Channel 4

Scott Benton Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

In the conversations and work that I have undertaken with Channel 4, the sentiment has been very much about the importance of the UK in general—including Northern Ireland—not just England. I am sure that Channel 4 would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss that in detail.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

Channel 4 has an unmistakable liberal-left metropolitan bias in its programming, particularly in its news output—so much so that it almost makes the BBC look impartial by comparison. How exactly will a few pages in its annual report change that ingrained cultural bias?

[Michelle Donelan]

At the heart of this piece of work, and of my predecessor’s piece of work, was not impartiality but the sustainability of Channel 4. That is what we have achieved from this announcement. However, as part of that, Channel 4 has agreed to have a new section in its annual report detailing a review of impartiality and editorial content from the previous year. That is certainly a good start and something that I look forward to reading.

Oral Answers to Questions

Scott Benton Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

Is the Minister able to update the House on any discussions he has held with the premier league and the English Football League to encourage a fairer distribution of money throughout the Football League pyramid?

[Stuart Andrew]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met both organisations; as I say, my first engagement was with the Football Supporters’ Association. It is right to listen to all those views, and we are aware of discussions that are happening across the various groups, but I recognise that reform is needed. That is the firmest commitment I can give at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Scott Benton Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

The data, to which we now have unprecedented access, shows that when it comes to recovery from covid and court backlogs, the CPS in Wales and the local criminal justice board have performed exceptionally well. Huge resources have been put into court recovery, which is why the magistrates court backlog in the CPS Wales area was the first to recover from the impact of covid, with live caseload numbers falling to below pre-covid levels in December 2021.

I successfully personally presented a case at the Court of Appeal, sitting at Cardiff Crown court, which resulted in an increase from 13 years to 20 years and seven months, with an extended licence period of five years,. in the prison sentence given to Stephen Gibbs for an attempted murder. I was delighted and honoured to be in court in Wales.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking to increase prosecution rates for rape.

[The Attorney General]

We are united in our combined efforts, across Government, to improve performance for victims and increase the number of successful rape cases that go through our courts. Since we published our rape review action plan, there has been a steady increase in the number of rape charges, prosecutions and convictions quarter on quarter. We are closing the gap between complaints and convictions. Most notably, the number of convictions for rape offences is up by 27% on the number in 2019.

[Scott Benton]

In Lancashire, our brilliant police and crime commissioner, Andrew Snowden, is funding a variety of projects to reduce the number of rape and serious sexual offences. They include dedicated specialist support services for victims, and Operation Night Guardian, which focuses on the night economy. How is the CPS in Lancashire working alongside our police and crime commissioner to improve the rates of conviction for these abhorrent crimes?

[The Attorney General]

I am pleased to report that CPS North West is in an Operation Soteria area. Operation Soteria, which was introduced recently under this Government, is an ambitious joint police and CPS programme of work to transform the way in which rape prosecutions are handled. It will provide a renewed focus on investigating the suspect rather than the victim, and will ultimately create a new operating model for the investigation and prosecution of rape. We are pleased to be seeing the green shoots of progress nationally: the number of rape convictions has increased by 29% compared with the last quarter pre-covid.

Antisemitism and Other Racism in Football

Scott Benton Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Racism in football has reduced dramatically over the last few decades. Indeed, we are thankfully in a different place to where we were in the 1970s and 1980s. However, we must be under no illusions; racism still does exist in the game, as we saw most notably following the appalling comments on social media directed at England players after our defeat in the final of last year’s Euro championships. Given the club’s long association with the Jewish community, it would be remiss of me not to refer directly to Tottenham Hotspur, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) did, when discussing antisemitism in football. I declare my interest as a proud but long-suffering Spurs fan and season ticket holder, who looks forward to being back at White Hart Lane when the season kicks off in August.

Historically, the use of the Y-word by Tottenham fans was initially taken as a positive step to deflect antisemitic abuse that they were subjected to at matches more than 40 years ago from opposition fans who faced no sanctions for their actions. The term continues to be used to the present day by many of my fellow supporters. Tottenham, as a club, has always maintained that fans have never used the word with any deliberate attempt to offend. Spurs fans often use the word as a term of endearment towards one another, and as a defence mechanism against the antisemitic abuse that still exists in the stands today—something the club has acknowledged in the past. I know Spurs fans who are Jewish and who see the word as a term of endearment to the club’s Jewish fans and a recognition of its historic connection with the Jewish community. However, it is clear that not all Jewish supporters see the term in the same way.

