Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Can I thank our shadow Culture Secretary? I am proud of the work that he has done and that I have been able to do alongside him on behalf of the SNP and the people of Scotland.

Mr Speaker, can I also echo your comments about Liam Laurence Smyth? The number of times I have gone to Liam and said, “I want to get up to some mischief, can you help me?” I have really appreciated all the advice that he has given me.

I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether the Media Bill will be part of wash-up, because a number of organisations, including STV, have contacted me this morning asking for it to be.

[Lucy Frazer]

That is certainly what I am pressing for and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for her support to ensure that that happens.

Media Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Hear, hear.

[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.

Telegraph Media Group Ltd: Acquisition

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. My Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and the SNP more widely are pleased about the decision and today’s announcement. It feels as though the protection of the independence and legitimacy of the media is something people feel strongly about across the House, no matter which party they represent. I am pleased that everybody is speaking with one voice on the blocking of foreign interference in our media outlets.

I wonder about the way in which this process has happened. Is she going to have a look at how it worked and whether or not RB Investco and the UAE were able to exploit loopholes to ensure that the process took longer than it could have taken in order for this decision to be made? Will she look at whether there are ways of tightening up the Enterprise Act and the legislation to ensure that those decisions can be made more quickly and loopholes cannot be exploited?

Legacy media outlets are struggling in a lot of ways, and many of them may be looking at alternative ways of funding what they are doing. Will she make it clear that, like us, she feels that that freedom of the press from foreign interference is incredibly important, no matter what the financial situation of the companies in question?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Lady talks about tightening up the process. We significantly tightened it in the amendment that the Government tabled in the Lords and is coming back to this House today. That will indeed make sure that there can be no ownership, control or influence by a foreign state, because, as she makes clear, that is an important part of our democracy.

Budget Resolutions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am beginning to wonder if some people in this place live on the same planet as the rest of us. Are they receiving the same casework? Are their constituents faced with the same problems? I have been an elected representative working in public service for nearly 17 years, and the situation is absolutely the worst I have ever seen.

People come into our surgeries at the absolute end of their tether—they cannot cope anymore. There is nowhere else they can turn, so they come to their MP, which sometimes takes a lot of courage. We cannot offer them any optimism; there is no light at the end of the tunnel. The Budget was an opportunity for the Chancellor to improve the cost of living crisis, but he did not take that opportunity. He did not see the problems that so many people are facing.

The Budget has come on the back of the damage of Brexit, 14 years of austerity and last year’s horrific, disastrous mini-Budget, which further destroyed the economy. The Chancellor looked at the stats and thought that it was a good idea to talk about them. He said, “Oh look, since the last forecast, things have got better.” Of course they have got better since then; the last forecast was in the aftermath of the total disaster of the mini-Budget. By the way, people who were in ministerial roles at that time got severance payment. They came in, trashed the economy and then left with a hefty £18,000 in their pockets to spend. It is completely shocking that we are in that situation.

Members of the Government party keep talking about tax. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that tax as a share of GDP is nearly at a post-war high. The Minister can say all she likes about comparisons with other countries, but a near post-war high is a pretty damning indictment for a party that is talking about how important it is to reduce tax. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) wants to intervene on me he can do so, but if he cared very much about the tax system and trying to make a difference to people’s lives, he would ensure that local authorities in England are not raising council tax by 4.99%. He would freeze council tax for people. He will have looked at the national insurance changes and thought to himself, “How do these changes work? They are better. They give more money to people who make more money.” That would not have been my choice of priorities.

Scotland is not the highest taxed part of the UK. If we look at business rates, council tax and all the different taxes that people pay, and at our starter rate for the lowest earners, it is incredibly helpful to live in Scotland. Things such as capital gains tax, which the UK has decided to make changes to, have a massive differential impact on different groups of people. People are less likely to benefit from the capital gains tax changes if they are female or black, or if they live outside London. The UK Government have the wrong priorities. They are doing their very best to make things better for the richest people and to ensure that inequality is further entrenched. People on the highest wages get the most money back from the national insurance reduction, and those on the lowest wages get the least money back, which again fits with the Conservative ethos.

The Chancellor has been clear that the biggest losers from the Budget are oil and gas. Let us say that that was on the basis of the Conservatives’ really strong commitment to reducing climate change. It is not, by the way, but let us say for a moment that what they are doing is about ensuring that climate change targets are met and that we are getting closer to net zero. In that case, there would be a see-saw and a balance. They would be increasing the tax on oil and gas and increasing the investment in renewables, which is incredibly important. If we are to have a tax raid on the North sea, which impacts on communities such as mine in Aberdeen that are heavily reliant on oil and gas jobs, we need green investment, such as long-term funding decisions on carbon capture, usage and storage, which would bring in £30 billion of private investment.

The UK Government, however, are for some reason—possibly because it will be a big pre-election gimmick—refusing to make those decisions right now. They are refusing to put in the £28 billion a year that we need to secure jobs in a green future and to get that bonanza. We have such huge potential in renewable technologies, and we are failing to get there because the UK Government fail over and over again to put their money where their mouth is and make commitments. In fact, their mouth is in the wrong place on this as well. Now they are talking about cutting the green crap; they seem to have reverted to type on that. Their investment is at the lowest levels in the G7. It is shocking that the UK Government are refusing, and failing, to tackle the biggest issue of our time, which is climate change.

