Oral Answers to Questions

Rob Butler Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of the impact of the swimming pool support fund on local pools and leisure facilities.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

13. What assessment she has made of the impact of the swimming pool support fund on local pools and leisure facilities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

Responding to concerns that we heard from the sector, in 2023-24, the Government have awarded more than £60 million to address cost pressures facing public swimming pools and improve energy efficiency in the long term.

[Stuart Andrew]

My sex has obviously changed, but I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to her for the enormous campaigning she has done on behalf of her constituents in Redditch in securing that significant investment. I agree that getting people active is vital to improving their physical and mental health. That is exactly why we are investing this historic amount of money in grassroots facilities and have published the new “Get Active” strategy, which sets out our ambition to get 3.5 million more people active by 2030.

[Rob Butler]

Aqua Vale swimming and fitness centre in Aylesbury has a prime location in the heart of town, but I am sorry to say it is starting to show its age. The announcement of £240,000 from this Conservative Government to improve the facilities there is superb news. Will my right hon. Friend highlight to Aylesbury residents the benefit that this investment will now bring to my constituents?

[Stuart Andrew]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on campaigning hard on behalf of his constituency and securing that £240,000 for a leisure centre that was feeling its age—I think I know how it feels. We know how important pools are for our communities, which is why we are providing this funding. At Aqua Vale, the installation of solar panels will improve energy efficiency and contribute to significant savings, ensuring that leisure centre for the people of Aylesbury to stay fit and healthy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rob Butler Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

1. Whether she has had recent discussions with the BBC board on the implementation of recommendations in the BBC mid-term review.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)]

The BBC is a hugely valued institution, and the mid-term review seeks to ensure that it continues to provide an outstanding service by improving its processes in relation to both impartiality and complaints. I regularly meet the BBC’s chair and director-general, and I will continue to use those meetings to raise these important issues.

[Rob Butler]

I started my career as a BBC reporter, and I firmly believe in the importance of our national broadcaster being both independent, particularly at moments and eras such as this, and completely impartial. However, every year, many people complain that the BBC is not as impartial as it should be, even that it is biased, and the BBC then dismisses the vast majority of those complaints. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the public would perhaps have more confidence in how those complaints are investigated if they were investigated independently from the outset?

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The public rightly expect the BBC to be an exemplar of impartiality. Our review highlighted issues in relation to both impartiality and complaints. As a result, the BBC will undertake significant reforms on both impartiality and complaints. At the charter review, as I have already said, we will examine whether the BBC first process remains the right complaints model.

Media Bill

Rob Butler Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading. As the Minister said, it was quite fun and enjoyable to serve on the Public Bill Committee—although the Whips Office should not see that as a hint that I want to be on every future Public Bill Committee.

The Media Bill is an important piece of legislation, and a key theme throughout its passage has been the importance of prominence for our public service broadcasters—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. I should declare that I have worked for three of them, and I am sure that Channel 4 will one day complete the set. That is not a hint that I will be looking for a new job in a year’s time, perhaps much to the Opposition’s chagrin.

I am extremely pleased with the new regime to ensure appropriate prominence for public service broadcasters, but I wanted to say a word about it. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that there will be detailed consultation on the work with Ofcom, but it is important that Parliament sets out clearly to the regulator what we mean by prominence. I look forward to the Government taking a robust stance to ensure that Ofcom feels entitled and empowered to adopt a muscular approach. It must be bold with the TV manufacturers in expressing the will of this place to ensure that the PSBs really are featured prominently.

We need look at only one recent example of television to prove the value of PSBs: the drama that has made the headlines in recent weeks, the ITV programme “Mr Bates vs. The Post Office”. It highlighted an injustice to millions of people who had not previously been aware of the Horizon scandal, despite the fact that it had been covered in many news media and that the Government were already working extremely hard to provide redress and recompense for postmasters well before the drama was aired.

“Mr Bates” has had an immediate and important effect, but the programme could only have been made by a PSB. The nature of that story is such that, yes, it is of massive interest to the UK audience, but its international appeal as a television programme might be less evident. ITV recognised the significance of the scandal, put serious money into it and took a commercial risk that would likely not have been approved by a non-PSB. That speaks to the value of the legislation before us.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this issue, but it is also right to highlight the role of the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). For 18 months before that broadcast, the Minister worked hard. We need to recognise that his 18-month contribution coincided with the ITV programme, and the two came together at the right time.