The club deserves credit for starting that debate and consulting widely with its fanbase on the usage of the word. The results of the consultation have reaffirmed the club’s commitment to working with all sections of its fanbase to reduce the use of the term, and rightly so. Given how ingrained the word is among Spurs fans, that will not happen overnight—it will probably be a rather long process—but the club deserves recognition for leading that debate and engaging with its fans in the process.

It should be made clear that the use of the Y-word by Tottenham fans should never be cited as an excuse for the evil of antisemitism, both in society at large and in football. As I mentioned, the adoption of the term was a direct consequence of the lack of action when it was used against Spurs fans. In using the term, Spurs fans are universally well intentioned, but make no mistake, there is genuine antisemitism in football, and it is used with the intention of causing deliberate harm and offence.

Let me give one example. On my way to a game at the old Upton Park ground, I was in a pub with West Ham fans. After singing disparaging chants about Tottenham, those fans proceeded to hiss to imitate the evil of the holocaust, in a direct reference to Tottenham’s Jewish heritage. It was not just a few mindless idiots, but dozens of people, and it lasted a long time. From recollection, that incident happened in 2015 or 2016. We might hope that things have since improved, but as my right hon. Friend mentioned, it was only last month that an opposition supporter at Tottenham was ejected for making a Nazi salute—again, presumably in reference to the Jewish connection to our club. Those are just two examples of the continued evil of antisemitism in football, but a further example would be the use of the Israel flag by Rangers fans, which is often met with blatant antisemitism online as well.

Some great initiatives are being undertaken to deal with wider racism in football, and I commend the Government, the Football Association, the Premier League and the English Football League for leading that work, but antisemitism remains a serious issue in football and more needs to be done to combat it. I commend my right hon. Friend for securing the debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government will continue to address the matter.

Statutory Gambling Levy

Scott Benton Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris]

I agree entirely, and I will talk about exactly that later. It is clear to see that the voluntary levy is not fit for purpose. What is the solution? Well, a solution is already in place and available: it is set out in the Gambling Act 2005. There are already provisions in legislation for the Government to place the collection of levy donations on a statutory footing should the voluntary arrangement be shown not to work, which clearly it does not. DCMS should use existing powers to require operators to pay an annual levy to the Gambling Commission. A joint advisory levy board should then be given oversight of the levy paid. That would be a formal cross-Government working group led by the Department of Health and Social Care. The levy board should oversee a comprehensive assessment of the evidence base of gambling-related harm and the limitations of the current voluntary system.

It is also crucial that the levy is graduated or smart. By that I mean that when considering the options for calculating the statutory levy, officials have devised a formula that requires companies offering potentially more harmful gambling products to pay a correspondingly higher proportion of the levy—more simply known as a “polluter pays” principle. This has precedent in New Zealand, where the gambling problem levy is set by an Order in Council and reviewed every three years. A lottery provider, bingo hall or high street bookie or casino will pay far less than a giant monopolised online gambling operator. There is also precedent in the UK: the Financial Conduct Authority already operates a similar system for financial services organisations, where a statutory levy is imposed on firms to fund free-to-client debt advice according to the “polluter pays” principle.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

The problem with having a statutory levy is that it would hit land-based gambling companies—casinos, bingo halls and the high street shops—when they are just emerging from the pandemic. I appreciate that the hon. Lady suggested they would be levied at a slightly different rate, but the problem is that if those businesses go out of business, we could see a huge cost to the Exchequer from loss of taxation revenue, lost jobs in communities and an economic hit on the high street. Does she not consider that to be a likely outcome of a statutory levy?

[Carolyn Harris]

I certainly do, but I just stated that the statutory levy would be graduated so that land-based high street bookies, on-street casinos and bingo halls would not pay the same levy as online companies who make a lot more profit than the individual companies, who will also have overheads of staffing costs and business rates. I acknowledge all that, but the proposal is aimed at making sure that the polluters pay the most.

If it was brought in by the DCMS, a 1% levy on industry revenue would provide £130 million of funding for research, education and treatment. That would massively improve the disparity between other nations’ spending and that of the UK. Australia spends £368 per gambler, Canada spends £329 per gambler and New Zealand spends £413 per gambler. The UK spends £19 per gambler. If we had funding for research, what could we do? We would finally be able to hold a proper prevalence survey, not wholly inadequate telephone surveys of a few hundred people, to ascertain exactly how many people in the UK are suffering gambling-related harm, so that we can get them the help they need. There would be improvements in research and data for clinical outcomes, along with the quality of data collection, to ascertain how gambling treatment clinics are performing and what more could be done to improve treatments.

