Channel 4 Privatisation
John Nicolson Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not expect the Secretary of State to leave quite so quickly.
It is good to see so many unfamiliar faces on the Tory Back Benches—Members with a new-found interest in broadcasting—and also not just the current Conservative Select Committee Chair but two former Chairs. It is like being in one of those “Doctor Who” episodes with three Doctors all in one episode at the same time.
Here we are again. With a grim familiarity, we are once again debating the future of Channel 4 as Opposition Members try to defend one of the country’s best-loved institutions from the culture warriors on the Conservative Front Bench. I do not believe that everybody in the DCMS Front-Bench team falls into that category: some are simply trying to keep their heads down until the chancer in No. 10 gets toppled, taking his fawning political acolytes with him. Channel 4 probably feels much the same.
John Nicolson
Later—let me make some progress.
Until then, we have little choice but to combat the collection of semi-arguments, half-heard bar-room prejudices, factual errors and outright disinformation that forms the basis of the Government’s case for privatising the channel. There is of course the never-ending irony that a Government pretending commitment to levelling up are making decisions that will jeopardise national and regional businesses in the production sector. Channel 4 spends more on nations and regions production than any other commercially funded broadcaster, and in 2021 dedicated 55% of its total content spend to content produced in the nations and regions. As we have heard, with a headquarters in Leeds and hubs in Glasgow, Bristol and Manchester, Channel 4 is a model levelling-up employer.
So why sell this model levelling-up employer? Is it in financial peril? We know that it is not. Channel 4 currently generates £1 billion of gross value added for the UK economy, working with around 300 production companies a year. To be clear, the UK Government want to sell a healthy, successful company that, because of the way it was established, cannot keep its profits. It must and does reinvest all revenue made back into the business—a dream for the consumer. If only the privatised utilities had been set up on that model, how much better off we would all be.
The Government’s excuse to attack Channel 4, this jewel in the broadcasting crown, is that they want to raise money to reinvest in the independent production sector. That is precisely what Channel 4 does with its profits at the moment. It is entirely nonsensical. All that the Government wheeze will do is put investment and jobs in jeopardy. Do they care? Does the absent Secretary of State have some great insight into the sector that lesser mortals, including those who run the company and oppose her, do not?
We all know the Secretary of State’s history of gaffes and confusions, but on Channel 4 she has surely surpassed herself. Millions of views of her faux pas on YouTube do not make her a broadcasting expert. The House will know that she did not know how Channel 4 was funded when she appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I sit. She thought it was publicly funded, rather than funded by advertising. Her confusion was excruciatingly laid bare on camera when a Conservative member of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), had to explain Channel 4’s funding model to her.
John Nicolson
The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Feel free to intervene, rather than groan in agony. Apparently he cannot marshal the words to match his facial expressions.
Millions of Channel 4 viewers will have noticed the adverts on Channel 4, but the Secretary of State apparently has not, yet she presumes to pontificate on Channel 4 while junior Ministers breathlessly wait. It is like watching an unbenevolent Mr Dick from Charles Dickens fly his kite. [Interruption.] It is a literary reference. People may laugh at the clips, but such wilful ignorance debases the policy-making process. When she is misunderstanding the most fundamental part of her brief, but still thinks it appropriate to patronise the Channel 4 management and staff, it is painful to witness. Nor was that a one-off; the Secretary of State thought that Channel 5, as has already been quoted, had been privatised. She told Iain Dale of LBC that it was, citing the privatisation of Channel 5 as a model for Channel 4 privatisation. She said that it was privatised
“three years ago, five years ago maybe”
when she did that particular interview. There was only one problem: Channel 5 was never privatised. It was another excruciating on-air exhibition of ignorance.
The Secretary of State may not know much about the sector, but does she at least have the public on her side as the Government lunge at Channel 4? Apparently not, although she does not seem to know it. Let us look at the consultation she set up to assess public opinion on the proposed privatisation. At a November DCMS Committee session, the Secretary of State said:
“what is the point of having a consultation that 60,000 people respond to if I had already made my mind up what I was going to do with Channel 4? That would be an abuse, I think, and a waste of money and effort on behalf of a large number of civil servants. I would really like to see what those 60,000 responses say first.”
The message was clear: she would listen to the public, those who watch and love the channel.
People did respond to the Government when asked for their view. As the Secretary of State said, 60,000 responded in an impressive display of public engagement. What did the figures show after they were analysed? Those figures, which the Secretary of State told us it would be an abuse to ignore, were interesting. Some 96% of the public were against Channel 4 privatisation, although in yet another moment of tragicomedy, the Secretary of State announced to the Select Committee at her latest appearance that 96% of the public were in favour of privatisation.
Alun Cairns
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating no change for Channel 4, but if he is, how will he accommodate the fall in advertising income and its impact on the spend in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions?
John Nicolson
As other hon. Members have already explained, Channel 4 is making record profits. Since the system seems to be working so well, I do not see the point of breaking it.
