Media Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

I intend to press amendment 2 to a Division later. I hope the Government will recognise that they can accommodate the provision and that it can be consistent with their manifesto commitment. I hope that we will not hear any nonsense from the Front Bench about freedom of the press, because what I am suggesting would strengthen the freedom of the press, rather than weakening it.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I would like to run through a number of the amendments in my name, which have largely been promoted by the National Union of Journalists. I will also say that new clause 2 appears to be part of the unfinished business of Leveson, which we need to move on fairly swiftly to ensure that people have proper redress and protections, while maintaining the freedom of the press.

I want to cover a number of issues in my amendments, such as the protection of public service broadcasting, diversity within the sector, media literacy and the demands for consultation on media changes. New clause 21 would add a detailed description of the range of genres that Ofcom must report whether the public service broadcasters have made available. It would also give Ofcom the responsibility to measure the extent of public service broadcasting across specific genres and the ability to set quotas if it felt that specific genres were not covered adequately. It comes from a campaign by the Voice of the Listener & Viewer to protect the requirements in the PSBs’ remit to broadcast programmes within specific genres.

Section 264 of the Communications Act 2003 sets out in some detail the requirements on public service broadcasting across a whole range of different genres, including “cultural activity”,

“the extent that is appropriate for facilitating civic understanding and fair and well-informed debate on news and current affairs,”

religion and so on. I will not go through the full list—it is very detailed.

The problem is that the Bill, as it stands, updates that position, but with a generalised list of what will be taken into account and protected in terms of the genres of audio-visual content. There is a general concern that that could lead to a number of specific areas, such as science or religion, becoming vulnerable. There will still be a variety of genres that there is no specific requirement on public service broadcasters to broadcast.

The Select Committee carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill raised the matter in its discussions. It felt that the Government’s replacing the list of specific commitments required of a public service broadcaster with a general remit was a “step too far”. The Government’s response was that their amendment was simply a simplification. Even the Chair of the Select Committee said the simplification of the remit and enforcement of it for Ofcom would come at a considerable cost. A number of pieces of evidence submitted to the Committee drew attention to areas where the requirement on public service broadcasters could be significantly weakened, even to the point of the overall removal of content.

I will quote the example given by Anna McNamee, the executive director of the Sandford St Martin Trust, about what is happening with regard to the coverage of religion. She said:

“In 2003 ITV successfully lobbied Ofcom for its PSB quotas for arts and religious content to be removed”

and, unfortunately:

“In 2015 Ofcom noticed that ITV’s provision of religion and ethics had all but ceased.”

The lesson from that drawn to the Committee and the Minister’s attention was that there was:

“No quota: no obligation to do so”

and that, under competing pressures, individual genres and sections of broadcasting would be deleted overall.

What we felt was needed in the legislation was a statutory requirement that, where there is an identification of societal value of a particular genre, Ofcom would be able to track the PSBs’ performance and ensure that the distinctive content is available to audiences. That is a reflection of Ofcom’s own concerns so far. It has noticed a decline in the provision of those genres. Broadcasting legislation—until this Bill—has set out what is considered societally valuable content and defined the remit of Ofcom and PSB in that way. Unfortunately, this generalised statement within the Bill fails to enable that to happen in the future.

My new clause 21 would provide Ofcom with stronger powers, with a clearer remit of what should be protected and the ability to set quotas if it considers current levels in certain genres to be unsatisfactory. It should allow the regulator to stem the significant decline of those genres since 2013.

My new clause 22 would place a duty on public service broadcasters to publish their objectives on the promotion of diversity and equality among the workforce and on Ofcom to monitor and report on the public service broadcasters’ performance on meeting that requirement. That comes out of an analysis of what is happening with regard to the diversity of the workforce in broadcasting.

If public service broadcasting is to represent all sectors of the UK population, the workforce should be truly representative. That is a general view that has been expressed across the House. Ofcom has recognised that broadcasters with advanced data collection practices tend to have more representative workforces. The new clause would further empower Ofcom to specify what kinds of data companies should be required to monitor and publish, therefore ensuring that they are looking at the impact of their diversity policies.

