Broadband: Rural Communities

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Chris Loder]

Yes, I entirely agree. For far too long the prioritisation has been to connect urban and more densely populated areas, rather than rural areas. We live in a country where we do not value people’s lives more in urban areas than in rural areas; it is important to have fairness across the board, including in terms of investment. Only last week in this very Chamber, I and other Members made the point that rural funding and investment—for rural councils, services or others—need to be prioritised much more. We do not want a turf war; we just want fairness across the board. At the moment, I am afraid to say, I am concerned that my constituents in West Dorset are not receiving that fairness.

I do not know whether colleagues here will appreciate or understand the term “rural notspots”, but they are a big issue. Rural notspots are areas where people are lucky if they can get a mobile signal and extremely lucky if they can get a broadband connection. Vodafone’s report, “Connecting the Countryside”, revealed that 4.8 million people in rural constituencies live in 5G notspots, and 100% of West Dorset is a 5G notspot or partial notspot. That has a huge impact on residents across my constituency and, I am sure, in neighbouring ones as well.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling this debate. He is absolutely right about notspots. We have notspots in the city of Hereford, but in Herefordshire we also have very isolated areas. Does he share my view that the problem is not just with Openreach and the enforcement of Ofcom, but that there is a specific problem related to the reliance on voice over internet protocol, as though that were a solution with batteries for people who find themselves isolated, as my constituents were in Bacton and Abbeydore recently? What long-term solution will we have to address that issue, alongside all the ones my hon. Friend has already memorably raised?

[Chris Loder]

I wholly agree. In a moment, I intend to talk about the impact of the digital phone switchover, because it appears to be complete madness that we are continuing to progress with that when there are vast swathes of rural Britain—not just rural West Dorset, but other areas, including, I am sure, my right hon. Friend’s constituency—where the decent or functional connectivity that is needed to achieve that switchover is lacking.

On many previous occasions, I have stressed that the statistics provided by organisations such as Ofcom, which is meant to be the regulator, simply do not represent the lived experiences of many thousands of my own constituents, and colleagues from across the House will probably express a similar view. It is totally unacceptable that Ofcom states that every area in and around the village of Stoke Abbott has either good or okay data coverage. Well, I am afraid that the reality is quite the opposite, as anyone who visited would see, and many other villages and parishes have the same issue. It is bordering on a scandal that enormous mobile phone operators can publish data saying that they provide a signal or a connection, and that is backed up by Ofcom, when the reality is that people living in those parishes—although it can also be the case outside, not just inside the home—cannot get a signal at all. Around 75% of the community I surveyed about the issue ranked their coverage in the worst possible terms. Stoke Abbott in my constituency has 0% gigabit capability and a widespread lack of 4G, and I mentioned the 5G notspots earlier.

I want to use this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House e-petition 636502, which is on the funding of fixed wireless broadband for poorly connected areas. Having been elected to this House four years ago, almost to the day, I have become very well aware that when it comes to petitions, it is those with the largest number of signatories that get the biggest hearing. E-petition 636502 has received 1,232 signatures. On the face of it, that may not be a huge number but, my goodness, those 1,232 people are the most affected by the inability of any part of the sector to provide them with the most basic level of connectivity, forcing them into a totally unacceptable level of rural isolation and indeed rural poverty.

We know that there is a huge difference to the economy and people’s wellbeing where there is a fixed broadband connection; we also know that 98% of people in urban areas have a fixed broadband connection compared with just 83% of people in rural areas, and that fixed broadband connection correlates to economic activity. In constituencies such as my own, a third of the population are over 65. That is an unusually high age demographic, meaning that there are many older people who are not familiar with—in some cases, they are unable to become familiar with—the technology required to achieve some of the things that the Government and others might like to see in the evolution of communications; I have already mentioned the digital phone switchover, but I am also talking about basic services. We are seeing record numbers of bank branches closing in market towns. Elderly people are being put in a situation in which they are fearful of using technology because they may not necessarily have the skills to pick up whether a particular correspondence or email is spam; they fear the consequences of doing the wrong thing, often feel that they are between a rock and a hard place, and are not sure what to do.

Some 97% of the businesses in West Dorset are small or micro-sized. Our economy is very rural. Those small businesses need better connectivity than they have. It is really concerning that an attempted change through the digital phone switchover, which has been postponed once, although I understand that BT is going to progress with that. I find it incredible that organisations such as the Local Government Association estimate that 1.7 million people who access technology-enabled care and support will be put at risk because of a potential lack of connection once the analogue lines are switched to digital. How can any moral organisation consider doing that when we are presented with such statistics? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take particular note of this point, because it is a massive concern for Members such as myself who represent vastly rural constituencies with a considerable number of older people; we have many concerns about their care in that situation.

