BBC Mid-term Charter Review

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He made a wide-ranging speech more at times perhaps suited to the History channel than to BBC Parliament, but I am sure the viewing public will have listened to what he said with great interest. He made some important points, and the attendance at this debate does not reflect the high regard in which people hold the BBC and its importance for our nation, which is why this review is of importance.

I was not familiar with the term “BBC sympathiser,” but I suspect that many members of the public would recognise themselves as BBC sympathisers because it does hold a special place in many people’s hearts and is respected around the world. That should not make the BBC immune to criticism, however, and because of the unique way it is funded it is often held to a higher standard than many of its competitors.

It is right that the BBC should respond to public concerns and reflect the way society is changing, otherwise it will find itself consigned to the history books alongside silent movies and video cassettes. The sad reality is that the BBC’s traditional rivals on free-to-air terrestrial TV are already on life support because they cannot compete with online subscription services in terms of quality and they cannot match the ways online services can target adverts and reach people, which were inconceivable not long ago. So the BBC could become the last man standing in terms of wholly British broadcasters.

But the warning signs are there for the BBC too. A recent survey found that 43% of people did not know what the TV licence was for and 66% agreed that the TV licence should be scrapped in 2027. I do not agree with that, but that survey should be ringing alarm bells. It may only be one survey, and I do not know the age breakdown, but I suspect we would find from it that younger people are less likely to see the value of the licence fee. After all, they will have grown up in a world where on-demand subscription services are the norm, so paying for something regardless of whether they watch it may well seem outdated and probably unfair.

But when we look at the hard facts, not just at surveys, that also paints a worrying picture. The number of people not paying the licence fee has doubled in 10 years, and that is despite the threat of large fines for non-payment. If that non-payment rate increases at the same rate over the next few decades, we can all see where that will take us. So we need to ask serious questions about why non-payment rates are growing. Clearly that is in part because people are voting with their feet and their wallets, and that is a challenge for the BBC in its overriding mission, which I will address shortly, but it is also a question of enforcement.

When I ask questions of Ministers about enforcement action, it is clear that none has been taken against anyone over 75 for non-payment. I certainly know of a constituent in that age bracket who has decided for their own reasons not to pay the licence fee and so far has received 23 letters with various degrees of threat within them, but no actual enforcement action has been taken. It seems to me that the BBC has taken the decision not to prosecute over-75s for non-payment. I certainly have no issue with that—we should not be criminalising pensioners—but that does jar with the other stories we hear about seriously ill and vulnerable people being prosecuted for non-payment. It seems that we are ducking the hard decisions that need to be made about how we deal with the licence fee.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Is there not another issue here, which is that the BBC is a successful programme maker and broadcaster, yet it is completely unable to compete with the likes of Amazon Prime and Netflix, because it is not allowed to run subscription services in the same way? Is there not a case for replacing a large proportion of the licence fee income with subscription income for those programmes, albeit that it would still be necessary for the BBC to have some public subvention for its public service broadcasting, which plays such a key role in our national life?

[Justin Madders]

That is where the debate takes us, and that is a debate we need to have. We need to decide as a House and a country whether we think that the current model is sustainable. There is evidence mounting that it is not. Equally, I want to protect the BBC, what is good about it and what I value about it. That means that we have to face these issues. Not many businesses that decide not to charge 10% of their customers will survive for long, and people in a free society should not be criminalised for refusing to pay for a service that they do not use, so something will have to change. Either the BBC will have to change tack, or the Government or this place will have to fill that gap. If a council saw such levels of non-payment for council tax, the Government would be sending inspectors in to ask the council to deal with it. We are in a strange situation where we are ignoring a serious issue.

I note with interest that the annual report on the licence fee produced by the BBC claims that it visited more than 72,000 premises without a licence, but the report mysteriously fails to say what action was taken as a result. While it is difficult to find out precisely how many homes should be paying the licence fee, we can state with confidence that 72,000 visits is in itself a small proportion of the properties not currently paying the licence fee. It is time for an honest debate about our expectations over people paying the licence fee.

The flipside of failures in licence fee collection is whether the BBC is run efficiently as an organisation. It is a cliché—I am sure we will hear plenty this afternoon—that it is a bureaucratic monster stuffed with BBC lifers, but we have to ask whether it is run effectively. I have been told that six different stakeholders from four separate BBC departments attend pitches for new TV series. When an organisation has so many internal stakeholders, we have to question who exactly they are serving. Those tasked with governing the BBC have to ask serious questions of it and of themselves as to whether they are delivering true value for money in that respect.

I will reflect on the subject of governance for a moment. I take the point that the hon. Member for Stone made earlier, but I come to a different conclusion. The debate today will clearly have a large element about the BBC’s impartiality, and I do not think it is constructive for us to trade off instances where the BBC has failed in recent times to get that right. We can all say that it can and must do better. I agree that how internal complaints are resolved needs to be looked at with some independent oversight. However, I will focus on how the BBC reflects the diversity of viewpoints in its broadcasting and decision making.

Broadcast is not just about which political party has its voice heard, but who from those political parties speaks. It seems to me and my constituents that political coverage is massively dominated by voices from London. That same London-centric view is presented through all politics coverage, and frankly it plays into the impression of large swathes of the country that politicians are out of touch and obsessed with the comings and goings in Westminster, far removed from the realities of people’s lives. Fair play to the BBC, it does deign to visit the regions with “Question Time” and “Any Questions?”, although I recall a recent occasion when “Any Questions?” came to Cheshire, but the BBC still had to bus in the Labour spokesperson from London. It proves that you can take the BBC out of London, but you cannot take London out of the BBC. The same applies to programmes broadcast out of Salford, when everyone jumps on the first train back to London after the show finishes.

