my noble friend, when he comes to wind up, could update us on when we should expect to see the regulations relating to online news. Clearly, I take account of the news of this afternoon but, none the less, are these regulations ready? Has the work been done so that they are ready to be brought forward, even if it is not possible to deal with them in the short time that we now have available? Can he also tell me whether the regulations will address the concerns that were raised some time ago about what are known as “online news creators”, who are not currently covered by any of Ofcom’s ownership regime. I am talking about the kind of organisations, usually platforms, that now have huge influence and control over the news online but do not qualify as owners of news organisations. If he could cover that as well, it would be useful.
Indeed, while he is at it, can my noble friend update us on the timing of the regulations for what we termed the “carve-out” for non-direct foreign state investors in newspapers, capped at 5%? These are the regulations that would bring into effect that bit of the new regime for newspaper ownership which addressed the important aspect of financing and the sustainable future of newspapers. That is also an important objective.
To go back to this Media Bill, regrettably, and contrary to what my noble friend had hoped, foreign power ownership of broadcasters is not in scope. Sadly, the limit of this amendment—which, as noble Lords will be able to spot, is drafted in a roundabout way to make it within scope—is to require the Secretary of State to do a review so that the gap in the legal framework can be closed. Of course, I acknowledged during the debates on the DMCC Bill, when broadcasters were raised, that quite a comprehensive media ownership regulatory regime is already in place. However, we need to put beyond doubt the risk that exists in relation to foreign powers. There is no clear block, just as we discovered there was not in relation to newspapers and news magazines.
When it comes to UK broadcast news channels, we should reflect on the fact that Comcast has committed to Sky News only until 2028; Paramount, the owner of Channel 5, is subject to ongoing speculation about its ownership; and, as we saw recently with News UK’s decision to move away from TalkTV, broadcast news is a very expensive business and most news channels are operating with losses. They are therefore vulnerable to being targeted by those with deep pockets who seek power and influence.
Since tabling this amendment, however, I have learned that Ofcom’s next scheduled review of the media ownership rules will be published in November this year. It would therefore be possible for foreign power ownership to form part of that review. As I understand it, however, for that to happen, the Secretary of State would have to issue instructions to Ofcom. When Ofcom’s CEO was before my committee last week, she was under the impression that the issue would be dealt with in the Media Bill, so there is some confusion out there as to how and when this matter will be dealt with. Of course, it does not need to be looked at via the media ownership rules; it could be addressed through an amendment to the Enterprise Act in the context of the mergers regime.
My main point, however, is that the risk of a foreign power owning, controlling or influencing our news channels, public service broadcasters, or indeed any broadcaster or platform such as Sky, is real and needs addressing as soon as possible. What I am looking for today is clarity and a commitment from the Minister on when and how the Government intend to do just that. While I know that it will not happen this side of a general election, it would be good to know whether the officials are already working on it, so that they can continue working on it during the general election campaign and be ready for Ministers to act on it after the general election takes place.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we wholeheartedly support Amendment 89 and the case made for it by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I sense that this debate is coming rapidly to a close. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has doggedly pursued this issue with others and I wholeheartedly congratulate her on her determination to ensure that we maintain a free and fair press without foreign intervention.
This amendment takes the noble Baroness’s critique of foreign state ownership a stage further by seeking to review the impact of the measure on UK broadcasters. Obviously, government should always keep under careful consideration and review the impact of particular policies. This will, I suspect, be a feature of debate from time to time. We need to consider the impact of foreign ownership on all news media outlets, not just the press, and we need to understand, and protect our press from, undue interference. We have made it clear on our Benches, throughout the debates on the future of the Telegraph Group, that we are fully committed to upholding press freedom and the independence of all news outlets.
We cannot tolerate external interference in the politics of our country; that does not really need underlining much more on a day like today. At a time when the media are often being attacked by the exercise of deepfakes, this vital principle takes on a new importance. We need to ensure in the future, as much as we can, that our democracy is protected. A free and independent press and broadcasting sector is key to that, so I hope the Minister will give a considered response to that point.
I particularly pick up on the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, about regulations relating to the amendments we recently passed to another Bill. I do not think they are otiose, despite the calling of an election. They will be important in the future, and she is right to insist that work should be carried on to ensure that they are properly and correctly drafted so that they can be reviewed when a new Government are in place. Her point on the Ofcom review of ownership rules, which is to commence in November, is an important insight and one that we clearly all need to concentrate on and give some thought to while we go through the electoral process.
I am going to go slightly off-piste here before we conclude this debate and thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for the time that he and I have spent together across the Dispatch Box and for the courtesies he has extended to me, my noble friend Lady Thornton and other colleagues during the passage of this legislation. I particularly enjoyed the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and, although she is not in her place, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for her continued and assiduous interest in this. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who is a powerful and important voice in your Lordships’ Chamber.
I suspect we will not have much more debate on the Media Bill, wash-up being the vicious process that it is, but we on these Benches have been happy to support it in the main. I am sorry we will not have the opportunity to give it a bit more detailed scrutiny on Report, but that is the nature of how we do our business. I thank the Minister for his attention to this, and I look forward to listening to his response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, an afternoon is certainly a long time in politics and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is probably right that this is a good moment to thank all noble Lords who have given detailed consideration to the Bill in Committee, and indeed during its pre-legislative scrutiny. It has been fortunate in the sense that it was scrutinised before it came to your Lordships’ House, it was improved by that process and we have had very good debates throughout this Committee. I too am grateful for the courtesies, the time and attention that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite have given to the Bill, as well as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the Lib Dem Front Bench and noble Lords across the Chamber. I am glad we have been able to dedicate a lot of time to this, both in the Chamber and outside. It has been a pleasure working with them.
On the amendment, it is a delight to be able to join in the praise that was directed to my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for her very careful consideration of matters not just in this Bill but on related issues in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.
The Government are committed to a pluralistic media landscape in which the public can access a wide range of accurate, high-quality news, views and information. Maintaining a free and thriving press is both a government-wide commitment and a personal priority for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who recognises, as I know my noble friend does, that our free press is a key pillar of our healthy and vital democracy. We acknowledge that the acquisition of UK news organisations by foreign states would run the risk of eroding trust in those vital organisations. This concern was the driving factor behind the introduction of the new foreign state intervention regime for newspapers and periodical news magazines, for which my noble friend was a compelling advocate.
It is clear from my noble friend’s remarks that the same concerns that led to the creation of that regime are also the motivation for the amendment she has tabled on ownership of UK broadcasters, including their ownership by a foreign power. Let me start by making clear that the restrictions on foreign state ownership of newspapers are designed to meet concern about a very specific risk, and the same approach is not necessarily appropriate for broadcasters. Newspapers and news magazines have a primary function to provide news and information, and therefore play a targeted role in helping to shape opinions and contributing to wider political debate. While our television and radio broadcasters also play a crucial role in the news landscape, their role is considerably more diverse, and the holding of a broadcasting licence is already well regulated through existing legislation.
Television and radio broadcasters in the UK operate within a well-established licensing regime overseen by Ofcom. As the independent regulator, it ensures that persons who own or control a licence are “fit and proper” to hold that licence and follow Broadcasting Code rules. There are also limitations on the persons who may hold or control broadcasting licences. For example, any
“body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature”
cannot hold a licence.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Before my noble friend moves on, would it not be appropriate, none the less, for Ofcom, when it does its media ownership rules review, to just consider again whether there are any weaknesses in the existing regime? He may be right that what is now in place for newspapers, or will soon be in place, may not be directly appropriate for broadcasters: a cut and paste may not be the right thing. Because it emerged only in the process of using the existing regime that there was a weakness in that regime, and we have had to take the steps that we have, it seems prudent for Ofcom to satisfy itself that there are no potential weaknesses in its ownership rules that ought to be addressed before they are put to the test.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Perhaps the Minister will comment on whether this matter has been under active consideration, because I think that is important. There is a shared concern across the Chamber on this, and the noble Baroness has touched on a very good point.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly think it would be prudent for Ofcom to consider that. It is a matter for Ofcom, and it is important that I do not put words in its mouth as an independent regulator, but it is important that it can do that and make its representations to the Government, to Parliament and publicly, in an independent way. On the extent to which it has done so to date, it is probably better if I set that out in writing so that I am able fully to account for what has been done so far. In brief, it is a matter for Ofcom as the independent regulator, and it has the means to set that out.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I can advise the noble Lord that, during the period between now and the general election, he will be the Minister most watched and listened to.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Thank you. Let me turn to the questions posed by my noble friend Baroness Stowell. She asked when we should expect to see the regulations relating to online news. We will shortly consult on expanding the existing media measures regime and the foreign state ownership provisions to include online news websites. That will enable us to make changes which ensure that online news, whether from an established newspaper group or an online publisher, is covered by the media regime and the new measures we are introducing for foreign state media ownership.
My noble friend is right about civil servants’ ability to carry on working even during the election period. Judging from the activity in my private office, I can certainly say that they are already springing into action on a number of fronts in the best traditions of the Civil Service. Work will of course continue as it always does, notwithstanding an election. This is an opportunity for me to thank the officials who have been working on the Bill and who will continue to work on these areas—rather hastily—over the next few days, but also more broadly on an ongoing basis in the way we have set out.
My noble friend mentioned the review of media ownership rules. I confirm that Ofcom can look at whatever it would like to in its review of the rules. The Secretary of State does not have to issue instructions to Ofcom to do so. I am happy to clarify that and, I hope, assist with some of the confusion which my noble friend has pointed out.
On the timing of regulations for what we termed the “carve-out”, as my noble friend knows, we are currently undertaking a consultation on proposed regulations to follow the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill to ensure that the drafting achieves our stated policy objectives in terms of the partial carve- out of small minority stakes held by sovereign wealth funds. The regulations will be finalised when the consultation concludes. We hope then to align the timeline for the introduction of these regulations with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Bassam, for their support for this amendment. Before I withdraw it, I want to check on a couple of things that my noble friend has just said.
On the media ownership rules review by Ofcom, my noble friend said that it is a matter for Ofcom and clarified that the Secretary of State does not need to issue an instruction. He emphasised that Ofcom is independent, and it is a matter for it. However, I am saying that Parliament wants it to look at the rules. I know that my erstwhile noble friend Lord Grade is listening, and it is fortuitous that the chairman of Ofcom is also a Member of your Lordships’ House. It would be reassuring to know that the Government, having listened to this debate today, will say to Ofcom that the media ownership rules review that it is about to conduct should look at foreign state ownership. I do not see how that in any way undermines or jeopardises its independence. I urge my noble friend to do that.
