Media Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 49 introduces schedules 10 and 11, which provide further information about enforcement and how it relates to the new prominence regime for our public service broadcasters, as well as the new regime for radio services on smart speakers and voice-activated platforms. I will speak briefly about both schedules in turn.

Schedule 10 sets out how penalties for failure to comply with the relevant regimes will be calculated. The ability to issue penalties is an important backstop that will ensure compliance with the regime while incentivising mutually beneficial commercial partnerships. However, to secure the integrity of the regime, it is important that there is consistency and fairness in how the backstop can be used, so it is good to see set out in legislation the principles that Ofcom must apply when determining the amount of any penalty, as well as how maximum penalties will be calculated. It is right that these should have the potential to be significant—they can amount to either £250,000 or 5% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue—so that they can serve their purpose as an effective deterrent. I am also pleased that the schedule allows for those amounts to be adjusted, should they need future-proofing in any way. Any change would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would allow for scrutiny. Overall, I believe that schedule 10 is a necessary consequence of the regimes that the Bill sets up, and I have no particular issues to raise with the way that they have been drafted.

Schedule 11 is an important extension of the backstop powers awarded to Ofcom. It sets out the liability of parent entities and subsidiaries, and explains how confirmation decisions, penalty notices or provisional notices may be issued to them. Having that clarification in the Bill will hopefully make for a clear enforcement framework for Ofcom, and will make clear the responsibilities on those to whom the rules apply, so I welcome the inclusion of the schedule, which is necessary to the introduction of the two prominence regimes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 10 and 11 agreed to.

Clause 50

Awards of costs

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 50, page 112, line 33, at end insert—

“(4) This section does not have effect until both Houses of Parliament have passed a motion in the form ‘That this House is satisfied that an effective alternative method is in place of persuading publishers to become members of an approved regulator; and therefore approves the repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.’”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will speak fairly briefly. Clause 50 is contentious. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the lack of accountability of the press, particularly the national press. After the Leveson inquiry, independent regulation of the press was recommended. Impress was set up, and that system is working well; over 200 newspapers signed up to it, but not one of the national ones did. The whole point of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was to ensure that newspapers signed up to Impress, and were regulated by that independent regulator—it is not the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which is not an independent regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, and I hope, time permitting, to speak on clause stand part. The amendment refers to “persuading”. Does she have any suggestion that she can share with the Committee on how publishers might be persuaded, given that although this sword of Damocles has been hanging over them for a very long time, none of them has signed up? Has she had any conversations with publishers of the national or regional press about how her ends might be achieved?

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is incredibly difficult to find a way forward. The hon. Gentleman is right that the issue has been left hanging. Perhaps the press never believed that the Government would implement section 40 and make it work. Maybe the sword hanging over them was not big enough. Whatever has happened, it has not persuaded them to sign up. My key request is that the Government persuades them to sign up, using whatever methods are at their disposal. It is important that we have independent regulation, and that newspapers sign up.

To illustrate the point, IPSO upholds fewer than 1% of complaints that are brought to it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been through the IPSO process, but it is incredibly complex and difficult. It is supposedly set up in such a way that anybody can access it, but without the advice of a lawyer, it is very difficult for a person to ensure that their concerns are heard and their complaint is upheld by IPSO.

The Government should use all the tools at their disposal. They should be having conversations and doing everything that they can to persuade newspapers to sign up. Section 40 should be removed only when there is an alternative—unless, of course, the Government are going to totally dump the idea of having independent press regulation and just give up on this.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Surely one of the reasons for what my hon. Friend describes is that IPSO exists as an alternative. As she says, less than 1% of complaints are ultimately upheld—the figure I have is 0.3%--with cases taking on average almost six months to reach a ruling. There is a disincentive effect, and the turnout says it all.

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is absolutely the case. It is very difficult for people to interact with IPSO in the first place, so a significant number of complaints never even get to IPSO, never mind going through the process and then not being upheld. The current situation is concerning, but it is for the Government to ensure that the newspapers are properly regulated. It is for the Government to enact and ensure compliance with the outcomes of the Leveson inquiry. I would like to hear more from the Government about what they plan to do to ensure that newspapers are properly held to account and properly regulated, and thus increase the level of trust in our media and, as a result, in our democracy. Those two things are inextricably linked.

