BBC: Funding

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future funding of the BBC

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to debate a subject that I seem to have spent a large part of my parliamentary career discussing, but which has become extremely appropriate to examine once again today. The Minister, who I have spent a lot of time debating over the last few years, last night replied to an Adjournment debate touching on the overall process under which the BBC charter will be renewed, but as she said last night—and she is completely right—the funding of the BBC is a central part of the charter renewal process, and what the BBC does will to some extent be affected by the money available to it and vice versa. I do think it is right that we look at the matter.

I had responsibility less than 10 years ago for drawing up the charter under which the BBC currently operates. That was in 2015-16—only seven or eight years ago—but the changes that have taken place in the broadcasting landscape since are huge and continue to accelerate. At the time of the last charter, streaming did exist, but it was only a couple of years after Netflix had launched in this country, and there were still only one or two other streamers available. Since then, we have seen an explosion, with an enormous number of different streaming platforms that are investing heavily in extremely good content. Most people now enjoy streamed services as well as traditional broadcast, and subscribe, quite often, to several streamers.

Despite the huge range of content that is now available, in my view—and I think the Government take the same view—public service broadcasting is still absolutely necessary, particularly in the core public service content areas of news and current affairs, which are not really provided by the streaming services. I continue to believe that there is a very important role for the BBC in this country’s broadcasting landscape, but my concern is that the traditional method by which the BBC is funded—through the licence fee—is going to become steadily harder to sustain.

Even seven or eight years ago, we saw the beginning of the challenges. At that time, at the request of the BBC, we closed the iPlayer loophole, by which people were viewing BBC content on the iPlayer but not paying the licence fee. We said then, and it remains the case now, that if people watch live television in any form and if they use the iPlayer, they are required to have a TV licence. Other drivers have increased revenue for the BBC over the years, like the growth of single-parent households and immigration levels, meaning that more licences have been issued—but that trend has now reversed, despite the closing of the loophole; each year, fewer people are buying a television licence. In the course of the last year, the number of licences held has fallen by 500,000, and that movement is likely to continue.

If we look at the public’s viewing behaviour, we find that less and less traditional broadcast television is being watched, particularly by young people. Most 16 to 24-year-olds now do not watch any live broadcasts each week—10 years ago, 80% did—and broadcast channels take up only 57% of all viewing, against TikTok, YouTube and all the other streaming services. People are genuinely saying, “We choose to subscribe and pay for Netflix, Amazon, Discovery, Apple and all the other streamers. We don’t see why, on top of that, we should have to pay for a TV licence when we don’t watch the BBC.”

The TV licence does not just cover the BBC; it covers all live television viewing. Nevertheless, a lot of people can watch on catch-up the programmes that are available on the other public service channels. Genuinely, people are not required under the law to have a TV licence, and more and more are choosing not to have one. That will pose an increasing problem for the BBC.

We have seen complaints from the BBC about the fact that the revenue available to it has been cut in recent years—like every other public service, it has been required to find efficiencies—but the director general has talked about the crisis that has been created by the lack of money and his inability to invest to compete. That situation is not likely to get any better if we continue with the licence fee; if anything, it will become steadily worse.

I remember chairing a Select Committee—I think it was about 15 years ago—that looked at the funding of the BBC and the licence fee. At the time, we concluded that although the licence fee had many drawbacks, it was still probably the best available option. It is a regressive tax, it is criminally enforced and it is the case that among the people convicted of failing to pay, a large proportion are women. Those are all drawbacks of the licence fee, but at that time the alternatives did not seem possible. Certainly, advertising is not likely to be beneficial to the BBC or to the whole commercial television sector; there is not that much advertising revenue to go round, and if there were advertising on the BBC, it would result in a reduction for everybody else.

There is an alternative option. A lot of people have said, “Why can’t the BBC charge a subscription, so people can choose whether or not to pay it?” The reason is simple. At the moment, most people still access the BBC and other traditional broadcasters through digital terrestrial television, or Freeview, and there is no mechanism for conditional access—in other words, the choice to receive a particular channel—with Freeview. At the launch of Freeview, the BBC was very keen that that should be the case, because it was worried about subscription, but it means that while a significant proportion of the population continue to rely on Freeview, we cannot move to subscription. But that will change.

Both the last Government and this Government have said that Freeview will be maintained until 2034; it may well be that we need to maintain it for a bit longer. However, the transition to IPTV or internet protocol television—the provision of television over the internet—will steadily increase, and if people have smart TVs, which allow them to choose whether to subscribe to the streamers, it means they could also have the choice of whether to subscribe to the BBC. I think that that option is likely to become more attractive, although it will only really become viable when we reach the point where almost the entire population have IPTV, but for the reasons I have set out, it is important that we start to talk about it now.

