Media Bill

Lia Nici Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

I would like to address a number of the amendments we have been discussing—some I support, some I oppose. Let me start on a positive note with new clause 7, which was tabled by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The new clause seeks to introduce protections for digital on-demand coverage of listed events, including clips and highlights of those events, and allows for time-shifted viewing. That is increasingly important for audiences, as it would enable viewing on multi-use devices or the viewing of events that take place overnight in other time zones, as we often see with the Olympic games and sometimes the World cup, depending on where they are in the world.

There are practical examples of how that change would make a difference. At the Olympic games in Tokyo, the gold-winning performance by BMX specialist Charlotte Worthington was watched by only 400,000 people because it took place in the middle of the night, yet in the days that followed, different forms of short-form coverage of the race generated a nearly tenfold increase in views. It is not just about time-shifting; that can also happen just because that is how people absorb content these days. For instance, for the 2022 Commonwealth games in Birmingham, the TV reach was about 20% lower than for the 2014 games in Glasgow, but there were about six times more on-demand views of digital clips. The problem is that without enhanced regulatory protection, what should be shared national moments risk being lost to many people behind a paywall. This Bill is a genuine opportunity to safeguard the future of listed events, as they are now viewed, for future generations.

As it stands, the Bill offers no protection for digital on-demand rights, yet, as I said, that is now a key way in which many people consume such events. I support the new clause because it would ensure that, where possible, adequate digital on-demand coverage of listed events, such as those clips and excerpts, is made available free of charge to audiences in the United Kingdom. I pray in aid the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I am a member. When we looked at this question, we concluded:

“Digital rights should be included as part of the Listed Events regime to reflect sweeping changes in how audiences consume content since the original legislation was passed. We recommend that the Government includes provisions in the Bill to enable digital rights to be included in the Listed Events regime without the need for further primary legislation.”

I know the Government recognise the issue and have consulted the industry about it, but a year later they have not yet reported on the findings of their review.

If those protections were brought in, they would broadly mirror the framework that currently provides protection for live coverage. The new clause seeks to ensure that, where rights holders grant rights for digital on-demand coverage, it is not done on an exclusive basis and there is an opportunity for audiences in the UK to enjoy that coverage for free. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West has said he will not press his new clause to a vote at this stage, but I hope the Minister is listening and that the Government will take this away and move an amendment in the other place that meets the needs that my hon. Friend is trying to meet.

I also support amendment 78, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), which offers the possibility for local digital TV services to be given the protections of the prominence regime. I think he undersold the historic nature of having the Minister who took the Bill through Committee moving an amendment on Report. He said he was sure it had happened before, but I am absolutely sure it is the first time any Minster who took a Bill through Committee stage because of maternity cover has tried to amend it on Report. For parliamentary procedure nerds, that alone makes it an historic moment, but there are also great merits in his suggestion. While I am referring to him, I note that there have been various descriptions of him from those on the Opposition Benches as a “temporary Minister”. I should say to the House, from some experience, that all Ministers are temporary at all times. The only permanent thing in any Department is the permanent secretary.

Reverting to the substance of the amendment, local TV is an increasingly important part of the landscape. It is still very small scale, by its definition, and it has had a rocky past, but there is clearly a market and a demand for it, and it is increasingly becoming part of the broadcasting landscape. The only thing I would add, since the amendment was spoken to so well by my right hon. Friend, is that it must apply to genuinely local stations. It is important to establish that caveat.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend about local television. People talk about specified channels and programmes for languages, but there are many areas, such as my constituency and his, where it is important that local viewers get a chance to see their specific areas and discussions relevant to them, rather than just regional television. That is why it is important that local television should be included.

[Damian Green]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There are distinct markets for regional TV and local TV. In some parts of the country the regions are so large that large parts of what national broadcasters tend to regard as local TV are not local to people and do not register with their interests, whereas local TV can genuinely do that, as local radio does and has always done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

My right hon. Friend’s amendment seeks to revive the argument from more than 10 years ago, but I think that argument has gone. The world has moved on and the press has moved on. We had a discussion about whether regulation or the application of the law is the appropriate way to do this, and I submit that the reason why press behaviour has changed is simply the effective application of the law, and the fact that many newspaper groups have had to pay huge amounts of money because they broke the law in behaving the way they did 10, 15 and 20 years ago. That led to the change in behaviour. Where my right hon. Friend and I would come closer together is on SLAPP cases, and the need for legislation to allow individuals not to be intimidated by rich publishing companies. I know the Government have committed to introducing legislation to see those sorts of cases dismissed at the earliest possible stage, and I urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to do that as soon as possible.