[Rob Butler]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. As I said, the Government had been acting well in advance of the drama, but the programme made the public aware in a way that the news had not been able to. The Government made serious efforts—he is right to draw attention to the incredible work of the current Minister with responsibility for postal services—to achieve recompense and redress, but the TV drama made the public aware of the scandal and the need for redress.

Channel 5 has pointed out that public service content relies on “easy access” for viewers. Without the reforms in the Bill, the significant risk is that proper public-value content will be harder to find for audiences. That cannot be tenable. I am delighted that the Bill seeks to overcome that. It is imperative that Ofcom ensures and assures prominence for our PSBs, as the House expects.

I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I will just say that public service broadcasting is one of the things that makes this country special. There is a Britishness about our broadcasting system and market that is unique. The Bill recognises and protects that, and I am delighted to support it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rob Butler Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I know that my hon. Friend is himself a veteran of the silver screen, appearing in the brilliant British “House of Cards”. Our film industry is world leading. He is right that the strikes caused disruption. We work very closely with our partners in other jurisdictions. One example is the international hit film “Barbie”, which was filmed in the UK, supported 750 jobs, added £80 million to our economy and earned more than £1.1 billion at the global box office. We needed to ensure that the film industry could continue to thrive after the strikes, which is why we are continuing to support the industry with tax incentives, funding pots and, importantly, the development of a skills pipeline to ensure success long into the future.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

10. Whether she has had recent discussions with the BBC Board on the impartiality of the BBC’s current affairs coverage.

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)]

The BBC has a duty to deliver its impartial and accurate news and current affairs coverage under its royal charter. It is editorially independent, which means that editorial policies are a matter for the BBC, but both the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the BBC’s leadership team. We have discussed the important issue of impartiality on multiple occasions. It is also a key focus of the Government’s mid-term review of the BBC’s governance and regulation.

[Rob Butler]

As a former BBC journalist myself, I completely believe in its editorial independence from the Government, but, just as strongly, I consider it essential that the BBC, across all its programming and from all presenters, should be absolutely and unequivocally impartial. Given the concerns that we have heard about the current coverage of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the reporting of the resignation of the president of Harvard and examples of where Ofcom has found significant editorial failings, does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC needs to work consistently, constantly and visibly to enforce that requirement on impartiality?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right: trust is the BBC’s currency. That is especially important in relation to its international coverage, particularly during conflicts, so it must use its words with care. With regard to the events in Israel and Gaza, the Government have been clear that the BBC should reflect on its coverage and learn lessons for the future, but, of course, we again emphasise impartiality and the highest editorial standards. That is a strategic priority of the BBC’s leadership, and we are talking to them about this in relation to the mid-term review and licensing renewal.

Media Bill (Sixth sitting)

Rob Butler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Public Bill Committees

A number of journalists are concerned about the lack of independent regulation. It is not just the general public who are struggling with this issue. We have the least trusted press in Europe as a result of what has happened over the years. The Leveson inquiry made clear where some of the shortcomings are, but it seems that very little has been done to try to fix them. Amendment 41 says that clause 50 cannot have effect, and section 40 of the 2013 Act cannot be removed—the stick cannot be taken away—until both Houses are satisfied that an effective alternative method is in place of persuading publishers to become members of an approved regulator. Only then can section 40 be repealed. Basically, the amendment says that there needs to be alternative provision if we are not using section 40 to convince newspapers to sign up to the independent regulator.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

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

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

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

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

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

[Rob Butler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

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

[Rob Butler]

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

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

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

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

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

[Hywel Williams]

How does the hon. Gentleman expect IPSO to be persuaded to be more amenable?

[Rob Butler]

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

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

“supportive, but challenging engagement to improve standards”

was

“exactly what an effective regulator should be doing”.