This is not a BBC for the whole country; it is a BBC that is still shaped by the same privately educated Oxbridge, London and home counties viewpoint that has dominated it since its inception. Every member of the board that I have been able to find schooling details for was privately educated. That means there is a real lack of diversity of thought, and that is reflected in the make-up of the senior echelons of management and editorial staff, raising serious questions about the BBC’s commitment to social mobility. It is no wonder that sometimes my constituents look at the BBC and ask, “Who are they speaking to?”

That does matter, because as figures on non-payment of the licence fee continue to rise, the more that people feel the BBC is talking down to them and does not have a voice in their community, the more likely they are to join the millions who have decided not to pay. If we are not careful, we will soon reach a tipping point where the licence fee model becomes unsustainable. As someone who actually wants the BBC to survive—maybe that makes me a BBC sympathiser—I want this place to look seriously at how we square that circle.

I declare an interest as a licence fee payer, not once but twice—I am sure that many other hon. Members who split their time between here and their constituencies are as well. Even if I were only paying it once, I am sure that I would think it represents far worse value for money than any other TV service that I pay for in terms of pounds per hour watched. On one level, that should not come as a surprise—I pay for the subscription services I do because they have things that I want to watch—but could I honestly say that, were I given a free choice, I would pay the licence fee? I probably would, but more and more constituents are asking that question, and will continue to ask it. It needs a serious, sustainable answer.

I do not think that the BBC can compete with on-demand subscription services in terms of quality or frequency of output. It does some great TV, but it cannot compete with the investment that some of the on-demand services provide.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s indulgence. He is talking about the BBC’s TV services, but the BBC provides far more than just TV. He has not mentioned radio. I think that the BBC provides some of the best radio in the world, and that simply could not be provided by commercial operators. Does he agree that our nation is better served by having a diversity of voices from commercial providers and the BBC on the radio scene?

[Justin Madders]

I agree that BBC radio is absolutely fantastic. If I choose to listen to radio, I usually end up listening to the BBC, and not just for the sports coverage but for all other coverage. The BBC’s radio offering is probably the one part that it has got right in getting a good spread of voices and opinions from across the country.

BBC local radio is really important. Radio Merseyside is important to a great many of my constituents, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) will attest. Some of the cuts to BBC local radio have been extremely regrettable, because it is a strength that we should be building on.

More generally, it is the BBC’s news element—be it on radio, online or on TV—that is critical to the BBC’s future. While some clearly think it has a bit of work to do to have everyone’s confidence that it is impartial, it is really important to our democracy in this era of disinformation and division to have a new source that is still trusted by the majority of people.

[Sir William Cash]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the extraordinary examples of the Bashir interview, the Jimmy Savile scandal and the Cliff Richard scandal—those things that seem to envelop the BBC periodically in a way that completely destroys its credibility. Alistair McAlpine is another example. Does he agree that it is astonishing that an organisation that has such a reputation in certain quarters can fall down so badly in others?

[Justin Madders]

Those are some interesting historical references. Any organisation that has been around as long as the BBC, and with that amount of output, will fall down at times. However, it is clear from surveys about what people think about the BBC’s impartiality and their trust in what it broadcasts that it is well ahead of anyone else. That is something we need to preserve and treasure. I commend the work of Marianna Spring on the online disinformation being pushed by states and people who are hostile to this country and who want to sow distrust and undermine our democracy. Her work to expose that is vital.

If the BBC were to have no other role—though I think it should—it should be a trusted source of truth and transparency for everyone in this country and around the world. It will have a challenge persuading people that it is relevant in other areas. In the next few decades, the majority of the population will have grown up in a world where the idea of paying for a service on a TV set that they do not own for a bunch of channels they hardly ever watch feels anachronistic at best and indefensible at worst. The sooner we recognise that to keep the BBC at all we need to address that challenge, the sooner we can decide as a Parliament and a country that it is worth saving. I believe that it is, but we need to address the challenges before it is too late.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Here is a funny thing: while I have been sitting here, I have received a text message from the BBC asking me to do “Any Questions?” tomorrow evening in Sedbergh. I have had to break the news that, as Deputy Speaker, I am unable to do so. How peculiar.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussions the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission on the regulation of online political advertising before an election.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)]

The Committee has not had recent discussions with the Electoral Commission on the matters raised. The Elections Act 2022 introduced a requirement for most online political campaign material to carry a digital imprint. The Commission has said that digital imprints will improve trust and confidence in digital campaigns at future elections and referendums in the UK. It has published statutory guidance to help parties and campaigners understand and comply with this new requirement.

[Justin Madders]

Targeted online advertising can sometimes contain very misleading claims about Members and other politicians. Members might not even be aware that an advert has been sent out. Will the Commission look at some sort of process whereby there is a way for all adverts to be registered, so that people can check their transparency and veracity?

[Cat Smith]

The Commission has previously recommended that social media libraries should be a legal requirement. That would provide voters with more information about who is being targeted online, but it would be for the Government to come forward with the legislation.

BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It has always been the case that the licence fee is required to watch live TV. It does not extend to the other things, however much some people might suggest it should. That has led to an issue that I will go on to talk about: the challenge to the existing model as people change the way they consume television.

It is worth noting that the licence fee is not just used to fund the BBC. It is also used for other strategic public service objectives, including the funding of the Welsh language broadcaster S4C. I spent yesterday in Cardiff, where I was able to visit S4C; I visited the set of “Pobol y Cwm”, for any Welsh speakers in the Chamber today. I can vouch that S4C does an important job in sustaining the Welsh language and is thoroughly deserving of public funding through the licence fee, which is why the Government agreed in the last licence fee settlement to a significant increase in that funding.

