Media Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Evaluation of nations-based production—

“(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 286 (regional programme-making for Channels 3 and 5)—

(a) in subsection (1)(d), at end insert “except where the company is a new start-up and has registered itself as being primarily based in that nation”;

(b) after subsection (1)(d) insert—

“(e) Ofcom must require a broadcaster listing a production as being based in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales to demonstrate prior to production that a production company has—

(i) a substantial base (consisting of a specified number of staff) within the nation;

(ii) a commitment to remain within the nation for a specified amount of time;

(iii) had a presence within the nation for at least 36 months.”;

(c) in subsection (3)(d), at end insert “except where the company is a new start-up and has registered itself as being primarily based in that nation.”;

(d) after subsection (3)(d) insert—

“(e) Ofcom must require a broadcaster listing a production as being based in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales to demonstrate prior to production that a production company has—

(i) a substantial base (consisting of a specified number of staff) within the nation;

(ii) a commitment to remain within the nation for a specified amount of time;

(iii) had a presence within the nation for at least 36 months.”

(3) In section 288 (Regional programme-making for Channel 4)—

(a) in subsection (1)(d), at end insert “except where the company is a new start-up and has registered itself as being primarily based in that nation.”;

(b) after subsection (1)(d) insert—

“(e) Ofcom must require a broadcaster listing a production as being based in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales to demonstrate prior to production that a production company has—

(i) a substantial base (consisting of a specified number of staff) within the nation;

(ii) a commitment to remain within the nation for a specified amount of time;

(iii) had a presence within the nation specified for at least 36 months.”.”

New clause 4—OFCOM review of on-demand programme service regulation measures—

“(1) As soon as practicable after Chapter 2 of this Act comes into force, OFCOM must carry out a review of its on-demand programme service regulation measures.

(2) This review must take account of—

(a) the size, and

(b) the turnover

of the services to which these regulations apply and assess whether the current application of the regulations is the most effective means to achieve the policy goals of this Chapter.

(3) In conducting the review described in subsection (2), OFCOM must consult with relevant stakeholders, including public service broadcasters, on-demand programme service providers and any other stakeholders as appropriate.”

This would require OFCOM to conduct a review of the Bill’s new on-demand regulatory code. The review must take account of the sizes and turnovers of the regulated services, and assess whether the current regulatory approach is effective in achieving the policy goals of the Bill. The review would have to be conducted in consultation with relevant stakeholders.

New clause 6—Age rating standards—

“Where Tier 1 providers use an age rating or other classification system to comply with the duties imposed on them by or under this Act for the protection of audiences from harm, they must—

(a) apply the age rating or classification system used by the video works authority based on their classification guidelines; or

(b) apply an age rating or classification system that is judged by OFCOM to be—

(i) based on a transparent set of appropriate standards;

(ii) applied consistently across content; and

(iii) informed by regular consultation with the UK public.”

This new clause ensures that, where age ratings are used by Video on Demand platforms, those ratings are the same as the ones used by the British Board of Film Classification or meet equivalent standards of rigour, transparency, and objectivity.

New clause 7—Adequate on-demand coverage to be available—

“After section 101 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, insert—

“101ZA Provision of adequate on-demand coverage

(1) The purpose of this section is to secure, in relation to a listed event, that if any person makes available on-demand coverage of the whole or any part of that event, adequate on-demand coverage is made available widely and free of charge to members of the public in the United Kingdom, whether by that person or another person.

(2) In this Part, in relation to a listed event or part of such an event, “on-demand coverage” means audiovisual content consisting of coverage of, or excerpts from, that event (or a combination of those), where—

(a) a person makes a range of such content available to members of the public, whether through a relevant service or otherwise;

(b) selections from that range can be made by the user and viewed at a time chosen by the user (even if it may be viewed only within a period specified by the person making it available);

(c) the selected content is received by the user by means of the internet; and

(d) the content otherwise meets any criteria or requirements specified (either generally or in relation to particular listed events) by regulations under section 104ZA;

and “on-demand rights” means rights to make on-demand coverage available for access by members of the public in the United Kingdom.

(3) Any contract entered into on or after the day on which section [Adequate on-demand coverage to be available] of the Media Act 2024 comes into force under which a person acquires on-demand rights is void so far as it purports—

(a) in relation to the whole or any part of the event, or

(b) in relation to access by means of the internet, in the United Kingdom,

to grant those rights exclusively.

(4) For the purposes of this section, on-demand rights are granted exclusively if the person granting them—

(a) has not granted any such right in respect of the whole or, as the case may be, that part of the event to more than one person, and

(b) is precluded by the terms of the contract from doing so.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), rights are not to be treated as having been granted to more than one person where the only persons to whom such rights have been granted are connected with each other.

(6) No person may provide on-demand coverage of a listed event unless authorised to do so under subsection (7), (8) or (9), even if that person is authorised to include live coverage of that event in a relevant service by subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section 101.

(7) The provision of on-demand coverage of a listed event is authorised by this subsection if—

(a) on-demand rights have been acquired by the provider of a relevant service falling within section 98(1)(a);

(b) that relevant service includes live coverage of that event; and

(c) the on-demand coverage provided that provider—

(i) constitutes adequate on-demand coverage of the event, and

(ii) may be accessed free of charge.

(8) The provision of on-demand coverage of a listed event is authorised by this subsection if—

(a) on-demand rights have been acquired by one or more persons;

(b) those persons are not connected with each other;

(c) the on-demand coverage provided by at least one of those persons—

(i) constitutes adequate on-demand coverage of the event, and

(ii) may be accessed free of charge;

and

(d) the person or persons who have acquired rights to provide the adequate on-demand coverage satisfy the requirements in relation to that coverage of any regulations made under section 104ZA for the purposes of this paragraph.

(9) The provision of on-demand coverage of a listed event is authorised by this subsection if OFCOM have consented in advance to such provision.

(10) OFCOM may revoke any consent given by them under subsection (9).

(11) The code drawn up by OFCOM under section 104 shall include guidance on the matters which they will take into account in determining whether to give or revoke their consent for the purposes of subsection (9).

(12) Regulations under section 104ZA (regulations about coverage of listed events) may include provision—

(a) specifying (either generally or in relation to particular listed events) any criteria or requirements that content must meet in order to be regarded as on-demand coverage for the purposes of subsection (2)(d);

(b) for determining for the purposes of this section what (whether generally or in relation to particular circumstances) is to be taken to represent the provision of adequate on-demand coverage of an event for the purposes of subsection (8)(d).

(13) Failure to comply with subsection (6) shall not affect the validity of any contract.

(14) Subsection (6) shall not have effect where the person providing the on-demand coverage is exercising on-demand rights acquired before the commencement of this section.

(15) In this section, “on-demand coverage” and “adequate on-demand coverage” are to be construed in accordance with regulations under section 104ZA.

(16) For the purposes of sections 104A (provision of information) and 104B (penalties for failure to provide information), any person making available, or wishing to make available, on-demand coverage of the whole or any part of any listed event shall be treated as a person who is within subsection (5) of section 104A.””

This new clause would secure that, where possible, adequate on-demand coverage of listed events, such as clips and excerpts, is made available free of charge to audiences in the United Kingdom.

New clause 8—Protection of digital terrestrial television—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that—

(a) the licensed public service channels continue to be broadcast via digital terrestrial television to as many of their intended audience as is reasonably practicable; and

(b) a sufficient number of digital terrestrial television multiplex licences are issued to deliver the licensed public service channels via digital terrestrial television and support a diverse range of commercial digital terrestrial television channels.

(2) OFCOM shall reserve sufficient frequencies for television broadcasting services accordingly.”

This new clause would place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure that public service television channels continue to be broadcast via digital terrestrial television (DTT) and that sufficient licences are issued to keep the platform viable. It would also require Ofcom to make spectrum available accordingly.

New clause 9—Review of children’s access to public service broadcast content—

“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on how to ensure that children have access to public service broadcast content.”

This new clause would require a review of how to ensure children have access to public service content, given their viewing habits.

New clause 10—Digital rights to listed events—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Broadcasting Act 1996 to make provision for coverage of listed events which is not live coverage.

(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

New clause 11—Delivery of public service content on relevant television services—

“After section 264A of the Communications Act 2003, insert—

“264B Delivery of public service content on relevant television services

(1) OFCOM must monitor the extent to which the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is met in respect of relevant television services.

