BBC Local Radio

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)]

Thank you, Mr Twigg, for your chairmanship of this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). Passionate views have been expressed in the Chamber, and also across the House in recent months, on these decisions by the BBC. I apologise for missing the Backbench Business debate on the matter. I was unfortunately taken down by covid, though I rather sadly watched it from my sickbed, and listened to all the comments that were made.

Since its first local radio service was launched in the ’60s, the BBC has played a vital role in promoting locally produced radio reporting. In my view, as I have said in the House before, it is that distinctive and precise local content that makes it a true public service broadcaster, with that unique relationship with the public that follows. Important radio appearances by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) about what will be on at the local theatre, along with the local traffic report and so on, are what make an authentic and true public service.

Today, the BBC’s 39 local radio services in England reach 5.8 million listeners a week. They have a huge reach which is incredibly valued by people across our nations. We have heard in this debate how valued those services are. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) made the point that BBC local radio can be an important incubator for local talent, training those skilled broadcast professionals who go on to feed our creative industries and important broadcasting sector.

I want to recognise at the outset that the BBC’s announcement towards the end of last year of changes to radio services in Northern Ireland has caused concern in Government. It was raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) with the Prime Minister in November last year. More recently, the Mayor of Londonderry and Strabane wrote to the BBC’s director-general Tim Davie to invite him to the city to discuss the BBC’s plans. I am not sure whether that invitation was taken up. I note the request made of me to try to facilitate meetings, and I will happily look into that. Mayor Duffy also wrote to the BBC chairman, Richard Sharp, and stressed the importance of BBC Radio Foyle in the community.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) reiterated to the BBC directly the concerns that have been raised in the Public Accounts Committee.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and thankful to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing the debate. Tim Davie has offered a number of meetings to some of us. We would like him to come to Derry to see the impact of the cuts, which in my view will end up closing the station.

He will not get to Derry today, because most people in Derry, and even the airport, are totally snowed in. People right across our community have been tuning in to Radio Foyle this morning to find out whether the schools were closed, whether roads were open, and whether they could move around the town and greater area. That would not happen if Radio Foyle did not exist. It is absolutely clear that the intention behind the cuts is to end up without Radio Foyle. Does the Minister agree that without locally connected broadcasters, we will not be able to have the same connection to the BBC and the same valuable public service broadcasting?

[Julia Lopez]

I hope my memory does not fail me, but I think there are something like 650 BBC roles in Northern Ireland, of which 36 will be cut. I understand that some of the concerns are about whether those roles will be disproportionately removed in areas such as Derry. Concerns were raised about the geographical sensitivities of some of the job losses, which I appreciate the hon. Member for East Londonderry does not share, but such issues are deeply sensitive in the context of Northern Ireland, and I do understand them.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry said that there has been a mantra from the Government about the operational decisions made by the BBC. Equally, I understand that there are various levers in our relationship. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, and I assure him I met the director-general and the chairman to raise some concerns that have been brought to my attention by Members of different parties. We have various mechanisms in our relationship with the BBC, one of which is the mid-term review. The way in which the BBC organises its resources across the organisation is not directly within that remit, but we are looking at issues of impartiality and at the extent to which the BBC’s moving into an online presence has an effect on the commercial radio market. All those questions are up for grabs, and we take them seriously.

Last week I met the chairman of Ofcom to discuss this issue and others. Ofcom is the regulator of the BBC and has a role in holding it to account. I do not think it has quite the same level of concern that we in this House have about the changes, but the BBC’s public service essence comes down to how it responds to parts of the market that are not being served by the commercial sector. That is why people support the licence fee: the BBC provides some unique services that would not otherwise be provided, and local content is vital.

The Government want the BBC to succeed as an incredibly important British broadcaster that has a wider impact on the creative industries. In so far as we have an involvement in its “digital first” policy, which is what it wants to move towards—that is part of the justification for the changes to its local radio input—I want to have a wide-ranging conversation with the BBC about that strategy. It is about how we support the BBC to thrive, but also how we ensure that its fundamental public service broadcasting operations, such as those in radio, are not undermined as part of the shift. It is understandable and necessary, but I emphasise that we need to ensure, particularly for those who are served primarily by radio—older listeners and listeners in certain geographies—that people are not neglected in the shift to digital that all broadcasters are having to undertake.

