Media Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend help the House by saying whether he has had any communication with The Guardian or Private Eye on this proposal?

[George Eustice]

I had multiple conversations with lots of publishers when the original Leveson architecture was put together, particularly around the royal charter. I know that Private Eye has always objected to joining anything at all, and it would be completely unaffected by the proposal. It is not a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, and it was never a member of the Press Complaints Commission. It has always remained entirely aloof, and there is nothing in the proposal that affects its position. Nor would anything in the proposal affect, say, The Spectator, which also has a view that it would not join a recognised regulator.

As I said, small publishers that want to do genuine investigative journalism and that do not have people with deep pockets standing behind them could benefit from the proposal by signing up to a recognised regulator. Many of them are already members of Impress, which is the recognised regulator at the moment, but others may form different regulators or encourage IPSO to join and seek recognition, so that they can benefit from that cost protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

This is one of the issues on which my right hon. Friend and I agree. May I suggest that those who wish to follow this up afterwards read a book called “The Laughter of Triumph”, by Ben Wilson? It is about William Hone and the fight for a free press back in 1817. The press should not be forced into any Government regulation; there should be the law of the land, and that is it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for previewing the suggestion that time-shifted excerpts from listed events be available through public service broadcasters. I regret that test matches are not presently listed events, because I think that this country would have wanted to see the remarkable parts of the test match in India this week.

Some people may have only read press descriptions of Ben Stokes doing a backhanded flip to the wicket. That can be well described by people such as Neville Cardus and his successors, but it is even better to watch it in real life.

I believe that the number of listed events should be expanded. However, as the BBC and others have reminded us, the number of people watching events on the other side of the world at midnight or four in the morning might be 400,000, whereas those who would want to watch those events the next day might be 4 million or 14 million.

I believe that the new clause should be accepted, and I hope that the Minister will say some comforting words. Like many others, I do not propose to push my new clause to a Division today, but I do hope that the Government will respond by tabling an amendment or a new clause in the House of Lords that has the same effect. I could read out my full briefing, but the point has been well made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and may be made by others.

What is the reason for embracing the future? It is not just about linear television; there is the opportunity for other rights. So many rights are bought by commercial businesses outside this country. What do they care about what happens in one part of the world broadcasting framework? We must have a requirement to stop those who think they can make money by making most people not watch key events, and making those who do watch pay a lot. People should be able to watch coverage on ordinary public service broadcasting.

My belief is that, for major events, the competition between the public service broadcasters will be sufficient to ensure a fair return for those who buy the rights. I do not believe in having an unrestricted auction, so that people can buy rights that will exclude most people in the country from watching sporting events of great importance. There have been examples of rights holders—Sky has done this well—making an event available on normal public service broadcasting, as well as on their own service, when one of our national teams has got into a final. I pay tribute to Sky for doing that.

I want to follow up on the words of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who talked about genres in public service broadcasting. I thought I would table an amendment or a new clause that does what he argued for. I believe that Ofcom should have an explicit duty to make sure that public service broadcasters are held to account and explain how they are meeting the requirements for the various parts of public service broadcasting. Public service broadcasting can be very interesting and fully commercial; a large number of people may want to watch it, and it may be very popular, but not necessarily. Religion, science and many other areas listed in the right hon. Member’s amendment 86 are important.

I say to the Government: pay attention to what he has said, look to Colin Browne for what viewers and listeners have said, and accept the amendment, so that the requirements are explicit, and the responses by the public service broadcasters are open.

I believe that we can make a success of this Bill. I know that broadcasting regulation is normally about 10 years behind the technology, and I remember that about 30 years ago, David Mellor had to change a virtually complete Bill on Report because so much had changed between the Bill being drafted and its Third Reading in the House of Commons. I believe that we can make a major change, and I can sum this up to the Government in words that someone has offered me, which are absolutely right:

“Don’t let this opportunity pass by. The time to act is now. Once these moments go behind a paywall, that’s the final whistle.”

Let us make all major events available to all people, at least in excerpts, so that they can watch them in daylight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

We have concerns about my right hon. Friend’s amendments as a package. One issue is about delay, but another is about some of the smaller publishers that do not wish to be part of a regulator. That has been debated at some length this afternoon.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon is pleased about the Government amendment on AM. We discussed the matter together. I note his points about local television. He kindly accepts the unlikelihood of our accepting his amendment, but we will continue to consider his representations.

As always, I am glad of the support of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). He suggested that the proposal to privatise Channel 4 was part of a vendetta, but it was borne of a fundamental concern for its sustainability. We have put forward measures in the Bill to give Channel 4 greater freedom. We want the channel to survive and to have the flexibility to continue doing what it does. To the point raised in relation to those new powers, it will be granted the freedom to produce its own content, but it does not have to use them if it does not feel that is necessary.

On public service content being prominently and easily accessible, as is already the case in the linear space, we want PSB content to be as prominent as possible, but there is a question in relation to appropriate language. As has been discussed at length, the core aim is to secure prominence for PSB services and content online, but for it to be flexible, operable and proportionate, so that we can design the Bill for innovation and consumer choice. We are giving Ofcom the power to establish that balance.

The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and others, raised the issue of digital rights. We recognise the intent behind the amendment to bring digital rights within the scope of the listed events regime. The Select Committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), made a recommendation that would support that outcome. While there is a great deal of support in Parliament for that and I am sympathetic, it is a complex issue.