(2) If OFCOM considers that the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is not being met in respect of such services, it may set whatever programming quotas it considers necessary to ensure that the remit is met.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “relevant television services” means—

(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC;

(b) the television programme services that are public services of the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of section 207);

(c) every Channel 3 service;

(d) Channel 4;

(e) Channel 5.””

This new clause would give OFCOM powers to measure the delivery of public service content on the linear services of the public service broadcasters, and set quotas if it considered the current level to be unsatisfactory.

New clause 12—Regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content—

“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content equivalent to the regulation of radio selection services provided for by section 48 and Schedule 9 of this Act.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend primary legislation.”

New clause 13—Gaelic language service—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, review whether a Gaelic language service should be given a public service broadcast remit.”

New clause 14—Age Classifications—

“When considering the adequacy of age ratings, OFCOM must assess whether any age ratings used by providers are—

(a) widely recognised by the UK public;

(b) underpinned by a transparent set of standards;

(c) informed by regular consultation with the UK public.”

New clause 15—Establishing a Broadcasting and Communications Authority for Wales—

“(1) A Broadcasting and Communications Authority for Wales (“the Authority”) is established.

(2) The Authority must perform the following functions—

(a) support for the broadcasting and media sectors serving audiences in Wales;

(b) oversight and accountability for public service broadcasting in Wales;

(c) facilitation and development of the production of content by broadcaster and media outlets in Wales;

(d) promotion and preservation of the Welsh language, identity and culture in broadcasting and media output;

(e) support for and development of English language content made in Wales and ensuring that it is relevant to Welsh audiences; and

(f) any functions the Secretary of State considers necessary to support further devolution of broadcasting policy to the Welsh Government.

(3) In performing the functions under subsection 2 the Authority must have regard to—

(a) public interest journalism;

(b) content for children and young people; and

(c) sport content and national events.

(4) In performing the duties under subsection (2) in relation to broadcasting and media matters in Wales, the Authority must consult—

(a) relevant Ministers in the Welsh Government;

(b) Members of the Senedd; and

(c) members of the public living in Wales.

(5) Section 1 comes into force at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(6) In preparation for the establishment of the Authority a shadow authority may be established in line with the functions set out in subsection 2 after the passing of this Act.

(7) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the appointment of officers to the Authority.”

This new clause creates a new independent Welsh Broadcasting and Communications Authority with responsibility and oversight for broadcasting and media matters in Wales to help reflect and meet the needs of Welsh audiences.

New clause 16—Listed Events—

“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 97 (as amended by section 299 of the Communications Act 2003), after subsection (1B) insert—

“(1A) The following events must be included in Group A of the list drawn up under subsection (1)—

(a) the Olympic Games;

(b) the Paralympic Games;

(c) the FIFA World Cup Finals Tournament;

(d) the FIFA Women’s World Cup Finals Tournament;

(e) the European Football Championship Finals Tournament;

(f) the European Women’s Football Championship Finals Tournament;

(g) the FA Cup Final;

(h) the Scottish FA Cup Final;

(i) the Grand National;

(j) the Wimbledon Tennis Finals;

(k) the Rugby Union World Cup Final;

(l) Six Nations Rugby Tournament Matches Involving Home Countries;

(m) the Derby;

(n) the Rugby League Challenge Cup Final;

(o) any match involving the national teams of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England pertaining to qualification for the events listed in paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f).””

This new clause would make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to place the list of sporting events in Group A of listed sporting events, ensuring they are available on free to air television in their entirety. The events consist of all current Group A events plus the home nations World Cup and Euro qualifiers.

New clause 17—Consultation on listing of events—

“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 97(2), after paragraph (b), insert—

“(ba) Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig (the Gaelic Media Service),”

(3) In section 104(4), after paragraph (b), insert—

“(ba) Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig (the Gaelic Media Service),””

This new clause would add Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig (the Gaelic Media Service) to the list of organisations which must be consulted when the Secretary of State is drafting or amending listed events and Ofcom is drawing up its related code of guidance.

New clause 18—Listed Events Fund—

“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 104ZA insert—

“104ZB Financial matters arising from the listing of events: the Listed Events Fund

(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a fund (the “Listed Events Fund”) with the purpose of minimising the consequential financial impact of the listing of events on sporting governing bodies who would otherwise suffer egregious financial distress.

(2) Payments from the fund shall be limited to governing bodies and other sporting rights holders who maintain their registered office in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England and whose primary geographic area of responsibility lies within one of these territories.

(3) The Secretary of State, following the revision of the listing of events in Group A, shall invite governing bodies and other organisations who could reasonably assess their turnover or income as dropping as a result of an event being listed in Group A (and who qualify under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section) to apply to him for payment from the fund.

(4) No organisation with a reported turnover of greater than £50 million per annum for the financial year in which any subvention may be paid shall be entitled to payment from the fund.

(5) The amount laid down in subsection (4) may be varied by the Secretary of State on an annual basis, but may not increase by a rate greater than that of the Retail Price Index as measured at any point in the three months previous to any proposed variation.””

This new clause would provide a fund under the auspices of the Secretary of State to be paid to governing bodies or other broadcasting rights holders who may experience financial detriment as a result of listing under Group A.

New clause 19—Diversity in the workforce of the public service broadcasters—

“(1) OFCOM must produce a report each year detailing diversity in the workforce of the public sector broadcasters (“PSBs”).

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) a breakdown by protected characteristic of the numbers of people in the workforce of each PSB;

(b) the percentage of the workforce on and offscreen who have various protected characteristics as deemed relevant by OFCOM;

(c) if the percentages reported under paragraph (b) are not reflective of the population as a whole or on a regional basis, a statement from each broadcaster on how they intend to increase diversity in their organisation.

(3) OFCOM may request any information they require from the PSBs in order to compile the report under subsection (1).

(4) Provision of data to enable OFCOM to produce the report under subsection (1) is to be considered by OFCOM when it assesses the extent to which a PSB has fulfilled its public service broadcasting remit.”

This new clause would require OFCOM to produce an annual report on workforce diversity within the PSBs.

New clause 20—On-demand programme services—

“(1) OFCOM must report to the Secretary of State each year on the percentage of people who are watching on-demand services that do not fall under the definition of on-demand programme services in section 368A of the Communications Act.

(2) If OFCOM reports concern that the definition is not providing protection for public service broadcasters on on-demand services that are being widely accessed by the public—

(a) OFCOM must write to the Secretary of State, and

(b) the Secretary of State must make a written statement to Parliament on how the Secretary of State intends to remedy this matter.”

This new clause would require OFCOM and the Secretary of State to keep under review the adequacy of the definition of on-demand programme services in section 368A of the Communications Act 2003.

New clause 21—Delivery of public service content on relevant television services—

“After section 264A of the Communications Act 2003, insert—

“264B Delivery of public service content on relevant television services

(1) Ofcom must monitor the extent to which the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is met in respect of relevant television services, including level of programming from a diverse range of genres including, among others, education, entertainment, music, arts science, sports matters of international significance, religion and specialist interests.

(2) If Ofcom considers that the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is not being met in respect of such services, it may set whatever programming quotas it considers necessary to ensure that the remit is met.

(3) It is the duty of relevant television broadcasting services to prepare and publish a statement annually on their performance in the provision of public service content.

(4) For the purposes of this section, “relevant television services” means—

(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC;

(b) the television programme services that are public services of the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of section 207);

(c) every Channel 3 service;

(d) Channel 4;

(e) Channel 5.””

This new clause would give Ofcom powers to measure the delivery of public service content on the linear services of the public service broadcasters, and set quotas if it considered the current level to be unsatisfactory.

New clause 22—Duty to report on workforce diversity and equality requirement—

“(1) Public service broadcasters (“PSBs”) must prepare and publish a statement on a workforce diversity and equality strategy within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) A workforce diversity and equality strategy must comprise a plan setting out how PSBs are taking appropriate steps towards improving diversity and equality within the workforce in the period covered by the plan, which must cover not more than three years.

(3) In particular, a workforce diversity and equality strategy must state a PSB’s objectives and priorities for the period it covers.

(4) A workforce diversity and equality strategy must include a summary and an evaluation of the activities and initiatives pursued or commissioned by a PSB in the exercise of its functions under subsection (1) in the period to which the strategy relates.

