BBC Mid-term Charter Review

John Nicolson Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the BBC mid-term charter review.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for this debate on the BBC charter and its performance. I must add that my application was supported by no fewer than 33 colleagues from across the House. Good weather, a one-line Whip and local election fatigue, I suspect, have intervened, but have not diminished the importance of the debate to all those voters who watch and hear the BBC and pay for it, and for whom I speak today.

The reason for my proposing this debate is that the Government’s mid-term review of 22 January 2024 was only announced by written ministerial statement and not on the Floor of the House itself, and therefore was not properly discussed. The question I will deal with is whether this mid-term review satisfies the genuine concerns about the manner in which the charter should operate.

I was somewhat involved in the 2015 charter review that led to the new charter, in that I proposed a defined new purpose for the charter specifically on the question of impartiality, which was inserted. I also proposed a conditional licence on the impartiality issue as long ago as the debate on the Broadcasting Act 1990 for broadcasting licence holders, which was incorporated in the Act—so at least I have been consistent.

The new charter provided that the BBC would be governed by a new unitary board and regulation would pass to Ofcom as an external and independent regulator. The question is whether that has worked effectively in delivering for licence fee payers in the national interest, by strengthening the oversight of the BBC’s complaints procedure with proper independence and enabling Ofcom to regulate the BBC’s online public service. The Government tell us in their review that

“impartiality is core to the BBC’s responsibilities under the Charter”.

The BBC ran a £220 million deficit in 2022-23, with an annual income, believe it or not, of £5.7 billion and operating costs of £5.9 billion. In comparison, the democratically elected House of Commons, our bastion of freedom and accountability, together with the House of Lords, merely costs around £847 million a year. Given that the BBC has a massive influence on public opinion and is unelected, that makes the rule of impartiality fundamental to its justification. The Government review also points out that impartiality is one area where the BBC is seen by surveys to be “less favourably compared” in the provision of news, and exhorts the BBC to improve that and to maintain the trust of the public and the audience.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I think the hon. Gentleman has somewhat lost the House. None of us understands what the connection is between expenditure by Parliament and expenditure by the national broadcaster. Can he further develop why that is relevant?

[Sir William Cash]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not lost anything at all. It is very simple. The fact is that in Parliament, we have proper debates by elected people and decisions made on matters of public importance, whatever the outcome and whatever the views expressed. They are democratically decided. The decisions put across by the BBC quite often are the result of a kind of centrist viewpoint, which I will come on to later, which is inevitably not consistent with the views of the public who pay for the benefit, if that is what it is to be called, of watching and listening to the programmes in question.

The Government review recommends that the BBC publishes more information on how it carries out its work on impartiality and how it responds to Ofcom’s challenge to improve its performance. A new complaints system has been established under the principle of “BBC First”, but the question remains whether that has worked. The number of complaints made to Ofcom about the BBC’s impartiality has increased, and the evidence is that the BBC is not meeting this challenge.

It is understood that there has been substantial disagreement between the Government and the BBC during the creation of this new complaints system, but it is still found wanting and Ofcom needs to improve its own performance. It is also understood that many former BBC employees with BBC sympathies remain in Ofcom and are involved in this process. That also represents a problem, the ultimate result of which is unsatisfactory. Clearly, the Government are not sufficiently satisfied with the BBC at the moment, or with Ofcom’s performance on this vital question. That is bad news. As the Government point out, the BBC has failed to have a sufficiently robust internal system for identifying the statistical data to determine its analysis of complaints. The Government state that the independence of complaints handling indicates that the BBC can do more to ensure that audiences feel that their complaints will be fairly considered.

A number of points need to be made. I know something of this, because the European Scrutiny Committee, which I chair, took evidence from the BBC nine years ago on the issue of bias. We criticised the BBC on the question of the European issue before the referendum took place. The distinguished Lord Wilson of Dinton made same kind of criticism of bias in his own report. All these years later, the Government remain concerned even now that the manner in which complaints are dealt with, and the data involved, continue to be profoundly unsatisfactory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I do not disagree at all. There is an interesting point about statistical analysis as opposed to other qualitative, perhaps more fuzzy analysis of the BBC’s output and performance. There is clearly a case for both.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the timeliness of the debate, because although our Benches are slightly denuded today, the country’s attention will be on the BBC over the next few days, particularly on Saturday night when there are two new episodes of “Doctor Who” followed by Eurovision on BBC1. I can tell hon. Members where the nation will be on Saturday night: watching the BBC. It is the only institution that can do that. Even in the completely different media world in which we now operate and that we all enjoy, there are times when the nation comes together, and that will be one of them. This is the second debate in a row where I quote a former tourism Minister who said that his experience of what attracted people around the world to this country were three institutions that they held in the highest regard: the royal family, the premier league and the BBC. We put them in peril at our own peril.