The last Government had future funding of the BBC panel, which this Government have not continued. On the other hand, I know that the Minister has set up a future of TV distribution panel, which does not look vastly different. Anyway, I am glad that the Government continue to look at the issue, which is why I think this is the right time to have this debate.

There are certain things that will never be possible to have on a subscription basis, including BBC Radio—I do not think there is any way in which there can be conditional access on radio—and the World Service. I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee and we are currently examining the World Service, which is of huge benefit to this country. It could not be provided on a subscription basis, as the people it is aimed at are certainly not in a position to pay. The World Service also makes a very valuable contribution to the reputation of the UK and to our soft power, and the BBC has said that it should be funded by the Foreign Office and not by the licence fee. That argument is quite attractive, although I recognise that it would be a big challenge for the Government to take on. The Minister gave evidence on the subject yesterday and it remains an issue that we will want to debate.

With radio, it would be possible to extend advertising, but, as with any advertising on BBC TV, doing so would damage commercial radio. I am also slightly worried about the extent to which advertising is creeping in at the margin, with the BBC allowing advertising through podcast, which is increasingly the way in which people are accessing audio content.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will recognise, as I do, that one big challenge in relation to the BBC is that many of those who are most opposed to its further commercialisation are the other public service broadcasters, who worry about disruption to their own revenue streams, particularly in relation to advertising. That is why it is tricky to come up with an alternative to the licence fee.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is completely right. She and I both had the pleasure of serving as Minister; I was delighted to stand in for her while she was on maternity leave, so we have both looked at the issue for some time. We have to look at the overall television landscape. If we allow advertising, or encourage the BBC to compete, it is likely to have an impact on the commercial sector, which completely depends on advertising revenue. Our traditional advertising-funded PSBs—ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5—are already finding it difficult competing in a world with well-resourced streamers, and this would make it worse.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

One of the weaknesses of the streaming companies is regional and national news coverage and programming. For BBC Scotland, at the moment 99% of the licence fee paid by Scots is invested in Scotland. That is a really important and positive aspect of the current licence fee arrangements that must be protected as we move forward.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that the BBC provides more of the core public service content than the other PSBs—the others do, but not to the same extent. National and regional coverage of the type he has described is absolutely a core part of that. I think that needs to continue, and if the licence fee is not able to fund it, there is a case for it moving across to general taxation. There is a world in which the core PSB content is funded out of taxation, and then people could choose to subscribe to the content that is more entertainment based—a subscription model—but it is too early to say.

These are the kinds of discussions that are fundamental to the next charter. I am delighted that the Government are now beginning to consider that. My purpose today is to flag up the extent to which the existing model cannot be sustained, and to begin having the debate.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Following the recent developments in Syria, I understand that the BBC World Service will offer enhanced services to audiences across Syria on broadcast medium wave and FM. Would the right hon. Member congratulate the World Service on stepping in to respond to an emergency situation with the utmost professionalism? Does that not underline his point as to why it should be funded from the Foreign Office?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I agree. Yesterday, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from the director general and the deputy director for news, Jonathan Munro, on this subject. He talked about the way the World Service provides its core language services and can also provide additional coverage quickly. Syria is a good example of where it is doing that. That is an extremely important role for the BBC, and one that I do not think could be funded in any way other than through public money. The BBC make a good case as to why the licence fee may no longer be appropriate, which we also need to consider.

There are a large number of Members present in the Chamber, so I do not want to take up any more time. I hope that I have raised one or two questions that we will need to debate thoroughly over the course of the couple of years that lie ahead for the charter renewal.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I do not intend to set a time limit, but if Members could stick to five or six minutes, everybody should get to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Jarvis]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Does the Minister agree that the BBC’s funding model must not be a Trojan horse for those who seek to undermine its editorial independence and pave the way for figures such as Elon Musk, whom we have little opportunity to scrutinise or hold to account? Liberal Democrats are committed to a strong, independent and well-funded BBC that continues to reflect the diversity of our nation and serves all audiences.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I do not disagree with a lot of what the hon. Lady has said about the value of the BBC, but the problem is that more and more people are unwilling to pay the licence fee, and that has to be addressed. She wants to see a strongly financed and funded BBC, but she is going to have to come up with an answer to the fact that the revenue is going to go on declining under the present model.

[Liz Jarvis]

I do not disagree that there needs to be a plan, but at the moment I do not see one on the table. The next charter review is the time to have a serious, evidence-based discussion about funding, but any changes must strengthen, not diminish, the BBC.