On the online news regulations and the work being done on that, the other issue was the category known as “online news creators”; that is, not just the news websites but this other, powerful force in news online. It does not necessarily involve a platform owning a news site but refers to just how much they are able to have an impact on the success, or otherwise, of other news organisations. It sounds like that is not part of what the officials are looking at. Perhaps the Minister can consider this and write to me. It would be helpful to get some clarity on that too.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very happy to do that. In relation to Ofcom’s review, my noble friend draws a helpful distinction. It is clear from the debate—which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, has heard—what Parliament is keen for Ofcom to do. There is a material difference between Parliament sending a message and government sending a message. Ofcom is an independent regulator. I am sure that it will heed what is said in Parliament, but I think it is better that it hears it from Parliament and is not instructed by the Government. It is an independent regulator, and I am sure the noble Lord will have heard the debate and feed it back to his colleagues.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I withdraw my amendment.
Media Bill
Thursday 23rd May 2024
(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-I Marshalled list for Report - (23 May 2024)
Baroness Bull
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reinstates the fundamental Reithian ethos of public service broadcasting (including the important contribution of public service broadcasting to life long learning), the vital role of public service broadcasting in increasing understanding in issues of civic importance, and the relationship between public service broadcasting and a thriving cultural and creative economy.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 2 and 4 in my name. I am grateful to my co-signatories, to other noble Lords around the House and to the Citizens’ Forum for Public Service Media for supporting these amendments, particularly given the pace at which all this has come together. I am also very grateful to the Minister and the Bill team, who found time on very busy days for a helpful meeting earlier this week on these amendments. At the time, we thought we were talking about a discussion we would have in June; it turns out that we are talking about it today, but I am very grateful to him and his team for finding time for that.
These amendments are all about the underpinning ethos, values and distinctive purpose of our PSBs. In tabling them today, I have tried to respect the Government’s intention to streamline and update the overlapping requirements in the 2003 Act, to which the Minister has referred previously. I have tried to do that while addressing the very strong feelings of this House and the sector that, in the process of modernisation, too much of value has been lost.
Amendment 1 would reinstate the principle that public service broadcasting content, taken together, should inform, educate and entertain. This three-legged stool is the foundational principle on which public service broadcasting was built and on which its global and economic success stands. Removing the Reithian principle from the Bill effectively limits the definition of the public service remit to a narrow focus on market failure. It fails to uphold the fundamental principle that PSBs exist to serve society in its broadest sense, with content that is culturally, democratically and socially valuable. Its removal also means that there is no longer any mention of the word “education” in Clause 1, and that the vital role of public service broadcasting in providing content of educative value for citizens across the life-course is no longer protected. Amendment 1 would restore the underpinning philosophy that broadcasting should do more than just reflect. It should help us to imagine other ways of being; to learn about things of which we never expected to know nor care about; and to expand our interests beyond our own lives and concerns and into the lives and concerns of others. It is a principle that has never lost its currency and, in an age when misinformation and disinformation threaten our democratic processes and civic cohesion, it is a principle we cannot afford to lose.
Amendment 2 goes a little further and would clarify what Parliament believes to be content of civic, social and cultural importance, thus protecting the type of content that can so easily be under threat in the face of economic challenge and ruthless competition. Without this clear guidance on what Parliament expects to see in return for public service broadcasting status, and indeed what viewers want, I struggle to see how Ofcom can fulfil its role in holding broadcasters to account. My noble friend Lord Colville championed this point in Committee, and I am grateful to him for working with me on this streamlined amendment. Amendment 2 would also retain the requirement that public service broadcasting should stimulate and support a thriving cultural and creative sector—the very sector on which it depends for its own survival. This modest addition to the Bill enshrines the symbiotic relationship between public service broadcasting and the health and success of the creative industries—a sector that this Government have identified as key to growth and that is currently, unfortunately, at serious risk. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State are genuinely committed to the future success of this sector. I hope that he can accept this amendment today so that the protections afforded by the 2003 Act remain in place at the time that they are most needed.
Amendment 4, my final amendment, is even more modest. It would add no more than six words requiring public service broadcasters to make available content for children and young people that is educational in nature. I have no problem with the stated ambition of the Bill that content reflect young people’s lives and concerns and help them better understand the world around them, but this is not the same as content that is educational. As I argued in Committee, education is one of the aspects of public service broadcasting that parents value most. Amendment 4 would not require all broadcasters to move into the same space as BBC Bitesize, for example—the specific detail of PSBs’ educational content would still be determined at the level of operating licences—but it would enshrine in legislation the importance of educational content for children and young people in opening up and equalising life chances, which is an aspect of PS broadcasting that licence fee payers deeply care about.
The overall aim of these amendments is to address the concerns so clearly expressed in Committee and by audiences and citizens’ groups that a better balance needs to be found between the intention to streamline and the retention of what makes our public service broadcasting so distinctive. My amendments would reinstate and protect the foundational ethos and core principles and purposes that have long defined our public service broadcasters and underpin their domestic success and the global leadership position they currently enjoy. I very much hope that the Minister might be persuaded by our arguments and be able to accept these amendments at the Dispatch Box. I beg to move.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 1, 2 and 4 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and will speak to Amendments 3, 5 and 6 in my name.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for their support for my Amendment 6 and the Minister for our rushed discussions as we try to pull all this together. My amendment extends the same nations and regions quotas that apply to the BBC to Channel 4—the only other publicly owned public service broadcaster. It includes a two-year timeframe from the passage of the Bill for these quotas to apply.
In Committee the debate on the nations and regions production quotas attracted the largest number of speakers and support from around your Lordships’ House, for which I was very grateful. This amendment is supported by devolved Governments and industry bodies across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Committee the Minister reassured us that he and his colleagues in DCMS had heard the strength of feeling on this issue from the sector, particularly in relation to Channel 4’s “out of England” quota, which is currently set at 9% of eligible programmes and expenditure. He noted that Channel 4 has said that it would support a managed increase in its programme-making commitments in the other home nations. He also offered a further meeting with Ofcom to discuss this in detail.
I am sorry that this will clearly be one of the casualties of wash-up, but I had hoped that this revised amendment, restricted to Channel 4 and giving it two years to enable a managed increase, might have found favour with all parties. If the Government are not minded to accept my amendment, I trust that Ofcom will take note of the strong feelings expressed that the current Channel 4 quota of 9% just will not wash.
I turn to Amendments 3 and 5, which were previously tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Dunlop, who cannot be here today and sends his apologies. The issue is that the responsibility for Gaelic broadcasting is split. The Gaelic Media Service, MG Alba, is established under UK legislation while Ofcom is the arbiter of whether there is sufficient Gaelic language broadcasting. The funding of the Gaelic Media Service was devolved in 1998 to Scottish Ministers, who have, for the past 10 years, frozen funding to MG Alba. The SNP is posing as great supporters of Gaelic and Gaelic broadcasting. However, as ever, the support is all for show. They are all talk and no action.
I have tabled modest amendments to the Bill that would make MG Alba a PSB for the limited purpose of guiding Ofcom in the discharge of its responsibility to assess whether there is, taken together in the round, sufficient broadcasting of minority languages. It would have to look specifically at the sufficiency of Gaelic broadcasting. If it was found that there was insufficient Gaelic broadcasting, the responsibility for responding to this would fall on the BBC—it is happy to accept that as it supports these amendments—MG Alba and, by extension, its funder, the Scottish Government.
These amendments are narrowly focused to be discrete and not upset the overall balance of the Bill. For example, they do not add any new responsibilities regarding prominence requirements. They would, as we head into an election campaign, be a powerful demonstration of a unionist government’s care for all parts of the UK, including its most peripheral in the Highlands and Islands.
Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, which I am pleased to support, the Minister accepted in Committee that we need to strike the right balance with a remit that gets to the heart of what it is to be a public service broadcaster. We must not dilute that. He also stated in Committee that he did not object to any of the specific genres mentioned in the revised Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness. I hope he can accept that not having this in the Bill really would be a glaring omission.
I am grateful to the Minister for his engagement. I am sorry that we have not had the time to explore some of these issues further with him and his team at DCMS, but I support him in his efforts to see that this Bill passes. I thank him and all noble Lords from across the House who have been so supportive of my efforts to ensure that the nations and regions have the best possible Bill.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 1 and 2 because it is essential that, in the first clause of this Bill, Parliament gives directed guidance to Ofcom on the content that it would hope to see created by our great broadcasters.
In Committee, the Minister said that the original list of genres and the Reithian mission statement gave “little guidance” to Ofcom on how to focus its assessment of what it is important for public service broadcasters to deliver. Amendment 1 gives a mission statement to provide content that informs and educates viewers. I hope this will ensure that the PSBs do not descend into providing only entertainment and not any information or education.
Amendment 2, which encourages broadcasters to stimulate science and the arts, among other things, is so very important. This is not a list of genres, which the Minister feared, but it does provide a metric for content against which Ofcom can measure the work of our broadcasters.
As other noble Lords have said, we are giving great privilege to broadcasters in this Bill, which I strongly welcome. However, with that must be a burden of responsibility to ensure that they should be distinctive and British. In a world dominated by streamers creating global entertainment, I hope that viewers in this country will be able in future to turn to our PSBs and find content that informs them about subjects that illuminate and bring context to their lives.
I, too, am grateful to the Minister for meeting me and my noble friend Lady Bull to discuss the changes to Clause 1. He was encouraging of the idea of extending the guidance for the public service remit, so I hope that he will support these important amendments.
I have also put my name to Amendment 6 to Clause 14 because I believe that Channel 4 is ready to increase its quota to the nations from the present 9%. The channel’s CEO, Alex Mahon, said as much in her speech to the creative industries last month. I hope that, in the present negotiations for the next licensing round of Channel 4, the Government will give guidance to the channel to increase its quota. It may not be as much as 16%, in line with the BBC, but it needs to be raised from the present 9%.
The television industry in the nations and many regions is collapsing from lack of work. Now is the time for action. I call on the Minister to accept this amendment.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I was happy to add my name to this, because it underlines the benefit of Channel 4. I am always a little worried that, if you leave gaps in behaviour, the bean-counters will take opportunities and the good intentions will take a back seat—so I am not afraid of asking for specifics.
It is important to remember—I hope that Channel 4 remembers this—that, when it was under threat not so very long ago, it was many of the people who have spoken today and previously during the passage of this Bill who were strongest in the belief that Channel 4 brings something special to our broadcasting. For me, one of its most special contributions has been seeking out creatives in the regions and giving them the opportunity to succeed. This amendment underpins that good record of Channel 4 so far and helps to see it into the future.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak on Amendment 8 in my name with a heavy heart, in the hope that someone out there is listening. I declare an interest as per the register.
The review amendment that I propose is intended not simply as an exercise in public service media management but as a vital contribution to the future well-being of children and young people in this country—that is, to their sense of worth, their understanding, their place in our society, their appreciation of the many and varied cultures of our society, and, in the final analysis, the future of public service media as a whole.
