Football Governance Bill

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I also rise to welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I have to admit that we on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee were wondering whether this day would ever come, but the Government appear to have been inspired by the mighty Portsmouth football club, who last week secured victory and promotion to the championship with a last-minute goal. It is edge-of-the-seat sporting drama like that that makes British football the best in the world, right from the very bottom to the top—from the millionaires at the top of the premier league to grassroots clubs such as Gosport Borough, who have treated fans to a romping season. They play in the southern football league and sit tantalisingly in the promotion zone. Of course, there is also Fleetlands FC, who are pushing for promotion in division 1 of the Wessex league.

Here in Parliament, we have also been kept on the edge of our seats, eagerly awaiting this Bill that could potentially reshape the landscape of football governance. Over the past few years, instability off the pitch, not the action on it, has increasingly grabbed the headlines. Soaring levels of debt have led to the collapse of clubs such as Bury and Macclesfield, an experience shared by so many fans in communities up and down the country devastated by the demise of their beloved clubs. The debt problem is getting worse: premier league clubs have reported staggering losses of over £1.2 billion over the past 12 months alone, and the figures in the championship are looking just as shocking, with Leicester losing £90 million in 2022-23.

Fans of clubs such as Everton and Reading are sick of seeing them mismanaged through the reckless decision making of irresponsible owners. Just last week, the House heard of the pain of Torquay United fans, whose club has entered into administration following years of flawed business plans. Unreliable owners who do not have the interests of their club or its fans at heart, and are prepared to play fast and loose with their finances and their future, should be held accountable. As a lifelong Pompey fan, I feel their pain: after a series of disastrous owners, it took a fan-led buy-out in 2012 to save our club, demonstrating that our fans were literally prepared to pay up in order to stay up—or, in fact, to stay afloat—such was their dedication and commitment.

The failure of English football’s wealthiest clubs, those in the premier league, to agree a financial distribution deal is putting the fabric of our national game at risk. This situation has dragged on for far too long, and it has been especially disappointing to see the Premier League spending time and money lobbying MPs and peers against the Bill, rather than lobbying its clubs to secure a fair deal for English football. Decisions are repeatedly being made in the interests of the top of the football pyramid without a thought for the vital ecosystem that generates its lifeblood. Scrapping FA cup replays may be welcome in some quarters, but once again it is a characteristically messy number, denying lower-league sides that all-important financial boost. We need a change of tactics, so I know that fans across the country will welcome these plans to introduce a regulator and attempt to bring some stability to the game.

Of course, that is not to say that the new independent regulator will be the silver bullet that the Government have sometimes presented it as. The problems faced by football are extensive and complex, and there are still some areas where I would like to see more clarification and further work as the Bill progresses. I will talk through a couple of those now.

Widening financial distribution across the football pyramid will be the ultimate test of the Bill. Last year, our Committee urged the Premier League and the EFL to urgently agree a new deal to redistribute a higher proportion of revenue throughout the football pyramid. We recommended that in the absence of such a deal, the Government should expedite their plans to establish a regulator with the power to mandate a solution. I am pleased to see that the Bill aims to address this issue by giving the independent regulator the backstop power to intervene in the distribution of broadcast revenue, but that power is subject to certain thresholds being met, and it excludes the controversial parachute payments within the pot that we have already heard about. We need reassurance that the regulator has the teeth to trigger its own backstop powers and impose a fair settlement, when and where it deems necessary and without any undue delay. We also need an indication from the Government of how the regulator will curb the reckless spending of clubs trying to keep up with those in receipt of parachute payments.

Enhanced financial regulation across the football pyramid is really welcome. It will improve the resilience of clubs, encourage sensible financial decisions and ensure that risks are mitigated. However, given that the regulator will not oversee regulations such as the Premier League profitability and sustainability rules or the squad cost controls that are set to replace those rules, the Government need to provide clarity on how both systems will work alongside each other and reassurance as to why they deemed it unsuitable for the regulator to take on this responsibility.

When it comes to owners, I am really pleased to see that the regulator will establish a new, strengthened owners and directors test to ensure that a club’s custodians are suitable for the role. I welcome the fact that the Bill confers enforcement powers on the independent regulator to protect clubs from any harm that an irresponsible owner or officer might cause and to be able to remove them, but we need further detail on what precisely will happen to those clubs that have an unsuitable owner removed. We need to understand how the regulator would remove another potential Dai Yongge from Reading without compromising the future of the club and ultimately punishing its fans. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how the Bill will safeguard clubs that find themselves in the position of having no owner, no financial safety net to keep them going and potentially no prospective buyers on the horizon.