John Nicolson
It is making plenty of programmes. In fact, the Secretary of State already said that so many production companies are being successful that they cannot keep up with the current demands. Conservative Members need to marshal their arguments and work out which they are advocating.
Once again, so we are all clear: 96% of the public in the Government’s own consultation process, which the Secretary of State said it would be an abuse to ignore, said that they opposed Channel 4 privatisation—so much for respecting the public will. It appears that the public matter as little as industry experts.
Let us turn to one of the main arguments put forward for the privatisation of Channel 4. The Secretary of State often says that she wants it to be able to compete with
“streaming giants such as Netflix and Amazon”.
She may have noticed that they do not have war correspondents, or at least that those who do appear are actors in movies, not journalists dealing with breaking news. The comparison is far from ideal, but let us briefly explore it anyway.
Amazon Prime is owned by a trillion-dollar company that uses its video streaming end as a loss leader. Unlike Channel 4, it does not make a profit, so it is far from a role model. What about Netflix, the other role model that the Secretary of State has in mind for a privatised Channel 4? That is not going so well either. It has racked up billions of dollars of debt and its share price has fallen by more than 70% in the last six months, which demonstrates the volatility of the market.
Unlike the Secretary of State’s chosen examples, Channel 4 is a commercial success that runs a profit, not a loss. Its real competitors are the current UK public service broadcasters such as the BBC and ITV. We all know that the future is digital and here Channel 4 leads the UK. We all know that linear numbers are down, but it is in a strong position to benefit from that trend as it is the UK’s biggest free streaming service, despite having a considerably smaller budget than the BBC. Also, of course, because it is publicly owned, it can reinvest extra revenue.
What if the nightmare happened and the Secretary of State got her way? Some on the Tory Benches—I suspect not those invited to participate in this debate—may be swithering and wondering what the future of Channel 4 will hold. They might consider that the Secretary of State, however dodgy her grasp of facts and of the issue, has promised that Channel 4 will remain a public service broadcaster. They might think, “We will have sold off another piece of the family silver, but at least we can all muddle through and things might not change that much.”
Well, not so fast: although the Secretary of State did promise that, whatever fate befalls Channel 4, it would always remain a public service broadcaster free at the point of use, that undertaking fell apart somewhat under cross-examination at the Select Committee. We discovered that Channel 4’s buyer need only keep it as a public service broadcaster for 10 years. The Secretary of State has now made it clear that the Government will have no locus over the broadcaster once that period is over. When asked if the owners would have to consult the Department after 10 years, the Secretary of State said:
“No, it will be privately owned. It will be up to owners.”
So I say to Tory Back Benchers who are uncertain about what to do, if the new owners want to make Channel 4 a streaming service, they can. If they would like to ditch the award-winning “Channel 4 News” with its new chief anchor Krishnan Guru-Murthy, it is up to them. The Secretary of State may be too scared to go into the studio to face him about Channel 4 privatisation, but do those Tory Back Benchers not want him and the news channel to be around to tackle the next Labour Prime Minister? Short-termism may come back to bite them. Say goodbye to “Unreported World”, which sends intrepid correspondents off to tackle unreported stories in some of the world’s most dangerous hotspots. They are astonishingly brave, but the show is expensive to make. Would a privatised company make it? No one at the channel thinks so.
The new owner could break up the company and sell it off. They could move it out of the UK. It is up to them entirely. The Secretary of State may argue that that is unlikely or would not make commercial sense, but do you really trust her judgment? Do you think she understands the detail? Will she even be around once this Prime Minister is gone? Who knows—it doesn’t really matter. What is important is that, once this 10-year period is over, the Government will have absolutely no power; it will be too late.
Reasoned argument has been tried and tested over Channel 4 privatisation. The arguments for privatisation never stack up. As a previous Secretary of State told me:
“too expensive, too unpopular, and too little in return.”
That Secretary of State had listened to the experts. This one does not seem to want to listen to the experts.
With an 80-plus seat majority, this ultimately, as we all know, will be up to Tory Back Benchers. Those of you not on the Government payroll do not much like your leader—we saw that and we saw how you voted. That we know and you often tell me you do not really believe in the culture wars—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not really addressing the Chair when he says “You”. He means “They,” not “You.”
John Nicolson
I beg your pardon. I try to avoid that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Now is the chance for Conservative Back Benchers to join us on this side of the House in the mainstream. Please stand up for a national treasure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Channel 4 Privatisation
John Nicolson Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Well, here we go again: a Secretary of State, oblivious to the unanimous opposition of the sector, is ploughing on with a politically motivated privatisation. She knew so little about Channel 4 that she thought it was publicly funded and had to be corrected by a Tory colleague on camera. Channel 4 costs the taxpayer nothing. The cynical motivation for the policy is simple: it is payback time; it is revenge. The Government hate “Channel 4 News” and its rigorous journalism holding Ministers to account.