While I am in sceptical mode, I similarly question the need for the various new clauses, proposed by Members in all parts of the House, that would mandate a more rigid system of age classifications for programmes already regulated by Ofcom. I absolutely get the intention behind them, which is to protect children from unsuitable content, but I am instinctively wary of suggestions that would mean one regulator having to consult another before introducing a code of conduct. Ofcom has considerable powers, and it can operate those powers. I do not think it sensible to try to tie this down to any particular age classification system, not least because some public service broadcasters, who are pretty responsible in not trying to expose content that is unsuitable for children, operate systems of protection that do not rely on age classification. ITV has its guidance system, and many broadcasters operate a system involving a PIN that sensible parents will keep from their children so that they can be protected at home.

[Lia Nici]

Is that not exactly the point? We have world-class regulation in the British Board of Film Classification, which gives us a benchmark. A good arrangement would be for broadcasters and other platforms to register with an organisation like the BBFC and have to pay a registration fee, and for the regulator to regulate that rather than the other way round. My right hon. Friend talks about responsible parents, but we need to guide the people who do not know what to look for, who are not media-savvy, and who need some guidance. Even our public service broadcasters do not always get it right, and sometimes there is content that really should not be seen by those aged 15 and under.

[Damian Green]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but I return to my original point. Given that the Bill and indeed our whole regulatory structure are based on Ofcom, and given that the Bill seeks to give Ofcom proper powers to provide, in this instance, protection for children in an appropriate way, introducing another different system would, I suspect, lead to more confusion rather than less.

Online Safety Bill

Lia Nici Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Miriam Cates]

I was coming on to that—absolutely.

The advantage of introducing this measure in the other place is that we can widen the scope to all appropriate child safety duties beyond clause 11 and perhaps tackle pornography and child sexual abuse material as well. We will have a groundbreaking Bill that will hold to account powerful executives who knowingly allow our children to be harmed.

There are those who say—not least the tech companies —that we should not be seeking to criminalise tech directors. There are those who worry that this will reduce tech investment, but that has not happened in Ireland. There are those who say that the senior manager liability amendment will put a great burden on tech companies to comply, to which I say, “Great!” There are those who are worried that this will set an international precedent, to which I say, “Even better!”

Nothing should cause greater outrage in our society than the harming of innocent children. In a just society founded on the rule of law, those who harm children or allow children to be harmed should expect to be punished by the law. That is what new clause 2 seeks to do, and I look forward to working with the Secretary of State and others to bring forward a suitable amendment in the other place.

I offer my sincere thanks to the NSPCC, especially Rich Collard, and the outstanding Charles Hymas of The Telegraph, who have so effectively supported this campaign. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash); without his determination, knowledge and experience, it would not have been possible to achieve this change. He has been known as Mr Brexit, but as he said, even before he was Mr Brexit, he was Mr Child Protection, having been involved with the Protection of Children Act 1978. It is certainly advantageous in negotiations to work with someone who knows vastly more about legislation than pretty much anyone else involved. He sat through the debate in December on the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and while the vote was taking place, he said, “I think we can do this.” He spent the next week in the Public Bill Office and most of his recess buried in legislation. I pay tribute to him for his outstanding work. Once again, I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment to this, and I think this will continue our Parliament’s proud history of protecting children.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

I fully support the Bill and pay tribute to the work that Members have done over months and years to get us to where we are. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for Stone (Sir William Cash), because these are the right things to do. We cannot have—effectively—illegal advertising for illegal activities on platforms. We would not allow it on television, so why would we allow it on other easily accessible platforms? With regard to content that is harmful to children, why should we not focus the minds of senior managers in those hugely rich organisations on the idea that, “If I do not do my job properly and protect children, I may go to prison.” I think that threat will focus those individuals’ minds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lia Nici]

My hon. Friend is correct. Often, senior managers are high-profile individuals with PR budgets that are probably larger than those of many countries. If we think about fines, they would just put those fines into their business plans, so fines would not effect a cultural change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge has said on many occasions. We need cultural change to ensure that companies say, “What are we doing to make sure that children are being protected?” That is why I wholeheartedly support the new clause.