We have already heard from Members that football is nothing without its fans, and I am pleased to see the Bill placing fan engagement requirements on the clubs as well as requiring them to comply with heritage protections and to seek approval for the sale or relocation of their home ground. But the Bill does not go quite so far as requiring fans to have a golden share, as recommended in the excellent fan-led review led by my hon. Friend—and real-life friend—the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch). At this point, it would be terribly remiss of me not to add my congratulations to her and the whole team who have put an enormous amount of brilliant work into getting the Bill to this stage. As the Bill progresses, I want to be sure that it provides a way for fans to share their concerns about their club with the regulator and to know that they will not be dismissed. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has agreed to hold a pre-appointment hearing with the chair of the independent regulator once the Government have a preferred candidate, and I expect that this will be one of the first questions we will be asking them.

Ultimately, there are two main questions that I want to see answered by this legislation. First, does it deliver for football and its fans? Secondly, to what extent will it prevent some of the distressing times that clubs like Reading are currently undergoing? There is more to be done on the Bill—and indeed the guidance that goes alongside it—to ensure that it fully meets those aims. We cannot overlook the huge economic value, the sense of community cohesion, and the moments of both local and national pride that football gives us; nor can we ignore the vital importance of a football pyramid that delivers at every single level. I know that some, including the Premier League, have concerns about unintended consequences, so the Select Committee has written to them to give them a chance to set out exactly what they would change—because there have been plenty of chances for the sceptics to prove that this Bill is not needed. Given that this is one of the biggest overhauls in the history of English football, we must do it right.

I congratulate Ministers, particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), on getting the Bill to this stage. I look forward to his responses and to hearing what more can be done to secure a clear win—and, just like Pompey, can we do it well before the end of the season?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am putting in place a seven-minute time limit to ensure that everybody gets as equal a chance to speak as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. She talked about one of the substantial funds that we have to help repair and restore museums, heritage sites and other activities. I am glad that that is making a big difference in her constituency. We have been looking into the important area of how historic buildings can reduce their energy consumption. It is obviously difficult, since 2% of buildings in the UK are listed. We want to help them to reduce their energy consumption, which is a particular challenge for owners of historic homes. Historic England has guidance to help museums, and we will look at what more we can do.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

When it comes to valuable heritage assets, I am really concerned about those housed in the grounds of our many military estates which are not bound by any of the obligations to maintain and care for them. In many cases, the Ministry of Defence and others are pursuing a policy of managed decline, which is allowing those valuable heritage assets to rot under our very noses. May I encourage the Minister—in fact, the Secretary of State—to speak with Ministers in the Ministry of Defence to challenge that policy and see what can be done to address it? I give her advance warning that I am keen to look at that as part of a Select Committee inquiry.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. It is something that we support when an asset is in the community rather than on the existing military estate. I recently visited the battle of Britain bunker at RAF Uxbridge, where there has been an amazing partnership with the local council. She raised an issue specifically about MOD sites that are still in use, which we shall be very happy to look into for her.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

This country is proud to have hosted the Commonwealth games twice in the past decade, most recently in Birmingham. I have had conversations with the Commonwealth Games Federation on its plans, and I know it is currently considering a host of options. I will see what it comes out with before I commit to any further engagement.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the magnificent and mighty Portsmouth football club on winning League One and securing promotion to the championship this week? Does she agree with me that Pompey’s fantastic victory demonstrates the magic of football in bringing communities together, inspiring young people and encouraging health and fitness?

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

Clearly, the hon. Lady does not understand the charity sector if that is the position she is taking. Having worked in it for 16 years, I will not be lectured on this. For example, I found that the hospices I worked in were able to respond to the needs of families in a much better and more holistic way than the state sector could. I am proud of the contribution that charities make to this country, and long may that continue.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

9. What discussions she has had with representatives of the creative industries on the impact of AI on that sector.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)]

I recognise the enormous potential of AI, but also its risks. I have had extensive engagement with the creative sector on these issues, including a series of roundtable talks on AI with, among others, media, music and film representatives. I am now working closely with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on a programme of further engagement with the sector.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but creators across the creative industries are concerned about AI developers, some of whom are worth as much as $100 billion, using their works without consent and without compensation. The inability of the Government’s working group to agree a code of practice on AI and intellectual property fuels concerns that the status quo is working only for the developers. This will be a growing problem. If a voluntary code is not going to be possible, how will the Government and her Department in particular ensure that creators will be paid fairly when their work is exploited?