Some of the figures on the lack of diversity in broadcasting are quite startling. If we take class as an example, people from working-class backgrounds are under-represented in the broadcasting sector. Some 28% of employees who provided data were from a working-class background, below the UK population figure of 39%. In terms of gender diversity, men remain dominant in most senior roles, in particular the important roles of director—74.5%—and writers, with 67.3%. The number of women in senior roles has actually dropped in recent years from 46.8% to 45.4%. That has been declining continuously over the past four years. The figures for ethnicity are also pretty stark in terms of the lack of representation. Again, we are finding that without adequate monitoring, there has been a lack of any form of influence to improve the situation.

The Creative Diversity Network ran a project called Diamond to monitor diversity, but a number of the unions did not participate because the broadcasters had failed to share their statistics. Nevertheless, there were significant contributions made by individuals working offscreen and onscreen, reflecting people’s concerns about the lack of diversity in terms of gender, ethnicity and disability. There are stark figures that demonstrate the lack of representation in public service broadcasting. This new clause is simply intended to ensure that adequate statistics are provided and data collected, and that Ofcom’s monitoring and intervention powers are strengthened.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I once met a young lady who was keen to work in television and she told me that she wanted to be a presenter. However, because she wears a hijab, she was sure that she would never get to be a presenter—she had never seen any presenter wearing a hijab. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel, as I do, that transparency in reporting those figures would help make clear to everybody what diversity is lacking?

[John McDonnell]

The reason for this new clause—I am not pushing it to a vote or anything—is to encourage the debate further, because we seem to have hit a brick wall, or a glass ceiling, whichever hon. Members prefer. Part of the reason those attitudes persist is the lack of ethnic minorities, particularly in senior positions. The figure for black, Asian or minority ethnic community members in all senior roles is just 13%, an under-representation compared with the population; for senior producers it is 5.5% and for heads of production it is 7.4%. South Asian representation offscreen at all levels has actually fallen to 2.4%, less than half of the figure in the population as a whole, which is around 5%.

The reason for this new clause is to stimulate debate because, in addition to the failure of the existing system to maintain levels, we are going backwards in some areas. Not only is the number of people with disabilities in senior roles at a low level, but it has not changed in four years. There needs to be greater intervention and more powers to monitor and to require the delivery of statistics, and there needs to be proper participation by public service broadcasters in that. Ofcom also needs the ability to intervene more effectively.

Just quickly, because other hon. Members want to speak, I will say that new clause 23 is intended to place on public service broadcasters a duty to report on media literacy. It would introduce a requirement for public service broadcasters to take appropriate steps to improve levels of media literacy among their audiences and allow Ofcom to monitor that to see how the public broadcasters are pursuing that media literacy requirement. The reason for this new clause is that things have moved on since the Communications Act 2003. I remember that debate at that point was around teletext; the huge expansion of social media had not been anticipated, still less the arrival of artificial intelligence.

I do not think I need to stress in this House the importance of countering misinformation, disinformation, fake news, conspiracy theories and the like across social media, or the need to raise the issue of media literacy more widely. Public service broadcasters have an even greater role and duty now not only to provide impartial and accurate information, but to increase media literacy and make greater efforts to reach all age groups in the UK, particularly young people.

The BBC’s Marianna Spring, as people will know, is charged with covering some of these issues for the BBC, and a number of other broadcasters try independently to check the veracity of factual claims or to make an assessment of the credibility of sources, particularly in areas where there is conflict around the world. However, there is a need now to be more explicit about the issues that people face in the interpretation of media. For that reason, it is time for a duty to be placed upon public service broadcasters to develop media literacy strategies, which will enable the receivers of their broadcasts to better understand and better cut through some of the misinformation that is being purveyed.

There has been debate in this House already about the need for a greater recognition within the media itself of the threat posed by artificial intelligence. We have already seen the danger of artificially generated news stories and images, with reports of inaccurate data being used to inform artificial intelligence-generated stories, false attributions to journalists and creators, and people discovering that their likenesses have been used without their knowledge or consent. That is why the NUJ is trying to encourage the debate about who is responsible for raising the levels media literacy. New clause 23 would simply put a statutory duty upon public service broadcasters to develop and publish a strategy for what they are doing to raise media literacy, and give Ofcom a role in monitoring that.

Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Sale to RedBird IMI

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his mischievous suggestion. I could not possibly comment on it, but I am sure that it has been heard.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am reeling from the comparison of Telegraph hacks with Taylor Swift. If the Minister cannot answer questions, maybe we could use this as an exercise in issuing some concerns. The National Union of Journalists’ concerns are obviously about jobs, but they are also about future editorial independence. It behoves the Minister and the Government to look at what sanctions could be used in future if agreements are reached but not kept to—Murdoch is the best example of that. In addition, I wonder whether it is time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, for a proper review of media ownership.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for speaking on behalf of the NUJ and for raising what this means for media plurality and the ability of journalists to hold us here to account. I agree on those generalities, but I am afraid I cannot say anything more about the specifics of this case, as he will be aware. Once the process is over, I am sure there will be questions to go back to about how we best look into how our media is owned.