The licence fee represents a significant intervention in the broadcasting market, providing a predictable and steady source of revenue for the BBC. The Government are currently committed to maintaining the licence fee funding model for the duration of this 11-year charter period, which runs until 2027. But as I have already suggested—I will come on to this point at greater length—the BBC funding model is facing major challenges, and it is necessary to look at ways to ensure that it remains sustainable in the longer term.

The licence fee does not represent the only intervention by the Government in the broadcasting sector. There are a number of other ways in which we support a dynamic and successful broadcasting sector and, in particular, public service broadcasting. We have six public service broadcasters: the BBC, ITV, STV, Channel 4, S4C and Channel Five. Only two of those—the BBC and S4C—receive direct public funding from the licence fee. All six broadcasters benefit from regulatory advantages such as prominence and guaranteed access to spectrum. With these benefits come obligations with respect to the content that they show and how it is made.

The UK’s public broadcasting system was originally born of necessity when there was limited analogue capacity of spectrum, but more recently—over the past 50 years—the role has become clearer. The six broadcasters complement the free market, producing the type of content that would otherwise be under-served, such as local news that addresses communities across the country, current affairs programmes and original, distinctively British programming that shapes our culture and reflects our values. It is not limited to traditional broadcast television; BBC Bitesize, for example, provides an important resource for young people and schools across the UK. The UK’s public service broadcasters complement their commercial competitors by raising standards across the industry, investing in skills, boosting growth and taking creative risks.

Broadcasters, including the public service broadcasters, are facing a number of challenges due to changing technology. Just as the advent of cable and satellite revolutionised public service broadcasting, internet-delivered services are revolutionising broadcasting now, creating new distribution models with their own gatekeepers. It is telling, for example, that 74% of households with a TV set now choose to connect it to the internet. That has provided viewers with an enormous amount of choice in what they watch and how they watch it.

In particular, the trend away from linear viewing and towards on-demand viewing is continuing. According to Ofcom, in the first quarter of 2023, approximately two thirds of UK households were subscribing to a subscription-video-on-demand service. The weekly reach of broadcast TV fell from 83% in 2021 to 79% in 2022, which is the biggest ever annual drop. This ongoing shift away from traditional, linear, scheduled TV viewing to on-demand via the internet offers viewers an enormous extra range of choice, but it is also putting pressure on the traditional funding models and on public service broadcasters. One way in which the Government intend to address that is through the introduction of the media Bill, which I hope we will hear more about in the King’s Speech. The purpose of that Bill will be to ensure that the public service broadcasters remain visible at the top of the programme guides, whatever form of TV distribution viewers choose to use, because we believe it is important that the public service broadcasters are sustained.

I come to the specific issue my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raises in his Bill: TV licences for the over-75s. Both decriminalisation of the licence fee and the exemption for the over 75s have been debated at length many times in this Chamber. I understand that they remain controversial and that many people remain critical of the fact that the BBC now enforces the payment of the licence fee for over-75s who do not qualify as a result of receiving a means-tested benefit.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Minister will probably recall that I have tabled a number of written questions on enforcement action taken by the BBC, and it seems that no enforcement action has been taken against the over-75s. The Minister says in his responses that any enforcement action should be undertaken with the utmost sensitivity. I can show him letters that my constituents get from the BBC that do not show the utmost sensitivity. Another conversation needs to be had about how this has all been handled.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman is right on both points. He is right that enforcement action has largely not been taken by the BBC against over-75s who have not acquired a television licence—certainly no prosecutions have yet followed. He is also right to cite our stricture to the BBC that it should approach this matter with sensitivity. Like him, “sensitivity” is not the first word I would choose to describe the general tone of communications about TV licence fee collection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I can assure my hon. Friend that those will be taken into account. He is right that that is a factor that increases the income of the BBC. However, it has to be balanced against other factors, about which I will say a little more, that result from a change in the way in which people access television, which is leading to a reduction in the number of people paying the licence fee.

The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in his Bill would be to decriminalise TV licence evasion for the over-75s. It would be very difficult to make it a criminal offence not to pay the licence fee up to a certain age, after which it would no longer be a criminal offence. Our view is that the law needs to apply equally to offenders, regardless of their age. It is right that our justice system is fair and just to all people, regardless of their characteristics.

The more general issue of decriminalisation is one that we have considered on a number of occasions. In fact, when I was Secretary of State in 2015, I came into the job supporting decriminalisation, because I shared the views expressed by a number of my hon. Friends. We commissioned a review of the matter, conducted by Mr Perry, which came out firmly against decriminalisation. Subsequently, in February 2020, when I was a Minister in the Department for a second time, a further consultation received a large number of responses—over 150,000—the majority of which were against decriminalisation.

The reasons for that were several. The BBC argued strongly that it would lead to an increase in evasion, which it estimated would cost it in the order of £300 million. It was also pointed out that if it became a civil offence, and people were taken to court for failure to pay as a civil matter, that could lead to significantly higher fines and costs, if they were found guilty. It highlighted significant impacts in terms of the cost and implementation. The current system works relatively efficiently in the magistrates courts, but moving it over to be a civil matter would result in a considerable increase in costs.

For those reasons, the Government decided that we would keep decriminalisation under review, but we would not proceed to decriminalise at that time. It is more important that we address the whole issue around the future of the licence fee, which is becoming harder and harder to sustain.