I also thank the Secretary of State, Ministers and officials, who have talked through issues with Back Benchers and taken them seriously. That means that we are where we need to be, which is fantastic. As a child of the 1970s and a parent, I never envisaged that we would have to be having these kinds of conversations with our children about what they are coming across: “Mum, what is this? Should I go and find a needle to inject this into myself?”. That is the kind of horrifying content that parents and teachers come across. Schools do a fantastic job with their digital footprint training to ensure that we can start to have such conversations.

[Sir John Hayes]

The opponents of our cause claim that we are curbing freedom, but in fact, it is not freedom that these people offer. They turn their addicts into the slaves of cruel, callous conglomerates.

[Lia Nici]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. If freedom means that our children become collateral damage for harmful and dangerous people, we need to have some real conversations about what freedom is all about.

Thankfully, as a child of the 1970s, my only experience was of three television channels. My hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Penistone and Stocksbridge are like Zorro and Tonto coming to save the villagers in a wild west town where all the baddies are waiting to annihilate them. I thank them for that and I look forward to supporting the Bill all the way.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Legislating in an online world is incredibly complex and full of pitfalls, because the digital world moves so fast that it is difficult to make effective and future-proof legislation. I do not want to wind up my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) by mentioning Europe, but I am proud to have worked alongside other British MEPs to introduce the GDPR, which the tech companies hated—especially the penalties.

The GDPR is not perfect legislation, but it fundamentally transformed how online actors think about the need to protect personal data, confidentiality and privacy. The Bill can do exactly the same and totally transform how online safety is treated, especially for children. I have been a proud champion of the Internet Watch Foundation for more than a decade and I have worked with it to tackle the hideous sexual abuse of children online. As a children’s Minister during the Bill’s passage, I am aware of the serious harms that the online world can and does pose, and I am proud that Ministers have put protecting children at the front of the Bill.

Along with other hon. Members, I have signed new clause 2. If, God forbid, hospital staff were constantly and repeatedly causing harm to children and the hospital boss was aware of it but turned a blind eye and condoned it, we would all expect that hospital boss to end up in the courts and, if necessary, in prison. Tech bosses should have the same. I thank the Government for saying that they will go along with the Irish style legislation here, and I look forward to their doing so.

My amendments—amendment 83 and new clause 8, which was not in scope—relate to eating disorders. Amendment 83 is intended to make it very clear that eating disorders should be treated as seriously as other forms of self-harm. I would like to thank everybody in the Chamber who spoke to me so kindly after I spoke in the last debate about my own experience as a former anorexic and all those outside the Chamber who have since contacted me.

Anorexia is the biggest killer of all mental illnesses. It is a sickness that has a slow and long-burning fuse, but all too often that fuse is deadly. There has been a terrifying rise in the number of cases, and it is very clear that social media posts that glamorise eating disorders are helping to fuel this epidemic. I am talking not about content that advertises a diet, but egregious content that encourages viewers to starve themselves in some cases—too many cases—to death. Content promoting eating disorders is no less dangerous than other content promoting other forms of self-harm; in fact, given the huge numbers of people suffering from eating disorders—about 1.25 million people in this country—it may be considered the most dangerous. It is dangerous not only for children, but for vulnerable adults.

My amendment, as I have said, endeavours to make it clear that content promoting eating disorders should be treated in the same way and as seriously as content promoting other forms of self-harm. I thank all those who signed it, including former Health Ministers and Digital Ministers, the current Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and the current and former Chairs of the Women and Equalities Committee, my right hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller). I hope the fact that MPs of such experience have signed these amendment sends a clear message to those in the other place that we treat this issue very seriously.

My amendment 83 is not the clearest legal way in which to manage the issue, so I do not intend to press it today. I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister responsible for the Bill and the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who I know want to move on this, for meeting me earlier today and agreeing that we will find a way to help protect vulnerable adults as well as children from being constantly subjected to this type of killing content. I look forward to continuing to work with Ministers and Members of the other place to find the best legally watertight way forward.