BBC Funding

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

The BBC is, of course, operationally independent and it is not for the Government to say what it should provide. However, I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the BBC is there to provide a public service and it has a public purpose: to reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the UK. The BBC must also support the creative economy across the UK. Of course regional and local news and other output is an important part of that.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I ask the Secretary of State to get real? I am secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and it has other members here. She knows that as sure as night follows day there will be the loss of journalistic jobs as a result of this cut, at a key time, when we are going into a general election and they are desperately needed. Why does she not admit that this is a revenge attack for all those times at 10-past 8 on the BBC’s “Today” programme when Ministers, having been asked questions by Nick Robinson, Mishal Husain, Justin Webb, Amol Rajan or Martha Kearney, have floundered to answer a basic, straight question? The review is an overlying threat to the BBC about its behaviour in holding this Government to account.

[Lucy Frazer]

I do not accept anything that the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the BBC can continue to provide its exceptional and outstanding service for decades to come. If we just sit on our hands and do nothing, it will be overtaken by other media outlets that are competing in the world. We need to ensure that the BBC has a sustainable financial platform from which to provide its outstanding service.

Online Safety Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to everyone present that a great many Members wish to speak. Although we have a lot of time for this Bill, it is not infinite, and some speeches, so far, have been extremely long. I am trying to manage this without a formal time limit, because the debate flows better without one, but I hope that Members will now limit themselves to around eight minutes. If they do not do so, there will be a formal time limit of less than eight minutes.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The debate so far has been serious, and it has respected the views that have been expressed not only by Members from across the House, on a whole range of issues, but by the families joining us today who have suffered such a sad loss.

I wish to address one detailed element of the Bill, and I do so in my role as secretary of the National Union of Journalists’ cross-party parliamentary group. It is an issue to which we have returned time and again when we have been debating legislation of this sort. I just want to bring it to the attention of the House; I do not intend to divide the House on this matter. I hope that the Government will take up the issue, and then, perhaps, when it goes to the other place, it will be resolved more effectively than it has been in this place. I am happy to offer the NUJ’s services in seeking to provide a way forward on this matter.

Many investigative journalists base their stories on confidential information, disclosed often by whistleblowers. There has always been an historic commitment—in this House as well—to protect journalists’ right to protect their sources. It has been at the core of the journalists’ code of practice, promoted by the NUJ. As Members know, in some instances, journalists have even gone to prison to protect their sources, because they believe that it is a fundamental principle of journalism, and also a fundamental principle of the role of journalism in protecting our democracy.

The growth in the use of digital technology in journalism has raised real challenges in protecting sources. In the case of traditional material, a journalist has possession of it, whereas with digital technology a journalist does not own or control the data in the same way. Whenever legislation of this nature is discussed, there has been a long-standing, cross-party campaign in the House to seek to protect this code of practice of the NUJ and to provide protection for journalists to protect their sources and their information. It goes back as far as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. If Members can remember the operation of that Act, they will know that it requires the police or the investigatory bodies to produce a production order, and requires notice to be given to journalists of any attempt to access information. We then looked at it again in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Again, what we secured there were arrangements by which there should be prior approval by a judicial commissioner before an investigatory power can seek communications data likely to compromise a journalists’ sources. There has been a consistent pattern.