With better and more certain funding for education, we can prevent people falling into the hands of gambling operators in the first place. We can highlight ways to set up banking blocks, deposit limiters, advice services and many more tools, not only to teach people about the dangers of some gambling products, but to signpost those who are already addicted towards help.

Finally, and probably most importantly, we come to treatment. Treatment for gambling addiction in the UK is completely inadequate. Chronic underinvestment in the gambling treatment system, as a result of the current voluntary levy, has led to a scenario in which treatment is unregulated, unaccountable and fails to use the evidence base in its strategies. Only between 2% and 3% of people with gambling problems enter the treatment system, all of whom are self-referrals. With a statutory levy, that can change.

It is clear that the statutory levy is vital to the success of the gambling review, but the industry would disagree. It would say that the largest companies have donated £100 million already, with more to follow, and it would label as anti-gambling those of us who call for this levy. I would call the industry anti-reform. That £100 million is well under what would have been collected by a statutory levy, and there is no continuity or certainty in that funding. Clinicians, the Gambling Commission and GambleAware all say that current funding levels are insufficient.

The industry claims that the introduction of a flat- rate levy would be unfair to some land-based sectors, such as casinos, bingo and high street bookies, because those sectors might contribute to less harm but would be disproportionately affected by a levy as a result of the potential impact on jobs. That is a deliberate misinterpretation of the position. The whole point of a levy is that the less harm that is caused, the less need there is to pay for the consequences of that harm. If some sectors harm less than others, it makes perfect sense for them to pay less. That is what is meant by a smart levy, based on the “polluter pays” principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and thank the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing the debate.

With the current review of the Gambling Act 2005 drawing to its long-awaited close—hopefully; we have been here many times before over the last 18 months—this is certainly an opportune moment to be debating this subject. Far too often, emotion, instead of evidence, drives the debate about betting and gaming in this country. Nowhere is that felt more keenly than in the discussion about how problem gambling is tackled through research, education and treatment—RET.

Some 22.5 million British adults enjoy a bet every single month. According to the independent regulator, the rates of problem gambling in the UK are falling, having reduced to 0.2% now from 0.6% just 18 months ago. Although of course one problem gambler is one too many, those figures are positive compared with other European countries. The rate is 2.4% in Italy, 1.4% in Norway and 1.3% in France. One could therefore conclude that the regulated market in Britain is relatively successful in keeping rates of problem gambling fairly low.

For the past few decades, the industry has rightly shouldered the financial responsibility for that work by paying a voluntary levy to fund independent charities tackling problem gambling. Despite that, anti-gambling campaigners are demanding a new, statutory levy on the industry—a tax by another name—to fund RET. That poses one obvious question: would funds generated through a statutory levy and given to the Department of Health and Social Care really make a tangible difference to the delivery of RET and to problem gambling in the UK? The clear answer is no.

The current system is making good progress, and in any event, a blanket levy would not raise materially more money for RET than is raised at present, but it would disproportionately hammer casinos and bingo halls, where just a 1% hit on turnover equates to a 10% hit on profit. That could put many bingo halls, casinos and other land-based operators in places such as Blackpool out of business, costing thousands of jobs and the Exchequer vital revenue, as I alluded to previously.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman says that the current system is making good progress, but the latest National Gambling Treatment Service statistics from GambleAware show that 49% of users have a risk level that indicates that they remain at risk at the end of their treatment. Does he think that that is good progress?

[Scott Benton]

There is clearly more work that we can do in this area, but it would help if the NHS had a long-term strategy for dealing with the issue, which it lacks at present. I will say more on that point in a few moments.

Under current arrangements, all companies regulated by the Gambling Commission are expected to make a voluntary contribution of 0.1% of turnover. To put that in context, in 2019-20 that figure was £10 million. Most of the funding goes to GambleAware, which is a totally independent charity. The industry has no say whatever on how that money is spent. In its five-year strategy published last year, the charity says that it expects to see that income increase to £39 million by the year ending 2024. As the hon. Member for Swansea East alluded to, the four largest gaming companies—Entain, William Hill, Flutter and Bet365—have agreed to increase their contributions to 1% of turnover. That is an additional £100 million over a four-year period to tackle the issue, with all of that funding going towards tackling and preventing the causes of problem gambling.

