Media Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Thangam Debbonaire

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State knows, I welcome the introduction of this important and long-overdue Bill. I start by making her an offer: I will work with her on a cross-party basis to get the Bill into law as quickly as possible, subject to the proper scrutiny that would be expected from His Majesty’s Opposition. Britain’s public service broadcasters must be fully equipped with the tools they need to thrive in this intensified era of internet and on-demand television. That is why Labour has been calling on the Government for some time to bring forward many of the measures in the Bill. And it is not just Labour; Ofcom, Select Committees of both Houses, the public service broadcasters, consumers and industry leaders across the sector all back the Bill and want to see it passed into law, and some have done so for many years.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Further to the point I made to the Secretary of state, and further to the shadow Minister’s excellent point about working co-operatively across the House, would she support a straightforward amendment to protect Gaelic language broadcasting? I hope the Government will do so too.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I cannot say whether I would support an amendment until I have seen it, but despite a specific mention of “Gaelic-language content” in the briefing note on the King’s Speech, there seems to be no mention of protecting Gaelic language broadcasting in the Bill, which gives me cause for concern.

I am sure that the Secretary of State understands how frustrating the delay has been to everyone involved and how, unfortunately, it seems to our public service broadcasters, the creative industries and all the talented people who work in them that the Government do not care about them. Much of the delay was down to the pointless war on Channel 4: were the Government going to sell it off and did they think it was publicly funded? Nadine Dorries, their 10th Culture Secretary in 13 years, certainly seemed to think so, which slowed down the Bill.

Not content with chipping away for more than a decade at our remarkably resilient British creative industries, they attempted to take their Tory wrecking ball straight to one of our finest institutions, costing Channel 4 and other PSBs time that they could have used to get on the stronger footing with their international competitors that the Secretary of State has described today. If only the Bill had come sooner.

Selling off Channel 4 was never going to work. It was wrong for viewers and it has only done damage to our creative industries. The Government should not have been contemplating it in the first place. With all that time wasted, looking inwards and wrangling with themselves, they held our public service broadcasters back. The resulting delay to the Bill and all the consequences of that have to sit squarely with the Government. Never again must our PSBs be treated with such disdain.

It may seem like a non sequitur, but the Culture, Media and Sport Committee undertook incredibly thoughtful pre-legislative scrutiny. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the Committee’s work added considerably to the quality of the legislation across the piece.

PSBs are important to the wider creative economy because they stimulate growth, create quality jobs and nurture British talent across all our nations and regions, so I welcome the measures in the Bill to boost that success further, particularly those ensuring that PSBs are always carried and given prominence on smart TVs, set-top boxes and streaming sticks. There is still debate about whether “appropriate” prominence, as it is described in the Bill, goes far enough. Would “significant prominence” avoid confusion? As we set the framework and as the Bill moves to Committee, we have to explore what being clear about the mandate to Ofcom actually means.

For many people, the most important part of the Bill is the recognition that PSBs bring us joy and their unique universality brings tens of millions of us together, whether to cheer on the Lionesses, watch Elton at Glastonbury or mourn the late Queen. At a time where loneliness is at an all-time peak, public service content keeps us connected. It is a string threaded through homes in every city, town and village in this country. I welcome the important modernisations to the listed events regime in the Bill—there is a lot to welcome in the Bill—including closing the streamer loophole, so that TV-like services that provide live content via the internet, such as the World cup and Wimbledon, will be brought within scope in the listed events legislation.

However, unfortunately the Government have not taken on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendation to include digital on-demand rights in the regime, so on-demand highlights and online clips can be kept behind paywalls. I know the Government are conducting a review on digital rights, but the deadline for responses to their consultation was last year. I urge the Secretary of State to look down the back of the Culture, Media and Sport sofa—I am very fond of sofa metaphors, I am afraid, so hon. Members may hear more about sofas later—pull that review out and tell us what is in it? If the results of the consultation are not ready in time to be included in the Bill, will the Government include an enabling provision to allow digital rights to be added later?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The Father of the House is quite right to draw attention to the Voice of the Listener and Viewer—I believe that organisation is on my call list, so I will chase that up following his kind and sensible suggestion.