Through the BBC we see things about our nation and the world that we might never encounter in our own lives. As Sir David Attenborough has said, the world would be worse off without our stories. It must be taken with great pride that the British public has a direct role in providing the platform needed to nurture and share the genius of so many British individuals in the creative industry. I hope we can continue to protect public ownership of the BBC, to preserve the voices and stories that make us who we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. A number of criticisms of the BBC have been expressed, and I have my own criticisms; nevertheless, everybody recognises the value that the BBC brings to the UK and our society, and the importance of ensuring that it continues to play that important role. But there is a problem: the current model is looking harder and harder to sustain. I therefore suspect that we will continue to debate this issue over the coming weeks and years during the charter renewal process. I look forward to continuing my discussion with the Minister and others. I thank everybody for their contributions and join the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the Minister and all others in wishing all Members a very happy Christmas.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned BBC Parliament, on which this debate will appear. I understand that it is available over Christmas, when it shows highlights from parliamentary proceedings—of which I am sure this debate will be part.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future funding of the BBC.

Draft Local Digital Television Programme Services (Amendment) Order 2024

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 General Committees

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I am, in general, a supporter of local TV. That used to be somewhat more controversial that it is today. Local TV was invented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) when he was the Secretary of State. His mantra at the time was, “Why should Birmingham, Alabama have a TV station and not Birmingham, England?” That point was widely recognised, but in the subsequent 10 years local TV has struggled.

Local TV has the advantage of EPG prominence— the No. 5 slot in most parts of the country—and has survived mainly by combining local television news and content with cheap programming, from which it derives advertising revenue. That is a difficult balance to strike, and some stations have been more successful than others. I have to say that London Live has perhaps not been as successful as some others; if hon. Members happen to watch it, they will see an awful lot of ’60s comedy shows, if that is their taste, and not a huge amount of local content.

As we come to the issue of the licence for the next 10 years, I ask the Minister to indicate to Ofcom the importance of local content. If local TV is to be of value, it needs to provide content that people want to see that is about their own community but is not available on regional TV stations. Coming from Essex, I can say that it is deeply frustrating that the local TV provided by ITV or BBC tells me what is happening in Cambridgeshire or Norwich, which is not of huge interest to my constituents. Local TV therefore has a real role to play.

One of the consequences of local TV stations’ difficulties is that there has been a huge amount of consolidation over the past 10 years. To my mind, however, the most important thing is not ownership, but content, so Ofcom, which has the job of laying down the licence conditions, needs to make it clear that that is the priority and focus, particularly in the area of news. As both my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East and the hon. Member for Guildford said, the task of drawing up a business plan to cover 10 years is challenging, so I hope that Ofcom will give guidance on how it expects television stations to set out business plans for a decade ahead.

That brings me to another important point, which the hon. Member for Guildford raised. The Minister and I recall—I am sure with great pleasure—our exchanges during the passage of the Media Act 2024 in the last Parliament. In relation to public service broadcasting, the prime purpose of the Act was to give prominence to public service broadcasting stations on digital platforms. They had the guarantee of the first few slots on the EPG, but as we moved to a world where people access television by various different means, there was real concern that they would no longer be guaranteed that prominence, which would result in a drop in viewers and so perhaps less advertising revenue for the commercial stations and less prominence for the BBC. The Government, with the support of the Opposition at the time, addressed that by giving prominence to the public service broadcasters.

The Minister may remember that, slightly unusually, having first been the Minister responsible for the Bill, I then moved an amendment to it on Report that would have given prominence to local TV stations. Part of the problem is that, as I understand it, the Act does not allow Ofcom to come back and designate other stations outside the main PSBs as requiring prominence. If the transition to a digital world continues at its current pace, more and more people will access TV through the internet and no longer through Freeview, and there is not the guarantee of prominence for local TV. Local TV made it very clear that it needed prominence.

Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade the Government to accept my amendment, and so it is not in the Media Act. I would be grateful if the Minister looked at that, because the answer at the time was, “Local TV does not have apps, so you cannot give it prominence.” It was a question of chicken and egg, because the providers of local TV said, “If you give us prominence, we will develop the app.” I believe that the app is under development. While I welcome the statutory instrument today to allow the extension of licences for a further 10 years, it needs to be combined with prominence. I hope that the Minister will address that.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue that is so important to fans throughout the country. The Government, including my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, have acted decisively in announcing a consultation in order to consider how best to put fans back at the heart of ticketing, not whether to do it. We will say more about this imminently.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T7. May I commend the report from the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, entitled “The future of news”? It highlights the threat from the unauthorised use of news content to train AI models. Will the Secretary of State consider, as a matter of urgency, strengthening the legislation in this area, and consider the introduction of a licensing scheme, as the report recommends?

[Lisa Nandy]

I know that this matter is of huge concern not just to the right hon. Gentleman but to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and to many other Members. As he knows, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism has responsibilities in both this Department and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and has taken a keen interest in the issue. We have read the report and are considering its recommendations, and I will shortly be in a position to update the right hon. Gentleman on the action that the Government intend to take.