(5) Before the end of the period covered by a workforce diversity and equality strategy, PSBs must prepare and publish a strategy for a further period, ensuring that each successive strategy covers a period beginning immediately after the end of the last one.

(6) In preparing or revising a workforce diversity and equality strategy, a PSB must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.

(7) OFCOM must prepare and publish a report on workforce diversity and equality strategy statements produced by PSBs set out in subsection (1), in particular—

(a) summarising what actions a PSB is planning and taking in the exercise of its strategy under subsections (1) to (3);

(b) assessing what progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and priorities set out in a strategy in the relevant period.

(8) The first annual report by OFCOM on workforce diversity and equality is required to be published within a period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(9) OFCOM must prepare and publish subsequent reports on PSBs’ strategies and progress against them every three years thereafter.”

This new clause introduces a requirement for PSBs to publish objectives on the promotion of diversity and equality among the workforce and for Ofcom to monitor and report on PSB performance on meeting this requirement.

New clause 23—Duty to report on media literacy requirement—

“(1) Public service broadcasters (“PSBs”) must prepare and publish a statement on a media literacy strategy within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) A media literacy strategy is a plan setting out how PSBs are taking appropriate steps towards improving levels of media literacy among audiences in the period covered by the plan, which must be not more than three years.

(3) In particular, a media literacy strategy must state a PSB’s objectives and priorities for the period it covers.

(4) A media literacy statement must include a summary and an evaluation of the activities and initiatives pursued or commissioned by the PSB in the exercise of their functions under section (1) in the period to which the report relates.

(5) Before the end of the period covered by a media literacy strategy, PSBs must prepare and publish a strategy for a further period, ensuring that each successive strategy covers a period beginning immediately after the end of the last one.

(6) In preparing or revising a media literacy strategy, a PSB must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.

(7) OFCOM must prepare and publish a report of the media literacy strategy statements set out in subsection (1), in particular—

(a) summarising what actions a PSB is planning and taking in the exercise of its strategy under subsections (1) to (3);

(b) assessing what progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and priorities set out in a strategy in the relevant period.

(8) The first annual report by OFCOM on media literacy is required to be published within a period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(9) OFCOM must prepare and publish subsequent report on PSBs’ strategies and progress against them every three years thereafter.”

This new clause introduces a requirement for PSBs to take appropriate steps in relation to improving levels of media literacy among their audiences and for Ofcom to monitor and report on PSB performance on meeting this requirement.

New clause 24—Duty to report on viewer and listener consultation requirements—

“(1) Public service broadcasters (“PSBs”) must prepare and publish a viewer and listener consultation strategy (“consultation strategy”) within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) A consultation strategy is a plan setting out how PSBs are taking appropriate steps towards improving levels of engagement with audiences in the period covered by the plan, which must be not more than three years.

(3) In particular, a consultation strategy must state a PSB’s objectives and priorities for the period it covers.

(4) A consultation strategy must include a summary and an evaluation of the activities and initiatives pursued or commissioned by the PSB in the exercise of their functions under section (1) in the period to which the report relates.

(5) Before the end of the period covered by an audience consultation strategy, PSBs must prepare and publish a strategy for a further period, ensuring that each successive strategy covers a period beginning immediately after the end of the last one.

(6) In preparing or revising a media literacy consultation strategy, PSBs must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.

(7) OFCOM must prepare and publish a report assessing PSBs’ consultation strategies, in particular—

(a) summarising what actions a PSB is planning and taking in the exercise of its strategy, and

(b) assessing what progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and priorities set out in a strategy in the relevant period.

(8) The first annual report by OFCOM on PSBs’ consultation strategies must be published within a period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(9) OFCOM must prepare and publish subsequent reports on PSBs’ strategies and progress against them every three years thereafter.”

This new clause introduces a requirement for PSBs to produce a strategy and objectives for increasing levels of consultation with user listeners and for Ofcom to monitor and report on PSB performance on meeting this requirement.

Amendment 81, in clause 1, page 2, line 38, at end insert—

“(iii) a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content so as to permit fulfilment of the public service remit for television in the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland”.

This amendment would require OFCOM to report on whether a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content in Gaelic is televised to meet the public service remit for television.

Amendment 1, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(5A) In assessing the extent to which the requirements of subsection (5)(b)(i) have been met OFCOM must have particular regard to the importance of content recognising the culture and heritage of those parts of the United Kingdom recognised under the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.”

This amendment requires OFCOM to have regard to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities when reporting on the fulfilment of the public service remit through audiovisual content by the public service broadcasters.

Amendment 86, page 3, line 13, leave out from “appropriate” to end and insert—

“level of programming from a diverse range of genres including, among others, education, entertainment, music, arts science, sports matters of international significance, religion and specialist interests.”

This amendment would add detailed description of the range of genres which Ofcom must report on whether the public service broadcasters have made available.

Government amendment 19.

Amendment 79, in clause 3, page 7, line 15, at end insert—

“(c) which is broadcast via UHF frequencies that can be received by a minimum of 98.5% of the population of the United Kingdom.”

This amendment amends the definition of public service for Channel 3 and Channel 5 to include an obligation to broadcast via digital terrestrial television, on the basis of the already existing licence requirements applying to PSB DTT multiplexes.

Amendment 80, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

“(d) which is broadcast via UHF frequencies that can be received by a minimum of 98.5% of the population of the United Kingdom.”

This amendments amends the definition of public service for Channel 4 to include a obligation to broadcast via digital terrestrial television, on the basis of the already existing licence requirements applying to PSB DTT multiplexes.

Amendment 82, in clause 8, page 9, line 29, at end insert—

“(c) a duration such as OFCOM considers appropriate of those independent productions are commissioned from smaller studios”.

This amendment would require OFCOM to require licensed public service channel regulatory conditions to include commissioning from smaller studios.

Amendment 83, page 9, line 29, at end insert—

“(1A) The regulatory regime for Channel 4 includes the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing that, in each year, not less than 35% per cent of Channel 4's total expenditure on qualifying audiovisual content is allocated to independent productions made by independent production companies with annual turnover not exceeding £25,000,000.

(1B) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1A) by substituting a different figure for the annual turnover specified in that section.

(1C) Before making regulations under subsection (1B), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) OFCOM,

(b) Channel 4, and

(c) independent production companies that are likely to be affected by the regulations.”

This amendment would require that at least 35% of Channel 4’s annual expenditure on qualifying audiovisual content be allocated to productions made by independent producers with annual revenues smaller than £25m. It also provides the Secretary of State the power to amend, following consultation, the revenue figure defining the production companies to which the requirement applies.

Amendment 84, page 10, line 15, before “commissioning” insert

““annual revenue” means the reported revenues published in the annual accounts of the respective independent production company, covering the most recently available period of 12 months;”.

This amendment would insert a definition for the purposes of Amendment 83.

Amendment 85, page 10, line 17, at end insert—

““independent production companies” has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991;”.

This amendment would insert a definition for the purposes of Amendment 83.

Government amendments 20 to 40.

Amendment 88, in clause 25, page 30, line 30, at end insert—

“(4) On the date on which section 21 comes into force, the Secretary of State must revise the list maintained for the purposes of Part 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 so that it includes—

(a) at least one cricket test match each year between the months of May and September;

(b) at least one cricket One Day International match each year between the months of May and September;

(c) all other currently listed Group A events.

(5) The events listed under subsection (4) must be allocated to Group A.”

Amendment 5, in clause 28, page 41, line 10, leave out “an appropriate” and insert “a significant”.

This would require that designated internet programme services are given significant prominence within regulated television selection services.

Amendment 78, page 42, line 3, at end insert—

“(f) any local digital television programme service that OFCOM determines is willing and able to offer an internet programme service.”

This amendment includes local digital television services within the prominence framework for designated internet programme services where OFCOM determines a service is willing and able to offer such a service.

Amendment 87, page 42, line 21, leave out “an appropriate” and insert “a significant”.

This amendment would require a provider of regulated television selection to give significant prominence to designated internet programme services.

Government amendments 41 to 49.

Amendment 6, page 69, line 1, leave out clause 31.

This would retain section 295 of the Communications Act 2003, which restricts C4C’s involvement in programme-making.

Government amendments 50 and 51.

Amendment 18, in clause 38, page 79, line 25, at end insert—

“(4A) When considering the adequacy of age ratings, OFCOM must report on the extent to which any age ratings used by providers are—

(a) clear and well understood by consumers;

(b) underpinned by a published and transparent set of standards; and

(c) informed by regular and substantive consultation with the UK public.”