The Minister mentioned a Netflix-style model, ignoring the fact that Netflix, unlike Channel 4, loses money—it is currently $15 billion in debt—and does not send war correspondents to Ukraine. Will she therefore listen to the experts, or must we wait for the Sue Gray report, the Prime Minister’s defenestration and the Secretary of State’s replacement?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I did not suggest that Channel 4 would pursue a Netflix subscription model; I simply made the point that Netflix and others—this is not a Netflix issue alone—are changing the dynamics of the marketplace very rapidly. People now view content in very different ways and I do not think it would be a wise, sensible or responsible approach to leave PSBs untouched and unable to have the flexibility that they need to address some of those fundamental challenges.
The hon. Member made a number of unpleasant comments about the Secretary of State. She is not the first Secretary of State to have considered this question. This is not a Secretary of State-specific point of view but a question that has been live for a number of years. It was looked at previously, and the fundamental changes in the market have only deepened since that time with the move away from linear advertising and the rapid change in viewing habits. She took the responsible decision to look not just at Channel 4 but at how we ensure that public service broadcasters have the flexibility they need to be able to provide the content that we all love. She has done a sensible thing in looking at the decision afresh and dealing with it head on, and she has courage in doing so.
Online Safety Bill
John Nicolson ExcerptsTuesday 19th April 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was under the impression that I was to wind up for my party, rather than speaking at this juncture.
Madam Deputy Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman would prefer to save his slot until later—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Then we shall come to that arrangement. I call Dame Margaret Hodge.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Everyone wants to be safe online and everyone wants to keep their children safe online but, from grooming to religious radicalisation and from disinformation to cruel attacks on the vulnerable, the online world is far from safe. That is why we all agree that we need better controls while we preserve all that is good about the online world, including free speech.
This Bill is an example of how legislation can benefit from a collegiate, cross-party approach. I know because I have served on the Select Committee and the Joint Committee, both of which produced reports on the Bill. The Bill is ambitious and much of it is good, but there are some holes in the legislation and we must make important improvements before it is passed.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman, with whom I served on the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, agree, having listened to the evidence of the whistleblower Frances Haugen about how disinformation was used in the US Capitol insurrection, that it is completely inadequate that there is only one clause on the subject in the Bill?
John Nicolson
Yes, and I shall return to that point later in my speech.
The Secretary of State’s powers in the Bill need to be addressed. From interested charities to the chief executive of Ofcom, there is consensus that the powers of the Secretary of State in the legislation are too wide. Child safety campaigners, human rights groups, women and girls’ charities, sports groups and democracy reform campaigners all agree that the Secretary of State’s powers threaten the independence of the regulator. That is why both the Joint Committee and the Select Committee have, unanimously and across party lines, recommended reducing the proposed powers.
We should be clear about what exactly the proposed powers will do. Under clause 40, the Secretary of State will be able to modify the draft codes of practice, thus allowing the UK Government a huge amount of power over the independent communications regulator, Ofcom. The Government have attempted to play down the powers, saying that they would be used only in “exceptional circumstances”, but the word “exceptional” is nebulous. How frequent is exceptional? All we are told is that the exceptional circumstances could reflect changing Government “public policy”. That is far too vague, so perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify the difference between public policy and Government policy and give us some further definition of “exceptional”.
While of course I am sure Members feel certain that the current Secretary of State would exercise her powers in a calm and level-headed way, imagine if somebody intemperate held her post or—heaven forfend—a woke, left-wing snowflake from the Labour Benches did. The Secretary of State should listen to her own MPs and reduce her powers in the Bill.
Let me turn to misinformation and disinformation. The Bill aims not only to reduce abuse online but to reduce harm more generally. That cannot be done without including in the Bill stronger provisions on disinformation. As a gay man, I have been on the receiving end of abuse for my sexuality, and I have seen the devasting effect that misinformation and disinformation have had on my community. Disinformation has always been weaponised to spread hate; however, the pervasive reach of social media makes disinformation even more dangerous.
The latest battle ground for LGBT rights has seen an onslaught against trans people. Lies about them and their demand for enhanced civil rights have swirled uncontrollably. Indeed, a correspondent of mine recently lamented “trans funding” in the north-east of Scotland, misreading and misunderstanding and believing it to involve the compulsory regendering of retiring oil workers in receipt of transitional funding from the Scottish Government. That is absurd, of course, but it says something about the frenzied atmosphere stirred up by online transphobes.
The brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine, with lies spewed by the Russian Government and their media apologists, has, like the covid pandemic, illustrated some of the other real-world harms arising from disinformation. It is now a weapon of war, with serious national security implications, yet the UK Government still do not seem to be taking it seriously enough. Full Fact, the independent fact-checking service, said that there is currently no credible plan to tackle disinformation. The Government may well argue that disinformation will fall under the false communications provision in clause 151, but in practice it sets what will likely be an unmeetable bar for services. As such, most disinformation will be dealt with as harmful content.