Film Industry

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his role in helping to fly the flag for the British film industry. I also join him in paying tribute to the work of the BFI, and particularly to Ben Roberts and Harriet Finney, who have done extraordinary work for the film industry and for our country. I share my hon. Friend’s sentiment about SMEs. The measures announced will be a huge boost to SMEs, but this Government are aware that there is more that we can do. As we continue to build this exciting agenda with the British film industry, we will continue to talk to it and to make sure that we are meeting the needs of SMEs from the length and breadth of the country.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, but does the Secretary of State recognise that investment in the film industry depends on confidence and certainty, not least in the copyright protection regime? Will she make it clear that the Government do not intend to extend copyright exceptions to text and data mining? That would damage both the creative and the publishing industries massively.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for all the work he has done over many years to support and champion the creative industries and to challenge successive Governments, as I know he will challenge us—sadly—on these issues. I agree that investment depends on confidence and certainty. That is one of the reasons why we introduced this measure now, rather than waiting a few more weeks until the spending review: we heard the message loud and clear from the film industry that the longer it faced further delays, the less investment it would be able to attract.

I noted the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the copyright protection regime. In the Government’s view, artificial intelligence presents significant opportunities, but it also poses serious challenges for creative industries. I am delighted to say that our Minister of State—my hon. friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism—is also a Minister of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and he is working at pace to try to resolve these issues.

Telegraph Media Group Ltd: Acquisition

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Lady talks about tightening up the process. We significantly tightened it in the amendment that the Government tabled in the Lords and is coming back to this House today. That will indeed make sure that there can be no ownership, control or influence by a foreign state, because, as she makes clear, that is an important part of our democracy.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that at the end of this week we have World Press Freedom Day, so her statement is particularly welcome. I congratulate her on the scrupulous way in which she has undertaken her responsibilities. She will be aware that the Enterprise Act was written before the internet existed and that it is six years since Ofcom said that there needs to be fundamental review of our media merger regime. Will she therefore say what progress has been made on bringing the entire regime up to date to take account of the massive growth of online news distribution?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am very grateful for all the support my right hon. Friend gave me when he was in the Department and for the expertise he brought with him on the wider media and so many other matters. He makes an important point: the media landscape is changing. That is why we are looking at whether online news should be included in the scope of Ofcom’s powers.

Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Public Bill Committees

We had a very good debate in Westminster Hall on this matter before I went on maternity leave. At that time, I confess, legislation was not ready to go. I imagine that it is down to the great skill and influence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon that we are here today.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I will be brief. It is always a huge pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Minister. I am aware of the immense breadth of her responsibilities, and I wonder why this Bill comes under her remit and that of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, when I believe we still have a zoos Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Julia Lopez]

That is a good question. I am going to speculate that it is because it is to do with the Royal Parks estate—[Interruption.] Everybody is nodding, so I am going to say that I am right on that one, but I will correct the record if it turns out that that is not the case.

The ZSL lease was most recently renewed for 60 years in 2021. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire said that that is simply not long enough, and I take that point. I should also put on the record that I would like to extend the lease of Sir David Attenborough—I hope he will be with us for many decades to come. Like any well-managed and forward-thinking organisation, ZSL wants to make sure it can be around into the future.

Media Bill

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

For information, I intend to call those who have tabled amendments before other Members.

I call Sir John Whittingdale.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have an amendment that I would like to speak to. It might be slightly unusual for the person who was the Minister taking the Bill through Committee then to seek to amend the Bill on Report, but I am sure it is not unprecedented, and I hope my amendment is nevertheless helpful to the Government. It is certainly my intention that it should be.

I have taken the Bill through Committee, and it has already been subject to a lot of scrutiny by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in this House and in the other place, and with the publication of a draft Bill. I am therefore slightly surprised to see the number of Government amendments that have been tabled. Most are relatively minor and technical, and I welcome the measure that would correct the anomaly around independent national radio, requiring it to continue to broadcast on AM, even though fewer and fewer people are now accessing radio by those means. It is right to remove that anomaly.

Amendment 78 addresses local television, which was the invention of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). Although it has had a somewhat chequered history, it is successful in a number of areas across the country, particularly outside London. Rightly, the Government have consulted recently on whether they believe there is a long-term future for local TV, and I am optimistic they will conclude that they would like it to continue. The Bill will ensure that those broadcasters that the Government regard as making an important contribution should continue to thrive in a different media landscape. That is the purpose of the prominence provisions, which safeguard public service broadcasters to ensure that whatever means viewer choose to access television, they can find those public service broadcasters easily. Local television is not currently included on the list of channels that should have due prominence. As we move forward into an age when more and more people rely on internet protocol television to access channels, it will become increasingly hard for them if local TV is not obviously available on IPTV sets.