We have seen how technical just the Government amendments to close the streamer loophole are. Adding digital rights would be a much bigger change, bringing more complexity. It is important that we maintain the right balance between access for audiences and the commercial freedoms that allow rights holders to reinvest in their sport at all levels. We want to get the balance right, and our priority is the impact on the public. It is important that audiences can watch and celebrate major sporting moments, but broadcasting rights provide sports’ national governing bodies with essential income, enabling them to invest in their sports, whether at elite or grassroots levels. We want to fully evaluate the issue, including how it could be best delivered, before considering legislation that enacts any particular conclusion. I assure Members the issue is under careful consideration and we have not yet made a decision.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The House will have listened with interest to the Minister’s response to the points made by Members from across the Chamber, but the Government have got to try to sort this out while the Bill is before Parliament. We want to hear from her that the Government are capable of coming to the Lords with an amendment or new clause that does not get rid of the interest for the commercial bidders, but says that, when digital and reproduction rights come up for sale, the interests of people in our country, our team and the sports that we regard as important, whether they are new or old, established ones, are taken into account. The House will not be satisfied unless the Government come forward with a proposal about what they can either agree with the rights holders or the potential rights bidders. The House of Lords will be right to insist on something that addresses that issue, and we want to support them.

[Julia Lopez]

I appreciate that my hon. Friend wants to put down a marker on the issue—I have heard that, and so has the Secretary of State. I maintain that the issue of rights is more complex than one might imagine. We want to get the balance right, and we will continue to look at that.

Moving to the amendments on the issue of age ratings, we are in complete agreement on the need to protect children and vulnerable audiences from harmful and inappropriate video on demand content. I have two children; I have pushed for children to remain in the remit and for there to be protections for them. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about the importance of public service broadcasters and access to them. A fundamental driving force of the Bill is that we want children to be able to continue to access public service broadcasters.

For the first time, we are bringing mainstream TV-like, on-demand services in the scope of a new video on demand code, to be drafted and enforced by Ofcom. I welcome the general support for the Bill given by my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter). Ofcom will be getting new powers under the Bill to look at broader protection measures and to mandate specific approaches in the code, if deemed necessary, which could be BBFC age ratings. We are trying to move to a more outcomes-based approach rather than a prescriptive approach. We think that there has been great innovation in the space of parental controls, which have often been more effective than a badge rating. However, I have heard what has been said in the House today and we will continue to listen on this subject.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North also raised the issue of protections for viewers watching on devices such as PlayStations. I simply wish to reassure her that the definition of “on-demand programme services” is not platform-specific; Disney and Netflix viewed on a games console would be covered. She also raised questions about the size of producers of content. Smaller producers are not keen on some of the proposals that she has made, as they are concerned that they might one day be larger producers and therefore be penalised. We would not want to disincentivise their growth.

Let me move on to Scottish broadcasting in general. We believe that the Bill will bring significant benefits to the Scottish broadcasting sector and creative economy. I do not underestimate the vital role that our public service broadcasters play in supporting that Scottish screen sector. The Bill contains provisions to encourage our PSBs to broadcast programmes in indigenous, regional and minority languages, such as Gaelic, by including them in our new PSB remit for television. I know that this is extremely important to numerous Scottish Members in this House, and I hope the Government’s efforts here are recognised. The partnership between MG Alba and the BBC is particularly significant for Gaelic language broadcasting. I can assure Members that the ongoing provision of Gaelic will be a key consideration as the Secretary of State and I progress the BBC funding review and the forthcoming BBC charter review. Of course, Scottish audiences will also continue to benefit from the prominence provisions in the Bill.

The Government are also aware of Members’ concerns about being able to access TV via terrestrial means, and I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) about that directly. The Bill does not include provisions on that, but I wish to reassure the House that the Government remain committed to the future of DTT and to protecting the millions of households who continue to rely on it. That is why we have legislated to secure its continuity until at least 2034, but let me be clear that 2034 is not a cliff edge for DTT. We have allowed the renewal of the current multiplex licences so that they last until the end of 2034, but that does not mean that DTT will not continue after that point. Even if the Government simply sat on their hands, Ofcom would still be able to re-advertise the multiplex licences, and our public service broadcasters could continue distributing their linear channels over DTT. Furthermore, specific primary legislation would be required to remove the multiplex licensing regime, for example.

We are always keen to make sure that major sporting events are publicly available as widely as possible, which is why we have the listed events regime, but this is a balancing act. It is another issue where we are trying to find a course through. Sports rights holders use income from the sale of rights to the benefit of the wider sporting sector. A lot of sports do not want the listed events regime to be opened up. I know that the Scottish National party likes the idea of a Government listed events fund, but SNP Members do not acknowledge the distortive effect it would have on the value of rights, nor do they say who would pay for it. I suspect that the UK taxpayer would and, once again, SNP promises would be paid for by everybody else.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Will the Minister help the heritage of Victoria Tower Gardens and the voluntary organisations London Parks & Gardens Trust and the Thorney Island Society by getting the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation to unredact the minutes of December 2018, so that I can quote them when I appear at the hybrid Bill Committee on Wednesday?

[Julia Lopez]

I confess I am not sure about the issue my hon. Friend refers to, so I will do some investigation and we will see what the Department can do to facilitate his request.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

That completes that set of questions—

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

That would normally come after business questions.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It is about DCMS questions.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful. When I referred to December 2018, I should have made it clear that that was the date of the freedom of information request by Dorian Gerhold. I shall write to the Minister explaining what information I want.

[Mr Speaker]

Excellent. That clarifies that.

BBC Funding

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

At the risk of correcting the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), I think the Housing Minister has changed more often than the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that I do not think that anyone will go to the stake for the difference between the September CPI and others, although we can note that, were the BBC licence fee to go up by another 10%, it would still be 50p a week per household, which is probably the best value in broadcasting anywhere.

I am worried that the Government have decided, again, to make a decision without consulting Parliament. If we are to have a public broadcaster funded by a licence fee or some equivalent, Parliament should be brought in more often by Governments. This is probably the fourth time that there has been an announcement of what will happen without Parliament having been consulted first. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and others will say that Parliament should be brought in. If the choice is between the United States model and public broadcasting, Parliament ought to be able make its views known.

The House will have noticed that the Secretary of State said that the review will look at alternative options for funding the BBC and then said that she

“can…rule out…creating any new taxes.”

