Local Television

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

The Government have today published on gov.uk a consultation addressing arrangements for the renewal of the local TV multiplex licence and for the renewal, or relicensing, of the 34 individual local TV services currently operating across the UK. The consultation also seeks views on the current statutory objectives for local TV services.

The licences for the local TV multiplex, and for all 34 local TV services, are due to expire on 25 November 2025. In the broadcasting White Paper “Up Next”, published last year, the Government committed to changing the local TV licensing regime to enable the renewal of the local TV multiplex licence until 2034. This was to mirror the changes to the national digital terrestrial television multiplex licensing legislation made in 2021.

The White Paper also confirmed that the Government would consult on the detailed arrangements and conditions for the renewal of the local TV multiplex licence, and on options for the renewal or relicensing of individual local TV services at the same time.

The 12-week consultation we are publishing today, which is open to both industry participants and members of the public, sets out the Government’s proposals for the future of both the multiplex licence and, in turn, the individual services across the UK.

The Government’s approach to the consultation reflects that, a decade on from the launch of the first local TV service in 2013, the sector has weathered many challenges and continues to play an important role in the wider broadcasting ecosystem through its ability to provide local news and content—particularly to those who are digitally excluded. It also reflects that some local TV services have struggled to generate stable revenue streams, maintain consistent audience numbers, and sustainably fund genuinely local content.

A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS828]

Professional Wrestling: Event Licensing and Guidance

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) on obtaining this debate and on her very informative speech. I pay tribute to her and her colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group—I am delighted to see the co-chair, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), present. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who are active members. One of the things that come out of the all-party group’s extremely comprehensive and informative report is those Members’ shared passion for wrestling.

British wrestling has a long heritage dating back several centuries in the UK. It goes as far back as travelling fairs and carnivals in the 19th century, where skilled wrestlers showcased their abilities. Over time, it has evolved into a distinctive style that emphasises technical prowess and a connection with the audience—the report makes that point strongly—which is one of the key elements of British wrestling. British wrestling contrasts with the American version that we all too often see on our screens, which prioritises flashy manoeuvres and larger-than-life characters.

Frequently, British wrestling takes place in small, intimate venues that allow fans to be in close proximity, creating an atmosphere in which the crowd’s reactions become an integral part of the show. I am old enough to recall watching wrestling on ITV on Saturday evenings. Kent Walton would open the proceedings with “Greetings, grapple fans” each week, and we saw characters such as Kendo Nagasaki, Jackie Pallo, and of course the larger-than-life characters of Max Crabtree, the promoter, and his brother, Shirley, who became better known as Big Daddy. Those times are long gone, but it is encouraging that British wrestling has seen a resurgence, with a high calibre of talents and promotions. We now have elite wrestlers such as Saraya Bevis, Pete Dunne and Tyler Bate representing the UK in international promotions such as WWE. That has allowed the UK’s scene to rival the larger promotions across the world. That is an important part of soft power, which is of great importance to my Department.

Wrestling is a thriving industry. There has been not only an increase in the number of shows booked, but a steady rise in audience numbers. I read the chapter in the report on the impact on the sport of covid-19; wrestling was obviously not alone, but its nature meant that it was hit particularly severely by the pandemic. Since then, great progress has been made, and British promotions such as Progress Wrestling, Revolution Pro Wrestling and Insane Championship Wrestling have dedicated followings and showcase some of the best talent.

The hon. Member for Warrington North went through a number of the recommendations of the APPG report, which covers a broad range of issues, and I will say a few words on each of them. A lot of the recommendations, including the one on safety standards and safeguarding, are to some extent in the gift of the wrestling industry itself. Of course, everyone deserves to work in a workplace that feels safe and secure, and I think we all agree that wrestling needs to put safety and wellbeing at the forefront of its priorities. However, there is no need for the industry to start with a blank sheet of paper. There is already a wealth of information from other sectors that can be used as a starting point.