Amendment 41 is about trying to find a way forward. The Government will have to persuade the newspapers to sign up, and they will have to persuade the Houses of Parliament that they have done enough to ensure that the newspapers will sign up. If all the newspapers signed up, it would be easy to persuade the Houses that whatever method the Government put in place had actually worked. That is the outcome I would like to see: everybody signed up. Then neither House would have any problem passing this clause to get rid of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

[Rob Butler]

I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but, with great respect, I disagree with her. I will outline why I disagree with her and why I support clause 50. I do so from a couple of perspectives: first, as the current chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries chaired before me, with rather more success and aplomb, I suspect; and, secondly, as one who spent the first 15 years of his career as a journalist. I also strongly supported the print media in its original campaign against state regulation, it is fair to say, including the provision of some professional advice at the time.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act has never been commenced. I suggest that, to some extent, that shows it is not necessary and it is therefore appropriate to repeal it. However, there is also an important point of principle here: freedom of the press is sacrosanct and must be seen to be sacrosanct. I am quite sure that each and every one of us on this Committee has seen articles about ourselves in newspapers or online that we disagreed with, that were not wholly accurate, and that we really did not like, but if those articles are fundamentally wrong or harmful, legal sanctions are already available to deal with them, notably the laws of libel. There is also IPSO, which I will come on to in a moment. The fact that newspapers publish articles that are sometimes uncomfortable is not in itself reason to impose the draconian sanction that section 40 would have wielded.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North suggests persuading newspapers to participate, but we have had a very long period in which it has been clear that they are not persuadable; any persuasion would therefore effectively be enforcement, which in turn is effectively state regulation. That is why we have been in this difficulty for a long time. When I spoke about this on Second Reading, I was asked why newspapers did not avoid the prospect of paying huge court expenses by signing up to an approved regulator under our royal charter, which is what the hon. Lady is suggesting. The answer is simple: not a single national or regional newspaper or magazine of any significance is willing to do that as a matter of principle, because they see it as state regulation. I have a great deal of sympathy with that perspective.

The secretariat for our APPG on media freedom is provided by Reporters Without Borders, which is a highly respected advocate for freedom of the press worldwide that campaigns tirelessly for journalists’ voices to be heard, sometimes at considerable risk. Reporters Without Borders was calling for the repeal of section 40 as long ago as 2016, and it continues to do so today. Its submission to the Government’s consultation on repealing section 40, which was held way back in 2016-17, stated:

“Section 40 would introduce an unprecedented chilling effect for publishers and journalists in the UK, leading to self-censorship and a reduction in public interest reporting. The essential role of the press in our democracy would therefore be undermined, as well as the scope for any writer to investigate matters of concern and national interest for the public.”

When the public were asked in that same consultation, they expressed a resounding desire for section 40 to be repealed: 79% of direct responses favoured full repeal, and the most common reason given was the “chilling effect” it would have on the freedom of the press.

[Kirsty Blackman]

When I was a councillor back in 2007, there was an article in the local newspaper that said that a fellow councillor and I had requested that Irn Bru be provided in the Members’ Tea Room. In fact, all that had happened during the course of that meeting was that a Conservative councillor had asked for Earl Grey to be provided. We went to IPSO, which said that the newspaper was allowed to write that story because it was just the cut and thrust of political discussion, even though it was blatantly false. If IPSO is so unable to uphold the truth, is there any point in anyone going to it?

[Rob Butler]

Strictly speaking, I would suggest that that was libel, so there were legal routes available, but—to pre-empt the point that the hon. Lady might make—I accept that that is a very lengthy and expensive process, and that it might be a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I would say that IPSO was wrong in the case. I am very open about it: if something is said that is patently untrue, IPSO needs to hold its members to account, and what the hon. Lady said to some extent undermines that. That is what IPSO needs to take on.