To comply with Madam Deputy Speaker’s attempt to constrain the length of our speeches, let me briefly explain to Members what amendment 204 would do. It is a moderate probing amendment, which seeks to ask the Government to look again at this matter. When Ofcom is determining whether to issue a notice to intervene or when it is issuing a notice to that tech platform to monitor user-to-user content, the amendment asks it to consider the level of risk of the specified technology accessing, retaining or disclosing the identity of any confidential journalistic source or confidential journalistic material. The amendment stands in the tradition of the other amendments that have been tabled in this House and that successive Government have agreed to. It puts the onus on Ofcom to consider how to ensure that technologies can be limited to the purpose that was intended. It should not result in massive data harvesting operations, which was referred to earlier, or become a back door way for investigating authorities to obtain journalistic data, or material, without official judicial approval.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have some form on this matter going back a number of years. The amendment is in the tradition that this House has followed of passing legislation to protect journalists, their sources and their material. I make this offer again to the Minister: the NUJ is happy to meet and discuss how the matter can be resolved effectively through the tabling of an amendment in the other place or discussions around codes of practice. However, I emphasise to the Minister that, as we have found previously, the stronger protection is through a measure in the Bill itself.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendments 1 to 9 and new clause 1 in my name and the names of other hon. and right hon. Members. They all relate to the process of categorisation of online services, particularly the designation of some user-to-user services as category 1 services. There is some significance in that designation. In the Bill as it stands, perhaps the greatest significance is that only category 1 services have to concern themselves with so-called “legal but harmful” content as far as adults are concerned. I recognise that the Government have advertised their intention to modify the Bill so that users are offered instead mechanisms by which they can insulate themselves from such content, but that requirement, too, would only apply to category 1 services. There are also other obligations to which only category 1 services are subject—to protect content of democratic importance and journalistic content, and extra duties to assess the impact of their policies and safety measures on rights of freedom of expression and privacy.

Category 1 status matters. The Bill requires Ofcom to maintain a register of services that qualify as category 1 based on threshold criteria set out in regulations under schedule 11 of the Bill. As schedule 11 stands, the Secretary of State must make those regulations, specifying threshold conditions, which Ofcom must then apply to designate a service as category 1. That is based only on the number of users of the service and its functionalities, which are defined in clause 189.

Amendments 2 to 8 would replace the word “functionalities” with the word “characteristics”. This term is defined in amendment 1 to include not only functionalities —in other words what can be done on the platform—but other aspects of the service: its user base; its business model; governance and other systems and processes. Incidentally, that definition of the term “characteristics” is already in the Bill in clause 84 dealing with risk profiles, so it is a definition that the Government have used themselves.

Categorisation is about risk, so the amendments ask more of platforms and services where the greatest risk is concentrated; but the greatest risk will not always be concentrated in the functionality of an online service. For example, its user base and business model will also disclose a significant risk in some cases. I suggest that there should be broader criteria available to Ofcom to enable it to categorise. I also argue that the greatest risk is not always concentrated on the platforms with the most users. Amendment 9 would change schedule 11 from its current wording, which requires the meeting of both a scale and a functionality threshold for a service to be designated as category 1, to instead require only one or the other.

Very harmful content being located on smaller platforms is an issue that has been discussed many times in consideration of the Bill. That could arise organically or deliberately, with harmful content migrating to smaller platforms to escape more onerous regulatory requirements. Amendment 9 would resolve that problem by allowing Ofcom to designate a service as category 1 based on its size or on its functionalities—or, better yet, on its broader characteristics.

I do not want to take too many risks, but I think the Government have some sympathy with my position, based on the indicative amendments they have published for the further Committee stage they would like this Bill to have. I appreciate entirely that we are not discussing those amendments today, but I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will permit me to make some brief reference to them, as some of them are on exactly the same territory as my amendments here.

Some of those amendments that the Government have published would add the words “any other characteristics” to schedule 11 provisions on threshold conditions for categorisation, and define them in a very similar way to my amendment 1. They may ask whether that will answer my concerns, and the answer is, “Nearly.” I welcome the Government’s adding other characteristics to the consideration, not just of threshold criteria, but to the research Ofcom will carry out on how threshold conditions will be set in the first place, but I am afraid that they do not propose to change schedule 11, paragraph 1(4), which requires regulations made on threshold conditions to include,

“at least one specified condition about number of users and at least one specified condition about functionality.”

That means that to be category 1, a service must still be big.

I ask the Minister to consider again very carefully a way in which we can meet the genuine concern about high harm on small platforms. The amendment that he is likely to bring forward in Committee will not yet do so comprehensively. I also observe in passing that the reference the Government make in those amendments to any other characteristics are those that the Secretary of State considers relevant, not that Ofcom considers relevant—but that is perhaps a conversation for another day.

Secondly, I come on to the process of re-categorisation and new clause 1. It is broadly agreed in this debate that this is a fast-changing landscape; platforms can grow quickly, and the nature and scale of the content on them can change fast as well. If the Government are wedded to categorisation processes with an emphasis on scale, then the capacity to re-categorise a platform that is now category 2B but might become category 1 in the future will be very important.