As Members, we all inevitably have a skewed perspective, because we concentrate on news and current affairs. Like everyone else here, I share many of the irritations and frustrations. I sometimes shout at the TV and the radio when I am at home, and I sometimes want to shout at the interviewer when I am on TV or radio. The BBC must get its news coverage right as part of its core mission. On that, the mid-term charter review is clear: it finds that there is clear evidence that adherence to impartiality and editorial standards is now at the heart of the BBC’s priorities, and so it should be.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) gave the impression that the BBC was a dying institution, with fewer and fewer people watching it or listening to it. However, eight out of 10 adults in this country on average consume BBC news every week. That is double the figure for the next nearest provider. At the same time—this is directly relevant to the mid-term charter review—the BBC is overwhelmingly the UK’s most trusted source of news. Some 45% of UK adults say they would turn first to the BBC. In second place, on 6%, are ITV or Sky. Regardless of the political views of the individual, BBC news is more trusted by people in the UK than any other institution. Interestingly, it is also the most trusted news brand in the US. At a time when the challenge to democracy and the capacity to have balanced debate is under threat as never before, that is really important. This House should acknowledge, for all our frustrations and irritations, that we are lucky in this country to have an institution that has that reach and that level of trust, and that we should therefore seek to preserve and enhance it.

I contrast the situation with news and debate here with that in the United States, where people increasingly get their news from a channel that reflects the views they already have. There are right-wing news channels and left-wing news channels in the United States. Therefore, its political debate is polarised and increasingly toxic. Anything we can do in this country to avoid going down that track seems to me to be very worth while. It is an essential part of public service broadcasting, and public service broadcasting by and large works.

We have talked about the changing landscape and the arrival of the streamers. The question is often asked: who needs the BBC when we have Netflix, Prime, Disney, Apple and Paramount? It is a good question, and the answer is: anyone who cares about having a distinctive British voice in media, drama, comedy and all the things that people want to watch. The thing that unites all the streaming services I mention is that they come from the United States. Sometimes they make programmes in Britain—we welcome them here to keep our media industry thriving—but nevertheless, in the end, they are not going to reflect the voice of people in this country, and in particular people in the parts of this country that are furthest away from London. Therefore, having a broadcaster whose basic role is to do that seems to me to be very important.

The BBC contributes £4.9 billion to the UK economy each year, with 50% of the gross value added generated outside London, and supports about 50,000 jobs around the country, again operating largely outside London. We know that the creative economy is one of our strongest economic sectors, and we know that the BBC is the largest single investor in original UK content. Knowing those facts seems to me, again, to reinforce the argument that, for all of the reviews and investigations that need to be conducted, on the whole the BBC is a force for good.

Another criticism, which must be taken head-on, concerns over-expansion. Has the BBC tried to provide services that could be provided by private operators or by the market, and in doing so has it tried to make itself too all-embracing in the British media landscape? I think that is a permanent discussion that is well worth having. It is important to ensure that the BBC is only doing things that would not be done otherwise, or doing things better and in a way that others would not do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone was very critical of Ofcom. I am sometimes critical of it myself, although less so than he is. Nevertheless, it is absolutely right to identify Ofcom, in the era of regulation that we have entered, as a crucial element of ensuring that the BBC sticks to doing what it needs to be doing. If there are signs that Ofcom is not doing that job effectively, this House—perhaps through the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—will play an important role in ensuring that the BBC stays on the right track.

The overall context of this is, of course, the funding settlement for the licence fee, which has lasted for more than a century now and is increasingly under threat. We know about the short-term pressures; for reasons good or bad, the Government have not kept the licence fee in line with inflation levels over the past few years, and the BBC has therefore suffered painful rounds of cuts that have affected services that many of us value hugely, such as local radio. That is an important enough debate, which we have had in the Chamber previously, but an even more important debate is this: how long can a licence fee settlement continue?

I can reveal that the licence fee has survived for at least 30 years longer than some expected. I did some work on the 1990s licence fee and charter review, and in those days the much maligned—and unfairly so—John Birt was saying that he thought that it might be the last licence fee settlement, because he could see what was going to happen with the internet and new modes of delivery such as video and, at that time, just text. He thought that those would ultimately render the licence fee untenable.

Having sat through those debates in the 1990s, I find it fascinating that we are sitting here, 30 years later, still debating the same issues, and that by and large the people of this country are happy to pay the licence fee, although I agree that an increasing number are not doing so. Given what we get for it, it is still relatively cheap in comparison with the amount that many of us will spend on streaming services. It has survived longer than we expected, but in an age of declining linear viewing, whether it can continue is genuinely a key question. To those who wish to trot through the options, I can only commend the report that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee published a few years ago.