We welcome the Government’s inclusion of functionality in the risk assessments, which will look not just at content but how it spreads. Evidence from the two Committees shows that the dissemination of harm is as important as the content itself, but the Government should be more explicit in favouring content-neutral modes for reducing disinformation, as this will have less of an impact on freedom of speech. That was recommended by the Facebook whistleblowers Sophie Zhang and Frances Haugen.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
John Nicolson
No, I will make some progress, if I may.
A vital tool in countering disinformation is education, and Estonia—an early and frequent victim of Russian disinformation—is a remarkable case study. That is why the Government’s decision to drop Ofcom’s clause 104 media duties is perplexing. Media literacy should be a shared responsibility for schools, Government, and wider society. Spreading and enhancing media literacy should be up to not just Ofcom, but the larger platforms too. Ofcom should also be allowed to break platform terms and conditions for the purposes of investigation. For example, it would currently be unable to create fake profiles to analyse various companies’ behaviour, such as their response to abuse. It would empower the regulator.
Various issues arise when trying to legislate for harm that is not currently illegal. This is challenging for us as legislators since we do not know exactly what priority harms will be covered by secondary legislation, but we would like assurances from the Government that Zach’s law, as it has come to be known, will become a standalone offence. Vicious cowards who send seizure-inducing flashing images to people with epilepsy to trigger seizures must face criminal consequences. The Minister told me in a previous debate that this wicked behaviour will now be covered by the harmful communications offence under clause 150, but until a specific law is on the statute book, he will, I imagine, understand families’ desire for certainty.
Finally, I turn to cross-platform abuse. There has been a terrifying increase in online child abuse over the past three years. Grooming offences have increased by 70% in that period. The Select Committee and the Joint Committee received a host of recommendations which, disappointingly, seem to have been somewhat ignored by the Government. On both Committees, we have been anxious to reduce “digital breadcrumbing”, which is where paedophiles post images of children which may look benign and will not, therefore, be picked up by scanners. However, the aim is to induce children, or to encourage other paedophiles, to leave the regulated site and move to unregulated sites where they can be abused with impunity. I urge the Secretary of State to heed the advice of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Without enacting the measures it recommends, children are at ever greater risk of harm.
The House will have noted that those on the SNP Benches have engaged with the Government throughout this process. Indeed, I am the only Member to have sat on both the Joint Committee and the Select Committee as this Bill has been considered and our reports written. It has been a privilege to hear from an incredible range of witnesses, some of whom have displayed enormous bravery in giving their testimony.
We want to see this legislation succeed. That there is a need for it is recognised across the House—but across the House, including on the Tory Benches, there is also recognition that the legislation can and must be improved. It is our intention to help to improve the legislation without seeking party advantage. I hope the Secretary of State will engage in the same constructive manner.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Nicolson Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The Online Safety Bill was published last week. MPs on both sides of the House wanted Zach’s law to be included, to protect children with epilepsy from cruel thugs who send flashing images online to trigger epileptic attacks. How many children would this measure save, and why was it not included in the Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
The epilepsy measures are being considered by the Ministry of Justice, but the new communications offence in clause 150 will capture epilepsy trolling because it is engaged where a communication is sent with the intention of causing serious distress.
Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]
John Nicolson ExcerptsMonday 31st January 2022
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Dormant Assets Act 2022 View all Dormant Assets Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 31 January 2022 - (31 Jan 2022)
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for the comments they have made already. I cannot state how much I welcome the Bill being brought to the House and how successful and efficient its passage has been. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), for tabling his amendment to clause 29. It represents an important step towards establishing a community wealth fund that would level up the social fabric of our most left-behind neighbourhoods across England.
I wish to say a few words on behalf of the all-party group. I know that the Government are committed to regenerating communities that suffer from both extreme levels of poverty and high levels of community need—communities such as Ferryhill, Trimdon and Thornley in my Sedgefield constituency, and communities across the country, from the north of England, through the midlands and down to the coastal communities on the south coast where residents often feel forgotten and cut off from support or funding.
I thank the Minister for meeting me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, my fellow co-chair of the all-party group for left-behind neighbourhoods, to hear our representations and to understand the importance of what we are trying to achieve and how we can address this through the community wealth fund. Together, with other members of our all-party group, I look forward to a continued dialogue with Government and with colleagues across the House and in the other place on how such a fund can quickly be rolled out on swift passage of the Bill and the planned national consultation.
Numerous evidence sessions and research conducted by the all-party group since it was established in June 2020 have shone a light on the high levels of need and deprivation that exist in these communities and neighbourhoods and the issues faced by the residents who live there. Most recently, a report found that the people in these communities live shorter lives and spend more years in ill-health than those in the rest of the country. These findings have rightly captured the interests of national media and are another sobering testament to the fact that action is urgently needed to level up social, economic and environmental outcomes in deprived communities across the country. I look forward to what the levelling-up White Paper has to say about that, and I know that our all-party group will be keenly following those developments.