As I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), the NHS still does not have a long-term strategy to tackle problem gambling. It was only in 2019 that the Department of Health announced it would open 15 new NHS clinics for addicts. Despite that, only five are open so far, with three more supposedly coming online later this year. Meanwhile, it is the industry and charities that have spent the last two decades trying to tackle the issue. Currently, charities use about 160 locations for face-to-face counselling services—part of an already mature network of clinics, treatment centres and outreach programmes that are making a real difference right now.

A statutory levy would risk charities’ existing funding models by taking cash out of their coffers and putting it into the NHS, which, sadly, is not yet set up to delivering those services.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Has it crossed the hon. Member’s mind that the difficulty for the NHS in rolling out its plan for 15 clinics is the lack of guaranteed funding, which is exactly the strategy that a smart statutory levy would cover?

[Scott Benton]

The issue has been around for decades. Obviously, the gambling review is long awaited. Hopefully, that will help to address the issue, but it is unmistakable that the industry has taken voluntary steps over the years to try to tackle the problem. What we need is a consensus on the most appropriate way forward. For the reasons outlined, I do not think that a statutory levy is the answer, but I am open to hearing all Members’ views, so I am attending the debate to hear both sides of the argument.

A clumsy one-size-fits-all approach would have a disproportionate effect on land-based operators, which are only just recovering from the pandemic. In truth, it would be catastrophic on those businesses, because, like the rest of the hospitality sector, they have many fixed costs to fund, including staff, business rates, tax and licences. A tiered system would take that into account and better protect jobs.

[Carolyn Harris]

If the hon. Gentleman refers to Hansard to read the comments I made earlier, he will see that I reiterated everything that he has just said, so I do not quite understand his comments.

[Scott Benton]

I suspect the hon. Lady is referring to her opening remarks. I appreciate that she spoke about the differential system between online operators, which she suggested were the worst polluters, and land-based operators. The problem is that many land-based operators run on a very small profit margin, so even a very small statutory levy could put them out of business. The high street is already struggling, and I am afraid it would be a double whammy when we simply do not require it.

[Craig Whittaker]

The one area where we already have a levy is the horse-racing sector, which has a strong link with gambling and betting. What does my hon. Friend feel that an additional levy on that sector will do to those jobs and on horse-racing?

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that seven minutes was the guideline.

[Scott Benton]

Time is short, so I will not directly respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), but I suspect he knows my feelings about an additional statutory levy, which is essentially a tax. It could create problems for horse-racing at a time when we are already considering other prohibitive measures that would affect sponsorship, and other elements of the debate that could have a further impact on horse-racing and, indeed, all sports.

Third sector charities are already effective and are making real progress. In contrast, a statutory levy looks like a retrospective solution to a problem that simply does not exist at the level that anti-gamblers want policymakers to believe. Is it really designed to help research, education and treatment, and the wider public as a whole, or is it a punitive measure to placate the anti-gambling lobby? A statutory levy will not boost funding for RET. The money is already in the system, and there is a bigger, broader commitment for the future. The Government need to tread carefully if they are to avoid hurting businesses and putting thousands of jobs at risk.

Football Governance

Scott Benton Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I have said, financial regulation, looking in detail at the finances and sustainability of clubs and at how they are spending their money, will be at the heart of the independent regulator’s role.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

The Minister recently visited Blackpool FC, a club that he will know has suffered more than most at the hands of an irresponsible owner. I am pleased to see the Government endorsing the key recommendations of the fan-led review, including the owners and directors test. However, he will know that financial circumstances, views and attitudes can change over time, including for the owners of clubs. Does he agree that the test should be applied periodically, rather than merely when a club is bought and sold?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I very much enjoyed visiting both my hon. Friend’s constituency and the club. He is absolutely right. As was highlighted in the report, we need to ensure that the owners and directors test is not just static, happening when a club is sold, but is regularly reviewed, because as he outlined, circumstances change. We will look at that. I think the report suggested every three years, and that sounds sensible to me, but we will provide more information in the White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Scott Benton Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Member partly answered his own question, in that this is a partnership between local authorities and the museums. It is also about reaching out to the private sector, which contributes to our museums, as well as Government support. We are trying to help when and where we can, for example, with the £18.8 million investment through the museum estate and development fund this year and through the DCMS Wolfson museums and galleries improvement fund, which opened in May. However, this is a partnership between central Government and local authorities, as he articulated.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to review legislation governing casinos.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)]

As my hon. Friend knows, the review of the Gambling Act 2005 is under way and will conclude imminently. Part of that is about the legislation governing casinos. We have received detailed evidence from the casinos sector—I have made a few visits to the sector—and we will publish our White Paper in the near future.