This amendment sets conditions to be used by OFCOM when reporting on the adequacy of the age ratings classification systems used by providers.

Government amendment 52.

Amendment 7, in clause 44, page 83, line 36, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment and Amendments 8 to 13 would broaden the scope of the requirements placed by the Bill on local radio broadcasting licences, so that the current scope of local material as news, information and other spoken material is retained.

Amendment 8, page 84, line 6, leave out “news and information” and insert

“news, information and other spoken material and music”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.

Amendment 9, page 84, line 23, leave out “news and information” and insert

“news, information and other spoken material and music”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.

Amendment 10, page 84, line 24, leave out “news and information” and insert

“news, information and other spoken material and music”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.

Amendment 11, in page 84, line 26, after “news” insert

“, information and other spoken material and music”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.

Amendment 12, page 84, line 34, after “news” insert

“, information and other spoken material and music”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.

Amendment 13, page 84, line 36, after “news” insert

“, information and other spoken material and music”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.

Government amendments 53 to 59.

Amendment 2, in clause 50, page 114, line 7, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

“(2) Section 40(3) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is omitted.”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State the option in future of commencing subsection 2 of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Acts 2013.

Amendment 3, in clause 55, page 115, line 25, leave out “50” and insert “(Consultation on section 50)”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 4 and NC3, would require the Secretary of State to consult on alternative incentives to encourage publishers or regulators to seek recognition under the terms of the Royal Charter for the Self-Regulation of the Press, and to lay a report on the consultation before Parliament, before section 50 could be commenced.

Amendment 4, page 115, line 35, at end insert—

“(ga) section 50 (but see section (Consultation on section 50));”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 3.

Government amendments 60 to 74.

Amendment 17, in schedule 5, page 145, line 4, at end insert—

“(aa) persons designated by the Secretary of State as the responsible authority under Section 4(1) of the Video Recordings Act 1984;”.

This amendment ensures that the British Board of Film Classification is consulted by OFCOM when drawing up the Video on Demand codes.

Government amendment 75.

Amendment 14, page 146, line 34, leave out “40 per cent” and insert “80 per cent”.

This would require Tier 1 on-demand services to provide subtitling for 80% of their on-demand TV content from the second anniversary of the publication of the accessibility code.

Amendment 15, page 146, line 36, leave out “5 per cent” and insert “10 per cent”.

This would require Tier 1 on-demand services to provide audio-description for 10 per cent of their on-demand TV content from the second anniversary of the publication of the accessibility code.

Amendment 16, page 147, line 1, leave out “2.5 per cent” and insert “5 per cent”.

This would require Tier 1 on-demand services to provide sign language presentation or translation for 5 per cent of their on-demand TV content from the second anniversary of the publication of the accessibility code.

Government amendments 76 and 77.

[George Eustice]

There are a number of new clauses and amendments in my name that I wish to speak to, but principally among them I will speak to amendment 2, which relates to the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Acts 2013. With the will of the House, I will press the amendment to a Division later today, but first I will briefly address some of the other amendments.

Amendment 1 is not actually linked to the debate about section 40, or indeed the Leveson inquiry; it is about something very different. It simply states that Ofcom, when considering and assessing the public service remit, should also have regard to the framework convention on national minorities. That is because the current framework acknowledges the importance of languages in this country and their recognition under the framework convention on minority languages, but it omits the framework convention on national minorities. That is of particular importance to places such as Cornwall, Scotland and Wales, where the culture and identity goes beyond just language. I hope the Government will consider addressing this matter in the other place as the Bill progresses.

New clause 3 addresses the simple reality that although the Government have said that they intend to repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, Ministers have confirmed to me that the Government remain committed to the continued existence of the royal charter on self-regulation of the press. That royal charter was established by David Cameron when he was Prime Minister, in response to the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry. Conservative Members voted to put in place section 40 in order to create an incentive to join the royal charter. Given that the Government have said that they want to repeal section 40, which created that incentive, but that they remain absolutely committed to keeping the royal charter, surely they should at the very least have a call for evidence to examine what other possible incentives might encourage publishers to join that royal charter.

If the Government did not believe in the royal charter on self-regulation of the press, they would simply bring forward Orders in Council to disband the royal charter, as is provided for under article 10 of the charter. The Government do not want to do that, so if they remain committed to the royal charter, let us at least explore those options. They could include giving publishers access to arbitration so that they can get a fairer share of the advertising revenue for the news content they produce. That remains an open problem; some Government legislation seeks to address it, but it could go further.

I wish to focus principally on amendment 2, since that is the one I intend to press to a Division. The amendment would simply put in place a more precise cut to deliver the Government’s objectives. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 had two parts. The first part—subsection (2)—created an incentive for publishers to join because it gave them protection against those with deep pockets. There was a carrot and a stick in section 40. The carrot was that if, for the sake of argument, a Russian oligarch threatened a publisher and said, “We’re going to get Carter-Ruck to write expensive letters to you. We will see you in court if you publish this,” that publisher would have had protection because they would have been able to say to the rich and powerful, “We have confidence in our story and are going to run it, and if you don’t like the story, we will see you in arbitration; we won’t see you in court. If you insist on taking us to court and bypassing that arbitration, you will pay the publisher’s costs as well as your own.”

That was the carrot—the bit that the press never objected to. No one ever raised an objection to that. But there was also a stick—subsection (3) of section 40. The stick basically said that publishers who do not join a recognised regulator have more cost exposure to ordinary citizens who have had their lives and privacy violated and have no redress other than to bring legal action. The press never objected to the carrot; they only ever objected to the stick. Because they are a glass-half-empty type of industry, they of course tended to focus on the bit they did not like rather than the bit they did like, and they lobbied furiously to have that part of section 40 removed.

Then we come to the 2017 Conservative manifesto—let us be honest: it was not the best manifesto the party has ever drafted. Probably due to a drafting error, that manifesto pledged not just to remove subsection (3) of subsection 40, which was all that was required and which would have delivered the spirit of that manifesto commitment, but committed to remove the entirety of section 40, which was completely unnecessary.

Amendment 2 would remove the stick but retain the carrot. It would remove subsection (3) of section 40. In that, it would deliver everything the press have ever wanted, and therefore also satisfy the Government’s intentions.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This is a point that I have often made. The hon. Gentleman’s “carrot”, as he calls it, seems very similar to anti-SLAPP legislation, which has been welcomed generally on both sides of the House, and I cannot see why anyone who supports anti- SLAPP legislation would not also support amendment 2. I certainly will support it and I hope that it gets support across the House.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who truly believes in a free press, as he and I do, would want to ensure that we can protect genuine investigative journalism, and that the rich and powerful would not be able to intimidate and bully publishers with limited financial resources—many of them losing money—into not running a story that was essentially true.

Were amendment 2 to be agreed to, those publishers that chose not to sign up to a recognised regulator would have nothing to lose; they would be no worse off than they are today. Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, has had a very strong position that he would never join a recognised regulator. It would be open to him not to; he would be no better and no worse off than he is today, as if something ended up in litigation he would not be paying both sides’ costs.

A publication such as Private Eye, which famously has never joined anything, would also be free to stand aloof from any kind of regulator, and it would be no better or worse off than it is today. Publications such as The Daily Mail, which have wealthy benefactors standing behind them—people with deep pockets who are willing to pay for litigation and backfill the loses that such companies make—would be no better or worse off than they are today, in that they could decide not to join a regulator.

However, those small, plucky publishers that do not have wealthy benefactors standing behind them, and that seek to do genuine investigative journalism that might attract the attention of those threatening legal action, would have the option of joining a recognised regulator, so that they could get protection against that type of strategic litigation brought by the rich and powerful—people with deep pockets—against them.

So I say to the Minister that I can deliver everything that the Government seek, in a way that is fitting with the spirit of the Conservative manifesto but that keeps open the option of small publishers being able to gain some protection.