The Labour party has said that it will put in £4.7 billion a year to fund green investment and green technologies. That is the same amount as the Scottish Government are spending in Scotland in 2024-25. The Labour party thinks that that is enough money, whereas Scotland knows that it is enough for Scotland; we need significantly more than that to get the investment that we need. Remember that all of this is reserved. The Scottish Government are putting money and support into this, but it is reserved stuff. The reality is that we have so much energy and potential in Scotland, but we do not have the full powers that we need to take advantage of it, to ensure a better future for our children and our planet, and secure the jobs that we continue to need.

The last autumn statement included a real-terms NHS cut. Scotland none the less increased our spend on the NHS in real terms. Tax cuts and tax breaks are simply not investment. A Budget that is heavily reliant on tax cuts and tax breaks will not ensure that we have the public services we need. Melanie Wilkes from the Institute for Public Policy Research said that the Chancellor’s announcements

“represent unsustainable real terms spending cuts to already crumbling public services, with many having already seen spending per person falling consistently during and after the austerity years.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the Chancellor’s Budget leaves many public services facing savage cuts of £20 billion a year by 2028. Last week’s statement did not provide a single penny more for capital funding. The Barnett consequentials that we will get from the health increase that the Chancellor signalled are less than we got in in-year consequentials last year. The reality is that the big amount of money that the Government have announced for the NHS is not only not worth the paper it is written on; it is not nearly such a big amount of money as the Chancellor would like people to think it is.

Narrow tax reliefs will not fix the systemic issues within some parts of the creative sector. Over the past few years, local authorities have made £1 billion in cuts to arts funding, forced by Tory austerity and the reductions in funding for local authorities. If we want “Barbie” or “Jurassic World” to be filmed here, that is all well and good, but if we do not have the infrastructure and the grassroots funding to ensure that people can get excited, energised and educated in the arts, we will have to import all the talent to do these jobs. We will not have people trained to do them unless the grassroots support and funding is there.

We have seen that in football. There has been a massive increase in the number of female footballers who are performing particularly well. The England team have done brilliantly. That is because of the grassroots support that there has been and the funding increase for women’s football. That is brilliant, but without that ecosystem we will never get those people performing at the highest possible level. Making changes to big flashy shiny things is great, but we need to back it up with an ecosystem.

In addition to the issues caused by cuts in arts funding, there is no cut to the VAT on tickets, which is a significant problem. Some 15 festivals have been cancelled for 2024 already. One more was announced the day before the Budget. If the Government will not look at such things as the VAT on tickets, which is significantly higher than it is throughout Europe, we will continue to face such issues. When the cost of living crisis is biting and people cannot afford to see live music as often as they would like, 20% VAT on tickets is just too high. There are also no fixes for migration in relation to the arts, and there is a significant lack of reliefs applied to such things as choirs.

There are major issues in the creative sector. Some in the sector are very happy with the changes, and I am glad that that is the case. Other parts of the creative sector feel that they have been left out, particularly when it comes to live music and the night-time economy. If the UK Government are going to focus on the creative sector, they need to do more to enable people to access the arts, and particularly live music.

Today’s debate is about growing the economy. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) mentioned that there is record employment, and that that is a positive. I am glad people are able to work, but we have so many vacancies right now. The lack of migration, and the outward migration of lots of people who were working in care, for example, means that the NHS is stressed like never before, having come out of covid with too many vacancies and having faced repeated refusals by the UK Government to increase pay. People are really struggling. I can understand why people would not want to do those incredibly high-stress jobs in our public sector, ensuring that our NHS is providing the best possible service.

The Government need to do more to be clear that we are not just standing on the doorstep clapping for public sector and NHS workers, but that we actually support them. They must give public sector workers the money they deserve for doing those incredibly hard jobs, day in, day out, to keep us safe. They must train people who can be taken on and allow migration so that people can come and work in our NHS.

In Scotland, we have a focus on wellbeing: our decision-making processes go through a wellbeing lens. We do not just say, “Right, in our budget we are going to focus on GDP growth because that is the most important thing.” The most important thing is the wellbeing of our population. We ensure that people are better off and mentally and physically happier as a result of our decision making. For example, we ensure that our climate change targets are met so that their children and their children’s children have a planet to grow up on. We ensure they can afford to live. That is why we have things such as the Scottish child payment, free school meals for P1 to P5, baby boxes and free bus travel for under-22s. I do not know how many Members remember being under 22 and being totally frustrated at how much transport costs. People are able to make their way around Scotland, or even just get to school or uni, more cheaply than they could before because under-22s, eligible disabled people and those aged 60 and above in Scotland have free bus travel. That makes a real difference to people’s lives day in, day out, especially given that the cost of buses in Aberdeen is something like £5.10 a day at the moment.

