Channel 4: Privatisation

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

I am secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, so naturally, when this issue came up again, I sought a meeting with those at the NUJ and talked with them about their views, and they consulted their members. I think we are all in the same position: we just cannot believe that this matter has come around yet again—especially those of us who were involved in the 2016 discussions, when we thought that the future of Channel 4 had been sensibly resolved. The privatisation seems to be a particular obsession of the Minister—it is almost as though he needs some counselling. It has become an addictive obsession that he has been pursuing since the 1990s, as others have said, and it is completely irrational.

From the trade union point of view, we look at the security of jobs and the economics of the organisation that we are negotiating with. When looking at the economic performance of Channel 4, I cannot for the life of me understand what the problem is for the Government. The latest figures show a record £74 million pre-tax surplus. As other hon. Members have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), Channel 4 is now opening up offices around the country—hubs in Leeds, Glasgow and Bristol—and is doing exactly what the Government want by investing in the regions as part of the levelling-up strategy. Channel 4 is economically sound and completely in line with the Government’s policy direction.

Channel 4 provided 10,600 jobs across the UK in 2019, of which 3,000 were jobs supported by Channel 4 in the nations and regions. As the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) set out, it is working with private sector producers to bring forward talent on an eminent scale. It has done so successfully, and has been well rewarded by the various independent bodies that adjudicate on these matters.

It is very difficult to understand the rationale for the Government’s pursuit of this privatisation. Others have given their views about the range of attitudes. The Father of the House has demonstrated yet again his wide-ranging experience of what has been going on over decades. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), in a very balanced way, indicated the concerns that he and many others in the Conservative party have. Paul Siegert, the NUJ’s national broadcasting organiser, gave a true reflection of its members’ views in saying:

“It’s hard to see any justification for privatising Channel Four other than ideology. Channel 4 has achieved what it was asked to do and has proved a hit with viewers.”

If it is not broken, why are the Government proposing the fix of privatisation? Four years ago—I remember this, because I was there—the Government said that Channel 4 would continue to be owned by the public. In our view, they should honour that promise. I hope they see sense. I have to say that the consultation that is going on, particularly over the summer period, flies against all the rules of consultations.

Let me ask one final question of the Minister. At the moment, the Government are being advised by a panel they set up on the future of public service broadcasting. The panel does not publish its minutes and is not meeting in public. Why is that happening? Why is it not more open and transparent? Why can the Minister not explain the role of the panel, and indeed its composition? That generates concerns that there is more to this than any rational thought about the future of broadcasting. It is more about ideology, and maybe an element of political spite.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that I will be calling the SNP spokesperson at 10.28 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

Here we go again. Only four years ago, in what turned out to be the Government and Channel 4’s phoney war, the privatising zealots were licking their lips at the thought of a corporate takeover at Channel 4, a much-loved public service broadcaster. After all, bus, water and rail privatisations under the Tories had been such resounding successes, so why not turn to yet another institution about which they knew absolutely nothing? In the end, the privatising zealots backed off. Why? The then Secretary of State told us at the time that Channel 4 works, that it delivers on its remit and that privatising it would involve too much grief for too little financial return.

In the intervening years, nothing has changed—well, apart from an 80-seat Tory majority and an enhanced desire to clip the wings of a pesky station with a news outlet that No. 10 fears for its independence and high journalistic standards. The thing is that Channel 4 does work. The Conservatives are fond of reminding us that they set it up. They did, and it delivers on the remit that it was given.

On diversity in programming and staffing, Channel 4 has been a trailblazer for women, black and minority ethnic people, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, as well as people living with disabilities. According to Ofcom, Channel 4 employs a greater proportion of women than any other public service broadcaster. The same is true of staff with disabilities. In 2019, Channel 4 also committed to doubling its target for employing staff with disabilities from 6% to 12%. According to last year’s Ofcom report, more than 10% of staff at Channel 4 were living with disabilities. Channel 4 News has a higher proportion of black, Asian and minority ethnic viewers than any other public broadcaster in the UK.

Channel 4’s commitment to diversity stems from its statutory remit to appeal to culturally diverse groups, to offer alternative perspectives and to nurture new talent. That is underpinned by Channel 4’s unique not-for-profit model. It is lamentable, therefore, that only months after we discovered that the BBC has so far spent over £1 million in legal fees fighting equal pay cases, the UK Government are now seeking to put one of our best and most diverse public service broadcasters at risk through a threatened, albeit sleekitly planned, privatisation.