I do not have the power to direct the BBC on where it places its resources, but these points are all elements of broader conversations I have with the organisation as a Minister. I try to reflect the sentiments, feelings and strong passions of this place when I have my conversations with the BBC.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

As I am going on to say, many of these things will disappear. Channel 4 occupies a very important part in the ecosystem, and all parts of the ecosystem feed one another. The reason that some foreign investors come here is that we have Channel 4 and the BBC producing the talent pipeline and the kind of risky, edgy content that they themselves would never produce.

Despite Channel 4’s crucial role in British film, which the White Paper recognises, the Government are making no commitment to ensure that a privatised Channel 4 would continue that investment, or even to the future of Film4 itself. The White Paper also says that Channel 4 is and will remain a public service broadcaster. However, that completely unravelled when the Secretary of State told the Select Committee recently that this would expire after only 10 years. To a big foreign media buyer, this 10-year pledge is fairly trivial and worth weathering in order to get beyond it, when it would be a case of anything goes. If the Secretary of State and her colleagues agree that at the very least all that makes Channel 4 great should be permanently enshrined in its new remit, they should support our motion.

As well the claim of pretending we can keep everything that is good about Channel 4, I want to address some of the other claims I have heard Ministers make. The Culture Secretary says she wants to set Channel 4 free so that it can raise investment, because it is not financially sustainable and is a burden to the taxpayer. However, Channel 4 does not cost the taxpayer a penny, yet retains the benefits of public ownership, such as British values, British jobs and British content for British audiences, especially young and diverse audiences. In fact, it is in rude health both creatively and financially, making a profit of £75 million last year, which has all been ploughed back into British content, skills and talent. Channel 4 does not need a taxpayer bail-out, it is not a broken financial model and it does not need privatising to continue to flourish.

Next, we hear that the sell-off of Channel 4 is necessary so that it can escape the straitjacket of being kept in public hands and can compete with Netflix. Channel 4 is free to make commercial and editorial decisions without Government or shareholder pressure. That means taking risks on shows such as “Gogglebox” and “It’s A Sin”, or initiatives that do not in themselves have a financial return, but have a significant public good, such as the Paralympics or Film4. Can the Secretary of State tell us what she wants to free Channel 4 from in order to be able to do what it cannot do already?

If the Secretary of State’s Netflix comparison is about competing for subscribers, then she is wrong on that too.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lucy Powell]

I will not give way; I am going to make some progress.

Unlike Netflix, which is seeing the number of its subscribers going down, All 4 is a highly successful free streaming service, generating 1.25 billion views in 2021, with eight out of 10 young people in the UK registered to it. Global streamers produce content to appeal to the widest possible global audience, but Channel 4 produces distinctive and diverse British content that reflects this country’s social and cultural landscape. The Secretary of State’s sell-off will mean less British-made content and representation. Finally, if she wants Channel 4 to be free to compete with the likes of Netflix, Amazon or Disney, why is she offering those companies a chance to buy it?

The Secretary of State also says that the age of linear television is dead and linear advertising is going down with it. However, advertisers are against her plans too, as they know it will mean less choice and less competition without the unique audience reach that Channel 4 currently offers. The big winners will yet again be the likes of YouTube that compete for young audiences and will gobble up the advertising opportunities that disappear from Channel 4.

There are basically two options for a buyer if the Government go ahead: either the channel will be bought by a UK broadcaster such as ITV—and the sale may well not be allowed to go through on competition grounds, as it would lead to over-dominance on advertising, driving up prices up and lowering choice—or, which is more likely, Channel 4 will be bought by one of the big US media giants. In that event, rather than investing in British programmes for British audiences, Channel 4 would become a shop window for the buyer’s existing content. This is a policy that sells off a great British asset to the benefit of the big US tech giants in more advertising revenue and to the big US media giants in economies of scale. That is a great policy, is it not? It is really patriotic; I am not sure why I didn’t think of it myself.