The News Media Association has provided us all with a briefing, much of which is compelling. I will not risk the wrath of Committee members by reading it out in its entirety, but I highlight a couple of points. For example:

“Section 40 would cost the national and local press an estimated £100 million a year to tell the truth. This would be particularly devastating for local publishers.”

In my earlier contributions in Committee, I have been clear that I am concerned to ensure that local news is genuinely local; I got very close to the position of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on that point at one stage. We should not do anything that makes local news coverage more difficult.

There are perfectly legitimate concerns about behaviour of the press and opportunity for redress, but the regulatory landscape has fundamentally changed since section 40 was introduced. I worked with some newspapers at the time, and they sat up and took notice when the threat of this legal sanction was over them. Publishers and editors have recognised that they have to face up to their responsibilities, and IPSO is much tougher than what was there before. There are serious sanctions, including, ultimately, the £1 million penalty. I completely hear what the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Arfon have said about the difficulties of getting through that. There may be more to do to make IPSO effective and easily accessible, but that does not mean that we have to have state regulation, which would be going much too far.

[Rob Butler]

What is influential is the understanding of where public opinion is. The thought that the public had had enough was effectively what played a very big part in influencing the regulation of the press. The press did not ignore Leveson; they were very conscious of what was going on. I would certainly have no hesitation in telling people in the media, “You need to recognise that what you have is not quite enough to satisfy legitimate public concern.” Particular examples are helpful; hon. Member for Aberdeen North has given me one, which I shall not hesitate to quote if I have such a conversation.

It is worth also saying that there have been two independent reviews of IPSO. They stated that it was effective and independent, notwithstanding hon. Members’ comments. The second found that IPSO’s

“supportive, but challenging engagement to improve standards”

was

“exactly what an effective regulator should be doing”.

There is an argument that, even if it is not perfect, the press has cleaned house itself.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the case being made by the hon. Gentleman and I understand his position. However, on his point, he is sort of blurring the lines between a state regulator and an independent regulator. He is using the term “state regulator” for Impress when the whole idea, outcome and recommendation from Leveson was to have an independent regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Following my hon. Friend’s speech, I want to speak briefly on the issue, in which I have taken an interest over many years. The Minister is nodding and he will remember that I served as a member of the Committee he chaired in 2011 looking at the phone hacking issue and the inquiry that was held at that time. Twelve years or more have passed since then, and the media landscape now is very different.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that having a statutory regulator for the press is not compatible with our media traditions in this country. The threat of commencing section 40, with newspapers having to pay their own costs and those of the claimant even if they won the case—such a provision does not exist elsewhere in English law—would impose an onerous burden, yet the threat of commencement has not forced newspapers to seek to create or go into regulatory bodies for the press. The debates we have here on statutory regulation of the media and the debates we continually have when BBC charter renewal comes up show that whenever we create a structure, no matter how arm’s length or benign, Members of this House have points of view about how it is operated, what goes in it and how it should change or be improved. That will continue to be the case. A statutory regulator is not compatible with having a free press.

When we had the Leveson inquiry, the idea of newspapers’ business models being hollowed out by big tech platforms that would destroy their ad-funded business model was not something we considered. Newspapers were then seen as being all-powerful, extremely wealthy and well able to pay whatever charges were levelled at them. The situation is very different now.

The other issue, which I am familiar with as a former chair of the APPG on media freedom, is the issue of lawfare, whereby wealthy people, particularly oligarchs, take spurious legal action against newspapers because of content they do not like, without worrying about whether the case meets any kind of threshold. The libel laws are not absolute; they are not an absolute true-or-false test. To win, the claimant has to demonstrate that what a journalist reported has materially damaged them and their reputation, but very wealthy people do not care about that. They are quite happy to enter into such legal cases now, and even the threat of such actions deters editors from publishing stories that might be in the public interest, for fear of the almost certain legal challenge that will come back against them from people with bottomless pits of money who do not care whether they win or lose. They just seek to grind the publication into the ground with ongoing legal costs.