That process is described in clause 83 of the Bill, but there are no timeframes or time limits for the re-categorisation process set out. We can surely anticipate that some category 2B platforms might be reluctant to take on the additional applications of category 1 status, and may not readily acquiesce in re-categorisation but instead dispute it, including through an appeal to the tribunal provided for in clause 139. That would mean that re-categorisation could take some time after Ofcom has decided to commence it and communicate it to the relevant service. New clause 1 is concerned with what happens in the meantime.

To be clear, I would not expect the powers that new clause 1 would create to be used often, but I can envisage circumstances where they would be beneficial. Let us imagine that the general election is under way—some of us will do that with more pleasure than others. Category 1 services have a particular obligation to protect content of democratic importance, including of course by applying their systems and processes for moderating content even-handedly across all shades of political opinion. There will not be a more important time for that obligation than during an election.

Let us assume also that a service subject to ongoing re-categorisation, because in Ofcom’s opinion it now has considerable reach, is not applying that even-handedness to the moderation of content or even to its removal. Formal re-categorisation and Ofcom powers to enforce a duty to protect democratic content could be months away, but the election will be over in weeks, and any failure to correct disinformation against a particular political viewpoint will be difficult or impossible to fully remedy by retrospective penalties at that point.

New clause 1 would give Ofcom injunction-style powers in such a scenario to act as if the platform is a category 1 service where that is,

“necessary to avoid or mitigate significant harm.”

It is analogous in some ways to the powers that the Government have already given to Ofcom to require a service to address a risk that it should have identified in its risk assessment but did not because that risk assessment was inadequate, and to do so before the revised risk assessment has been done.

Again, the Minister may say that there is an answer to that in a proposed Committee stage amendment to come, but I think the proposal that is being made is for a list of emerging category 1 services—those on a watchlist, as it were, as being borderline category 1—but that in itself will not speed up the re-categorisation process. It is the time that that process might take that gives rise to the potential problem that new clause 1 seeks to address.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the amendments in the spirit they are offered. He has probably heard me say before—though perhaps not, because he is new to this, although I do not think anyone else in the room is—that the right way to approach this groundbreaking, complex and difficult Bill is with a degree of humility. That is never an easy sell in this institution, but I none the less think that if we are prepared to approach this with humility, we will all accept, whether Front Bench or Back Bench, Opposition or Government, that we will not necessarily get everything right first time.

Therefore, these Report stages in this Bill of all Bills are particularly important to ensure that where we can offer positive improvements, we do so, and that the Government consider them in that spirit of positive improvement. We owe that to this process, but we also owe it to the families who have been present for part of this debate, who have lost far more than we can possibly imagine. We owe it to them to make sure that where we can make the Bill better, we make it better, but that we do not lose the forward momentum that I hope it will now have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I understand. We are ahead of the Lords on publication, so yes is the answer.

I have two very quick points for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). He was right to speak about acting with humility. We will bring forward amendments for recommittal to amend the approach for category 1 designation—not just the smaller companies that he was talking about, but companies that are pushing that barrier to get to category 1. I very much get his view that the process could be delayed unduly, and we want to make sure that we do not get the unintended consequences that he describes. I look forward to working with him to get the changes to the Bill to work exactly as he describes.

Finally, let me go back to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden made about encrypted communications. We are not talking about banning end-to-end encryption or about breaking encryption—for the reasons set out about open banking and other areas. The amendment would leave Ofcom powerless to protect thousands of children and could leave unregulated spaces online for offenders to act, and we cannot therefore accept that.

[John McDonnell]

Just briefly, because I know that the Minister is about to finish, can he respond on amendment 204 with regard to the protection of journalists?

[Paul Scully]

I am happy to continue talking to the right hon. Gentleman, but I believe that we have enough protections in the Bill, with the human touch that we have added after the automatic flagging up of inquiries. The NCA will also have to have due regard to protecting sources. I will continue to work with him on that.

I have not covered everybody’s points, but this has been a very productive debate. I thank everyone for their contributions. We are really keen to get the Bill on the books and to act quickly to ensure that we can make children as safe as possible online.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

Warning notices

‘(1) OFCOM may give a notice under section (Notices to deal with terrorism content or CSEA content (or both))(1) to a provider relating to a service or part of a service only after giving a warning notice to the provider that they intend to give such a notice relating to that service or that part of it.