We have the child winter heating payment for households with the most severely disabled children. Our scrapping of the right to buy—this will probably get some groans from Conservative Members—has made the biggest difference to my constituency. We can build new council houses and we do not have to sell them at an 80% discount. When issues arise, we have brand-new, shiny council houses to put people in; it is fabulous that there is social housing. We still have social housing waiting lists—absolutely we do—because we have been trying to undo decades of issues resulting from the right to buy and the fact that we could not build more council houses.

So many of my constituents and people up and down the UK are in a desperate situation. In many cases, people who previously were comfortable, never had to worry, had two cars and were happy enough are struggling to pay their mortgages and council tax and to fund the daily necessities. The UK Government have absolutely failed to take account of that and to listen to people’s cries for help. This Budget does not have the right priorities for the people of Scotland and the UK. It does not make their lives better and improve their wellbeing, but simply focuses on some fiscal rules.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), because it gives me the opportunity gently to point out to her that she represents a party that is presiding over the part of the United Kingdom with the highest rates of personal taxation in the UK. She does not seem to understand that we can address the cost of living pressures for those in work by cutting taxes, as the Chancellor has just done for 27 million people in this country. Cutting the national insurance rate by 2p next month, on top of the 2p cut this January, will make a material difference for families across the country—in particular, in south Shropshire. It sets a clear direction of travel for lower rates of personal taxation in the future under the next Conservative Government.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Dunne]

No, I am afraid I have no time. Madam Deputy Speaker is being very strict.

Those measures, combined with the above-inflation increases to thresholds since 2010, mean that the average south Shropshire worker now earns £34,500, and in the next fiscal year will pay over £1,500 less in personal taxes than they otherwise would have done had the Government increased thresholds only in line with inflation. I welcome what has been done. I also welcome the raising of the threshold and the halving of the rate at which higher income child benefit is withdrawn, which means that by April 2026 the Chancellor will have ended the unfairness for single-earner families.

Those who are over 65 years old—I declare an interest—comprise 31% of south Shropshire’s residents, compared with 18% nationally, so pension incomes are of particular importance to my constituents. Thanks to the fact that the triple lock has been maintained, the full annual amount of the basic state pension is £3,700 higher in cash terms than in 2010. The triple lock increased the state pension by 10.1% this year, and it will increase by a further 8.5% next month. In addition, the tax-free personal allowance, at £12,570, remains high enough that a pensioner receiving only a full basic or new state pension will not pay any tax on that income. That is a significant advance for pensioners on the legacy left by the Labour party.

My constituency is very rural and most people have to rely on cars. The extension of the fuel duty freeze will keep fuel costs lower than they otherwise would have been, and the freeze on alcohol duty and the extension of business rates relief will significantly help the hubs of our communities in rural areas—our pubs.

As a farmer, I was very pleased that the Chancellor listened to calls from farming organisations and the Conservative Environment Network, of which I am a member, and addressed the anomalous disincentive under which agricultural property relief was not available for land entered into some natural capital land use schemes. That is a welcome correction.

In the remaining moments I have, I want to touch briefly on how the work of the Environmental Audit Committee relates to the Budget. I was very pleased that the Government have committed to the sixth round of the contracts for difference for renewable energy projects getting the largest funding allocation to date—more than £1 billion. I am pleased to see the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), in his place. The Government have clearly learned lessons from the previous round, and have recognised that prevailing market conditions will inject commercial realism into the UK’s approach to this increasingly competitive global market.

Although support for renewable energy production is welcome on the path to decarbonising the economy, it cannot happen in isolation. It is clear from our Committee’s current inquiry into enabling sustainable electrification of the UK economy that electricity infrastructure, including transmission, distribution and storage, will also have to increase materially to handle the increased generation capacity that will be required to meet the increased demand. It was good to see that recognised in the Budget, which builds on the energy system announcements last autumn to reform grid access. Since November, more than 40 GW of energy projects have been offered earlier grid connection dates, accelerating and modernising the system to allow more renewable energy projects to connect more quickly. I do not wish to pre-empt the conclusions of our inquiry, but the Government are bringing forward measures to remove barriers to infrastructure investment, and are developing important guidance to encourage better community benefit for those affected.

I turn to the other energy announcement. I was very pleased by the progress on the acquisition of nuclear energy sites from Hitachi, both in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) and in Oldbury in south Gloucestershire. I have written on behalf of our Committee to raise concerns about the pace of progress, and in a debate on the civil nuclear road map two weeks before the Budget I called on the Government for progress on site selection. Hon. Members who were up early enough this morning will have heard the chair of Great British Nuclear, Simon Bowen, announce that Great British Nuclear now envisages taking two small modular reactor projects through to final investment decision in the next Parliament, which is a welcome breakthrough.

Finally, I welcome the further clarity on the carbon border adjustment mechanism—first confirmed in December—which will be introduced from January 2027. Our Committee did a significant amount in laying the groundwork for that policy, which I hope the Minister might recognise. By giving a date to which the industry can plan, it will have the confidence to invest in decarbonisation efforts; it will know that a carbon border adjustment mechanism will mean that less environmentally harmful products will be manufactured here and that we can reduce imports, so that the investments of UK manufacturers in decarbonising cannot be undercut through weaker environmental standards.