I came out as gay—the first BBC network TV presenter to do so—when I was presenting BBC Breakfast on BBC 1. My bosses were furious, and my BBC Breakfast presenting gig was soon over. By contrast, over at Channel 4, the company was blazing a different, more inclusive trail. In February 1999, the first episode of the award-winning series “Queer as Folk” aired. Written by Russell T. Davies, the series chronicles the lives of three gay characters living in Manchester, and it marked a significant watershed moment for LGBT programming across these islands. For the first time, young gay men had people like themselves portrayed proudly onscreen. Fast forward to 2021, and both Channel 4 and Russell T. were breaking new ground again with the incredible “It’s a Sin”, which powerfully depicted the human impact of the HIV/Aids epidemic. What is more, the show has been credited with an upsurge in HIV testing, taking the channel’s public service obligations to a whole new level.

In news and current affairs, Channel 4 has also been trailblazing, with outstanding, high-quality factual output, in particular “Channel 4 News” and “Unreported World”. In an age of festering misinformation and disinformation and plummeting trust in the media, impartial and accurate public service broadcasting has never been so important. Public service broadcasters such as Channel 4 have been lifelines during the pandemic, providing coverage of daily briefings from leaders in all our nations across the UK. Huge efforts have been made to ensure that expert voices are featured and truthful information provided, in accordance with the public service broadcasting ethos.

As the vaccine is rolled out, Channel 4 coverage could not be more appreciated. In a world where anyone can spread disinformation and misinformation about covid, it is vital that we bolster the presence of our public service broadcasters on TV and online as a means of combating it.

The privatisation of Channel 4 would almost inevitably mean cuts. No privatised company would fund “Unreported World” or the Channel 4 daily news programme at its current length. Of course, that is perhaps what the Government want. A privatised Channel 4 would bring more commercially lucrative entertainment output. It might mean editorial lines being subjected to the whims of advertising and profit. We cannot afford to lose a second of factual programming in the dangerous times in which we live.

The Government have presented no serious case for the privatisation of Channel 4. If they press ahead, privatisation would see profit put first. It would mean slashing the half a billion pounds which go annually to independent production companies. There would also be a centralisation of Channel 4’s headquarters—the very antithesis of levelling up. Perhaps most concerning of all, we would likely see cuts to Channel 4’s hard-hitting news and current affairs programming, which effectively hold this Government to account. I suspect that is why the UK Government are so passionate about the prospect of privatisation. With record profits recorded last year and not a single penny taken from the taxpayer, it is certainly not to satisfy any public demand to tinker with—or attack—this much-loved public institution.

We all know what this is about for the Government. It is revenge—payback time, as the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), the Conservative Chair of the DCMS Committee has suggested. Channel 4 is all the things it is meant to be: innovative, inclusive, and, above all else, independent. The Secretary of State wants it brought under control. It is time for us as MPs to defend independent programme-making and journalism.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I confirm that we can go on until 11 am if necessary for this debate.

Football Governance

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new call list system and ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them, and dispose of the cleaning materials as they leave the room.

Members should speak only from the horseshoe and can speak only if they are on call lists. This applies even if debates are under-subscribed. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list. Members are not expected to remain for the winding-up speeches. I remind hon. Members that there is less of an expectation that they stay for the next two speeches once they have spoken, to help manage the attendance in the room. They may wish to stay beyond their speech, but they should be aware that doing so may prevent Members in seats in the Public Gallery from speaking—I think we are all right with that today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I deliberately focused on the need for change in governance rather than rehashing and dwelling on all the arguments about the financial state of clubs. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), said, at the moment there is a drive towards change. I am delighted to hear that the Government are now holding their own roundtables in preparation for a review into the governance of the game—that has to be welcomed. The momentum is there now, and that is why I tried to focus my comments on governance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) mentioned facilities. We have the richest football league in the world, but we lag behind other countries such as Spain, Germany and France. It is no coincidence that those countries have enjoyed so much success in football when they have invested at the grassroots level as they have done. Look at the statistics comparing the number of coaches and the number of all-weather pitches with floodlights per head of population. Let us not forget that if a facility does not have floodlights, it is not useable for large parts of the winter. Those are important factors.

