The Times and The Sunday Times: News UK Undertakings

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

On 1 February 2021 News UK submitted an application requesting the Secretary of State to release in full the undertakings accepted in 2019. The 2019 undertakings were accepted in lieu of the conditions put in place when the newspapers were acquired by News International in 1981.

The conditions included provisions relating to the continued publication of The Times and The Sunday Times as separate newspapers, to the number and power of the independent national directors of Times Newspapers Holdings Ltd, and to editorial control over the journalists working for, and political comment and opinion published in, each of newspapers.

The undertakings accepted in 2019 made changes to the conditions, to allow for sharing of journalistic resources between the two publications and to strengthen the arrangements relating to the independent national directors. News UK now seeks the release of the undertakings in their entirety.

On 24 June DCMS issued a public “invitation to comment”, which included a redacted copy of the application, and the written views received from the editors and independent national directors. On 30 July, DCMS requested Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority to advise by 24 September on the public interest considerations and changes to market circumstances relevant to the case, respectively. The CMA’s report concludes that releasing the undertakings would have a significantly positive impact on News UK’s financial position and ability to adapt to changing market conditions. Ofcom’s report concludes that the impact on media plurality of releasing the undertakings is likely to be limited and that, on balance, releasing the undertakings is unlikely to operate against the public interest needs for free expression of opinion and accuracy of news.

On 25 November, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, I announced that, having taken into account the reports and all relevant information submitted to the Department, I was minded to grant the request by News UK and release the undertakings. I consulted publicly on this minded-to decision and did not receive any further evidence relevant to my decision. I therefore confirm that I am satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since the acceptance of the undertakings in 2019 and that, having considered the public interest considerations applying to newspapers, the undertakings are no longer appropriate or necessary for the purpose they were intended to achieve and so should be released.

In accordance with the Enterprise Act 2002, I have taken a final decision to approve the application and will notify News UK that the undertakings relating to The Times and The Sunday Times are to be released.

[HCWS607]

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Friday 4th February 2022 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the Second Reading debate on the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill on 26 January 2022.

[Ms Dorries]

Finally, manufacturers will be required to be completely transparent about how often, and for how long, their products will receive security updates and patches. According to the current guidance that is being commonly issued, if we update our computers regularly when asked to do so and use two-step verification, 90% of cyber-attacks can be avoided. The requirement for manufacturers to be transparent about how often their product will receive security updates is intended to help consumers to know at which point they will need to do that.

[Official Report, 26 January 2022, Vol. 707, c. 1031.]

Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport:

Errors have been identified in my speech on Second Reading.

The correct information should have been:

[Ms Dorries]

Finally, manufacturers will be required to be completely transparent about for how long their products will receive security updates and patches. According to the current guidance that is being commonly issued, if we update our computers regularly when asked to do so and use two-step verification, 90% of cyber-attacks can be avoided. The requirement for manufacturers to be transparent about for how long their product will receive security updates is intended to help consumers to make an informed choice when purchasing a product.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the reasoned amendment.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time,

We are living in the digital age. It is not only our computers and smartphones; Brits young and old have an average of nine connected devices in their house, from smart speakers and TVs to baby monitors and doorbells. We are more connected than ever, and we need to make sure that those connections are fast and secure. The Bill will achieve both those aims. It will take our roll-out of gigabit broadband and 5G to the next level while boosting the protection of citizens across the UK.

If there is one thing we have learned from this pandemic, it is how central technology is to our everyday existence. We need technology to work remotely; we need it to reach our children and to drive scientific breakthroughs and business innovations; we need tech to be interoperable—I struggled to say that—because we are living in a world where our baby monitors, kettles and doorbells will all be able to talk to one another; and we need tech that is secure.

Underneath all that, we need the digital infrastructure to support all those connections—the ones that we make minute by minute, hour by hour and day after day. Such networks are vital for the UK’s future prosperity. We cannot stay at the heart of the global economy if our connections are not world class, which is why the Government have made huge investments in digital infrastructure.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Unfortunately, my constituency has one of the slowest broadband speeds in the UK. In one area in particular, Cilycwm, a WeFibre gigabit scheme has been sitting on the Department’s table for eight or nine months. Will the Department come to a determination quickly so that we can move forward with that scheme?

[Ms Dorries]

I certainly will. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are moving forward at an absolutely rocketing pace, but I will have a look at the situation in his constituency. I assure him that nothing sits on the Department’s table—it has all gone out to the providers and those going through the procurement process—but I will check on where things are up to in his constituency. If he could contact me with some details after the debate, that would be helpful.

Because the Government have made huge investments, at least 97% of premises now have access to superfast broadband, which is fast enough for a family to stream five different Netflix films in five different rooms in the same house at the same time.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has just talked about the ability to activate fast broadband in five different rooms, but constituents in my Luton South constituency do not have five devices on which to watch five different Netflix films. Should the Government not be doing more on that basis?

[Ms Dorries]

We are. The roll out of superfast broadband and gigabit broadband, in respect of which we have covered 65% of the country in just a few years, is levelling up in practice. It is about making sure that anybody who wants access can have it. We are working with Ofcom and the providers to look at left-behind areas in terms of levelling up and how we can increase access to laptops and—this happened particularly during the pandemic, in the first lockdown—how children in particular can access the internet so that they have the same equal access and opportunity as everyone else.

As we have upgraded our networks, we have invested more than £4 billion in our cyber defences since 2016, including by setting up the National Cyber Security Centre. As we all know, the nature of tech is incredibly fast-paced and constantly changing and growing. Monthly broadband usage has doubled since 2018 and continues to rise year on year. But the more we log on, the more open we are to cyber-threats, particularly as new technology—including cutting-edge consumer products such as smart baby monitors—is not always secure by design. To stay ahead of the game we need to keep investing in tomorrow’s networks and to secure ourselves against future threats, which is why we have introduced the Bill.

Let me explain the Bill’s impact in our telecoms networks before I turn to its measures on product security. In 2019, the Prime Minister promised voters a “broadband revolution” and vowed to deliver fast, secure and reliable broadband to everyone in the country. That was an important promise in 2019 but it is even more vital today as we build back from a devastating global pandemic.

We are delivering on our promise. Under this Government, nationwide gigabit coverage has jumped from just 11% at the end of 2019 to 65% today. We have set ambitious targets for the rest of the roll-out and aim to reach a minimum of 85% of homes by 2025 and to get as close to 100% as we can as soon as possible. We are constantly looking for ways to go further and faster with that roll-out. For example, we have already legislated to address the problem of absent or unresponsive landowners, who can hold up the deployment of gigabit broadband in blocks of flats, and we are currently consulting on proposals to amend the building regulations to ensure that all new homes have gigabit from the outset.

At the same time, we are working hard to improve our mobile phone networks, so that people can enjoy world-class connectivity not just when they are at home or work, but when they are out and about. We have agreed a £1 billion deal with the industry to roll out the shared rural network, which is already delivering improved 4G coverage across the UK. Both the operators and the industry remain confident that they will reach 95% of the country by the end of 2025, and we are aiming for the majority of the population to have the next level of cutting-edge 5G mobile coverage by 2027.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many of my constituents in Northolt are not able to access faster broadband through a fibre connection. I have repeatedly pressed Openreach on this, and it admitted that one of its cabinets had not been upgraded as it did not meet the commercial criteria. Just last week, I also pressed Virgin Media, which said that it had installed broadband in on Islip Manor Road but not on Islip Manor estate, next door. Will the Secretary of State confirm when, under the Government’s plans, all my constituents in Northolt will be able to access a decent broadband connection?

[Ms Dorries]

The hon. Member’s question is quite detailed, right down to street names, so I will take it away and we will speak to Openreach. The Department will see what we can do and come back to him, although that is not a promise that we will suddenly be able to connect Northolt. I am interested to hear about individual constituencies, because it is useful to us to know that information. We have not said that everybody is going to have superfast or gigabit broadband tomorrow; we have set dates by which to reach our targets. We will do our very best for the hon. Member, if he lets me know the details of the case he mentioned.