[Scott Benton]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Gambling Act review provides a golden opportunity to review the legislation governing casinos and to bring that into the modern age. Allowing for sports betting and electronic payments and reviewing the current machine-to-table ratio will all help to create new jobs, investment and additional tax receipts for the Exchequer. Will the Minister commit to examining the case for the changes, as well as for allowing additional large casinos in locations such as Blackpool as part of the review?

[Chris Philp]

The matters that my hon. Friend has raised are being considered in the review. We need to balance the ability of casinos to be economically viable with the need to keep players safe, and we are looking into how the current rules can be improved for those purposes. I know that there are seven unused Gambling Act 2005 casino licences, and I have heard my hon. Friend’s powerful representations on behalf of Blackpool, particularly with the levelling-up agenda in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

1. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

2. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

[The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)]

Since the beginning of 2021, thanks to the referrals made by the Solicitor General and by me, sentences have been increased in more than 100 cases. Recently, I personally argued the case of Stephen Gibbs in the Court of Appeal sitting in Cardiff. I welcomed the decision to increase his sentence for attempted murder from 13 years to 20 years and seven months.

[The Attorney General]

I acknowledge the argument that my hon. Friend makes very energetically. She knows that the unduly lenient sentence scheme is reserved for specific offences in which the offender’s culpability is particularly high. There are no immediate plans to extend the coverage of the scheme, but I am pleased that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, will allow us to take extensive action on road traffic offences, including by increasing the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs to life imprisonment.

[Scott Benton]

The Attorney General will be aware of the horrendous case of my constituent Debbie Leitch, who died at the hands of her mother Elaine Clarke, who has since been sentenced to nine years and seven months in prison for her appalling actions. Will my right hon. and learned Friend meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), following our recent letter, to discuss the case with a view to considering whether the sentence is unduly lenient?

[The Attorney General]

It is indeed a tragic case and I extend my sympathies to all those who knew and loved Debbie. I thank my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for bringing the case to the attention of the Law Officers. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has reviewed the sentence imposed with the utmost care and decided to refer it to the Court of Appeal. It is now a matter for the Court to decide whether to increase the sentence.

BBC Accountability and Transparency

Scott Benton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

Indeed. On many occasions, a stark contrast can be seen between the interruptions, constant bickering and trying to misinterpret what is being said by certain of us, and the kid gloves used with others.

For that external events register, the BBC initially put out two columns: if a presenter was undertaking external tasks, they were either paid under £5,000 or over £5,000. That is not really much of a guide, because we do not know whether that person got £25 for speaking at an event or £4,995. The BBC then relented under some pressure, and there are now four categories: under £1,000, between £1,000 and £5,000, between £5,000 and £10,000, and over £10,000. That is an improvement, but unfortunately the BBC has to be dragged into making these simple changes, almost like bringing it from the latter part of the previous century into the 21st century. A simpler approach would be for the BBC to say at the end of the year how much every presenter who undertakes external appointments earned in total—did they earn £565, £10,400, or much more? That would be a much simpler approach, because there are hundreds of these references in the BBC’s register.

I will now move to an issue that is even more significant than external events: the commissioning of programmes for the BBC. In Northern Ireland and across the UK, we have a flourishing independent media sector. It is right and proper that we help to promote the people—young people in particular, but others as well—who establish small independent companies and want to get products from those companies on to either commercial radio and television, or BBC radio and television, because that is where the next generation of media producers, backroom people and camera people will all eventually come from. However, that small independent sector comes up against a huge brick wall, because in some regions of the BBC, there are BBC personnel who have “independent” companies of their own. They apply for commissioning contracts and, remarkably, are very successful in getting them.

That is very good if there is a level playing field—if independents can apply for those contracts, and people who work for the BBC can also apply for them. The problem is that the level playing field does not remain level. There are a small number of BBC personnel who have their own companies and, when they get contracts and a programme emerges on the BBC, can then use their own programme to advertise their privately commissioned programme that is on that evening. We have all repeatedly heard things like, “You may want to tune in at 10.35 tonight, when there is a programme on”, and then the next day when the BBC presenter is on, someone gets in touch and says, “I really enjoyed your television programme last night.” Yes, a programme paid for by us, the licence fee payers, and advertised freely on the BBC to the disadvantage of independent media companies that merely want to operate on a level playing field.