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

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

[Rob Butler]

That is not how the press has seen Impress, because it is set up by statute. The press’s argument has always been that it is effectively state-sanctioned and state-imposed. We can call it independent, but the press has never believed that Impress truly would be independent.

As I said, I have to be brief as, with the Committee’s permission, I have been summoned to an important meeting in a few moments, so I apologise for a short absence. My final comment is that at a time when we see freedom of the press under ever-increasing threat around the world, not least in Russia, repealing section 40 and demonstrating that the state should have no direct role would be a powerful sign of the UK’s commitment to a media free of Government shackle or interference. I consequently oppose the hon. Lady’s amendment and fully support the clause standing part of the Bill.

Media Bill (Fourth sitting)

Rob Butler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th December 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

Following on from the removal of prescriptive licence requirements in clause 43, clause 44 makes further amendments to the requirements on the character of local radio services. In short, it strengthens the need to provide local news on analogue services, while repealing requirements to provide other local material, increases flexibility on where local radio content is produced, and allows for future regulations to require news on digital local radio services.

I will speak to these changes in turn, starting with the newly strengthened requirements on local news on analogue services. The 2017 commercial radio deregulation consultation found that there was strong support across the board for provisions protecting local news. In fact, many respondents said that local and national news are often the prime reason that people choose to listen to a particular radio station. On the other hand, there are poor financial incentives for stations to provide news, which can be expensive to produce. I agree with that and, as I said many times during the debates on BBC local radio services, local news has proved its importance time and again in recent years—whether by providing school closure updates in extreme weather events or keeping people updated during the pandemic.

Localised radio updates are even more important for people who cannot access news in other ways—for example, those with visual impairments or those without an internet connection due to cost or location. As a result, it is pleasing to see that there will still be clear requirements on the provision of local news on analogue stations, particularly given the crossover between those who are unable to access a stable internet connection and those living in places without access to digital radio signals. It is also pleasing to see that local news must include locally gathered news, encouraging positive relationships with local papers, journalists and agencies working directly in communities.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I find myself in fervent agreement with the hon. Lady on local news, and I wonder how she would define it. I have been concerned in my area of Buckinghamshire, because when Mix 96 ceased to exist when it was taken over by Bauer and made into Greatest Hits Radio Bucks, Beds and Herts, the amount of Buckinghamshire news coverage drastically reduced. Often, we have found that journalists do not live in the area, and we could have a news bulletin with no Buckinghamshire news in it at all, yet it is still officially compliant with the requirement for local news. What is her view of what local should mean in practice?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Member makes an incredibly good point and I welcome his support. Indeed, I will go on to speak about my amendment, which talks about what local is, and I would be delighted if he would like to support it.

[Rob Butler]

I may not go that far.

[Stephanie Peacock]

If the hon. Member bears with me, I will give him the answer and the opportunity to perhaps vote for the amendment, too.

I want to raise the importance of local programming that is not also local news. Although I understand that there is a range of DAB services offering a whole host of programmes, it is a shame that there has not been some recognition of the value of non-news-related local programming among the changes, which dropped requirements on local spoken material and music. Again, as I spoke to in the debates on BBC local radio services, I hope that a range of the content continues to be delivered on local analogue services, as well as digital ones.

On the newly relaxed requirements on production, which mean that stations can provide local programming from studios outside the coverage of their area, I note that concerns were raised during the consultation process about the impact of that on local opportunities and routes in the industry, with production becoming concentrated in larger cities. Respondents said that a local presence can be important for listeners who want to feel connected to the content the station produces, so they might be less likely to engage with call-ins and competitions if they feel presenters and production are not based where they are.

I understand the need to carefully balance requirements on analogue services and to release undue burdens where possible, particularly given the changing landscape of listenership and the fact that there are no such localness requirements on DAB commercial services. However, I would still like to ask the Minister whether the Government have assessed the impact the requirement relaxations will have on listeners and local people, rather than just on the services themselves. It is important that communities and those who actually benefit from local radio services are taken into account.

Separate to the requirements on analogue services, the clause also provides the Government with the ability to introduce local news obligations on DAB radio services in the event that analogue services cease at some point in the future. It is my understanding that multiplex owners will be responsible for requiring that there is at least one digital local radio service that carries local news, rather than that being a direct obligation on the radio services themselves. Radiocentre, which represents the commercial radio sector, has said that it is sensible to introduce the powers to guarantee the provision of local news in the future. Indeed, I have already discussed how important local news is to local people.