[John Nicolson]

Hear, hear.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful for that vocal support from the Opposition Benches.

Having run through the options, the Committee concluded that, as things stand, technically it would be quite difficult to find a better way of doing this. We all know what the imperfections are, but there may not be anything better at the moment. The key principle, it seems to me, is that because everyone in the country has some stake in this, perhaps a financial stake—everyone is, in some way, buying BBC services—everyone is entitled to some education, information or entertainment in return. It is that striving to provide a universal service that keeps the BBC honest, and keeps it doing the things that only it does. If we take away that obligation, we may have a successful programme maker, but we would not keep the BBC doing the things it has done successfully for more than a century.

I often feel that the licence fee settlement works in practice but does not work at all in theory. Nevertheless, anything that might be theoretically better might actually be worse in practice, so I do not envy the Ministers who have to grapple with this matter. It is a genuinely difficult and hugely important issue to which there is no obvious answer.

I hope that the House agrees that the UK has a hugely valuable asset in the BBC and that, regardless of whatever changes need to happen, we need to preserve and enhance its ability to make a significant and positive contribution to our national life. That should be the test that Parliament sets itself when it considers the future of the BBC.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

When the mid-term review of the BBC was published, one commentator described it publicly as a

“great big hard hammer, badly disguised inside a not very velvet glove”

used to batter this key public institution. There was much criticism of the report over the BBC’s perceived failure to achieve balanced coverage. The sight of some right-wing Conservatives attacking the BBC over its record on impartiality was something to behold. Many hound BBC journalists over objectivity, yet the Conservatives are happy for their Benches to operate as a sort of green room for GB News, with half a dozen or so Tory Members popping up there regularly, masquerading as journalists. Ofcom, the regulator, has explicitly condemned GB News and its Tory MP presenters over their continuing breaking of our broadcasting rules. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) moonlights as a newsreader daily on GBeebies—a clear breach of Ofcom rules, which the regulator is sadly too weak to enforce.

I worked for the BBC for many years as a freelancer. Most BBC journalists, I sincerely believe, try to be fair and impartial. They sometimes fall short. I think they did so during the independence referendum—not individual journalists but the BBC as an institution, because the BBC is deeply establishment as an institution. I do not believe for one moment that journalists go to work daily with the objective of spreading disinformation. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) cites as an example of woke Europhile bias the views of Brexiter Rod Liddle. Who was this lowly figure when at the BBC? In fact, he held the powerful role of the “Today” programme editor. The hon. Member for Stone mentioned Roger Mosey. Another junior figure? No, he was also the “Today” programme editor, who became head of news.

Setting aside the surreal comparison that the hon. Member for Stone made between the cost of the BBC and Westminster—that is Westminster One, Two, Three and Four, Radio Westminster and Natural Westminster History, presumably—he moved on to some more BBC woke bashing, conveniently forgetting that the current BBC director general was a Conservative party candidate, the last BBC chair was a major Tory donor, and the last chair but two is now a Tory peer, like Lord Grade, Lord Patten, et cetera, et cetera.

In my position on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I regularly aim to hold BBC bosses to account over their party political loyalties, their judgment and their treatment of staff. That is all part of a healthy democratic critique. This Government, or any Government that hold office in this place, should back public broadcasting as a basic fundamental concept, and celebrate the BBC for its many present and past achievements, while of course remaining a critical friend. The constant baiting of the BBC during these last 14 years by so many senior Conservatives has given us, sadly, a weaker public broadcaster, on a shooglier financial footing, with a less positive impact on our democracy than when the Conservatives came to power.

[Sir William Cash]

I think the hon. Gentleman has slightly misinterpreted what I said, and is on the verge of being misleading. I happen to think Ron Liddle was an exceptionally good presenter, as was Roger Mosey and John Humphrys, but their experience demonstrated a degree of awareness that all was not necessarily well in the organisation or the manner in which their programmes were put together. That is all I am saying. I was not criticising them; I was commending them.

[John Nicolson]

Hold the front pages! The hon. Gentleman thinks that right-wing Brexiters are fundamentally good things when they appear on the BBC. That is a shock to us all, is it not?

I agree with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who he said that the recitation by the hon. Member for Stone of the events of one particular editorial meeting showed a journalists’ office operating well: somebody says something controversial, other folk argue, and we all have—what was it Mrs Merton said?—a “right good debate”. I remember when I sat with the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and various others on “On The Record”; we were all reporters and we all held very different views, but we did our very best to make sure we were impartial when on air. That is just as it should be.

