Channel 4 Privatisation

Debate between Nadine Dorries and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

Our responsibility is to consider the long-term sustainability and future of Channel 4. As a responsible Government, we are prepared to acknowledge those challenges head-on, and to do what is needed to protect one of our most important public service broadcasters not just today, but in the years to come. We therefore believe that it is time to unleash Channel 4’s full potential—the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) slightly misquoted me on that—and open up the broadcaster to private ownership while, crucially, protecting its public service broadcasting remit. That is a fundamental point: we are protecting its public service broadcasting remit. For those Opposition Members who are complaining and throwing up faux concerns, I repeat that we are protecting it as a PSB.

A sale will allow Channel 4 to grow and access greater investment, meaning that it can create more great programming, made by people who live and work in the UK, without losing what makes it distinctive. Just look at another public service broadcaster, Channel 5. After its sale to Viacom, Channel 5’s overall content budget grew by, on average, 7% a year. It is my genuine belief that this much-needed, long-term investment and the associated risk that comes with it—because investment does not come without risk—should come from private ownership, rather than being borne by the taxpayer.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Secretary of State keeps on speaking about the broadcasting ecosystem. Of course, crucial to that ecosystem are the independent production companies. Channel 4 has invested in a number of such companies in my area of Cardiff and south Wales, so it is absolutely crucial to our creative economy. Analysis by EY suggests that her model would result in a 40% reduction in investment in that crucial regional supply chain. Does she not accept the very real risks to those crucial independent production companies, which are part of our broadcasting and creative infrastructure?

[Ms Dorries]

The impression given is that Channel 4, as a result of being sold, will cease to exist. That is not the case. Those independent production companies are actually overloaded with work. We made more films in the UK in the last quarter of last year than were made in Hollywood. This whole sector of broadcasting and film making is booming. We are selling Channel 4 so that it can have more inward investment, not taxpayers’ money, and so that it can make more content, not less. The work will continue for independent production companies, not least from many of the companies that are coming into the UK to make films and television content, just as in Northern Ireland.

Our vision for Channel 4 is one where it continues to do all the things it does best, while being freed from the shackles that currently restrict it. I repeat: all the things it does best. That means it will continue to make diverse, interesting and edgy content with independent production companies, just as it does now.

The Opposition motion talks about protecting Channel 4’s PSB remit. Anyone who takes the time to look at our proposals will see that they pose no threat whatsoever to that PSB remit—Opposition Members talk as if there is. Under private ownership, Channel 4 will still be required to commission a minimum volume of programming from independent producers—I hope the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) heard that—just as all other PSBs are required to do. Under private ownership, we will maintain Channel 4’s existing obligations for regional production outside London and England, just as all other PSBs are required to do. Under private ownership, Channel 4 will still be required to provide original, innovative and educational programming that represents the breadth of society, as well as primetime news and current affairs—again, just as all other PSBs are required to do. Under private ownership—that is the rub here, is it not? The words “private ownership” are the nub of it. Under private ownership, we would also have the freedom to unlock Channel 4’s full potential by removing the publisher-broadcaster restriction, which the Labour party seems to want to protect, but which is the very restriction preventing Channel 4 from achieving long-term financial security. What company pays 100% for content but does not own the content? There is no other company that would regard that as a successful business model. The restriction effectively prohibits the broadcaster from producing and selling its content, denying it a crucial way to make money.

I cannot imagine another company—I look for anyone in this House to reassure me—that would be able to survive by paying100% of the cost of the business while owning none of the product.

BBC Funding

Debate between Nadine Dorries and Stephen Doughty

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

There is no policy; we are just starting a discussion and a debate. This is not based on whether people can achieve streaming or not, but 100% of households achieving superfast broadband or gigabit broadband is the objective.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I heard what the Secretary of State said about S4C, but my constituents would simply not recognise what she says about the rest of the BBC being some sort of London bubble. We have seen a 54% increase in our creative economy locally, with thousands of people employed and the BBC at the heart of that—“Doctor Who”, “Casualty”, “Shreds” and the BBC National Orchestra of Wales. Every pound invested in our local economy by the BBC generates almost double that in return. Does the Secretary of State accept that what she has suggested today puts that at risk, along with jobs and opportunities in Cardiff including those in deprived communities?

Covid-19

Debate between Nadine Dorries and Stephen Doughty

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Dither, delay and disaster—that was the Prime Minister’s own word today—and, of course, it did not have to be this way. There has never been a starker contrast between the gross failings of the Prime Minister and the leadership shown by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench and our Welsh Labour First Minister, Mark Drakeford, in calling for action at the right time and taking action at the right time on a firebreak lockdown. Instead, we saw a Prime Minister who ridiculed the proposals, describing them as “the height of absurdity”. His office described the Leader of the Opposition as “an opportunist”. The Chancellor blocked those who wanted to act sooner, and now we are seeing the same mistakes repeated that we saw earlier in the year. Forty days have been wasted, with the consequence that England will now face a longer, harder lockdown and worse consequences.

What a contrast with Wales, where our First Minister set out a difficult but clear set of restrictions, with common-sense exemptions, when he announced our firebreak weeks ago. He has communicated throughout with, and engaged and listened to, our elected representatives, councils, businesses and trade unions—the hallmark of his approach throughout this crisis—bringing Wales together to tackle the tough reality that covid presents. Today, he has set out that on 9 November our firebreak will end, not in a free-for-all, but with a sensible, clear, national set of measures, where people will be encouraged to do the minimum, not the maximum, allowed and we will prioritise the safety of their families, their friends and our NHS as we continue to be led by the evidence and the threat of this virus.

The consequences of the wider approach taken by the Prime Minister could not be more serious for our collective health and the economy. As the Independent SAGE meeting last week suggested, over the next four weeks, we will now potentially see deaths locked in in their thousands in England if the trends continue, and the mental health and the economic impacts will be for longer and deeper. That is the cost of delay, and I have never known a more incompetent and reckless Prime Minister, Chancellor and Government.

Matt Chorley reported what Tory MPs tell him in private—they often tell us in private, too. There were comments such as:

“Shambolic. Rudderless ramblings. Constituents getting in touch furious or in tears”,

“Grim grim grim”

and

“I think it could be his Suez”.

At least they have the guts to be honest in private, but others, extraordinarily, would rather brazen it out in public. The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention claimed that only a crystal ball could have predicted the need for a second lockdown—it is absolutely extraordinary. Has she even been reading her briefs? Anybody can see from the graphs, the trends or the historical examples—

[The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

No, I will not—the Minister made her comments very clear publicly. Of course, others were simply patronising. [Interruption.] Oh, go on then—I will give way to her.

[Ms Dorries]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The cases of infections, particularly in the over-60s, and the demand on hospital beds far exceed the previous reasonable worst-case scenario.