(2) A warning notice under subsection (1) relating to the use of accredited technology (see section (Notices to deal with terrorism content or CSEA content (or both))(2)(a) and (3)(a)) must—

(a) contain details of the technology that OFCOM are considering requiring the provider to use,

(b) specify whether the technology is to be required in relation to terrorism content or CSEA content (or both),

(c) specify any other requirements that OFCOM are considering imposing (see section 106(2) to (4)),

(d) specify the period for which OFCOM are considering imposing the requirements (see section 106(6)),

(e) state that the provider may make representations to OFCOM (with any supporting evidence), and

(f) specify the period within which representations may be made.

(3) A warning notice under subsection (1) relating to the development or sourcing of technology (see section (Notices to deal with terrorism content or CSEA content (or both))(2)(b) and (3)(b)) must—

(a) describe the proposed purpose for which the technology must be developed or sourced (see section (Notices to deal with terrorism content or CSEA content (or both))(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) and (3)(a)(ii)),

(b) specify steps that OFCOM consider the provider needs to take in order to comply with the requirement described in section (Notices to deal with terrorism content or CSEA content (or both))(2)(b) or (3)(b), or both those requirements (as the case may be),

(c) specify the proposed period within which the provider must take each of those steps,

(d) specify any other requirements that OFCOM are considering imposing,

(e) state that the provider may make representations to OFCOM (with any supporting evidence), and

(f) specify the period within which representations may be made.

(4) A notice under section (Notices to deal with terrorism content or CSEA content (or both))(1) that relates to both the user-to-user part of a combined service and the search engine of the service (as described in section (Notices to deal with terrorism content or CSEA content (or both))(4)(c) or (d)) may be given to the provider of the service only if—

(a) two separate warning notices have been given to the provider (one relating to the user-to-user part of the service and the other relating to the search engine), or

(b) a single warning notice relating to both the user-to-user part of the service and the search engine has been given to the provider.

(5) A notice under section (Notices to deal with terrorism content or CSEA content (or both))(1) may not be given to a provider until the period allowed by the warning notice for the provider to make representations has expired.’—(Paul Scully.)

This clause, which would follow NC11, also replaces part of existing clause 104. There are additions to the warning notice procedure to take account of the new options for notices under NC11.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20

OFCOM’s reports about news publisher content and journalistic content

‘(1) OFCOM must produce and publish a report assessing the impact of the regulatory framework provided for in this Act on the availability and treatment of news publisher content and journalistic content on Category 1 services (and in this section, references to a report are to a report described in this subsection).

(2) Unless the Secretary of State requires the production of a further report (see subsection (6)), the requirement in subsection (1) is met by producing and publishing one report within the period of two years beginning with the day on which sections (Duties to protect news publisher content) and 16 come into force (or if those sections come into force on different days, the period of two years beginning with the later of those days).

(3) A report must, in particular, consider how effective the duties to protect such content set out in sections (Duties to protect news publisher content) and 16 are at protecting it.

(4) In preparing a report, OFCOM must consult—

(a) persons who represent recognised news publishers,

(b) persons who appear to OFCOM to represent creators of journalistic content,

(c) persons who appear to OFCOM to represent providers of Category 1 services, and

(d) such other persons as OFCOM consider appropriate.

(5) OFCOM must send a copy of a report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament.

(6) The Secretary of State may require OFCOM to produce and publish a further report if the Secretary of State considers that the regulatory framework provided for in this Act is, or may be, having a detrimental effect on the availability and treatment of news publisher content or journalistic content on Category 1 services.

(7) But such a requirement may not be imposed—

(a) within the period of three years beginning with the date on which the first report is published, or

(b) more frequently than once every three years.

(8) For further provision about reports under this section, see section 138.

(9) In this section—

“journalistic content” has the meaning given by section 16;

“news publisher content” has the meaning given by section 49;

“recognised news publisher” has the meaning given by section 50.

(10) For the meaning of “Category 1 service”, see section 82 (register of categories of services).’—(Paul Scully.)