If millions of children and young people are no longer watching the television that is made for them on PSB channels—it is crafted, curated and considered age-appropriate and relevant to their lives as British kids—how can we hope that they will suddenly, on becoming adults, turn to the BBC for their news or even to other public service providers for information, entertainment or programmes for their children? They will not; they will have lost the habit of believing that powerful content that offers meaning to their lives as British people is provided for them by public service media.
I say this because research by the Children’s Media Foundation has found it to be the case. As Ofcom’s statistics prove, children have migrated away from watching linear television. Many are also unaware of the online platforms provided by the PSB broadcasters that this Bill seeks to bring into public service measurement and regulation.
Your Lordships may feel that young children—their grandchildren, perhaps—are still watching dedicated PSB channels, such as like CBeebies and Milkshake!. However, that is not the case for children over the age of seven. Many parents will tell you that their children are now in their bedrooms using mobile devices, phones and tablets to access their media choices, which opens them up to a world of content offered by YouTube and other providers. On demand and immediate, much of it is loud, frantic and attractive but little of it is made with the care that has been the hallmark of public service television for children since the 1950s.
I spoke to a head teacher just yesterday, who told me that many of the children in her school are speaking with American accents because they are influenced by what they watch on online platforms, which is not age appropriate. Despite the Online Safety Act addressing some of the most outrageous harms in these online spaces, nothing is being done to regulate the spaces for good content, which parents need to feel they can trust. Parents are looking to the Government to reassure them that this is happening. That is what public service media is about: it is there to regulate the broadcasters, to ensure that those who have captured the eyes and minds of British children, while being allowed to make a reasonable return on their investment, will always also give back something of meaning and purpose. That has worked since the 1950s, when commercial television started. It was made to work again when cable and satellite channels increased, and it can be made to work again in a new public service environment, which will definitely include shared video services such as YouTube, TikTok and others that may follow.
My amendment seeks to start a process where we can investigate the real future of public service broadcasting in this country, beyond the confines of the current Bill, through a review. It sets down a marker, like those in so many other countries around the world, that says: we are not prepared to carry on burying our heads in the sand; we will investigate the ways in which these devices can be regulated to offer prominence to public service content; and we will explore the feasibility of levies or incentives, to ensure that they share their advertising revenue with producers of content that is relevant, appropriate and local to the UK, and has the power—which all public service content has—to connect people with the world, rather than disconnect them from it.
All my amendment asks for is that we explore possible futures and are open to change. Change has already arrived for our children and young people, who, in ever greater numbers, are watching and being influenced by inappropriate and harmful videos, rather than material that speaks to their lives in positive ways. It is time for the Government and the entire country to wake up to the fact that the algorithms that push that content on our children are not regulated. They work entirely to increase revenue and profit, most of which is not distributed back to the children’s content producers. They do not take into account age relevance or the social value of what they push—and until we at least begin to discuss the potential for regulation, they will not do so. I simply ask the Minister: is that what we want our children to grow up with?
Supporting this amendment is the start of a new way of thinking about how we care for our children in an increasingly complex media landscape—one that, none the less, can be shaped to offer benefits, hope, joy and inclusion, if we are prepared to consider how that could be achieved. We have lost a generation of children and young people, who are not experiencing the high-quality, uplifting and fulfilling content of past generations. They are now meandering online on paths not beneficial to their mental and social well-being. Once again, I feel that it is my duty to plead with the Government, with tears in my eyes, to put children’s current viewing habits at the forefront of their decision-making process at this late stage, as it is already affecting and will continue to affect their future. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime. I hope that the Minister will commit to this review, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 9 in my name. I apologise to the House and to the Minister for having been alerted to this issue only after Committee. I am grateful for briefings from That’s TV and the Local TV Network.
The Conservative Government introduced local TV in 2012. This allowed locally targeted TV services to be introduced using frequencies freed up by the digital switchover process—the switch-off of analogue TV. There are now 34 local TV services in the UK licensed by Ofcom to broadcast on Freeview. Over three-quarters of these services are for smaller towns or cities of under 500,000 homes. Many of these areas receive little or no regular news about their location from any other television service.
The Bill is intended to secure the future of public service broadcasters by giving them guaranteed access to smart TV sets for their digital players, with the terms of carriage and prominence regulated by Ofcom. Similarly, the Bill grants all Ofcom-licensed radio services guaranteed access to smart speakers such as Alexa. Local TV services are designated as public service channels under the Communications Act 2003. However, local TV services are not included in the definition that the Bill uses for public service channels, which means that Ofcom will have no power to secure carriage and prominence for local TV digital services on smart TV sets.
As Freeview viewing diminishes, this omission represents an existential threat to the future of local TV and risks denying viewers access to news about their own area on TV. The Irish language service TG4 currently has reserved carriage on Freeview in Northern Ireland, to secure the availability of its service across the island of Ireland, in accordance with the Good Friday agreement. However, as drafted, the Bill also fails to protect TG4’s access to internet TV platforms in Northern Ireland, or that of any other potential future PSB duly designated by Parliament under the SI process required by the Communications Act.
A cross-party group of MPs in the other place responded directly to the 2023 DCMS consultation on local TV, supporting the renewal of local TV Freeview licences and calling for local TV to be brought within the provisions of the Bill. Subsequently, on Report in the other place, Sir John Whittingdale tabled his own Amendment 78 to capture local TV. This was not adopted by the Government. However, the Commons Minister implied at that time that she would consider any amendment proposed in the Lords further.
The local TV sector is not asking for guaranteed carriage on smart TV sets today, but the sector is seeking support for a permissive amendment that will allow Ofcom, at its discretion, to secure this carriage for any public service channel defined consistently with the Communications Act 2003. Without an amendment, Ofcom will have no power to require any broadband TV platform to carry local TV services and any potential future public service channels on appropriate terms or with appropriate prominence. Powerful global TV manufacturers will be at liberty to refuse to carry the digital players of these services or to seek to demand premium rents.
This amendment is modest. It simply provides a framework that will allow the 2003 protection to continue into the future. It does not open the floodgates for unreliable news services but it allows Ofcom to make a determination as to whether a service is both willing and able to offer an internet programme service. If it does so determine, the service can be designated and obtain the protections afforded to other providers of public service content under the Bill. It also future-proofs the Bill for other potential public service providers.
With this amendment and cross-party support from the other place, I hope the Minister will take this as a signal of parliamentary interest and will explore options. If that does not happen, local TV news services may not be around for the next media Bill.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 7. The listed events regime is something that we all agree should happen—for sporting events and events of national importance. This amendment, initially moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is an attempt to make sure that in the current viewing world, they are still relevant in the way that they should be. Not everybody watches these listed events on an ordinary television and, if you do, you may be watching on internet television. One of the joys of this is that you have highlights and replays and can watch out of sync. I would hope in this modern world that those are guaranteed, because if you do not guarantee that these sporting cultural assets, which the nation has said should be available to everyone and there is cross-party consensus on, are made available for free then you are going to take them away.
Also, if there is any danger of these highlights being taken away—when it comes to the Olympics, for example, determined as I am, even I cannot watch 15 events at once, especially not at various times—we must make sure that they are readily available. This is the second go at this. I hope that the Minister can give us a definitive reassurance that we will have this available to us now, in this Bill, because if not, the Government have thrown away, in effect, half the listed events.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 1 and to echo some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, in her Amendment 8. It is a very great honour to speak to her amendment. I congratulate her on her very important recognition with her BAFTA award last week. She has been a tireless campaigner for children’s television, which is why these two amendments are perhaps the most important that we are discussing today.
To put at the heart of the Bill the notion of public service broadcasting and to modernise it for the digital age should surely be what we are trying to achieve today. I am a member of probably the first generation of comprehensive school children who were taught using terrestrial colour television—creative programmes such as “Words and Pictures” and—dare I say it?—“Play School”. I still remember “magic e” when I write speeches for the Lords. What is sitting here is a failure to realise that we are the generation that lived in information scarcity and our children are swimming in an ocean of information abundance. That notion at the heart of public service broadcasting—good, thorough content creation that is age-appropriate and relevant to the educational journey that we ask our children and their families to go on—is what we should be addressing.
I hope that all Front-Benchers will be able to take the comments made by the movers of those amendments very seriously when they respond to the debate.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 9 because the quality of news in total has deteriorated over the last few years, and we definitely need more regulation to deal with this.
As far as local TV is concerned, there is a suggestion that it should be put under Ofcom and monitored. In Liverpool, for example, we have a local TV service, but most of the time it is not local at all. It is GM News. Anyone who knows Liverpool knows that it is probably one of the most left-wing cities in the country. To have thrust on it GM News as the major contributor to local TV is very strange indeed. You need some understanding that there needs to be far more local content than there has been in the past and it needs to be regulated.
I have a problem with Ofcom because even if we put it under Ofcom, as the amendment suggests, Ofcom has failed to do its duty on a number of occasions. It is still allowing GM News to put out propaganda, to allow one Tory MP to interview another Tory MP, and we see no action on this.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
Does the noble Lord mean GB News? He keeps saying GM News.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Correct: GB News. It allows one Tory MP to interview another Tory MP, which is against the rules, as everyone knows, and yet Ofcom sits on the fence because it does not want to take action. It is not surprising because we are dominated by the Conservatives; the chairman and director-general of the BBC are both Tories; the chairman of Ofcom is a Tory; we are overrun by Tories in every area of the media, and we need to address this because there is no balance. This means that people do not stick to the rules that Parliament has laid down. Ofcom has a lot more to answer for and it needs to address some of the shortfalls that it has now if it is going to take on more responsibility.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will bring the House to the safe harbour of the Cross Benches and take us away from the world of politics—we will have quite enough politics in the next month or so without starting it now.
I spoke in Committee, so I will not say any more, but I endorse everything the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said. She knows how I feel, the Minister knows how I feel. We were all on an Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme trip to Bahrain over the weekend so, apart from having lots of hummus, he also heard quite a lot about Reithian principles. I will follow up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, and I would like to do so, very appropriately with this Minister, on the basis of the alternatives that young children are now exposed to in the online world. The majority of young children will not necessarily benefit from the sort of children’s public sector broadcasting that I suspect most of us are familiar with but have probably not watched a lot of recently, unless we have been babysitting our grandchildren and have nodded off beside them and whatever it is they are listening to.
The reality is that what children are accessing now is very different from what happened before. This is slightly similar to the discussion we had recently about the Government’s new proposed regulations around personal, health and social education in schools. Many children are educated in a way that is pretty much invisible to much of the adult population. I ask the Minister to work very closely with the Department for Education; schools and teachers know very well, having picked it up from them, what their students are exposed to and the degree to which that is good or bad. The Children’s Commissioner should also have a lot of input into trying to understand the firmament of content that children are gaining access to; now is a very important watershed time to do that because every month or year we lose in understanding what children are gaining their knowledge—or lack of knowledge—from, the more time we lose.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I say sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for going back to being political. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Watts, that I used to work at the BBC and guess what? Jeremy Paxman and Nick Robinson are also Tories.