[Justin Madders]

It seems to me that we are effectively in a situation where the BBC has decided to decriminalise for over-75s but has just not declared that that is the position. That certainly seems to be the case from its actions, at the very least. We are in a slightly bogus situation where the law says one thing and the BBC continues to send out letters indicating that it will enforce that, when it has no intention of doing so. Given the distress of people when they receive those letters, it is important for us to get clarity from the BBC about its position.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

If people fail to pay their licence fee, it is a matter for criminal prosecution, but as the BBC is responsible for the collection of the licence fee, it is a matter of choice as to whether or not it wishes to prosecute. In response to our request that it addresses the matter with sensitivity, the BBC has assured us that it has not, to date, sought to prosecute anyone over 75.

I want to say a little more about the challenge to the licence fee going forward. When it was reviewed in 2015, it was recognised that there were a number of drawbacks. In some ways, it is a flat-rate charge for which there is no means-tested assistance, and therefore it is highly regressive. At that time, it was concluded that there was no better system of funding the BBC and that it was the most appropriate. For that reason, it was agreed that the licence fee would continue for the remaining period of the current charter.

As the media landscape has changed in the way that I have described, that has had a consequence. Despite the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about housebuilding, the number of TV licences held has declined by 1.9 million since 2017-18. That is because, probably for the first time, a large number of people are genuinely saying that they do not watch live television and that they are perfectly adequately entertained by watching streaming services, on demand and catch-up TV. Under the current rules for the licence fee, they are not required to have a licence.

On top of that decline of 1.9 million, estimated TV licence evasion has now risen to its highest level since 1995, standing at about 10.3%. If the trends taking place continue, that represents a significant challenge to the sustainability of the licence fee, and that comes on top of the concerns about the fairness of the model and, indeed, about whether it is right to continue to enforce it through a criminal sanction.

Already we have seen the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee suggest that the drawbacks to the current licence fee model are becoming more salient. It called for a comprehensive review of the licence fee system. In response, the Government have established the BBC future funding review, with the purpose of examining the options for alternative means of funding the BBC after the end of the current settlement.

Football Index Collapse

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing today’s debate. As we can see, it has been very well attended.

This issue has been described as the biggest scandal in British gambling history, with thousands of customers facing cumulative losses of up to £124 million. However, I think that describing it purely as a gambling scandal does not really show any empathy or understanding about the magnitude. Comments such as those attributed to the Gambling Commission—that people should not gamble more than they can afford to lose—fail to acknowledge this was not like putting a tenner on the 2.20 at Chepstow. Football Index promoted itself as an investment, with “guaranteed yields” in a highly regulated environment, and no bets have actually been lost, of course; the money was effectively stolen.

I have a constituent who has lost a six-figure sum, and some people’s losses are into seven figures. Individuals have been driven to the brink of suicide, marriages have collapsed, families have been torn apart, and life savings for weddings, house deposits or retirements have all vanished. This was not about people chasing their losses; it was money that was supposed to have been invested and was then wrongfully taken. While there has been a Government review—and, of course, promises to do better next time—there has not been justice.

Football Index has been described as a Ponzi scheme, and we now know that its executives were warned soon after its launch, as early as 2016, that its so-called stock market would prove to be unsustainable. Proposals to make the index more stable were actually rejected because of concerns about the possible impact on revenue. That all occurred some five years before Football Index’s eventual collapse, leaving serious questions about the effectiveness of its regulation.

According to newspaper reports, the Gambling Commission was warned in January 2020 that Football Index was

“an exceptionally dangerous pyramid scheme under the guise of a football stock market”.

Has the Minister spoken to the Gambling Commission about this? What did it say? What conclusions has the Minister drawn following this?

[Aaron Bell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because it allows me to make a point that I should have made in my speech. I believe that the new CEO of the Gambling Commission, Andrew Rhodes, understands the problems that occurred in the past. I met him in February to discuss this case and my overall experience with the sector. I think he accepts that mistakes were made repeatedly under the previous leadership of the Gambling Commission. I wanted to put that on the record and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am sure that we will all note that improvement in regulation. It has been a failure; that is implicit from what has been said. It reminds me a bit of the leasehold scandal. People expected products to be sold in a safe way—these were similar, life-changing sums of money—and they have been found not to be secure.

We need some concrete assurances that the blurred lines, as we have heard, are not going to cause problems in the future and that there is going to be a clear delineation of responsibility for regulation in the future. We know from what a former employee said that senior management were warned back in 2016 that there was a problem, but the company continued to take money from people in that way for another four years. I want to know what has happened to those people in charge of the company. What sanctions have been issued against them? Are they fit to be involved in any businesses at all? That is a serious question that needs answering.

In conclusion, as we have heard, the lines between what is gambling and what are financial services are increasingly blurred. Nothing fits into a neat statutory category anymore. What is clear, however, is that there need to be proper protections and regulations for our constituents so that something like this never happens again.

Champions League Final: Paris

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

Again, I thank the hon. Member for those comments. We are hearing harrowing evidence from several Members in the Chamber, which I hope will be fed into the investigations. It is important that that happens. What is also concerning about the evidence he has given is that it is about what happened not only around the stadium, but further afield, elsewhere in Paris. It is important that that is taken into account in the investigation. I can commit to making sure that I communicate all these messages to my opposite numbers in France.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Chaotic organisation, overzealous policing and the fans getting the blame: that is happening far too often and we are all absolutely sick of it. We do not want it to be repeated. I know that the Minister has expressed confidence in the UEFA investigation; I have to say that I am not as confident as he is that it will be impartial, but it certainly needs to be thorough, it needs to have the fan’s voice throughout and it needs to get to the truth, because if history tells us anything, it is that Liverpool fans will not give up until the truth is told. He must send that message to UEFA.