This was a thoughtful, prudent Budget, which will generate lower taxation for individuals over time and grow the economy under the Conservatives.

BBC News Impartiality: Government's Role

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course, it puts the BBC in that elevated status where the taxpayer is obliged to pay for it, and there are consequences from its poor leadership in this area. The BBC’s coverage of weekly pro-Palestinian marches has displayed an extraordinary disconnect from reality. It has repeatedly stressed that the marches are “mostly peaceful”, yet television reports have featured BBC journalists amidst crowds chanting genocidal refrains and brandishing flagrantly antisemitic placards. Not all viewers will have an understanding of those deplorable scenes and it is incumbent on the BBC to cover them responsibly.

On 30 October, the BBC posted a news item on its news app headlined, “Met Police chief wants clarity on extremism”. The article actually concerned the appalling displays of antisemitism and violent rhetoric at those pro-Palestinian rallies, but strangely the BBC saw fit to use a photograph of an Israeli flag as the banner image accompanying the piece. The message that would send to the casual reader is unmistakable: Israelis, or pro-Israel individuals, are the extremists.

I would like to touch on BBC Arabic now, which has repeatedly presented former Palestine Liberation Organisation Major General Wasif Erekat, who has celebrated the “heroic military miracle” of 7 October, as an independent military expert. Erekat has appeared on BBC Arabic at least 12 times since 7 October, despite having admitted to firing artillery shells on what he calls “Zionist positions” from Lebanon, and making outrageous remarks about how Hamas does not target civilians.

Concerns about bias within from the BBC are perhaps unsurprising when one considers some of the employment controversies engulfing the organisation, which I would like to touch on now. A scheduling co-ordinator for BBC3, Dawn Queva, branded Jewish people “Nazi apartheid parasites” and referred to the holocaust as the “holohoax”. In the wake of 7 October, BBC News Arabic journalists likened Hamas to freedom fighters and spoke of a morning of hope. A Beirut-based correspondent on BBC Arabic, Sanaa Khoury, tweeted that Israel’s prestige is “crying in the corner” and liked a comment about receiving sweets that were distributed in celebration of Hamas’s attack.

We have heard about Gary Lineker, who encapsulates the problem within the BBC. Lineker has shared a video with 8.9 million of his followers, with the offensive accusation that Israel is committing genocide and mourning the death of a Palestinian footballer, who was later revealed to be a “martyr fighter” for Hamas. He also shared a message calling for Israel to be banned from international football tournaments. Lineker has frankly made a mockery of new social media guidelines that had been drawn up following an earlier controversy over his politicised posts.

Amid that sorry state of affairs, it is perhaps unsurprising, though no less distressing, that the director-general of the BBC, Tim Davie, recently acknowledged that antisemitism was within the corporation. Perhaps that is not surprising, when “The Apprentice” star, who we have heard about recently, tweeted that Zionists were “odiously ogre-like”. The BBC compliance department apparently ruled that that was not antisemitic. Instead, they sent him on a diversity course. If Zionism were just a policy, and not a euphemism for Jews, as we all know it is, how can someone who supports a policy, of any sort, be physically ugly? That gives the lie to the whole charade. What they are really talking about when they say Zionists is, of course, Jews. Shamefully, BBC employees were prohibited from attending a major march against antisemitism last year, on the spurious grounds that it was controversial. Compounding that, BBC News saw fit to describe that as a pro-Jewish march.

The BBC has been criticised by Ofcom for its coverage, as many will recall, of a vile antisemitic attack on Jewish students in London in December 2021, finding that it had

“failed to observe its editorial guidelines on due impartiality and due accuracy.”

In that episode, the BBC had falsely accused Jewish victims of making anti-Muslim slurs. That was swiftly disproven, but the BBC failed to update its online news article for nearly two months, with no regard for the wellbeing of the attack victims and the wider Jewish community.

Simply, there have been too many examples of a lack of impartiality for the BBC to keep dismissing concerns. The BBC’s biased coverage throughout this conflict has undoubtedly had an impact on the public’s perception and the understanding of it, and has steered it in a more anti-Israel direction.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

What response has the right hon. and learned Member had from the BBC when he has raised these concerns? Is it taking action?

[Sir Michael Ellis]

I will be coming to that. We know that the BBC has received myriad complaints. The consequences of its lack of impartiality have been particularly acute for the UK’s Jewish community. Just as the Al-Ahli misreporting led to a violent spike in antisemitism across the world, so too has the relentless bias of BBC News coverage contributed to the record level of intimidation and attacks on British Jews.

It is interesting to note that more than three quarters of Jews in Britain—77%—believe that BBC coverage of the war in Gaza is biased against Israel, according to a recent poll by Survation for a newspaper. Dozens of current Jewish employees at the BBC are understood to have filed formal complaints related to their concerns about antisemitism, describing it as a “grim” and “frightening” time to be Jewish at the corporation. The BBC’s senior management has fundamentally failed to deal with this problem and uphold its own guidelines. The organisation now appears complicit in peddling misinformation and allowing antisemitism to fester. In those circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the BBC is institutionally antisemitic.