[Charlotte Nichols]

The Minister refers to information from other sectors that can be used as a starting point, but conflating wrestling and boxing is part of the problem, as I highlighted in my speech. Does he not think that it is time that we had some simple, clear, basic guidance from the Home Office to local councils about how to license a safe wrestling event?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I think there are two separate points there about the health and safety guidance and the licensing. I fully acknowledge that there is a lack of clarity—shall we say?—in each of those that could be addressed.

Let me start with safeguarding, which is an important way of ensuring that the interests of children and young people are protected. The child protection in sport unit provides a framework of standards that organisations working with children and young people should meet. For the arts and entertainment sector—I recognise that part of the problem relates to the fact that wrestling sits somewhere between the two—the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has produced guidance. The Department for Education has been helpful in advising local authorities and individuals working with children in all types of professional or amateur performances, paid sport or paid modelling.

The APPG report states that sports coaches should be considered to be in a position of trust for the purposes of child sexual offences and recommends that wrestling coaches should be explicitly recognised as being in such positions of trust. Recent amendments made to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 mean that sports coaches are now recognised as being in a position of trust as regards those in their care and the criminal offences linked to that position. The 2022 Act states that sport includes

“any form of physical recreation which is also engaged in for purposes of competition or display”.

We believe that includes a range of activities such as wrestling.

On licensing requirements, I recognise, and the hon. Member for Warrington North has set out, that there is disparity across the country between the attitude taken by different authorities. There have been quite disturbing incidents such as the one in County Durham, when children were subject to what most people would regard as inappropriate content during something that was billed as a family show. I do not think that is widespread, but it must be carefully monitored.

Professional wrestling events are licensed through the entertainment licensing system, and local authorities, in carrying out their functions, must consider the licensing objectives. Those are, as the hon. Lady knows, the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. It is for regulating authorities to look at events such as the one in County Durham and take them into account, alongside issues such as public safety, protecting children and preventing disorder. In my constituency, there was an application for a wrestling match and there was a lack of awareness of some of the requirements. We are happy to talk about the issue further with the Home Office, which has ultimate responsibility for licensing, and to draw its attention to the hon. Lady’s speech.

[Charlotte Nichols]

Having spoken to local councillors, I know that a number of wrestling events take place in Warrington. They find that lack of clarity troubling because many do not have the knowledge and understanding of the wrestling sector that the Minister does, so they are not sure what they are meant to be looking at when determining whether an event should be licensed. They need something that makes it clear to them; a tick-box exercise when making such determinations would be beneficial. Does the Minister agree?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Certainly. I agree that it would be helpful if we removed the confusion and lack of clarity. As I said, licensing is a Home Office responsibility but, if further work can be done to provide guidance or advice, I am happy to ask the Home Office to look at that. I am sure the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Pontypridd and members of the APPG will be happy to pursue that with the Home Office, but I have absolutely taken note of what she has said.

Building on licensing, the APPG recommended that the industry adopt a set of health and safety standards. I was pleased to hear that the Health and Safety Executive met the APPG in February, and it was agreed that the best way forward will be for the industry to take the lead on the production of new guidance. The HSE has offered to provide support through reviewing relevant sections and providing advice on drafting matters relating to health and safety law, but it is the case that industry-led guidance is generally respected and well received by the industry since they have ownership of it. It can make a significant difference. I take particular note of the recommendation that it should include provision that a doctor should always be present for matches. That clearly makes sense, and I am sure that the HSE will be happy to talk about that further when drawing up the guidance to which I have referred.

Reference was made to the issue of concussion guidance. Such guidance has recently been published by my Department and the Sport and Recreation Alliance for a number of different sports, and I am aware that it is of great relevance to wrestling as well. The hon. Member for Warrington North referred to the Concussion in Wrestling: Building a Better Understanding conference that took place in Loughborough on Monday, where I am sure some of the expert evidence will have been very helpful. It is a matter of great concern.

The wider question of trying to prevent brain injuries and concussion in sport is one that we have debated in the main Chamber and here in Westminster Hall. The guidelines have been drawn up by an expert panel of domestic and international clinicians and academics in neurology and sports medicine, and they set out steps to improve the understanding and awareness of the prevention and treatment of concussion in grassroots sport. I hope that this will help the wrestling community to have a better understanding of concussion recognition, and will ultimately help to make wrestling a safer sport for those participating.