Radiocentre has also shared that it is not entirely clear how that will work in practice. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain, in the event of the power, how multiplexes would decide which service must carry local news. Furthermore, in the event that the chosen service stops doing so, or goes out of business, how would the obligation be transferred to another service? Lastly, how would all that be enforced between Ofcom and the multiplex owners? What conversations has the Minister had with both Ofcom and the multiplex owners, including Arqiva, to ensure readiness when the time comes? The preservation of local news is very important, and I look forward to hearing some clarity on how the new system could work.

Finally, I tabled amendment 31 on what counts as local news, which was raised by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport during the pre-legislative scrutiny process. Indeed, the Committee noted that in 2017 the Government promised to provide greater legislative clarity on what local news actually meant, and stated that it would enable Ofcom to produce guidance in the policy area. However, the issue was never fully resolved, leading to Ofcom calling for clearer guidance regarding its responsibility to enforce the provision of locally gathered news.

In its submission to the Committee, Ofcom said:

“We think it is important the Bill is clear what is intended by this new requirement.”

In response, although the Government said that they accepted

“the principle that the definition and enforcement of the obligations on local radio to provide locally-gathered news could be clearer”,

there was a lack of detail on how they would put this principle into practice, other than references to some technical changes on the face of the Bill. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could talk us through the technical changes and how, or whether, they might be able to act as a replacement for full guidance on this issue. In the absence of such confirmation or detail in the Government’s response to the Select Committee report, I felt it important to raise the issue again. It seems like people from all parties in the House and, indeed, radio services and viewers alike can agree on the importance of local news and information, but if the new requirements on local news are not enforced properly, such unanimous agreement is futile. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The powers relate to future shortages. I suspect that we could not backdate the provisions to kick someone with a contract off a multiplex. Perhaps it would be helpful if I later provided a bit more information to the Committee on precisely how that would work.

To go back to the definition of “local news” in the amendment of the hon. Member for Barnsley East, I understand that her purpose is to refine that definition and that of “locally gathered”, but I think that the amendment is unnecessary.

[Rob Butler]

The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South on the Front Bench will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to add to the woes of the Government Chief Whip by supporting an Opposition amendment, but I want to press the Minister a little on what “local” means, and how it is to be interpreted. I gave an example from my area. What was intrinsically an Aylesbury radio station has been superseded by one with three counties in its name: Bucks, Beds and Herts. Are the people of Aylesbury to assume that “local” means anything from any one of those three counties, rather than one from their town? I wonder whether some form of guidance—not necessarily statutory—might be helpful as we move quickly to develop new audio-visual services in radio and television.

Media Bill (Second sitting)

Rob Butler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th December 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

In a similar vein, would my right hon. Friend ask Ofcom to look at the implications of the BBC’s decision last year to close its sub-regional newsrooms in Oxford and Cambridge, which means that my constituents in Aylesbury now only get to see regional news from Southampton. It is quite a stretch to see anything in common between the two areas, not least as Aylesbury is one of the furthest inland towns in the country. The BBC, of all organisations, is supposed to represent the whole of the country, and that means each and every part of the country.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend tempts me to go down a route that could open up a whole new area of debate. I have to say that I share his concern about some of the decisions taken, particularly in relation to local news provision, by the BBC on radio and, indeed, in local news services. He will be aware, and he has a lot of experience in this area, that this is a matter for the BBC. That does not mean that we do not make clear our own views to the BBC about how it is delivering its obligations to provide for local news. We will continue to do that, but it is ultimately a matter for the BBC.

In relation to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Barnsley East, we want the BBC to have a consistent approach, recognising its distinctive contribution. We will be looking at all these matters when we come to consider the renewal of the charter which, as we discussed this morning, will start not instantly, but in the not too distant future.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendments made: 4, in clause 15, page 17, line 29, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 30 and insert

“”, in relation to each holder of such a licence, available for inclusion in one or more qualifying audiovisual services provided by that holder or a person associated with that holder”;”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

Amendment 5, in clause 15, page 17, line 32, after “licences” insert

“and persons associated with any of those holders”.