[Lucy Frazer]

I understand this issue and the concerns that my hon. Friend has mentioned. I know that, as Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, she understands and appreciates these matters. I want to assure her that the conclusion of the initial public offering working group is absolutely not the end of our work to find an appropriate regulatory solution for AI. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that AI development supports rather than undermines human creativity. For example, we will be focusing on ensuring greater transparency from AI developers and that AI outputs are properly attributed. It is also right, as she highlights, that creators should be compensated for their work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for telling us what the Scottish National party is doing. I had understood that it was cutting a substantial amount from the arts budget. We have been supporting, for instance, the Edinburgh grassroots hub. I think there is a great deal of appetite in this place for a solution; I also think that the best option is for those in the industry to get together, and we are backing discussions of that kind. Indeed, before I went on leave I talked to Mark Davyd of the Music Venue Trust about the issue.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I, too, warmly welcome the Minister back to her place. She mentioned the £5 million for the supporting grassroots music fund, and that is greatly welcomed, but let us be clear: festivals, rehearsal spaces and independent promoters are also eligible for the fund. That is a lot of mouths to feed. They are all important parts of the ecosystem, and they all need funds. In real terms, this is a tiny amount of money for grassroots music venues. Is my hon. Friend pushing the Treasury to expand that funding to ensure that it can go further?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Lady for drawing on her expertise in this regard, and for the work that the Select Committee is doing. I am going to provide that dreadful answer: ahead of the Budget, we will be discussing all these matters with the Treasury.

Media Bill

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am delighted to speak in this debate, not least because although the Government have been committed to a media Bill for a long time, it has always been with that well-worn caveat, “when parliamentary time allows”. I am really grateful to both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for their kind words about the work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. I am pleased that one of our first recommendations to be adopted by the Government was to include the Bill in this Session, and I am even more delighted that it has been introduced so quickly following the King’s Speech.

So much has changed since the last piece of major media legislation was passed 20 years ago, in the days when broadcasters decided when their programmes could be watched, TV was almost entirely analogue and only about 4% of the country had any form of access to the internet. But not everything has changed. Public service broadcasters remain at the heart of the UK’s media ecosystem, providing content that enriches our culture, our society and our democracy, and radio remains resilient, despite the environment in which it operates changing beyond recognition. It falls to us to pass legislation that both recognises the immense way in which technology and audience behaviour has changed and preserves the future of our valued PSBs and radio stations for years to come.

I am really pleased to see that the Government have accepted the majority of our Committee’s recommendations following our hard work on the Bill. The changes make the Bill more effective, closing the loophole that allows an unregulated streaming service to buy the rights for a listed sporting event and then stick it behind a pay wall. They make it more workable, improving the drafting of how the must-offer and must-carry carriage deals between PSBs and platforms should be negotiated. They make the Bill more proportionate, exempting news and sport from the requirement for on-demand content to be available for 30 days if it is to count towards a PSB’s remit. They make it more futureproofed, ensuring that the definition of an internet radio service can be amended to reflect changing audience habits or use of technology, and they make the Bill clearer, by ensuring that Channel 4’s sustainability duty is compatible with its existing statutory obligations.

There remain a few areas where the Bill will benefit from further discussion as it progresses, and I would like to pick up on a few of those today. The first is the issue of genres, which some Members have talked about. Ensuring prominence for our public service broadcasters is central to the Bill, but it is the obligation on them to provide high-quality and diverse programming that enables us to make the argument for prominence so incontrovertibly.

The changes to the public service broadcasting remit are significant. Other than news and current affairs, the Bill will remove the genres in the Communications Act 2003—for example, religious and arts programming, or children’s programming; I will not be drawn into the trap of discussing my favourite, because my dad may well be watching the debate—and replace them with an obligation to provide programming that reflects the lives and concerns of the UK’s different communities and cultural interests and traditions. That simplifies the remit of PSBs and the enforcement of it for Ofcom, but at what cost?

In our inquiry, the Committee found that these changes have received far less attention than other aspects of the Bill. Funnily enough, it was something that the PSBs themselves did not want to linger on in their evidence to us, but that is all the more reason why we need to consider whether these changes are the right ones. It is true that much of what people regard as public service content is now provided by a wide range of providers beyond PSBs and sometimes for free—for example, on Sky Arts—but not all genres are served in that way, and we need to be sure that the Bill gets the balance right.