Football Governance

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I have had many conversations with my hon. Friend about the situation at Derby County and I know how passionate she and several other colleagues are about the situation there. We are very confident that, with the new regime and the independent regulator looking particularly at financial regulation, the chances of clubs going into administration again and getting into that difficulty would be considerably reduced because there would be much closer scrutiny of the finances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) mentioned earlier, ongoing, real-time scrutiny of the finances will be pivotal. However, circumstances can change and emergencies can happen both domestically and internationally. Can we guarantee that these measures will ensure that no club will ever go under? No, we cannot, but they will be massively impactful in significantly reducing the chances of that happening.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Since the Glazer family became the owners of Manchester United, they have taken more than £1 billion out of the club, much of it to service debts they incurred buying the club in the first place, which they subsequently loaded on to the club. I do not think that kind of toxic business model has any place in football or any other business, so I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that that kind of arrangement will be banned altogether under the new regulator.

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I have said, financial regulation, looking in detail at the finances and sustainability of clubs and at how they are spending their money, will be at the heart of the independent regulator’s role.

Online Anonymity

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey.

I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing the debate and his excellent stand-in, the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), for a compelling and comprehensive introduction to why we are debating this subject today and why we need to take more action. As she said, we now live in a world where online interaction plays an ever more important role in our lives. It seems likely that when we get some normality back, online communication will still play a huge role, particularly in the world of politics.

I confess that I use Twitter. If I were not a politician, I probably would not, but it is a useful way to get a message across to a wide audience, as quickly as possible. I start from the basis that anything that helps us to communicate with the world has to be a good thing, but that has its downsides. As we have heard, it is a cesspit of abuse, hate and harassment that would not be acceptable in any other walk of life. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, that has real-life consequences. The appalling statistic that she read out, about 47% of teenagers having seen something they wish they had not seen during the first lockdown, is concerning and something that we should be looking to stamp out. She described it as the wild west; that is a thought that has crossed my mind a few times, because it seems that, like the wild west, there are no rules, no norms and no standards. That is surely not what we want to see in what should be a positive thing for the whole world.

I get a bit of abuse directed at me, like every Member, I suspect. It is nowhere near the appalling level that some Members get. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, most of the Members who get the worst abuse are women, because these trolls are often misogynist and prejudiced. They use their anonymity to project their hate on to those people. I do not mind a bit of robust debate; that is what democracy needs, but, as we saw over the pond last week, there is a line that can have serious consequences when crossed.

In my mind, there is a correlation between some of the most extreme abuse online and the anonymity of its authors. They say things they would not dream of saying to somebody’s face, and they do it behind a cloak of anonymity because they are cowards. They are inadequate people. I imagine that if the people who received the abuse read it back to them, they would feel ashamed of what they had said. They say things that they would not dream of saying to a person’s face because they have the security of a keyboard and a monitor in front of them, which seems to mean to them that there is no limit to what they can say.

Because everything online is there for us all to see, it has an impact—on occasion, a devastating one, as we have head. It is the modern equivalent of taking out a full-page advert in a newspaper. It is my view that when people are given platforms, the providers of those platforms have a responsibility to ensure that they are not abused.

I will give an example of someone who tends to post abusive posts to me most days, usually in reply to a tweet I have sent. I am not going to give them the oxygen of publicity that they obviously desperately crave by repeating what they say, but when I see those tweets they are often lies, usually highly defamatory ones. I click on the report button on Twitter, so that they are aware of my objections. Regrettably, I end up having to report that person’s tweets most days. Do I ever get any kind of response from Twitter? No, I do not. I do not know whether hon. Members have ever tried to speak to someone at Twitter or even find an email address, but it seems that it specialises in not making itself approachable. For a communications company, it is pretty awful at communicating with people who want to talk to it.

That is the point: it seems that Twitter is indifferent to the problems that its platform creates. Yes, on a few high-profile occasions it acts, but the majority of the time the most heinous lies, the most disgusting abuse and the worst forms of harassment carry on unchecked because there are no consequences for it as an organisation. If it were a newspaper, it would be sued continually and would have gone bankrupt a long time ago, but because our laws are yet to catch up with the technology, it continues to be a vehicle for lies and abuse. I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud: there needs to be much stronger regulation. The amount of fake news that has been spread during the coronavirus outbreak should be the prompt for us no longer to delay introducing the legislation we need to create some kind of accountability for the consequences of the words transmitted by these platforms.

Finally, I just want to say something about how we conduct ourselves, because we have a role in this. We must take a lead and be responsible. I have to say that the way debates are conducted in this place is always respectful and courteous. Of course, people occasionally lose their cool, but there is always an apology afterwards. That should be the standard that we want to see outside this place—not just for ourselves but for everyone involved in politics. When we see those standards slip, we should not hesitate to call it out.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms McVey. I look forward to doing so on many further occasions. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this exceptionally important debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for her opening remarks, which were more than those of a stand-in. They set out the concerns and the personal experience really well and illustrated why this is such an exceptionally important topic to debate. I am sure that many more Members would be here had it not been for the confusion about whether this debate would be taking place. I know that this is an issue of personal, professional and constituency concern to many Members on both sides of the House; it is not a party-political issue.

I want to start by citing the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who is aware of the challenge of online anonymity for bullying and negative self-perception among young people. He has spoken often about that, and he noted that in 2018 the OECD found that English schools have the highest reported rates of cyber-bullying out of 48 countries. As we debate online anonymity today, we have to keep in mind the deeply troubling human impact that anonymous presence online can have, not least on our young people.