Anyway, this is such an important Bill that I will come back to. As I said in Committee, the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, ensure that while we both update and future-proof our incredibly invaluable broadcasting media, we do not lose the principles that have made it so unique and internationally renowned. We get, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, a better balance: in particular, the reinstatement to the Communications Act of the Reithian principles of inform, educate and entertain. At Second Reading, the Minister referred to addressing the concerns of the DCMS Committee report in its pre-legislative scrutiny. The report recommended that the Government retained obligations on PSBs to provide specific genres of content, and the Bill does not. I hope the Minister has considered these concerns as set out in these amendments, which have had support from around the House.
There is a need to enshrine Reithian principles. On the “educate” principle, it is so important for our children today to come together outside the echo chamber that is social media. So many here have supported the matters on which my noble friend Lady Benjamin spoke. With regard to the “entertain” principle, the PSBs, led by the BBC, support and stimulate cultural activity and reflect our nations. They support our creative industries through innovation, skills and training although, as I mentioned in Committee, work still needs to be done on diversity. As for the “inform” principle, PSBs remain essential to UK media, and losing them would leave UK society and democracy worse off.
It is also essential, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and my noble friend Lord McNally mentioned on Amendment 6, that programmes are commissioned from and made across the UK. In Committee, I argued that the change to Channel 4’s remit potentially undermines this. I did not get much support, but I still stand by that argument.
My noble friend Lord Addington eloquently and persuasively argued to update access to listed events, particularly for clips and excerpts. I return to the words of my noble friend whom I call Baroness Flo—who cannot listen to her and accept what she says and argues for? I point out to the Minister that all she is asking for is a review.
This Bill is much needed. I welcome it. With more time, it could have been even better, but I hope that the Minister agrees to the amendments and makes it as good as possible.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, we are keen that the Bill should be on the statute book, as is the whole of the media world, which has been telling us, even as late as today, “Please, can you make sure that it goes through?” These Benches certainly support that.
It a shame that we have not had more time on the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, just said, there is a lot of consensus across the House about how it might have been improved, but I hope that the Minister gives us some comfort about the amendments in this group.
We strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, in her amendments about Reithian principles and education, as we did recently in Committee. We are also keen to support those amendments which concern children, one of which is my own. We thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made a very powerful point in Committee and even more so today. The request for a review is a modest one and, if the Minister is not able to accept this amendment, I would hope that we can persuade Ofcom that it needs to do this. As the regulator in this world, it needs to take some responsibility and do this review. I therefore hope, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that somebody is listening out there in Ofcom who might do something helpful with this.
I hope that the Minister will address the issues in my amendment, which seeks to ask Ofcom to ensure that minimum standards for age rating are adhered to. That is not to say that it should use a particular method or providers, but there should be some minimum standards, so that parents across the country understand the age ratings for the material that their children are watching. That is very straightforward and simple, and it should be part of Ofcom’s duties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, we are back for Report stage of the Bill rather sooner than we anticipated when we had our Committee debates earlier this week. By necessity and through the process of wash-up, the conversation and debate will be different to the one we would have had, if the Bill had proceeded at a normal pace. I hope that, in my time at the Dispatch Box, I have gained a reputation for listening to the points raised in scrutiny of legislation in your Lordships’ House. I hope that I demonstrated that through the way I steered the Online Safety Act through, which was much improved by amendments from all quarters.
Had we had more time on this, I would have looked forward to debating many of these points in greater detail and discussing them with noble Lords outside the Chamber. I have had the opportunity to do that, albeit in unusual circumstances: my noble friend Lord Attlee and I had a conversation this morning at Westminster tube station, on our way into Parliament and, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, we were discussing aspects of the Bill in the Kingdom of Bahrain earlier this week on our red-eye flight back on Sunday night and Monday morning, which was a perfect way to start what has been a quiet week in Westminster. I am grateful to all noble Lords, as I always am, for the time that they have given in the Chamber and outside to discuss these matters.
We are all pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord McNally, back in his place. I hope that he has had a chance to see the best wishes sent to him yesterday, and we are glad that he is back with us for our debates today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, very kindly began this group by paying tribute to the Bill team. I echo that: they have worked extraordinarily hard since the announcement of the general election to consider these amendments and to prepare. If I may, I single out the Bill manager, Charlotte Brennan, who hot-footed it back from Sunderland this morning. Last night, she was watching a Bruce Springsteen concert and has come back on what was supposed to be a day of leave to aid your Lordships and all of us in our deliberation. Luckily, like the Boss, she was born to run, and she has run back today.
If I may misquote Springsteen again, I think there is a risk in wash-up for this and all Bills that we end up with “All or Nothin’ at All”. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, alluded to the clear statements that we have heard from the sector, including the statement made this morning by chief executives from the broadcasting industry about the Bill. As noble Lords may not have had the opportunity to see that yet, I shall quote it in full, because it is worth bearing in mind in our deliberations. They say:
“As leading CEOs from the UK broadcasting industry, we call on politicians across Parliament not to let the opportunity to modernise the rules that govern our sector pass. The Media Bill as currently drafted is widely supported across industry and Parliament itself and has undergone Parliamentary scrutiny in the Select Committee and both Houses of Parliament, having completed second reading and committee stage in both houses. The reforms proposed in the Bill will update key aspects of media legislation for the online TV era, to ensure audiences continue to benefit from the highest quality UK-originated content from the PSBs, and help the UK’s content sector thrive for years to come”.
I know noble Lords have had the opportunity to meet the representatives of the sector and hear how they have worked very hard to come to consensus on matters in this Bill. I hope that we will be able to follow them and give them the Bill they need, for all the important reasons they have set out. For that reason, inevitably, I will upset some noble Lords who, had we proceeded at a different speed, I might have been able to satisfy.
I will start with Amendment 1, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, about the importance of retaining the Reithian principles in this legislation. As the noble Baroness said, she, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and I had the opportunity to meet earlier this week with officials to talk about this, and we have been considering the issue since she raised it both in Second Reading and on the first day in Committee. I am happy to say that, because that work had already been proceeding and because of the powerful arguments made on all sides of the House at Second Reading and since, I am able to accept her Amendment 1, which will ensure that these principles remain an explicit part of the remit. As we have discussed, they are admirable and important principles, and we want them to remain key to the public service broadcasting ecosystem. I am glad to be able to lend our support to them.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for her Amendment 4, which seeks to make it clear that children’s programming should be included in educational programming. That goes beyond the current drafting of the Bill, which specifies that children’s programming must reflect
“the lives and concerns of children and young people in the United Kingdom”
and support them
“to understand the world around them”.
I am of course in favour of high-quality programming that supports children to learn and grow, and believe that the public service broadcasters have an important role in providing this.
Children’s programming is an issue that my honourable friend Julia Lopez in another place feels very strongly about, but nobody feels more strongly about it than the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who on this Bill and so many others has spoken passionately about it. She has called for a review of children’s access to public service media. I am pleased to say that there are already requirements on Ofcom to report on children’s television, and legislation already allows for considered assessment of the provision of children’s programming. As the independent regulator, Ofcom is well placed to consider and report on the market more broadly and on how children are accessing content in an increasingly digital world. Ofcom already has a wealth of experience in this area; noble Lords may have seen its yearly Children’s Media Lives report and its Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes report. In these reports, Ofcom analyses in depth the way children are accessing content and their attitudes to media today.
Ofcom will continue looking at how children’s media needs are being met in its upcoming review of public service media. Ofcom will review how public service broadcasters are delivering for children, given the significant changes in the media sector, as the noble Baroness set out. This review will draw on Ofcom’s broad range of research to set out what young people are watching, the services they use and value, and the role public service content plays in their lives. Ofcom will also look at who is commissioning the content that appeals to young audiences, and in particular at the incentives on providers to commission it. Ofcom will set out the scope of its public service media review and related programme of work this summer.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly says, the regulator is listening and is able to act in this area, and I am sure will have heard the strength of opinion raised by the noble Baroness and others in our debate today. Although I am afraid I must disappoint her on her Amendment 8, which I cannot accept, I hope I can reassure her that her words have not fallen on deaf ears—they never do. I know that her work in this important area will continue into the next Parliament and beyond.
I am happy to say that, given that we are returning to the issue in the context of Amendment 4, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, I am able to support that amendment, which seeks to add educational programming for children explicitly to the remit. I hope that goes some way—albeit not as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, would wish me to go—to address the concerns she set out in her powerful speech. To repeat, I am able to accept Amendments 1 and 4 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
I am afraid that that is where the good news ends. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has also tabled Amendment 2, which focuses on public service broadcasters’ provision of programming across a range of specific genres. I know that many in your Lordships’ House feel strongly that the Bill should include a specific list of genres. We heard throughout Second Reading and in Committee a hearty debate on what should be on that list. In the public service remit, we want to set a clear and simple vision for the industry, one that narrows in on exactly what it means to be a public service broadcaster, and we believe that this Bill achieves just that. The Government carefully considered the issue of genres during the design phase of the Bill and as part of its pre-legislative scrutiny. We have added a new subsection (6) in response to that process which makes clear that public service broadcasters must together produce a range of genres in order to fulfil the public service remit.
As I said in Committee, there are two mechanisms for the provision of genres: first, Clause 1 requires Ofcom to report every five years on the extent to which the public service remit is being fulfilled; and, secondly, we have retained the specific obligation of Ofcom in Section 358 of the Communications Act 2003 to collect and report statistics annually on the principal genres which are made available on television and radio services. If the provision of a particular genre was seen to be lacking by Ofcom then the Government of the day could act. New Section 278A of that Act creates a new power, allowing the Secretary of State to create quotas for underserved content areas on Ofcom’s recommendation. This could be used in future to add specific and granular requirements on public service broadcasters with regard to any particular genre. I hope that as I have set out the vital importance of a streamlined public service broadcasting system, and the options to add a requirement about a particular genre at a later date, the noble Baroness will be content not to move Amendment 2.
As several noble Lords have pointed out, Gaelic language broadcasting is crucial for the lives and well-being of Gaelic speakers across Scotland and in the rest of the UK. This Bill already helps to ensure that audiences are able to access content in regional and minority languages, as well as content that is culturally important to communities across these islands, for decades to come. As I have said previously, Clause 1 makes the importance of programmes broadcast in the UK’s regional and minority languages clear in legislation by including it in our new public service remit for television. This provision already covers Gaelic. As such, I am happy to reassure noble Lords that this is covered in the Bill.
I emphasise that the partnership between MG Alba and the BBC is extremely significant for Gaelic language broadcasting, with the BBC already having a specific responsibility in the framework agreement to partner with MG Alba to provide and distribute BBC Alba. On that basis, noble Lords will already have seen that the Government are formally considering the funding of minority language broadcasting, including Gaelic, as part of the BBC funding review which was launched on 7 December. Once the funding review has concluded, I am firmly of the view that then will be the right time to consider the overall future of MG Alba and the ongoing provision of Gaelic language broadcasting. Given the closeness of the link between the BBC and MG Alba, we think these considerations are best done alongside the upcoming review of the BBC’s royal charter, and further details will be set out in due course.
