BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, that is a point I intend to address in some substance a little later on. He makes an argument that many have made, and I understand it. The quality of the content of the BBC is considerable, although I—like everybody in this House, I suspect—occasionally have reason to question it. It is, in my view, still the finest broadcaster in the world, but that is a separate issue from the question of how we pay for it, which is the issue at stake in the Bill.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)]

Does the Minister recall that in 2014, while serving on the Committee considering the Deregulation Bill, I managed to insert a new clause that would have led to the decriminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence? Does he also recall that during charter renewal, the then Chancellor, George Osborne, negotiated away decriminalisation in return for the BBC taking on the payment of the concessional over-75 TV licences?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I recall it very well because I was the Secretary of State at the time, so I was quite involved in that particular negotiation.

To return to the point of the licence fee, the licence fee pays for, overwhelmingly, the BBC’s non-commercial activities. It raises something like £3.74 billion in public funding every year, with which the BBC has to deliver its mission and public purposes. A television licence is required to watch, record or receive television as it is broadcast live on any channel or online service.

In a subsequent licence fee settlement, which was in my second incarnation, it was set to be frozen for two years and then to be uprated in line with inflation. The original charter agreement reached a settlement with the BBC where it was agreed that a licence should be required to watch not just live transmission of linear television services but live or on-demand content on BBC iPlayer, meaning that the so-called iPlayer loophole was closed.

[Andrew Bridgen]

As the Minister was then Secretary of State, he will recall that the BBC wanted people to need a licence to watch all other media online, including the Sky player, the ITV player and the Channel 4 player. Does he remember that we had to defeat that?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It has always been the case that the licence fee is required to watch live TV. It does not extend to the other things, however much some people might suggest it should. That has led to an issue that I will go on to talk about: the challenge to the existing model as people change the way they consume television.

It is worth noting that the licence fee is not just used to fund the BBC. It is also used for other strategic public service objectives, including the funding of the Welsh language broadcaster S4C. I spent yesterday in Cardiff, where I was able to visit S4C; I visited the set of “Pobol y Cwm”, for any Welsh speakers in the Chamber today. I can vouch that S4C does an important job in sustaining the Welsh language and is thoroughly deserving of public funding through the licence fee, which is why the Government agreed in the last licence fee settlement to a significant increase in that funding.

The licence fee represents a significant intervention in the broadcasting market, providing a predictable and steady source of revenue for the BBC. The Government are currently committed to maintaining the licence fee funding model for the duration of this 11-year charter period, which runs until 2027. But as I have already suggested—I will come on to this point at greater length—the BBC funding model is facing major challenges, and it is necessary to look at ways to ensure that it remains sustainable in the longer term.

The licence fee does not represent the only intervention by the Government in the broadcasting sector. There are a number of other ways in which we support a dynamic and successful broadcasting sector and, in particular, public service broadcasting. We have six public service broadcasters: the BBC, ITV, STV, Channel 4, S4C and Channel Five. Only two of those—the BBC and S4C—receive direct public funding from the licence fee. All six broadcasters benefit from regulatory advantages such as prominence and guaranteed access to spectrum. With these benefits come obligations with respect to the content that they show and how it is made.

The UK’s public broadcasting system was originally born of necessity when there was limited analogue capacity of spectrum, but more recently—over the past 50 years—the role has become clearer. The six broadcasters complement the free market, producing the type of content that would otherwise be under-served, such as local news that addresses communities across the country, current affairs programmes and original, distinctively British programming that shapes our culture and reflects our values. It is not limited to traditional broadcast television; BBC Bitesize, for example, provides an important resource for young people and schools across the UK. The UK’s public service broadcasters complement their commercial competitors by raising standards across the industry, investing in skills, boosting growth and taking creative risks.

Broadcasters, including the public service broadcasters, are facing a number of challenges due to changing technology. Just as the advent of cable and satellite revolutionised public service broadcasting, internet-delivered services are revolutionising broadcasting now, creating new distribution models with their own gatekeepers. It is telling, for example, that 74% of households with a TV set now choose to connect it to the internet. That has provided viewers with an enormous amount of choice in what they watch and how they watch it.