The Government ought to know about the challenge of online anonymity, because their own Commission for Countering Extremism published academic work in 2019 that noted:

“Increased anonymity is associated with increased extremist …language”

on Twitter and YouTube. Tackling abuse and extremism online must mean tackling the worst parts of anonymity online.

We do not have to rely on academic work or the OECD to know the pain and harm that online anonymity can cause. The hon. Member for Stroud set out some of her experiences, and I would just like to say how sorry I was to hear of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) set out some of his experiences with Twitter, and it is highly regrettable—it is not the first time I have heard it—that Twitter does not take complaints from Members of Parliament or members of the public seriously enough.

Just last month, we heard the strong testimony of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who highlighted over 90,000 posts aimed at her. Many were antisemitic, misogynistic and ageist, and many were posted by people hidden behind anonymous screens. We know from several colleagues, from the valuable testimony of groups such as the Antisemitism Policy Trust, and from painful personal experience that online anonymity too often accompanies online abuse. Like almost all Members of Parliament, I have experienced abuse online, particularly when I dare to say something that some people might consider to be controversial. I have never been able to find out who was behind the most violent instances of such abuse.

As the Government note, there can be trade-offs in regulating online anonymity. Anonymity can be a shield for brave whistleblowers, for victims finding online refuge, or for children and minorities finding courageous self-expression. We must not forget that the internet and social media applications have many positive consequences for people who can use them. They are free and widely available, and they allow communication across generations, geography, countries and all kinds of barriers. Simply banning online anonymity is unlikely to be workable or desirable. We have to be sensitive to the trade-offs here. Protecting privacy is as much a priority in those cases as protecting against harm is in abuse cases.

However, I would say to the Minister that inaction is the worst trade-off of them all. The Secretary of State said:

“It is a challenging area, this point about anonymity,”

and that the Government will do nothing on it in the proposed online safety Bill,

“But of course we will continue to keep it under review.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2020; Vol. 686, c. 157.]

The Government are evading tough trade-offs altogether. That inaction means turning a blind eye to misinformation online. It means a failure to look at victims of abuse online—young people, minority communities and our fellow Members of Parliament—and a failure to assure them that we will do better by them. It is a failure to stand by the victims in these horrendous examples.

It does not have to be this way. Protecting whistleblowers does not need to come at the cost of protecting people who perpetrate abuse. We could do things differently. Indeed, there are already legal provisions that seek to balance anonymity and online responsibility. Norwich Pharmacal orders, or NPOs, can help obtain the identity of a party in court cases where there is alleged wrongdoing. The regulations in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 give public authorities the ability to access communications data for potential criminal investigations. As we know, however, the sheer scale of online abuse and extremism means that there is more that we could and should do.

This is not a new issue. As I may have said in the past, my background before coming into Parliament was working in technology, particularly on the networks that now form the internet, for 20 years. The rights and wrongs of anonymity on the internet is a question that is as old as the internet itself, which we should remember is now decades old—it is no longer a rebellious teenager.

Three years ago, I attended a conference held by Ditchley on our rights and responsibilities on the internet, and the right to identity was a particular issue. One of the things that I want to emphasise to the Minister is that, as well as considering the right to anonymity on the internet, we must also consider the right to identity. For example, people should be able to prove who they are when they need to. Companies, services and Governments have a right to ask for identity in certain circumstances, as we do in the physical world. Anonymity should not be treated as a zero-sum concept, but should be qualified by the question, “Anonymous to whom and for how long?”

In real life, we can walk through a crowd without the people around us knowing who we are, but we accept that we are not permanently anonymous. If, for example, a police officer has a reason to review CCTV footage of the area, or we go into a bar and look young enough that we are asked about our age, we may be asked to prove our identity. We would not expect to be able to take out a loan or mortgage without proving our identity. Different degrees of anonymity apply to different situations in the real world. Why should we not reveal on the internet as much of our identity as is appropriate to the situation?

In some ways, as well as a question of principle, this is a question of design, on the way in which permissions and information are required and set out for applications on the internet. It is up to the Government to support a debate about how a spectrum of identity and anonymity should be implemented. A key aim should be to increase the friction that cyber-criminals face when pursuing crime. I do not think anyone is arguing that putting in place identity requirements and appropriate measures to support identification will end cyber-crime or cyber-abuse, but it would increase the friction associated with the crime, and that would help to reduce it.

We should consider a number of areas to address that, some of which have already been raised by the hon. Member for Stroud and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. We should consider a requirement for companies to know their customers’ identities. Contrary to the Government’s position, requiring users to selectively share their identities with online platforms does not mean that users share their identities with the world at large. Platforms can still protect users’ anonymity on the public platform while having direct access to their identities in the event of harmful behaviour.

[Justin Madders]

We know that the business model of a lot of online tech giants is based on sharing and utilising user information commercially. Does that not show that there must be a way of getting enough information on individuals? The information does not need to be circulated, but that shows that it can be found.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and one that I was just about to make by citing the “know your customer” verification requirements in financial institutions, which are part of efforts to prevent money laundering, for example.

Financial institutions, although they have improved immensely in technology over the past few years, are nowhere near as knowledgeable as the great tech giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google in scooping up and managing data, although they tell us that they manage the data in privacy-conscious ways. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, their business models are driven by access to data. There are real concerns about the consolidation and monopoly control of data, which are not within the remit of this debate, but, as he suggests, the idea that these organisations cannot obtain and protect effectively the identity of their users is clearly ridiculous.