This amendment secures that the purpose of networking arrangements is to enable holders of regional Channel 3 licences and persons associated with those holders to provide qualifying audiovisual services that (taken as a whole) are able to compete effectively with other television programme services and on-demand programme services provided in the United Kingdom.

Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 17, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) Section 362AZ12(6) (meaning of references to a person associated with a public service broadcaster) applies for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) and (c) as it applies for the purposes of Part 3A.””

This amendment is consequential upon Amendments 4 and 5.

Amendment 7, in clause 15, page 17, line 36, leave out “(4)” and insert

“(4A) (inserted by subsection (2A))”.—(Sir John Whittingdale.)

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 6.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 18

Power to require information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Clause 26 ensures that our legal framework is up to date—I have to say this with a degree of nostalgia—by removing the now obsolete legal provision for a public teletext service. This is achieved by repealing sections 218 to 223 of the Communications Act 2003, which established such a service. I can remember consulting Teletext and Ceefax on many occasions, but I am afraid that it has now passed into the mists of time.

[Rob Butler]

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those journalists who worked on teletext services, both at the BBC and ITV? When I worked on business television programmes at the BBC, there was a very small team of three people who worked on the business pages of Ceefax. They were extremely diligent and they frequently updated the news faster than we could to get it on the air.

Perhaps, as we mourn the loss of teletext services, we can pay tribute to all those who worked very hard to not only bring us great information but to create some of the most unbelievable graphics on television that people might ever have experienced without any artificial simulation. I am particularly fond of the reveal button that, as Advent wore on, used to show a new little Christmas or festive picture each day. Perhaps this is a good moment in the season of Advent to recall those moments and pay tribute to all those who were involved in providing those great services.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the journalists who made Teletext, for a time, such an essential service in keeping the nation updated with news as it happened. Indeed I do recall—

[Kirsty Blackman]

rose—

[Rob Butler]

You’re too young!

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am absolutely not too young. I spent an awful lot of hours—far too many hours—playing Bamboozle! on Teletext. I wonder if the Minister would also pay tribute to the fact that Teletext was actually a genius idea. The concept and the way that it was delivered was just brilliant. In addition to the team that worked on it, its creation was completely phenomenal and was incredibly impressive—it changed our lives for the better.

Media Bill

Rob Butler Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[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.

[George Eustice]

rose—

[Rob Butler]

I will make one or two more points, just in case they answer my right hon. Friend’s question, but I will certainly give way in a moment.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, it was a surprise to me that it was ever considered appropriate to oblige the publisher to pay the costs of both sides in a legal claim, even if the publication won the case. I know that that stance was taken by the organisation Reporters Without Borders. Thankfully, the Bill will put that right, and I am reassured that the industry’s own actions in recent years in setting up its own regulator, IPSO, and beefing up internal complaints handling procedures have proved effective, without the need for further statutory intervention.

[George Eustice]

Obviously, the easy way for any publisher to avoid the cost provisions would be to seek recognition. What is it about the Leveson recommendations that my hon. Friend disagrees with so much? What in the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press does he find objectionable and impossible for a news organisation to subscribe to?

[Rob Butler]

As I just outlined, my principal concern is about the suggestion that a publisher would have to pay the loser’s costs, irrespective of what those costs could be.

The Government have considered the many factors in play in reaching this decision. It is important to say that this is not a licence for newspapers to print whatever they wish—I hope that is understood in my local area by the Bucks Herald and the Bucks Free Press. There are undoubtedly times when the line between fact, comment and insinuation seems to be ever thinner. Self-regulation brings with it a responsibility to get articles right first time, as well as to give sufficient opportunity for a right to reply and appropriate space for both sides of the story. I hope that newspaper owners and editors will take the opportunity of the repeal of section 40 to redouble their efforts to justify the trust we are putting in them to work to the highest standards.