The problem is not so strongly felt in urban areas, but it is important to talk about the extent of the roll-out of improvement across the board. Part of the yield-prioritised approach of many larger businesses is that they look to roll out schemes, in line with Government incentive schemes, that will benefit as many houses as possible in the shortest possible time. That is all well and good, but when an area of the country—perhaps an urban one—that has, say, 100 megabits per second speed is looking to improve still further to gigabit speed, and there are places with barely a 2 megabit per second speed that are still being left behind, something is going quite wrong.

In September 2022, gigabit coverage was 47% in predominantly rural areas versus 79% in urban areas. My constituency and, I am sure, those of neighbouring Members of Parliament will be experiencing the same thing. The Government have set very clear targets, which I appreciate because they are helpful to give guidance to the industry about the Government’s wish and intention. The Government targets of 85% and 99% gigabit availability by 2025 and 2030 respectively sound good, and I appreciate them, but it is really important that the Government hear this message loud and clear: it is no longer acceptable to me that the 15% and 1% respectively are the same 15% and 1% who lost out in previous schemes. Those people are being pushed further and further back in the wider connectivity race than they should be. That is why I called out earlier the pretty ruthless, commercial and yield-maximising approach of some of the largest companies in this space; that approach needs to be challenged, and I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider how we can ensure much better fairness in this area.

West Dorset serves as a particularly good example. The Minister will know that if a provider signs up to one of the various different Government schemes—whether it is the voucher scheme or, for example, a community fibre partnership—that blocks the capacity or capability of a competitor to say, “Actually, we would like to go there.” That business can hold on to the area and get its claws into it for a prolonged period. It appears almost anti-competitive that, as happened in the Bridport area of my constituency, Jurassic Fibre, with the best of intentions, formerly did lots of very good work and was then taken over by AllPoints Fibre, and now the engineering work and the whole approach to making that happen has been put on hold, ad infinitum in many areas. The company feels as though it is okay to put that on hold while it considers the consequences of its reorganisation and takeover. Well, that is not acceptable. When there are other businesses and companies that believe they could provide that service to local people much more quickly, and possibly more efficiently, it is anti-competitive to allow that sort of behaviour.

I could run through so many parishes by way of example, but if there is one thing that I really would like the Minister to come back on and/or action, it is this approach by some providers that, in effect, land grab and say that they will make improvements and meet the Government’s intentions—whether through a voucher scheme or otherwise—but then fail to deliver and block others from showing an interest in doing so. Indeed, the whole bidding process for providing the next level of improvements is hugely affected by this as well, which is a great concern to me. I hope the Government will take action, understand that those organisations that have committed to do something have not delivered, and remove the primacy they have to prevent others from doing so.

I would like to summarise my remarks, because I know that many other colleagues would like to speak in this debate, and I appreciate the time that I have had so far. Overall, I would like the Government to note that, for the last four years that I have been in this place, one of my priorities has been to ensure that we make substantial improvements to address rural isolation and rural connectivity. I know full well that the Government have indeed made a lot of progress in that area, and a lot of my constituents have felt those improvements. But it is also fair to say that the most rural villages and parishes still continue to be left out, just because they might have only 40 or 50 homes, or maybe even 100. That is not acceptable and not part of what we believe is right, in the spirit of fairness across the country for all our constituents.

I warmly encourage my colleagues here to contribute to the debate with their own experiences. I am sure that many colleagues present, especially those representing rural areas, will have very similar stories to mine. That is why it is so important that we have this debate and allow the Government to hear this feedback, I think for the second time today—I understand that there was the copper cabling debate earlier, which I am sorry I was not able to be at, because of other business that I had to attend to in the House. I hope that we will see real, significant improvements to how we support the most rurally isolated people in our society today.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I do not disclose private conversations. I am not sure which aspect of any conversation the hon. Lady wants me to mention.

Straight from the off, we provided £2 billion to support our cultural organisations and institutions across the UK, which is why, after the pandemic, our arts and culture are back with a bang.

Labour’s motion asks us to support our world-renowned British broadcasting, which is also not in doubt. Under this Conservative Government, the film and TV industry is absolutely booming: production studios are fully booked, British-made programmes are celebrated all over the world, and this Conservative Government have just delivered the first broadcasting White Paper in 20 years. It takes into account the huge transformation that the broadcasting world has undergone in the past decade or so, and seriously considers how we can protect our British broadcasters in the rapidly evolving streaming era. Unlike the Labour party, we have not buried our head in the sand. We have not ducked important choices and decisions. We are looking ahead and taking the necessary decisions that will allow broadcasters to flourish.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

On the consultation, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Government should not be ducking difficult decisions. I would completely understand if they do not wish to publish the 38 Degrees consultation responses, but will she publish the industry organisation responses and the individual responses, because they will help to dispel a concern that the programme and the process has not been properly run?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I know that satire and irony does not translate very well into Hansard, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it could be put into italics, so that everybody can realise.