Finally, the Secretary of State says there is no alternative, but she and I both know there is. Channel 4 has set out a proposal that maintains public ownership while delivering even greater public benefit and putting Channel 4 in a stronger financial position. However, she has ignored it, because she is hellbent on selling off the channel because she thinks it is a bit left-wing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

We have published a comprehensive response to the consultation, in line with the format used by all Departments in response to consultations—that has already been done.

Our “Up next” White Paper contains a number of key proposals to achieve our goals. First, we want to ensure that in a world of smart TVs and online platforms our public service broadcasters continue to receive the exposure that they deserve. On a traditional TV, BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 are given prominence on every TV set in England and Northern Ireland. Likewise, in Wales, we will always find S4C on channel No. 4, and in northern and central Scotland we will always find STV on No. 3. We plan to update those rules for the digital age by passing legislation that ensures that PSB content is always carried and easy to find on all major platforms.

[Colum Eastwood]

The hit series “ Derry Girls”, which is of course based in my constituency, has met with rave reviews all around the world, and has been instrumental in educating people on the Good Friday agreement and the principles that underpin it—a few people in the House of Commons could do with watching the last series. Does the Secretary of State agree with me, and with the creator and writer of “Derry Girls”, Lisa McGee, that it would have been impossible for her to get that programme made without Channel 4?

[Ms Dorries]

Let’s do a shout-out for Channel 4. “Derry Girls”, “First Dates”, “Gogglebox”—there are so many fantastic programmes that Channel 4 produces. That is not in doubt and not in question. I would, however, suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the “Up next” broadcasting White Paper, because in it we state clearly that carrying and making that distinctive content is a part of what we want to carry forward with Channel 4—distinctive British content, which is what “Derry Girls” is and what much of what Channel 4 makes is. That is in the White Paper, and I suggest he reads it.

Covid-19: Cultural and Entertainment Sectors

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to champion those small, local cultural establishments in our communities up and down the country that do so much to entertain us, but also to boost our wellbeing and our general sense of health. That is why, as part of the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, the Barnett formula extended that funding to all the corners of our great nation. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Assembly saw £33 million, which of course it can choose to use how it wants to support all those wonderful cultural establishments that do so much for us.

Last week, the Prime Minister announced a very cautious but irreversible route out of lockdown, while also acknowledging that the threat from covid remains substantial. I recognise that, although this represents a turning point in the nation’s battle against coronavirus, many of our sectors will be impacted by continued restrictions and, of course, will be understandably frustrated at being unable to fully reopen just yet.

However, there is hope on the horizon through the events research programme announced in the road map, which will explore how larger events across the cultural and entertainment sectors can begin to reopen safely. I recognise, of course, that businesses are so keen to reopen as soon as possible, but, as the Prime Minister said, it is vital to take a measured and careful approach so that it is truly a one-way road out of this pandemic.

The success of the vaccination programme has offered us the protection to very tentatively start removing the restrictions. There will be five-week intervals between each of the four steps, to enable the scientific data to be evaluated and to ensure that the next step is truly safe before we take it.

Under the road map, outdoor sport and leisure facilities will be able to reopen at the second part of step 1, no earlier than 29 March. At step 2, no earlier than 12 April, indoor leisure facilities such as gyms can reopen for use by people on their own or in household groups, as can most outdoor attractions and settings, including hospitality venues that are outdoors, zoos, theme parks and drive-in cinemas.

Step 3, no earlier than 17 May, will see indoor entertainment venues such as museums and cinemas reopening. The Government will also allow some larger performing and sporting events, in indoor venues with a capacity of 1,000 people or half-full, whichever is the lower number, and in outdoor venues with a capacity of 4,000 people or half-full, again whichever is the lower. In the largest outdoor seated venues, where crowds can spread out, up to 10,000 people will be able to attend, or a quarter full, whichever is the lower.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister will be aware that many entertainers and venues across my constituency and every constituency have been absolutely decimated; their livelihoods have been taken off them. Does she agree that one way to deal with that is to have a creative approach to taxing creatives, as they do in the Republic of Ireland, where there is the artists’ tax relief? The reduction in the VAT rate for ticket sales could be extended to help venues get through this very difficult period.

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the VAT reduction on hospitality and entertainment over the past year has been a great benefit for a lot of our venues. Of course, any announcements about that will be set out tomorrow by the Chancellor in his Budget, but it is an excellent point.