Things like 5G and gigabit have the potential to be truly transformational for people and businesses. They are vital for innovation, and can unlock huge economic and social benefits across every single corner of the country—not just driving our recovery from covid, but boosting our generational mission to level up the UK. We therefore need to ensure that the legal framework underpinning our digital infrastructure encourages and enables the deployment of the latest networks. In 2017, we made changes to that legal framework, implementing reforms to the electronic communications code that regulate installation agreements between landowners and telecoms operators.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point about ensuring that we have the infrastructure that we need for the 21st century, not the 20th century. But one of my constituents’ concerns—I know that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) have a similar concern—is that when private sector providers come in and install new equipment such as telegraph poles, dishes and things like that, if they do not properly engage with residents and the local community, that can blight some of our streets and add unnecessary infrastructure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we encourage providers to install such equipment, they should engage with communities and residents, so that we carry people with us?

[Ms Dorries]

Community engagement and engagement with individual households is vital. People need to know that the connectivity is there. I will look into my hon. Friend’s point and take it further.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

In a similar vein to the hon. Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), I have received a number of concerns from site providers in my rural constituency that have hosted telecommunications infrastructure, in some cases for a decade or more. When the code was last before the House, we were led to believe that the rent reductions would be minimal. However, it has transpired that in some instances, rent offers have been reduced by about 90%. I am interested to know whether the Secretary of State has any comments on that point, and whether there is a way of rebalancing things. We want to ensure that this infrastructure is there to benefit the community, but we do not want site providers to have to sacrifice what is, in many cases, very valuable agricultural land.

[Ms Dorries]

I am coming to the first point raised by the hon. Member. On his second point, which was about rebalancing, I am afraid that he is probably going to be disappointed.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I strongly welcome massive private-led investment in proper broadband, which is what we all need. Could the Secretary of State give guidance to the companies doing it that it is not helpful if they bury cables under main roads, requiring the roads to be dug up again every time they want to improve or mend a cable? Could we not do better, either in ducts or by the side of the road?

[Ms Dorries]

An interesting point. I will certainly take that back to BDUK, Openreach and others. We need to ensure that the legal framework underpinning our digital infrastructure encourages and enables the deployment of the latest networks. In 2017, we made changes to that legal framework. Implementing reforms to the electronic communications code—this goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake)—requires installation agreements between landowners and telecom operators. The aim was to make it easier for digital networks to be installed, maintained and upgraded, and now we will go even further. The Bill will update the electronic communications code to deliver on the Government’s ambitions for digital connectivity and levelling up. Specifically, it will do three things: make the most of existing infrastructure; encourage stronger and more collaborative relationships between telecom operators and site providers; and build on previous measures to tackle the issue of non-responsive landowners.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

In my constituency of St Albans there is the Highfield Park Trust, run by a group of volunteers. Since the 2017 reforms, it has lost 98% of its income from hosting a mast because of the telecoms company using its new powers to renegotiate the lease. Does the Secretary of State agree that that poses a real risk to the roll-out of 5G, because in some instances small site owners might decide that it is not worth their while anymore and just evict the telecoms companies? Is she willing to look at the issue again, and at the power imbalance that has arisen from the 2017 reforms?

[Ms Dorries]

In 2017, the prices were too high and they affected the overall roll-out. The new pricing regime is more closely aligned to those of utilities such as water, electricity and gas, which are fair. In order for us to roll out 5G to future-proof our digital economy and our telecoms, and to reach the targets of ensuring that we have 4G/5G coverage and 100% gigabit roll-out as soon as possible, we need to ensure that telecom providers can access land to establish both masts and the facilities that we need to make it happen. It has to be fair. We are not revisiting the code of 2017; the Bill does not do that. It will stay as it was, and there will not be a revision to the pricing regime. It is important that I make that clear straightaway.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The Secretary of State highlighted that the prices were once too high. Now we have had multiple complaints that the prices are too low. Clearly, the question of valuation is at the heart of the matter, so why did the Government explicitly exclude valuation from the scope of the consultation that preceded the Bill?

[Ms Dorries]

We have listened to landowners. We have not introduced the legislation without involving them in its development. We have included measures in the Bill that make it easier for landowners and operators to use a dispute resolution if landowners feel that they are not getting a fair price. That means greater collaboration, and it makes preposterously low offers less likely. Hopefully, a fair and reasonable price would be agreed. If landowners were not happy with it, it would go to independent arbitration. If they were then unhappy with that, they would have recourse to the courts, which we know would look very dimly on a situation where the telecom providers had been neither reasonable nor fair to landowners. We think that that is a fair and reasonable process.

Making the most of existing infrastructure can play a key role in upgrading services and increasing competition. Under the Bill, operators will have the automatic right to upgrade or share apparatus installed before the 2017 reforms. That will be subject to specific conditions to ensure that the work does not negatively impact landowners. The measures have been considered carefully to deliver significant benefits, while ensuring that there will be little impact on landowners. The Bill also rationalises the way that certain older code agreements are renewed so that they reflect the code as reformed in 2017. This means that there will be greater consistency in how agreements are renewed across the UK. On that basis, the 2017 coding agreements will not be revisited.

All those things will make much better use of existing infrastructure, reducing the need for new installations. That means less disruption with fewer street works and fewer mast installations in both rural and urban settings—something that, I am sure, will welcomed in all parts of the House. We will take away that community disruption. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I will take away his point about cables being laid under roads. In the area where I live, it is done under the pavement right outside my house. I would imagine that there is a good reason why that has to happen in some areas, but I will get back to him with what it is.

Secondly, we want to build stronger, more constructive relationships between network operators and potential site providers. We are introducing measures to make it easier for those two parties, when negotiating agreements to install telecoms apparatus, to use an alternative form of dispute resolution if a disagreement arises such as I have set out. This will encourage constructive dialogue between networks, operators and potential site providers. It will help new agreements be reached more quickly and address situations where landowners may feel compelled to accept terms offered by operators.

Finally, we are creating a new court process to address situations where landowners are not responsive. This process will provide a quick and inexpensive route for operators to gain access to certain types of land. Again, these measures have been developed to strike the balance between protecting landowners and ensuring that everyone across the UK has access to reliable and quick digital infrastructure.

We need this infrastructure because of the sheer demand on our networks. Just think of all the devices that are in use at this very moment. Millions of people will be switching on their smart TVs to stream a film or a series box-set, unlocking their phones or tablets to call a friend or a relative, or asking their smart speakers to play music or give information. Around this Chamber, right now, many wrists are sporting smartwatches that keep us up to date with the latest news or alert us to the fact that we have a new message from those infamous WhatsApp groups. [Laughter.] Sorry—I just couldn’t resist.

But with every connectable product that enters our lives, the risk of cyber-attack grows. In the first half of 2021 alone, we saw 1.5 billion attacks on connectable products—double the figure for the same period in 2020. Most of us assume that if a product is for sale in the UK it is safe and secure, but thousands of people in the UK have been victims of cyber-attacks. Many of them have lost significant amounts of money or have had their private data hacked and shared, and they have lost trust in the idea that they can connect with one another and go about their daily lives with confidence. This is not just damaging on a personal level; it also has serious implications for our national security. Cyber-criminals now have the ability to use compromised connectable products to attack large infrastructure. We saw this with the 2016 Mirai attack, which targeted anything from baby monitors to medical devices to home appliances to disable internet access across much of the US east coast.

In the past few years, this Government have made significant progress to strengthen the UK’s cyber-security. In 2018, we published a code for manufacturers to improve the security of their own consumer devices. We led the world on this, and that code has since been used by countries such as Australia and India to inform their own product security principles. However, the cyber landscape is constantly evolving and our approach needs to evolve with it if we want to stay safe.