I thought that it was Parliament that decides whether we have taxes. The review may want to consider some kind of household payment, whatever we call it—at present it is called the licence fee; if we do not call it a tax, we call it a charge or something else—or something to be taken from existing taxation. If the BBC is a public benefit, why not add to whatever households pay for the licence fee the implied tax on the income that they use to pay it, for example? That would allow the income from existing taxes to go up.

The BBC needs defenders, and I am one of them. As long as I am here, the Government can expect detailed attention, and a great deal of support for doing sensible things.

[Lucy Frazer]

I, too, am a defender of the BBC. It provides an outstanding service across the world. I am proud to have seen at first hand the fantastic job that it did for Eurovision, for the coronation and for the last night of the Proms. If we were to create something that spread our values and soft power abroad, we could not do better than creating the BBC. I certainly do not want to see its services diminished, but I want to ensure that it continues to survive in this changing media world. At the moment, it is losing audiences and licence fee payers, and I want to help to support it. That is one thing that we will look at carefully in the review.

The Father of the House rightly mentions the importance of discussion and consultation. My door is open to all those who want to raise points with me. Of course, in due course, we will need to consult, and this is part of the charter review, which will involve a wider consultation exercise.

Media Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I cannot say whether I would support an amendment until I have seen it, but despite a specific mention of “Gaelic-language content” in the briefing note on the King’s Speech, there seems to be no mention of protecting Gaelic language broadcasting in the Bill, which gives me cause for concern.

I am sure that the Secretary of State understands how frustrating the delay has been to everyone involved and how, unfortunately, it seems to our public service broadcasters, the creative industries and all the talented people who work in them that the Government do not care about them. Much of the delay was down to the pointless war on Channel 4: were the Government going to sell it off and did they think it was publicly funded? Nadine Dorries, their 10th Culture Secretary in 13 years, certainly seemed to think so, which slowed down the Bill.

Not content with chipping away for more than a decade at our remarkably resilient British creative industries, they attempted to take their Tory wrecking ball straight to one of our finest institutions, costing Channel 4 and other PSBs time that they could have used to get on the stronger footing with their international competitors that the Secretary of State has described today. If only the Bill had come sooner.

Selling off Channel 4 was never going to work. It was wrong for viewers and it has only done damage to our creative industries. The Government should not have been contemplating it in the first place. With all that time wasted, looking inwards and wrangling with themselves, they held our public service broadcasters back. The resulting delay to the Bill and all the consequences of that have to sit squarely with the Government. Never again must our PSBs be treated with such disdain.

It may seem like a non sequitur, but the Culture, Media and Sport Committee undertook incredibly thoughtful pre-legislative scrutiny. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the Committee’s work added considerably to the quality of the legislation across the piece.

PSBs are important to the wider creative economy because they stimulate growth, create quality jobs and nurture British talent across all our nations and regions, so I welcome the measures in the Bill to boost that success further, particularly those ensuring that PSBs are always carried and given prominence on smart TVs, set-top boxes and streaming sticks. There is still debate about whether “appropriate” prominence, as it is described in the Bill, goes far enough. Would “significant prominence” avoid confusion? As we set the framework and as the Bill moves to Committee, we have to explore what being clear about the mandate to Ofcom actually means.

For many people, the most important part of the Bill is the recognition that PSBs bring us joy and their unique universality brings tens of millions of us together, whether to cheer on the Lionesses, watch Elton at Glastonbury or mourn the late Queen. At a time where loneliness is at an all-time peak, public service content keeps us connected. It is a string threaded through homes in every city, town and village in this country. I welcome the important modernisations to the listed events regime in the Bill—there is a lot to welcome in the Bill—including closing the streamer loophole, so that TV-like services that provide live content via the internet, such as the World cup and Wimbledon, will be brought within scope in the listed events legislation.

However, unfortunately the Government have not taken on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendation to include digital on-demand rights in the regime, so on-demand highlights and online clips can be kept behind paywalls. I know the Government are conducting a review on digital rights, but the deadline for responses to their consultation was last year. I urge the Secretary of State to look down the back of the Culture, Media and Sport sofa—I am very fond of sofa metaphors, I am afraid, so hon. Members may hear more about sofas later—pull that review out and tell us what is in it? If the results of the consultation are not ready in time to be included in the Bill, will the Government include an enabling provision to allow digital rights to be added later?

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Some of the points raised, including those about digital rights, are made by Colin Browne of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer. I recommend that the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State meet him to understand what other points he is concerned about, so they can be addressed during the passage of the Bill?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The Father of the House is quite right to draw attention to the Voice of the Listener and Viewer—I believe that organisation is on my call list, so I will chase that up following his kind and sensible suggestion.

Another broad area that I ask the Secretary of State to look at again is children and young people’s television, which has been one of public service broadcasting’s biggest contributions to the life of our country. I am sure we can all name our favourite programmes, which might reveal the age of hon. Members. For me, they are “Jackanory”, “Grange Hill” and “The Magic Roundabout”, but for others they might be “Byker Grove” and “The Story of Tracy Beaker”, tackling issues rarely seen elsewhere in the media. Colleagues are welcome to mention their own favourite TV programmes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I am delighted to see this Bill before the House today. It has been a long time coming, and its arrival is extremely welcome.

From a very young age, I wanted to be a broadcaster. So committed was I to this goal that I wrote to BBC Radio Oxford at the tender age of 15, and complained that it did not produce any programmes for teenagers. Somewhat to my surprise, it told me to put my money where my mouth was, and invited me to go in and make them myself. My first series covered such weighty topics as spots and school dinners; life as a teenager was rather more naive in that long ago era.

After university, I joined the BBC full time in its news and current affairs department, working as a reporter, presenter and producer. As the Spice Girls, in a blaze of colour, heralded the launch of Channel 5 in 1997, I perched on the newsroom desk to prove that current affairs did not have to be stuffy and boring. Indeed, so keen were we to be modern and relevant that I was even allowed to have a cameo as a newscaster in “Shaun of the Dead”. There being no greater possible pinnacle of an on-air career, I then moved behind the scenes to work as an adviser to ITV for several years.