It has now been 20 years since the Balen report into the BBC’s anti-Israel bias. The organisation has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of hard-working licence fee payers’ money to suppress that 20-year-old report. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to join me and add her voice to the calls for the BBC to finally publish that report. I wrote to the director general before Christmas, and he declined to release it. I also ask the Minister whether she would agree that the time has come to finally say that the BBC’s ability to mark its own homework must be removed. Existing complaints procedures are ineffective and do not command confidence.

I shall end by recounting the words of 22-year-old Noah Abrahams, who left his dream job at the BBC after its refusal to unequivocally call Hamas what it is: a terrorist organisation. Noah said that words have the power

“to fuel hate and put fuel on the fire…Words impact how we think, how we react, how we act. They have influence.”

I challenge all of us here to stand up for truth, challenge the BBC in its deeply entrenched bias, and call for accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for your work in chairing today’s debate, Ms Bardell, and I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) on obtaining the debate. I will cover a few things, some of which have been covered and some of which have not been so much.

Public service broadcasting is incredibly important, and it is incredibly important that impartiality is measured and is there in the broadcasting. Many UK Government decisions have undermined the impartiality of the BBC, including the director-general being a former Tory candidate, and including a personal friend of Boris Johnson being made the chair of the BBC—a Tory donor who donated £400,000 to the party and lent £800,000 to Mr Johnson specifically. So there is an issue with impartiality—an issue with being seen to be impartial, as well as with potentially being impartial.

I have a BBC studio in my constituency that does local news in Aberdeen and has also been involved in some big events that have happened. For example, when the Queen passed away, it was the first on the scene reporting. I want to be clear to those people working in my constituency, and across the BBC, that we are not saying—nobody in this room, I think, is saying—that any of them individually are antisemitic, other than perhaps the ones that were mentioned by name. It is not—I do not think, from anyone—an attack on these individuals. I want to be clear that we value the work that they do and the fact that they do report in sometimes incredibly difficult conditions. Sometimes reporting is got wrong from every broadcaster; mistakes are made and they need to be as swiftly as possible rectified.

I want to be clear about the BBC’s position on what happened in relation to al-Ahli Hospital. It said that

“contrary to many reports—the BBC did not claim that the Israelis were responsible for the attack. We, along with many other…media organisations, reported initial claims by Palestinian officials and eye-witnesses…that this was an Israeli air strike…We attributed the claim to those making it.”

The BBC sought a response immediately from the IDF, and when

“the Israeli authorities countered those claims”,

the BBC “prominently and consistently” reported the position of the IDF. That is the BBC’s position. It may be an idea to watch back some of that coverage to see what exactly was said by the journalists at the time.

[Andrew Percy]

I like the hon. Lady and I hate to criticise her on this, but I think that that is not really credible. The BBC reported it, and I believe—I will check this—that it went out on push notifications. The fact remains that as a serious public broadcaster, on an issue as sensitive and as serious as this, the BBC should have applied independent verification to this story—as it demands and requires Israel to provide on claims—before it put that out and gave it such prominence. So I do not think that its response is really credible, with respect to the hon. Lady.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I just felt that this was the BBC’s position and I wanted that to be clear, because it does not have a voice in this debate right now.

[Sir Michael Ellis]

It may just help if I repeat the BBC’s breaking news Twitter account—the push notification to 51 million followers:

“Hundreds feared dead or injured in Israeli airstrike on hospital in Gaza, Palestinian officials say”.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Which, in that, is attributed to Palestinian officials, but absolutely—I think it is worth watching it back. But the BBC position is that it was very clear about that.

On the ideas around the bias or the lack of impartiality, apparently 36% of the public see the BBC as neutral; 15% see the BBC as pro-Palestine; and 17% see it as pro-Israel. There have been protests outside BBC studios throughout Scotland suggesting that the BBC is in fact too pro-Israel. Those protests have taken place outside a number of BBC studios in Scotland, including twice in Aberdeen. Any of those things are concerning and worrying for staff. People absolutely have a right to protest. Whichever the view of the protesters, the protests can be worrying for people who are perhaps not anywhere near reporting on either what is happening in Gaza or on any other sort of foreign affairs.

[Andrew Percy]

I am sorry to do this again, but I heard this when I met the BBC. I have had it said to me that, “Look, a lot of people think we are pro-Palestinian. A lot of people think we are pro-Israeli.” That is irrelevant. It is about the actual coverage; it does not matter what the perception is. That does not mean that there is not an issue here. I have so far not found a single example of a BBC journalist who has had to be dealt with, suspended or reported for making pro-Israeli statements on their social media accounts, whereas there are plenty that relate to this. The fact that there might be that perception does not alter the fact that there is an issue.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Actually, I do think the perception is important. It is also important that, as the hon. Gentleman said, 77% of Jewish people in the UK think that the BBC is biased. Having said all of that about the views of the general population, it is none the less incredibly important to listen to the communities who have a long history of persecution, particularly Jewish people. It is incredibly important to listen to those views and to understand that, if a community feels that the BBC is doing something wrong, it needs to take that incredibly seriously.