It is clear that transforming left-behind neighbourhoods is a long-term job. To deliver on that agenda, we need to go beyond physical infrastructure investment—welcome though that is in bringing hope to an area, as I know from my campaign work to restore local rail links such as Ferryhill station. Good local transport provision is key to levelling up, because it boosts connectivity in disconnected areas.
To level up successfully, however, and truly make a long-lasting difference to people’s lives, we must address the rebuilding of social infrastructure. Social infrastructure —places to meet, exchange ideas and take part in civic life—glues communities together. It underpins the vibrant local life that everyone seeks to be part of in their communities; it cements our trust and pride in our local heritage and the places where we live; and it provides us with something to rely on in times of crisis.
As the amendment explains, a community wealth fund would give long-term financial support for the provision of local amenities and other social infrastructure in a way that is led from the bottom up. As was said earlier, we must allow it to be done by people, not to people. As the Government have acknowledged on several occasions during the Bill’s passage, local people are best placed to identify what is needed to make their communities a better place to live.
In our evidence sessions, we heard first-hand the amazing work being done by communities up and down the country, and how powerful an impact local people can have when they work together to improve local outcomes with the right resources and support. We heard truly inspiring stories of communities in neighbourhoods from Bristol to Hartlepool taking the lead in levelling up their local area through widening access to opportunities and employment outcomes for young people, tackling fuel poverty and community led climate action.
Climate action is, of course, an increasingly important focus of activity, given the transition to net zero, and one where left-behind neighbourhoods are particularly at risk of falling further behind as a result of the economic restructuring under way. We therefore need to equip them with the confidence, capacity and resources through patient and long-term support to take action on what matters most to them and to transform their communities for the better. The community wealth fund proposal serves exactly that purpose. It builds on research and learning from previous regeneration policies, which all support the notion that community involvement is essential in achieving lasting change.
As already said, the community wealth fund is supported by more than 470 private, public and civic society organisations that have joined forces to form the community wealth fund alliance to call for the creation of such a fund. To reiterate what I said when presenting my ten-minute rule Bill in December, I believe that it would supercharge the levels of community confidence and capacity in left-behind areas.
In the long run, the social capital that is developed will be reflected in residents’ ability to create and lead sustainable strategies on how they can make change happen locally and tap into the wider opportunities offered on a regional level. In short, the investment would pay significant dividends in the longer run through funding from dormant assets at no extra cost to the public. We are presented with the opportunity to create a permanent endowment for communities in need.
For much of the hard work on the community wealth fund, I thank Local Trust and its team, particularly its chief executive Matt Leach. I know that the work is not over—in many respects, the real work starts now—and that I and others will no doubt be working closely with Local Trust to ensure that the fund becomes a reality.
I finish by thanking the Minister again for tabling the amendment to clause 29. It is heartening to hear the Government emphasise the importance of hyperlocal decision making for levelling up. I look forward to working with the Minister, the Government and our APPG to develop social infrastructure and boost civic pride in communities across the country.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I know that the Westminster press corps has been waiting for something exciting to happen in Parliament today, so I am glad to be able to help to provide it. It is good to see the Secretary of State in her place fresh from her “Channel 4 News” interview triumph.
The SNP welcomes the Bill and the expansion of the dormant assets scheme. The extra £880 million available as a result is welcome. The scheme has already delivered £745 million for social and environmental initiatives. By expanding the list of assets that qualify for the scheme, up to £1.7 billion more could be available for use.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the remarks made about the Bill in the other place, although I am sure that he is aware of them. Peers wanted clarity on its potential costs and more detailed impact assessments for the expanded scheme. Baroness Barker specifically warned that these details were important, so the scheme does not become a
“piggyback fund for government when times are tough.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 May 2021; Vol. 1039, c. 812.]
SNP Members welcome the Labour party amendment proposing an annual assessment of the health and governance of authorised reclaimed funds; this will, I think, help to assuage Baroness Barker’s concerns. Also, as a principle, the more scrutiny is given to this legislation, the better it will function.
It is good, of course, to see that the Bill makes some changes to distribution in England. Now the Secretary of State will have more freedom to spread assets through secondary legislation. That allows England to catch up with Scotland, which already has such an ability. As Lord Triesman highlighted in the other place, it was the example set by the devolved nations, whose innovative thinking in how they spend the funds allotted to them, that provided the impetus for the expansion of the scheme that the Bill presents. What the pandemic has shown is that the needs of the population can change dramatically and suddenly. Flexibility in secondary legislation is a useful tool to deal with that, and we must continue to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny.
We welcome the requirement for the Secretary of State to launch a public consultation and to consult the national lottery. The Community Fund must always be consulted before replacing or changing an order. However, it may be desirable to expand this consultation beyond the national lottery Community Fund and to include devolved Ministers responsible for spending in their nations, and representatives of the voluntary and social enterprise sectors.