We have reached the point at which legislation is required to protect citizens and networks from the harm posed by cyber-criminafls. Packaged together, the telecoms and product safety measures in the Bill will work in tandem to do just that, creating a reliable, fast broadband while supporting the growth of more secure consumer connectable products.

The Bill will enable the Government to specify a number of mandatory security requirements for smart devices. They will be set out in regulations, but manufacturers are already on notice regarding what the initial three requirements will be. The first is a ban on universal default passwords. Too often, consumer connectable products come with easy-to-guess passwords as their default setting, such as “password”, “admin” or four zeros. That makes them vulnerable to hacking, and risks compromising a user’s privacy and security right from the get-go. Under this new security requirement, all passwords that come with a new device will need to be unique and not easily guessable.

The second mandatory requirement is for manufactured consumer connectable products to provide a public point of contact so that security researchers and others can easily report when they discover security vulnerabilities, flaws and bugs in their devices. Manufacturers can then quickly identify and address any shortcomings in their products. At present, nearly 80% of firms have no such system in place.

Finally, manufacturers will be required to be completely transparent about how often, and for how long, their products will receive security updates and patches. According to the current guidance that is being commonly issued, if we update our computers regularly when asked to do so and use two-step verification, 90% of cyber-attacks can be avoided. The requirement for manufacturers to be transparent about how often their product will receive security updates is intended to help consumers to know at which point they will need to do that.

Businesses will have to give customers that information at the point of sale, and keep them updated throughout. If a product will not be covered by security updates, that must be disclosed. That will enable consumers to have all the facts that they need to make an informed decision about their purchase, to understand when the product they buy could become vulnerable, and to base their decision on whether or not to buy on that information. When the security requirements have not been complied with, businesses will not be allowed to make these products available in the UK. We will be able to monitor, investigate and take enforcement action against non-compliant businesses.

We have been setting consumer standards of this kind for decades. Every product on our shelves has met all sorts of minimum requirements, whether to ensure that it is fire-resistant or to ensure that it is not a choking or suffocation hazard. It should be no different in the digital age. The Bill allows us to protect people across the UK even as the world around us changes. It allows us to keep pace with technology as it transforms our everyday lives. Combined with the measures on the telecoms infrastructure, it will do a huge amount in the coming years to benefit our constituents and society at large.

I hope that Members will show their support for the Bill, and that the benefits can be realised as quickly as possible. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I do not think there could be a better birthday present than being in the Chamber today and listening to this Second Reading debate. Happy birthday, Jeff Smith!

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

It is a very serious Bill—

[Lucy Powell]

It is a very serious Bill, yes—

BBC Funding

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I offer you my personal apology. I actually refused every media invitation both yesterday and today.

Under article 43 of the BBC’s royal charter, I am required to determine a funding settlement for the level of the licence fee for a period of at least five years from 1 April 2022. I am legally required to make my determination as far in advance as possible.

I also highlight that, this year, the licence fee settlement has featured S4C prominently for the first time. In line with the recommendation from the independent review of S4C completed in 2018, the licence fee will be the sole source of public funding for S4C.

Negotiations began back in November 2020, and both I and my predecessor met the BBC on several occasions during this period to discuss this settlement. As part of those negotiations, the charter requires that I assess both the BBC’s commercial income and activities and the level of funding required so that the BBC can effectively fulfil its mission and public purposes. In addition, this Government set out our own relevant factors to consider during the charter review in 2015-16: evasion, commercial income, household growth and industry costs.

As the Prime Minister has said, the BBC is a great institution. It has a unique place in our cultural heritage. Beyond our shores, the BBC broadcasts our values and identities all over the world, reaching hundreds of millions every day. Likewise, the Welsh broadcaster S4C plays a unique and critical role in promoting the Welsh language, and in supporting our wider public service broadcasting landscape.

However, in reaching this settlement, I had to be realistic about the economic situation facing households up and down the country. The global cost of living is rising, and this Government are committed to supporting families as much as possible during these difficult times. Given that climate, we had to think very carefully about imposing any potential increase in the TV licence fee, particularly when any increase would expose families to the threat of bailiffs knocking on their door or criminal prosecution. When it comes to monthly bills, this is one of the few direct levers we have in our control as a Government. In the end, we simply could not justify putting extra pressure on the wallets of hard-working households.

Every organisation around the world is facing the challenge of inflation. I simply do not believe that those responsible for setting household bills should instinctively reach into the pockets of families across the country for just a little more every year to cover those costs. Today, I am announcing that the licence fee will be frozen for the next two years, and will rise in line with inflation for the following four years.

The BBC wanted the fee to rise to over £180 by the end of the settlement. Instead, it will remain fixed at £159 until April 2024. That is more money in the pockets of pensioners and of families who are struggling to make ends meet. We are supporting households when they need that support the most. This settlement sends an important message about keeping costs down while also giving the BBC what it needs to deliver on its remit. The approach to funding will be the same for the BBC and for S4C. However, I can announce that S4C will receive an additional £7.5 million funding per annum from 2022, to support the development of its digital offering. That is a 9% increase, following five years of frozen funding.

We believe this is a fair settlement for the BBC; it is a fair settlement for S4C and, most importantly, it is a fair settlement for licence fee payers all across the United Kingdom. Let us not forget that the BBC will continue to receive billions in annual public funding, allowing it to deliver its mission and public purposes and to continue doing what it does best.

To support the BBC even further in what is a fast-changing broadcasting landscape, the Government will more than double the borrowing limit of the BBC’s commercial arm to £750 million. That will enable the BBC to access private finance as it pursues an ambitious commercial growth strategy, boosting investment in the creative economy across the UK. But as Tim Davie said in his first speech as director-general of the corporation, the BBC must be a “simpler, leaner organisation” that offers “better value” to licence fee payers. We agree with that. Ultimately, this settlement strikes the right balance between protecting households and allowing broadcasters to deliver their vital public responsibilities, while encouraging them to make further savings and efficiencies.

The licence fee settlement is only one step in our road map for reform of the BBC. In the last few months, I have made it clear that the BBC needs to address issues around impartiality and groupthink. Those problems were highlighted definitively by the recent Serota review. The BBC’s own leadership rightly recognised those findings in full and committed to deliver all the review’s recommendations in its 10 point action plan on impartiality and editorial standards. I have had constructive discussions with the BBC about those issues in recent months. The BBC now needs to put those words into action. It needs to convince the British public that those changes are being made, and to provide regular and transparent accounts of its progress.

We will shortly begin the mid-term review of the BBC’s charter, which will consider the overall governance and regulation of the BBC. A key part of that review will look at whether the BBC’s action plan on impartiality has, in fact, materially contributed to improving the organisation’s internal governance.

It is also time to look further into the future. As any serious commentator will tell you, Mr Speaker, the broadcasting landscape has changed beyond all recognition over the past decade. We are living in a world of streaming giants, on demand, pay per view and smart TVs. Technology is changing everything. Some 97% of homes already have superfast broadband. A family in Cumbria can stream five different movies in five different rooms in their house at any one time, and our gigabit roll-out is transforming those networks even further. More than 65% of UK households now have access to the fastest connection on the planet.

As the tech has changed, so have audience habits, particularly among younger viewers, so it is time to begin asking those really serious questions about the long-term funding model of the BBC and whether a mandatory licence fee with criminal penalties for individual households is still appropriate. As we have said before, we will therefore undertake a review of the overall licence fee model. Those discussions will begin shortly.

The BBC has been entertaining and informing us for 100 years. I want it to continue to thrive and be a global beacon in the UK and in the decades to come, but this is 2022, not 1922. We need a BBC that is forward-looking and ready to meet the challenges of modern broadcasting; a BBC that can continue to engage the British public and that commands support from across the breadth of the UK, not just the London bubble; a BBC that can thrive alongside Netflix, Amazon Prime and all its other challengers that attract younger viewers. The licence fee settlement represents a significant step in that journey and in our wider reform of the BBC.

I look forward to continuing to work with the BBC and others across the industry over the coming years to secure the future of these vital British services. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) is actually a big fan of mine but he is just trying to hide it behind his mask.