With regard to prominence, obligations on our PSBs must be fairly balanced with the benefits that they are going to see. The harder it is to find public service broadcasting content, the less likely that content is to be watched, so PSBs need prominence on smart TVs and streaming sticks. That cannot come soon enough, but those who followed our inquiry will know that there was a debate among stakeholders as to whether we keep the existing descriptor for electronic programming guides that PSBs’ prominence should be “appropriate”, or change it to “significant”. That sounds like a really technical argument, but in the advanced user interfaces of today, what prominence looks like varies considerably from device to device and from platform to platform, so it is really important. What is considered appropriate prominence is far more open to interpretation than before, which is why we supported changing “appropriate” to “significant”. That was one of the few recommendations we made that the Government did not accept. Ultimately, what really matters is ensuring that public service content is always carried and is always easy to find, so that is what we need to work through as the Bill progresses.

We also need to consider whether the Bill’s “must carry” obligations on platforms need aligning with the “must offer” obligations in the BBC’s charter and framework agreement. Are we aiming for a level playing field between platforms and all our PSBs, or only the commercial ones? The House needs to explore that question, as well as whether the Government should extend the new prominence regime to local TV services. Those services are given prominence on electronic programme guides, on either channel 7 or channel 8, but the Bill does not give them prominence on smart TVs. We need to decide whether that is the right direction.

There are also places where I would be grateful if our Ministers provided more detail. Our Committee recommended that the new video-on-demand code should apply to all platforms in the same way that the broadcasting code applies to all broadcasters. However, the Government intend to apply that code only to platforms with a large UK audience. I recognise the Government’s argument that the legislation must be proportionate: clearly, applying the code to small, niche services such as a football team’s on-demand service could unfairly and unnecessarily penalise them, with no overall audience protection. However, we need more indication from the Government of the types of services they have in mind. The Minister will probably say that no decision has been made, but Ministers will have already considered this issue as they developed the Bill and responded to the Select Committee’s report, so I hope he will be able to say a bit more about what services he envisages being in scope.

We also need a bit more clarity on a late addition to the Bill: the introduction of a new special clause for multi-sport events that was not in the draft Bill. That clause would apply to four group A events: the summer Olympics and Paralympics and the winter Olympics and Paralympics. Currently, Ofcom consent is not required when there are genuine partnerships—that is, full and comprehensive rights on both sides of the partnership—but the Bill will change that, with each partner only entitled to “adequate live coverage”. This morning, the Select Committee had a session on women’s sport and met broadcasters, including the BBC’s director of sport, Barbara Slater. She raised real concerns about the impact of that clause, especially without any detail of what “adequate” means. If we are to avoid PSB coverage of those listed events being undermined by the Bill, we need clarity. Why did Ministers add that clause? What is wrong with the current rules? We need to make sure that we protect those moments of national importance, and that the Bill does not lead to any unintended consequences.

Turning to radio, there are places where we could look again at what is covered by the legislation. As Members have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), on-demand content from licensed radio stations is not covered by the Bill, nor are any online-only stations, yet some 10 million adults listen to podcasts every week and some of our biggest broadcasters have online-only stations. We all know how incredibly important radio is—it is the most trusted medium in the UK—and, in particular, how important local radio is. More than anything, the public reaction to the BBC’s changes to local radio brings that home. Sharing content across large areas risks undermining the sense of localness that has, until now, made BBC local radio really distinct. The measures to protect radio are some of the most important parts of the Bill, and we need to reflect on whether they go far enough.

Ultimately, of course, there is only one question to ask of any piece of media legislation: does it deliver for its audiences? First, the Bill is critical to the sustainability of our PSBs. While those broadcasters do not always get everything right, they provide huge value for audiences: they are the broadcasters who entertain us, who teach us, and who show us our national sporting triumphs—and, quite often, our defeats. Secondly, the Bill is critical if viewers are to be confident that all TV-like content, whether broadcast or on demand, will be subject to the same or similar standards. Thirdly, this Bill is critical to the future of radio, where stations are increasingly dependent on online platforms for access to listeners. This Bill seeks to ensure that radio remains the strong, trusted medium that it is today. Yes, there is more discussion to be had on the exact contents of the Bill, but it does deliver for audiences, which is why I am so pleased to hear that it has support from across the House and why I want to see it come into law as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The inclusion of football governance in the King’s Speech is very welcome. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm what discussions she has had with the FA on whether the independent regulator will include women’s football, and when the Government intend to publish their response to the Carney review?