I have a Sky Glass television, which is an IPTV set, and at the moment I cannot get local television on it at all. One reason for that—and the reason the Government have previously given for not including local TV on the list of channels to be given prominence—is the absence of an app to deliver local TV. When I was filling in for the Minister over the past few months I had a meeting with local TV and was told that an app will be forthcoming quite soon that will allow local television to be received by IPTV. The Government suggested in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) that they see a difficulty with that, and that because there are a large number of local television channels it would be difficult to give all of them individual prominence. However, I am assured by local television that they intend to come forward with a single app, which will be available on a number of major platforms and ensure that a specifically chosen geographical location in the country will receive the specific local TV channel that is appropriate for that area. We are only talking about one app. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in his letter that the Government will continue to monitor the situation and consider increasing the availability of local content.

As we know, media Bills do not come along every day, and this is our single opportunity to update the law covering the range of media services. It is likely that there will not be another opportunity for some considerable time. My amendment would allow Ofcom, at a future date, to recommend the inclusion of a local TV app, as and when it emerges, in the prominence regime. It would ensure that the Bill future-proofs the regime so that it can be amended in such a way. I hope the Government will consider adopting that measure. I understand it is unlikely that they will accept my amendment, but I ask the Minister whether she will continue to look at this issue and, if the Government believe it is appropriate, consider tabling an amendment to that effect in the House of Lords.

On new clause 3, regarding the abolition of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, I was slightly surprised to learn from my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) that the inclusion of a firm pledge to repeal section 40, which was not just in the 2017 Conservative manifesto but repeated in that of 2019, was a drafting error. It did not strike me at the time that either the initial pledge or the second one were drafting errors.

[George Eustice]

Is my right hon. Friend saying that there were no drafting errors in the 2017 manifesto?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

There may have been—I am not quite sure which others my right hon. Friend might be referring to, but I am pretty certain that that was not one of them.

[George Eustice]

Nobody ever said that they objected to the cost protections for the press contained in section 40. The arguments against section 40 were always shorthand arguments that essentially claimed falsely that it would require publishers to pay the costs of others—and that only related to one small part of section 40.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend is right, but as I think I pointed out on Second Reading, not a single major publisher has chosen to apply for recognition by the Press Recognition Panel through joining a recognised regulator.

[George Eustice]

But is that not precisely because the Government failed to move the incentives that encouraged people to join?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

As the Minister responsible, who said that we would not implement section 40, I had considerable talks. It was made plain that if the Government had implemented section 40, no major publisher would apply for recognition. My right hon. Friend talked about the carrot and stick, and his new clause would require the Government to look for alternative incentives to encourage publishers to apply for recognition, even if the existing carrot and stick were removed. He did not go into detail in his speech about what alternative incentive there might be; it sounded slightly like a reference to Marlon Brando’s making “an offer you can’t refuse”. The press have been absolutely plain: they object to any regulator that carries the stamp of Government approval. That is the fundamental principle that has caused every publisher to say that they will not apply for recognition.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend knows that it is not a Government regulator. The Press Recognition Panel was established by the royal charter on self-regulation of the press. The Conservative party established that as a royal charter rather than a regulatory body for precisely that reason—to accommodate that wish of the press.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I did not suggest it was a Government regulator, but nevertheless, any regulator that requires Government approval through the Press Recognition Panel is viewed by the press as having a Government stamp of approval, which they regard as unacceptable. My right hon. Friend spoke about the discussions he had, but he would agree that the stick and the carrot at that time were thought to be necessary to persuade red-top publishers such as The Daily Mail and The Sun to join a regulator recognised by the PRP. What I do not think he anticipated—indeed, nobody anticipated it at the time—was that not a single major publisher would agree to co-operate with the regime that was being put in place. That includes The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer and the Financial Times. Not one major publisher said that it would co-operate with the system that was put in place, so it has plainly failed. For that reason alone the Government should revisit the issue, remove section 40, and instead encourage those who do not currently accept the ruling of an independent regulator to join the one in existence, which is IPSO. I know that my right hon. Friend and I will not agree on this point, but his suggestion that it was somehow an oversight to include a commitment to repeal in the manifestos of 2017 and 2019 is simply not correct. He will be aware that there is unanimity among all the major publishers that section 40 represents an attack on media freedom. It is not just the publishers who hold that view; many campaigning organisations, such as Reporters Without Borders, have actually downgraded the UK’s press freedom rating because of the existence of section 40, and it is certainly viewed as an infringement of media freedom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that this is not the only issue on which we agree, but it is certainly one on which we hold the same view. For that reason, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) will press his new clause to a vote, because I shall not support him on it.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