I recount this biography not as an application to make a late appearance on the new series of “I’m a Celebrity”—I feel these Benches have provided enough victims of that recently—but to show that I have been lucky enough to have some experience of the subject matter, and perhaps more importantly, to illustrate the wide range of the country’s public service broadcasting landscape. All the broadcasters I have mentioned—the BBC, Channel 5 and ITV—have in common that they are PSBs, and it is on them that I wish to devote most of my remarks.

Public service broadcasting is not just about news and current affairs, crucial though they are; it is about reflecting all parts of our country, not just the metropolitan elites, not just London—and, indeed, not just England, as we have heard from our colleagues in the Scottish National party. It is also about showing programmes that do not just have an immediate commercial rationale. As one example, I think Channel 5’s commitment to children’s programming is commendable, and its recent commission of an animated series with disabled lead characters for pre-school children is incredibly important.

As the Government themselves have stated, this Bill will

“reform the legal framework for the regulation of public service broadcasting”,

and there can be no doubt that this is sorely needed, because the media and entertainment landscape, as we have heard several times, has changed almost beyond recognition over the past 20 years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) have touched on some of the circumstances we faced in 2003, such as watching analogue TV, Netflix still posting DVDs to its customers and Blockbuster Video still existing on our high streets. YouTube, iPhones and Twitter had not been invented, yet they are the ways in which we watch much of our content these days.

Let me add some other cultural memories of that year. Jemini—with a J—scored “nul points” at Eurovision, Cilla Black quit “Blind Date” live on air and Jonny Wilkinson scored a last-minute drop goal that won the Rugby world cup and the nation’s hearts. That same year, 2003, more than 19 million viewers were glued to their screens as the “Coronation Street” serial killer Richard Hillman abducted the Platts and drove the family into the canal. It was must-watch TV the length and breadth of the country. However, those TV audience numbers for drama could only be dreamt of today. Indeed, the entire TV landscape is almost unrecognisable, thanks to rapid developments in technology that have in turn brought about fundamental changes in viewing habits. Today, 75% of households have an on-demand streaming service, and according to Ofcom, 90% of 18 to 24-year-old adults bypass TV channels and head straight to streaming, on-demand and social video services when they are looking for something to watch.

While the likes of Netflix, Prime and Disney offer a panoply of great programming, they are not bound by the requirements on our public service broadcasters—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. The responsibility that PSBs bear to present socially valuable content carries a burden, and it is only right that that is reflected in the regulatory regime. Key to achieving that is ensuring due prominence for PSBs on whatever device. At its simplest, there is no value in having high quality, publicly important programming if viewers cannot find it quickly and easily, yet that is increasingly the risk with the market as it is today.

We are all familiar with the shift away from an on-screen list of TV programmes—electronic programme guides—to a set of tiles along the bottom of our screens, but whereas the lowest numbers on an old EPG could easily be reserved for the PSBs, the tiles can be set in pretty much any order. Inevitably, those linked to the highest paying providers of content, or otherwise prioritised, are frequently the first to be seen. It can take many clicks on the remote to get to the smaller PSBs: Channels 4 and 5.

I strongly welcome the Government’s provisions on the new online prominence regime, and I agree with ITV that a “clear mandate” must be

“given to Ofcom for a muscular implementation of the Bill…on terms that enable PSBs to flourish and deliver their remits.”

I would be grateful if the Minister set out in a little more detail how he envisages Ofcom implementing the new regime, and said whether he supports the regulator taking a bold stance to ensure that global companies comply with our decisions in Parliament for an appropriate level of prominence for our PSBs.

I would also be grateful for reassurance that a secondary power to designate platforms will be cast as broadly as necessary to achieve the aims of Bill. For example, that could potentially include gaming consoles, which I understand from much younger colleagues are often used to access PSB content. This is not just about watching the box in the corner of the room. The requirement to give PSBs prominence cannot become a licence to print money by the platforms carrying them, so I welcome the Bill’s proposals for a must-offer, must-carry regime, with an arbitration scheme as a backstop.

The other side of the coin is that the privilege of prominence carries with it a duty, and nowhere more so than at the BBC. It must do better if it is to retain its hallowed position as the most prominent and privileged of the PSBs, because it is funded by all of us through the licence fee. I have said before that I believe that that funding method is living on borrowed time; it is an anachronistic and frankly regressive tax. During my 12 years as a magistrate, I saw the painful impact, particularly on some women, of the draconian measures that are taken against those who cannot afford to pay that licence. Although the future of the licence fee is not part of today’s debate, the funding model puts additional and serious duties on the BBC as a PSB.

I fear that the BBC is no longer the organisation that I joined more than 30 years ago. We are all familiar with the growing torrent of criticism, not least of aspects of its coverage of the middle east crisis. Although there are undoubtedly some phenomenally good and brave journalists in the field, there have also been some appalling and inexcusable lapses in the BBC’s reporting. Responsibility for that must go to the very top of the newsroom, and it must always be remembered that the facts are far more important than a juicy headline. I fear that if it is not careful, BBC Verify will have to start scrutinising its own newsroom, and that was not the idea of it in the first place.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Leaving aside the newsroom, when pensioners started paying the licence fee again, I had a large number of them in my constituency. Three of them made contact with me, one of whom objected, and two of whom were trying to pay in an old-fashioned way that the BBC’s agents could not cope with. That shows that the licence subscription system works pretty well and is welcomed. I say to my hon. Friend that if we had the alternative to the licence fee, or some other kind of household impost, we would have a subscription where the BBC stops serving everyone in the country, and starts serving those who choose to pay. As it is a national institution, we still face the question put by the Canadian, Graham Spry, nearly 100 years ago:

“It is a choice between the state and the United States.”

Let us choose the state and make it a public broadcaster still.