We are all told by the Premier League—I am sure that the Minister gets this as well—how much our constituencies get, how much it has spent and how much it supports the local football trust. If we step back and look at the bigger picture, though, it is a sorry situation for such a rich football league to have such poor facilities. I remember that when I was on the shadow sports beat, I learned that in Liverpool there was no all-weather football pitch in the city, apart from at Liverpool FC and Everton FC. For a city that is so imbued and associated with football, that was quite a shocking fact.

I welcome that the fact the Government are reviewing the governance of the sport. Now that the Minister has stated his commitment, I think there is no going back. We will have to move forward, because we cannot leave it to the structures in the game. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and others have pointed out, the owners of clubs are so blinkered in their views that they look at the matter only through the prism of their own clubs. They see their clubs as their own businesses and they do not want outside interference. We will not get the fundamental change that we need if we allow the focus of the decision making to come from those in the game.

We can make the game sustainable. The amount of money in Project Big Picture was minuscule compared with the overall income generated by the Premier League, and it could have put the English football league on a sustainable footing. I did not support all the proposals in Project Big Picture—I had issues with many of them—but I supported the debate because it put the dead cat on the table and made everybody talk about what we would do about football. Nobody else was putting anything on the table, and at least the project started to address the issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised concerns about the super league. I suspect that the talk about the super league is overblown, but the increase in the number of games in 2024 in the European champions league is a big issue. There will be more games, and they will have an impact on the domestic game. Project Big Picture tried to address that issue, and it will come up when the Minister sits around the table with other stakeholders to discuss the future of the game.

We have to embrace this moment and make sure that we get change. I favour an independent panel, and I hope that the Minister’s roundtable will frame the panel’s terms of reference and make-up. I would certainly volunteer to be on that panel, and I am sure the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe would, too. The fact is that change is coming. If it does not come from the Government, it will come from elsewhere in Parliament, because the mood is that we have to deal with this now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of football governance.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I will now suspend the sitting until 4 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he raises an important point. The first thing we can do is help get the premier league up and running again, because that will then help release resources through the rest of the system. We have already seen the £125 million support that has been made available, and in addition to that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is working with Sport England. They have £195 million for sport and physical activity, including a £20 million emergency grant for clubs and community assets that are in trouble.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the gambling industry on protection of vulnerable online gamblers during the covid-19 outbreak.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the gambling industry on protection of vulnerable online gamblers during the covid-19 outbreak.

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

I have had calls with the Betting and Gaming Council and gambling businesses, including five of the largest online operators. On 20 April, I wrote to the gambling companies urging faster progress on new player protection measures, data protection provisions and safer gambling messaging, and I understand that the industry made an announcement on advertising today.

I will be having further calls this week and next and will continue to make it clear to the sector that it must obey player protection rules and be particularly responsible at this challenging time. I am monitoring the situation closely, as is the Gambling Commission. Any operator exploiting the current situation or vulnerable consumers will be held to account.

[Yvonne Fovargue [V]]

It is welcome news about the advertising, but a high number of people have withdrawn from the self-exclusion scheme—[Inaudible.] What actions are being taken to monitor this and how will people be protected who have previously identified that they have a gambling problem but who have recommenced gambling during this period?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I assure the hon. Lady that I, the Department, the Gambling Commission and the gambling industry take these concerns very seriously. She will be aware that we have extended the comprehensive online self-exclusion scheme, GAMSTOP, and taken additional measures, including that made on credit cards just this month. We are moving forward with both non-legislative and legislative programmes.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I would argue that we are allowing sufficient time for those industries to adapt. He is right that we need to consider such issues, but we have done that, and our approach properly allows those industries to adapt as they ought to and also allows the Government to do whatever we can to mitigate any economic harm that might arise from this measure—necessary and right though it undoubtedly is.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

With household debt at record levels, why are the Government delaying the implementation of a measure that would go some way towards mitigating one cause—problem gambling?

[Jeremy Wright]

Again, there is no delay here. We are attempting to bring forward these measures and implement them in a way that balances a number of factors. The most important factor, beyond question, is the wish to minimise the harm that the hon. Lady describes, and that is what we are doing. Were we not interested in that, we would not be making this change at all, and were the charges I have heard from Opposition Members right, we would not be talking about it at all, because there would not be the implementation of a FOBT stake change to discuss.