Commencing a regime that may open the door to yet more litigation from people who, on the whole, can easily afford it anyway, which makes the chances of success greater and which makes the cumulative impact of the costs on those publications even greater, would diminish the power of the press considerably. That would lead to a chilling effect, which was never envisaged when the Leveson report was commissioned, of inhibiting the press for fear of the cost that would come from simply doing their job and reporting the truth.

Of course, the press make mistakes and get things wrong. Newspaper editors have legal liabilities for what they publish. Members of the Committee know from our lengthy debates on measures such as the Online Safety Act 2023 that it is easy now for people to publish all sorts of stuff for which they have no legal liability—and, before the Act was passed, nor did the platforms that pursued it. The challenge that many people face, be they in the public eye or members of the community, is far more likely to be harassment and intimidation through co-ordinated attacks on social media than reporting a newspaper they do not like.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the online world is now regulated differently from newspapers as a result of the Online Safety Act? I agree with the Online Safety Act and agree that there should be more regulation online of things that are illegal, but we do not have a change in the regulation of newspapers to ensure truthfulness and lack of harm, whereas we do have some more of that in the online world.

[Damian Collins]

That is why it was important that there is an exemption for media organisations from the regulatory powers that Ofcom will have through the Online Safety Act. The reason those exemptions were there was that newspapers already have liability for not only the copy printed, but the adverts they accept and run. The newspaper or magazine editor is legally liable for advertising as much as they are for the articles they commission. Those liabilities and that transparency just did not exist for a lot of online publications, and it could be difficult to see who was behind it.

The challenge with the Online Safety Act was to recognise that the platforms were acting as distributors and promoters of the content—even for a lot of the content that is spam-related or comes from misinformation networks and hostile foreign states. If companies like Facebook are actively promoting that content and highlighting its existence to its users, they should have a liability for it. Newspapers and magazines already had those liabilities because it was clear who was publishing them. In the Online Safety Act, to qualify for the media exemption, it has to be clear who they are, where they are based and who the editor is, and therefore the transparency, liability and risks exist already. They did not in the online world, where many of the publishers were hidden and used that anonymity to spread lies and disinformation.

With that, the onerous costs that lawfare brings to newspapers, and the hollowing out of their business model by the ad platforms that distribute their content for nothing, there is an urgent need to have some sort of compensation mechanism for news organisations, so that local newspapers, national newspapers and magazines get fair compensation for the free distribution of their content across the web. Those are the challenges we face now, and those were things that were never envisaged at the time of Leveson.

As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has said many times in the debate, things move pretty fast between media Bills. This is another example of how things have moved fast again. This amendment to the law and removing section 40 from the statute books reflects the need for us to change the law to reflect the media world that exists today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am not sure that has cast any greater light on the Opposition’s position, but it was helpful to hear more from the hon. Lady about her position. At least we know where the SNP stands; the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made it absolutely plain that the SNP is happy to support our removing this pressure on newspapers to join a state-approved or recognised regulator, but only if we put in its place another mechanism that will put equal pressure on them, and that might prove more successful, as she said, in persuading them to join up to the recognised regulator. She and her party may accept the criticism of the existing position, but at least we understand that she still wants Government pressure on newspapers to join a state-recognised regulator. That is the principle we cannot support. I am afraid that in my view her amendment is no better than the existing system. It removes one point of leverage on the press, only to replace it with a yet unspecified alternative.

I do not think it is right that Government should be involved in regulation of the press; I think it is very dangerous. Even the rather convoluted and complicated mechanism of the royal charter still represents state involvement. That flies in the face of belief in the importance to democracy of the freedom of the press, which we on the Government side regard as paramount. I am therefore absolutely committed to supporting clause 50 and the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will take this opportunity to apologise, as I might have said something wrong. I might not have, but I will apologise in case I did. It might not have been a legacy press regulator that made the Irn Bru comment; it might have been the Standards Commission for Scotland. Unfortunately, it was so long ago that I cannot find online who said it. My apologies if I did get it wrong. I thought I would try to make that clear as mud for the Committee.