The impartiality of the BBC is crucial to trust in it. By explicitly linking charter renewal to the BBC’s editorial decisions, the Government sound more like a tinpot dictatorship that a healthy democracy. The BBC creates great quality, British-produced programming, from royal weddings to “Strictly Come Dancing” and great British drama, as well as championing new music. It is at the cutting edge of harnessing the digital age. Of course it needs to change with the times and review its output and reach, but it is a well-loved and trusted British treasure, and it is the envy of the world.

The Government are in trouble, however. The Prime Minister is casting around for people to blame, and the Culture Secretary has stepped up to provide some red meat. Well, it will not work. This is not how the future of our jewel in the crown and the cornerstone of our world-leading creative industries should be determined. She will have a fight on her hands if she wants to destroy it.

[Ms Dorries]

I think there were about 30 questions in that statement so I will address the top points. First, it is nobody’s intention to destroy the BBC. In fact, I completely agree with the hon. Lady that it is a beacon, but the BBC licence fee is not a small amount of money for families across the UK who are working hard but struggling to pay that bill, and who face bailiffs at their door or a magistrates court appearance. Who are we to say that it is a small amount of money? That is a disgrace. It is a significant sum, and it is also regressive. Whether getting by on minimum wage or on a multimillion-pound presenter’s salary, we fork out the same amount of money. That is not right. Only those who have not faced hard choices weekly on what they can and cannot afford for their families would claim that that was a small amount of money. As a point of principle, we cannot add to that bill at a time when every family faces pressure on their wallets.

Would the hon. Lady like to indicate from a sedentary position whether she supports freezing the licence fee for two years and helping those hard-pressed families? [Interruption.] Is that a no? The hon. Lady is shaking her head. She does not support freezing the licence fee to support those hard-pressed families who need every bit of help in the face of rising global energy costs and rising pressures from inflation. The hon. Lady has declined to help those hard-working families. What we are saying is that moving forward, we need to decide, discuss and debate. Bring it on—everybody in the House, let’s discuss what a BBC in 2027 will look like. It is not a policy; we are announcing a debate and a discussion. Let’s all get involved positively.

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

May I say to my right hon. Friend that I am not impressed by the process or the proposal, and I do not think it necessarily leads to progress, either? I would be grateful to know whether there was an assessment of alternatives, when they were put to Cabinet Sub-Committees, when the Cabinet considered the proposal and why it is that this is the one thing on which a Government Minister will claim that we cannot have any kind of increase because people are short of money.

Other things that the Government run are linked to the retail price index or the consumer prices index, and it seems to me that it would be better to have a discussion in the House on whether we should have a moderated increase during the remaining years of the charter. If she did not say that this is the last time that there will be a charter with a subscription, will she please put the options in front of the House for people like me who say that if the choice is between the United States or the state, public broadcasting on the BBC and Channel 4 is better than having everything go to some of the big media people around the world who would not maintain the kind of BBC that we have had for the past 100 years?

[Ms Dorries]

The decision on what the future funding model looks like is for discussion. Some of us may not even be here by the time 2028 arrives, but it is up for discussion, and that is what we need to decide. I have the greatest respect for the Father of the House—he knows that; I have known him for 20 years—but I honestly cannot agree that the BBC can just continue to ask for more money from the British public year after year. I do not agree with that premise. Do not be under any illusions: the BBC will continue to receive billions of pounds, even under this settlement. It will get £23 billion of public money over the course of the charter to 2027. We cannot justify, in the face of rising inflationary pressures and increasing global energy prices, going to the British public and say, “Pay more. If you don’t, a bailiff will be at your door.”

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

I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the statement, not that we needed it; she shared her thoughts with Twitter. Plus ça change. We all know that the timing is to distract from the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State claims that the move will protect pensioners from court cases, but that argument is disingenuous nonsense. It was this Conservative Government who abolished automatic free television licences for the over-75s. If pensioners are struggling with the BBC fee rate of 43p a day, imagine how they will cope with the cost of a Netflix or Sky subscription model. Everyone knows it means less programming at a greater cost.

The Secretary of State has spoken about exploring the options for the BBC, but in reality I suspect her mind is well made up. She let that slip in the Select Committee when she said to me:

“How do I even know if the BBC is going to be going in 10 years?”

Some custodian of public service broadcasting. The hostility towards the BBC and its future does not stem from a desire to protect pensioners, but rather from a visceral loathing of the Prime Minister’s critics. The Tory right hates the BBC almost as much as it hates Channel 4. That is why the Culture Secretary, a doting prime ministerial loyalist, is so determined to destroy both. She does not want to see Krishnan Guru-Murthy lead presenter of Channel 4 News, or Nick Robinson—a former chair of the Young Conservatives no less, and now lead presenter on the “Today” programme—pin down the Prime Minister or his slippery apologists. She knows, does she not, that the Tory right wants the broadcast media to be as sycophantic as most of the print press, offering fawning adulation to their leader. If the BBC is felled, and Channel 4 privatised, free speech will be the victim, and we know—do we not, Mr Speaker?—that the result will be yet more obsequious, unquestioning news.

[Ms Dorries]

I have no idea how anyone could make the leap from “let’s have a debate and a discussion in the House about how the future funding looks” to “privatisation”. It’s just—I have no further comment.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Speaking strictly personally, I welcome the freeze, and the overt commitment to wean the BBC off the licence fee. As Lord Grade said on the “Today” programme this morning, nearly £160 is nothing to Gary Lineker, but it is a lot to our constituents. I and the House would like more details please about whether the licence fee will stop in 2028, or be phased out. The latter, in my view, gives the best chance of preserving the BBC’s status in our national culture. How will moving to alternative funding models work given, first of all, the paucity of broadband coverage, with old technology such as Freeview being embedded in the system? Will the central Government funding that has been mooted stand up legally, and also measure the key issue of impartiality?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and support on the freeze, but I take issue with the point about paucity of broadband. Some 97% of homes in the UK have superfast broadband—[Interruption.] As I said, 97% of homes have superfast broadband, and we are rolling out gigabit. As I said in my statement, someone in a house in Cumbria can download five videos—five movies—in five different rooms in the house. We do not have a paucity. On whether the licence fee will be phased out and what a future funding model will look like, those discussions and analyses have not even begun, but all Members of the House should, and will, be part of those discussions. I imagine that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be doing very important work on the issue moving forward, in terms of establishing a future funding model, and that work will continue in the future.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State say what impact assessment she has done of the impact that the change will have on households if fees were increased? What will be the impact on services provided by the BBC as a consequence of these freezes to its income, on top of the 31% that it has had cut from its income over the past 10 years? How will that affect the services provided by the BBC, and how will they survive her plans for the BBC?

[Ms Dorries]

Both I and my predecessor have been negotiating with the BBC for a considerable period, and the BBC will be meeting its mission and core purpose. The most important impact assessment is that fewer families will end up in a magistrates court.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

Like many of the best things in this country, the BBC licence fee may not work in theory but works really well in practice, as shown by very low levels of evasion. There are, of course, many alternative ways of funding it, but as the DCMS Committee, which my right hon. Friend referred to, concluded last year, the Government either need to

“come out with a strong alternative to the BBC licence fee that it can put to Parliament, or strongly support the current model for at least the next Charter period (2028-2038).”

Does the Secretary of State have that alternative on offer?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. I am afraid that we differ in our opinions. We have five or six years—there is plenty of time to decide what a future funding model would look like.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

We abolished the radio licence fee in 1979 and moved to a TV licence fee, so I am not against moving towards an internet licence fee or something like it. But we need to know the details, the thresholds and the amount of money that would be raised. Does the Secretary of State accept that her announcement that this would be the last licence fee, without going through the consultation first, was reckless?