Another broad area that I ask the Secretary of State to look at again is children and young people’s television, which has been one of public service broadcasting’s biggest contributions to the life of our country. I am sure we can all name our favourite programmes, which might reveal the age of hon. Members. For me, they are “Jackanory”, “Grange Hill” and “The Magic Roundabout”, but for others they might be “Byker Grove” and “The Story of Tracy Beaker”, tackling issues rarely seen elsewhere in the media. Colleagues are welcome to mention their own favourite TV programmes.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

“The Wombles”.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Interesting. The hon. Gentleman obviously appreciates the importance of tidying up.

Sadly, I fear that the importance of children’s TV has been lost in the Bill. There has been a dramatic shift in the viewing habits of young people, particularly children over the age of 7, as increasingly parents no longer control viewing. Coupled with the long-term reduction in commissioning of original UK content for children, I am concerned that the Bill does not go far enough.

The Government must ensure that the next generation does not miss out on the high-quality, culturally relevant storytelling, such as “The Wombles”, for which our generations are so thankful to our public service broadcasters. I think I will develop a Wombles theme now. These programmes have a powerful influence on a child’s development. They provide role models—I am sure the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is an assiduous tidier up as a result of what he watched as a child—inspire ambition and encourage social inclusion. They engage participation in national conversations and develop a child’s understanding, valuing and ownership of what it means to be British.

Children’s TV also makes a significant contribution to the economy and provides quality jobs. It is a key part of our soft power too, promoting tolerance, logic and fair play to children all over the world. The Government must consider the wider consequences for public service broadcasters if children are not consuming as much content as they used to. It is unhelpful for the long-term interests of our public service broadcasters if a generation has little experience of their content. Will the Secretary of State think carefully about how she can work with public service broadcasters to get more quality UK-made children’s content and, crucially, make sure it is as accessible as possible to them?

The Bill is designed to allow current public service broadcasters to fulfil their obligations by taking into account their online delivery platforms, but children also spend a massive proportion of their time on Disney+ or on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube. I urge the Secretary of State to speak with those platforms about how they can provide more quality public service content produced here in the UK.

Strengthening Standards in Public Life

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Thangam Debbonaire

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House:

(1) endorses the 2018 recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that Members should be banned from any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant;

(2) instructs the Committee on Standards to draw up proposals to implement this and to report by 31 January 2022; and

(3) orders that on the expiry of fifteen sitting days from the date on which the Committee makes its report to the House, if no debate has been held on a substantive motion relating to recommendations in that report, the Speaker shall give precedence to a substantive motion on the recommendations in that report tabled thereafter by any Member.

At the risk of repeating myself—unfortunately, it seems I must—standards in public life are fundamental to our democracy. I have reminded the Leader of the House several times over the past few weeks what those standards are, and I will do so again, just to make sure that he and his colleagues have taken them in. They are, of course, the Nolan principles of public life, and there are seven of them: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. We should all aspire to them and cherish them, as I said yesterday.

I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider those principles when they make their decision on which Division Lobby to walk through later this afternoon, because those values must underpin all that we do in this House and on behalf of our constituents outside this House. It is our constituents and the country that we serve, not private interests. We are not paid MPs for hire.

Over the past two weeks, I am afraid to say—it gives me no pleasure—that we have seen some of the very worst of some on the Government Benches. That has included refusing to deal with one of their own MPs found guilty of sexual harassment and then trying to change the rules on standards to protect one of their mates who had broken the rules. That leaves the reputation of Parliament and our precious democracy in danger of disrepute. The Prime Minister had to publicly decree last week that the UK is not a “corrupt country”.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On that point about the UK’s being a corrupt country and standards in public life, in 2006 we knew that peerages for £1 million were finding Labour party people going to the House of Lords. The coincidence is that now Tories with £3 million get into the House of Lords. Lord Oakeshott of the Liberals said in 2014 that he bemoaned the fact that he had not ended the practice when he left. Does the hon. Lady think that all party leaders of those parties that are putting people into the House of Lords should cap the donation level at £50,000, as suggested in the amendment I tabled, so that there can be no more sniff or smell of corruption in the UK with cash for peerages continuing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely helpful point and I hope he will be expanding on it further later.