Professional and Amateur Sport: Government Support

Lia Nici Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

We have had some conversations on this issue. I recognise—I think we all recognise—the vital role that rugby plays in its communities. That is precisely why we took the measures we did back in May. We understand, though, that the financial pressures continue. Conversations are continuing. I am afraid I cannot give any details today, because we are working on the current measures.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

Last week, I provided the Prime Minister with a Grimsby Town football shirt to match his woolly hat. The reason I did that was to highlight the plight of lower league teams such as Grimsby Town. Will the Minister please tell me what steps are being taken to allow the safe and speedy return of dedicated football fans like the Mariners back to the stands where they belong?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I notice that I do not have a Grimsby Town shirt yet, but I am sure it is coming. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. As I said and will repeat, we have had to pause the plans for further reopening, but we have not abandoned them. We want to get back to that as soon as possible—the whole country does—and we will do so in consultation with medical advice, the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and other bodies, including the governing bodies of each sport. We all want fans back in stadiums as soon as possible. If we get fans back in stadiums, there will be less need for financial support from the Government. That makes sense for the Government and it makes sense for sport.

BBC Regional Politics Coverage

Lia Nici Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that most Members are probably making interventions rather than speeches. I promise you that I do not intend to speak for four hours, despite what I said at the start of my speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) makes a very good point about “Inside Out” and the value that it offers for £6 million. She also emphasises the fact that we are, all the time, looking for a much more local basis for our politics today, which means that this would be going in completely the wrong direction. Whatever the party politics of this country at the moment, we have shown over the past few years that politics is not all about London, but about the whole of the country. People’s views are significantly different across the country and that is what we do not always see.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

As somebody who launched and ran the first local television station—run from Grimsby—I know that a very high-quality local television station can be run, producing news and political programming, for around half a million pounds a year. That is a challenge that I would give to the BBC. What is vitally important is that our local radio and television is impartial, which is not something that our online services and papers have to do. It is very important to get good quality impartial news to our constituents.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point about impartiality. Of course, that is very much what the BBC is set up to do—to be impartial. Sometimes some of us, from all parts of the House, wonder about that impartiality, but it is quite clearly there, and it is what the BBC represents. We therefore want that impartiality in both the regional and the local BBC. I have to say that, in our own BBC in the south-west, the people I deal with are pretty good and I must pay tribute to them. I will not name them here tonight, because that would be embarrassing to them. None the less, we are well represented and we have good people across the regions. It would be such a shame to lose them, it really would.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt). May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for bringing about the debate? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on raising this matter last week in the Chamber and really pushing the debate along.

I am not going to bash the BBC. I am very proud of the BBC. It has been one of our most fabulous exports and one of the great institutions of this nation. Just witness the exports it has driven for us and some of the original programming it has created. In the agenda it has driven, whether it be political, environmental, social or whatever, it has made a huge contribution, and the cost that comes at to a household is presently 43p a day. I remember it running an advert when it was 20p a day—it does not seem that long ago; it was probably 15 or 20 years ago—but when we take into account cost-of-living rises and inflation, we see the value we derive from it is huge, given its cost per day to the average person.

The great thing about the BBC has been its regionality. I have lived in different regions of England and spent several years in more or less every place, and what is interesting is feeling part of that region and its identity. One of the greatest achievements of the BBC, with the demise of the regional ITV network, has been the strength and sense of cohesion within regions that it has helped foster. Latterly, I have established myself in the midlands again, where I find myself with Nick Owen. Some hon. Members may remember Nick Owen—a great TV professional, who was on national TV for many years and now fronts “Midlands Today”, and so on. I think about credibility and trust, which many hon. Members have raised, and these individuals have earned, over many years, the confidence and credibility to present programming and give a sense of cohesion and regional identity. That also translates into the political programming that they deliver.

Shortly after getting elected in 2017, I found myself on the “Sunday Politics” programme and it was great. I cannot remember quite what the issues were, but there I was with Margot James—until recently, the Member of Parliament for Stourbridge—and we had a good discussion about all sorts of things. We were in front of the cameras presenting our case on those particular topics. I think that that has been really important and is worth fighting for.