I refer to wrestling as a sport, although the APPG report made a good point by describing it as “sport-art”, because it has elements of sport and elements of entertainment and performance. That brings me to my final point, which is about the issue of categorisation. I am aware that the APPG report suggests that the training for wrestling should be considered a sport, while the performance element is entertainment. This is not something that the Government generally get involved in classifying; it is left to the five sporting bodies, and I know that the APPG is in conversation with Sport England. As has been pointed out, Sport England supports British Wrestling with funding, but professional wrestling is still regarded as entertainment. However, the report’s recommendations are certainly worth pursuing, so I encourage the APPG to talk further to Sport England. We would be happy to help facilitate that, if it would be helpful.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North on securing the debate and all her colleagues involved in the preparation of the extremely helpful and comprehensive report. We will consider the issues further. We all want to see a successful wrestling industry in this country, for the benefit of both its participants and the fans. Once again, I thank the hon. Lady for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

BBC Local Radio: Proposed Reduction in Provision

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the right hon. Lady for raising those interviews with the previous Prime Minister. That has since led to a regular section on the Radio 4 “Today” programme where local radio stations are making a specific contribution to what is a national broadcasting programme, allowing us to get a much better flavour of what is going on across the country, and of the different opinions that regional and local news providers have on those national stories. That is where the value of the BBC really comes into play, and I really hope that that does not wither on the vine.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I urge my hon. Friend to ask the BBC to think again. Will she remind it that stations such as BBC Essex are greatly valued by listeners and provide a service that is unavailable commercially? Online news is already well supplied by the local media, which is under considerable pressure even without greater competition from the BBC. Will she consider asking Ofcom to look into the impact of this decision on local publishers?

[Julia Lopez]

My right hon. Friend obviously has a great deal of expertise in these matters and I am grateful to him for raising the great content of BBC Essex. As I have said before, this is a great opportunity to show the strength of opinion across the House; the BBC is there precisely to serve audiences that are not covered by commercial radio. I would be happy to talk to Ofcom, because these are fundamental questions about the purpose of the BBC.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case and for all the work that she and her team did to help those villages. I asked officials to look into this case, and they told me that the broadband supplier responsible for the projects in those villages did not put them forward for consideration as a voucher priority area, on the basis that they were not expected to deliver a gigabit-capable connection faster than our own Project Gigabit procurement in Kent. In good news, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are making very good progress on that procurement and we hope to be able to launch it in the coming weeks.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to increase the transparency and accountability of technology platforms.

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

The Government are driving forward a digital regulatory approach that unlocks growth and boosts trust. As part of that, we are taking steps to improve transparency and accountability, including through the Online Safety Bill; data protection legislation that maintains rules for responsible usage; and digital markets legislation, which will promote competition in digital markets.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the recent behaviour of PayPal in arbitrarily removing certain accounts of campaigning and journalistic organisations without any warning or explanation? Will he consider how the Online Safety Bill can give greater protection for free speech by increasing the accountability of PayPal, Facebook and the other giant tech platforms?

[Damian Collins]

Absolutely. I agree with my right hon. Friend: it is really important that big tech platforms are transparent and accountable to their users in their terms of service for how they trade. That is important in the principle of how the Online Safety Bill works, both in protecting freedom of speech and in ensuring that companies enforce their platform policies correctly. In terms of digital markets, it is also important that customers know what fair access they have to markets and that they will be treated fairly by platforms, and that the platforms make clear what their terms of service are.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

The leisure centre sector was supported with £100 million throughout the pandemic. We continue to work, and discuss ongoing issues, with the sector, but I am delighted that we are seeing improvements across all leisure sectors.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T4. My right hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday was British IP Day, and that the creative industries for which she is responsible rely on intellectual property protection. Is she aware of the deep concern across the creative industries about proposals to dilute copyright for artificial intelligence, and will she raise the matter urgently with her colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for his continued support to me and the Department. Last week, we published our response to the consultation on intellectual property and artificial intelligence, of which I am sure he is aware. Following that consultation, we intend to amend copyright law to make it easier to analyse material for the purposes of machine learning, research and innovation. That will promote the use of AI technology and wider data mining techniques for the public good.

