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.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

It is about levelling up—I am very sure. Equality and opportunity for all is probably the best way to describe it. It is certainly an ethos that is overlaid as a filter on every policy in my Department: equality and opportunity for all. I am very sure that the paper he is looking for will be here shortly, too.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important part of levelling up is to strengthen local and regional media? They are under terrific pressure at the moment, yet do an important job in holding local institutions to account. Will she look at other ways in which we might do that? Perhaps by extending the local democracy reporting scheme, funded by the tech platforms.

[Ms Dorries]

I bow to the expertise of my right hon. Friend, who has served in my job and in the Department for many years, and served as Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I do not think anybody in the House knows as much about this as he probably does, so I bow to his expertise. I would like to talk to him about his ideas on how we can move forward, and I pay tribute to him for having always championed local media throughout his career. I am happy to meet him to discuss that further.

National Data Strategy Monitoring and Evaluation Update

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Friday 10th September 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)]

I am pleased to inform the House that the Government are, today, publishing an update on the national data strategy which sets out our approach to monitoring and evaluating the strategy. It also launches a 12-week call for evidence on the development of an indicator suite to support implementation of the strategy.

The national data strategy was originally published for consultation in September 2020, setting out for the first time the Government’s ambitions to unlock the power of data in a single publication. The consultation confirmed that the strategy framework was fit for purpose, and the Government published a response to the consultation in May 2021 to confirm that our focus would now turn to implementation.

The monitoring and evaluation update published today sets out in more detail our approach to implementation, including how we will track delivery of Government interventions, assess their effectiveness, and plan for further interventions in the future.

We are also calling for evidence to develop an indicator suite that will track developments across the data ecosystem. This is the first time such a product has been produced by Government for data use in the UK. To tackle this challenge, and in the spirit of collaboration with which the national data strategy has been developed to date, we are seeking the widest possible input to inform the indicator suite’s development, to create a product which can be of value to all members of the data ecosystem. We will provide an update on the development of the indicator suite in due course.

More broadly, we will continue to engage with all relevant stakeholders to implement the national data strategy, including working through the national data strategy forum to help shape the development of the future vision for the strategy.

A copy of this update will be placed in the libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS278]

Data: A New Direction

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Friday 10th September 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)]

Today, I am pleased to announce to the House that the Government are launching a consultation on reforms to the UK’s regime for the protection of personal data. This consultation will be open for 10 weeks, from 10 September 2021 until 19 November 2021.

The Government will have the freedom to create a bold new data regime outside of the EU. The UK can now reshape its approach to regulation and seize opportunities with its new regulatory freedoms, helping to drive growth, innovation and competition across the country.

This consultation is the first step in delivering on that objective and the next step in the Government's plan for digital regulation, while building on our groundbreaking action to keep people safe online through the Online Safety Bill. Furthermore we recently published plans to establish a new pro-competition regime for digital markets and outlined that we will be seeking to agree data adequacy agreements with leading economies such as the US and Singapore.

Data is a huge strategic asset. As set out in mission 2 of the UK’s national data strategy, the Government want to create a more pro-growth and trusted regime for personal data protection. We want to unlock the power of this data to drive innovation and boost the economy, while continuing to protect people’s safety and privacy. This is one of our 10 tech priorities.

In order to do this, the UK needs agile and adaptable data protection laws that enhance its global reputation as a hub for responsible data-driven business that respects high standards of data protection. A responsive framework will enable responsible innovation and a focus on privacy outcomes that avoids imposing any rules today that become obsolete tomorrow as technology evolves.

Any data protection regime requires active interpretation and pragmatic application to new and emerging technologies, such as machine learning. Over three years after its introduction, however, there is persistent uncertainty about how to apply the current regime, aspects of which are unnecessarily complex or vague. This risks throwing up barriers to responsible data access, use and sharing.

The reforms outlined in this consultation will:

Strengthen our position as a science superpower, by simplifying data use by researchers and developers of AI and other cutting edge technologies.

Build on the unprecedented and life-saving collaboration between the public and private sectors in using data responsibly to tackle the covid-19 pandemic.

Secure the UK’s status as a global hub for the free and responsible flow of personal data, complementing our ambitious agenda for new trade deals and data adequacy agreements with some of the world’s fastest growing economies.

Reinforce the responsibility of businesses to keep personal information safe and encourage investment in effective compliance activities that reflect how they operate and their users’ expectations.

Ensure that the Information Commissioner’s Office remains a world-leading regulator, empowered to ensure people can use data responsibly to achieve economic and social goals.

Throughout this process, the UK intends to maintain its high standards of data protection, while taking a pragmatic and risk-based approach, rather than one that over-emphasises bureaucratic exercises. Far from being a barrier to innovation or trade, we know that regulatory certainty and high data protection standards allow businesses and consumers to thrive.