The Conservatives spent a good deal of time arguing that the licence fee should rise only with inflation. Then, when they trashed the economy and inflation rocketed, they demanded that the BBC not increase the licence fee with inflation, leading to further financial pressures. The Government also imposed a social responsibility, TV licences for the over-75s, on the BBC, leading to a widely predicted set of draconian cuts. Much faux surprise and outrage ensued from some on the Tory Benches. Those measures have had a huge negative impact on our public broadcaster, which we as a state have been building now for more than a century. An underfunded BBC suits none of us, because the BBC’s role in providing scrutiny for politicians, especially in an election year, is vital.

Reform of the BBC is certainly needed: pay equality for women; more black, Asian and minority ethnic staff in senior management posts; and more LGBT people in management and elsewhere. The BBC needs to end its fruitless battles with female staff, having lost or settled every single pay case it has fought against those women, at huge cost.

Having seen two Tory BBC chairs improperly appointed and forced to resign in the last decade, we surely need a new system for public service appointments. We will have a Labour Government soon. Will we see the same old British principle of Buggins’ turn, with Labour donors replacing Tory donors in senior posts? The Leader of the Opposition should rule out the appointment of any big-money donor as BBC chair. I notice he has conspicuously failed to do so. Now would be a good time to promise meaningful reform.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Nicolson Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman, John Nicolson.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Since we last met, the media regulator Ofcom has again reprimanded GB News for breaching impartiality rules. Ofcom says that news programmes should not be presented by politicians. The Tory Benches host a plethora of Ofcom rule-breaching MPs who leave this place to freelance as pretendy news presenters on a channel that spreads conspiracy theories and disinformation, and that undermines Ofcom. I am on the side of journalism, not disinformation. Does the Minister agree with me that GB News should drop the propaganda and obey the regulator?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am in favour of media plurality; I think it is important that there are channels for everybody to watch, and GB News is a very popular outlet. I think that the person to regulate GB News is Ofcom, not those on the shadow Benches.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Nicolson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Coverage of yesterday’s Commons chaos showed how desperately we need good-quality journalism, so I am concerned about BBC Scotland’s request to Ofcom for a reduction in its broadcast news output, especially the loss of “The Nine”. BBC Scotland’s TV news had something of a couthie image until “The Nine” came along, placing Scottish news in the context of UK and international news. It was a compromise offering for those who wanted a “Scottish Six” on BBC 1. Although “The Nine” created a pathway for young talent, I said at the time that its slot—tucked away on a channel that many struggled to find—could be its undoing, and now it has been pulled. In an election year, we need more scrutiny of politicians, not less, and the need for a properly resourced “Scottish Six” remains. I hope Ofcom will say no to the proposals, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary for culture, Angus Robertson, opposes the reduction in news output. Does the Minister?

[Julia Lopez]

I am aware that the BBC is looking at changing its programme mix in relation to news in Scotland. My understanding was that those changes were cost-neutral, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and appreciate that he has concerns about them. He will be aware that we do not hold direct power over the BBC’s programming mix. I am sure that the director general has heard his concerns. As I say, I think the BBC is still investing in quality news content in Scotland, but it may be that the mix is changing, and the hon. Gentleman is clearly unhappy about that.

Media Bill

John Nicolson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[John Nicolson]

Middle youth?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Sale to RedBird IMI

John Nicolson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I did not say I would give no answers; I said I would be able to give general answers, and my right hon. Friend will understand why. These are very precise processes that must be kept watertight, and I would not want to do anything to prejudice them or the Secretary of State’s ability to act in a way that is in the interests of this country and the media. This is not a waste of time. It is an opportunity for this House to make its voice and opinions known on what is a controversial issue of great public interest—an issue that we as a Government are very interested in.

My right hon. Friend also makes the important point that his concern is not about the Government in this particular case, but about Government ownership in principle. It is something I appreciate and understand, and I am sure it will be in the Secretary of State’s mind.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

When hosting COP28, Sultan al-Jaber said that there was “no science” behind the climate change emergency. The Sultan is head of the UAE media council, and influential in the Telegraph takeover. I worked for many years as a journalist; I understand that democracy requires plurality in the media landscape. Sadly, in the UK the vast majority of titles are already skewed to the right—in Scotland, as we know, half the population support independence, but only one title supports that position. We do not want the situation worsening. I am in favour of a free, diverse and vibrant press ecosystem, and not in favour of a newspaper being owned as a loss-making public relations arm of a foreign state through access to our daily news cycle. Does the Minister agree that allowing the UAE to take over The Telegraph would be unhealthy in principle for our democracy?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an issue of principle, which I perfectly understand, as something that I speak about in relation to the BBC, and how it must have editorial independence from the Government. As a principle, I would be concerned about Government ownership of any media institution, but as he will be aware, I can speak only of principles.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Nicolson Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

As an ex-BBC reporter, I am in awe of my former colleagues’ bravery and impartiality when they cover world affairs. We have all followed with horror the Israeli bombardment of Gaza. Reporters Without Borders says that it appears that Israel is now directly targeting journalists. The Al-Jazeera bureau chief has had three children killed, including his journalist son—what unimaginable pain. Another Palestinian journalist, Ayat Khaddoura, said:

“When will this war end? Who will tell the world what we went through and what we saw?”

