Media Bill

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who truly believes in a free press, as he and I do, would want to ensure that we can protect genuine investigative journalism, and that the rich and powerful would not be able to intimidate and bully publishers with limited financial resources—many of them losing money—into not running a story that was essentially true.

Were amendment 2 to be agreed to, those publishers that chose not to sign up to a recognised regulator would have nothing to lose; they would be no worse off than they are today. Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, has had a very strong position that he would never join a recognised regulator. It would be open to him not to; he would be no better and no worse off than he is today, as if something ended up in litigation he would not be paying both sides’ costs.

A publication such as Private Eye, which famously has never joined anything, would also be free to stand aloof from any kind of regulator, and it would be no better or worse off than it is today. Publications such as The Daily Mail, which have wealthy benefactors standing behind them—people with deep pockets who are willing to pay for litigation and backfill the loses that such companies make—would be no better or worse off than they are today, in that they could decide not to join a regulator.

However, those small, plucky publishers that do not have wealthy benefactors standing behind them, and that seek to do genuine investigative journalism that might attract the attention of those threatening legal action, would have the option of joining a recognised regulator, so that they could get protection against that type of strategic litigation brought by the rich and powerful—people with deep pockets—against them.

So I say to the Minister that I can deliver everything that the Government seek, in a way that is fitting with the spirit of the Conservative manifesto but that keeps open the option of small publishers being able to gain some protection.

Let me remind the House why we ended up with section 40 in the first place. There was a public outcry about what was called the phone-hacking scandal—the widespread recognition that a culture had developed that enabled publishers to hack into people’s phones. It was David Cameron, the Conservative Prime Minister, who established the Leveson inquiry. It was David Cameron who chose Lord Justice Leveson to chair it, because Lord Justice Leveson was known as somebody who was not hostile to the press. Lord Justice Leveson invested huge amounts of his time in coming up with a very sensible set of proposals. It was David Cameron who then said we would implement those proposals, with cross-party support from all parties in this House, and it was the Conservative Whips Office that actually whipped the Conservative side of the House to implement section 40, as David Cameron wished to happen.

Let us remember that in that Leveson inquiry, dozens of victims of phone hacking came forward to give evidence, and they did so because the Prime Minister had set up an inquiry and they felt that it was sincere and genuine, and that they could contribute. We all have had constituency cases in which people have been through extraordinary tragedy, and it is painful for them; but often people who have been through such tragedy want to know that something good has come from it. Many of those witnesses who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry were the parents of children who had been murdered, who had had their life rifled through by the media, and they wanted something good to come out of that; so they went through the trauma and the painful experience of sharing those experiences, to try to help Parliament wrestle its way to a sensible compromise.

So let us have no nonsense from the Government Front Bench, trying to create some sort of wedge issue. This is a provision that the Conservative Government put in place, and the royal charter on self-regulation was a very Conservative approach to dealing with the challenge.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. He is making a strong case for his amendment, but I have one nagging doubt in my mind. I understand that he believes that if his amendment is agreed to and we remove the stick, newspapers will be protected from the rich and powerful, but what protection would remain for those who are not of means; those who do not have the money that they can risk in litigation to take on those publishers who may have defamed or libelled them, but who are not members of a regulatory body? This is not just about the rich and powerful. There could be people who do not have any money who are affected by newspapers, and I am not clear how, in his new landscape, they would be affected.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but I am seeking to reach a compromise. His argument is for keeping section 40 in its entirety, so that those who do not have financial means and who face a publisher who refuses to act within any kind of reputable regulator would have some redress in the courts. Of course, in section 40 there was only a weighted presumption in favour of a particular approach to costs. It was never a hard and fast rule.

My right hon. Friend makes a strong case, but I am seeking to form a compromise with the House and with those on the Government Front Bench, and if it is their intention to do what the press want, they can accept my amendment and still look the press in the eye and say, “We gave you everything you wanted, which is the removal of the stick.” Maybe they hope they will get some positive coverage as a result of doing this favour; I suspect they will end up being disappointed by that between now and the general election. Nevertheless, I am trying to make a compromise with them. I hope that the Government will look seriously at this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

I rise to support new clause 6 and amendment 17, both in my name. The Bill is a substantial piece of legislation and I fully support what the Government are seeking to do through it to bridge the gap in regulation between linear television and internet-based on-demand platforms.

Nobody would argue against the principle that we want to protect children from watching age-inappropriate or harmful content. That is, after all, why Parliament over many years has brought in legislation that mandates age ratings on cinema releases, restrictions on children buying DVDs and videos and, importantly, until the relatively recent past, a watershed for broadcast TV. The watershed, of course, ensures that programmes broadcast before 9 pm are generally suitable for children.

However, now that the vast majority of content watched by children and adults is accessed through on-demand streaming services, the watershed has become increasingly redundant. It does not matter if a programme was originally broadcast live after the watershed; once it is available to stream online, it can be viewed by anyone of any age at any time. That is why we urgently need to apply the same standards of child protection to on-demand video as we do to cinema releases, physical DVDs and linear TV.

While a time-based watershed clearly cannot be adapted for video on demand services, we are very fortunate in this country to have world-class expertise in applying age ratings to video content. The British Board of Film Classification has been empowered by Parliament, through the Secretary of State, to apply age ratings across all cinema and DVD releases in the UK. The BBFC does an excellent job of this, as colleagues have mentioned, and is a global leader in its field. It has produced a system of age ratings that the vast majority of the British population recognises, trusts and understands. Importantly, its ratings are based on regular consultation with thousands of people across Britain to ensure that they meet audience expectations.

We have the relevant age rating expertise already in this country, but as it stands, the Bill will not make use of that expertise. Amendment 17 would address this matter very simply by explicitly requiring Ofcom to consult the BBFC when drawing up the video on demand code. The code will set the rules for streaming platforms, including in relation to age ratings. Why would we not want to ensure that our world-renowned, Government-appointed experts are consulted as part of that?

There was a similar amendment to the Online Safety Act 2023 that required Ofcom to consult with the Children’s Commissioner, and I can see no argument against applying the same principle here. Getting age ratings right is incredibly important, as they will likely become one of the main audience protection measures that platforms employ and will, of course, future-proof the Bill. If parents do not trust the ratings, they will ignore them, and we will then not achieve our aim of protecting children.

That brings me to new clause 6 in my name, which is similar to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), and I will reiterate some of his points.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am very supportive of the theme of my hon. Friend’s amendment. She made an extremely important point about consistency for parents. Those of us who are lucky enough to have children find ourselves in a forest of different media that they consume, some of which seem to decide the rules and ratings on their own—of course, there are websites to go to for third-party reference. Does she agree that it would be sensible to have a standardised view for parents, to manage consumption by their children, as it is the parents’ primary duty to manage that? We have seen in the past that the wider media industry will constantly push the boundary to try to get more under the wire for consumption by younger and younger people, such as in the deterioration of the watershed on terrestrial television. If an organisation such as the BBFC sets the tone and the standard, that must apply online as much as offline.

[Miriam Cates]

I agree with every word. The very important factor behind the BBFC is that parents trust it. It even has an app to search for any film or DVD, and it will tell parents not only the rating but exactly why it is there—swearing, violence or whatever. That detailed knowledge is crucial not only to gain parents’ trust but to create an industry standard, as my right hon. Friend said. If we have no industry standard, some companies will try to get around the requirements if there is a commercial advantage. The Bill should set out exactly that.