The reforms proposed in the Government’s consultation will create a set of new, ambitious, pro-growth and innovation-friendly data protection rules and regulations that underpins the trustworthy use of data for an even better UK data rights regime.

These reforms have clear benefits for both citizens and businesses. We are proposing to introduce more flexibility in how organisations embed privacy management in their processes alongside greater transparency about how their users’ data is protected and clearer procedures for handling complaints. We propose taking action to tackle nuisance calls which can disproportionately affect the most vulnerable people in our society. We will explore whether ICO should have powers to impose higher fines and carry out audits of companies which are responsible for breaching direct marketing rules. We will continue to look into voluntary industry-led action; and explore whether to mandate communications providers to do more to block calls and texts at source or to provide free-of-charge call-blocking services.

Furthermore, our proposed reforms will clarify how all kinds of businesses can navigate the data protection regime to innovate responsibly with personal data. We are also proposing measures that would require the ICO to recognise and account for how its regulatory activity on data protection may impact on competition and innovation in the digital economy.

Internationally, our reforms will allow us to operate a risk-based and proportionate regime that allows the UK to strike deals with some of the fastest growing economies in the world while keeping people’s data safe and secure.

These reforms will keep people’s data safe and secure, while ushering in a new golden age of growth and innovation right across the UK, as we build back better and I hope you will all join me in supporting this work.

Further details can be found in the consultation and supportive documents, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/data-a-new-direction.

A copy of the consultation and the analysis of expected impact will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS276]

Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation: Advisory Board and Future Focus

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Friday 10th September 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)]

The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation sits at the heart of the Government’s ambitious data agenda, and will play a critical role in helping the UK Government to deliver on the priorities set out in the national data strategy. The CDEI is the UK Government’s expert body on the trustworthy use of data and data-driven technologies, including AI.

Today, we are announcing changes to the CDEI’s role and the makeup of its advisory board. Building on the insights of the CDEI’s first two years of operation, and having conducted a robust internal review, it is clear that more active support is needed to facilitate responsible innovation on data use across the economy. The CDEI is well placed to play this role, and having listened carefully to the public’s views through our consultation on the National Data Strategy, I have decided that this should be the priority for the CDEI’s next phase of work. It should be concentrating on current Government priorities with the primary role of operationalising Government’s data and Al policy. The CDEI’s purpose is making sure that responsible data-driven innovation in complex areas actually happens, boosting the UK’s tech and research competitiveness, and supporting the transformation of the use of data and AI by the public and private sectors.

When working in partnership with organisations, the CDEI will deliver, test and refine trustworthy approaches to data and AI governance, and address barriers to innovation. It will operationalise concepts such as “transparency” and “accountability” in the real world, and build the foundations for public trust in the use of data and AI. In doing so, it will help the UK to capitalise on the societal and economic opportunities posed by data and data-driven technologies, while managing the risks.

The CDEI is already working with partners to pilot tech and data policy use cases in a number of sectors including local government, transport, online safety, recruitment and social care. Given these new objectives and activities, the CDEI’s current status as an expert committee is adequate and we are not planning for it to be placed on a statutory footing at this time. Similarly, the Government will not require the CDEI to report to Parliament in future separately from its parent department, DCMS. The CDEI will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as any other aspect of departmental activity.

To support the delivery of an ambitious new work programme closely aligned with Government priorities, we have appointed an advisory board of leading experts to support the CDEI in its new phase of operations. The open recruitment campaign attracted a stellar group of proven innovators in data use. We are grateful that several outstanding members of the existing board have agreed to continue in their posts as well, including the Deputy Chair, Edwina Dunn. Edwina has agreed to act as interim Chair, while we continue our search for a permanent Chair.

[HCWS277]

National Lottery Products: Sales

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)]

Following a consultation, the Government announced last year that they were raising the age at which national lottery products can be bought and sold from 16 to 18, protecting young people from the possible risk of gambling harm. The new minimum age comes into force on 1 October and the operator and retailers have already stopped selling tickets to anyone aged below 18.

Following a further consultation which was held in July and August, the Government intend to make some technical amendments to the requirements placed on retailers in connection with the uplift in the minimum age for buying and selling national lottery products from 16 to 18, and today a statutory instrument is being laid which will introduce this change.

The approved sales system is a minor technical easement and will be based on the two existing provisions already in place for alcohol sales in England, Wales and Scotland, and for sales of tobacco and nicotine vaping products in Scotland, through which a designated person aged 18 or over can approve a transaction being handled by a 16 or 17-year-old. This approach therefore builds on an existing framework and maintains the intent of the original policy.

The majority of national lottery retailers will already be familiar with at least one of the systems. By offering both approaches we hope that the easement will meet the diverse needs of the national lottery’s 44,000 retailers who range from large supermarket chains to small independent family run shops.

The consultation response is being published today on gov.uk, and thank you to everyone who took the time to respond.

[HCWS272]