In particular, the trend away from linear viewing and towards on-demand viewing is continuing. According to Ofcom, in the first quarter of 2023, approximately two thirds of UK households were subscribing to a subscription-video-on-demand service. The weekly reach of broadcast TV fell from 83% in 2021 to 79% in 2022, which is the biggest ever annual drop. This ongoing shift away from traditional, linear, scheduled TV viewing to on-demand via the internet offers viewers an enormous extra range of choice, but it is also putting pressure on the traditional funding models and on public service broadcasters. One way in which the Government intend to address that is through the introduction of the media Bill, which I hope we will hear more about in the King’s Speech. The purpose of that Bill will be to ensure that the public service broadcasters remain visible at the top of the programme guides, whatever form of TV distribution viewers choose to use, because we believe it is important that the public service broadcasters are sustained.

I come to the specific issue my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raises in his Bill: TV licences for the over-75s. Both decriminalisation of the licence fee and the exemption for the over 75s have been debated at length many times in this Chamber. I understand that they remain controversial and that many people remain critical of the fact that the BBC now enforces the payment of the licence fee for over-75s who do not qualify as a result of receiving a means-tested benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It has always been said that if the BBC were funded directly from the Treasury out of general taxation, that would make it susceptible to political pressure, and it would reduce the distance of the arm’s length relationship between the BBC and the Government. There may be some truth in that. I have never entirely bought the argument that the licence fee protects it from political interference. It just means that the opportunity is slightly less regular in that it must wait until the next licence fee settlement.

However, the relationship between the Government and the BBC, particularly over the funding settlement, is one of negotiation, and it is right that the Government should ultimately decide the level of licence fee. There have been suggestions by some—I do not believe my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley would be among them—that the licence fee should be set by some independent committee or by Ofcom, and that the Government should not have a say. That is not something that I believe would be right. I think the Government have a duty to take account of the pressures on household budgets more widely, and the Government are also accountable for that decision. Therefore, I see no chance of that aspect changing, but there are options that will become available over time for alternative means of funding.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will give way, perhaps for the last time.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the Minister for his generosity. Does he share my concern that the BBC is actually using the licence fee to fund some controversial projects, which might dissuade people from supporting the BBC by paying the licence fee? I am thinking, for instance, of BBC Verify, whereby the BBC has effectively set itself up as a Ministry of Truth, recently with rather disastrous results.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will take advantage of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention to make two points. First, he will be aware—and it is a cast-iron principle—that the Government do not interfere in the editorial decisions of the BBC. It is not for Government to tell the BBC what they can and cannot broadcast, but that does not mean that the Government do not have views.

Secondly, I will take this opportunity to say from the Dispatch Box that the Government are very disappointed at the attitude taken by the BBC to the coverage of events in Israel and Gaza. The BBC’s refusal to describe this as a terrorist act is something the Government profoundly disagree with. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, while reiterating that we do not tell the BBC what to do, has made it clear that the Government’s view is that the BBC should describe it as what it is: terrorism. The suggestion that, in doing so, the BBC would somehow be in breach of the Ofcom broadcasting code is clearly not the case. Ofcom has made it clear that it is an editorial matter for the BBC. There are plenty of previous examples where the BBC has called terrorism “terrorism”, and our view remains that it should do so in this case.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

rose—

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who has not yet had a chance to speak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the significant contribution that rugby union makes in many of our communities. I pay tribute to the many thousands of volunteers who give up their time to ensure that these clubs survive. We work constantly with the RFU and Sport England to ensure that the best assessment is made of support that is needed for the sector. I will continue to do that and raise the points that he highlighted.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

I welcome the news that more than 200 grassroots rugby, football and boxing organisations across England and Wales are to be awarded £5 million to put on local schemes. Does the Minister agree that, apart from the obvious health and wellbeing benefits, these schemes help to keep vulnerable young people out of antisocial behaviour and crime?