[Rob Butler]

I thank the Father of the House for his intervention. He raises important points, which is why we will need to have a long and detailed debate on the future of the licence fee at another time. I chose my words relatively carefully in saying that I hoped the licence fee was living on borrowed time, rather than saying that the end must come immediately. My hon. Friend raises points that will have to be addressed before we move to another system, but I personally feel that the current model is not sustainable in the medium to long term.

It is not just me who has raised concerns about the BBC. According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, trust in BBC News has plummeted from 75% in 2018 to 55% in 2022. That trend clearly cannot continue.

I have focused my remarks principally on broadcasters, as that is where the majority of my experience lies, but I will turn for a moment to the print media. I listened carefully to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and I am afraid to disappoint him but I agree rather more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on section 40. I am glad to see the Bill removing that sword of Damocles from newspapers. It struck me that, although it was never commenced, it loomed over papers and magazines as a potential form of state control that would have been unconscionable interference in the freedom of the press. While I have many quibbles with both national and local newspapers about how they cover some stories, I felt that the draconian measures in section 40 were an entirely disproportionate way to tackle complaints.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I reinforce what the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said about the general welcome in the House for the movement towards equality and fairness. We have had it on ordination; we now have it on same-sex relationships up to a point. Through my hon. Friend, I ask those who are disappointed with this movement forward to think of the pain that they have caused by resisting the change for so many people, whether by sex or orientation, over the past decades.

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful, as always, to the Father of the House for his wise reflections on these matters. He is right that this has been a difficult and painful period across the Church. I very much regret that, as he does. I hope we can move forward together in love, truth and unity on these matters.

Channel 4

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I follow the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) in saying that, over the last 13 years, Channel 4 has done better than ever before. If we want to congratulate Channel 4, we should also congratulate the Government on making that possible by not disturbing its arrangements.

The Secretary of State is right to examine the proposals put forward a year or so ago. I would not have frozen the BBC licence fee, I would not have proposed the privatisation of Channel 4 and I would not have put pressure on Arts Council England to strangle the English National Opera, but there is more to be done to put them on the right path.

Alex Mahon, the chief executive of Channel 4, spoke for me when she talked about Channel 4’s innovativeness in reaching audiences that others do not serve so well, and I think the publisher-producer split is worth preserving. I hope Channel 4 will not be forced to make too many programmes in-house, as it is vital that we keep the independent producers going. I hope we are back here in 10 years’ time with no more proposals to change the ownership of Channel 4, which is a good public broadcaster that successfully operates commercially.

[Michelle Donelan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential Channel 4 remains an incubator of the independent sector, which is why one measure we will be taking forward is increasing, from 25%, the proportion of content it has to take from the independent sector. Let us not forget that the package of measures announced today is about giving Channel 4 the tools to be viable in the long term. Of course, it is up to Channel 4 what it does with those tools. Nobody is forcing it to do anything.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson). I do not think he needed to bring in party politics in the way that he did. I do not think that will help Channel 4, and I do not think it will help him either. What I do think is that, if the arguments put forward for the privatisation of Channel 4 were any good, they would have been put forward by Channel 4. If I were Secretary of State, I would say, “Ask Channel 4 to ask for privatisation as and when they think it will help them as a public service broadcaster.” It has not.

I ask the Government: when was the last time Channel 4 used public money for programmes? When did it last ask to have its borrowing limit lifted? It has not. I ask the Secretary of State whether she could have put in what she said. How much has Channel 4’s income from digital advertising increased in the last year and how much does Channel 4 expect it to rise in the next four years? We know that subscription on demand has grown and that broadcasting on demand has grown, mainly through Channel 4, but others can do the same, and we expect growth in advertising on video on demand. What we do not need to do is to throw away one of our best linear broadcasters which is also good at digital transformation.

Nothing has been said by Government, or even Government supporters, that suggests that Channel 4 would do better in other hands. The only conceivable ownership that would keep it going the way it is now is if it were given to the independent production companies to own as a mutual, and kept the broadcaster role and the rights on secondary broadcasting. That is a zero-sum game. Either the income stays with the producers or it goes to the broadcaster—it cannot go to both. If the Government think it would help the producers to take away that secondary income, they are just saying, “We are going to take it from one pocket and put it in another.” No argument has been put forward for that.

Have the advertisers said that they want this for Channel 4? No. The Incorporated Society of British Advertisers has said very clearly that it does not want that. There is also no evidence from polls or the Government survey and consultation that the viewers want its ownership or remit changed. The Government say that they are going to keep the whole public service remit, but they are not.

Channel 4 has been going—successfully—for 40 years. It has its ups and downs, but generally it is on the way up. The transformation in the way it produces and presents its products has gone on improving choices for people.

We have more than three different types of public service broadcasters. The Government are proposing to abolish one of them. That is not conservative; it is destructive. I do not blame the Secretary of State for thinking up the idea; it was there before she took on her responsibilities. But she could have done what other Secretaries of State have done and stood up to those who want to privatise Channel 4. My wife did. She was in a small minority in the Cabinet. She stood up against it. Her arguments were right. When the Chancellor said, “We want to get some money in, because we are short of money,” she explained that it was not a question of how much; it was just wrong. In the years since the mid-1990s—that is about 27 years—Channel 4 has gone from strength to strength.

I say to the Government: do not go on with this, although not because I do not like privatisation—I do. The privatisation of the National Freight Corporation—incidentally, that was the only bit of privatisation in the 1979 manifesto on which Margaret Thatcher and I got elected—was to hand the National Freight Corporation to its employees and that worked really well, but that is not the proposal here.

Government speakers say that the proposal will give Channel 4 more money to put into training people. We do not need to privatise an organisation to do that. They say that it will provide more money for commissioning programmes. Maybe it would in the short term, but not in the long term. What is the medium-term and long-term gain? The answer has not been put forward.

I do not seriously believe that the Secretary of State or her colleagues mind being criticised by Channel 4 News—by criticism, I mean being asked to answer questions. That is the sort of thing that happens in the House of Commons and they do not try to abolish the House of Commons because we ask awkward questions. But as I have said, it is far better to be in government and to have to answer awkward questions than to be in opposition and cheer when the interviewer puts the awkward questions to the Labour party or whatever else might be the alternative Government.