I bring her question to the House as she is no longer alive to do so. Can the Minister share with journalists across the world how the Government’s refusal to call for a ceasefire is advancing the cause of journalistic freedom or peace in the region, and can she tell us who the Government’s position has persuaded apart from those on the Labour Front Bench who remain limpet close to the Tory position on Gaza, as on so many other issues?

[Mr Speaker]

That question was a long way from the impartiality of the BBC. We must ensure that we stick to the subject of the question. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that topicals would have been a much better place for his question. Minister, can you pick out the part that you need to?

BBC Funding

John Nicolson Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Conservatives agreed to increase the licence fee in line with inflation, but their own economic mismanagement means more misery for UK citizens. The Government are now desperately trying to wriggle on how they calculate inflation for the purposes of this agreement. There is a pattern among those on the Government Benches that they will breach an agreement, convention or protocol whenever it suits them. Let the Conservatives take responsibility for this BBC uplift, as the need for the rise is entirely due to their mismanagement of the economy.

We all have some criticisms of the BBC. Sometimes they are centred on its domestic news coverage, but the BBC goes far beyond that, extending to drama, radio, documentaries, Gaelic broadcasting and sports coverage. To those who would ding doon the public service broadcasters, I say: be very careful what you wish for. Of course, for many Tories the ideal would be GB News 24 hours a day, with Tory MPs talking to Tory MPs about Tory policies. I believe it is known as “GBeebies”, as one Tory MP after another is wheeled in to rant culture war tosh at the camera, in a pale imitation of American shock jocks. It is a breach of Ofcom rules. Democracy needs tough journalism and MPs scrutinised in long-format interviews by objective journalists.

We have seen what the cuts lead to. The BBC agreed, most foolishly, to take responsibility for over-75s’ licences, under the previous director general, Tony Hall. That has led to cuts in news, most recently at “Newsnight”, which I was once proud to serve as a reporter. The BBC opposed the Government’s reneging on their agreement on that at the time, and we have seen the results.

In the years to come, the BBC may need a different funding format, but that time is not now. In closing, may I ask the Secretary of State, on behalf of my colleagues on the Select Committee, to explain why the news of the new BBC chair was leaked to the press, rather than being given directly to Committee members or the Committee Chair?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s points. He mentioned many important parts of the BBC and other outlets. I am in favour of plurality of the media, so that we get a wide variety of voices. Of course, the preferred candidate as chair been announced and they will be going before his Committee in due course.

Public Broadcasting in Scotland

John Nicolson Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Fifth Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Public broadcasting in Scotland, HC 1048, and the Government response, HC 1305.

I thank the Liaison Committee for enabling this short debate, and I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Efford; in these situations, young bucks like us are great examples to the younger Members in this House. I also welcome the Minister to his place. I do not know how many times he has been recalled to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but it is great to see him providing maternity cover. He and I have had some great scraps in the past couple of decades as we have sought to ensure that the creative sector is defended and protected.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

He’s the Frank Sinatra of the Commons, isn’t he?

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely, and I look forward to his closing remarks in this debate. The Scottish Affairs Committee held evidence sessions for this inquiry between July 2021 and January 2023. In that period, we examined the performance of public sector broadcasters in Scotland, and the general environment for broadcasting in Scotland. The Committee’s report was published on 2 March 2023. We found that Scottish broadcasting is generally in a reasonably good place. Scottish viewers can access a wide range of content, whether through the new streaming services that are now in practically every household, or through the established means of public service broadcasting. The services offer TV content that is made specifically for Scottish viewers—Scottish content—and globally recognised shows that are filmed in Scotland.

The screen sector is worth about £500 million to the Scottish economy, and between them STV, ITV and BBC have jointly spent £71.3 million on first-run content made specifically for viewers in Scotland. We have all seen the fantastic new programmes and series that have started to emerge across a number of services, including “Shetland”, “Outlander” and the fantastic “The Rig”, starring Martin Compston, which I think we have all particularly enjoyed over the past few months. Some of those shows have resulted in a nascent hospitality and tourism sector in some areas; people come to see where famous “Outlander” scenes featuring Jamie were filmed. I was in the States recently with colleagues from the Committee, and that was one of the points that came across to us: people were keen to come to Scotland to see the many locations where these fine shows were shot. I am delighted to be joined by colleagues from the Committee, who I know will be keen to contribute to today’s proceedings.