With the reputation of Parliament at risk of being ripped apart thanks to the actions of this Government, particularly in the past two weeks, they must start to restore trust in our democracy. There is a way they can do that: they can back this Opposition motion.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I have a simple question: why will the Labour party not categorically state that it will not be sending high-value donors to the House of Lords, for a five-year period or whatever?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

What we are doing today is starting the process of making Parliament accountable and making sure that there are good rules. We are making sure that when Members of Parliament are for sale they are not allowed to be for sale. I invite all Members, in all parts of the House, be they Scottish National party Members or Tories, to vote for this motion. I invite them all to vote for a very clear motion, which does what the Prime Minister said yesterday that he wanted to do. If Conservative Members want to vote for what the Prime Minister said he wanted to do, they need to vote for our motion today, as does every other Member.

My right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the Labour party also said yesterday that we need to strengthen our system radically. He proposed various things, which are not in scope of today’s debate, so I will not go into them, but I think that what the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Sorry, I should have said “Leader of the Opposition”; it is an easy mistake to make, because I would like him to be Prime Minister. What the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday was indicate clearly and strongly to everyone, from all parties, that we need stronger standards, not weaker ones. Today we have the first step and the first step only. I expect that the Prime Minister will be joining us in the Lobby today—the Aye Lobby—on our motion, because it seems to be coterminous with what he said. But the Prime Minister’s letter to Mr Speaker, which he tweeted out yesterday, was a bit of a surprise, given that the Committee on Standards in Public Life report came out three years ago. That is where these recommendations came from. In three years, we have had no response from the Government, until yesterday, when it looked as though the Prime Minister was in a bit of difficulty and needed something to get out of it with. Two weeks ago, all we had was the Government seeming to urge the standards commissioner to resign and ripping up the entire system.

I said yesterday that I do not expect that the Leader of the House listens to my every word, but perhaps I was wrong and those on the Government Benches have been paying close attention to what I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and future Prime Minister have been saying. Perhaps they have been convinced by my argument—our argument—that our standards system is crucial and needs to be protected, enhanced, strengthened and never weakened. Just yesterday, five former Cabinet Secretaries—all the living former Cabinet Secretaries—wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to strengthen standards. He could show that he has listened to them by backing our motion; if I look at the amendment he has tabled, that does not seem to me to be the case. His amendment certainly would not strengthen the system and already seems to be a rowing back on what he said just about 24 hours ago. One minute it seems that the Prime Minister has been backed into a corner and is ready to accept our motion; the next minute he comes forward with a toothless amendment.

If Government Members vote down our motion in favour of the Prime Minister’s wrecking amendment, let us be clear what they will be voting for. I want them all to pay attention, because I think some of them wish they had paid more attention two weeks ago. Our motion, and only our motion, will guarantee that this House and these Members will get to vote on the Standards Committee’s recommendations to strengthen our code of conduct. It is our motion, and only our motion, that will fulfil the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Prime Minister’s amendment does nothing but water down our motion. It is yet another example of the Government trying to sweep sleaze under the rug without dealing with it.

We all know that to be elected to this House as a Member of Parliament is a privilege, and one that the vast majority of Members treat with the seriousness and respect it deserves. The passing of our motion will dispel an unfortunate perception that MPs can be hired out, which is of course not the case with almost every MP in this House, apart from the ones the Government are trying to protect—their private business interests come before the interests of their constituents. That is not what we want the public to think because it should never, ever be true. Our motion will ensure that the public know that no MP’s power, influence or position is for sale—

Refugee Family Reunion

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Thangam Debbonaire

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Yes, and the more we are aware of and we see the big tide of support for refugees, the quieter the more mean-minded voices become. I think it was the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) who mentioned in a previous debate that when we drill down with the public—and engage with and talk to them about refugees, and are not afraid of the arguments—we see that, despite what some in the media would like to say, the public do come on board, and that in fact they are doing that anyway. We need to catch up in our public discourse and debate with what members of the public are doing in Sheffield, in Canterbury, in charity shops in Stornoway, Orkney, Shetland, Land’s End or wherever, or in Ireland and other countries. People are doing this everywhere, and people do have an understanding of, and sympathy towards, refugees.