Such checks would not even require platform companies to hold user identity data themselves. Instead, as in financial services, secure, expert identity verification services could allow users to share only aspects of their identity—the minimum required to access online platforms. Again, anonymity would be guaranteed relative to other users. The fact that my bank did a “know your customer” check would not mean that my bank data was suddenly accessible to other customers. I think we accept that principle. At the same time, identity would be available to relevant law enforcement authorities in the event of suspected wrongdoing. The very act of requiring a “know your customer” check would also deter malicious agents from using the cloak of anonymity and would therefore increase the friction in the system.

As a complement to those ideas, we could require platform companies to put up deterrents against abuse and harm, ensuring that customers know that their identity could be shared with law enforcement agencies in the event of wrongdoing. I know that the Minister’s online safety legislation, which is in development, will put a duty of care on the large platforms. Perhaps she will tell us why she does not feel a more proactive duty to prevent and deter harm and abuse would not be appropriate, as it would require platforms to know their customers.

It is important to recognise that people are always customers. Even if those who use Twitter and Facebook are not paying for the service, they are still customers and are effectively paying in an exchange of data, so I feel that the model of “know your customer” is particularly appropriate. We could also consider imposing appropriate forms of liability on companies in the event that they are unable to provide identity information where courts and law enforcement require it.

None of those policies would obstruct the privacy of whistleblowers, children expressing themselves or victims finding solace and solidarity online. None of them would require companies to identify customers on their platforms to other customers. Some of them would not even require companies to have the identity data themselves, allowing the possibility of secure identity solutions held outside of these companies. Some of them are likely to be practices that already happen, but voluntarily and not systematically.

The point is not to pursue one specific policy. The point is for the Government to have a consultation and a debate that sets out policies that achieve those objectives, with a robust set of sophisticated digital identity options that can be statutorily enforced. Inaction, which is the Government’s current default of delaying action in this area, is a choice that evades trade-offs, avoids actions and lets victims down, so I ask the Minister to use this moment to tackle online anonymity head-on. We must grasp this opportunity, and to do so we must answer three questions.

First, what is the right identity verification required to place on online platforms with user-generated content? Can we ensure that those cover what might be needed for effective action against illegal and, in some instances, harmful behaviour? How can those requirements on platform companies have impact, with the right mix of incentives and sanctions for companies?

Secondly, how can we ensure that those online platforms are best co-ordinated with law enforcement authorities, where needed? Should Ofcom’s oversight of platforms’ duty-of-care performance cover how effectively companies work with law enforcement authorities? I understand, for example, that Twitter charges law enforcement officials to provide information on the identity of its users. Will the Minister verify that?

Thirdly, what confidence do we have in the jurisdictional coverage of existing and potential identity verification requirements? Do those apply to the range of internationally headquartered and popular platforms, or are Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter able to evade coverage as a result of country-of-origin principles?

I hope that the Minister will answer those questions, as the right answers could materially improve our public sphere and address the examples of online harm and abuse that have been raised in this debate. Platforms would be able to verify users easily, law enforcement authorities could pursue justice appropriately, those hiding online abuse behind anonymity would be deterred and, most of all, users would navigate online platforms with far greater assurance of no abuse or extremism.

With that final point, I will close, because the pandemic has demonstrated that our lives are lived online to an extent never before seen. Even when we return to social contact—we all hope soon—as opposed to social distance, the internet, the web and social media platforms will continue to play a greater part in our lives. The hon. Member for Stroud set out the enormous increase in online activity that we have seen as a consequence of the pandemic. I want my constituents to be able to have trust and confidence online, and in those they meet and engage with online. I want them to feel secure in their online and digital lives, because without that they will be handicapped and prevented from engaging as full citizens in what is increasingly a digital world. I ask the Minister to ensure that that digital world is as safe for everyone as the real world is.

Football Governance

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for bringing this debate. As he said, football is our national game. We invented the modern sport of football, and it is popular around the globe with millions of people watching.

Despite covid-19, the Premier League remains in a strong position. Those running the Premier League have managed to generate previously unthinkable levels of income through commercial deals. Yet much of that money leaks out of the game, to agents or, more pertinently for this debate, to owners. Much of the money washing through the game does not get reinvested in it. Although we have had some £600 million invested in grassroots football over the past couple of decades, thanks to the Football Association and the Premier League, that is less than premier league clubs spend in one transfer window. While my constituency has benefited, with great new facilities at Neston High School and the Vauxhall Sports Club, which, for the record, I occasionally play on when circumstances allow, there is still a long way to go. Beyond that investment, we have too many second-rate pitches, which are rendered unusable by a day or two of heavy rain. Our grassroots facilities still compare unfavourably with those in top footballing nations. Only one in three of our grass pitches are of adequate quality. We only have half the number of 3G pitches that Germany has.

We know the pressures local authorities are under to balance the books. There is little left for discretionary spending on improving sporting facilities, which means that pitches are often left with poor drainage, resulting in some areas of the pitch having more mud than grass, and little or nothing in the way of changing facilities. In many ways, the pitches of today are worse than the ones I played on as a child. More of the money in the game needs to reach the grassroots level.

The money does not reach the fans either. It does not manifest in cheaper entrance tickets or support for other clubs. One only needs to look at my team, Manchester United, to see where a lot of the money goes. Since they took over in 2005, using money to buy the club that they subsequently attached to it as a debt, the Glazers have taken over £1 billion out of that club in dividend interest and finance costs. If ownership models are to be reformed, I would like to see that model of ownership banished for ever. That £1 billion did not have to leave the game. Perhaps some of the struggling clubs we have discussed would have survived if the money had been more equitably distributed.