It is reassuring to see that the expanded scheme will focus on reuniting owners with their dormant assets. With the expanded range of qualifying products, it is estimated that £3.7 billion-worth of products are lying dormant. For all the good that the schemes do for various charities, it is of the utmost importance that people are reunited with their assets. With the elderly and the vulnerable, especially those without digital skills, among those most likely to lose access or connection to their accounts in an increasingly digitised world, reunification efforts are more important than ever. That is why the SNP welcomes the enhanced tracing and verification measures, which could lead to £2 billion being returned to members of the public.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contribution to the debate and for the constructive way in which everyone has engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. I thank in particular those who have spoken this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) has made his points about community wealth funds frequently and passionately, as have the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), whom I will acknowledge again later. I can confirm for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the expansion will cover Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) again spoke passionately about the impact that dormant assets funding will have on local communities. We should never forget that.
The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) mentioned the principle of additionality, as did my opposite numbers on the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith). That principle underlies the Bill absolutely and completely. Regarding expansion, the Secretary of State is to conduct periodic reviews—within three years and then again in five years. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire mentioned that Scotland currently operates on a different basis, and that is one of the reasons why we have sought to expand where dormant assets money can be used.
I particularly thank my opposite numbers on the Labour Front Bench for their constructive contributions. Throughout, we have agreed on the principles. It is nice and good to see a Bill through its various stages with such a degree of consensus. Although we sometimes disagree on elements of detail, on the Bill’s overwhelming purpose and underlying principles there is complete agreement, and I appreciate the constructive way they have engaged with me.
However, I am afraid we do not believe that new clause 1—a proposal we debated in Committee—is necessary, largely on the basis that there is considerable oversight already, as I have explained before. Although the new clause refers to “authorised reclaim funds”, in practice it refers specifically to Reclaim Fund Ltd, as it is currently the only authorised reclaim fund in the United Kingdom. RFL publishes its audited annual reports and accounts on its website annually. In 2019 the Office for National Statistics classified RFL to the central Government subsector, and in April 2021 it therefore became a Treasury-owned arm’s length body.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill
John Nicolson Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
In 2016, the need for regulation on product security became undeniable when huge swathes of the internet went down. This included websites such as Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, Reddit and Airbnb. The attack was conducted by a botnet, an interconnected series of programmes running on a huge number of hacked devices, which overloaded the web providers with requests for access. However, unlike previous or more conventional attacks, this one did not emerge through laptops and computers. This attack came through domestic appliances. I am sure that this will sound completely ridiculous to the many people gripped by this debate: the revenge of the malevolent toaster.
The internet of things is a term given to physical objects that either have processing power or are connected to the internet, such as home security measures or even lighting. When we think of cyber-security, it is natural to think of the precautions we take when using our phones and computers, especially around personal data and online transactions. What is less well known is the risk that poor product security can have. Attacks on internet-of-things devices rose 100% in the first half of last year, and it is a worldwide problem. In the UK since the beginning of the pandemic, 49% of people have purchased an individual smart device and 57% have increased their use of internet-connected devices, yet worryingly, only one in five internet-of-things manufacturers is believed to have embedded strong security into their devices. I want to praise Which? for the excellent work it has done for consumers in investigating this sector.
As we have seen in our inquiries into tech in relation to the Online Safety Bill, it is necessary for Government to intervene, as companies will often do the bare minimum to protect users. As with online safety, one of the core solutions to product security is the principle of secure by design. It is good to see the UK Government acting to embed this principle in law, following on from the Scottish Government’s cyber resilience strategy’s aim to enshrine security by design as a foundation principle of Scotland’s cyber landscape. On the SNP Benches, we are glad that the UK Government have finally taken action on this, but there are some areas where the Bill falls short, and there is the potential to make some aspects of product security less effective.
One area of concern is that the Bill will require manufacturers to declare security flaws in their products publicly, without having a mechanism in place for automatic fixes or requiring that a fix be in place when the flaw is announced. This could make users less, not more, secure. The requirement could in effect alert hackers and malicious users to flaws without giving users the tools to fix the weaknesses, thereby ringing a bell for hackers to target those products. It has been highlighted that a majority of users will likely not have the skills to implement patching, so the benefit of the disclosure mandate, without automatic patching in place, would be without value. The Minister should look to implement requirements for automatic patching or for manufacturers to put solutions in place before the time of a public flaw disclosure.
Another oversight in the Bill is the exclusion of certain types of products, leaving millions out of scope. Internet-connected ovens, which have been targeted by malware, shutting down entire businesses, medical devices, routers and second-hand products, are all excluded from the scope of the Bill. The Bill should clarify which products are in or out of scope. Additionally, the Bill does not cover laptops or desktops, due to the existence of a developed antivirus and security software market. However, a mere 58% of people in the UK use antivirus software. Martin Tyley, head of cyber-security at KPMG UK, has called for the inclusion of laptops and desktops in the scope of the Bill, to protect the increasing number of home workers who have been targeted since the pandemic began. Even with its current flaws, which I hope the Government will be able to iron out, the Bill attempts to tackle an important aspect of cyber-security. However, this should be part of an holistic IT security approach that is taken to defend the UK’s cyber-security landscape.