While I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and Lord Dunlop, who have given considerable attention to this and with whom I had the opportunity to begin discussions outside the Chamber on this, I am afraid that I am unable to accept the amendment that has been brought back today.
The growth in film and television production outside London is a great success story, and our public service broadcasters are one of the key drivers of that growth. That is in part due to the quotas placed on them which require them to produce a minimum amount of programmes made outside London. However, we should not overlook the fact that our public service broadcasters have consistently exceeded those quotas, often significantly, and some have even made public commitments to go further than the requirements currently in their licences.
As I set out on the second day in Committee, on Monday, His Majesty’s Government welcome the pledge by the BBC to increase its production expenditure outside our capital to 60% by 2027, and Channel 4’s commitment to spend at least 50% of its main channel commissioning budget outside London. As I also set out on Monday, the regulatory system proposed in this Bill will continue to support the success of the industry in several ways. The Bill is explicit in Clause 1 in its intention to recognise the need for programmes produced outside London through our new public service remit, while the quota system that underpins this mission statement is a clear and well-understood mechanism for holding public service broadcasters to account. The level of these quotas is set by Ofcom, which has broad powers to amend them.
The levels of Channel 4’s regional programme-making quotas, which are the subject of Amendment 6, are being consulted on by Ofcom as part of its consultation on the next Channel 4 licence, which will come into force from 1 January next year. Channel 4 has said that it would support, as my noble friend Lady Fraser said, a managed and carefully considered increase to its programme-making commitments in the home nations. His Majesty’s Government look forward to the outcome of the licence renewal process and seeing how the sector’s concerns have been addressed.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Can I take it from those comments that the Minister actually believes that there should be far more local content in TV, from regions, towns and cities, and that those these services should not be dominated by GB News in the way they are now? It would be interesting to know if the Minister actually believes in local TV or not. Also, would he like to comment on the fact that—
Lord Watts (Lab)
I am asking a question. Would the Minister like to comment on the fact that the BBC and Ofcom are dominated by card-carrying members of the Tory party? Does he think that is healthy?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord will not be surprised that I do not agree with his final points. But I agree on the importance of local television, which we have heard about in our debates. Local television services continue to play an important role in the wider broadcasting system, adding great value to communities, including during the pandemic as well as in normal times. The Government remain committed to securing the most effective framework for local TV operators going forward. I hope I can reassure him that we very much care about them.
On Amendment 10 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, we are in complete agreement with her on the need to protect children and vulnerable audiences from harmful and inappropriate video on demand content to which they might be exposed. I wish we had more time to continue the discussions on the important matters she raised; my noble friend Lord Bethell and others would have looked forward to that. I reassure noble Lords that the concerns they raised are already well covered by the Bill as drafted. Ofcom will be given extensive powers to set standards, assess video on demand services’ audience protection measures and take action that it considers appropriate. If audiences are concerned, they can complain to Ofcom, and the regulator can, in the most serious cases, set sanctions such as financial penalties or even restrict access to that service in the UK.
The noble Baroness’s amendment looks to set specific standards for services that use age ratings. The Bill already gives Ofcom the power to set these standards and others through the new video on demand code. Ofcom must keep these rules under constant review so that they can be adapted to take into account changes in technology and audience expectations. I am grateful to her for reiterating this important point today, and I hope I can reassure her that the Government are proposing effective and proportionate regulation that covers this and other issues.
With that, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments—other than the Amendments 1 and 4 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, which I am pleased to be able to support.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support, and the sector organisations that have campaigned and briefed us all. I am disappointed that the Minister is unable to accept Amendment 2, particularly given that it aims to support the sector for which his department is responsible. It is sad to hear him say that, if we were not rushing this through, we would surely have been able to arrive at a consensus, as I really believe that he understands our concerns and would have invested his considerable skills and energies into finding a shared solution.
However, I am delighted that the Government will accept Amendments 1 and 4. This will restore the Reithian principle to its rightful place, and it will enshrine education, for children as well as adults, as integral to public service broadcasting. I thank the Minister for his time on these amendments and for the work I can imagine he has had to put in to get them accepted at the 11th hour. I am very grateful.
Given that this may be my last chance to address the Minister on the record in this role, I take this opportunity to thank him for all he has done in it. I, like others, have found him approachable, fair and effective. He has the best role in government, in some ways, because he works with a sector that is creative, vibrant and endlessly varied. However, it may also be the worst role, because the sector is not shy in saying what it thinks and is creative in getting its message across. But, across the sector, he is widely respected for the hard work he puts in, for his active engagement and for his knowledgeability across such a broad sector.
Again, I am grateful for the concessions that the Minister has been able to make, and I am sorry that the specific circumstances have not allowed us to find alignment on that important Amendment 2. I note what he said about options to investigate performance on specific genres in due course, so my noble friend Lord Colville and I put on notice whoever is in this seat in months to come—we will keep an eye on this. For now, it is a great pleasure to commend Amendment 1 to the House.
Baroness Bull
“(ia) is of an educational nature, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the importance of educational programming for children and young people as distinct from programming that reflects their lives and concerns.
Earl Attlee
“(2) Section 40(3) is omitted.”
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, I also speak to Amendment 12, which is consequential on Amendment 11. There would be no point in agreeing 11 unless we also agreed Amendment 12, because that is the commencement provision—and actually it was the commencement provision that caused a problem with Section 40 in the first place.
This amendment was debated in Committee only yesterday afternoon. I regret that I have not been able to carefully study any of your Lordships’ speeches, but the arguments in favour of these amendments remain the same. I am grateful for the support of all noble Lords in this matter.
This amendment would retain the carrot component of Section 40—that is, the protection it affords to regulated publishers—while dispensing with the stick element, which could disadvantage unregulated publishers. I have to be honest with the House and say that I understand the dangers that publishers might see with the stick component. Suppose that, at some point in the future, our police got out of control, as if we were in a third-world, failed state; and suppose they managed to corrupt the only approved regulator. The publishers would be stuck, because there would be no escape. They would not be able to go back to where we are now. However, if these amendments were to be accepted, there would be no detriment whatever to the interests of the national or local press, even if they refused to join any form of regulator. If there are any detriments, I am sure the House would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could say what they are.
The Conservative 2019 manifesto says:
“To support free speech, we will repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2014, which seeks to coerce the press”.
These amendments would achieve that objective. A newspaper signed up to IPSO would no longer be adversely affected by Section 40; it would just have to hope and pray that the courts would protect it from rich and powerful litigators. However, if a newspaper signs up to an approved regulator, it will be protected, because any person trying to sue it would pay all the court costs, win or lose. So free speech would be protected and not harmed.
My noble friend the Minister says that it is government policy not to incentivise membership of one regulator over another, even if one is superior. So can my noble friend explain why, in data protection and other areas of legislation, the editors’ code used by IPSO is recognised in statute over and above other editorial codes? Is it not the case that the Government give special treatment, not on the basis of which regulator offers better protection to the public but on the basis of which regulator represents a national newspaper whose support they crave?
The truth of the matter is that the opponents of the Leveson reforms want the only approved regulator to wither on the vine by denying it the benefits of Section 40, as envisaged by the Leveson reforms. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for moving Amendment 11 and for his brave and wise speech. I hope that the Minister has thought again overnight and will accept Amendments 11 and 12, which have a lot of support within the House, without our needing to divide. What message does it send to voters when a clause that has been heavily debated and voted on, and to which amendments have attracted cross-party support, is persisted with by the Government under an expedited process?
I and other noble Lords do not think that this is an appropriate way of conducting the business of this House. Our democratic system, with all its checks and balances, is sacred, and I urge the Government to respect it and either withdraw this clause or agree to Amendments 11 and 12, which propose a finely balanced compromise between competing views.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, my name appears on all three amendments in this group and therefore it is very tempting to make a long speech on all of them. But I will not do that; I am going to confine myself to the absolutely ghastly procedural and constitutional hole we are in.
I think that for a lot of this stuff to go through wash-up is a breach of the constitution and the understanding of the constitution that we all hold firm to. If this is not looked at in future, we will get into this hot water yet again and burn our toes.
I will take a couple of points, although I could say a number of things. One of the reasons why this House always accedes to the will of the elected House is that it is an elected House. One of the reasons why a manifesto pledge is regarded as game over is that it is the clearest reflection of the will of the people as expressed at the last general election. But we are about to have another general election. The people could have been given another chance to express a view on whatever is in the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem manifestos, but instead this tag-end of a Government—going down their smoke-rising hole and out of the people’s memory, thank goodness—are still able to make decisions on this. I really am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bassam, who knows what a great admirer of his I am, and the Labour Party as a concerted whole have not put up more of a fight on this.
Secondly, this was avoided in one of the earlier speeches, but wash-up is meant to be about consensus. The Minister said that he would discuss this with the Opposition, but in this House we have more than one opposition. We also have the Liberal Democrat opposition, who take a wholly different view on Leveson and Clause 50 from the Opposition or the Tory party. When going through a procedure designed to achieve consensus, is it fair to exclude from that process an extremely important group of people whose knowledge and experience in this field is as great as that of any other party in the House? I do not find that procedure acceptable.
Some of the consequences of this are becoming known to us as we go through the Bill this afternoon. The Minister, with an apparently serious face, said: “We might have been able to sort these things out, Lady Bull, if only we had had more time”. I do not know what conversations he has had with the noble Baroness over the last few days, but I hope they have been extensive. It is because this thing has been rushed through and wash-up is being used as a cover. I do not know why the Whip is making noises. He tried to shut somebody else up before, but he will not shut me up.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
That is right. He has succeeded; I have lost my thread.
If we had had more time or if the phrase “extended consensus” had been interpreted more widely, these matters could have been dealt with. In the end, we will end up with an unnecessarily flawed Bill and a subject to which an incoming Government—as long as they are not a Conservative one—will have to devote their time. We could have wrapped all this up today and adopted the compromise put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. If necessary, we could even now improve that compromise by amending it at Third Reading. But we will not do so. The will is not there.
We are now seeing an elected dictatorship of two parties—my own, alas, and the Conservative Party—pushing through things that have not achieved consensus support simply, as I explained at Second Reading, for political advantage. This is a sad day not only for press regulation but for Britain’s democracy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to associate the Green Party with the remarks of both the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. The noble Baroness spoke up very clearly for the people with very little power who are being crushed by those with great power—the oligarchic press and media system, to which I have referred in previous speeches.
To pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I often hear the phrase, “We are a self-governing House” said with great pride. “We are not ruled by the usual channels”—or at least we are not supposed to be. They do not represent large parts of your Lordships’ House.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and Members from all parts of the House for their good wishes about my health. I went into hospital yesterday morning for a procedure on a long-standing back complaint. It went very well and as I left, the doctor said, “Oh, you might find a bit of discomfort once the painkillers wear off”. Always listen to your doctor. I was really touched to read today’s Hansard. There were good wishes that you usually have to die to get in this House. I feel rather like Tom Sawyer in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is right—I am only going to speak to the amendments to Clause 50—as the notes issued by the House on the wash-up period state:
“The wash-up period allows a Government to enact essential or non-controversial legislation”.
Whatever else this is, Clause 50 is neither of those things. We all know it has been put into the Bill like a sore thumb, to fix a deal between the Conservative Party and the major newspaper proprietors. That is the wicked world in which we live.
Having served in government and in this House for well over 30 years, I cannot get excited about wash-up. George Woodcock, the great trade union leader of the early 1960s, said that good trade unionism is a series of squalid compromises; so is wash-up, I am afraid. I understand what we are doing today. If we did not have this rather crude end to a Parliament, even a general election period of six weeks would be eaten up by both Houses debating Bills. It is not the end of the world; there is another Parliament coming.
I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Black, is in his place. Like Don Quixote, he is ready to charge at the windmills of state control of the press. That has never been any part of Section 40, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, explained in quoting the expert on the situation, Lord Leveson. I was the Minister in the Ministry of Justice who had responsibility for trying to put forward a solution to the problem of how you square the circle of press freedom and the power of big money in the press. I find it ironic that, at the end of this Parliament, we are being asked simultaneously to help the titans of the press to escape the bullying of SLAPPs—that is the use of big money to curb freedom—and at the same time those same press bodies are resisting attempts to give the ordinary citizen the protection from big-money press that they are asking for.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, when a judge gives a dissenting judgment, he or she often says that they have the misfortune to disagree with the other judgments. I have the misfortune to disagree with the observations made by all previous speakers in this debate. I declare my interest: I occasionally contribute to the press, as do many other noble Lords, and have acted as counsel for various media organisations, and indeed people suing the press, including in proceedings concerned with Section 40.
I can see no conceivable justification for giving special legal protection in relation to those publications which are signed up to the authorised regulator. Section 40 has not been implemented since 2013; it has long been effectively dead and it is high time for it to receive a decent burial. In the last 10 years-plus, we have seen the unauthorised Independent Press Standards Organisation act with independence, impartiality and good judgment to rule on complaints about press conduct. It has done so since 2020, since when it has been chaired by my noble friend Lord Faulks. Under his distinguished chairmanship, it has produced 800-plus rulings on thousands of complaints. Those 800-plus rulings are all contained on the website; they are entirely transparent.
What I find astonishing in this debate is that none of the speakers—who are so wedded to there being a protected, authorised organisation—has made any criticism whatever of any of the rulings made by the unauthorised IPSO. Your Lordships may know that the Times, the Telegraph and the Spectator have all complained that IPSO has been too tough on the press. If there are criticisms of IPSO, I would have expected to hear them today, but I have not. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, spoke of the need for high standards of ethical media regulation, but that is what we have from IPSO.
I am very delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord McNally, back in his place and that he is restored to good health; I wish him well. He spoke of the influence of big money. There is an independent regulator, which is under the noble Lord, Lord Faulks; his predecessor was a very distinguished, independent Court of Appeal judge, Sir Alan Moses, whom no one could accuse of being in anyone’s pocket. It is preposterous to suggest that there is no independent press regulation other than the authorised body.
The authorised body is Impress. I am sure that it has greatly impressed its new member, the organisation Responsible Reptile Keeping. Many, including the vast majority of the press, are not impressed by it to the extent that they wish to be regulated by it—and that is entirely their choice. It is wrong in principle that we should maintain any legislation that provides any advantage to anyone in relation to that body. The noble Earl wishes to intervene.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving way; I love debating this subject with him. I made a speech in the House of Lords in which I said that I would not name a bank, because it had been extremely helpful to me. That was reported in a newspaper, which said exactly the opposite: it named the bank and quoted all the horrible things that I had said about it. Those comments were actually from a position paper that I wrote some time before I made the speech. Can the noble Lord explain why, when I complained to IPSO, my complaint online disappeared into the ether? When I asked newspapers to publish a very nice letter from me, saying that there had been some misunderstanding and asking for the opportunity to correct the record, none of them agreed to publish it and my email just disappeared. That was because they knew that IPSO would have no effect.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Earl knows very well indeed that I cannot possibly have any knowledge of the circumstances of his complaint. I am sure that if the noble Earl takes up the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, he will—as Ministers say—write to the noble Earl with an explanation. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will be very happy to place a copy in the Library of the House, but I cannot answer that.
Let us be realistic: we all have complaints about the press. Sometimes, they say nasty things about me; I am not as important as the noble Earl, so it is much rarer, but we are all aggrieved by the press. The fact that the press sometimes—maybe often—say foolish, unjustified things is the price of press freedom. There needs to be a regulator. However, there does not need to be an authorised regulator that has special protection, unless he and other noble Lords say that the unauthorised regulator does not do its job—but that is not the case.
Lord Watts (Lab)
If the noble Lord had been in the House yesterday, he would have heard my account of a woman whose daughter was run over in a hit-and-run accident. The Mail sent a reporter down to the scene of the crime, secured the CCTV camera footage and put the link to that story in its paper. She complained but, after six months, she had made no progress whatever. When she said she was stressed out, she was told by this independent regulator that that, if she was stressed out, perhaps she should drop the case. Is that the sort of justice the noble Lord is looking for?
Lord Pannick (CB)
Again, the House cannot possibly know all the circumstances. I very much doubt it, but IPSO may have made a mistake. I am sure that there are also many complaints to the authorised regulator that do not result in the complete satisfaction of the person who is complaining. It is absurd to suggest that that is so. We have to look, do we not, at the structure—at whether there is an independent, non-authorised regulator? I do not for a moment suggest that there are not people—I am sure there are—who have complaints about the press, and perhaps even complaints about IPSO. However, there is a system, and it is a perfectly proper, effective system under independent management. In those circumstances, it cannot possibly be right that we give special legislative protection to an authorised regulator.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I am listening carefully to what the noble Lord is saying. Is he not amply illustrating the point that this provision is highly controversial? That is the real point of discussion in this debate, that such controversial matters should not be dealt with during wash-up.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The reality of political life—the noble Lord knows this as much as I do—is that wash-up is a very difficult constitutional concept. However, that is what we have, and it is the only way of getting business through. Since the noble Lord asks me, I do not think this is contentious at all. I thought the provision of Section 40 when it was enacted was a disgrace.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Wait a minute. I have continued to consider so since, and my views are confirmed by the fact that we have all managed perfectly well for 10 years.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Give me a moment. I said I would give way, but I would like to finish my point. If the noble Baroness does not mind, I would like to finish my answer to the noble Lord and then I will happily give way to her.
Therefore I do not consider this contentious, because there is no conceivable justification for maintaining any part of Section 40. I happily give way.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way, and I suggest that perhaps his tone is testimony to the degree of contention in your Lordships’ Chamber at this moment. I also contest the argument he makes that lots of examples have not been given. As was pointed out, examples were given yesterday in Committee, but your Lordships’ House is also very aware of the wash-up procedure and the need for speed, and people’s desire to progress. However, just to give the noble Lord one example, the NUJ—the National Union of Journalists—ethics and disabled members councils have written to IPSO complaining about its failure to address the way in which disabled people are covered by the media organisations that it is supposed to regulate, and asking for action. I have seen no sign of action. That is just one example, since the noble Lord asked for them.
Lord Pannick (CB)
No—please let me answer the noble Baroness. The treatment of disabled people is a very contentious issue on which strong views are held, and I am not going to get into that debate. The noble Baroness also complains about my tone. I am sorry she complains about it. What I am seeking to do—I hope very properly, because we are all grown-ups here—is to deal with the substance of the arguments that have been put in favour of these amendments.
Lord McNally (LD)
I had misjudged this debate. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Black, would be the Don Quixote—I did not imagine that he would be the Sancho Panza. Has he ever heard of the term used in the United States, “a sweetheart union”? That is what IPSO is. It is owned by, financed by and dependent on the people it is supposed to regulate. We are always looking to get IPSO out of the clutches of those it is supposed to regulate—maybe that will be the greatest tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, during his chairmanship. Then we might believe the silken words that the noble Lord, a very experienced advocate, has been saying to us.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord may recall, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will certainly recall, that Impress, the authorised regulator, was funded for a long time by the late Mr Max Mosley, who had very strong views about press regulation.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, as a relatively new Member of this House, I rise with great trepidation, following the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As a new Member, I have noticed that every time I enter the Chamber with one view, when I hear his intellectually muscular contributions and his laser-beam legal brain, I usually end up leaving the Chamber with a different view. I do not think that is going to happen today.
I say to the noble Lord that criticisms were made of IPSO made in Committee yesterday. He may not think that they were legitimate or hold water, but they were closely felt. I am not going to criticise IPSO again in this debate, except possibly to add, as I tried to yesterday, to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that my criticisms of IPSO are about the institutional structure and the governance arrangements. They are nothing to do with the professionalism of the staff, whom I only hear excellent things about when they deal with individual cases. Also, as a former colleague of Sir Bill Jeffrey, I understand that he is as intellectually muscular as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I am sure that he did a very independent review of IPSO.
My concerns today are why now, and why in this debate. On the circumstances that led to the creation of Section 40 in 2013, we had numerous Select Committee inquiries, and we had several criminal inquiries. We had independent journalism investigating criminal wrongdoing, and we had a judge-led public inquiry that did quite an unusual thing. It united both Houses and all political parties to draw a line in the sand and say, “We’re going to do something completely different—we’re going to find a way of holding tabloid media to account”. What we have been asked to do today, nearly nine years later, is to repeal Section 40 because we are being told that we have a legal framework and an independent set of governance rules, which means that we no longer need the Leveson recommendations.
What we are not being told is what we know now that we did not know in 2013 when, with great urgency because there was great public concern, we decided that we needed to act. We actually know that there was much more criminal wrongdoing, that it lasted longer, and that it was not for just a few years but nearly a decade. We also know that Parliament was misled, that members of the DCMS Select Committee who were investigating criminal phone hacking were the subject of intense media criticism—some covertly surveilled by private investigators working for News International. We know that they were lied to. The “one rogue reporter” defence was held for numerous years, but there was actually a corporate consciousness that this was not true in 2005. We also know, because we have seen the criminal case and conviction of Mazher Mahmood, the “fake sheikh” in 2016, that people were framed. Celebrities and people in the public eye were accused of crimes and set up to sell stories. As far as I can see, there has been very little contrition from the newspaper groups that were responsible for that.
I really could go on and on about the wrongdoing, the deceit, the lies, the criminal behaviour and the constant intimidation, but I truly think that everyone, wherever they stand in this debate, already knows about those.