[Ms Dorries]

As I said, when the new model starts in 2027-28, many of us may not even be here—we are talking six years away. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and look forward to his being part of the discussion and debate about what we do in the future.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State will know, the Select Committee report that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) just referred to acknowledges in its very first recommendation that

“the Government will need to act…to ensure that the public service broadcasting system remains sustainable in…today’s…global media market.”

In that sense, I am glad that we are having the debate, even if I am a little unclear about where it came from this weekend.

Given that the Select Committee report is also clear that the Government need a credible view on what any alternative to the licence fee might be and on what their vision is for the future of public service broadcasting, what are my right hon. Friend’s instincts as she kicks off this welcome national debate?

[Ms Dorries]

My instincts are let’s start the discussion. Let’s have a look at the—[Interruption.] That is what I am starting, Mr Speaker—unless, of course, Members of the House would just like us to decide and not have the debates and not have the discussion. That is where we are going: we are going to start that discussion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) is speaking from a sedentary position; perhaps she would like to confirm whether she supports the freeze to the licence fee? A yes or a no—a nod or a shake—would be great. No? There we go.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Despite the fact that the removal of the free licence for the over-75s was a result of her own party’s actions, the Secretary of State’s tweet yesterday indicated that her attack on the BBC was due to the over-75s being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on their doors. Yet less than two weeks ago, she told this House that

“no enforcement action has been taken against anyone over 75 years of age”.—[Official Report, 6 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 131.]

I know that the Secretary of State would not make such claims without evidence. Will she please now share with the House what data she found to support yesterday’s comments?

[Ms Dorries]

The hon. Lady has drawn a direct link between two different parts of my tweet when there is no direct link; it is just one of many reasons why I want to look at how we fund a great British institution in the future.

[Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)]

I accept the need to freeze the licence fee. However, the conversation over the future of the licence fee is far from over. What steps will the Secretary of State take to protect the BBC’s local services, which those who pay for it watch and enjoy, before the knives are sharpened within the BBC?

[Ms Dorries]

The conversation has not actually started. Local radio is an important point. Someone made the point about local BBC news coverage. Many of us used to have lots of independent news coverage in our constituencies that is no longer there. Some might say that the dominance of the BBC locally helped to contribute to that. My hon. Friend has some very important points to make and experience on local radio. I urge him to be part of the discussion and help us frame what things will look like moving forward.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Growing up, my cousins overseas always told me that they listened to the BBC when they wanted to know the truth. I now represent somewhere known as “BBC borough”, as there are that many ex-employees, including myself, around. Will she tell all of us where exactly the change was in the Conservative manifesto? Already, people are seeing it as just a distraction for party gain. I also have fond memories of watching, in my constituency, the Secretary of State on Channel 4 reality TV. Does her trashing public service broadcasting apply to that channel, too? It is a great Thatcherite innovation.

[Ms Dorries]

Excellent question. I am not going to conflate Channel 4 with the BBC; I am here to talk about the settlement of the licence fee. The second part of question means that I cannot remember the first part, but the hon. Member made a really important point about the BBC World Service. The BBC, with the billions of pounds of funding—£23 billion—it is receiving, will still be able to meet its core mission and purposes.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend must be right that the BBC cannot stand still while the rest of the world moves along, but does she accept that, when we think about the future funding of the BBC, we have to consider both the content that is marketable and is going to be commercially successful, and the content that is not, but will act as the beacon she describes—not just to this country, but to the rest of the world—in quality broadcasting and news and current affairs content in particular? Is not that kind of content likely to continue to need subsidy in any future funding model we design?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that contribution and he is absolutely right. One of the things we do not want is for all the TV that is streamed in the UK to come from overseas. The discussion and the debates that we have about the future funding formula are going to have to include how we protect, preserve and create great British content. That has to be part of the debate moving forward. Can I tell him about elements? No, I cannot because we have not even begun the discussions yet. What modelling is there? I have been told already there are a number of ways in which we could look at funding the BBC moving forward.

[Lucy Powell]

What are they?

[Ms Dorries]

Well, it is not for me to decide, so we have to—[Interruption.] It is not for me to decide until I have all the information and all the evidence.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Could I just say to the Secretary of State that I wish I had the level of broadband coverage that she talks about in my constituency?

When I was a councillor—a member of the Highland Council—I had to be very careful of the BBC, because its reporting of all I said and did was very thorough indeed, and that was good for local democracy. Can I also say to Conservative Members that the coverage of the Scottish Government has been very thorough? At the time of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, it was so thorough that it reduced the then First Minister to near apoplexy, as Members will recall. A slimmed-down BBC may not be able to deliver the sort of service that is good for local democracy and for Scottish democracy. Could I ask the Secretary of State how she intends to make sure that we do not lose out on that front?

[Ms Dorries]

Democracy, particularly local democracy, is at the heart of a lot of what the BBC does, and that is why it will be an important element of conversations that we have moving forward—an important contribution. As I have said a number of times, the discussions, the debates that we will have in this place and the evidence that we will take moving forward have not begun. We are seven years—six or seven years—away, and that is the consultation that we will have here, the evidence that we will gather here, and the debates and discussions that we will have. Those discussions will start shortly. We are talking about a new funding model that will start in 2028.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, last year, the number of TV licences purchased fell by 700,000, and that more and more young people are now saying that they do not need to watch the BBC because of the enormous amount of choice through the streaming services. Does she agree that, even despite that increase in content, we will still need public service broadcasting and the BBC, and therefore it is right to have a debate about the future funding model not to undermine the BBC, but to ensure that it can survive going forward?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and that was my response to my early question: how do we keep good content—great British content—made in the UK? The BBC is a national institution—how do we maintain the BBC? The question is not: do we or do we not have a BBC? The question is: how do we fund the BBC moving forward? I know my right hon. Friend has made some interventions of his own and has ideas of his own, and I look forward to his furthering those.

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

Many of us find it nauseating that the Secretary of State has come here to talk about hard-pressed families when she supported the £20 cut to universal credit. I am sure she wants to be objective and have the fullest information. So could we test how much she considered some of these factors, perhaps in the style of the broadcast media? How much more money is generated by the investment in the BBC? Is it £1, £2 or £3? She talks about the north. How much of the BBC’s economic impact is beyond London? Is it 10%, 20% or 50%? Perhaps she could demonstrate her knowledge at least of the BBC’s impact.

[Ms Dorries]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with those specific figures.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Eleven years ago, the then director-general of the BBC said the corporation would have to do “fewer things better.” The current director-general has challenged the organisation to prioritise how it spends its money and maximises its commercial revenues. Does the Secretary of State agree that reform is necessary for the BBC to thrive in the digital age in both how it works and how it is funded?

[Ms Dorries]

We cannot ignore the fact that our digital landscape is transforming and advancing at a rapid pace, which has resulted in people, and especially the younger generation, changing their viewing habits. I would be accused of being a dinosaur if I stood here and said we should just let the BBC carry on as it is with this licence fee model. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) highlighted, 700,000 fewer people are paying the licence fee. We have to do something now to sustain the BBC and maintain this British beacon. We have to act now to ensure the BBC remains the BBC and is here for the future.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome that, at long last, we have a Secretary of State who is prepared to grasp this nettle, to tackle the BBC poll tax, to stop enforcing payments against people who are angered by the BBC’s bias, to force this organisation to consider its bloated expenditure and, especially as broadcasting is now changing, to allow people greater choice. I hope that, despite the cries of outrage from the BBC’s buddies in this House, she will not back down on these issues.

[Ms Dorries]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. It is worth making the point that the BBC will continue to receive billions of pounds of public support and funding between now and 2027.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee to take the pressure off magistrates courts? Should this not be a household bill like any other?

[Ms Dorries]

That is something we are keeping under review. In today’s age, should we really continue with a licence fee paid by individuals with the potential threat of bailiffs or criminal prosecution? That is an important question and it will be part of the discussion.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The establishment of the BBC in Salford, neighbouring my constituency, has created many excellent jobs for my constituents and has been an important economic and cultural driver of success in the north-west, but that is not what I want to ask the Secretary of State about. What guarantees can she give to the BBC’s world-class salaried orchestras? I have had the great privilege of attending the BBC Philharmonic’s concerts as its guest.