The Media Bill is essential to securing the long-term future of our public service broadcasters. More than that, it gives confidence to our nation’s wider creative economy. We need to ensure that the Bill gets on to the statute book as smoothly and quickly as possible. I have not proposed amendments or called for specific changes because I recognise the urgency. The industry has worked closely with the Department for many months, if not years. As a result, I believe that we have before us a Bill that is well thought-out, fit for the future and fair to all. I am delighted to give it my enthusiastic support.

BBC Charter: Regional Television News

Rob Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Before we begin the debate, I should tell Members to feel free to remove jackets if they wish because of the temperature.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the BBC Charter and the closure of regional TV news programmes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. When I was 15, I wrote to BBC Radio Oxford to say that it should make programmes for teenagers. Its reply offered me the chance to make those programmes myself. Thus began my career in broadcasting. After I had graduated, I worked for BBC News for seven years before moving to Channel 5, where I stayed for another eight years. I declare an interest: I have a background in broadcasting and spent a considerable period working for the BBC.

One of the things that made BBC Radio Oxford great when I was there was its connection to the audience. Its presenters, reporters and producers knew the local area, understood the local issues and related to the local people. That is the case now for the Oxford television newsroom, which each evening produces dedicated programming in “South Today”. The title sequence shows the names of the places that feature: Abingdon, Bicester, Brackley, Buckingham, Didcot, Witney and, of course, Aylesbury, my constituency. The Oxford programme has a dedicated presenter and a dedicated team of journalists who produce dedicated programming for their local audience, yet that programming is under threat.

At the end of May, the BBC announced that it will

“end the local TV bulletins broadcast from Oxford on BBC1 at 6.30 pm and 10.30 pm on weekdays.”

From November, regional coverage for the area will be merged with the “South Today” programme broadcast from Southampton. Instead of there being TV news for my area, the BBC says it will be

“strengthening its local online news services.”

The BBC has decided to do the same with its bulletins produced in Cambridge—scrap the TV programme and put the local news online instead. I know there are colleagues here today who are affected by that decision.

The BBC has a unique and privileged place in our country. It is funded by a licence fee that is imposed on everybody who owns a television set, irrespective of how much they earn and how much BBC output they watch, listen to or read. In return for that funding model, the BBC is governed by a royal charter that sets out the corporation’s responsibilities. The charter lists the public purposes of the BBC, and this is the first among them:

“To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens.”

The debate is not the place to discuss how fully the BBC complies with everything set out in that paragraph—there are certainly different views about how well it complies with the requirement to be impartial, for example —but I draw the attention of the House to certain key elements of the first of the public purposes of the BBC. Those key elements are to

“provide… news… to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom”,

enable all audiences to

“engage fully with major local… issues”

and offer material

“not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers”.

I submit that, with its proposal to close the Oxford edition of “South Today” and the Cambridge edition of “Look East”, the BBC is failing to comply with those charter requirements.

The BBC needs to continue providing local news in the way people want to get it, because others have ceased to do so. Many local newspapers have closed in recent years. In August 2020, Press Gazette reported that, according to its analysis, 265 local newspapers had shut since 2005. Just last month, a report entitled “Local News Deserts”, published by the Charitable Journalism Project, set out a stark picture. It said:

“The current local news landscape of the UK is unrecognisable compared to 25 years ago…Average daily print circulation for the local regional and local press in 2019 was around 31%...of 2007 figures…The loss of revenue from print sales and the migration of advertising online has brought about successive shocks to the business model of local news. It has led to multiple title closures, redundancies, the ‘hollowing out’ of newsrooms, office closures and centralisation…Most local journalism is no longer written by separate editorial teams associated with a specific title.”

The report says that people

“want a trusted, locally based, professional and accessible source of local news, that reports and investigates local issues and institutions…provided by journalists local to their communities.”

The chairman of the project wrote in his forward:

“The collapse of local reporting is a slow-burning crisis in Britain.”

He pointed out that the income that kept local newspapers afloat in the past will not return.

That, then, is the picture for local print journalism, but it is not just newspapers that are leaving town. In September 2020, Aylesbury’s much loved and very widely respected commercial radio station, Mix 96, effectively closed down. It was subsumed into a new regional station called Greatest Hits Radio (Bucks, Beds and Herts), owned by Bauer. The dedicated team who had served Aylesbury with news, current affairs and local information were no more. The studios in our town have closed. Bauer promised that there would still be coverage of Aylesbury stories, but there are far fewer than there were. The reporters who lived and worked locally have gone.