Earlier, the Minister cited Bruce Springsteen, and I was very disappointed when he did that because I was supposed to have lunch with him today. I decided it was better to stay here to try to convince him, at this 11th hour, of the errors of his ways. I know he may be “born to run”, but I feel like “we are dancing in the dark”, as we have so often in this debate. I want to convince him of the merits of these three amendments in this little basket of discussions, and—who knows?—we may even have “glory days” together, whatever the outcome of the general election.
There are some principal reasons why this clause should be opposed. First, there is a convention that controversial policy should not be rushed through in the wash-up. We have done it before and came to regret it—I mention the Gambling Act 2005.
Secondly, when it comes to media reform, we must be incredibly transparent. The public need to understand that, if we are going to concede to media barons—and let us not deny that this is what this represents—we need to be seen to do the right thing. In trying to railroad all these amendments through in an afternoon, on the day after the announcement of a general election, you cannot make the case that this is anything other than a venal deal.
Thirdly, perhaps more importantly, I believe very strongly that, wherever you sit on the ideological spectrum, whenever we talk about regulation—this is a highly regulated market—people always tell me that when you regulate things you have to be worried about the consequences of your decisions because they are very hard to map out. We appear to be dropping the creation of a new regulator for that reason when it comes to football, and I do not understand why we are interfering with a regulated market in wash-up.
There are some principal reasons why it is time that we took a pause, and what we have is either a concession that could unite us or an argument that says let us not deal with Clause 50 in the wash-up of a general election; let us pause and come back to it, whoever wins that election.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
We on these Benches are in favour of these amendments and think we should proceed now.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I would like to add something to the constitutional points which were made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. The appropriateness of dealing with this issue in wash-up is clearly in contention. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said yesterday that the abolition of Section 40 is a clear commitment of the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto. I am afraid it is not clear: the sentence starts by saying that but it then sets conditions. It provides additional text that confuses the issue, and raises issues which were dealt with in yesterday’s debate. I have read yesterday’s debate and clearly questions have been raised about the accuracy of the information in that particular quote from the manifesto—I see the Minister disagrees. Claiming that it is clear is incorrect.
The second issue arises from the Salisbury convention about manifesto commitments. It is quite clear that this cannot be an essential commitment because the Government have had more than four years to deal with the matter, and they failed to do so. Bringing it up in the wash-up period is an insult to this House and an exploitation of the arrangements which have been made.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want only to reflect slightly on some of the comments that have been made about the tone of the debate, and in particular the attack against the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I have been shocked by the tone of the debate against the points of noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The argument seems to be that this is a Tory conspiracy theory, that the Tories are in bed with the press barons, and that there is all sorts of skulduggery going on. I am genuinely shocked that this is being allowed to pass. I want to at least mention that there are some of us who worry about an authorised regulator, and the politicisation of regulation, who are not in bed with press barons. I spend most of my time reading newspapers that write rubbish about me, so I am not keen on press barons—let me put it that way. I also happen to believe in media independence and freedom, which is an important point.
I want the Bill to get on and pass, but, first, there was an earlier discussion about local TV news channels. For the sake of the public and accuracy, one noble Lord sitting close to me said that GM News—he meant GB News—is constantly played on local TV news channels. It is not GB News; it is TalkTV that is played on all those channels, including in Liverpool. I get it and watch it, and that is what is played.
Secondly, the accusation was made that Ofcom, because it is run by evil Tories, is not doing anything about GB News and the way that it presents itself. It is worth reading the papers and the press on this, because then we would all know that Ofcom is in fact accused of overregulating GB News for exactly the things that the noble Lord mentioned it was ignoring—to such an extent that GB News is beginning a formal legal process against Ofcom, which it considers to be overly political in its involvement in the editorial independence of GB News.
I make these statements of factual accuracy because what is at stake is not which political party you are in. We talked about Reithian principles before, but has anyone explored Reith’s politics at any point? He was not a socialist or a Lib Dem, but I agree that Reithian principles matter. I do not care who is arguing for press freedom or who is trying to overturn Section 40. I do not think that it is a conspiracy to establish an independent regulator for the media, which is not a threat to the British public. The threat to the British public is a politicised, misinformed, ill-informed discussion that tries to suggest that the only people who care about press freedom are working with press barons. That is nonsense.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I think the convention of the House is that, on Report, a noble Lord has only one bite of the cherry.
This has been a long debate and we had a long debate yesterday. I listened to all sides of the argument and have set out the Labour Party’s viewpoint on the current situation. There is one argument with which I strongly agree, and that is that it is unfortunate that we are having this debate, on this Bill, at the end of a Parliament. It is a great shame, because this part of the Bill does not really sit easily with the rest of it, which is primarily about broadcast and audio media. We should have stuck to that subject matter.
With that said, we do not support the amendments that have been tabled by my noble friends behind me, and we are unable to give them the backing they wish. We now have a settled position and things have moved on since Leveson. I do not disagree with some of Leveson’s conclusions, but I think that the issue has moved forward. I do not think that sufficient weight and seriousness were paid to the arguments that are being made that we need to look closely at the press and examine how it works. I heard the passion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and of my noble friend Lord Watts, and I understand their concerns, but I do not think that this is the best way for us to continue to approach matters. That is the Labour Party’s position, and we will not support our colleagues if they push this to a vote. We are content for the Government to conclude business on this group, which we hope will enable us to make progress on the Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, this has been a long debate, as our debate yesterday was, but I am not sure that it has shed much light for us to be blinded by. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, inadvertently put it rather well when he said that this was not a debate that was likely to change anyone’s mind. This reflects an old debate, one which began well over a decade ago and on which few minds have shifted in the intervening years. We are focused on a narrow aspect of it: to repeal a provision that has never been enacted, languishes obsolescent on the statute book and, even in that dormant state, causes great concern to our free press, one of the things on which we pride ourselves in this nation. That is why it is essential that this provision is removed and why this is not a controversial debate, although some noble Lords opposite continue to disagree with it.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contribution of all noble Lords. My noble friend the Minister called in the support of many organisations that agree with government policy, but many of them do not understand how the Section 40 arrangements work due to the absolutely brilliant campaign by the News Media Association, which I think is the best trade association ever.
On the issue of wash-up, I do not think that this is satisfactory. This is a highly controversial matter. We should have dropped Clause 50 and left it for the next Parliament. There is no difficulty in that at all; there are loads of suitable Bills that could have been used. I agree that we needed to remove the sword of Damocles —the ability of the Government of the day to commence Section 40 at any time. We did need to do something about it; I just do not think we got the right solution.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I enjoy debating with him; I expected him to be vigorous. I would agree to debate with him only if I knew I was right.
As I understand it, the Sitting of your Lordships’ House was suspended for very senior politicians at the other end of the Corridor to try to work out what the answer is. It is clear to me that people outside the Chamber—not us lot, but others—have been working really hard to try to work out what the right answer is. I think the best thing we can do is to allow Clause 50 to go ahead unamended. If a noble Lord did want to seek the opinion of the House, I would not advise it; on the other hand, I would not call foul either.
Viscount Astor
“Consultation on incentivising recognition by the approved regulator(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a call for evidence seeking views on alternative incentives to encourage publishers or regulators to seek recognition under the terms of the Royal Charter for the Self-Regulation of the Press.(2) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s formal response to evidence submitted in response to the call for evidence required by subsection (1).(3) The Secretary of State may not make an order under section 55(3)(ga) bringing any part of section 50 into force until the report specified in subsection (2) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, yesterday we debated my amendment, and in normal circumstances I would not have moved it again today, but yesterday there were extraordinary circumstances because our debate was overshadowed by a certain announcement. At the very moment when the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, stood up to make what I thought was an important contribution, both Front Benches were attached to their mobile telephones, looking at the news. My noble friend the Minister is the most attentive Minister, and I commend him on all the work he has done on the Bill, but in those circumstances I was somewhat off the ball, as was almost everybody in the Chamber, in listening to what the noble Baroness said. I regret that, which is one of the reasons I thought it was important to speak today.
Neither did your Lordships have a chance to see the letter from Sir Brian Leveson, in which he made some important points. I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, might read it, so that he can have a good old-fashioned legal row with him. Sir Brian Leveson made two important points, as I will reiterate. He absolutely debunked the contention that the Press Recognition Panel is a state regulator. I will not go into the details, because I do not think it necessary; noble Lords who wish to read the letter can find it in the Library. He also pointed out that Section 40 would not require publishers to pay costs even if they won; it is simply not the case.
It is a pity that we have had such truncated proceedings, because in normal circumstances we would have had Committee, and then everybody would have had a chance to read Sir Brian’s letter and either agree or disagree with it—at least they would have better understood the issues that are raised. Sadly, that will not be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was originally somewhat sympathetic to some of these ideas, but with the announcement of the election no Front Bench will put itself on the wrong side of the press—so there we are. But I have to say that noble Lords who oppose my amendment might rue the day because, whoever wins the next election, I suspect that something else might come, and it might be somewhat different. My amendment does not change government policy; it is the Government who are changing their policy. Section 40 was put in by a Conservative Government; it was a Conservative policy. It is no one else’s policy.
It is disappointing. I think the question that always has to be asked is this: are publishers and newspapers going to be the only industry in this country to mark its own homework? That question will be asked again and again; whatever one thinks of Impress and IPSO, there are questions. That is an issue that will come back again and again.
I want to make it clear that I am not going to press my amendment today, so my noble friend Lord Black need not come up with his usual diatribe against me. I enjoy his diatribes, because when one moves an amendment, one sometimes wonders whether one has got it right. When I listen to my noble friend Lord Black, I know I have got it right, and that is an enormous help to me.
It is disappointing that the Government could not consider more carefully the points made by Sir Brian Leveson. I hope future Governments will and that this is not the end of the debate. I make it clear that this is not an attack about press freedom. I agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee. I am trying to make sure that those who are not in a position to have some comeback when they are treated unfairly are protected better than they are now. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for outlining his amendment today. We debated much the same amendment yesterday. I will speak to it and the other amendments in this group.
The Government are committed to a free and independent press which, as I said, is vital to our democracy. There now exists a strengthened, independent, self-regulatory system for the press. The majority of traditional publishers are members of IPSO. Some publishers have joined Impress, while others, including the Financial Times and the Guardian, have chosen to stay outside either regulator, with their own detailed self-regulatory arrangements. These regulators enforce codes of conduct which provide guidance on a range of areas including discrimination, accuracy, privacy and harassment. If they find that a newspaper has broken the code of conduct, they can order corrections.
Given our commitment to independent self-regulation, it is not government policy to review the efficacy of press regulators. The Government have committed to independent self-regulation of the press. This extends to not intervening in or overseeing the work of the press regulators. Accepting Amendment 15 would amount to government regulation of the press and I am not able to accept it.