I ask the Secretary of State and the Government to think again, to leave the proposals for Channel 4 to rest and to say to Channel 4’s viewers, management and board, “If and when you believe that we can do better under a different kind of ownership, come forward and say so.” One of the many groups that have not done that is those involved in Channel 4.

Those who are concerned more for the producers of programmes than for the viewers put the arguments well around the nations of this country. I do so on behalf of the public interest. If the choice is between the state owning Channel 4 and the United States owning Channel 4, it is better to have it as a state corporation, independent of Government. I wish Government would stop messing it around.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I am sure we can all agree that the diversity and range of broadcasting here in the UK is a hallmark of a free and democratic society. Indeed, television is one of our most popular exports, and a huge source of soft power. We project Britain, and our ideals, through billions of TV screens around the world. I am a ’70s baby, early ’80s child. I was about eight when my parents first got a television, and I was absolutely glued to it, so Channel 4 really has been part of my life growing up. Indeed, people remember the excitement of acquiring the fifth channel.

Channel 4 is a modern, forward-thinking broadcaster providing millions of customers with unique content while, as we have heard, supporting and promoting the independent production sector. I reflected this morning on what Channel 4 shows I have enjoyed watching. I realised that aside from “Humans”, all the others are from about 20 years ago—“Brass Eye”, “Spaced”, “The IT Crowd”, “Father Ted” and so on. Plenty of shows produced by Channel 4 subsequently have pushed the boundaries of broadcasting, even if I have not watched them. I am told that one of them is called “Naked Attraction”. These shows, and many more, illustrate the vast range and depth of the creative talent at Channel 4. Importantly, the Government are keen to maintain and foster that in future, which is why they are taking action.

The media and television landscape has changed dramatically over the past decade, with the rise of subscription streaming services such as Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video, all of which have been mentioned. They demonstrate the shift in the landscape. We can now access content through a range of devices at any time, wherever we are. We need to adapt. The world is changing and there is a new landscape, so public service providers must evolve. We have an increasingly competitive market. No Government can fully give powers to any company to adapt to this. Government ownership, in the context of that competitive market shift, is holding Channel 4 back from being able to adapt to the new state of play. Adapting, in the case of Channel 4, means diversifying and broadening revenue streams. It means having unrestricted freedom to create and produce its own content, fully utilising the creative talent that it is known for across the country.

These significant structural changes require investment —lots of it—and speed of delivery. That scale of change is best achieved through private ownership. During these testing times for many throughout this nation, it is not fair to ask the taxpayer to bear the burden of any resulting risks. More broadly, these challenges are linked to the Government’s levelling-up strategy. We want to empower the UK’s creative industries, wherever they are across our nation, by investing in independent production and creative skills, creating more jobs and opportunities for everyone. I welcome the fact that the Government seek to use the proceeds from the sale of Channel 4 to enable that investment.

The media Bill will empower Channel 4 by enabling it to pursue and track its own creative direction, bolstering the UK’s public service broadcasting sector. If we increase competitiveness, we drive growth and prosperity across our nation—something I am sure we can all agree, across this House, is a desirable outcome. Clearly—this will not be a shock—I am not on the side of the doom-mongers and the pessimists, or, as others call them, the Opposition. We heard a blast from the past earlier with all the stuff about big American companies coming over to take our assets. It is Corbynism again—Corbynism in an Islington lawyer suit. Channel 4 has a bright future. It has the capacity and the tools to succeed without the constraints of public ownership.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I have been listening to my hon. Friend with interest. How is Channel 4’s future brighter when it stands by itself if it is sold to a competitor? What is the gain?

[Ben Everitt]

I welcome the intervention. The gain is that the risk is not with the taxpayer; Channel 4 would be unburdening the taxpayer from the risk of future borrowing.

Channel 4 does have a bright future. It is a successful broadcaster in its own right, and it can stand on its own feet, but the risk of borrowing against the taxpayer is not something that the Government want to get into. Ultimately, for Channel 4 to flourish, the Government must step out of the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I can account for what the Secretary of State and I have done within our roles, and I think we have pushed forward an extremely ambitious set of reforms in the short time we have been in DCMS. This is an exciting time to be in public service broadcasting. I always thank the hon. Gentleman for his contributions because I know he has expertise in this field.

It is this Government and this Secretary of State who have decided to act, bringing forward a comprehensive package of reforms to support our PSBs through the first broadcasting White Paper in 20 years. It is the next step in a long history of support for our creative industries. It was a Conservative Government—under Margaret Thatcher, no less—that established Channel 4 in the 1980s to stimulate independent production and distinctive content. It has worked, and then some. It was a Conservative Government that encouraged Channel 4’s move to Leeds to spread the benefits of the creative sector beyond London. It worked. And it is a Conservative Government that are tackling the limitations of Channel 4’s ownership structure in this new broadcasting landscape, redirecting sale proceeds into a creative dividend to address the skills challenges of now.

Let me just touch on those limitations, because it is important to remind the House of them. Channel 4 is a fantastic broadcaster that has great management, innovative programming, high quality journalism and a diverse audience, but it is uniquely challenged in two ways. First, the publisher-broadcaster restriction means that it cannot own its intellectual property, so it finds itself reliant for 74% of its income on linear TV advertising revenues. Such revenues have fallen 31% sector-wide between 2015 and 2020, and that trend is set to accelerate as audiences move online and change their viewing habits.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Are those the most recent figures that the Department has? Many of us have been asking Channel 4 what its revenues were in the year that finished last year, and the growth in its digital advertising might also be something that the Minister would like to share with the House.

[Julia Lopez]

We would be very keen to get more information on Channel 4’s business at the moment, as it has been rather difficult to extract.