When I was dealing with my private Member’s Bill, it became clear to me that it gave hope to people, even when it had completed just its first stage in Parliament. That brought home to me the responsibility I had. First, I had to deliver the bad news that we were only through the first stage, because there are many stages for Bills to go through, and that it therefore might not become law. We must still wait for a money resolution. I am sure that the Home Office will be generous and make sure we do have that money resolution, but we must then get the Bill through Committee and guide it through the Lords. There are therefore other steps to take, and in addition to that—this is probably strange for Opposition Members to think about—we do need parliamentary stability, because if we have another election in the next wee while, that private Member’s Bill will be gone, which will affect refugees who are looking for hope.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Of course there are possible solutions to that, and one of them might come now.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) for giving way, in part because it gives me an opportunity to practise my pronunciation of his constituency.

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in redoubling efforts to encourage the Minister to commit today to urging her colleagues to bring forward that money resolution? After all, if the Government do not like the Bill, they can always vote it down at a later stage, but to block it due to the lack of a money resolution, particularly in Refugee Week, would feel very frustrating.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Lady’s pronunciation of my constituency was excellent. Some Members might feel they are a bit of a refugee in this Parliament when trying to say the name of my constituency, or indeed they might think I am the refugee. Either way, the hon. Lady’s point is absolutely on the money.

I hope that the Home Office will take this point on board. I have had some discussions with Government Whips about the money resolution, and the lights so far have been going green. We have yet to move on to the Home Office itself, but that is coming, and I am hoping for further green lights.

In 2012, legal aid was taken away from refugees, but that did not happen in Scotland. Moreover, if Scotland were independent, I am sure we would be in line with other European countries, and I hope that the UK as it is at the moment ensures that child refuges have the same rights as adult refugees. That is what my private Member’s Bill tries to do. Some Members have expressed a strong concern about children being sent ahead as anchors, but that does not stack up at all, given the rights that adult refugees have anyway and the fact that that does not happen in other European countries. Anyway, who uses members of their family as bargaining chips?

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

It truly is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien), who makes an excellent case for why we should improve the welcome we give refugees. I am glad he feels that way. It was good to hear about the lovely things his constituency organisations are doing to welcome refugees, and I thank him for that. I also thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) for bringing us this debate today, in Refugee Week, and for marking the fact that yesterday was World Refugee Day by reading out the moving and beautiful poem that was read by its author, a young refugee, so movingly in Speaker’s House yesterday.

This debate is an opportunity for us to celebrate, welcome and improve the huge contribution that refugees make to this country. My constituency has been particularly enriched by people who have made long and often arduous, dangerous journeys across continents, fleeing war, persecution and other disasters. As chair of the all-party group on refugees, I ask myself every day: what can we do in this place to improve the way this country treats refugees? I know we can do this, and I think it is part of who we are as a country to do better.

As hon. Members will know, we are living through a global migration crisis: 65 million people were forcibly displaced in 2016, through poverty, environmental disaster, war, conflict and persecution. We have moral, as well as legal, obligations to assist, but we currently take only a tiny fraction of those people. Refugee family reunion is one area where we can make a difference. Current laws and international agreements exist to help reunite separated families, but they do not go far enough and leave many refugee families separated by international borders. The Second Reading of the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill on refugee family reunion, including the right to legal aid, was really significant. The fact that a huge number of MPs turned up to a Friday sitting was a testament to the fact that not only do those MPs, from right across the House, care about refugee rights, but their constituents are also concerned. Our making that difficult decision to be here on a Friday usually has to be done with some level of informed consent, informal or otherwise, from our constituents, whose engagements we may have had to cancel.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I want, again, to put on the record the fact that we had Members from five political parties coming in on Friday 16 March to support us, which was very much welcomed and appreciated.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It seems to me that, as he said, this argument is cutting through: someone with confirmed refugee status should be able to live with their family. To be clear, for the record, we are talking about people who have their status settled and want to be with their family. I agree with the points that some Members make about clarifying who is who and whether or not they have a right to be here, but we do have a process and once someone has their status confirmed, they should be allowed to be reunited with their family. I will be working with the hon. Gentleman and others to capitalise on this political and public progress, and push the progress of this Bill and a separate similar Bill in the House of Lords. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, whom I know to be a very honourable woman. I have had meetings with her and was pleased to discuss these matters with her. I hope she can commit today at least to bringing forward the money resolution, so that we can get this Bill moving and at least debate this, to the satisfaction of our constituents as well as Members across the House.