Turning to the Minister’s points on regulation, I completely understand his discomfort with section 40. I feel that we are in ideologically different positions. It would be slightly better if the Prime Minister had less of a hand in appointing senior figures at the BBC. We do not want to see things like that happen. If the Government want the press to be entirely Government-regulation free, that is the key point of the BBC charter that I would look to change.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am very interested in that, because it has long been established that while the board of the BBC consists of some individuals who are independently appointed, the chair is a Government appointment and, of course, the BBC board member for Scotland is appointed with the approval of the Scottish Government. All the Administrations in the UK are involved in appointments to the board. The BBC is a state-owned and state-funded broadcaster, and therefore is in a completely different position from a free press.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was trying to highlight the inconsistencies in the Minister’s position. He is now saying that the BBC is a different case and therefore needs to be regulated differently. That is fine, but I had not received that clarity from what he said before; he pretty much said he was uncomfortable with some things to do with the BBC charter because of the level of Government involvement. Now I understand that he rationalises that on the basis that the BBC is a different case because of its state funding. It is helpful to have that clarity.

A number of different words are being used in relation to the regulator. We have heard “independent regulator”, “state regulator” and “self-regulator”. It would be helpful to go back to the Leveson recommendations, which I understand were for an independent regulator—that is the way it was phrased. If the Minister and other Government Members are making the case that Impress is not an independent regulator but a state regulator, state-approved regulator or state-sanctioned regulator—all phrases that have been used here—then I am not sure that they can make the case that IPSO is an independent regulator, as well as saying it is a self-regulator. I am happy enough for them to suggest that IPSO is a self-regulator. That is fine, but I do not think it can claim the title of independent regulator. If the Government also believe that Impress cannot claim the title of independent regulator, I think there is a clear disparity in that position. The Government should be happy enough to say, “Neither of these are independent regulators, but we are happy with the self-regulation mechanism currently in place, and we are happy to continue with the self-regulation system.” If that is the Government position, that is absolutely fine, but painting Impress as a state regulator or painting IPSO as an as an independent regulator is wrong: IPSO is a self-regulator, and Impress is an independent regulator.

I understand the Minister’s concerns, but I do not necessarily agree with him. He summed up our position really well. We are concerned about the lack of recourse for the public, and about the current regulation system. We do not feel that it is strong enough. I understand the Minister’s position on media freedom, and his feeling that the Government should not intervene to set up even an independent regulator that would require newspapers to sign up to regulation.

I absolutely agree that things are a bit better than they were pre-Leveson. Things may tip over again. Should an issue like the phone hacking scandal emerge, or should members of the public be harassed or struggling as a result of newspaper attention, another inquiry should be set up to determine what an independent regulator should look like. A recommendation for an independent regulator is not enough; there must be clarity on how that should be set up, and that should take into account what has happened on section 40. If a properly constituted inquiry requires that an independent regulator be set up, that must be done with an awareness of the fact that Impress was not able to get national newspapers to sign up.

I appreciate that we have had a debate on amendment 41. I appreciate all the points of views from Members. It is important to discuss the issue, whether or not the repeal was in the manifesto of the Minister’s party. I will not push amendment 41 to a vote in this sitting, but I may do so on Report.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I want to be clear: I am not criticising Impress. Impress is an independent regulator. It has a code of conduct that its members subscribe to. It adjudicates and carries out the function of a regulator, just as IPSO does. The only difference is that IPSO decided not to apply for recognition from the Press Recognition Panel, whereas Impress did apply and achieved that recognition. It is the principle that divides the two, not in any way their performance as regulators.

It is arguable—this has not been put to the test—that IPSO might qualify for recognition, if it chose to apply. In many ways, it is already compliant with the conditions. However, it decided that it did not wish to achieve recognition, so it remains outside the system. To be honest, that is why the system has failed: because the regulator that the vast majority of newspapers belong to decided that it simply could not apply, even though there was a good chance it might have been recognised. The carrot and stick in section 40 have clearly failed to provide the persuasion that the hon. Lady was looking for. I just want to be clear that I am not in any way suggesting that Impress is not a perfectly proper and independent regulator; it is the system that has failed.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 41.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Amendments of broadcasting legislation: UK’s withdrawal from EU

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Specifically on this issue, I agree with the points made by the shadow Minister. I think that asking for a report into this issue is the most sensible way forward, rather than saying that we have got all the answers. Looking at this issue in the whole would be very important.