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is right. The power of sport is significant and far-reaching: it helps with health and wellbeing and, as he rightly points out, can be a great avenue for helping people not to be tempted into areas of crime. That is why grassroots sports will be a key focus of our sports strategy.

BBC Local Radio: Proposed Reduction in Provision

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

The NUJ is well represented here today, and I am sure it is grateful for that. Ofcom regulates the BBC, but we are undertaking a mid-term review and we shall seek Ofcom’s input into that. The hon. Gentleman raises the digital first strategy, which raises questions about whether the BBC is increasing its presence in online content and whether that has a knock-on effect on local journalism and other local outlets. Those are all issues that we are considering as part of the mid-term review, and I am grateful for his input.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Despite raising about 20% of its total revenue from the midlands, the BBC currently spends only about 2% of its total budget there. The BBC is often accused of being London-focused, London-centric and out of touch with the sentiment of the public outside the capital. Does the Minister agree that any further reductions in regional services will only exacerbate that perception?

[Julia Lopez]

That issue was a real passion of the former Secretary of State, who secured several commitments from the BBC about moving services out of London and trying to get better representative content, be that socioeconomic or regional and local. My hon. Friend raises an important question about whether the BBC adequately represents every corner of our country, and such questions are ripe for raising.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

My understanding is that some of the main challenges come from the Scottish Government’s R100 programme, which is making the roll-out rather challenging. His colleagues in Scotland have asked for Scotland to have more than the per premises cap, basically asking us to give more money to Scotland than we are giving to other parts of the country. I do not think that is fair, and I do not think we should be paying for the mistakes of the regime.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

A year ago, I and a number of colleagues from across the House had to intervene when, due to poor governance, Derby County football club went into administration and came within a few days of going out of business before being rescued by local supporter David Clowes. Can the Minister assure the House and all football fans that the recommendations of the fan-led review will be implemented in full, so that we can get better governance in this important industry?

[Stuart Andrew]

Sadly, my hon. Friend’s example demonstrates the need for reform within football. I can tell him that I am taking this matter incredibly seriously, which is why I want to take the time to review and ensure that we are getting this right. We want to give confidence to all the fans who enjoy this great sport.

Derby County Football Club

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this debate of huge local interest.

At this stage, the most constructive way to deal with this matter is to look at how we got here and what we can do to ensure that no club and no fans end up suffering the anguish that Derby fans have had to suffer over many months. We have to look at the historical actions of the English Football League, as mentioned by colleagues. There have been significant issues with its regulations. In 2016 an absolutely nonsensical regulation change relaxed the rules in order to allow clubs to sell their stadiums and still comply with the financial fair play regulations. I ask the Minister, what consideration did the English Football League give to the idea that owners that were looking to gamble would use this loophole to abuse the system, allowing them to spend huge amounts of money and separate the club from its stadium?

The history of football is littered with examples of the consequences of a club being separated from its stadium, and the financial problems that inevitably follow. Indeed, Wimbledon lost its entire club from the borough as a result of that loophole. The loophole has now been closed, but had the Derby County owner not had the option of selling the stadium in order to circumvent the financial fair play rules, then I do not think we would be having this debate today. There is no doubt in my mind that this presents a huge failing in regulation by the English Football League.

I turn next to the football creditor rule, of which Derby County also fell foul. Many weeks of the administration were spent dealing with legal claims against Derby County by Middlesbrough football club and, to a lesser extent, Wycombe Wanderers football club. During that time I spoke to both Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Middlesbrough football club owner about what, to many people, was a fairly opportunist and spurious claim that was undoubtedly causing huge problems for the sale of the club, because the claims for so-called cheating were categorised as a football debt by the English Football League, with a potential liability of over £40 million. That understandably made interested parties rather nervous, as no one can ever predict the outcome of any litigation with 100% certainty, and this was during an administration.