[Lucy Frazer]

I have regular discussions with the FA—indeed, I met its chair yesterday. At the moment, the regulator will cover the men’s game, but I also met Karen Carney a week or so ago. Her review is extremely important to women’s football and women’s sport, and I very much look forward to publishing our response to that report, which we will do very shortly.

Online Safety Bill

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind hon. Members about the six-minute advisory time limit.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a great relief to see the Online Safety Bill finally reach this stage. It seems like a long time since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) kicked it off with the ambitious aim of making the UK the safest place in the world to be online. Although other countries around the world had picked at the edges of it, we were truly the first country in the world to set out comprehensive online safety legislation. Since then, other jurisdictions have started and, in some cases, concluded this work. As one of the relay of Ministers who have carried this particular baton of legislation on its very long journey, I know we are tantalising close to getting to the finish line. That is why we need to focus on that today, and I am really grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for confirming that the Opposition are going to support the Bill on Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the new crime of cyber-flashing is one instance of how this Bill has been improved? It should also help to reduce some of the violence against women and girls, which is a major issue of our time.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this, because we do need the Bill to be future-proofed to deal with some of the recently emerging threats to women and others that the online world has offered.

The potential threat of online harms is everyday life for most children in the modern world. Before Christmas, I received an email from my son’s school highlighting a TikTok challenge encouraging children to strangle each other until they passed out. This challenge probably did not start on TikTok, and it certainly is not exclusive to the platform, but when my children were born I never envisaged a day when I would have to sit them down and warn them about the potential dangers of allowing someone else to throttle them until they passed out. It is terrifying. Our children need this legislation.

I welcome the Government support for amendment 84 to clause 11, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), to ban content that advertises so-called conversion therapies for LGBTQ+ people. Someone’s sexuality and who they love is not something to be cured, and unscrupulous crooks should not be able to profit from pushing young people towards potentially sinister and harmful treatments.

I really sympathise with the aims behind new clause 2, on senior executive liability. It is vital that this regime has the teeth to protect children and hold companies to account. I know the 10% of annual global turnover maximum fine is higher than some of the global comparisons, and certainly having clear personal consequences for those responsible for enforcing the law is an incentive for them to do it properly, but there is clearly a balance to strike. We must make sure that sanctions are proportionate and targeted, and do not make the UK a less attractive place to build a digital business. I am really pleased to hear Ministers’ commitment to a final amendment that will strike that really important balance.

I am concerned about the removal of measures on legal but harmful content. I understand the complexity of defining them, but other measures, including the so-called triple shield, do not offer the same protections for vulnerable adults or avoid the cliff edge when someone reaches the age of 18. That particularly concerns me for adults with special educational needs or disabilities. The key point here is that, if the tragic cases of Molly Russell and dozens of young people like her teach us anything, it is that dreadful, harmful online content cannot be defined strictly by what is illegal, because algorithms do not differentiate between harmful and harmless content. They see a pattern and they exploit it.

We often talk about the parallels between the online and offline world—we say that what is illegal online should be illegal offline, and vice versa—but in reality the two worlds are fundamentally different. In the real world, for a young person struggling with an eating disorder or at risk of radicalisation, their inner demons are not reinforced by everyone they meet on the street, but algorithms are echo chambers. They take our fears and our paranoia, and they surround us with unhealthy voices that normalise and validate them, however dangerous and however hateful, glamorising eating disorders, accelerating extremist, racist and antisemitic views and encouraging violent misogyny on incel sites.

That is why I worry that the opt-out option suggested in the Bill simply does not offer enough protection: the lines between what is legal and illegal are too opaque. Sadly, it feels as though this part of the Bill has become the lightning rod for those who think it will result in an overly censorious approach. However, we are where we are. As the Molly Rose Foundation said, the swift implementation of the Bill must now be the priority. Time is no longer on our side, and while we perfect this vast, complicated and inherently imperfect legislation, the most unspeakable content is allowed to proliferate in the online world every single day.

Finally, I put on record the exhaustive efforts made by the incredible team at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office, who brought this Bill to fruition. If there was ever an example of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, this is it, and right now we need to get this done. The stakes in human terms simply could not be any higher.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Kirsty Blackman.