We should remind ourselves why we are here: it is because those who were described by Alan Bates, the leader of the Horizon scandal complainants, as “small, skinny people” needed redress against the huge, overbearing press. The Hacked Off website pointed out that in 2021, only 0.6% of more than 14,000 complaints were upheld by IPSO—only 88 cases in total, which is a minuscule number. Is that a sign that the system is working?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I do not think success can be judged simply on the number of complaints upheld. Indeed, as we have seen in other organisations, such as the BBC, we may find that a large number of those complaints relate to a single issue that has generated a great deal of concern. It is not as simple as, “There were x thousand complaints, and only so many were upheld.” Generally, however, IPSO is definitely an improvement on the Press Complaints Commission, which went before it. It is not perfect—no regulator ever is—and I myself have criticised it for not having yet imposed any fines, but the atmosphere surrounding the behaviour of the press is very different from what it was when, for instance, Hacked Off was created, and when I chaired the inquiry on phone hacking, which led to the establishment of Sir Brian Leveson’s report.

I do not want to detain the House any longer. I intend to press the Government, but not as far as a vote; I should say that I urge the Government to look at ways in which they can support local television through my amendment. Given the point about section 40, I cannot support the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I want to express my gratitude for the fact that the Bill has been prioritised in this new term, and is progressing quickly. For our public service broadcasters in particular, this legislation is long overdue. I want to refer to my amendment about the language surrounding prominence for PSBs such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. The Bill gives public service content an “appropriate” level of prominence on online services, which should make it easier to find not only the apps that take us to the BBC or ITV on a smart TV, but to find those channels on the traditional TV guide with which we are all familiar. However, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee made the suggestion, which I have tabled in the form of an amendment, that the word “appropriate” is perhaps unhelpfully subjective, and should be replaced with “significant”. The prominence of PSBs is an existential issue that should not be underestimated, so I ask the Government to consider that suggestion as the Bill progresses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid and valuable contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East, the shadow Minister with responsibility for media, has met those bodies recently. We understand the points that he is making and take them fully on board. This new clause, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend, is not prescriptive as to how we break the cycle; it leaves multiple options open to the Secretary of State.

I turn to clause 50 and the amendment tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who made his points earlier. The phone hacking scandal led to section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. That scandal involved egregious acts, and the treatment of victims of crime or tragedy by some sections of the media was a disgusting abuse of power. We all say that that should never be repeated. The majority of British journalists are decent and honourable, but there are some who even now continue to drag the good name of that profession into disrepute. That profession is a cornerstone of our democracy and it is important that the public are able to trust it, but at the moment we are at risk of the public losing faith in the profession of journalism, as was certainly also the case before section 40 was created and before that scandal was exposed.

We on the Labour Benches want a press that is regulated in a way that makes it accountable for its reporting and that meets the highest ethical and journalistic standards. We want to see a financially sustainable free press in the UK that can carry on holding power to account. Clause 50 repeals section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, but if the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth pushes his amendment 2 to a Division this evening, we will support it, because it offers a way through by keeping some of what he refers to as the carrots. Indeed, by removing some of the sticks, his amendment would incentivise more publishers to join up with an approved regulator, for the reasons that he has outlined much more coherently and clearly than I can now. We thank him for working co-operatively with us.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It is interesting to hear that the Opposition intend to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), as they abstained in Committee. If a future Labour Government repealed section 40, would they put in place an equivalent or similar measure?

Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Sale to RedBird IMI

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a public notice has been issued on this matter. Ofcom will look expressly at accurate presentation of the news and free expression of opinion when it makes its reports and judgments known. I hope that will give him some assurance about how the media considerations will be looked at, not just the competition aspects.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I fully understand the limitations on what my hon. Friend can say. Having covered for her until a few weeks ago as media Minister, I was given no inside information about this matter, either. However, she will be aware that it is now over five years since the Ofcom report to the Secretary of State that said that the internet has transformed the way that news is provided and consumed, and that there will need to be a fundamental review of the media ownership regime. Does she agree with that, and can she say whether the Government will undertake that review?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his expert cover for me. We discussed that subject in our handover, when he told me that there was no information that he could share because he was assiduous in his role and made sure that he was not involved in areas that he should not be. He asked about future ownership questions. He will be aware that we are debating the Media Bill after this urgent question. We have looked at some issues in relation to media, in particular the changing media landscape and how the internet has changed it. That has not covered all the issues that will be raised by this acquisition, but I am sure that once that the Media Bill has completed all its stages, we will be able to look afresh at the other holes in the landscape.

Project Gigabit Progress Update: December 2023

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)]

On 15 December 2023 we published Building Digital UK’s (BDUK) latest progress update on Project Gigabit, the Government £5 billion mission to deliver lightning-fast, reliable broadband across the UK.

In this update, we report on the four latest contracts to be signed in north-east Staffordshire, north Oxfordshire, south Oxfordshire and Derbyshire. Combined, these contracts represent £76 million of Government investment to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to up to 33,000 premises.