We also found that the independent production sector is thriving. The Committee heard from various witnesses that the prospects for independent TV producers in Scotland are better than they have ever been. That is great progress since the last time we looked at broadcasting some eight years ago.

As hon. Members would expect, we also identified a number of difficulties, challenges and issues, which our report highlights. The first regards Freeview, which is very important for Scotland. Scotland has more Freeview viewers than anywhere else across the United Kingdom; a third of Scots depend on Freeview as their essential and exclusive means of accessing content. The Government’s intention is to keep Freeview going until 2034. Our report asks for that to be continually reviewed. We should look at the numbers and ensure that Freeview will still be available to Scottish viewers at that point.

We looked at issues around the proposed privatisation of Channel 4. When we started the inquiry, it was to be privatised, and by the end of it, it was not. The Committee is very proud of one thing that came out of the inquiry: through our conversations with Channel 4 executives, we managed to secure Scottish participants on “Gogglebox”. It is not often that a Select Committee can claim any sort of success, but we were able to ensure that when we watch “Gogglebox”, Scottish participants will be there.

On inter-Government relations, which my Committee obviously has a rolling brief on, we called for a new inter-ministerial group on media and culture. It would serve as a forum for joint working between UK and Scottish Ministers, and help to improve outcomes in the screen industry across the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government response was received on 19 April and we published it on 28 April. In their response, the Government noted that the draft Media Bill was introduced to the House on 29 March and confirmed to us that

“a Culture and Creative Industries Inter-ministerial Group will be set up this year”

to support intergovernmental relations. The Committee particularly welcomed that. In his summing up, can the Minister tell us what progress has been made on establishing the group, and whether he has had time to consider the terms of reference under which it will be established?

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is quite right to point to those innovations, which we welcomed in the inquiry and report. The developments she mentions are significant. I remember the situation when I was a new Member of Parliament: London-based producers and commissioners did most of the commissioning when it came to Scotland. Now, there are opportunities for people in Scotland to ensure that commissions are considered by a whole range of public sector broadcasters, as well as the streaming services.

Two issues dominated the inquiry and report, and we spent a little time looking at both to see if there was anything we could do to help resolve matters associated with them. It will not come as a surprise that the first was the prominence of Scottish television, which is timely given that prominence is considered in the draft Media Bill. There are a couple of things I want to press the Minister on a little more. There is no statutory requirement for public service broadcasters’ on-demand streaming services such as iPlayer or STV Player to be featured prominently on smart TVs or streaming sticks. That risks public service content becoming more difficult to access in the shift away from traditional TV broadcasting modes. We heard that the new TV platforms do not give that type of content the same sort of prominence as is secured on Sky, Freeview or Virgin TV, which have the benefit of the electronic programme guide that ensures that stations such as STV are prominently featured. I think STV is No. 3 on both Sky and Virgin TV and is easily found on the Freeview service.

New legislation to ensure prominence for public service broadcasters’ on-demand services on internet-enabled TV was unanimously supported by all public service broadcasters who came to our Committee. It was something they were keen to stress to us throughout all our evidence sessions. The Committee’s report recommended that the UK Government bring forward “time-sensitive reform” within two months of the report being published. Within that time period, the Government brought forward their draft Media Bill and mentioned prominence in the provisions. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks on that; however, it is only a draft Bill with no time.

I heard the comments today at Culture, Media and Sport questions: we still do not know when the Bill will be introduced to Parliament, and the Minister was not able to reassure us that it would be delivered in this Session. That is important. Is there anything, over and beyond what is in the draft Bill, that the Government could do to address the issue of prominence? I worry that if nothing is done to resolve the issue, the habit will be formed, and systems might become embedded that make it difficult to locate services. I appeal to the Government to have a look at that again. The draft Bill would allow regional variation in the degree of prominence that regulated internet-enabled TV platforms would have to give certain content, but we need progress on that as a matter of priority.

Another issue, not covered much in the report, has emerged since its publication. In a recent meeting, STV was keen to communicate to us what was being asked of public sector broadcasters such as STV that wished to be hosted on big global networks, such as Amazon. STV told us that Amazon had indicated that it wants 30% of STV Player inventory to sell its own ads as a prerequisite if the STV player is to be on Amazon’s platforms. Thirty per cent of total assets is an almost outrageous demand. That is something that Ofcom can resolve; it has the regulatory powers to get involved in such situations, and I hope that encouragement from the Minister might just encourage it to do so. This issue is exercising colleagues in Scottish television, and it may inhibit their ability to appear on some of the big global network platforms.

[John Nicolson]

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of STV’s problems is that it does not know whether any of the other broadcasters will give in to this blackmail? If one gives in, it will be absolutely necessary that all the others do. Thirty per cent is an eye-watering percentage of the company’s profits, and paying that would restrict its ability to invest.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

On this occasion, it actually is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I commend my colleagues on the Scottish Affairs Committee—well, at least some of them—on their excellent work. The report on Scottish broadcasting was thorough, and their recommendations are extremely helpful.