Let me remind the House why we ended up with section 40 in the first place. There was a public outcry about what was called the phone-hacking scandal—the widespread recognition that a culture had developed that enabled publishers to hack into people’s phones. It was David Cameron, the Conservative Prime Minister, who established the Leveson inquiry. It was David Cameron who chose Lord Justice Leveson to chair it, because Lord Justice Leveson was known as somebody who was not hostile to the press. Lord Justice Leveson invested huge amounts of his time in coming up with a very sensible set of proposals. It was David Cameron who then said we would implement those proposals, with cross-party support from all parties in this House, and it was the Conservative Whips Office that actually whipped the Conservative side of the House to implement section 40, as David Cameron wished to happen.

Let us remember that in that Leveson inquiry, dozens of victims of phone hacking came forward to give evidence, and they did so because the Prime Minister had set up an inquiry and they felt that it was sincere and genuine, and that they could contribute. We all have had constituency cases in which people have been through extraordinary tragedy, and it is painful for them; but often people who have been through such tragedy want to know that something good has come from it. Many of those witnesses who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry were the parents of children who had been murdered, who had had their life rifled through by the media, and they wanted something good to come out of that; so they went through the trauma and the painful experience of sharing those experiences, to try to help Parliament wrestle its way to a sensible compromise.

So let us have no nonsense from the Government Front Bench, trying to create some sort of wedge issue. This is a provision that the Conservative Government put in place, and the royal charter on self-regulation was a very Conservative approach to dealing with the challenge.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. He is making a strong case for his amendment, but I have one nagging doubt in my mind. I understand that he believes that if his amendment is agreed to and we remove the stick, newspapers will be protected from the rich and powerful, but what protection would remain for those who are not of means; those who do not have the money that they can risk in litigation to take on those publishers who may have defamed or libelled them, but who are not members of a regulatory body? This is not just about the rich and powerful. There could be people who do not have any money who are affected by newspapers, and I am not clear how, in his new landscape, they would be affected.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but I am seeking to reach a compromise. His argument is for keeping section 40 in its entirety, so that those who do not have financial means and who face a publisher who refuses to act within any kind of reputable regulator would have some redress in the courts. Of course, in section 40 there was only a weighted presumption in favour of a particular approach to costs. It was never a hard and fast rule.

My right hon. Friend makes a strong case, but I am seeking to form a compromise with the House and with those on the Government Front Bench, and if it is their intention to do what the press want, they can accept my amendment and still look the press in the eye and say, “We gave you everything you wanted, which is the removal of the stick.” Maybe they hope they will get some positive coverage as a result of doing this favour; I suspect they will end up being disappointed by that between now and the general election. Nevertheless, I am trying to make a compromise with them. I hope that the Government will look seriously at this.

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have an amendment that I would like to speak to. It might be slightly unusual for the person who was the Minister taking the Bill through Committee then to seek to amend the Bill on Report, but I am sure it is not unprecedented, and I hope my amendment is nevertheless helpful to the Government. It is certainly my intention that it should be.

I have taken the Bill through Committee, and it has already been subject to a lot of scrutiny by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in this House and in the other place, and with the publication of a draft Bill. I am therefore slightly surprised to see the number of Government amendments that have been tabled. Most are relatively minor and technical, and I welcome the measure that would correct the anomaly around independent national radio, requiring it to continue to broadcast on AM, even though fewer and fewer people are now accessing radio by those means. It is right to remove that anomaly.

Amendment 78 addresses local television, which was the invention of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). Although it has had a somewhat chequered history, it is successful in a number of areas across the country, particularly outside London. Rightly, the Government have consulted recently on whether they believe there is a long-term future for local TV, and I am optimistic they will conclude that they would like it to continue. The Bill will ensure that those broadcasters that the Government regard as making an important contribution should continue to thrive in a different media landscape. That is the purpose of the prominence provisions, which safeguard public service broadcasters to ensure that whatever means viewer choose to access television, they can find those public service broadcasters easily. Local television is not currently included on the list of channels that should have due prominence. As we move forward into an age when more and more people rely on internet protocol television to access channels, it will become increasingly hard for them if local TV is not obviously available on IPTV sets.

I have a Sky Glass television, which is an IPTV set, and at the moment I cannot get local television on it at all. One reason for that—and the reason the Government have previously given for not including local TV on the list of channels to be given prominence—is the absence of an app to deliver local TV. When I was filling in for the Minister over the past few months I had a meeting with local TV and was told that an app will be forthcoming quite soon that will allow local television to be received by IPTV. The Government suggested in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) that they see a difficulty with that, and that because there are a large number of local television channels it would be difficult to give all of them individual prominence. However, I am assured by local television that they intend to come forward with a single app, which will be available on a number of major platforms and ensure that a specifically chosen geographical location in the country will receive the specific local TV channel that is appropriate for that area. We are only talking about one app. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in his letter that the Government will continue to monitor the situation and consider increasing the availability of local content.

As we know, media Bills do not come along every day, and this is our single opportunity to update the law covering the range of media services. It is likely that there will not be another opportunity for some considerable time. My amendment would allow Ofcom, at a future date, to recommend the inclusion of a local TV app, as and when it emerges, in the prominence regime. It would ensure that the Bill future-proofs the regime so that it can be amended in such a way. I hope the Government will consider adopting that measure. I understand it is unlikely that they will accept my amendment, but I ask the Minister whether she will continue to look at this issue and, if the Government believe it is appropriate, consider tabling an amendment to that effect in the House of Lords.

On new clause 3, regarding the abolition of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, I was slightly surprised to learn from my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) that the inclusion of a firm pledge to repeal section 40, which was not just in the 2017 Conservative manifesto but repeated in that of 2019, was a drafting error. It did not strike me at the time that either the initial pledge or the second one were drafting errors.

[George Eustice]

Is my right hon. Friend saying that there were no drafting errors in the 2017 manifesto?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

There may have been—I am not quite sure which others my right hon. Friend might be referring to, but I am pretty certain that that was not one of them.

[George Eustice]

Nobody ever said that they objected to the cost protections for the press contained in section 40. The arguments against section 40 were always shorthand arguments that essentially claimed falsely that it would require publishers to pay the costs of others—and that only related to one small part of section 40.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend is right, but as I think I pointed out on Second Reading, not a single major publisher has chosen to apply for recognition by the Press Recognition Panel through joining a recognised regulator.

[George Eustice]

But is that not precisely because the Government failed to move the incentives that encouraged people to join?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

As the Minister responsible, who said that we would not implement section 40, I had considerable talks. It was made plain that if the Government had implemented section 40, no major publisher would apply for recognition. My right hon. Friend talked about the carrot and stick, and his new clause would require the Government to look for alternative incentives to encourage publishers to apply for recognition, even if the existing carrot and stick were removed. He did not go into detail in his speech about what alternative incentive there might be; it sounded slightly like a reference to Marlon Brando’s making “an offer you can’t refuse”. The press have been absolutely plain: they object to any regulator that carries the stamp of Government approval. That is the fundamental principle that has caused every publisher to say that they will not apply for recognition.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend knows that it is not a Government regulator. The Press Recognition Panel was established by the royal charter on self-regulation of the press. The Conservative party established that as a royal charter rather than a regulatory body for precisely that reason—to accommodate that wish of the press.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I did not suggest it was a Government regulator, but nevertheless, any regulator that requires Government approval through the Press Recognition Panel is viewed by the press as having a Government stamp of approval, which they regard as unacceptable. My right hon. Friend spoke about the discussions he had, but he would agree that the stick and the carrot at that time were thought to be necessary to persuade red-top publishers such as The Daily Mail and The Sun to join a regulator recognised by the PRP. What I do not think he anticipated—indeed, nobody anticipated it at the time—was that not a single major publisher would agree to co-operate with the regime that was being put in place. That includes The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer and the Financial Times. Not one major publisher said that it would co-operate with the system that was put in place, so it has plainly failed. For that reason alone the Government should revisit the issue, remove section 40, and instead encourage those who do not currently accept the ruling of an independent regulator to join the one in existence, which is IPSO. I know that my right hon. Friend and I will not agree on this point, but his suggestion that it was somehow an oversight to include a commitment to repeal in the manifestos of 2017 and 2019 is simply not correct. He will be aware that there is unanimity among all the major publishers that section 40 represents an attack on media freedom. It is not just the publishers who hold that view; many campaigning organisations, such as Reporters Without Borders, have actually downgraded the UK’s press freedom rating because of the existence of section 40, and it is certainly viewed as an infringement of media freedom.