Channel 4 Privatisation

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I heartily welcome a DCMS debate in this place—three hours, no less! My friend the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) said that one current and two former Select Committee Chairs were drawn by this debate; he called us the three Doctors. I hope I was not Sylvester McCoy in that scenario.

[Mr Whittingdale]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Julian Knight]

Sylvester McCoy—of course.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I will make the intervention that I was denied by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), who made a good joke about Doctors. I merely wish to point out we have not only the current Chair but three former Chairs of the DCMS Committee in the Chamber.

[Julian Knight]

I thank my right hon. Friend for pointing that out and for the extra time his intervention allows me.

Despite my pleasure that we are debating a DCMS matter, which thanks to the business managers we were not able to do prior to Prorogation—for example, on online safety—I will not be supporting the Opposition’s rather over-long motion. However, I have mixed emotions regarding the decision to privatise Channel 4.

Intrinsically, as a free market Conservative, I recognise that it is a historic anomaly that Channel 4 should still, after 40 years, be in public ownership. I start from a simple position, which is that all things should be in the private sector unless there is an overwhelming case that they should be in public ownership. Public ownership is so often the dead hand on innovation. It implies stasis and has a wider sclerotic implication for the economy. However, being sclerotic and lacking innovation are two things I could never accuse Channel 4 of during its 40 years. For much of its first 40 years, the broadcaster has navigated its hybrid status between commercial and public ably. Other Members will no doubt list its strengths, which are myriad and cannot melt away like an ice sculpture.

I agree that privatisation will allow Channel 4 to capitalise on its achievements and attempt to keep up with the rampant inflation in the production sphere, which is an aspect of the wider inflation in the economy, but is also due to the success of UK film and TV production. In fact, I think the UK economy would have been in technical recession in 2018 and 2019 had it not been for those industries, such is their importance. However, the idea that privatisation will meant that Channel 4 will compete head-on with Prime or Netflix is an odd one.

Channel 4 is much better using its status—privatised or not—to better collaborate with other public service broadcasters. PSBs need to find a way to offer a combined front to the public: a super-BritBox, if you like. Imagine the entire rich back catalogue of British television streamed in one place and given due prominence through legislation. Does privatisation make such a thing more likely? With the right buyer, probably. It is unlikely that any buyer would look to—how can I put it?—Richard Desmond-ise Channel 4, as we saw with Channel 5.

I am not certain that I take the view of the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) that a buyer will wait out 10 years and drive down the public service broadcasting. The whole point of Channel 4 is that it has unique selling points. It appeals to a young audience, which is extremely attractive for advertisers and marketeers, particularly in the age of streaming online, as well as for data sharing, which has wider implications.

Does the sale make sense from an Exchequer viewpoint? That is really marginal. It will raise enough to service, not pay off, the national debt for a total of 72 hours. Such is the lack of value to be derived that the Treasury has said that it is happy for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to pledge the money towards the levelling-up agenda. We will see what comes out in the wash in that respect, but I always await the pleasant surprise of the Treasury following through on such a commitment. However, let us be frank: this is not about raising money. It is probably not about the idea that the channel will be a drain on public resources either; it has never been one in the past. However, it is better off being placed in the private sector to ensure that it can grow and develop.

Then we have the elephant in the room—the Jon Snow at Glasto, if you like. Is this in some way a revenge play? I hope not, because such things are deeply unbecoming. As individuals and collectively, we must always rise above such emotions. Personally, I believe that some of Channel 4’s Brexit coverage was shrill in the extreme and that it did not do itself any favours, but as a political class we have to be bigger than that in all respects. Actually, whenever I have gone on Channel 4 programmes, they have been perfectly fine: I have always been treated with respect and asked very thoughtful questions. We do Channel 4 down, but in many instances it offers unrivalled international coverage, and we would be really lacking without it.