[Sir Michael Ellis]

The hon. Lady has been generous in giving way. I reiterate the point, which I am sure she will agree with, that it is very easy for people to make any sort of claim or counter-claim, but there needs to be some evidence. I like to think that in my speech I gave numerous evidenced examples. If people are going to say that there is evidence of BBC pro-Israel bias, they need to be able to cite some examples of that. I do not think they will be able to do that.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Given that I came to talk more generally about the impartiality of BBC news and I had few notes on the conflict in Gaza, I am afraid I do not have an answer. I am not here to defend the BBC. I just wanted to be clear on what its position was, particularly around that one incident that was mentioned.

I met representatives of the Union of Jewish Students in the wake of the beginning of the conflict. We spoke about what was happening at the University of Aberdeen and how safe or unsafe they felt on campus. They raised concerns with me about reporting, but the concerns that they raised were not specifically about the BBC; they were about reporting in general. It is very important for us to listen to those people who are saying, “We are being discriminated against” or “There is bias against us” because, as a non-Jewish person, I do not feel, see or hear all the undercurrents. It is not only we as parliamentarians who must listen to such views; the BBC must ensure that it listens to members of the community who are the experts in this when providing diversity training, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) mentioned. I absolutely agree with his suggestion that the training should be carried out by those people who are genuine experts, such as Antisemitism Policy Trust. I will declare an interest. Members can look at my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to that.

It is important to think about the regulation of the BBC. We recently had the first Media Bill in 20 years. It has been a long time since there was a change to the regulation of public service broadcasting in general. However, the BBC is governed by the charter and the agreement that comes alongside it. In some ways, Parliament is unable to take action on this; that is more in the remit of the UK Government. I ask the Minister, when she is looking at this, to look at some of the genuinely good work the BBC has done around increasing diversity—I have spoken to it about that in recent times—and to assess whether she, the Government, and the communities that are impacted feel that the 10-point plan and the impartiality and diversity training the BBC has put in place are sufficient, so that the BBC can be impartial, continue to be respected, and provide the public service broadcast that so many people rely on in order to get their news.

Media Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Three and Vodafone: Potential Merger

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) on securing this important debate, which I am glad the Backbench Business Committee has granted. The SNP has concerns on a few fronts. I will not repeat the stats, but I almost entirely agree with what he said. I thank Unite for its work and for its briefing.

There are various issues with the merger, particularly relating to consumers and security. We were pleased when, back in June or July, the Minister talked about regulatory hurdles that have to be cleared for this merger to take place, but those regulatory hurdles are not sufficient. It should not and cannot be a rubber-stamping exercise, so the comments we have heard about parliamentary scrutiny are very important.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has made me even more concerned about the possible lack of scrutiny. We are, after all, a parliamentary democracy, so we should be scrutinising the merger. Those Members who have the access and the ability to scrutinise the merger, with the assistance of confidential documents, should be doing this, because the merger clearly has a significant impact on national security.

The Government published their annual resilience report just a few weeks ago, and people need to be able to communicate with one another. Consumer data is important, and it is likely that a Chinese company will have access to 27 million people’s data, which is pretty terrifying, but it will also have access to mobile masts. The new mobile masts that are being put up as part of the shared rural network will be owned or are owned by a number of different companies, one of which would be this Three/Vodafone conglomerate. If it happens, the conglomerate would have roughly a third of each mast, which will cover a huge swathe of these islands. If there were any sort of attack on the masts, large chunks of the population would not be able to access 4G. The same issue applies to data security. What data is associated with this critical infrastructure, and what changes would be caused by this possible merger?

There are a couple of other reasons for concern. The risk of job losses is incredibly important; it is not of secondary importance. We are in a cost of living crisis, and having more jobs at threat when people are already stretched, already struggling, is pretty concerning as it puts them in an even worse position.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) talked about his local police force’s Vodafone contract. The Procurement Act 2023 has security provisions that mean the Secretary of State is able to proscribe companies that have significant issues. However, given the amount of trouble we had getting the Government to do anything about Huawei, in relation to 5G, and Hikvision, in relation to CCTV cameras, I have no faith that the powers in the new Procurement Act could or would be used, and certainly not with any speed. We do not want to end up with these decisions made and the merger approved in some way, only for the Government to decide to backtrack on it. That would be even worse than if they decided to say no at an earlier point. I do not want us to end up realising that the risk has been created and that we need to try to sort the mess out. None of us wants to be in that position. I am not saying that the deal is terrible and should never go ahead. What I am saying, for all those reasons, is that there should be proper scrutiny, because there are significant concerns about China’s potential interference in critical national infrastructure.

On the consumer issues, the fact that prices are 20% higher in those European markets with only three major mobile phone companies instead of four is especially concerning, given the cost of living crisis, as the hon. Member for Stockport made clear. This deal should be properly scrutinised in order to best serve the public and our national security, and to protect our critical national infrastructure into the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate. In particular, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for raising this issue and for his work as the new Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. I want to add my congratulations to him, however belatedly, on his appointment. He gave a comprehensive outline of the security implications of the proposed merger.