[Jesse Norman]

I just wondered, in the spirit of chivalry, whether I might be able to give the hon. Gentleman an extra minute by making an intervention.

[Kevin Brennan]

I have a feeling that that might not be in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

As so many on these Benches have said, Channel 4 has marked the landscape of our lives. Loved or loathed, the landmarks are all there to see across the broadcasting landscape. For me as a youngster, it was the NFL coverage of Super Bowl on Sunday nights that sticks in my memory. More recently, as an engineer, I enjoyed the prominence and accomplishments of the characters on “The Big Bang Theory”, and there are others that have taken our attention as a nation. Who could forget the cultural contributions of the likes of Homer Simpson, particularly his contribution to the English language of “Doh”? Perhaps I am the first Member in this House to mention that in this place. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), that was a cultural reference.

The motion moved by the Labour party opens with the words:

“That this House supports the UK’s much loved cultural institutions, which are celebrated around the world while creating jobs and growth across the country”.

I am sure that those words are unanimously supported by Members across the House. I am proud of this Government’s support for, and recognition of, the immense value of our cultural institutions. After all, it was this Government who opened the £1.6 billion cultural recovery fund, which protected museums, galleries and other cultural treasures from the existential threat that the pandemic presented to much of the UK’s cultural landscape. It was a Conservative Government who saved it.

Let me be clear that I believe the right sale of Channel 4 will help it to thrive in the modern era. Other hon. Members have made that point, so I will not dwell on it. I also believe that a change of ownership can give it access to funds, as other hon. Members have pointed out.

My main point, in answer to several hon. Members who have raised this, is about why a sale is necessary. This is an important point to make because it speaks to how we manage public assets—the buying, holding and exiting of those assets. The word “ideology” has been used several times by Opposition Members. Perhaps this is a gross characterisation—hon. Members will forgive me—but often the Opposition are characterised as being ideologically driven and those of us on the Government side are characterised, or criticised even, as being over-pragmatic. It is interesting to see our actions and words here viewed through an ideological lens. Actually, we are making a pragmatic response.

As a state, we have a poor track record—across all parties and all Governments. We are very good at spotting problems, designing a response and delivering a solution, but then we tend just to hold on. We think that is virtuous, but in fact we risk creating self-perpetuating institutions that become an echo of the past. The real question is not whether this is an ideologically driven or pragmatic response; it is which is the better driver for creativity. I am mindful of bodies such as NatWest, because until two months ago the Government were still the majority shareholder.

What happens when we hold an institution—this has been shown time and again—is that institutional calcification occurs. Inevitably, funds are diverted, with more and more resource going into self-preservation. But the right sale, well managed, would break that up.

[Jesse Norman]

I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but does he have any evidence that the calcification he talks of is actually happening to Channel 4? There is obviously inflation in the sector. Does he think that Channel 4 is markedly less innovative than other players in the sector? Could he say a bit more about why he thinks privatisation would make a positive difference, given that Channel 4 has managed to flourish over 40 years of state ownership? There are other state organisations, such as the Bank of England, that we would not consider privatising because they have shown their value over many years.

[Robin Millar]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who pre-empts my next comments. Indeed, I will come on to why flourishing is not just measured in finance. For every supply chain that might be disrupted by a sale, a new opportunity for entrants to the sector is created. We have already heard one such example in the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). Some of the production companies that started with Channel 4 in the early days were cutting-edge start-ups, but now they are becoming institutions in their own right, and we have seen the same pattern—to answer my right hon. Friend’s question —in silicon valley. For agrarians and those who enjoy gardening, sometimes we prune a successful fruit tree in order to encourage further flourishing and production.

After all, Channel 4 has achieved its objective, and this is the point. It was set up by a Conservative Government, under Margaret Thatcher, to create competition in our now thriving independent production sector. Now, having fulfilled this purpose, we are supporting our public service broadcasters to continue to grow, export British content and compete globally. To sell is a responsible question to ask.

By way of further example, about a year ago I spoke to the former chief executive of S4C—Sianel Pedwar Cymru, as we say over the border. It was clear then that S4C was being drawn away from the traditional broadcaster role into more of a media company role, but the funding arrangements in place were hindering that. I see a parallel with the situation facing Channel 4. To be clear, and in response to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), success is not shameful and a sale is not punishment.