Of course, I recognise that the way we get our news is changing. Many of us use our phones, for example, to see updates on Twitter or Facebook, but there is still a sizeable audience who want to get their local news from a local television programme, and that is especially the case for older people. Indeed, the BBC itself says that 75% of the viewers of “South Today” are over the age of 55. While many people in that age bracket are highly digitally savvy, plenty of others are not, and they should not be cut off from what is happening in their local area. They should still have access to information about local news. They should still be able to see their local politicians being held to account on their television screens.

Instead, with its latest proposals, the BBC plans to subsume the news from Aylesbury into a programme from Southampton. Frankly, stories about sailing and the coast are not terribly relevant to one of the most inland towns in England. The simple truth is that people in Witney do not have a great deal in common with people in Winchester. News about the havoc caused by HS2 in Buckinghamshire is not very high on the agenda of those who live in Bembridge on the Isle of Wight. The BBC is proposing to create a TV region that simply has no geographical identity. The result will be even lower audiences, as people tune out from a programme with stories to which they simply do not relate. This matters.

The broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, also highlights the importance of television as a source of news. Its most recent report on news consumption says:

“TV remains the most common platform for accessing local news.”

In addition:

“Use of TV is most prevalent amongst the 65+ age group, while the internet is the most- used platform for news consumption among 16-24s…BBC One remains the most-used news source across any platform”.

It is twice as popular as the BBC website and app: the figures are 62% for TV, 31% for online and app. Yet, the BBC wants to close its TV programmes, and put the content online.

The BBC says that when it closes its Oxford and Cambridge TV programmes, it will devote more resource to its local radio stations. But Ofcom says that fewer than half the population now use the radio for news—it is just 46%, whereas 79% use television. Again, the BBC is knowingly cutting programmes from a platform it knows is used and relied upon.

Some may say that this Government’s decision to freeze the price of the BBC licence for two years has forced the corporation’s hand. It is true that the BBC will have to make some cuts in some of its expenditure, but not in this case. The acting director of BBC England told me in simple words, “This isn’t about savings. I haven’t got to save a single penny.” In the correspondence I received from the BBC to tell me that it was planning to close the Oxford programme, it is confirmed:

“The BBC will be maintaining its overall spend on local and regional content in England over the next few years.”

Let me repeat that: the planned closure of BBC Oxford’s “South Today” programme is not driven by the need to save money. Instead, the British Broadcasting Corporation wants to shift more of its output online and away from television.

Having been a journalist and always wanted to hear two sides of the story, I went to the BBC to ask it to put its case. When I asked what evidence it had that people in my local area wanted to get their news online instead of on screen, I was told it would take some time to gather all that information from various sources. That was from the director who had made the decision to close the service. I was a bit surprised that he did not have the facts at his fingertips and could not immediately tell me the justification and why he felt that it was needed or desired, so I waited for a mass of evidence to arrive from various sources.

After 10 days, I got one page. It could not be said to provide the compelling facts that I had eagerly awaited. First, it set out some raw numbers. The BBC said that the average number of viewers for “South Today” was considerably lower in 2022 than in 2020. In 2020, however, all regional news programmes experienced a big increase in viewers because of the pandemic—a point proudly emphasised by the BBC in its annual report—so it is somewhat disingenuous to take that specific high point as a comparator to justify cuts now. Indeed, the BBC told me that the decrease in viewing of regional news programmes is happening more slowly than the decrease in viewing of other programmes.

On my one page of evidence, there was a single paragraph that could perhaps be said to touch on digital versus traditional ways to get local news. It said that the BBC’s own qualitative research showed:

“Amongst older respondents (55+) there has been a long-term trend away from traditional platforms (especially print media) and towards online sources, most significantly Facebook.”

The BBC added:

“This is supported by Ofcom data which reveals over 55s are as likely to access news online as through radio or print. This group expects to be able to access tailored local news online.”