I absolutely support the Committee’s call to establish, in short order, an inter-ministerial group on media and culture, as has been agreed, to enhance co-ordination between Governments across those briefs, especially around broadcasting. As we have heard, the matter is reserved to Westminster, so it is vital that our colleagues in the Scottish Government, especially the Cabinet Secretary, are able to input their knowledge and expertise on a regular, ongoing basis.

As we have heard, it is fairly clear that, as far as televised sport goes, Scotland isnae getting a fair kick of the ball, given that English and Welsh games are on free to air. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) mentioned in his speech that English and Welsh games are free to air, while Scottish men’s team games are seldom allowed the same prominence.

I am well aware of how important local, regional and national news is for democracy. In Scotland, “STV News” plays a huge part in informing the electorate and providing credible news that can form the basis of public discourse. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire mentioned the separate “Scottish Six”, which we now have along with a separate “Scottish Nine”. When I was on the Select Committee the first time around, I argued strenuously for a separate “Scottish Six” because, as a journalist myself, it seemed obvious that news should be based on news merit. If the main story of the day is a national Scottish one, that leads. If it is British, that leads. If it is international, that leads. No one in radio news or in a newspaper would ever dream of leading only on Scottish stories—it is unbelievably parochial. News should be based on merit.

I was delighted that my friends in the Select Committee agreed with this proposal cross party. I have to say that the Scottish Tories literally went into meltdown when they discovered that their colleagues south of the border had accepted this conclusion, when they had argued that a full hour of Scottish news would be SNP propaganda—how patronising to BBC journalists! In fact, the opposite is the case: it gives more time for scrutiny of the Scottish Government, which I happen to think is a very good thing.

[Dr Whitford]

Is it not the case that it is not just about what the lead story is, whether it is Scottish, UK or international? There will be different views and perspectives on British or international news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is about having the lens the public want on big stories, regardless of where those are from.

[John Nicolson]

I think that is true. Obviously, Irish viewers will sometimes have different views on international stories than German viewers. It is common sense. One slight disappointment about “The Nine”, which is a terrific news programme, is that they are not using as many correspondents sent from Scotland to cover international stories as I would perhaps hope for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire also mentioned the issue of prominence. One problem for the BBC Scotland channel is how hard it is to find. Although, as BBC Scotland itself points out, it does better in terms of viewing figures than Sky, for example, it could do much better if it was easier to find. There is something clearly absurd about the fact that, when we run down that wee box looking for news channels, Talk TV is about No. 4. It is utterly ridiculous. We see the BBC, STV, ITV and Channel 4, and then there is Talk TV, with somebody ranting away about some crazy Brexit conspiracy theory for hour after hour. It is not news, and it should not be. We have had this argument with Ofcom about GB News and Tory MPs who seem to go in a revolving door from the House of Commons to interview other Tory MPs about fantastic good-news Tory stories. Obviously, it is something that Ofcom should be interfering with; it should enforce its own rules. Certainly, that should not be given the prominence that it is, and in Scotland the BBC Scotland channel should be given far greater prominence.

The draft Media Bill includes lots of really good things that are absolutely necessary—among them, prominence for the languages of these islands, which is very healthy. Something that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which Mr Efford and I are members of, is about to cover is how to protect and encourage the indigenous languages of these islands. The Media Bill encourages that and gives due prominence to STV on smart televisions, set-top boxes and similar. As we have heard, to fail to do so would risk a further diminution of the quality of information available to voters in Scotland. It is an interesting subject, and this is a very detailed report, which I commend to the crowds here in Westminster Hall listening to the debate.

The updated Media Bill is required, and I join the Scottish Affairs Committee in encouraging the UK Government to get on with it as soon as possible and to get it introduced into the Commons. We will engage with it in a constructive manner. Let us get this legislation, to catch up with the reality of broadcasting.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for obtaining the debate and for the work that he and his colleagues have done on the Scottish Affairs Committee report. I know that the then and—when she returns from her maternity leave—future Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), was happy to give evidence to the Committee and will be interested to see the report’s conclusions. I thank all the other members of the Committee for their contributions as well.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire was right that Scottish broadcasting is in pretty good shape, as indeed is broadcasting across the United Kingdom. We continue to have some of the finest broadcasters in the world—not just the BBC, but Channel 4 and those in the commercial sector—and independent production is going from strength to strength. I particularly welcome the growth of independent producers in areas of the UK outside London and the south-east—Scotland, in particular. As was acknowledged, the public service broadcasters are strengthening their presence in Scotland, such as with the establishment of Channel 4’s Glasgow hub and the continuing success of STV in Scotland.