--- Later in debate ---

Moving to amendments that I am less keen on, I agree with the News Media Association that the argument for state-backed regulation of the press has been lost, and the amendments introduced eloquently and with great sincerity by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) are flogging a horse that I am afraid died some time ago. I do not think there is a need for his amendments—

[George Eustice]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I suspected that might happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend will know that the royal charter on self-regulation of the press, which the Conservative party established, is still alive and well, and the Government have no plans for its dissolution.

[Damian Green]

My right hon. Friend’s amendment seeks to revive the argument from more than 10 years ago, but I think that argument has gone. The world has moved on and the press has moved on. We had a discussion about whether regulation or the application of the law is the appropriate way to do this, and I submit that the reason why press behaviour has changed is simply the effective application of the law, and the fact that many newspaper groups have had to pay huge amounts of money because they broke the law in behaving the way they did 10, 15 and 20 years ago. That led to the change in behaviour. Where my right hon. Friend and I would come closer together is on SLAPP cases, and the need for legislation to allow individuals not to be intimidated by rich publishing companies. I know the Government have committed to introducing legislation to see those sorts of cases dismissed at the earliest possible stage, and I urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to do that as soon as possible.

While I am in sceptical mode, I similarly question the need for the various new clauses, proposed by Members in all parts of the House, that would mandate a more rigid system of age classifications for programmes already regulated by Ofcom. I absolutely get the intention behind them, which is to protect children from unsuitable content, but I am instinctively wary of suggestions that would mean one regulator having to consult another before introducing a code of conduct. Ofcom has considerable powers, and it can operate those powers. I do not think it sensible to try to tie this down to any particular age classification system, not least because some public service broadcasters, who are pretty responsible in not trying to expose content that is unsuitable for children, operate systems of protection that do not rely on age classification. ITV has its guidance system, and many broadcasters operate a system involving a PIN that sensible parents will keep from their children so that they can be protected at home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendment 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend and fellow Cornishman, the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). It would simply put a requirement on Ofcom to ensure that due regard was paid to the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities when assessing the fulfilment of the public service remit. This is of particular interest to us Cornish, because it is almost 10 years since the Council of Europe formally recognised the Cornish as a national minority and the Government accepted that recognition. This was a historic moment for those of us from the west of the Tamar, because although the Cornish have historically been recognised by this place as distinct from the English, this was the first time for a very long time that the Government had also recognised that. The Government said that the Cornish would be given the same recognition and status as the other Celtic nations of the UK—the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. Over the last 10 years, we have been grappling with what that means in application. It is disappointing to say that, at times, the Government have been criticised by the Council of Europe for not doing enough to deliver on this new recognition and status.

The Bill gives the Government a straightforward opportunity to do something fairly simple yet tangible that would give meaning to the recognition of Cornish national minority status. It is clear that Cornwall has a history, heritage and culture that is distinct from England’s, and distinct within the UK. It is unique in many ways, and we have far more in common with our Celtic cousins around the fringes of the UK. We have our own language, and it has seen a revival over the last 10 or 20 years, with many schools now promoting the Cornish language and holding workshops. UNESCO has upgraded Cornish from extinct to critically endangered. It is important that we recognise and seek to continue this progress.

[George Eustice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting amendment 1. He makes a powerful case for why Cornwall is unique and different. Does he agree that if the BBC had due regard for the framework convention on national minorities, it would take a very different approach to local radio? At the moment, the BBC treats Cornwall like any other part of England.

[Steve Double]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point that I was going to make. There is clearly a role for the BBC in helping to protect, promote and inform about Cornish culture and the Cornish language. Measures in this Bill could be strengthened to ensure that the BBC plays that role, thereby helping the Government to fulfil their responsibility to give due recognition to the Cornish.

We have seen a revival and fresh interest in Cornish culture and history in recent years, some of which is down to the hugely successful “Poldark” series, which, for many, has brought to life the history of Cornwall and its role in the industrial revolution. Other programmes have also helped to put the spotlight on our unique Cornish culture. I think particularly of “The Fisherman’s Apprentice”, in which Monty Halls went to live in one of our very small fishing communities to highlight both the historical and modern-day struggles of such places.

We are looking for programmes that present a picture of the true Cornwall and our history, heritage and culture, not programmes that present the idealistic, picture-postcard view of Cornwall, and that are just adverts for more second homeowners. We have rich, deep and strong heritage and culture in Cornwall, which is what we want to present and protect. In this day of increased multiculturalism—I do not want to go down that rabbit hole—and with all that is happening in the world, it is important that we do everything we can to protect the uniqueness of our Cornish culture. It is clear that broadcast media can play an important role in helping us to do just that, and in helping the Government to give real meaning and value to the recognition of Cornish national minority status in the UK.

I am not calling for our own Cornish station, just as Scotland and Wales have particular stations—I am not going that far—but more could be done to set an expectation that the BBC will give due regard to Cornish protected national minority status in its public service broadcasting responsibilities. That is simply what amendment 1 would do. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth does not intend to press it to a Division, but I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to the points that we have made, and to the purpose of the amendment, and to look carefully at whether the Government can adopt the measure or something similar as a clear sign of the importance that they place on protecting and promoting our Cornish culture and heritage.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank Members for their contributions to today’s debate, and indeed during prelegislative scrutiny and the Bill’s passage thus far. The Bill has fantastic support. I have worked on it since 2021 and I am pleased to be back in post, taking over from the interim Minister—whom I prefer to call the eminent, knowledgeable knight and former Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale); but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said, we are all temporary in this place. I am glad to take the Bill through its final stages, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon for his work and his defence of our position on section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. He is in the curious position of amending a Bill for which he was once Minister. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, our right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon is breaking new parliamentary boundaries.

As we all know, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access broadcast content, but our public service broadcasters and radio services are governed by laws written 20 or more years ago. The Bill is vital to enable our PSBs to continue to be world leading in their content and to serve UK audiences, while also driving growth in the creative industries across the UK.

I shall briefly address some of the issues that have been raised, but I will first deal with the Government amendments. They are minor and technical and seek to ensure that the existing policy positions are properly operational. I have written to Members with more detail. I am glad to have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, particularly for the radio amendments.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for his sustained interest. He is a passionate campaigner and has been pushing on section 40 for many years. The Government recognise the intent of his amendments, but their effect would not be to repeal section 40, but to delay its repeal while a consultation takes place. We feel that that would be at odds with our double manifesto commitment to repeal section 40 in full, notwithstanding my right hon. Friend’s view that the manifesto was not the best that we have produced and that there may have been some drafting errors in the publication.

[George Eustice]

I understand that new clause 3 would delay the commencement of clause 50, but that is not the case with amendment 2, which would simply remove one part of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

[Julia Lopez]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I understand, Mr Eustice, that you wish to withdraw new clause 3.

[George Eustice]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Gaelic language service

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, review whether a Gaelic language service should be given a public service broadcast remit.”—(Thangam Debbonaire.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Media Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I agree with some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), in particular his comments about the bravery of journalists covering conflict around the world today.

It is very doubtful that there will be a Division on the Bill this evening. We have had something of a love-in, with contributions from all parties saying that they support the Bill. I do not want to shatter that consensus, but I am going to do so. Although it is clear that the Opposition are not going to divide the House on Second Reading, I must say to them that, had they chosen to do that, I would have supported them. I would have done so purely because of the strength of my feelings about clause 50, which repeals section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I believe consistency in this place matters, even though it might sometimes be elusive. The truth is that section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was part of a Conservative-drafted compromise following the Leveson inquiry. It was a compromise in which I had a hand, and I am not about to vote against it, today or at any other point.

The reason I supported the thrust of the Leveson proposals at the time was not despite my being a Conservative, but because I am a Conservative, and true Conservatives believe in accountability. It is true Conservatives who, throughout history, have faced down powerful vested interests and it is true Conservatives who will always look out for the underdog, whatever the consequences might be. The Leveson inquiry followed decades of failure on the part of the press to engage seriously with self-regulation, and the craven failure of this House over 70 years to act on the findings of no fewer than seven inquiries and Royal Commissions set up during that time.

It is often the case that we never quite know when something that is known to be a problem will become a big story—a running story, as we call it in the media. It was the hacking of the phone of Milly Dowler, the murdered schoolgirl, that made this House decide to act. Therefore it was a Conservative Prime Minister at the time who condemned the Press Complaints Commission as wholly ineffective. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who set up the inquiry. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who chose Lord Justice Leveson to lead that inquiry—in part because Lord Justice Leveson was recognised as somebody who respected the press and believed passionately in the freedom of the press, and could therefore be relied upon to come up with a sensible set of proposals.