It seems counterintuitive to be here discussing this when we are pushing for, and the public want, greater devolution, with more mayors, more combined authorities and perhaps more police and crime commissioners—although the jury is out on that one. They should be held to account. They should be on these programmes explaining to the public how they arrive at their priorities, how they are spending the money and what they see as important, and without this sort of programming, those people will not be visible. They will not be seen and heard. They may have a very good case to make, but they will not be heard. It is really important for our democracy that these platforms are available to them. Of course, it is important that we as MPs have that visibility, scrutiny and accountability as well.

After that first appearance, I was amazed at the number of people who texted me to say, “I saw you on ‘Sunday Politics.” I did not realise that so many people had watched it, but it just goes to show that it did have an audience. One of the realisations of the last few years—with the trauma and seismic upheaval of Brexit, and now with the crisis of covid-19—is just how many people are tuned into political programming, because they want to understand what is going on. This is where the platforms are so important. It is about having the chance to explain why, with covid-19, there may be a regional disparity and why there might be different reactions from local authorities on how they are going about their programmes for recovery.

I can think back to times over the last few years when there has been programming challenging some of the issues in our region—for example, on Northamptonshire County Council and how it spent all that money building itself a new council office. Regional programming was needed to bring that out and expose it to the public. More locally, I have been campaigning against Warwick District Council, which is trying to do a similar thing. We have managed to stop it, but that was put out in the public sphere and we had that debate. That is why regional programming is important.

We have heard a lot in this debate about the value of “Inside Out” as a programme and how cost-effective it is. We think of its annual budget of £6 million for 60 people, with 11 regions serviced, and of how much it has fed into the different platforms in national news, online and so on.

[Lia Nici]

Given our levelling up agenda and all our creative jobs around the country and in the different nations, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proposed cuts to programmes such as “Sunday Politics” and “Inside Out” will have a huge impact on freelancers who are already struggling to keep their earnings going as productions are reduced throughout the covid period? This news will be absolutely devastating for them, but it also means that our creative industries will only be able to be run from the big metropolitan areas. What we want is good creative people across all our nations.

[Matt Western]

I agree entirely with the hon. Member. One of the great strengths of this country is its creativity and its media output. We are a huge exporter, as she will know very well from her own background, which she was describing earlier. She will know not only how valuable that export is, but how influential and how powerful it is in terms of the soft power that we project, or have projected perhaps until recently. It is something that we need to hold on to.

Just to go a little bit further into “Inside Out”, it is an extremely valuable strand because of how much it feeds into other programming. The story about Sports Direct and the investigation that was undertaken were mentioned earlier. That programme investigated that issue in the old-fashioned way. Its team realised that there had been 50 or 60 emergencies where ambulances had been called to a warehouse. They undertook that investigation to understand what had been going on, because so many workers were working in such shocking conditions in terms of the hours they were working, having too few breaks and so on. That is why these sorts of programmes are so important.

I understand that there is huge financial pressure on the BBC. The fact that households are paying 43p a day, I think, is quite ridiculous for such a fantastic service. One cannot even get half a chocolate bar for that kind of money. If we compare that with the cost of a pint or a coffee, I think that 43p is a very low cost for impartial, quality news programming and proper investigative journalism to ensure that politicians are held to account. That is why this issue is so important.

The future will be challenging for all sectors, including for the BBC. I understand the challenge with this particular programming—with the “Sunday Politics”, for example—because live programming is expensive. On the one hand, it is unaffordable, but then the recorded programming is unacceptable when we are so used to having immediate live content. With the changes in technology and how we have managed to adapt in recent months, I urge the BBC to think about finding ways to ensure that those in power are still held to account and are able to try to make their case for whatever is being debated that day.

With charter renewal coming up and future funding debates looming, the BBC must be careful that the issue does not play into the hands of its detractors, because it is vital that the case is made on the BBC’s behalf. The BBC provides an incredibly valuable service. The public want political news, whether that is Brexit, covid-19 or other things, and they want visibility and accountability.

To conclude, the BBC is a great asset and the regionality it provides has been so important for many decades. It is an incredibly valuable thing that we have in this country. We are one of the most centralised nations in the world—certainly in Europe—and the devolution of power that I think many of us are seeking needs to be held to account, and that is why the programming of “Sunday Politics” and of “Inside Out” should be retained and is so important to us all.