Gaming Machines

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I was struck by the Committee’s report on suicide, because in previous work on that really sad subject, gambling addiction has not really been highlighted as a potential concern. I am happy to meet and discuss that further.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Credit cards amount to 10% to 20% of online deposits, effectively funding gambling by borrowing, which we all know can lead to unsustainable debt and further mental health problems. Will the Minister consider banning credit card betting?

[Tracey Crouch]

As part of the further work that the Gambling Commission will be doing on online gambling harms, it will consider whether gambling using credit cards online should continue to be permitted. We will work to develop a more detailed understanding of that issue and the associated risks of gambling on credit.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

The Opposition welcome this Bill. It is vital that our homes and businesses have access to broadband and that broadband is faster, safer and more reliable than before, which is why we will be carefully scrutinising the Bill in Committee. As the Chancellor put it, this country was late to the 4G party, so we should do all we can to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of 5G communications and has full-fibre broadband to support it.

There was some doubt that this Bill would appear. The policy was originally announced in the Chancellor’s 2016 autumn statement and was due to be implemented as part of the Local Government Finance Bill, but it was then scuppered by the general election—like a lot of things. It was not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, and there was some industry nervousness that it had been abandoned, but here we are in early July with a stand-alone Bill and I am glad that we are.

As we have heard, the Bill has a simple premise—at least I thought it was simple before I attended the start of this debate five hours ago. It will encourage firms to install new optical fibre by providing 100% business rates relief backdated to last April for a minimum period of five years. We understand that it will cost the Exchequer around £65 million by 2022. That is sure to be welcome news to the UK’s broadband companies, many of whom wrote to the Chancellor last February to complain that the current business rates regime is not fit for purpose and discourages inward investment in upgrades.

This legislation meets some of those concerns. The fact is that those business leaders were really talking about the whole business rates regime. This Bill deals with just one aspect when we actually need to be talking about the whole system, which many hon. Members from across the House have agreed with. There are many other changes to the system that could help to support businesses, and we outlined some of them in our manifesto, including switching from RPI to CPI indexation, exempting new investment in plant and machinery and ensuring that businesses have access to a proper appeals process. I appreciate that this is a stand-alone bill dealing with digital infrastructure, but I fear that it is no more than a sticking plaster for our moribund business rates system when we really need a total rethink.

This is a framework Bill, so it is short on detail. Conditions of eligibility will be outlined in future regulations, for example, which is why we need to scrutinise the Bill carefully. I do wonder which firms will benefit. The relief is expected to boost the big data providers through, for example, Virgin Media’s £3 billion “project lightning” and BT’s Openreach subsidiary, but it is unclear whether smaller firms will benefit initially. What impact does the Minister expect the reform to have on smaller providers? It would be a great shame if this Bill was merely for big business. Would it help smaller firms if the Bill’s provisions could be applied retrospectively to capture work on full-fibre networks that has already taken place?

Like many hon. Members, I am worried about how the Bill will benefit Britain’s rural communities, who have not done quite so well out of the broadband revolution so far. Many areas of the country, including urban areas, have been dogged by poor connectivity. I could not get broadband speeds for the past seven years in my area, but we were connected just last week because the housing company that built my house did not allow it to be cabled. However, many customers still do not get the advertised speeds that they are paying for. If they want a broadband upgrade, they pay for it, but they do not always receive what is advertised, so I commend the Which? report on broadband speeds. We pay our water rates, but if the utility company merely gave us a trickle out of the tap, we would be quick to complain. Many Members have said that broadband is the next utility, so why is that not included?

Businesses have suffered from not having the proper access to markets and customers that they should have. The public have suffered from being cut off from internet sites and entertainment sources, and their children are doubly penalised because so much modern education relies on online resources.

Discussion of digital exclusion has been sadly lacking in this debate. Services are increasingly going online. In fact, jobcentres have recently closed as people are encouraged to apply online for all their benefits and council services, yet many people do not have access. In my constituency in the borough of Wigan, 99% of people have access to fast broadband, but only 74% of them have the skills to use it. The cuts in the adult education budget are particularly penalising those people by preventing them from joining the digital economy that we all enjoy.

As I said at the outset, we support the Bill, which is an important step towards securing better broadband connectivity and access, but it is about more than just access. The Bill can work only if it is part of a broader picture that, on the one hand, fully incentivises business to invest in the future and, on the other, ensures that everyone, not just a select few, benefits from the reforms. More than just this Bill, that means education to ensure that everyone has the skills to take advantage of this great step forward.