With the delays caused by this action, the value of the club decreased day after day and cost the creditors money, including the taxpayer through the liability to HMRC. This example will surely put pressure on the football creditor rule, a point about which I warned various regulators, including the English Football League, while we went through this very painful process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire has been particularly critical of the administrator, Quantuma. Some of her criticism is valid, and certainly the naivety and the failure of due diligence on the Kirchner bid was particularly erroneous. Quantuma has certainly been poor on communication, but I reserve some judgment. The administrator will be able to put its side of the story only when the Derby County sale is successfully completed and explain why certain actions had to be taken. We should be cautious about pre-judging that and give Quantuma the opportunity to defend itself.

However, it is certain that many Derby County supporters have suffered considerable distress over the past nine months or more, and many creditors have been left out of pocket. With a resolution looking likely, it is important that Members of this House take the necessary action to ensure that the Government do everything they can to learn from this painful process so that the same mistakes are not made again. I wish Derby County and its many supporters across the midlands the very best for the future, and I hope the new owners will cherish it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady is raising an incredibly important issue. Both girls and boys are covered under the provisions that protect children from harms. When we designate the list of harms, I expect that it will include eating-related matters and suicide and self-harm content, mindful of the terrible case of Molly Russell, who committed suicide after being bombarded on Instagram. We will also be publishing, in due course, the list of harms applying to adults. The penalties that will be applied if companies breach these duties include fines of up to 10% of global revenue, which tends to be about 100% of UK revenue. In extreme cases, if they persistently fail to comply, there are denial of service provisions, where these platforms’ ability to—[Interruption.] This is an important question. Their ability to transmit into the UK can be completely disconnected.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister consider amending the Online Safety Bill in the light of the Financial Conduct Authority’s recent warning that there has been an 86% increase in screen-sharing scams in just the past 12 months?

[Chris Philp]

Yes. The Bill is technology-agnostic, meaning that it does not refer specifically to technology because, obviously, technologies evolve all the time. My hon. Friend touches on fraud; the Bill was amended before its introduction to include in the scope of its duties advertisements that promote fraud, but I am happy to meet him to discuss further the particular issue he has raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

1. What discussions she has had with representatives of the racing industry on (a) developing a single customer view and (b) the forthcoming gambling White Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)]

I have had extensive conversations with the horse-racing industry and with hon. Members who represent constituencies with racing interests on the Gambling Act 2005 review in general and on the plans that the industry are voluntarily developing to share information on customers who are at severe risk of addictive gambling disorders.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Can the Minister confirm that when the draft proposals of the review are announced, there will be an impact assessment on the horse-racing industry? Will he meet me to discuss my alternative to the proposed single customer view, the single customer wallet, which would not only be cheaper and more efficient for the industry to bring in, but offer consumers better protections?

[Chris Philp]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his ideas. I assure him that proper impact assessments will be done. We know that horse-racing is a vital sport for the people who work in the industry. It supports many jobs, it provides leisure activities for many people, and it is a significant source of national pride and prestige. Nothing in the Gambling Act review, I hope, will do anything to undermine the financial condition of that great sport or its place at the heart of our national life.

English Football League Governance: Derby County FC

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. One of the issues addressed by the fan-led review is precisely the question that he refers to, and I know that as the Sports Minister works through the response to the fan-led review, answers to that reasonable and important question will be forthcoming.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Although I am a Leicestershire MP, many of my constituents who have written to me are loyal supporters of Derby County and are hugely concerned about the future of the club. Derby County is in administration, and it accrued or built up £30 million of tax liabilities under the previous owner. If the club goes into liquidation, those moneys due to the Treasury will be at risk. Given this really quite huge financial vested interest of the Government in the survival of Derby County, what are they doing to ensure that the obstacles to a successful takeover are removed, to secure the future of this iconic football club and also secure the moneys due to the Treasury?