This inserts a new clause (after clause 135) which requires Ofcom to publish a report on the impact of the regulatory framework provided for in the Bill within two years of the relevant provisions coming into force. It also allows the Secretary of State to require Ofcom to produce further reports.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 40

Amendment of Enterprise Act 2002

‘In Schedule 15 to the Enterprise Act 2002 (enactments relevant to provisions about disclosure of information), at the appropriate place insert—

BBC Local Radio: Proposed Reduction in Provision

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising his concerns. There is a social compact between the public and the BBC that we pay the licence fee on the basis that it provides us with this kind of content, and if it ceases to do that, that raises more fundamental questions. He raises a number of helpful points, and I shall make sure that they are addressed. I know that many Members across the Chamber feel strongly about some of the very large salaries in the BBC, and that goes to the heart of public trust in the BBC. If we had further details and a greater understanding of the cost savings in these proposals, we could have a more serious debate about it.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and the Minister can imagine the crushing disappointment among NUJ members, because this comes on top of 450 job losses in BBC England and 400 job losses in the World Service. Our concern is that the digital first proposals are undermining the provision of news at the local, national and global level. I am pleased that she is meeting the BBC next week. I ask her to meet the NUJ group as well, so that we can brief her on what we know is happening on the ground as a result of cut after cut after cut from the BBC.

[Julia Lopez]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the NUJ’s concerns. It is important that many people get their training in local media organisations, which gives them a great grounding for going national. It is regrettable that these proposals come in Journalism Matters Week, at a time when there are a whole host of challenges facing local journalists.

Champions League Final: Paris

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady makes some important points. The misbehaviour of a few fans should not taint the whole of football; she is absolutely right. We do co-ordinate regularly with UEFA, football authorities and other policing authorities. As I think I said in answer to an earlier question, we all need to make sure that we learn from any findings that come from the experience in Paris, in the same way, hopefully, as everybody will learn from what happened, unfortunately, in Wembley last year. It is important that we all share learnings from events such as this.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of Spirit of Shankly supporters club. May I express my concern that we are talking about an investigation rather than a full, independent inquiry? Following on from what others have said, the most important voices to be heard in any investigation are those of the fans. Will the Government consider what support they can give to those fans’ groups to make sure that they are properly represented at this inquiry? As with all inquiries now, they may well need legal representation and they will need resourcing for that.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about making sure that the voice of the fans is clearly heard. However, I am confident about that it will be because I understand that a fair volume of information, data and video footage has already been sent to Liverpool FC, which will then be sent on to UEFA. As I have said, we will keep a close eye on that. If we have concerns that information or data are being missed, we will raise it with the appropriate authorities, because it is vital that this investigation is thorough and is seen to be thorough.

BBC Funding

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and that was my response to my early question: how do we keep good content—great British content—made in the UK? The BBC is a national institution—how do we maintain the BBC? The question is not: do we or do we not have a BBC? The question is: how do we fund the BBC moving forward? I know my right hon. Friend has made some interventions of his own and has ideas of his own, and I look forward to his furthering those.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Many of us find it nauseating that the Secretary of State has come here to talk about hard-pressed families when she supported the £20 cut to universal credit. I am sure she wants to be objective and have the fullest information. So could we test how much she considered some of these factors, perhaps in the style of the broadcast media? How much more money is generated by the investment in the BBC? Is it £1, £2 or £3? She talks about the north. How much of the BBC’s economic impact is beyond London? Is it 10%, 20% or 50%? Perhaps she could demonstrate her knowledge at least of the BBC’s impact.

[Ms Dorries]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with those specific figures.

Oral Answers to Questions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued passion and support for the sector throughout the country, let alone in his own fantastic constituency, which I have also had the pleasure of visiting. Perhaps I have travelled a bit too much, although I am sure there is no such thing.

This issue was indeed raised by my hon. Friend’s constituents during the conversation that we had earlier this week, and they provided some compelling information. I make the commitment to him and his constituents that we will look very carefully at the issues raised, and that I will work across Departments to see what solutions can be found.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to strengthen and promote public service broadcasting.

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

Public service broadcasting remains critical to the UK’s media landscape, and the Government are committed to ensuring that it continues to thrive. We will present proposals in the form of a broadcasting White Paper to update the existing public service broadcasting framework later this year.

[John McDonnell]

I admit I was hoping that the Secretary of State would answer this question so that I could say “from one red to another”, although maybe not in the full range of meaning of that term. I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. NUJ members are concerned about the future of public broadcasting, because of the sale of Channel 4, because of the 25% cut that has already been incurred at the BBC and because of reports that the Government are considering refusing even an inflation-rate increase in the BBC licence fee. Will the Minister meet a delegation from the NUJ parliamentary group to discuss these concerns?

[Matt Warman]

As a former member of the NUJ myself, it would be churlish to refuse.