It was a Conservative Prime Minister who wrote the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry and a Conservative Prime Minister who said that that inquiry should make policy recommendations to the Government. When that report came back, it was a Conservative Prime Minister who stated on the Floor of this House that we could not just say, “Let’s have one last chance saloon for the press again.”, because we had done that. When that report landed—all 1,800 pages, in four volumes—my noble Friend Lord Cameron, then Prime Minister, asked Oliver Letwin to work out a way to implement the proposals of the Leveson inquiry.

There followed a series of compromises to accommodate some of the concerns of the press. First, while Lord Leveson had recommended that there should be a statutory body, preferably Ofcom, that would act as the recognition body, that was seen to be problematic by the press. So Oliver Letwin came up with the rather ingenious idea of establishing a Royal Charter for the self-regulation of the press. The press then raised concerns that a future Government might be able unilaterally to change the terms of that charter simply by bringing forward Orders in Council. We accepted that that was a very fair concern. Paradoxically, the press then asked whether Parliament could safeguard the integrity of the Royal Charter by ensuring that it could be amended or removed only if there were a super-majority of both Houses of Parliament and, in addition to that, a super-majority in the Scottish Parliament.

Finally, there was a lot of discussion about the editors’ code and who should hold the pen. The media felt that existing editors should always hold the pen on the editors’ code, which was contrary to what Lord Leveson had suggested. Again, however, to carry the press with us—as it had said that it would work with us if we made the concessions that it wanted—we made that final concession to ensure that the editors’ code would always be written by the newspaper industry, not by any other independent body.

At various stages during those multiple concessions, Oliver Letwin asked me whether I would help to broach conversations with the Opposition parties with a view to forming a cross-party consensus on the matter, and I did so in good faith. At this point, I pay particular tribute to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who was at that time the shadow Secretary of State, and to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, for the way in which they approached the issue. The easiest thing for any Opposition to do is simply to oppose everything for the sake of it, but on that issue, they recognised the importance of trying to arrive at a consensus in Parliament for the good of civil society.

I hope that you will not mind if I pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your former guise as Opposition Chief Whip. I remember attending one meeting where it was somewhat presumed that I would be able to turn up on the night with 70 Conservative rebels to defeat the Government. You probably saw the anguish on my face at the daunting prospect of having to do such a thing. You made everybody else in the room aware that Whips’ Offices can, when they put their minds to it, be pretty good at burning off opposition.

It is true that the victims of phone hacking were quite concerned about the level of compromise that politicians were making on their behalf. I remember Hugh Grant being particularly sceptical of that. We got him in and said, “Trust us; we are going to do this. This is a cross-party consensus: all parties are signed up to it. It will happen.” It is disappointing that, a decade on, Hugh Grant is being proved right because of the Government’s actions through the Bill.

Some months after we had put in place the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press, I met Sir Alan Moses, who was the first inaugural chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the industry’s own regulator. I remember saying to Sir Alan, “IPSO is making good progress. It is an improvement on the PCC. It wouldn’t have to do a great deal more in order for it to be a recognised regulator. Why doesn’t IPSO simply seek recognition?” He said, “George, I completely agree with you. However, my contract of employment forbids me from saying so publicly.” How is that for the freedom of speech that we hear so much about? Sir Alan Moses, the inaugural chairman of IPSO, was subject to a gagging order, no less, that prevented him from saying what he believed to be true.

Let me turn to the specifics of section 40, which put in place one of the key provisions of Leveson’s recommendations: the creation of incentives for an industry regulator to seek recognition. That is often misunderstood, for the provisions of section 40 are symmetrical: not only does it protect innocent people who want redress and access to a process of arbitration, but it protects publishers from people with deep pockets who go to lawyers such as Carter-Ruck or Schillings and threaten litigation—through so-called SLAPPs—to intimidate and bully publishers and prevent them from publishing things. Had we put that in place and commenced section 40, if a Russian oligarch, for instance, had said, “If you print that, I will see you in court,” and all sorts of injunctions came forth from various lawyers, a publisher would have been able to say, “No, you won’t. We will see you in arbitration.” That would have protected genuine investigative journalism in a way that has never been done before.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. He must be aware that the laws relating to libel and so on are completely misshapen, in that it is totally a rich person’s game. Anyone without resources gets threatened with libel and is silenced immediately. They have no recourse to legal aid and no other way of dealing with the situation other than either to accept something they believe to be wrong or to make themselves bankrupt trying to defend themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The truth is that the system of arbitration, backed up by the cost provisions under section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, protected small, plucky journalists working for small publishers as much as it protected the weak and vulnerable who could not afford legal action. It is important to note that the arbitration system envisaged would only have engaged at all where there was what is called a cause of action, which is to say where people have a case in law. The arbitration system would never have become overwhelmed, since there would have been a sifting process to take out simple complaints about inaccuracy and so forth. In essence, the system would have focused predominantly on the areas of defamation and privacy.

We even considered what I used to term the Private Eye test, which is to say that if we have a publication that for all sorts of ideological reasons has never joined up to anything at all—bear in mind that Private Eye never even joined the Press Complaints Commission—there was an option for them to be able to demonstrate adherence to the principles set out in the royal charter while not joining a body. There was also a large area of discretion for the courts on an individual case. While there was a strong margin of appreciation in favour of those who signed up, it was not black and white. The clause stated that where it was “reasonable in the circumstances” for a court to find a different position, it had the right to do so.

I am therefore generally critical, as the House can understand, of the repeal of section 40, but I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to the continued existence of the royal charter on the self-regulation of the press and that they have no intention of bringing forward any Order in Council to disband the Press Recognition Panel. It is important to recognise that Leveson did not recommend that we needed to take a legal provision through an Act of Parliament to give effect to these cost provisions. His recommendation was that we or the courts could use the Civil Procedure Act 1997 to set civil procedure rules to create a margin of appreciation and an incentive in favour of those who joined an independent regulator.

While the Government legislated in this place, albeit that they then failed to commence the order, it was entirely understandable that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Master of the Rolls might have felt it inappropriate for them to act in this space. Now that the Government have signalled their intention to vacate this space, it is entirely open to the Master of the Rolls and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to make their own civil procedure rules in this space to give effect to the Leveson inquiry. Let us not forget that that inquiry was established under the Inquiries Act 2005 and is explicitly referenced in the royal charter. It would be fair and reasonable for the courts to give consideration and weight to that fact.

An important duty now falls to the Press Recognition Panel. That body, independent of Government, does not need to wait for advice or permission from Government; it is entirely open to the Press Recognition Panel to put together a detailed report setting out its recommendations for what the alternative incentives might be to encourage publishers to sign up to a recognised regulator. It may come up with some useful advice for all parties in this House as they consider their manifestos going forward.

In conclusion, I feel that the failure to commence the full architecture of the Leveson proposals was a terrible missed opportunity for the press, and I say that as one of the few Members on these Benches who first came into Parliament with a brown Press Gallery pass. I knew every single one of the journalists in the Press Gallery and the news organisations they worked for, and I developed a strong appreciation and respect for the individual character of each and every one of those newspaper organisations—even the ones that were often critical of the party on the Government Benches—as I understood their tradition.

Those of us who really believed in the freedom of the press and wanted to see the press thrive had in our minds that if it sought recognition, it would become distinguished from social media and other news content. A decade ago, we were already seeing the start of so-called “fake news” and the idea put forward by Leveson was that a recognised regulator could be used as a Kitemark showing a news organisation’s commitment to ethical journalism. That would be a positive and would restore trust in our press, which had been lost over the years. The idea was that the Broadcasting Act 1996, covered today in much of this Bill, would affect the regulated broadcasters, but that there would be a much more flexible, self-regulatory model for the press or other online content. We could also see, even 10 years ago, that there was going to be a convergence between broadcast media, who would increasingly have online news content in written form, and the print media, who would increasingly be online and would have podcasts and video content. Therefore, a blurring would take place in the traditional distinction between broadcast and print journalism. The great beauty of the architecture we put in place with the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press is that it enabled there to be multiple regulators, some of which might specialise just in online news and others that might specialise just in the printed press, with everything else in between. Had we implemented that, we would have had a great opportunity to restore trust in the truthfulness and integrity of journalism in this country.