Turning to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the Government do not interfere with what the press can or cannot publish. That extends to endorsing regulators of which publishers should become members. Consulting on, with a view to creating, other incentives to the press to join a Press Recognition Panel-backed regulator that a consultation might identify would conflict with the Government’s clearly stated position. Indeed, the Government consulted on the repeal of Section 40 in its entirety in 2016—eight years ago—and the vast majority of respondents backed repealing it. That was reflected in our previous two manifestos, as I pointed out. For those reasons, I am afraid I am not able to accept Amendments 14, 17 and 18.
I shall say a bit about Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Watts and Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, which would introduce a requirement on publishers that are not members of a Press Recognition Panel-backed regulator to publish a reply or correction where they have published information containing a “significant factual inaccuracy”. The requirement would be triggered by a demand made by an individual to whom the information relates. In practice, this amendment would incentivise membership of Impress, as I think the noble Lords know, and, as with the commencement of Section 40, could disadvantage publishers who choose not to join Impress. I think I have made my views very clear, so for those reasons I am not able to accept that amendment either.
I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and for the way that he has conducted the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their understanding and flexibility today. This is my first wash-up.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, I feel very clean at the end of it—thoroughly washed.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have given this Bill considerable scrutiny in pre-legislative scrutiny and during our debates on Second Reading and in Committee. As I have said throughout, it has been amended through the pre-legislative scrutiny it received. I am glad that we have been able to reflect some of our debate in Committee and amend it further. I am grateful to noble Lords for their understanding and recognition of the great support and demand that it has from the media sector, which we all cherish and which we know will play its very important part in the election campaign that is now under way. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, on the Benches opposite and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, and her noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who spoke from the Front Bench for the Lib Dems. However, noble Lords from across the House have given it robust scrutiny, including today in this swifter form.
I will briefly pay tribute to my honourable friend Julia Lopez, the Minister for Media, Tourism and the Creative Industries in another place, and indeed to my right honourable friend Sir John Whittingdale, who covered her maternity leave for parts of the Bill. They have both played an important part in it. I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who chairs your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee and has given careful consideration to this Bill and, with other members of her committee, to many of the other issues that are related to it.
I have already had the opportunity to thank the Bill team, but I repeat my thanks. They have worked particularly hard in the last 24 hours, but this is the culmination of many years’ work since the Bill was first produced in draft form and laid for pre-legislative scrutiny. I am delighted that their hard work means that we will be able to send it on its way to the statute book. It is perhaps appropriate to finish with some words from Bruce Springsteen: “Come on, let’s go tonight”.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I have not had the chance to say my thanks and I want to thank the Minister. Apart from anything else, his sense of humour throughout this has been really helpful and refreshing. His genuine passion for the DCMS has also really come through. As I said earlier, I wish this could have gone on longer. I suspect we could have got some more concessions through him. I also thank my friends on the Labour Benches and those on the Cross Benches, although they have gone. This has been a very collegiate event. Of course, I thank everyone on my Benches, although they seem not to be here—well, one of them seems to be here, and of course my noble friend Lord Addington.
Lord McNally (LD)
Who is this Bruce Springsteen that everybody has been talking about?
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
Yes, there was one little thing I wondered. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, said that he was going to have lunch. For a moment, I thought it was with Bruce Springsteen.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
You were not—oh, my goodness. Anyway, as I was saying, I thank everyone, including the Government for making the Bill happen. It is hugely important for our public service broadcasters. That is enough of my thanks and I have not cried.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I sort of gave my thanks yesterday, as I was not really sure what we would be doing today—and I was not alone. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, again for his courtesy. We are extraordinarily grateful for the two amendments that he accepted, which my noble friend Lady Thornton and I were very keen to see inserted in the Bill, along with others in your Lordships’ House.
It is always a joy to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and—from the far reaches of the back of the Lib Dem Benches—it is now an even greater pleasure to work with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Actually, I have an anecdote about death and buses, which I am quite determined to tell, now I think about it. There is a custom in Brighton for its buses to have put on their side or their front the names of well-known local personalities who have, sadly, deceased. So well-known was the lead local government correspondent of the Argus that the bus company decided that he had died, so they put his name on the front of the bus—only to discover that he wrote a column the following week saying, “No, actually, I’m still here. You’ll have to wait”.
I thank our back office team, including Clare Scally and Grace Wright, for the work they did in making sure my noble friend Lady Thornton and I spoke words that were reasonably sensible, sane and well-researched from the Dispatch Box. I have already thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for her contribution, and I do again. Today’s debate—passionate as ever—was focused well on an important and contentious subject. It is one that no doubt the House will return to in different guises in the future. I thank my noble friends Lord Watson and Lord Watts for their contributions. Their views are important.
With that, we wish the Bill well, as it is important. Broadcasters have been buzzing me on my email and message system, as they have been to other noble Lords, to encourage us to get this Bill over the line because it is terribly important for the future of public service broadcasting. We all want to get this right, because it is an important element of our democratic process. We know that it is a business and industry of excellence that we wish to support. With that said, I wish the Bill well on its way.
Media Bill
Thursday 23rd May 2024
(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-I Marshalled list for Report - (23 May 2024)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I confirm that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 1
Reports on the fulfilment of the public service remit
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 25.
Julia Lopez
It was a proud moment to be in this Chamber—a moment of justice—as the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill passed its final stages. Coupling that with the return yesterday of our hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), it feels a privilege to be able to stand at this Dispatch Box.
I rise to ask that all amendments to the Media Bill from the Lords be agreed to— namely, that we retain the Reithian principles of public service broadcast and include an explicit reference to children’s educational programmes in the public service broadcast remit. The Media Bill will enable viewers and listeners across our country to continue to access public service television and radio content as technology changes. The Bill will also deliver the manifesto commitment to repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which, if commenced, could have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press.
I am tremendously grateful to the very talented Bill team in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and everybody who has contributed to and worked on this piece of legislation. It is the first communications law in this country in two decades and I am proud, as Media Minister, finally to have delivered it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
May I take this opportunity to say what an absolute delight, privilege and honour it was to be in the Chamber yesterday when Craig took his seat post his sepsis? I visited Craig in hospital every week that he was there, and I must say his resilience and positivity were an example to me. He really did raise my spirits and I am delighted that he was able to come back yesterday.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I associate myself with those comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, and echo the Minister’s comments about the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill.
I am pleased to be here tonight to see the final passage of the Media Bill. It has been 20 years since the last broadcasting laws were introduced, and in that time the media landscape has changed dramatically. This Bill ensures that our broadcasting sector can continue to thrive with regulation fit for the modern era. The measures in the Bill have been through several layers of scrutiny, from the White Paper to the pre-legislative inquiry conducted by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I thank the Committee for its work, and I will take this opportunity to say some other thank yous.
I thank the range of stakeholders, including those throughout our broadcasting sectors, who engaged so extensively with the content of the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, including of course our Labour Lords team, the civil servants and officials, and the ministerial team. I also thank my office, particularly Anna Clingan. While Labour would have added some further measures to future-proof and strengthen the Bill, I am pleased to welcome its passage this evening. Further to that, I am happy to support the amendments from the other place, which I believe will strengthen the position and purpose of our public service broadcasters.
First, it is right that the fundamental Reithian principles of public service broadcasting are reinstated, and it is important that educational programming for children and young people has an explicit basis in the Bill. Labour has spoken in detail at every stage of the Bill about the importance of children’s access to public service content, including educational content.
As we enter a general election, our media—be they our public service broadcasters, our commercial radio and television stations or our local media outlets, including my local paper, the Barnsley Chronicle—will play an incredibly important role in holding accountable all of us who stand for public office. Our media and broadcasting sector will, and always does, play a fundamental role in our society and democracy. I am pleased that this legislation, which will secure their future, will enter into statute.
As we enter the election period, I send colleagues from across the House my very best wishes, including, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). I especially mention those who are retiring, including the Deputy Speakers: my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), and the right hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing).
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I will hold on to the thank-yous because I will probably be here again tomorrow, and can say them then.
We have supported the Media Bill throughout its passage and will continue to do so, but I must flag a few concerns that we still have about it, although we will not vote against the Lords amendments. There are some positives in the Bill, including the changes to radio services, particularly on-demand services such as those accessed through Alexa. The Government could have gone further on in-car broadcasting, for example. Local radio is so incredibly important. In Aberdeen, we have Northsound 1 and Original 106, which are absolutely fabulous—I get on very well with them most of the time. Those local radio stations are incredibly important when it comes to resilience. As the SNP Cabinet Office spokesperson, I know how much people rely on them, particularly when it comes to local events such as flooding, to learn what is happening in their area. I am really pleased that Ministers have recognised the importance of local radio throughout the Bill’s passage.
On the public service remit, I am pleased to echo the comments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), about education. We are happy to support the changes that involve the inclusion of educational content and programming quotas, although more could have been done on regional quotas—particularly those that just specify “outside the M25,” for example. We could go further to ensure that regional content is spread across the United Kingdom. I appreciate that a significant number of public sector broadcasters do that, but we could have legislated to keep to quotas in future.
Prominence in on-demand services is incredibly important, because those services are such a common way for people to watch television nowadays. I still have concerns about the fact that gaming consoles are not included. The provisions on giving prominence to public service broadcasters does not apply to those watching content on a PlayStation, for example; the provisions apply only to devices that are mainly for watching television. The Government may have to change that in the future.
I have concerns about listed events, in relation to Scottish football. Given that we have the Euros coming up, and Scotland is finally doing decently and getting to the finals of an event—it has been an awfully long time since we have had this optimism around football in Scotland—more could have been done on listed events, particularly those relating to Scottish football. Given the massive support in Scotland for football and our national team, that would have been a positive step forward. I would appreciate a commitment to changes in future to ensure that we have free-to-air football, so that we in Scotland are not the only ones excluded from seeing our national team on free-to-air TV.
The future of terrestrial broadcasting was mentioned a significant number of times throughout the Bill’s passage. I appreciate the Government’s ongoing commitment to the ability to access terrestrial services. I have concerns about this issue from the point of view of resilience and ensuring that people are not excluded from watching television if they do not have fast internet. My main concern is that we will accidentally end up with terrestrial broadcasting services being dismantled, or not invested in, because there is no commitment to keeping them. The next Government will have to make commitments to those services to ensure we have access to them post 2030.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). She is an extraordinarily diligent Member of Parliament, and I admire her for that. I simply want to thank her, and the hon. Member for Barnsley—
Julia Lopez
East—apologies. I thank both Members for all the work that has gone into this legislation. Since we have discussed all these matters at length many times, I simply commend the Bill to the House; I am very glad that we have finally got to this stage.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 25 agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That concludes consideration of Lords amendments to the Media Bill—congratulations.
Royal Assent
Friday 24th May 2024
(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 87-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Disagreement and Amendments in Lieu - (23 May 2024)