Channel 4: Privatisation

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

I am secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, so naturally, when this issue came up again, I sought a meeting with those at the NUJ and talked with them about their views, and they consulted their members. I think we are all in the same position: we just cannot believe that this matter has come around yet again—especially those of us who were involved in the 2016 discussions, when we thought that the future of Channel 4 had been sensibly resolved. The privatisation seems to be a particular obsession of the Minister—it is almost as though he needs some counselling. It has become an addictive obsession that he has been pursuing since the 1990s, as others have said, and it is completely irrational.

From the trade union point of view, we look at the security of jobs and the economics of the organisation that we are negotiating with. When looking at the economic performance of Channel 4, I cannot for the life of me understand what the problem is for the Government. The latest figures show a record £74 million pre-tax surplus. As other hon. Members have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), Channel 4 is now opening up offices around the country—hubs in Leeds, Glasgow and Bristol—and is doing exactly what the Government want by investing in the regions as part of the levelling-up strategy. Channel 4 is economically sound and completely in line with the Government’s policy direction.

Channel 4 provided 10,600 jobs across the UK in 2019, of which 3,000 were jobs supported by Channel 4 in the nations and regions. As the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) set out, it is working with private sector producers to bring forward talent on an eminent scale. It has done so successfully, and has been well rewarded by the various independent bodies that adjudicate on these matters.

It is very difficult to understand the rationale for the Government’s pursuit of this privatisation. Others have given their views about the range of attitudes. The Father of the House has demonstrated yet again his wide-ranging experience of what has been going on over decades. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), in a very balanced way, indicated the concerns that he and many others in the Conservative party have. Paul Siegert, the NUJ’s national broadcasting organiser, gave a true reflection of its members’ views in saying:

“It’s hard to see any justification for privatising Channel Four other than ideology. Channel 4 has achieved what it was asked to do and has proved a hit with viewers.”

If it is not broken, why are the Government proposing the fix of privatisation? Four years ago—I remember this, because I was there—the Government said that Channel 4 would continue to be owned by the public. In our view, they should honour that promise. I hope they see sense. I have to say that the consultation that is going on, particularly over the summer period, flies against all the rules of consultations.

Let me ask one final question of the Minister. At the moment, the Government are being advised by a panel they set up on the future of public service broadcasting. The panel does not publish its minutes and is not meeting in public. Why is that happening? Why is it not more open and transparent? Why can the Minister not explain the role of the panel, and indeed its composition? That generates concerns that there is more to this than any rational thought about the future of broadcasting. It is more about ideology, and maybe an element of political spite.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that I will be calling the SNP spokesperson at 10.28 am.

Football Governance

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

Ms Elliott, you have a succession of Liverpool supporters, I am afraid. I am a member of the Spirit of Shankly supporters club. We are currently in discussions with the club about the role that supporters will play. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that I was at Wembley when the Crazy Gang beat us—I am still trying to work out how, to be honest. I am also a season ticket holder at my local club, Hayes & Yeading United. We are the club that discovered Les Ferdinand, Cyrille Regis and Jason Roberts. It is the sort of club that contributes so much, even though it is not in the league itself.

Fans have now made it absolutely clear that they want immediate safeguards for supporters to be able to protect the best interests of their clubs. That is why I support the idea of legislation that requires every English club to secure the support of a 51% majority of its registered season ticket holders for any major decision that fundamentally affects its identity or future—for instance, the competitions in which it plays or any change of home ground, name, club colours or badge.

Fans also need longer-term control, and we need to adopt the German 50+1 rule on supporter ownership of clubs. How do we get there? It is simple: where club shares are being sold, either by shareholders or through new share issues, legislation should require vendors to make shares available on a first-refusal basis to recognised, democratically controlled supporters clubs. This rule would apply until the trust owned 51% of the club shares.

While we are talking about football, let me throw in one other issue. I make a plea to include in legislation control of the sporting “crown jewels”, so that at least 20 Premier League games a season, equally split among the clubs, are shown on free-to-view channels, allowing fans to enjoy at least 2 of their club’s matches every season. That would give a fairer distribution of access to football on television.

I support the overall campaign for a new regulator. The regulator could be responsible for the approval of takeovers, the application of a strengthened fit-and-proper person test process, the oversight of a club licensing scheme to ensure high standards of governance, and the management of a system of redistribution of club revenues to ensure the health of football at every level of the pyramid. Most of those policy proposals were developed by us and were in Labour’s 2019 manifesto, but it would be gloating to refer to that.