In summary, is the privatisation of Channel 4 the right course of action? Probably, but only marginally. Is it being done for the right reasons? I sincerely hope so, but I would be more convinced if it were part of a genuine suite of measures to deregulate our economy and embrace the private sector, rather than being a one-off. Frankly, what we need in the Conservative party is not pieces of red meat to be tossed, but a genuine and coherent plan to offer the public so that they understand exactly what we are and what we are trying to achieve. That would happen if the word “privatisation” were used much more often, not just in our manifestos but in our public utterances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

There is a lot in the Opposition motion with which I agree, particularly its drawing attention to the success of our creative industries and our broadcasting sector and to the benefits that Channel 4 has brought, but it is because I want to see the continuation of Channel 4’s contribution to the creative sector that I believe the Government’s policy is right and will ensure that Channel 4 can continue to thrive.

As has been pointed out, Channel 4 was created by Margaret Thatcher’s Government. There were two principal objectives. The first was to cater for minority audiences that were not being properly provided for at that time. The second was to act as a catalyst to what was then a barely visible independent production sector. Since that time, the landscape has changed dramatically. If we look at the range of choice now available to viewers, we see huge numbers of channels providing a wide and diverse range of content. We also see the spend by those channels. A lot of them are not British, but they are spending money in Britain. Just to give one example, Apple TV recently came to my constituency of Maldon to make “The Essex Serpent”, which I thoroughly recommend to those who have not yet seen it. Minority audiences are now being catered for, but of course Channel 4 should continue with that remit and continue to meet it.

The independent sector has absolutely taken off since Channel 4 was created and is now making programmes that are enjoyed right across the world. However, it is true, as one or two hon. Members have pointed out, that the spend of Channel 4 has declined. I want to cite quickly the latest Oliver & Ohlbaum UK TV production survey for PACT—the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television—which is the independent production sector. In 2020, spending on independent producers was £508 million by the BBC, £356 million by ITV, £210 million by Channel 4 and £223 million by the others, including Sky and some of the streamers.

Just in case people say, “Ah, but Channel 4 continues to support the small indies”, I point out that 40% of the BBC’s spend is on independent production companies with a turnover of less £10 million, compared with 27% of ITV’s, 11% of Channel 5’s and just 10% of Channel 4’s. Yes, Channel 4 does make a contribution, but the independent production sector is actually now so successful that it no longer necessarily needs the support it was previously given. Indeed, I think there is a case for tweaking the remit so that Channel 4 is perhaps returned to its original purpose of focusing on growing companies, not just on commissioning from production companies that are already hugely successful.

The reason why it is right to look at the future of Channel 4 now is that the original model set up, as a commissioner and publisher-broadcaster wholly dependent on advertising, is going to come under increasing strain. Yes, Channel 4 did well last year in that it survived the pandemic. It did so because it cut the programme budget by £140 million and its drop in revenue was not quite as big. As a result, it made a larger profit, but it did so only by slashing the programme budget. That was a sensible thing to do, but it should not be interpreted as Channel 4 thriving and not being under huge pressure.

We know that that pressure is going to increase. Advertising is steadily migrating online. Digital advertising is becoming overwhelmingly the major spend by the advertising industry. As the Secretary of State pointed out, those that want to spend on TV advertising have ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky to go to at the moment, but the streaming services are also going to open up to advertising. Netflix is talking about taking advertising and Disney is talking about taking advertising, so the competition for advertising is going to get ever greater and the diversion of revenue to digital media is also going to continue.

Channel 4’s revenues are going to come under increasing strain at the same time as the cost of production is rising steadily and there is a shortage of skills. As has been pointed out, there are potential benefits from privatisation, and the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) referred to the difficulties that might be encountered in the House of Lords. To quote the last House of Lords report on Channel 4:

“The potential benefits of privatisation to C4C’s sustainability are increased access to investment in programming, content partnerships and technology through access to capital. This would enable C4C to diversify its revenues, enhance its sustainability and be more ambitious internationally.”