In conclusion, the Opposition should not fear change, nor should they resist the responsible management of public assets. It is the responsible thing and it is the right time now to ask the question: what next for Channel 4?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

It has been a good debate, but I must say that I am not persuaded by many of the arguments that have been put forward, even by my distinguished colleagues, the former Chairs of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). It is a pity that the consultation was carried out in the way that it was. For a subject as vexed and contentious as this, it would have been more appropriate for at least the individual and organisational contributions to have been if not published, then at least digested in more detail and reflected.

If the Government are committed to exploring all the options, as has been recognised by many hon. Members on both sides of the House and as I think it is fair to say the Government have said, it is important that there should be an options paper to show which options have been considered. I was sad to see that the option of mutualisation has not been considered, because it has been effective in other areas. Welsh Water, which is in many ways the best of the water companies, is a mutual company limited by guarantee. I still hope that mutualisation will be considered.

The truth is that, notwithstanding some of the concerns that have been raised, Channel 4 is not a problem, and this measure comes at a time of severe and rising concern among people of this country about the cost of living, inflation and slow growth, and, in policy circles, about the loss of productivity. It is not just that Channel 4 is in rude health—although, as has been pointed out, revenues can go up and down over time—and has been sustained by its huge growth in digital advertising and its remarkable ability to reach interesting younger audiences; it is also that it is a highly dynamic organisation and a highly managerially innovative organisation. Therefore, for the Government to start to panic now about what its future advertising revenues may be is to rule out the possibility that diverse, interesting, engaging and innovative responses may be undertaken by this innovative team.

It is also strange for a Conservative Government to wish to sell off a business in the face of competition, rather than embracing and welcoming that competition and expecting the business to fight its corner. Let me remind the House that the intellectual property does not go anywhere. The fact that it is not trapped in Channel 4 does not mean that it does not reside within independent production companies, and that creates the dynamic tension and energy that has always sustained the sector.

I am afraid that I regard this as an unnecessary attempt to address a non-problem at a time of much wider concern. I refer hon. Members and the Government to the ancient Conservative principle: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

[Kevin Brennan]

On the point about intellectual property, is it not interesting that the people behind some of the most successful productions in recent years, such as Michaela Coel, have refused to go to streamers such as Netflix because they insist on keeping the intellectual property, rather than letting it reside with the British small production companies, writers and creators who are responsible for it?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Member makes an interesting and fair point. Of course, if advertising revenue were so unattractive, the rest of the market would not be piling into it. At the same time, no matter who the owner of the enterprise will be, they will not be immune from wider inflation in programming costs. That is the nature of the business, and the question is what innovative and constructive responses will be undertaken by the management team to address that.

The plan is also bad economics from a public standpoint. The House will know that I spent a couple of years as a Treasury Minister, including during the period the Secretary of State talked about when all the support was given to the cultural sector, and I think it is bad economics. Even if the constraints were relaxed in the way that has been described, the revenue to be derived would be only, on a net basis, in the order of £500 million to £1 billion. My successor, the present Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), has pointed out that that is a drop in the ocean compared with the wider problem. At a 4% interest rate, £500 million amounts to £20 million a year. Are we really going to give up all the control, energy, drive and impetus that exists in Channel 4 now, and the £200 million of directed programming from independent production companies that comes from that, in return for the equivalent of a £20 million annuity? I do not think that makes any economic sense at all.

Overall, this is not a Conservative proposal. What matters in this case is the quality of the ownership. Channel 4 has an independent ownership structure; it happens to be owned by the state, but its ownership structure has made it resilient to political pressure and able to commission highly innovative, risky and interesting forms of programming, for which we celebrate it.

[Robin Millar]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I cannot, as I do not have much time, but I may take my hon. Friend’s intervention later.

It is not a Conservative proposal to sell Channel 4, and even if it was sold now does anyone really think the value generated would not itself be a reflection of the proposed doom scenario in advertising revenues because of the way in which future cash flow works? The key issue here is that we should support an enterprise that itself supports independent production companies, many of them in our nations and regions, that proactively supports disabled people, that supports the Union, and that supports levelling up. That is what Channel 4 does.

I have no doubt that Channel 4 can be further improved and enhanced, and I see its next episode as a down payment on the next generation of its own thinking about how its module could be further leveraged and enhanced, but at the moment it is doing a superb job. We should not sell it; we should proceed and support it in any way we can in the future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Ben Bradley, who will be followed by the Front-Bench winding-up speeches, so those who have participated in this debate by making a speech should now make their way to the Chamber.