In step 4, no earlier than 21 June, our ambition is to reopen remaining premises. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will be delighted to know that that includes nightclubs. That will ease the restrictions on large events and performances that apply in step 3, subject to appropriate mitigations. However, it is important to stress, as the Prime Minister said, that the decision on each stage will be based on data and not dates. The Government will move cautiously to keep infection rates under control.

However, I know that for so many in the arts and entertainment sector, this proposal represents further months of financial uncertainty, so the Prime Minister provided assurance in his announcement last week that for the duration of the pandemic, the Government will continue to do whatever it takes to protect jobs and livelihoods across the UK. We have been working very closely with the Treasury on this issue to determine the appropriate and most effective response for the sector within the public health context.

In the Budget tomorrow, the Chancellor will set out the next phase in our economic support package. It will reflect the steps set out in the Prime Minister’s approach to easing the restrictions through the road maps. We now know that there will be good news for our sectors tomorrow. There will be a generous package of funding that is about not just survival but planning, preparing and paving the way to the reopening of our sectors. I look forward to hearing more detail from the Chancellor tomorrow, and I am sure hon. Ladies and Gentlemen across the House do too.

Our commitment to supporting individuals and businesses has been steadfast through this challenging period. The Government have supported individuals across the economy through financial packages such as the job retention scheme and the self-employed income support scheme. In particular, the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund—the single largest-ever support package for the arts—has helped to safeguard not only the future of some of the best-loved cultural and creative venues, but many of the jobs and livelihoods of the incredibly skilled people who depend on them. It has also assisted the supply chain organisations, which are recognised as a crucial part of the sector.

We have recognised the significant pressures faced by businesses in our sectors. The Chancellor announced one-off top-up grants for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, worth up to £9,000 per property, to help businesses through the spring, and £594 million of discretionary funds was made available to support other impacted businesses, in addition to £1.1 billion of further discretionary grant funding for local authorities, local restriction support grants worth up to £3,000 a month and the extension of the furloughing scheme. Business rates relief and numerous loan schemes have provided certainty for businesses and have enabled planning, recruitment and job retention.

We are absolutely determined to make sure our cherished culture and heritage makes it through this crisis. That is why we have also provided sector-specific funding and support. We have worked closely with all our sectors to draft guidance to ensure that businesses are as covid-secure as possible and to protect workers and visitors. To date, £1 billion of the culture recovery fund has been allocated across all four nations of the UK, providing direct support to organisations, both large and small. As I have mentioned, the devolved Administrations have received £188 million through the Barnett formula. Of that £1 billion, £800 million has been awarded to more than 3,500 arts, culture and heritage organisations across England, which has helped to support at least 75,000 jobs.

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to dig a bit deeper into those figures so that hon. Members get a real sense of where the funding has been directed and the kind of organisations that it has supported through an incredibly difficult year. Some 462 awards have been made to applicants whose main art form is theatre, with a value of £183 million. The sector will be further supported through the second round of funding. Some £79 million is being distributed between 514 heritage organisations, 96 grants of which—totalling £17.5 million—are to listed places of worship, and over 15% of funding is to listed historic housing and gardens. We have supported museums, with £49 million being distributed to 156 organisations through Arts Council England alo-ne.

As a result of Government support and guidance—in particular, the film and TV restart scheme—the screen industry has bounced back and recorded the second highest production spend for any quarter on record. The combined total UK spend on film and high-end production was more than £2.8 billion—a drop of only 21% from the 2019 record. The £500 million film and TV production restart scheme has filled the insurance gap, giving productions the confidence to keep shooting and ensuring that family favourites such as “Ant & Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway” and “Midsomer Murders” continue to entertain us and lift our spirits—although perhaps the murders not so much. Such programmes have also created much needed employment opportunities.

Falling infection rates, the vaccination of more than 18 million people and scientific data about the efficacy of our hugely successful roll-out continue to give this country real grounds for optimism. The road map sets out a clear and cautious route to return to normality. Throughout the pandemic, though, protecting the public has been our top priority, and we will continue to work closely with our sectors to support them to reopen as soon as it is safe and sustainable to do so.