Those listening closely will have heard two references to print and one to radio, but the word “television” is not mentioned in the evidence that the BBC provided to support its decision to cut a television news programme. It certainly did not say that older viewers were switching away from TV news, let alone that they wanted to do so and get their local news online instead. In fact, it says that of the weekly visitors to BBC News Online, 37% are aged 55 or older—in marked contrast to the 75% aged over 55 watching “South Today”—so there are serious concerns about older people being able to get easy access to increased online local news. I should also mention that there is a threat to the jobs of those who have dedicated years of their lives to producing high-quality local TV news. They have not been guaranteed new posts, and they should not be forgotten.

The BBC is a British institution. It does a great deal of good for our country, and I am very proud to have worked there. Its role providing news and information is crucial to our democracy, but with its plans to cut dedicated news programmes on television in the Oxford and Cambridge areas, it will reduce access to local news and information for many people. For the reasons I have set out this morning, I believe that contravenes its charter requirements, which is why I say it is not simply a day-to-day operational decision for the BBC, but a matter for this House and the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Butler]

I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise concerns in the House of Commons about the BBC’s axing of the Oxford edition of “South Today” and the Cambridge edition of “Look East”, and to set out why I believe that is in contravention of the BBC charter. Axing those dedicated programmes will make a fundamental difference to the way in which people in the areas around Oxford and Cambridge find out what is happening, why and who is responsible.

There has been remarkable cross-party support from hon. Members for local journalism from the BBC. Those who have spoken today did so with a common sense of purpose and of valuing the BBC. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) highlighted the BBC’s investigative news at local and regional levels, and the disappointment in his local area, which there is in mine, over the plans to close the programmes that we have been discussing, as well as the irony of the BBC turning away from a fast-growing sub-region. A similar point could be made about Aylesbury, where tens of thousands of new homes are due to be built in the coming years.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for his kind remarks about our shared background in broadcasting. He highlighted the significance of local investigative journalism and pointed out the lack of impartiality among other online sources of news.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) illustrated the impact of cuts to local BBC services in his area, vividly describing what happens in local communities when those services are cut. I hope that might give the BBC pause for thought.

From time to time, I shared a TV studio with the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson). I do not share all his views on the BBC or many other issues, as he would expect, but I note that he had an experience similar to mine in preparation for today’s debate of struggling to get meaningful answers from the corporation.

Labour’s spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), underlined the significance of regional programmes in forging an identity. It is important to say in this conversation that local news reporting is a significant grassroots part of the BBC. It is a shame that it is being squeezed.

I am pleased to see the Minister back at DCMS, and I was glad to hear his support for regional news and that the BBC needs to consider whether local news really does meet the needs of local communities. I accept entirely his point that day-to-day operational decisions are for the BBC, not the House or the Government, but my concern is about the BBC’s compliance with the royal charter. Those concerns remain, and I hope BBC management will reflect on today’s debate. The BBC does some excellent work, and I hope that that excellence will perhaps stretch to its capacity to listen to its audiences, listening to Members who have spoken today, and reversing its decision.

I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I thank all Members who have spoken today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the BBC Charter and the closure of regional TV news programmes.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Rob Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) knows that he should not address the Minister directly like that.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Having worked as a news presenter both at the BBC and at Channel Five, my feeling is categorically that the commitment to high-quality journalism is just as strong in the private sector as in the public sector. Rightly, much has been made of the calibre of some of Channel 4’s programming, but tonight’s schedule includes “The Great Home Transformation”, “Grand Designs: The Streets”, “Bling Ring: Hollywood Heist” and “Shocking Emergency Calls UK”. I assume that the Minister might agree that those programmes could just as easily be produced by a private sector owner.

[Julia Lopez]

I very much enjoyed my hon. Friend’s contribution to the reception celebrating 25 years of Channel Five. The channel has made some very interesting news investments recently; it has taken up top-quality presenters and has really invested in its news content. That proves that private sector investment in our broadcasters can mean higher-quality content that is more attuned to what audiences of the 21st century want. I welcome the interest of any company that wants to do to Channel 4 what has happened to Channel Five, with the high-quality programming that it provides.