We had a comprehensive intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), my fellow Welshman. Whenever he speaks, we should all listen. He speaks with some authority, as both the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee and a distinguished former Chair of the Defence Committee.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) raised some important points about rural broadband connectivity and his frustrations with companies and the regulator, which many of us share.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), mentioned some quite shocking statistics. Some 2.2 million households are struggling with mobile coverage, while in Greater Manchester—which he represents and speaks so passionately about—1.2 million people are facing digital exclusion, which is something we should all be concerned about.

There can be no doubt that the proposed merger between Three and Vodafone is not without controversy, as we have heard. We are often quite rightly chided when we throw barbs at each other in this House. Often, the House is at its very best when we are allowed to develop our arguments and when we listen in a spirit of respect for one another, as we have this afternoon, not just in this debate but in the previous debate. Even though I only agreed to step in for my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) on Monday, my office has been absolutely inundated by those on both sides of the argument. There are those who believe that the merger will allow for more effective competition, while others, such as Unite—which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport mentioned, and which has put a huge effort into the campaign—believe that it will raise prices to the detriment of consumers and result in job cuts across the board. It is my understanding that the Competition and Markets Authority is investigating, and the call for views on the merger ended on 1 November.

I have listened to the debate closely, and it seems to me that the potential merger rests on two central questions. First, will consumers and the industry benefit from it? Secondly, who has access to the UK’s mobile networks? Let me turn to the first question. The merger will shrink the market, resulting in only three major competitors instead of the present four. The new company would be the largest in the market, boasting over 27 million customers. This comes against the backdrop of tariff increases this year. O2 has increased prices by 17.3%, while EE, Vodafone, Three and BT Mobile have increased prices by 14.4%. It is not just on contracts that customers are losing out; people who use their phones infrequently are getting less value for their money. Ofcom has also stated that the year-on-year real-terms increase in pay-monthly, SIM-only contracts is 13%.

A smartphone is no longer a luxury, but an essential piece of everyday life. It is not something that we as a society can allow people to be priced out of having. Children are taught on smartphones. Interviews take place over the phone. Emergency services are called on smartphones. If Three and Vodafone merge and continue their respective trends of increasing prices over inflation, that could price many out of the necessity of having a phone.

From an industry perspective, Unite the union estimates the merger will cause 1,000 to 1,600 job cuts. Vodafone is also in the process of cutting 11,000 jobs globally and has acknowledged that the proposed merger would see duplication with head office jobs. Both companies claim that there is more competition in the market than it first appears. Although there are only four mobile network providers, there are numerous mobile virtual network operators, such as Giffgaff, that can buy access to the infrastructure of the big four at incredibly competitive rates to offer competitive pricing. The mobile virtual network operators believe that a third big player in the market would be better for competition.

Furthermore, Three and Vodafone claim that the merger is necessary to invest in 5G, aiming for an £11 billion investment over a decade. While the investment target seems positive, it remains largely uncertain. Past mergers in other markets have not always resulted in increased investment. Notably, the European Union’s competition directorate blocked CK Hutchison’s attempt to acquire O2 from Telefónica in 2016. Competition involves more than just three players vying for business. The policy of local coverage often limits consumer choices. With fewer players in the market, pricing decisions might prioritise company profits over consumer value.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the necessity of mobile phones for life. When interacting with Government services, for example going through the Jobcentre system, people have to be able to access the internet, although many of them are earning very little or nothing. Does he share my concern that the reduction in the number of companies in the market will hit hardest those people who are least able to afford it?

[Chris Evans]

I absolutely agree. At the start of my speech, I alluded to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said about 1.2 million people in Greater Manchester being digitally excluded. We do not know the figures nationwide, but that is a serious worry to me and something we have to bear in mind when we talk about such mergers. I will develop that argument further when I sum up. With fewer major players in the market, pricing decisions might prioritise company profits over consumer value. I hope the issues raised will be thoroughly examined by the CMA in its investigation.

Let me turn to the second key question, about access to the UK mobile networks. It is important that the Government safeguard national and personal data if the merger moves forward. Recently, Vodafone secured a contract to provide video conferencing and recording services at UK military courts. If the merger proceeds, Three would then hold them as well. That becomes significant when we learn that CK Hutchison Holdings, the owner of Three, is a conglomerate based in Hong Kong and registered in the Cayman Islands, established in 2015, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill.

At this early stage, it is only right to ask, in light of national security concerns that have been raised in this House and elsewhere, whether any assessment has been made of CK Hutchinson’s connections with the Chinese state. If so, does the merger pose any risk to individual security or that of the nation? Would the merger involve excluding Government contracts from the merger to ensure data security? These are crucial points that demand careful consideration and a robust plan to protect sensitive data and national interests. Is the economic security sub-committee of the National Security Council looking at the merger? As this decision is a matter of national security, will Parliament have an active role in this decision-making process?

Before the Minister responds, I draw his attention to a report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East, will correct me if I am wrong, but it says:

“Effective Parliamentary oversight is not some kind of ‘optional extra’ – it is a vital safeguard in any functioning Parliamentary democracy”.

Therefore, I hope the Minister will assure us that Parliament will be engaged and informed throughout the significant decision-making process. That is a hugely important point—I cannot emphasise that enough—given the potential national security risk if the largest mobile network in the UK is significantly controlled by a foreign company.