Channel 4

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

We are working with the independent production sector across the UK, because it is vital that we protect job creation in all corners of our United Kingdom. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is not just an England-specific issue.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s words. The creative industries are simply our global superpower, and it is right that Channel 4 has the flexibility to be able to move with the times, respond to the changing media landscape and take advantage of commercial opportunities. Part of this is about nurturing the skilled workforce of the future so that they can respond to the needs of our creative industries. What kind of flexibility and focus will there be for Channel 4 to have the ability to do that?

[Michelle Donelan]

As part of this package, Channel 4 has agreed to double its investment in skills for young people around the UK—from £5 million to £10 million—which will be important for the entire creative sector.

Online Safety Bill

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

On self-harm, I do not think there is any doubt that we are absolutely aligned. On suicide, I have some concerns about how new clause 16 is drafted—it amends the Suicide Act 1961, which is not the right place to introduce measures on self-harm—but I will work to ensure we get this measure absolutely right as the Bill goes through the other place.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will give way first to one of my predecessors.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is almost being given stereo questions from across the House, but I think they might be slightly different. I am very grateful to him for setting out his commitment to tackling suicide and self-harm content, and for his commitment to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on eating disorder content. My concern is that there is a really opaque place in the online world between what is legal and illegal, which potentially could have been tackled by the legal but harmful restrictions. Can he set out a little more clearly—not necessarily now, but as we move forward—how we really are going to begin to tackle the opaque world between legal and illegal content?

[Paul Scully]

If my hon. Friend will bear with me—I need to make some progress—I think that will be teased out today and in Committee, should the Bill be recommitted, as we amend the clauses relating directly to what she is talking about, and then as the Bill goes through the other place.

Online Harms

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this vital and timely debate. Time is really of the essence if we are going to deliver the Online Safety Bill in this Session.

The scenario whereby the Bill falls is almost unthinkable. Thousands of man hours have been put in by the team at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, by the Home Office team, and by the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, which the Minister chaired so brilliantly. There have been successive ministerial refinements by quite a few of the people in the Chamber, and numerous parliamentary debates over many years. Most importantly, the stakes in human terms just could not be higher.

As my right hon. Friend said, that was painfully underlined recently during the inquest into Molly Russell’s death. Her story is well documented. It is stories like Molly’s that remind us how dangerous the online world can be. While it is magnificent and life-changing in so many ways, the dark corners of the internet remain a serious concern for children and scores of other vulnerable people.

Of course, the priorities of the Bill must be to protect children, to tackle serious harm, to root out illegal content and to ensure that online platforms are doing what they say they are doing in enforcing their own terms and conditions. Contrary to the lazy accusations, largely by those who have not taken the time to read this hefty piece of legislation, the Bill does not set out to restrict free speech, to protect the feelings of adult users or to somehow legislate for people’s right not to be offended.

Following on from other Members, I will talk about the legal but harmful issue. There is no easy way to define “legal but harmful”, because it is so opaque. Even the name is clunky and unappetising, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) sometimes uses the phrase “lawful but awful”, which often seems more appropriate, but it does not necessarily work from a legislative point of view.

If Molly Russell’s tragic case teaches us anything, it is that dreadful, harmful online content cannot be defined simply by what is strictly legal or illegal, because algorithms do not differentiate between harmless and harmful content. They see a pattern and they exploit it. They are, quite simply, echo chambers. They take our fears and our paranoia, and surround us with unhealthy voices that simply reinforce them, however dangerous or hateful they are. Fundamentally, they breadcrumb users into more content, slowly, piece by piece, cultivating an interest. They take us down a path we might not otherwise have followed—one that is seemingly harmless at the start, but that eventually is anything but.

We have a moral duty to keep children safe on online platforms, but we also have a moral duty to keep other users safe. People of all ages need to be protected from extremely harmful online content, particularly around suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, where the line between what is legal and what is illegal is so opaque. There is an inherent legal complexity in defining what legal but harmful really means.

It feels like this part of the Bill has become a lightning rod for those who think it will result in an overly censorious approach. That is an entirely misleading misinterpretation of what it seeks to achieve. I feel that, perversely, not putting in place protections would be inherently more of a bar to freedom of speech, because users’ content can be taken down at the moment with random unpredictability and without any justification or redress. Others are afraid to speak up, fearing pile-on harassment and intimidation from anonymous accounts.

The fact is that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make this legislation effective and meaningful.