[Ms Dorries]

The BBC, as I have said, will continue to receive billions of pounds-worth of funding, and it will continue to meet its mission and core purpose, but I cannot dictate how it spends its money and I do not have editorial control. It is up to the BBC to decide how it spends its licence fee settlement.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and recognise the priority she has given to Welsh language broadcasting and its importance to the Welsh-speaking community in Wales. In supporting her statement and helping the BBC to achieve its objectives under the new settlement, will she call on the BBC to follow other public sector organisations in improving its transparency and to publish every invoice in excess of £500, just like every other organisation does?

[Ms Dorries]

S4C plays a vital role supporting the Welsh economy, culture and society. The funding will support S4C in reaching more Welsh language speakers, including younger audiences. I am sure S4C heard what my right hon. Friend just said, and I shall certainly take his points back.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Let us talk about value for money. Does the Secretary of State agree that 43p a day is value for money for BBC iPlayer, BBC Sounds and the BBC World Service?

[Ms Dorries]

It is billions of pounds, and I do not believe that any family receiving repeated letters, or a bailiff knocking on their door, or a request to appear at a magistrates court would think it is value for money, because it is money they cannot afford. The issue is that working families and people who are hard pressed in the current situation of rising inflationary pressures think it is difficult to pay £159 a year out of their income, which is why we are freezing the licence fee for the next two years and not allowing it to rise.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, because household bills are under pressure and it is reasonable to freeze the fee for two years. In the whole discussion outside and inside this place so far, we talk about television and streaming services, but does she agree that, when the conversation takes place, we will have to make sure that the BBC’s important radio programmes across the board are protected and still funded? We cannot compare it to a Netflix or Apple model, because radio is such a key part of the BBC’s output.

[Ms Dorries]

It absolutely is, and I think it will be a key part of the discussion. My right hon. Friend mentions Apple and Netflix, but it is not the BBC’s role to be competitive with other providers. Radio will certainly continue to be a huge part of the BBC and will be the subject of a huge part of the discussion.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Over the generations, people all over the world—some in fear of their lives—have huddled around their radio, straining to hear the words, “This is London,” because they trust the BBC World Service news. Given that a subscription service will never work for airwave radio, what assurance can the Secretary of State give those listeners and the House that the BBC’s service to the world that is the BBC World Service will be able to continue to do its job?

[Ms Dorries]

The right hon. Gentleman jumps the gun when he talks about a subscription service. I have not mentioned that. I have said that we need to have a debate about how the BBC is funded in the future. I completely understand his point, but how the BBC spends the money it receives via the charter is for the BBC to decide. We do not have any influence over that.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right to say we should be discussing the future of the BBC. In her statement, she mentioned two important elements of the charter—to entertain and to inform—but there is a third: to educate. That is the element of public service media that is the most difficult to commercialise. Will she ensure that that element of the BBC is protected in the future?

[Ms Dorries]

I hear my hon. Friend’s point, and I think a lot of people agree with him. People have talked about the contribution made by BBC Bitesize during the pandemic, which was vital to families home schooling their children. I will bear his comments in mind and take them back.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with me that, having shown contempt for the British people in the past week, today’s announcement on the BBC shows the Government treat British institutions with contempt as well?

[Ms Dorries]

No.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Last Friday, my private Member’s Bill to abolish the BBC was to be read a Second time, but, unfortunately, there was not enough parliamentary time to proceed. I promote quite a lot of private Members’ Bills, and sometimes I get some support and sometimes I get some opposition. Tens of thousands of people supported getting rid of the BBC licence fee and very few were against it, so may I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House today and making a statement? If my Bill is of any use to her, I would be very happy to change in Committee any of the stuff I have there at the moment.

[Ms Dorries]

Thank you. I look forward to that.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has come to the House today to say that the freeze in the licence fee is to help hard-working, struggling families. May I ask her to answer the question put to her by the Father of the House: when was this decided? Did it go through a Cabinet Sub-Committee? Did Cabinet sign this off, or is it that just over the last weekend the Government thought they would come up with something that would take the attention away from the Prime Minister?

[Ms Dorries]

Cabinet has signed it off. These negotiations have been going on; they did with my predecessor as well as with me. Legally, I had to make my statement in as much time as possible before April, which is why I am making it today.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I often find that those best placed to give their view on whether we need the BBC or not are those who have lived, worked and travelled abroad and have not had access to the BBC. Therefore, I applaud the constituent who has written to me, having done just that, to say that the BBC needs to be celebrated and maintained, because he sees what a future looks like in this country without the BBC. Given that inflation is expected to rise to 6% in the early parts of this year, what conversations has the Secretary of State had about which content will be reduced as a result of the decision she is making today?

[Ms Dorries]

I ran a school in Africa for a year and I understand the value of the BBC World Service, because I was a listener for a whole 12 months. Having lived in Africa and run a school there for a year, I also know the importance of the BBC. That is why I have said all along that this discussion is not about, “Do we have a BBC or don’t we?” It is about, “How do we maintain the BBC moving forward, in a rapidly changing, modernising landscape? How do we fund the BBC in that event?” That is what the discussion is about, moving forward; it is not about whether or not there is a BBC.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am no fan of the regressive licence fee, but the Secretary of State saying on Twitter that this will be “the last” licence fee announcement is discourteous to this House, to all the many people who watch and listen to the BBC, and to all of those who are employed by the BBC. How does she believe that the 50 BBC employees based in my constituency are currently feeling because of the announcement she made on Twitter over the weekend?

[Ms Dorries]

I think that on Instagram I added that it is likely to be the last, because I cannot see a world—and I do not think many people can—in 2028 where individual households are paying an outdated fee which was established in 1922 to fund such an organisation; I do not think anyone could ever have seen what a digital landscape would be like today, what the viewing habits of young people would be like today or what the opportunities will be in 2028.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

In some ways, the BBC is the best of global Britain, but in a globalised media landscape we know that there are people prepared to pay for Netflix, for all those subscription services, and for web services and for all the multitude of things that the BBC offers. Is it not daft that someone would suggest that the Secretary of State should stand up today and say that even from 2028 to 2038 people will have to pay for the whole lot, whatever they want?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and for his contribution to the Department when he was there. He is absolutely right: it is not about whether we have our great British institution of the BBC, which is globally recognised—that is not the question. The question is that we live in a different world, people have different and changing viewing habits, and by the time we reach 2027—[Interruption.] When I started some of the negotiations—when my predecessor started some of the negotiations—TikTok did not even exist. We are moving rapidly to a different place, which is why we have to have the debate.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents have written to me in praise of the recent BBC investigative documentary about the cladding scandal. One of my constituents who lives in a dangerously clad house talked about how much she appreciated having an independent state broadcaster to challenge unethical companies. I remind the House that it was the BBC that revealed that warnings about cladding quality issues had been ignored for years. Does the Secretary of State recognise the BBC’s crucial investigative role? In the discussion that she keeps talking about, will she assure the House that her proposals will not cut the budget for the BBC’s investigative programmes?

[Ms Dorries]

I do not set the budgets for the BBC’s investigative programmes; the BBC does.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Reform is clearly needed. It is absurd in the modern world that people can be criminalised for not paying a licence fee just for an entertainment channel. However, the devil is in the detail. I represent a rural constituency where many smaller villages and hamlets cannot get superfast broadband. If we are to base public policy on the fact that everyone can stream programmes, can we ensure that they actually can stream programmes before any final decisions are made or reforms are implemented?