The report also highlights the progress of Project Gigabit across the Union. In addition to our live procurements in England and parts of Wales, we have worked with the Scottish Government to confirm the first Project Gigabit procurements to be launched in Scotland, and we have confirmed our approach for Northern Ireland and the remainder of Wales.

The delivery update also notes the recent publication of BDUK’s annual report and accounts, reporting BDUK’s performance during the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. BDUK exceeded its Project Gigabit delivery target for the year, passing 162,600 premises with gigabit-capable broadband, against the minimum target trajectory of 133,000 set out in its corporate plan. In total, BDUK has delivered gigabit connectivity to 929,700 premises, in mostly hard-to-reach communities across the UK. I will place a copy of the latest Project Gigabit progress update in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS147]

Three and Vodafone: Potential Merger

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) both on his appointment as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee and on bringing this issue to the House today. There is no question but that the issues under debate today are very important. The outcome of the possible merger will have implications for thousands of consumers across the country, and the right hon. Gentleman raises perfectly valid questions.

To some extent, this debate is something of a reprise of the one initiated by the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) in Westminster Hall last September. I am afraid that I am likely to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, because I am not able to add very much on the process to what I said back in September. He will be aware that we have a long-standing and robust system for looking at the competition aspects of mergers and acquisitions. As that is conducted independently of Government, it has always been the case that Ministers do not comment on the competition aspects, but rather leave it for the regulatory body—in this case the Competition and Markets Authority—to make recommendations. Ministers will then reach a decision once that process has been completed.

On the national security implications, we also have an extremely robust system in place, but it has always been the case that the Government do not talk about whether inquiries are taking place. All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that, like all other national security matters, we do take telecoms security extremely seriously.

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Things have moved on since the debate sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). On Tuesday, the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Industry and Economic Security, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), told my Committee that she thought that the investment security regime was not fit to match the threats that we now see. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister has said that there needs to be an overhaul of the investment security regime—he is calling for that evidence—and given that the Minister responsible has said that she does not think the regime is currently fit for the threat that we now face, it is essential that the Minister today is able to give us some reassurance that the questions arising from this merger will be addressed by the Investment Security Unit, not least because Parliament has very limited oversight of the decisions that Government will arrive at.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The overall question of the efficacy of the investment security process is for the Cabinet Office. The right hon. Gentleman may well wish to pursue his inquiry with the Minister responsible. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, will also have views about the process that the Government have put in place. All I can say to both Select Committee Chairs is that, in relation to this specific merger, we cannot comment on whether it is currently undergoing scrutiny through that process, but we believe that the process that is available for the examination of mergers of this kind on national security grounds is robust. Beyond that, I cannot really go.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am not asking my right hon. Friend to say whether this particular proposed merger is being investigated. What I am asking him to say is whether the Government accept that there is a significant national security dimension to any proposal for a merger involving a major shareholding by a Chinese subservient company.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me; I am not sure that I can even go so far as to say that. It is on the record that the Government believe that foreign ownership of major critical infrastructure raises security concerns, which is precisely why the process was put in place and the Investment Security Unit was set up. We believe that we now have the ability to determine whether there are serious national security concerns, and if it is determined that there are, powers are available to the Government to take action to protect our national security. I think the answer is yes, but I do not want to be drawn into particular countries or companies. If he will forgive me, I will leave it at that.

Several Members raised wider questions. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) is right that we need to look at the context in which the merger is possibly being considered. His test of whether it is good for his constituents is a perfectly valid one. As he observed, this is the third time we have debated connectivity in 24 hours. That is a measure of how important it is to people. It is the Government’s very firm view that the roll-out of 5G connectivity has huge potential for such things as public services, industry, transport and education. There will be enormous benefits to obtaining the widespread adoption of 5G—benefits that might amount to £159 billion by 2035.

That is why the Prime Minister’s commitment to the UK becoming a science and technology superpower will deliver benefits for everybody in this country. Connectivity, and the availability of mobile telephony, lies at the heart of that. We are already beginning to see benefits from 5G, but the Government are clear that we wish to move beyond the current basic, or non-stand-alone 5G, towards stand-alone 5G. Considerable investment is taking place: something like nearly £2 billion is being invested by the mobile operators in enhancing and improving their networks, and 5G is now available from at least one operator outside 85% of premises.

[Navendu Mishra]

I understand the Minister’s point about 85% 5G coverage, but what are the Government doing about the millions of people in poverty who cannot access 5G, 4G, 3G, or even simple broadband? Does he believe that the merger will mean lower prices for British consumers?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will come on to digital exclusion, which the hon. Member has rightly focused on as a major issue facing the country. Leaving aside whether the merger is a good idea, that is a challenge that we are determined to address.