[Chris Philp]

The Treasury, or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs I should say, as an unsecured creditor, is like any other unsecured creditor, and the administrator will treat it fairly and even-handedly, as it would treat any creditor in this situation. I do not think the existence of that debt, among other debts, is the obstacle to completion of the transaction; other issues to do with outstanding legal proceedings and matters that the EFL is responsible for are more immediate obstacles. That is why I repeat my call for the EFL and those other clubs, such as Middlesbrough, pragmatically to get this situation resolved as quickly as possible.

Gambling and Lotteries

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Lady. I am well aware of her campaigning on this issue over a long period of time, and I thank her for that input. There is a difference between lottery-based games and other forms of gambling. There is evidence to suggest, for example, that the gambling harm is lower in the lottery than in other forms of gambling, and therefore there is a difference between the types. As I say, however, this move is an important one today, and I appreciate that she welcomes it.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Given that the recent Public Accounts Committee report on gambling regulation declared that the Gambling Commission

“do not know what impact they are having on problem gambling, or what measures would demonstrate whether regulation is working”,

will the Minister use the opportunity of the review to assess whether the Gambling Commission itself is fit for purpose, or needs to be replaced by a new body to provide the real leadership needed on the issue of gambling regulation?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am aware of the comments made in the Public Accounts Committee report. I appreciate the work that it and, indeed, many others have done in providing input on this issue for a long period. As I have said, I do not wish to pre-empt any of the conclusions of the review. This is a call for evidence at this stage, and therefore recommendations and suggestions for future regulation will be welcome.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

We have all heard the Government say that they can mitigate the risks of Huawei being involved in the roll-out of 5G, but my response to those security briefings was that the Government do not have to persuade me; they have to persuade our Five Eyes partners. If the Government cannot persuade the Americans, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians that they can mitigate the risk, it does not matter whether they can mitigate it or not, as we will lose access to that security information, and that is a price we cannot pay.

[Dr Fox]

Although I accept my hon. Friend’s point, I think the Government’s first duty is to persuade the House of Commons that we are not taking a risk with our national security.

I want to come briefly to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) about reputation. It is beyond doubt that countries around the world will be looking to the United Kingdom to see what decision we make. If we send out the signal that we, a country that is so highly regarded in terms of our national security infrastructure, think it is all right to involve Huawei in our 5G, others will follow. In fact, it is worse than that; we are already being cited as an example by other countries who intend to make that decision. Today, we have an opportunity to pause and say that the United Kingdom cannot be cited as a precedent, because we have not yet taken that decision—and hopefully we never will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend has obviously done a great deal of research on this subject. Does the fact that Huawei is offering very generous interest-free credit terms for its equipment set alarm bells ringing? In some cases, it is offering up to 30 years’ interest-free credit for its kit.

[Bob Seely]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Huawei seems to have two business models. It either undercuts by 30% to 40%, or it simply supplies 115% of the credit needed to buy an entire system. Either way, it undercuts and drives others out of business. I look forward to addressing that point in a moment.

The true voice of GCHQ, without the spin, is found in the Huawei oversight reports, which have become increasingly disturbing. I repeat: we hear the true voice of GCHQ not in the words of Ministers, but in those of the Huawei oversight board. For any colleagues who wish to access the details, if they join our WhatsApp group, which has well over 40 members, I will happily pass them on.

The board found that it could

“only provide limited assurance that all risks to UK national security from Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s critical networks can be sufficiently mitigated”

over time. In other words, the board is saying, “We can no longer give assurance.” This is the board speaking—it is not political spin. It added that, “as reported in 2018”, its work

“has continued to identify concerning issues in Huawei’s approach to software development…No material progress has been made on the issues raised in the previous 2018 report”.

It also stated:

“The Oversight Board advises that it will be difficult to appropriately risk-manage future products in the context of UK deployments, until the underlying defects in Huawei’s software engineering and”—

critically—

“cyber security processes are remediated

At present, the Oversight Board has not yet seen anything to give it confidence in Huawei’s capacity to successfully complete the elements of its transformation programme”.

If I received that as a bill of health, I would be extremely worried. That is the true voice of GCHQ.