When my children were younger, we relied a lot on CBeebies; the kids spent a lot of time watching CBeebies rather than anything else. Now that they are a bit bigger, they have forayed into the world of YouTube; when we are considering content on these platforms, at least with CBeebies parents know for certain that there will be no swearing and nothing inappropriate on that channel. Not everything on it is necessarily educational, but it is all funny or good, whereas on YouTube there is an absolute load of nonsense at times, and there are a number of shows on Netflix or Disney+ about which I have had to say to my daughter, “No, you can’t watch that. It’s just nonsense.”

There is value in ensuring that children have access, and easy access, to appropriate content and in encouraging parents to ensure that their children are—well, having gone through the Online Safety Bill, I know that we need to ensure that parents are aware of what their children are consuming on the internet and aware of what they are watching, and that they are taking decisions to manage that content and to ensure that children have good access to it. If the public service broadcasters’ shows for children are more easily accessible, parents will have fewer issues in ensuring that those are the shows that their children see.

Lastly, I will give a wee plug for “Newsround”, which a significant number of schools show in school. It is incredibly important and a really key way in which children are able to access news content in an age-appropriate way that explains the background and the information that they are being provided with. Therefore, I agree entirely with the shadow Minister that it would be sensible to have a report on this issue, and that a watching brief definitely needs to be kept on it.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Just to add to those points and those made by the shadow Minister, I have often relied on the third parent that is CBeebies, as I imagine many other Members and many of our constituents have as well. I want to talk about the quality of such television and about its educational impact on children, ranging from young children to teenagers.

As has been alluded to, the quality of the BBC’s programmes, particularly on CBeebies, is just a trusted fact. I know as a parent that I could quite happily leave my three-year-old in front of CBeebies. She does not love Peter Rabbit, but I know that it is a safe and secure watch for her. I know that there will be no inappropriate advertising or any inappropriate life lessons or swearing, which I cannot guarantee on other services or channels. There are brilliant CBeebies programmes and characters, such as Mr Tumble, “Bluey”, “Newsround”, which has already been mentioned, and “Dog Squad”, which is a new firm favourite.

As the shadow Minister said, most children now know their way around an iPad, a tablet, a computer or a phone like the back of their hand, and they access all this content in a way that we could not when we were younger, including through Netflix or YouTube. That is a particular concern, because the adverts on YouTube and other online streaming platforms are not always age appropriate. Particularly during the cost of living crisis and in the run-up to Christmas, that is another burden for parents to deal with. It is a huge annoyance that there is this reliance on advertising, and sometimes product placement, which is not always healthy for children, in movies and TV shows.

On the educational impact, I have concerns about how young children watch these programmes. There will need to be access to repeated viewings for the educational impact to be fully felt when it comes to things such as GCSE “Bitesize” or learning letters. One episode of “Yakka Dee!” or “Sesame Street” will not teach my child the entire alphabet. With that in mind, it is important that we have a review of the impact on young people to protect the quality and standards of children’s television.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It was a successful pilot funded by the BBC, because it was licence-fee funded. Personally, I would have liked it to continue, but the BBC obviously was under financial pressure and put up a strong case that it could not continue to fund it. The principle that it was seeking to address remains an important one, and the Government have tried to provide alternative support, through things such as tax relief, for the production of children’s content. I share the hon. Lady’s sadness that it was brought to an end after three years, but it was always intended to be a pilot, and viewers will still be able to see content produced by the fund for some years to come.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On a point of order, Mr Vickers. I have to leave for a very important meeting, and I know that a number of new clauses in my name are coming up. I want to advise the Chair that I have to leave and am happy for those new clauses not to be pushed to a vote in Committee. Hopefully, making this point of order will mean that the sitting can end slightly earlier.

[The Chair]

Point of order noted. Thank you.