Ultimately, the decision on security issues rests with the Investment Security Unit in the Cabinet Office, with final approval resting with the Prime Minister. I hope the Prime Minister will consider the sensitive material involved in the merger including, but not limited to, the data from 27 million customers, along with contracts for the NHS, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence. Whether the merger goes ahead remains to be seen, but many questions have yet to be addressed. In winding up, will the Minister shed some light on the vital issues raised today in this vital debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Ofcom teams go out and test the predictions that are made about the extent of coverage. They do not just accept what the computer tells them; they visit various locations. However, Ofcom needs to do more. Although I am not going to be in this post for more than another few days, I do have a meeting with Ofcom before I hand back the baton to my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). The issue was already on my list to raise with Ofcom, and I will draw the chief executive’s attention to the point my hon. Friend makes.

As I have said, we have set out our ambition to achieve stand-alone 5G across all populated areas by 2030. We believe that that will bring real benefits to the United Kingdom, but it requires billions of pounds of investment, which has to come from the commercial sector. Therefore, we have also set out a suite of measures to try to help operators to deliver that ambition. We also have a 10-point plan for rural connectivity, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) , who has worked very hard as the rural connectivity champion.

This debate has focused on security, and that is obviously a key factor that we need to take into account. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of having secure and resilient digital infrastructure. However, as I have already indicated, we think that thanks to recent legislation the UK now has one of the strongest telecoms security regimes in the world. The Government have used the powers of the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 to set out clear timetables for the removal of Huawei from our 5G networks by the end of 2027. The Act has also established a new cyber-security framework to improve the security and resilience of public telecoms networks and services, which is now in force. Following the Government’s decision to remove Huawei from UK 5G networks, coupled with the need to mitigate the risks of long-term consolidation in the telecoms equipment market, our 5G supply chain diversification strategy sets out a plan to ensure that the UK has a healthy and competitive telecoms supply chain market.

That plan is backed by the £250 million open networks R&D fund, which will accelerate the adoption of open radio access networks technology. That will help to bring more suppliers into the market and to diversify, making it easier to reduce our dependency. However, I assure the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that we are committed to protecting our networks, shielding our critical national infrastructure and understanding how new networks are designed, built and managed securely.

The possible merger deal between Vodafone and Three, as I have said, is subject to regulatory approvals to assess the risk to national security, competition and consumers in the way that all mergers of its kind would be. While we of course welcome investments where they support growth and jobs, the security of our critical infrastructure is also of prime importance. However, I am not able to go further than I have already done in answering the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about precisely the process by which that is measured.

These are other aspects to the merger. The hon. Member for Stockport, I think, raised the possibility of price increases, and hon. Members have commented on the consequences of a merger, also involving Vodafone, that took place in Australia. The only thing I would say is that every market is different, and therefore what happened in Australia cannot be used to draw any conclusions about what might happen here— although, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s latest report, in fact mobile service prices have stayed pretty much unchanged between 2020 and 2022.

Affordability, which was raised by the hon. Member for Stockport and others, is something that we take seriously. He is right that the possession of a mobile phone is becoming an essential of life that, during a cost of living crisis, people may find it difficult to afford, but I recognise the efforts that have been made by mobile operators, including Three and Vodafone, to support customers by bringing forward social tariffs for those on low incomes, as well as by donating millions of gigabits of data, and providing devices, to the National Databank.

There are currently 27 providers of social tariffs, and millions of households across the UK are eligible. I have expressed concern in the past about the low take-up of social tariffs, but I am pleased to say that it is now increasing, although there is still further work to do in bringing the possibility of a social tariff to the attention of people who may find a mobile phone difficult to afford. Mobile prices in the UK are among the lowest compared with countries such as Italy, Germany, Spain, France and the United States.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On the topic of social tariffs, I agree that low take-up is still a concern. When I visited my local jobcentre, I asked the staff there to ensure that they inform the people who come through the door about social tariffs. Will the Minister join me in encouraging MPs around the House to urge those working in customer-facing roles with people who are struggling financially to talk about mobile social tariffs?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am very happy to join the hon. Lady in calling for that. I recently met my ministerial colleague at the Department for Work and Pensions to discuss what more we can do to ensure that benefit claimants are aware of the possibility of going on to social tariffs.

I am afraid that I cannot say any more about the detail of the proposed merger, other than that we have well-established and robust processes in place for the consideration of both the impact on competition in the market and any possible national security concerns. I am confident that those processes will be followed, if necessary, in this case.

Media Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Likewise, where the Secretary of State has power to change the statutory conditions for designating radio selection services, they are not required to consult Ofcom and industry stakeholders on the new definition. I tabled amendment 33, which matches the Select Committee’s recommendation, to ensure that consultation takes place. As I have said, it is understandable that the Bill does not contain all the detail; that allows us to future-proof the regime, but to do so, we must ensure that designations are subject to scrutiny when they are proposed.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 3

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 4
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Sir John Whittingdale]

“The Rest is Politics”.

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

Division 4

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 4
Scottish National Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Indeed.

[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.

Media Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.’”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Chair]

Point of order noted. Thank you.

Media Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th December 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.