I would like to mention the enforcement mechanism in the Bill. Section 26(5) makes it clear that the Secretary of State will not be able to bring proceedings in Scotland, but the Bill will still establish enforcement mechanisms and a body to carry out enforcement actions under it. As the Scottish courts and legal system will have to manage enforcement action brought in Scotland, and oversight of the Scottish legal system is devolved, it is only right that the Scottish Government have a role in developing the enforcement mechanism. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider amending the Bill to include a duty to consult the relevant Scottish Ministers when developing the enforcement mechanism and the security requirements that are to be enforced, so as to account for the requirements of the Scottish legal system.
I also seek clarity from the UK Government on what impact the passage of the Bill will have on the powers of the Scottish Government to regulate products in Scotland. We welcome, in principle, reform of the code. We are working with civil society partners to identify ways in which the Bill can be improved in its passage.
I would like to raise one further issue. BT has highlighted Openreach’s commercial plan to upgrade 6 million properties, all of which will need agreement in order to upgrade them from the copper network. Without more ambitious reform, Openreach risks not being able to access up to 1.5 million flats, even in cases where residents want full fibre. According to BT, the Bill as it stands will not support improved connectivity to flats or rural areas, where most of the network is built above ground.
The need for a fast roll-out must be balanced with the rights of landowners, such as farmers. As we have heard, some campaigners have raised concerns about the rapid drop in rents faced by businesses hosting masts—some by as much as 90%. On this and other issues raised, I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
BBC Funding
John Nicolson Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Dorries
The decision on what the future funding model looks like is for discussion. Some of us may not even be here by the time 2028 arrives, but it is up for discussion, and that is what we need to decide. I have the greatest respect for the Father of the House—he knows that; I have known him for 20 years—but I honestly cannot agree that the BBC can just continue to ask for more money from the British public year after year. I do not agree with that premise. Do not be under any illusions: the BBC will continue to receive billions of pounds, even under this settlement. It will get £23 billion of public money over the course of the charter to 2027. We cannot justify, in the face of rising inflationary pressures and increasing global energy prices, going to the British public and say, “Pay more. If you don’t, a bailiff will be at your door.”
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the statement, not that we needed it; she shared her thoughts with Twitter. Plus ça change. We all know that the timing is to distract from the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State claims that the move will protect pensioners from court cases, but that argument is disingenuous nonsense. It was this Conservative Government who abolished automatic free television licences for the over-75s. If pensioners are struggling with the BBC fee rate of 43p a day, imagine how they will cope with the cost of a Netflix or Sky subscription model. Everyone knows it means less programming at a greater cost.
The Secretary of State has spoken about exploring the options for the BBC, but in reality I suspect her mind is well made up. She let that slip in the Select Committee when she said to me:
“How do I even know if the BBC is going to be going in 10 years?”
Some custodian of public service broadcasting. The hostility towards the BBC and its future does not stem from a desire to protect pensioners, but rather from a visceral loathing of the Prime Minister’s critics. The Tory right hates the BBC almost as much as it hates Channel 4. That is why the Culture Secretary, a doting prime ministerial loyalist, is so determined to destroy both. She does not want to see Krishnan Guru-Murthy lead presenter of Channel 4 News, or Nick Robinson—a former chair of the Young Conservatives no less, and now lead presenter on the “Today” programme—pin down the Prime Minister or his slippery apologists. She knows, does she not, that the Tory right wants the broadcast media to be as sycophantic as most of the print press, offering fawning adulation to their leader. If the BBC is felled, and Channel 4 privatised, free speech will be the victim, and we know—do we not, Mr Speaker?—that the result will be yet more obsequious, unquestioning news.
Ms Dorries
I have no idea how anyone could make the leap from “let’s have a debate and a discussion in the House about how the future funding looks” to “privatisation”. It’s just—I have no further comment.
Draft Online Safety Bill Report
John Nicolson Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I also thank my friend, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), for securing this important debate and for his skilled chairing of the Joint Committee. His expertise and diligence ensured a thorough pre-legislative process. I also extend my thanks to the hard-working Committee staff and to the other members of the Committee, with whom it has been a pleasure to work.
You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that SNP Members are not always fans of this place, but the Joint Committee was an example of cross-party co-operation aimed at delivering effective legislation. We all know that we need to find a way of keeping ourselves safe online and, in particular, of fighting disinformation, which is one of the scourges of our age.
I also thank our witnesses. I suspect some enjoyed the experience more than others. Some of those joining us from Silicon Valley looked more than a little uncomfortable at a few points, as indeed they should have given their inadequate testimony.
We all hope the online harms Bill will do what no legislation has done before by providing a proper regulatory framework for the internet. Its ambition and scope require a collaborative approach, and I welcome the UK Government’s recognition of this. For too long the social media companies have been given carte blanche to make eye-watering amounts of money while spreading hatred, disinformation and harmful content.