There is a final reason why I believe it was short-sighted of the press not to do this. When the courts see that over a period of time there has been intransigence on the part of the press to take standards and genuine accountability seriously, and a craven weakness in this House to act in this space at all, they will make public policy decisions. It is no good complaining about SLAPPs, privacy injunctions and so forth when this House has failed to do even the most basic things to put in place some sensible protections for our civil society. So I would have opposed this Bill on those grounds alone, but I recognise that it contains much else that has cross-party support. I hope that the Government will consider removing clause 50 at a later stage of our consideration of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Carter]

There may be an age divide that determines whether someone looks at an electronic programme guide or the Radio Times, or whether they just look for a tile. The notion that viewers want to continue to use linear TV is important. That is why it is so critical that we legislate in the right way to make sure that British viewers can find it.

The changes in the Bill will impact Channel 4 more than any other PSB, given its unique publisher-broadcaster licence. Channel 4’s status, introduced by the Conservative Government back in the 1980s, has significantly aided the development of the independent production sector in the UK over the last 40 years, which is now worth nearly £4 billion. The removal of the publisher-broadcaster restrictions will allow for Channel 4 to produce its own content, as opposed to simply commissioning or acquiring all of its content from third parties. Why does that matter? For the first time, it will allow Channel 4, when it produces content, to own the rights for that content, which it can then sell around the world, creating another stream of revenue which will allow products and programmes to be funded on Channel 4.

The Government have announced plans to increase Channel 4’s independent production quota as part of the changes. However, there will be many small production companies in areas such as the north-west of England, which have seen a rapid growth in independent production businesses, who are still unsure about the full impact the changes will have for them. Will the Minister, in his response, expand a little more on what the changes will mean for those businesses and give some assurances that they will still be able to thrive once Channel 4 receives its new licence and the Bill receives Royal Assent?

Channel 4 has indicated that it will maintain its existing commitment to spend 50% of its budget for main channel commissions outside London. That is really important to regional production. Ofcom has announced that it will be consulting on whether changes will need to be made to Channel 4’s regional programming making quotas. Is the Minister able to provide a timeline for that consultation, so we know when any changes will come into effect?

I want to touch on local TV and echo some of the comments from other hon. and right hon. Members. I have received representations from the local TV networks who are concerned that the current Bill does not guarantee local TV service prominence in the new TV ecology, and neither does it grant powers on a par with those of local radio services. At some point, the sector will start to provide streamed linear programme services. Will the Government be giving consideration to including local TV as part of the licensed public service channel designation in the Bill to help ensure sustainability for the sector? It really is important that there is an understanding for this sector going forward, because it is making decisions today on the future of its business plans.

Finally on TV, if we are looking to the next 20 years, because this is the only Bill we are likely to see in the media landscape, we should be conscious that the previous broadcasting Bill ran for 20 years. On the Government’s management of a digital terrestrial television switchover, I have been reassured in my conversations with the Minister that he wants terrestrial television to remain accessible for the foreseeable future. I very much agree with him on that. When he is summing up, could he give an indication of the criteria he might want to set before broadcast TV services on Freeview are considered for switch off? That was in place for DAB digital radio. There was a clear criteria in terms of when that might happen. Things have moved many, many times over the years, but it would be helpful for the digital terrestrial sector to understand what the Government might be thinking.

Before I turn to the provisions on radio, may I put on record my congratulations to all those who have worked in commercial radio over the past 50 years? Independent local radio, as we once knew it, celebrated its 50th anniversary just a few weeks ago. It was 50 years ago in October since LBC and Capital Radio arrived on our airwaves in the capital, 50 years since Radio Clyde in Glasgow launched and 50 years since BRMB in Birmingham launched. They were the four stations in 1973 that appeared on our AM radios. Over the 50 years, we have seen a plethora of local, regional and national stations arrive on AM, FM, DAB and now online via Radioplayer and smart speakers. Today, commercial radio is delivering record audiences. Back in the early 1980s, we were all convinced that video was going to kill the radio star. Actually, radio is in rude health. We have regional brands, national stations and hyperlocal services focused on their own towns and cities that are doing remarkably well. We should all recognise in this House how strong commercial radio is today and how much we value the services that people who work in that sector provide for us.

There is unanimous agreement across the BBC, and across commercial and community radio, that the Bill, on the whole, works for radio. It contains crucial measures that will help to safeguard the future in the face of changing technology and shifts in listening habits. The radio sector continues to deliver significant public value, providing trusted news, entertainment and—particularly important—companionship for about 50 million listeners every week. UK radio broadcasters make a substantial contribution to the creative industries, and BBC and commercial radio combined generate more than £1.5 billion in gross value added for the UK economy.

I especially welcome the provisions to support the future of the UK radio industry on voice-activated smart speaker platforms, and the removal of outdated regulatory burdens such as music formats on analogue licences for commercial radio stations. When there was a limited number of stations in each market, it was right for the Government to regulate the number of stations that could provide each particular type of service, but today, when there are a great many services, it should be for the market to decide. If country music is not working, it is possible to switch to jazz without spending too much time bothering the regulator.

There are, however, a few parts of the Bill that I should like the Minister to clarify for the industry. Part 5 deals with the safeguarding of local news and information on DAB services, and it would be helpful if the Minister could explain how those powers will work in practice. For instance, how would a multiplex decide which services must carry local news? Would the multiplex owner be responsible for the enforcement against a digital sound service provider, or would that be the responsibility of Ofcom? What would happen if a service carrying local news stopped broadcasting? Would the obligation be transferred to another service holder, or to the multiplex owner? As for Ofcom’s new role in producing guidelines for the regular broadcast of local news, can the Minister tell us when and how Ofcom will be consulting on that process?

Part 6 contains clauses relating to futureproofing. Will there be scope for expansion of the provisions to cover on-demand and online-only radio content provided by UK broadcasters, as opposed to linear content? Finally, may I ask whether the Government will consider an amendment to protect access to radio in cars, which still accounts for about a quarter of all radio listening, by bringing non-voice activated infotainment systems within the scope of the Bill?

I want to touch briefly on the proposals

“for the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013”,

a decade-old provision that has never been brought into force. While I appreciated the opportunity to observe the perspective of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), whose knowledgeable account of the forming of that legislation was extremely insightful, I am afraid I disagree with the points that he made. It does not seem right to me that publishers who are taken to court could be forced to pay the legal costs of a judgment if they are not a member of an approved regulator, regardless of whether they win or lose the case. I am a firm believer in the freedom of the press. I have spent time working as a journalist, and there have been times when journalists have written about my activities. There are, occasionally, times when I do not like what the press have written, and there are, occasionally, times when I believe that the press have got it wrong. Healthy democracies, however, need objective journalism which is free from state involvement.

The reason I do not agree with my right hon. Friend is this. The Leveson report recommended a system of

“voluntary independent self-regulation”,

envisaging

“a body, established and organised by the industry”

which

“must be funded by its members”.

Lord Justice Leveson said that that body should include all the major players in the industry—national newspapers, and as many regional and local newspaper and magazine publishers as possible—

“although I am very anxious that it remain voluntary”.

[George Eustice]

What Lord Justice Leveson actually said was that the members of the body would only be recognised as a regulator if they had sought recognition from an organisation called the Press Recognition Panel. Leveson very clearly rejected the model put forward by Lord Black in the other place, for the very good reason that there was no independent accountability and no body to recognise that independent regulator.

[Andy Carter]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments and I recognise his knowledge in this area. He was involved at such a deep level that he has experience and expertise in this field.

For me, the media regulatory landscape has changed significantly since section 40 was introduced, with the Independent Press Standards Organisation now regulating nearly 2,000 print and online titles, including the vast majority of UK national, regional and local newspapers. I feel that that has left us with an obsolete law on the statute book which was never enacted. Removing the section was a Conservative party manifesto commitment in 2017 and in 2019, so I welcome its proposed repeal by the Bill.

In concluding my remarks, I want to offer my thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), to the Secretary of State and to officials in DCMS for all their positive engagement with me, with the industry and with those in the House who have long been pressing for this Bill to be brought forward. I know that the Minister is just as keen as I am to see the Media Bill on the statute book, and I am grateful to him for taking note of the issues that I have raised today. I look forward to his addressing those issues in his reply, as well as to our continued engagement over the coming months so that we can pass this Bill as soon as possible.