We believe that very good progress is being made on coverage. As I think was expressed in both debates yesterday—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has raised this several times—the figures that we are given on the success of extending coverage do not always match the experience of the people living in those locations. Coverage predictions are made as a result of computer programmes simulating the way mobile signals travel, and signals can be blocked by obstructions. For that reason, sometimes the figures are not as good, which concerns us. That is why we said in the wireless infrastructure strategy that Ofcom needs to improve the accuracy of its reporting on mobile coverage and network performance. We will pursue that actively with Ofcom.

[Chris Loder]

I think my right hon. Friend is agreeing that some of Ofcom’s assumptions on coverage are a little questionable. Given that the universal service obligation is based on those assumptions, can he help us to push hard to get that resolved? It is negatively affecting so many people in rural areas, who are being told on a map that they are getting a reasonably good signal, but in reality are not.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Ofcom teams go out and test the predictions that are made about the extent of coverage. They do not just accept what the computer tells them; they visit various locations. However, Ofcom needs to do more. Although I am not going to be in this post for more than another few days, I do have a meeting with Ofcom before I hand back the baton to my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). The issue was already on my list to raise with Ofcom, and I will draw the chief executive’s attention to the point my hon. Friend makes.

As I have said, we have set out our ambition to achieve stand-alone 5G across all populated areas by 2030. We believe that that will bring real benefits to the United Kingdom, but it requires billions of pounds of investment, which has to come from the commercial sector. Therefore, we have also set out a suite of measures to try to help operators to deliver that ambition. We also have a 10-point plan for rural connectivity, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) , who has worked very hard as the rural connectivity champion.

This debate has focused on security, and that is obviously a key factor that we need to take into account. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of having secure and resilient digital infrastructure. However, as I have already indicated, we think that thanks to recent legislation the UK now has one of the strongest telecoms security regimes in the world. The Government have used the powers of the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 to set out clear timetables for the removal of Huawei from our 5G networks by the end of 2027. The Act has also established a new cyber-security framework to improve the security and resilience of public telecoms networks and services, which is now in force. Following the Government’s decision to remove Huawei from UK 5G networks, coupled with the need to mitigate the risks of long-term consolidation in the telecoms equipment market, our 5G supply chain diversification strategy sets out a plan to ensure that the UK has a healthy and competitive telecoms supply chain market.

That plan is backed by the £250 million open networks R&D fund, which will accelerate the adoption of open radio access networks technology. That will help to bring more suppliers into the market and to diversify, making it easier to reduce our dependency. However, I assure the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that we are committed to protecting our networks, shielding our critical national infrastructure and understanding how new networks are designed, built and managed securely.

The possible merger deal between Vodafone and Three, as I have said, is subject to regulatory approvals to assess the risk to national security, competition and consumers in the way that all mergers of its kind would be. While we of course welcome investments where they support growth and jobs, the security of our critical infrastructure is also of prime importance. However, I am not able to go further than I have already done in answering the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about precisely the process by which that is measured.

These are other aspects to the merger. The hon. Member for Stockport, I think, raised the possibility of price increases, and hon. Members have commented on the consequences of a merger, also involving Vodafone, that took place in Australia. The only thing I would say is that every market is different, and therefore what happened in Australia cannot be used to draw any conclusions about what might happen here— although, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s latest report, in fact mobile service prices have stayed pretty much unchanged between 2020 and 2022.

Affordability, which was raised by the hon. Member for Stockport and others, is something that we take seriously. He is right that the possession of a mobile phone is becoming an essential of life that, during a cost of living crisis, people may find it difficult to afford, but I recognise the efforts that have been made by mobile operators, including Three and Vodafone, to support customers by bringing forward social tariffs for those on low incomes, as well as by donating millions of gigabits of data, and providing devices, to the National Databank.

There are currently 27 providers of social tariffs, and millions of households across the UK are eligible. I have expressed concern in the past about the low take-up of social tariffs, but I am pleased to say that it is now increasing, although there is still further work to do in bringing the possibility of a social tariff to the attention of people who may find a mobile phone difficult to afford. Mobile prices in the UK are among the lowest compared with countries such as Italy, Germany, Spain, France and the United States.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On the topic of social tariffs, I agree that low take-up is still a concern. When I visited my local jobcentre, I asked the staff there to ensure that they inform the people who come through the door about social tariffs. Will the Minister join me in encouraging MPs around the House to urge those working in customer-facing roles with people who are struggling financially to talk about mobile social tariffs?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am very happy to join the hon. Lady in calling for that. I recently met my ministerial colleague at the Department for Work and Pensions to discuss what more we can do to ensure that benefit claimants are aware of the possibility of going on to social tariffs.

I am afraid that I cannot say any more about the detail of the proposed merger, other than that we have well-established and robust processes in place for the consideration of both the impact on competition in the market and any possible national security concerns. I am confident that those processes will be followed, if necessary, in this case.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With the leave of the House, I call Liam Byrne to wind up.