Secondly, should Channel 4 need to borrow money to keep up with the content investment of rivals, that borrowing would sit on the public balance sheet. In the light of those fundamentals, we are not going to apologise for asking the serious and responsible question as to whether this ownership model and structure is the right one for today’s broadcast challenges. That is something that the Secretary of State outlined today, and it has been expertly set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale).

I understand why hon. and right hon. Members want reassurance on this plan, and I want to provide it, but before I turn to some of the points raised this afternoon, I want to tackle some of the outlandish assertions in the article by the hon. Member for Manchester Central in The Yorkshire Post today. She claims that our selling Channel 4 could

“kill off independent film production”.

Let us set aside the fact that we believe any new owner would want to maintain Film4, for all the reasons she cites on its value. She completely underplays the strength and depth of the UK’s booming film industry, ignoring all the other players who support it, including the British Film Institute, with its own film fund, the UK Global Screen Fund, into which the Government channel £21 million to promote and distribute UK film around the world, and the fact that our film sector is doing so well that it cannot keep up with the demand for skills and studios.

The hon. Lady says that the sale of Channel 4 will lead to the move of more jobs back to London. I remind her that the BBC has committed to increasing its spend across the UK, that non-London production spend will remain in Channel 4’s remit and that ITV, Sky and Channel 5 all have large operations beyond the capital. There are so many centres of excellence outside London in our production sector that there are huge incentives to keep investing in our regions. She goes on to denigrate channels that are motivated by what she appears to see as a dirty word, profit, over public service. I wonder if she understands that those two things are not mutually exclusive. ITV and Channel 5 are all privately owned public service broadcasters. Indeed, since Channel 5’s sale to Viacom, it has gone from strength to strength, producing some fantastic, distinctly British content. As detailed in the White Paper, she will also understand that Channel 4 will remain a public service broadcaster, with quotas for independent production and the remit protected. We believe that getting private capital into the organisation will allow it to commission more, not less.

I now turn to the contributions of others. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) made the excellent point that Channel 4 itself has suggested a joint venture as a way forward, which would change the relationship with the independent production sector. Implicit in that is that the status quo cannot hold because of the changing dynamic of the market—the strong headwinds he cited—with the shift to online, inflation in production costs and so on.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), in his waspish speech, suggested that we are trying to make Channel 4 like Netflix or Amazon. That is not the case. We are saying that those businesses are changing the market, and we need to equip Channel 4 to deal with that.

The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), suggested that we the taxpayers, as owners, should listen only to Channel 4 on whether it wants to change. I refer him to the absolutely fascinating contributions from panellists to the Lords Communications and Digital Committee inquiry on the licence fee, and the challenge they cited about small-c conservatism in media organisations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) touched on this in his superb speech, including on the reticence we often find in organisations about changing and trying to come to terms with some of the challenges they face. I think there is an urgency to this debate on sustainability that we are taking on. He also mentioned Channel 4’s vulnerability to shocks because of its structure.

I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). It was fun, but it was a wholly inaccurate artistic interpretation of the advice of officials who have provided extensive analysis of some of the market dynamics that they think provide a real challenge here. Incidentally, I sometimes find myself imagining alternative scenes in the Opposition offices, with the shadow Secretary of State saying, “Do you know that Channel 4 is the only broadcaster capable of keeping the film, TV and creative industries and the regions going, and also producing content that audiences actually like?”

The Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), recognised the importance of getting private sector capital into the business to allow it to grow. I assure him that we want Channel 4 to continue to produce news. It is part of a genuine suite of support for the creative economy. The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) reduced these critical media reforms to a “petty vendetta”, and I can assure her that that is not the case. Channel 4’s sale is part of a package of media reforms that the sector has asked for.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon pointed out, it is in our interests to see Channel 4 thrive. It is because of those interests that we want to drive these reforms, and we believe that Channel 4, in thriving, can invest more in content. He talked about the cut in content spend that we have seen over the last year or so, and he also highlighted the superb Lords report. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe gave an important account of the trends in play and the need for a radical reset of Channel 4’s role.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) talked about the independent producers, and I want to reassure her that we also value the distinctive content and see that as part of the sale process. I also want to assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) that we have digested the consultation responses fully. We put a lot of departmental resource into doing that.

In so far as there is any ideological drive, I was interested in the challenge from my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley)—a deeply unfashionable view in this House, it seems, too often—that private sector capital going into a business is a good thing because it can grow businesses, create jobs and drive innovation. Fundamentally, it can also provide content of the kind that audiences—too little discussed, I think, in this debate—love.

The right buyer for Channel 4 will be one that shares our ambition for the business and our belief in what makes it special. As I say, I note the concerns of the hon. Member for Canterbury about its distinctive content. I want to assure her that we are not trying to change the distinctive role Channel 4 plays; we are seeking to give it the best set of tools and the freedom to flourish and thrive long into the future. That is why the Government will move ahead with plans to move Channel 4 out of public ownership to become a free-to-air, privately-owned public service broadcaster.

The Government today have been accused of cultural vandalism, including by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). Let me say that the greatest act of cultural vandalism would be to let our public service broadcasters wither on the vine due to the small-c conservatism of the Opposition or an attitude that there is nothing to see here for our PSBs, particularly given the jobs and the values at stake. We want our public service broadcasters to have a long-term future and, through our media Bill and our broadcasting White Paper, we have the plan to deliver just that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House supports the UK’s much loved cultural institutions, which are celebrated around the world while creating jobs and growth across the country; in the Jubilee year supports world-renowned British broadcasting which brings the country together in celebration; believes that the Government should reverse its decision to sell Channel 4 as it will undermine the UK’s world leading creative industries and the delicate ecosystem of companies that support them; and calls on the Government to ensure that, if the sale does go ahead, Channel 4’s headquarters continue to be based in Leeds and its remit ensures that it continues as a public service publisher-broadcaster, commissions over 50 per cent of its content outside London, continues its significant investment in new independent British films and funds quality news content which is aired at prime time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I know the Secretary of State’s reasoning for this decision better than he does. He also mis-characterises what was said at the Select Committee. He will be aware that Channel 4 is uniquely dependent on linear advertising, that it cannot own its own content, and that its borrowing sits on the public balance sheet. We think we have an opportunity to free it from some of those constraints to allow it to invest more in content to get private sector capital into the business, and we think that that will help to grow Channel 4, so that it can invest more in the businesses that he purports to care about.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Secretary of State said that she wanted to remove the straitjacket from Channel 4. Except for the opportunity to borrow, which I did not know Channel 4 had asked for, the only straitjacket is the public service remits. Will those be reduced in any way?