[Ms Dorries]

There is no policy; we are just starting a discussion and a debate. This is not based on whether people can achieve streaming or not, but 100% of households achieving superfast broadband or gigabit broadband is the objective.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I heard what the Secretary of State said about S4C, but my constituents would simply not recognise what she says about the rest of the BBC being some sort of London bubble. We have seen a 54% increase in our creative economy locally, with thousands of people employed and the BBC at the heart of that—“Doctor Who”, “Casualty”, “Shreds” and the BBC National Orchestra of Wales. Every pound invested in our local economy by the BBC generates almost double that in return. Does the Secretary of State accept that what she has suggested today puts that at risk, along with jobs and opportunities in Cardiff including those in deprived communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

S4C will receive a further £7.5 million per annum from the licence fee to support its digital investment. In total, S4C will be provided with approximately £88 million in licence-fee funding per annum. We are committed to S4C, and we are providing it with additional funding.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

As a former BBC and ITV journalist, I look forward to taking part in discussions about the future of the BBC. I am a big admirer of local and regional BBC journalism, such as the Local Democracy Reporting Service, and its coverage of rugby league and local football, which maybe would not happen on any other platform. However, in terms of Yorkshire and the location of Channel 4’s new headquarters, how does today’s announcement impact on the timescale for announcements about Channel 4’s future?

[Ms Dorries]

I have made no announcement other than to say that we are starting a discussion about the future funding of the BBC. I am here to make a statement on the licence fee settlement, and I am not conflating that with Channel 4.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State does not appear to be being straight with the House. Her tweet at the weekend clearly said:

“This licence fee announcement will be the last.”

That is why many of my constituents are worried that the BBC’s unique range of programming that brings together the UK’s nations, regions and diverse communities is not safe in this Government’s hands. The BBC’s mission to inform, educate and entertain has worked for almost a century, so will the Secretary of State rule it out that she is seeking to undermine and sacrifice this great national institution in order to save the Prime Minister’s political skin?

[Ms Dorries]

I am not.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

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

[Ms Dorries]

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

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State says she cannot tell the BBC what to do, but she also says she wants the BBC to play “God Save the Queen” more often, so I wonder whether she thinks today’s announcement makes that more or less likely. The BBC has been described as the glue that holds the Union together, so will slashing its funding in the way that she wants make that glue stronger or weaker?

[Ms Dorries]

I did not hear the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but what I would say is: what is wrong with playing “God Save the Queen”? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] What is wrong with it? He asked the question as though that was a dirty word or something that should not be said. What is wrong with playing “God Save the Queen”?

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Like many of my constituents who are also the parents of young children, I have a daily battle to guide my children away from some of the content on some channels and towards the relative nourishment they will find on the BBC. As we look to the future of the BBC, and in addition to the scrutiny that is rightly placed upon the financing model, what objectives or processes might my right hon. Friend have in mind to ensure that the quality of the output, where the BBC is world-leading in so many areas, is maintained for the long-term?

[Ms Dorries]

That is the point of discussion. I have said again and again that this is about how we protect the BBC and how we ensure that, under the present agreement and settlement, it can continue to meet its mission and its purpose. How do we protect the BBC going forward? How do we ensure that we have good quality content made in the UK that stays in the UK and that we can sell from the UK? And how do we, in this changing, shifting, rapidly moving landscape, have a BBC that is funded for the future in order to protect it?

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I am glad that the Secretary of State responsible for digital has noticed that business models for content creation have changed in the last 100 years, but the need for a unifying, shared expression of British culture, identity and creativity has not. Is not the real reason for this attack on the BBC that it is a successful British public sector institution, and she just cannot stand that?

[Ms Dorries]

No.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I was proud to spend the first seven years of my career at the BBC, but it is worth remembering that back then, in the 1990s, there were only four main terrestrial TV channels. The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that the whole landscape has changed fundamentally since then, and I tend to agree with her that the licence fee must therefore be on borrowed time, but does she agree that any new long-term model of funding for the BBC will need to take into account the possible implications and repercussions for the commercial public service broadcasters that currently rely on advertising?

[Ms Dorries]

That is a very important point. Everything needs to be considered in the round: all the elements of the BBC’s reach, everything that it does and everything that it achieves. That is why we have to start the debate now, even though the future funding model would not come in until 2028. We need that time to prepare, to ensure that all the elements that are beneficial to the UK, to the BBC and to producing that great British content will remain.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

It was pleasing to hear the Secretary of State claim that she recognised the importance of Welsh language broadcasting, but she then proceeded to announce a real-terms cut to the BBC settlement. That settlement provides around £20 million of S4C programming annually in addition to the Welsh language services provided by BBC Radio Cymru and Radio Cymru 2 and by BBC Cymru Fyw. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain how a real-terms cut to the BBC settlement will not see a reduction in its important contribution to Welsh language services?

[Ms Dorries]

S4C’s settlement will consolidate S4C’s current £74.5 million licence funding with its current £6.8 million annual DCMS grant income. On the real-terms cut to the overall BBC that the hon. Gentleman has talked about, that is a fact because we have frozen the licence fee for two years, but S4C’s funding, which has not increased for five years, will now increase. The BBC’s funding has always increased every year; it will now freeze for the next two years. S4C’s funding has been frozen for the past five years, and it will now increase.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

We have to accept that the media landscape, and importantly its use, has changed beyond recognition over the past few years, so I agree with Lord Grade, the former chair of the BBC, that a universal regressive tax to pay for a BBC that is no longer universally used is no longer defensible. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC, now and in future, has a vital role to play in creating a version of our common truth at home and abroad?

[Ms Dorries]

That vital role of the BBC moving forward is one of the issues that we have to ensure we protect, along with the British content that we make, as I have said. The fact is that the BBC is a global beacon around the world and people in other countries depend upon it, as hon. Members have mentioned. Maintaining the BBC is something we have to protect, but how it is to be funded is the question. That is what the discussion will be about.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I am British and proud of it, and I am proud of the BBC. It reaches 468 million people in 42 languages around the world every week. It is the envy of the world. Cutting funding to the BBC and the World Service already leaves the path clear for Russian and Chinese influence in those countries. Does the Secretary of State agree that only an unpatriotic party would cut the real-terms funding of that national treasure?

[Ms Dorries]

Unpatriotic? I do not think it was this side of the House that was laughing about the prospect of the national anthem being played on television; I think it was that side of the House. I disagree—I am not unpatriotic; I am very patriotic.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want the licence fee to be scrapped. When I had 3,000 respondents to a survey, 96% of them agreed with that. They feel that the BBC spoke down to them when they voted for Brexit and that it is out of touch with the people and values of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. It is time for the BBC, like the Labour party, to get out of the metropolitan bubble and spend some time in Stoke-on-Trent in order to understand what people think. It is welcome that my right hon. Friend has frozen the licence fee and opened the conversation, but does she agree that it is time to scrap the licence fee altogether?

[Ms Dorries]

We can all see how, once again, my hon. Friend speaks up for his constituents. I am interested in the survey and I would love to see some of the responses. He spoke about scrapping not the BBC but the licence fee, because I am sure that his constituents want to watch and enjoy the BBC. This is about how we fund the BBC in a modern digital landscape at a time when young people consume their television in different ways. How do we fund the BBC to protect and maintain it moving forward, but in a different way?

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I wish the Secretary of State would stop with the crocodile tears about the cost-of-living crisis, because £159 is a lot of money, particularly for my constituents, but it happens to be exactly the same amount, on average, as they will pay in extra national insurance from April this year. If the Government really cared about the cost-of-living crisis, they could do something about that. My real fear is that she simply does not understand how intrinsic to the nature of the BBC and its success around the world the licence fee is. It means that there is something for everybody—for all my constituents—including the poorest constituents, who cannot afford Sky. She says that the BBC gets lots of money, but Sky got five times as much money this year, and its revenues this year increased by 18.9%. Yes, this is an unpatriotic move to dismantle one of the greatest British treasures.