I could not have put it better myself.

I want to counter those who suggest that this somehow a vendetta against Channel 4 because some people may not like some programmes. I completely reject that. I remain a fan of Channel 4 News, even though it annoys me intensely on occasions. It is important that we have plurality in our news provision, and Channel 4 News is a professional news provider. This is not just about raising money for the Treasury. The reason behind privatisation is that the Conservative Government whose predecessor created Channel 4 want Channel 4 to go on succeeding, but under the present change in the landscape, it needs a different funding model and the access to capital that the private sector can provide.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

As Channel 4 highlighted in its own document, “4: The Next Episode”, it wants to raise investment and invest in more content, and we are setting Channel 4 free to be able to do that. If Channel 4 does that while state-owned, it is offset against the public balance sheet. We cannot allow that, because Governments do not own money—we only have taxpayers’ money—so we have to enable Channel 4 to be set free to raise investment and to continue to make the amazing and distinctive British content and edgy, diverse programmes that it does.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T5. I welcome the Government’s intention to strengthen the protections for legitimate journalism in the Online Safety Bill, but can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say when those clauses will be brought forward? Will she extend them to cover specialist publications?

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and his long-standing interest in this area. Clause 50 of the Online Safety Bill already exempts recognised news publishers from the provisions of the Bill, and in clause 16 there are particular protections for content of journalistic importance. As we committed on Second Reading, I think in response to one of his interventions, we will be looking to go further to provide a right of appeal in relation to journalistic content. Work is going on to deliver that commitment right now, and we will bring forward further news as soon as possible. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend is the first to hear about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Nowhere is there worse violence being committed against women and girls than that by Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Can the Attorney General assure the House that she will give every assistance to the Ukrainian prosecuting authorities to ensure that prosecutions will one day take place?

[The Attorney General]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that important issue. That is exactly the subject for discussion today and tomorrow with my friend the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, who has come to London at my invitation. I was honoured to go to Ukraine to see at first hand some of her work. What is remarkable about the leadership and fortitude the Ukrainian Prosecutor General is demonstrating is that she has already brought and led some charges and prosecutions of Russian suspects and one Russian soldier has already been sentenced for a war crime. That is remarkable, given the circumstances in which she and the Ukrainians are working.

Online Safety Bill

John Whittingdale Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

This Bill is a groundbreaking piece of legislation, and we are one of the first countries to attempt to bring in controls over content online. I therefore share the view of the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) that it is a great pity that its Second Reading was scheduled for a day when there is so much other business.

The Bill has been a long time in the preparation. I can remember chairing an inquiry of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2008 on the subject of harmful content online. Since then, we have had a Green Paper, a White Paper, a consultation, a draft Bill, a Joint Committee, and several more Select Committee inquiries. It is important that we get this right, and the Bill has grown steadily, as the Secretary of State outlined. I do not need to add to the reasons why it is important that we control content and protect vulnerable people from online content that is harmful to them.

There are two areas where I want to express a word of caution. First, as the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is very much aware, the Government have an ambition to make the United Kingdom the tech capital of the world. We have been incredibly successful in attracting investment. He will know better than I that the tech industry in Britain is now worth over $1 trillion, and that we have over 100 unicorns, but the Bill creates uncertainty, mainly because so much is subject to secondary legislation and not spelled out in detail in the Bill. This will stifle innovation and growth.

It is fairly obvious which are the main companies that will fall into the category 1 definition. We are told that there may be some 15 to 20. Some of them are certainly obvious. However, I share the view that this needs to be determined more by risk than by reach. A company does not necessarily pose a significant risk simply because it is large. Companies such as Tripadvisor, eBay and Airbnb, which, on the size criteria, might fall within scope of category 1, should not do so. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister can say more about the precise definitions that will determine categories. This is more serious for the category 2 companies; it is estimated that some 25,000 may fall within scope. It is not clear precisely what the obligations on them will be, and that too is causing a degree of uncertainty. It is also unclear whether some parts of a large company with several businesses, such as Amazon, would be in category 1 or category 2, or what would happen if companies grow. Could they, for instance, be re-categorised from 1 to 2? These concerns are being raised by the tech industry, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to talk to techUK, to allay those fears.