The issue has not been resolved. After holding numerous meetings with the BBC, the NAO and Ofcom, I was told that an additional safeguard would be brought in to protect and safeguard against any abuse of the system. That happened three years ago, in 2019. If there was a commissioning process that was open to all and sundry to apply for, and an internal BBC person with their own company applied for it and was successful in getting through the various stages, there would be a further stage of approval before the awarding of the contract and that person received the commission.

That further stage is an internal stage. The regional head of the BBC looks at the application—from a person that he or she knows, because that person is in his or her employ, and has received numerous commissions in the past. They have to rubber-stamp the application.

We are led to believe that that is a further safeguard. I do not think so. It is not independent; it is not transparent; and it certainly does not stand up to scrutiny. It has been in place for three years. Obviously, we have had the pandemic for two of those years, so we are unaware of the success or otherwise of that safeguard. I have watched closely and have seen the same small number of internal BBC employees receive a similar number of successful contracts since the safeguard was in place, so the BBC needs to answer the questions.

I hope the Minister can raise these important matters with the BBC. As we all know, there is an ongoing issue. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the BBC will have questions to answer and that, as we go into the future, there is a severe question mark over the licence fee—we understand that—but people are angry and annoyed that they pay for a service that they either do not receive, do not want or cannot opt out of. If they watch or listen to any live BBC broadcast, they are automatically liable to pay the BBC licence fee.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a brilliant speech. I agree wholeheartedly with his points on accountability and transparency. He is alluding to the issue of value for money from the BBC. Many of my constituents have long felt that the BBC does not offer value for money. In a deprived constituency such as mine, they question the licence fee and whether they should pay what is essentially a regressive tax. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Mr Campbell]

I do indeed. There is a rising tide of resentment, particularly when the public see matters on the BBC that seem to be quite partisan, whether locally, nationally or internationally. We can look back through the pandemic; we can look at the middle east; we can look at a whole series of incidents.

I remember the infamous time with the BBC’s North American correspondent when President Trump was first elected. At the very first press conference in the White House, the incoming President, for all his faults, said to the North American correspondent, “Who are you with?” He said, “The BBC,” and the President said, “Another winner.” That North American correspondent never forgot that put-down. Every time I saw him on at the White House, there would be a disparaging reference to the Trump Administration. Unsurprisingly, I have seen very little by way of disparaging references to the current incumbent of the White House—comparatively few, if any. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). The tension and annoyance of the general public rises when they see events and incidents like that on the BBC.

I ask the Minister to raise these matters with the BBC, because we are talking about public money. There is a system in place that some of us have tried to work within. We know that the BBC is accountable for that money. We have tried regionally; we have tried nationally; we have gone to Ofcom; we have gone to the NAO—but the rationale is slow and intractable, and the BBC is slow to get to the point it should have come to automatically. It should not have had to be dragged to this point—it should have embraced it—but there is a reluctance at the heart of those in the BBC to adopt these structures.

I ask the Minister to enter into his response to the debate with an open mind and an open heart and to endeavour to take these matters up when there are discussions with the BBC, in order that the public, and all of us who occasionally or frequently watch the BBC, can rest more assured that the BBC is accountable to us who pay their very wages.

Russia’s Attack on Ukraine

Scott Benton Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for the way in which she has worked with cultural and sporting bodies to ostracise Russia. The premier league is one of this country’s best cultural and economic exports around the world. Does she agree that ending the broadcasting of premier league games in Russia and Belarus will help to expose the horrific extent of this barbaric invasion to the people of those countries?

[Ms Dorries]

Yes, I absolutely agree. That is our leadership—don’t do it, don’t promote Russia, don’t broadcast Russia. Sadly, local Russians will suffer and pay the cost as a result, but I am afraid that Putin’s actions have consequences. We are holding conversations this afternoon—we have ongoing conversations—with officials and sporting organisations to take that hard line of not broadcasting, not facilitating and not displaying Russian football, Russian goods and Russian shows—anything. We must not do it.

BBC Funding

Scott Benton Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I am not.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

At a time when household budgets are under unprecedented pressure, the decision to freeze the licence fee will be universally welcomed in Blackpool. My constituents will also welcome the Secretary of State’s comment that it is high time we had a discussion about the very existence of the licence fee. In the meantime, what discussions is she having with the BBC to ensure that the licence fee can achieve value for money?

[Ms Dorries]

I have regular meetings with the director-general, the chair and other members of the BBC to discuss those very issues.