It is a difficult and perhaps tense moment to mention the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as we have spent a lot of time on it over the past few months. Indeed, I cannot remember a time when we were not debating it, although it now looks like that period is coming to a close. As part of that Bill, I was glad the Government took on a significant part of the amendment from my friend and colleague Lord Alf Dubs, as well as that proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). She proposed additional changes to maintain the current situation in relation to the obligations we have under our membership of the EU and the Dublin III convention. I am not going to go into detail, but I wish to acknowledge that that is a positive step, although it does not remove the need for the private Members’ Bills to make further progress, as those provisions do not contain all that those Bills contain.

I wish to echo what the hon. Member for Harborough has said about the right to work and tentatively suggest to all colleagues that they should remember that refugees come here with skills and want to work. They do not come here to claim benefits. They want to contribute. Every refugee I have ever met has said, “I want to contribute my skills.” They want to be able to work, but, except with specific permission, they are not allowed to until they have been granted asylum by the Home Office. That would be okay, except that the Home Office target to complete asylum decisions within six months is frequently missed. In my case load, for whatever reason—I am prepared to accept there may be good reasons—that target is, unfortunately, more often honoured in the breach than in the observance. It is often missed by months or even years, which means that skilled people are meanwhile left without opportunities to maintain their skills, support their families and contribute to the national and local economy. This also makes it harder for them to integrate when they are eventually given status. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, they often face restrictions on volunteering. This makes family life harder and makes it particularly difficult for people to get towards the point where they can earn the money they need to reunite their family members and bring their families back together.

Hon. Members may or not be aware that, by contrast, Uganda allows refugees to work immediately, and provides them with land to grow food on and start-up finance to set up their own businesses, if that is what they wish to do. Other countries have also given us useful models. We should at the very least consider a principle of the right to work after six months, which would also encourage the Minister’s Department to end those delays, and the right to volunteer until they can work. I would prefer us to move towards a system where the default setting is the right to work or the right to volunteer, and ideally both. Of course, we need to discuss that and how it would work, but I would like us at least to be considering it as a principle.

There are many other things we can do to improve the way we treat refugees and reunite families, including ending indefinite immigration detention. That is not the subject of this debate, so I am not going to discuss it. We could also restore legal aid, so that refugees can be reunited with their families; prioritise free, high-quality English language teaching; and do more to create safe and legal routes to the UK, with refugee schemes such as the excellent vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. I applaud the Government’s efforts to keep that scheme going and make it is as good as it is, but I would like it to be made easier to make in-country or border applications for asylum and resettlement. Keeping people in refugee camps or on the borders at best leaves people in limbo for years and at worst creates a recruiting ground for people traffickers and people who sexually exploit women. We all want to prevent those dangerous journeys—we share that aim—but the way of preventing them is not by making it harder to claim family reunion; it is by increasing safe and legal routes.

Refugees and Human Rights

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Thangam Debbonaire

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

rose—

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I respect the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, but time is limited.

I hear criticisms of the human-rights approach, and I have read them on social media. People say that when we welcome refugees we are letting in terrorists, and we should beware of the pull factor. For a start, there is no good evidence of a pull factor; there is evidence only of the determination of refugees to support themselves and their families, and to escape to wherever they can best do that. I strongly urge Members to come to the House on 16 March to support the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill, which will be presented by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).

It is important to unpick the argument about terrorism. The 1951 convention makes a clear distinction between refugees and criminals. Being a refugee is not a crime, but being a criminal, or of criminal intent, means that a host country is entitled to restrict or cease its hospitality. However, leaving people trapped, with their movements restricted and their human rights held down, risks turning once desperate people into very angry people—and anger is a breeding ground for those who would recruit followers to ideologies of hate who wish to harm us. So my fifth and final rationale for a human-rights approach to refugees is a national-security one.

On the basis of moral, legal, economic and national-security arguments, and also for the sake of our standing in the world, we urgently need the Government to take a human-rights approach to foreign policy in general and refugees in particular. I think that we in the United Kingdom are proud to be instinctive humanitarians. We all represent people who want us, in Parliament and in Government, to take every opportunity to broker peace, promote human rights and treat refugees as human beings. I urge the Government to support the motion.