We need to think about the wider health of the game. A few clubs at the top are getting richer and richer, or, as in the case of my club, the owners are getting richer and richer, but at the other end we hear of clubs that are struggling just to survive day to day.

[James Daly]

Does the hon. Gentleman think there is a strong case for financially powerful and sustainable clubs, such as Manchester United, taking a charitable view with neighbouring clubs that are struggling financially and need direct help? Bury is approximately half an hour from Old Trafford. Does he think we should put in place mechanisms for premier league clubs to help clubs in financial difficulties lower down the pyramid, especially if they are geographically close and have other links?

[Justin Madders]

There is nothing to prevent that from happening now. Manchester United’s reserve games used to be played at Gigg Lane, providing a financial benefit for the club. I have been persuaded that we need to formalise this help, because I am concerned about some of the strings attached to the recent discussions on support for league clubs. I think the inequality of distribution of money has highlighted clearly why the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee said earlier this year that the current business model for football is unsustainable.

As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) highlighted, the governance of football in this country is unlike any other. The financial muscle of the Premier League, which has an income 12 times that of the FA, distorts everything else. The financial power it has must be used more widely for the greater good. Recent developments suggest that the Premier League understands that and recognises it has a financial responsibility to the rest of the game. However, I hope I will be forgiven for being a little cynical about Project Big Picture and what it really meant.

The extra cash for Project Big Picture would have been welcome in the short to medium term, but the strings attached to it and the further concentration of power that were part of the deal could only, I think, come with a huge health warning. What was being proposed would have baked in an uneven playing field, because the price of that extra cash was preferential votes for longer serving clubs, thereby ensuring that the interests of football as a whole would forever be dictated to by the biggest clubs. The proposals would have meant a reduction in the size of the Premier League, and so naturally less opportunity for promotion to it. The league cup and community shield would also have been cancelled. Premier League clubs would have been playing fewer games overall—except that they probably would not have been.

The reduction in the number of fixtures might have been designed not to ensure that elite athletes in the Premier League got extra rest between games, but to pave the way for a European super-league that, in the long run, would hoover up all the power, all the attention and all the money. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said that it would not be easy to establish such a super-league, but in the last 25 years we have seen enough in football to know that, in the end, money talks. The Premier League clubs would have got their way.

I fear that the proposed change in voting rights would ultimately have meant that the domestic game would have become subservient to the interests of the 20 or so clubs that would have been part of the European super-league. Entry to that super-league would, of course, be by invitation only. The massive financial imbalance that already ensures that the biggest clubs tend to participate in the champions league each year would also have had an additional lock on it to make sure that the biggest clubs could never fall out of it. I could, of course, be wrong about that. The Premier League could offer the support without any strings attached. Discussions are ongoing so let us see what happens.

There is no doubt that a new strategic review is under way, and that may result in some of the benefits without some of the downsides. The concern highlighted in the debate demonstrates the reason we need an independent body to regulate football and ensure that all decisions made are in the interests of the game as a whole. We have all expressed that concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) said, every team is a big part of the community. The owners are transient, but fans and supporters are there through thick and thin, in good times and bad, whoever is the owner. Football clubs need to be treated much more as a community asset and less as a business as they have been for far too long.

My final point, Ms Fovargue, relates to agency reform and control. A study of agency fees paid by Premier League clubs between October 2015 and January 2016 revealed that £46.5 million was paid to agency intermediaries. That is money that is leaving the game altogether. Frankly, I would like to outlaw agency fees altogether, but I am sure that will not happen. Those figures demonstrate there are huge sums in the game that do not benefit even the highly paid players; the money certainly does not benefit the clubs or the wider community. Let us do something about that as well when we reform football governance, which I hope we are going to do.

Football Association and Bet365

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I think everybody in this House can agree that problem gambling causes mental health problems. Indeed, this House has heard about—and I have spoken to colleagues about—situations when some of these cases have led to suicide. There is a clear link; mental health problems can lead to problem gambling, and can also be triggered by or made worse by it. The Government and the Gambling Commission have tightened protections, and we have committed to a further review of the Gambling Act, as I said in my response to the urgent question.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

This issue is perhaps the most egregious example of how money is ruining football. It is clear that, with one or two exceptions, there is very little support in this place for this arrangement.

I want to follow up on the wider issue of football broadcasting. Last month, three different subscription channels were showing premier league football. How many times do we expect people to pay to watch football? Are we in danger of pricing people out of the game?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We do want to see more live football on television, which makes it more accessible, but it is worth pointing out that the broader FA cup rights are worth around $169 million to the Football Association, much of which—if not most—is ploughed back into grassroots football.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

The Attorney General was asked—

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

1. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to support (a) victims and (b) witnesses giving evidence in court.

[The Solicitor General (Lucy Frazer)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how the justice system supports those who come before it, and witnesses and victims are an important part of that. One way in which the CPS supports victims and witnesses is through the pre-recording of cross-examination evidence, which takes considerable pressure off vulnerable witnesses. Following a successful pilot in three locations, the scheme was rolled out last month to a further six courts, including in Chester.

[Justin Madders]

The latest Home Office figures show that only 1.7% of reported rape cases even reach the charging stage, so what measures has the CPS put in place to support rape victims giving evidence? What is being done to support the other 98.3% of victims?

[The Solicitor General]

The CPS takes seriously its role in ensuring that prosecutions do come before the courts. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a cross-governmental review into rape and sexual offences is under way and has already completed its first stage of collecting evidence. We are now looking at the whole system for rape and other serious sexual offences to see how we can improve every stage, including getting more prosecutions and convictions.