Saying that broadcasting is in good shape does not mean that there are not some serious issues that we need to consider, particularly as we look to the future. The hon. Gentleman did a good job of summarising some of them. As he knows, the Government published the Media Bill in draft in March. It has taken some time to reach that point—indeed, I recall Ofcom making recommendations for legislation on prominence when I was Secretary of State, and there have been other recommendations since. That was an important recommendation; we absolutely agree that if public service broadcasting is to thrive into the future, it needs to be prominently displayed, regardless of the means people choose to obtain their TV content.

We are moving into an era in which more and more people rely on smart TV devices. It is therefore only right that we replicate the existing prominence requirements on the electronic programme guide on traditional sets. We should also reflect smart TVs, Fire TV sticks and other means that are used. That does not just relate to television; the hon. Gentleman did not go into detail on this, but we believe it is important to apply similar requirements to radio, too. The Media Bill will also address that.

The hon. Gentleman raised a concern about the relationship between STV and Amazon, which has arisen relatively recently. I was concerned to learn about that, because, like him, I had understood that the relationship was reasonably good. One of our reasons for publishing the Media Bill in draft is to enable us to consider whether further measures are necessary. We have an opportunity to debate the provisions in the Bill, and I look forward to giving evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I will also be talking to Amazon and, I hope, Simon Pitts from STV. I am very happy to look further at the concerns that have been raised to find an appropriate solution.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) spoke about plurality and prominence. Although the PSBs hold the top positions, one or two other news broadcasters now appear on the schedule. I am surprised that he does not welcome plurality. He also seemed concerned about the appearance of one or two Members of this House on one or two channels, although he glossed over the show presented by the former leader of his party on RT. I do not think he particularly complained about that at the time.

[John Nicolson]

Oh, I did.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I take it back if the hon. Gentleman did, but he is still there.

One of the reasons the Media Bill is important is that the take-up of smart TV will continue at pace. I suspect I am one of only a very small number whose television set receives only internet protocol television—I do not have DTT or a freeview application in my TV—and I have to say that IPTV is extremely impressive. As we move forward with more and more access to gigabit broadband under the Government’s Project Gigabit scheme and the commercial roll-out, more and more people will move in that direction.

That prompts a longer-term question about whether DTT will remain the main means of accessing television. It is too soon to say. What the Government have said is that we foresee DTT continuing until at least 2034, but we will be looking in due course at what should happen after that. Giving that assurance until 2034 should give confidence. Obviously, the debate about what happens beyond that time will continue, and we will see how the market develops.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Nicolson Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

This is all of course very much worse than the situation that existed before Brexit. Paul Smith, the chief executive officer of the VOCES8 Foundation, a UK touring group with a music education programme, has described Brexit as a “bl— nightmare” for musicians looking to tour in the European Union, and has said:

“Our industry is on its knees and we have to fight more than ever”.

Talented Scottish singer Iona Fyfe has said that in Europe

“many promoters, festivals and organisers are simply choosing not to book emerging acts from the UK to avoid the bureaucratic headache.”

We have seen the loss of 50,000 jobs in the UK music sector since Brexit—a shocking waste of talent. How many more will it take before UK Ministers address their responsibilities to the sector and stick up for musicians?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has failed to recognise the announcements yesterday, which will grow the creative industries sector by an additional 1 million jobs, with £50 billion of growth. In particular, the music exports growth scheme has already proved very successful, and we are tripling its funding to £3.2 million. I hope he will draw that to the attention of his constituents, who I am sure will welcome it.

Gambling Act Review White Paper

John Nicolson Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. We have consistently encouraged and pressed the Government for action in this area and, as other right hon. and hon. Members have said, a dozen Ministers responsible for gambling have come and gone since change was first promised. The 2005 Act is clearly out of date and grows less relevant to modern gambling realities by the day. Those vulnerable to harm, especially children, are not well protected under the current legislation.

My party and I will approach this important discussion with constructive dialogue to support evidence-led legislation from the outset. Will the Secretary of State outline the precise role of the ombudsman, especially when it comes to protecting children? I know that hon. Members on all sides are deeply concerned by the huge rise in gambling among children. We know that gambling destroys lives. I pay tribute to the many charity workers and others who have pressed for these changes, including hon. Members across the House—particularly, on the SNP Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who has worked tirelessly on this. We will work constructively with the Government in assessing the right way forward to protect the vulnerable from harm.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am very grateful for that constructive approach and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on the measures as they progress. He mentioned the non-statutory ombudsman, which is an important measure to redress the balance between punters who feel that their issues have not been addressed sufficiently and the companies involved. That is why we are bringing it forward, and we will be consulting on it in due course.