The second issue, as has been rightly identified, is the effect on freedom of speech. As has been described, tech platforms already exercise censorship. At the moment, they exercise their own judgment as to what is permissible and what is not, and we have had examples such as YouTube taking down the talkRadio channel. I spent a great deal of time talking to the press and media about the special protections that journalism needs, and I welcome the progress that has been made in the Bill. It is excellent that journalistic content will be put in a special category. I repeat the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). The Secretary of State made some very welcome comments on, I think, “This Morning” about the introduction of an additional protection so that, if a journalist’s shared content were removed from an online platform, they would need to be informed and able to appeal. That may require additional amendments to the Bill, so perhaps the Minister could say when we are likely to see those.

There is also the concern raised by the periodical publishers that specialist magazines appear to be outside the protection of journalistic content. I hope that that can be addressed, because there are publications that deserve the same level of protection.

There is a wider concern about freedom of speech. The definition “legal but harmful” raises real concerns, particularly given that it is left open to subsequent secondary legislation to set out exactly what the categories will be. There are also widespread concerns that we need to avoid, at all costs, setting a precedent that may be used by others who are more keen to censor discussion online. In particular, clause 103(2)(b) relates to messaging services and can require Ofcom to use accredited technology to identify CSEA material. The Minister will be aware that that matter is also causing concern.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I can assure him that I know how beautiful North Norfolk is. I spent some time there last summer, and it is an incredibly picturesque part of the country. We want to maintain that, and that is why the shared rural network aims to transform mobile coverage without duplicating infrastructure, therefore minimising the visual impact. My officials have spoken to the shared rural network, and they will be getting in touch with his team. I would be happy to meet him after that to see how we can do more in this area.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to support film and TV production in the UK.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

This Government’s actions have helped the film and TV industry bounce back from the pandemic. Our production achieved record success last year, and my right hon. Friend may have seen the vote of confidence given by the new Amazon Prime deal with Shepperton studios this week. Our covid-related support includes the £500 million production restart scheme and the culture recovery fund, which my right hon. Friend will know has awarded £117,000 to Maldon’s Rio cinema. We want to make sure not just that films are made here, but that they are seen on the big screen in cinemas across our towns.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the excellent news from Amazon Prime. Can she confirm that the film and TV production restart scheme, which was possible only as a result of Brexit, has so far supported production worth nearly £2.5 billion and supported 80,000 jobs? Given this success, will she consider extending the scheme beyond its end in April, and if that is not possible, will she try to obtain equivalent cover from commercial insurers at that time?

[Julia Lopez]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how successful the scheme has been. It has supported £2.8 billion of production spend and over 92,000 jobs, which means we have kept production going and had a fantastic year. As he knows, the scheme was established as a time-limited and short-term intervention in response to a market failure because of the pandemic. It will continue until 30 June, but in the meantime we are working very closely with industry stakeholders and insurers to make sure that there is an effective transition to market cover when that scheme closes to new applicants in April.

BBC Funding

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

Democracy, particularly local democracy, is at the heart of a lot of what the BBC does, and that is why it will be an important element of conversations that we have moving forward—an important contribution. As I have said a number of times, the discussions, the debates that we will have in this place and the evidence that we will take moving forward have not begun. We are seven years—six or seven years—away, and that is the consultation that we will have here, the evidence that we will gather here, and the debates and discussions that we will have. Those discussions will start shortly. We are talking about a new funding model that will start in 2028.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, last year, the number of TV licences purchased fell by 700,000, and that more and more young people are now saying that they do not need to watch the BBC because of the enormous amount of choice through the streaming services. Does she agree that, even despite that increase in content, we will still need public service broadcasting and the BBC, and therefore it is right to have a debate about the future funding model not to undermine the BBC, but to ensure that it can survive going forward?

[Ms Dorries]

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