With 11 evidence sessions and over 200 written submissions, I am able to highlight only certain key findings from the Committee, and I do not want to repeat what others have said, unusual though that is in this House. Some findings stand out. During those sessions we heard from Rio Ferdinand about the racist abuse he receives and the devastating effect it has on his family. We heard about the misogynistic abuse and harassment that more than a third of all women receive online as a matter of routine. And we heard from Nancy Kelley of Stonewall about the abuse that LGBTQ+ people receive on social media. Stonewall highlighted the real-world consequences of this abuse, with people outed on social media losing their job or their home. Trans people have been subjected to an avalanche of online abuse, with a steep rise in offline abuse, including violent attacks, as a result.
The evidence sessions also illuminated why this abuse is so prevalent on social media. The more extreme and controversial the content, the more likely it is that people will interact with it. Algorithms push this harmful content on to people’s newsfeeds, leading to yet more people viewing it. The reason for all this is cynically simple: the more that people view this content and stay on the platform, the more advertisements that the big tech companies are able to sell, and 99% of Facebook’s income is from advertising. The problem is at the heart of the business model.
Just over a year ago, the US Capitol building was stormed by protesters who attempted to “stop the steal.” Many of those taking part had been radicalised by disinformation that had spread like wildfire online. In these islands, despite the best efforts of all our health bodies, we have seen vaccine hesitancy. Social media is a gift to anti-vaxxers. It allows them to spread their conspiracy theories and lies to a vast audience. Regulating societal harms is by no means easy, but the UK Government must listen to the experts and the Committee report and reintroduce the measures on societal harms into the Bill. Only then will we be able to start tackling disinformation adequately.
Finally, the extensive powers granted by the Bill to the Secretary of State must be addressed. London School of Economics professor Dr Damian Tambini described the powers as
“closer to authoritarian than to liberal democratic standards even with the safeguards”.
The proposed powers undermine the authority and independence of the regulator. The Government propose that the Secretary of State should be able to set strategic priorities for Ofcom and direct Ofcom to make amendments to reflect Government policy. What a disturbing mix. While the Minister is doubtless relieved that the Department is in the hands of the current calm and level-headed Secretary of State, imagine if one day a left-wing snowflake held that power—I see him shuddering from afar. Those powers should be significantly diluted or preferably removed, as the report recommends.
The Bill is ambitious and the report makes non-partisan, well considered recommendations for it. I join cross-party Members in asking the Government to make the internet safer for everyone by adopting those recommendations.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Nicolson Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) raised a strong point about scrutiny and good government. Before Christmas, the Secretary of State appointed her preferred candidate as chair of the Charity Commission. Within a week he was gone, after it was discovered that he had behaved inappropriately to women colleagues, sending one a picture of himself in a Victoria’s Secrets store—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think that is linked to the question, which is about the Online Safety Bill. Your question has to be linked; that is why it is taken. I will call you on topicals, so you can ask the question then. [Interruption.] They are not my rules. They are rules the House has set so it is no use getting angry with me. The question has to be relevant.
Mr Speaker
Order. We have only got 10 minutes for this and some Back Benchers have not got in yet.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
You may have a sense of déjà vu, Mr Speaker, when I tell you that before Christmas the Secretary of State appointed a preferred candidate as Charity Commission chair. Within a week he was gone, when it was discovered that he had sent a photo of himself in a Victoria’s Secret store. Does the Secretary of State do no vetting when she appoints candidates? When she appoints a new candidate, can she promise us that it will be less chaotic a process than last time round?
Oral Answers to Questions
John Nicolson Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes some very important points. I applaud his Select Committee’s work this week in giving Azeem Rafiq a platform to make the comments that he made. It was difficult to hear because it was harrowing testimony. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Fletcher report, which is pretty old, was clearly not acted on and should have been. I assure him that we have had frank conversations over the past couple of weeks with the England and Wales Cricket Board and others involved in cricket. I have had reassurance that the ECB takes the issue seriously and will act, and Tom Harrison has promised me that, with every fibre of his being, he will take action. But he and I know that we will judge the ECB on its deeds, not its words, and if it fails to act appropriately, we will not hesitate to intervene further.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I am sure the Secretary of State will join the Minister in congratulating Josh Cavallo, the only top-tier footballer in the world currently playing to have come out publicly as gay. He will be an inspiration for LGBT kids everywhere who love football. Does she agree that it is a damning indictment of football in this country that no professional player in the game who is currently playing has felt safe enough to come out publicly? Will she join me in calling on football bodies on these islands to look urgently at why that is and to do all they can to create an environment in which players feel safe to come out and be the role models we all need?
Nigel Huddleston
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we investigated these very issues when we worked together on the Select Committee. It is a sad indictment of football that there has been an environment in which so many people do not feel they can express who they are—that is a terrible situation to be in. I agree that we all need to work together across all sports, not just football, to ensure that people feel comfortable in who they are.