Can the Minister kindly tell the House why the aim to compete with Amazon and Netflix should be one of the purposes of Channel 4, especially if either Netflix or Amazon, or a similar-sized foreign-owned organisation, might buy Channel 4?

[Julia Lopez]

This is not necessarily about allowing Channel 4 to compete in exactly the same way as Netflix and Amazon; it is about understanding the changing market dynamics that those companies are creating. As I said in my previous answer, Channel 4 is uniquely constrained. Its borrowing would sit on the public balance sheet, but it also cannot own its content. We believe that in today’s market, it needs to be able to own its content in order to have much greater flexibility in how it runs its business, and getting private capital into the business would help it to do that. While people can bury their heads in the sand about the fundamental dynamics in the market, we are taking some difficult decisions, which we think are the right decisions to secure not only the future of the business, but the future of the kind of content that audiences in this country love.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important to say that tomorrow is a sitting day, and we bid for a ministerial statement on this subject.

We are very keen that the House understands that the Channel 4 sale is not a stand-alone issue; it sits within a very important series of reforms that we as a Government want to make to the public service broadcasting system. Channel 4 is an incredibly important economic asset in that ecosystem, and we want to make sure that it is sustainable not just now but long into the future. We think it is our responsibility as the Government to do that future-gazing and to make sure that Channel 4 has the freedom and flexibility it needs to be able to make changes to thrive.

There are two important things to understand about Channel 4. First, it cannot retain control of its own intellectual property, and therefore it does not have the same financial flexibility as the likes of ITV and the BBC, both of which have their own studios. Secondly, its borrowing sits on the public balance sheet, and therefore if it required greater financial flexibility in the future, the Treasury would need to be content with that.

As I say, tomorrow is a sitting day. We had very much hoped that we would be able to set the sale of Channel 4 in the context of a wider series of incredibly important reforms that we wish to make to the public service broadcasting sector. I regret that the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) does not think this is an important issue and has dismissed it as some culture war. That could not be further from the truth. The last time that important broadcasting reforms were made was 2003. I hope she will agree that the broadcasting world has changed immeasurably since then, and that the Government would not be responsible if we did not address some of those changes.

We think the public service broadcasters play an incredibly important democratic, cultural and economic role in our nation’s life and we want to sustain that role, so we think the privatisation of Channel 4 is an important part of a wider series of reforms. We will make further details available to colleagues, and I will be engaging one-to-one with colleagues who have concerns as we go forward.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Minister may or may not have been convinced by the words that she read out, but I do not think that they convinced the House. Channel 4 is in the best state that it has been in creatively or financially for decades. We were told that it is supposed to be able to compete with Netflix, but Netflix is a loss-making, debt-ridden business whose share price is now $198 when it was $700—an enormous drop.

If the choice for the country is about Channel 4’s specific remit and structure as a publisher-commissioner that does not hold programme rights, the Government could do best by leaving it alone. If they do not, they could engage with Channel 4’s management team about its proposals—I am not sure that we have all seen them in public—and explain why they prefer to go to the United States than to have a state broadcaster that is independent of Government.

Those in government may not like Channel 4 because it may criticise the Government in its news output, but it is better to be in government and criticised than to be in opposition and cheer.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is important to understand that the Secretary of State and I went into the entire process with a very open mind—[Interruption.] That is certainly true. We went into this looking at what is best for the public service broadcasting sector as a whole going forward. We looked incredibly carefully at alternatives, and I hope that the material that we will publish tomorrow will assure him of that fact. We think that we can get the right blend by retaining Channel 4’s public service broadcast remit, which maintains its distinct and unique appeal, while enabling it to get the private sector capital investment that it requires to deal with some of the wider challenges presented by the likes of Netflix.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about changes in subscriptions. I think that underlines the volatility of the market and the need to be able to compete and invest in content. That is incredibly important. If Channel 4 is to remain uniquely appealing, we need that investment in content, and we believe that the reforms will give it greater sustainability going forward.

Points of Order

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I believe that the Father of the House also wishes to make a point of order, but I will come to the shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport afterwards. I assume that her point of order relates to something that happened in the urgent question, so the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure might like to stay for it.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

If the other point of order is about the urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to wait.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It will be possible to make an oral statement tomorrow, should the Minister wish to, and for there to be an urgent question then, if tomorrow ends up being a sitting day. There are a number of imponderables, but I hope that that explains the various options available. I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

May I say first, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I think we have the sense from both the Chair and the Chamber that the House would wish this to be an oral statement that the Government do actually manage to make, so that those of us who want to do so can question the Government on it?

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and this is a separate point. During the exchanges on the urgent question, I saw a copy of a personalised letter delivered by post from the Labour leader to named constituents of mine, asking them to vote on 5 May, the day of the local elections. I want to know whether the Electoral Commission has approved this as part of a local election expense, or whether it is a national election expense. I should like to know whether the Electoral Commission will answer that question this week rather than next week, whether it would require evidence to be gathered both by itself and by the police lest there should be a case afterwards, and whether Mr Speaker might be able to take this up at 4 pm, when he is due to have a private meeting on the Electoral Commission.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but it is not really a matter for the Chair. Obviously, as he mentioned, there are questions that he can raise with the Electoral Commission. I rather think that letters are sent out during election campaigns, from different party leaders—but, as I have said, this is not really a matter for the Chair, and as the hon. Gentleman said, he could raise it with the Electoral Commission should he so wish.