[Ms Dorries]

The hon. Gentleman talks about £159, but the BBC wanted it to project to £180. This is one of the levers that we have in Government to help hard-working families, given the increasing inflationary pressures. We are here to help and protect the BBC, and the only way we can do that—[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) again: does she support the two-year freeze on the licence fee to help hard-working families? Again, no plan. The hon. Lady dodged that question on media this morning and she is dodging it here in the Chamber.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I praise the Secretary of State for helping to tackle the rising cost of living for many families at a difficult time. Does she agree that since they are having to tighten their belts, perhaps the BBC should do the same? A good place to start might be with salaries, including that of one of its presenters, who earns £1.36 million a year.

[Ms Dorries]

Businesses across the UK are having to tighten their belts. Households across the UK are facing inflationary pressures and having to tighten their belts. The two-year freeze on the licence fee means the BBC will be doing the same. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Last Wednesday, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister was challenged about the future of the licence fee. He seemed to caution against this by referring to the BBC as a “great national institution”, yet by the weekend the Secretary of State was tweeting that this would be the last licence fee agreement. Will she explain to the House what on earth has been going on in No. 10 since Wednesday that has led to what appears to be a screeching U-turn?

[Ms Dorries]

As I have said on a number of occasions, we have been having these discussions for months. In fact, my predecessor had the discussions before me. Legally, I have to make an announcement as far in advance of April as possible. That is why I am here today.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for freezing the licence fee and launching an inquiry into its future. Will she confirm that, first, impartiality and the licence fee are different issues? Secondly, if Netflix can go from one twentieth the size of the BBC to eight times its size in just 20 years, is there not plenty of scope for creative thinking? Thirdly, will she encourage the leadership of the BBC to respond positively, and not with the defeatist and backward-looking attitude of the Labour party?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question. Impartiality and the licence fee are two entirely separate things. The Serota review made its recommendations, and the leadership of the BBC fully agreed with those recommendations and agreed to implement them. We now want transparency, to see what difference those implementations make, but they are a completely different issue from the settlement of the licence fees.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I am very proud of the BBC—it is the best of British, and it is recognised and respected around the world. It is also the best of value. Its fee works out as two thirds of the price of a pink of milk per day—I happen to know the price of a pint of milk. Is the simple truth not that the Prime Minister, unlike previous Prime Ministers such as Margaret Thatcher and many others, is frightened of the BBC and of being scrutinised? Margaret Thatcher actually phoned in to Radio 4’s “Today” programme. This Prime Minister would prefer to hide in the fridge.

[Ms Dorries]

The Prime Minister is a huge fan of the BBC and of “Today”. The discussions that we are having are to help protect the BBC, because if anyone sitting here thinks that we could go to households in 2028 and expect them to pay the licence fee—with fear of prosecution if they do not—in order to watch the television that they have bought and put in their house, they are, frankly, a dinosaur. We in this House have a responsibility to protect the BBC. As part of that responsibility, we have to look forward and think how we can change the BBC and fund it in a changing digital landscape.

[Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

On the Conservative side we have a proud history with S4C. Today is another important step forward. I thank the Secretary of State for putting S4C at the core of her statement, and for the £7.5 million increase per annum. Could I draw her into a meeting with me and likeminded colleagues about the Welsh language, and the fact that core public service broadcasters have nurtured it and helped it grow, such as S4C and BBC Radio Cymru?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my hon. Friend and am happy to have such a meeting. For five years S4C had no increase in its funding, and it was high time that it did, given that the BBC has had year-on-year funding increases.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

The family in Cumbria that the Secretary of State talked about, who were streaming five different movies in five different rooms, are probably paying a minimum of £43 a month for Netflix, Sky and broadband. That does not include the social value that the BBC provides, from educating youngsters through CBeebies and CBBC, to the company it provides for those suffering from loneliness, along with the innovation of BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds. Will she assure me that this freeze will not diminish the vital services that the BBC provides?

[Ms Dorries]

The licence fee settlement ensures that the BBC can continue to meet its mission and its purposes, and it will continue to receive billions of pounds of funding—£23 billion over the licence fee settlement period.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

When the BBC came before the Public Accounts Committee, it was striking how unambitious its target was for growing commercial revenues, which represent just 6% of its current income. Will this welcome decision, including the increase in the borrowing limit, which the BBC asked for, come with a requirement for the BBC to increase that income rapidly and reduce the burden of the licence tax?

[Ms Dorries]

Increasing access to private equity was one of the first steps towards doing that.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

We have already seen the loss of hundreds of jobs of BBC journalists involved in the much-valued regional news and current affairs programming, including the excellent “Inside Out” programme. Before making the decision to freeze the fee, what assessment did the Secretary of State make of the impact on local and regional news programming?

[Ms Dorries]

This is about increasing and reforming services across the BBC, to ensure that the BBC is there in the future and able to service the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, by adopting a funding model that means the BBC will be sustainable and will be there for the long term.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Putting “BBC documentary” into YouTube is one way of obtaining a world-class education, because it is possible to learn about so many different things. However, that sentence also suggests that the world is evolving. Although I am a huge fan of the BBC, I welcome the licence fee review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we ensure that this stuff is still there for people like me in future generations?

[Ms Dorries]

I do agree. My hon. Friend has encapsulated the situation we face, given the fact that BBC documentaries are being watched on YouTube. Young people, I was amazed to learn, consume huge amounts of television via YouTube. This is why we have to review the situation and start discussing what the future of the BBC funding stream will look like.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Diolch, Mr Speaker. There will be considerable concern in Wales about the post-2020 situation, because the implied subscription-type model will never work for S4C or Radio Cymru, or indeed for the wider BBC in Wales. Will the Secretary of State pledge to ensure that there is a full consultation with Welsh stakeholders so that the Welsh language does not become collateral damage in the British Government’s culture war against the BBC?

[Ms Dorries]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to thank me for the additional £7.5 million that we are giving to S4C. I thought he was going to thank us for the fact that S4C’s funding, having been frozen for the past five years, is now being increased and we are freezing the BBC’s funding. I have never mentioned the word “subscription”. As I have said time and again, we need to start a dialogue about how we fund the BBC in the future.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I welcome the freeze in the licence fee and the debate that is to come. Given the millions across the United Kingdom and abroad who do love the BBC, there must be countless options for future funding models for content that can be commercialised, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important strand of any reform is de-linking the requirement that in order to watch other content people must pay for the BBC?

[Ms Dorries]

That is an interesting concept, and I am sure that it will be part of the discussion.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Is one option that the Secretary of State is considering to increase funding by allowing the BBC to carry advertisements? If so, has she considered the risk that that will remove the balanced factual basis of BBC news reporting?

[Ms Dorries]

As I said when I arrived at the Dispatch Box, we are beginning the discussions about how a future funding model for the BBC will look. We have not gone into that level of discussion yet.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

May I echo my colleague’s warm welcome to the shadow Front Bench team, particularly the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell)? I am quite sure that we support different football teams and I know that we are from different cities, but we are both north-westerners and I look forward to a positive working relationship.

I have met a range of stakeholders, including civil society groups, to discuss the Online Safety Bill. I have also had regular meetings with my ministerial colleagues, and I have heard a wide range of opinions on the Bill. I am taking those options into account alongside the recommendations of the Joint Committee.

[Allan Dorans]

There has been widespread support throughout this House for the Online Safety Bill, and yet it has been subject to contradictory messaging and delays. None of that is helpful for the Department or good government. Will the Secretary of State finally provide a clear timetable so that the vital work of scrutiny and improvement can begin?

[Ms Dorries]

There have been absolutely no delays. The Joint Committee reported on 10 December and the Bill will come to the House very shortly. We have taken time to consider the recommendations carefully, and the recommendations of the Law Commission, and the Bill will be here very shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Julian Knight, the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Select Committee system is the jewel in the crown of Parliament and well capable of providing the right scrutiny. Those are not my words but those of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. With that in mind, in the upcoming Online Safety Bill will the Secretary of State proceed with utmost caution over the proposed permanent standing Joint Committee, which would curtail her own powers and those of Ministers across Government, and if the precedent were followed to its logical conclusion, it could lead to the dilution of the Select Committee system? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

[Ms Dorries]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his question. The Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the jewel in the crown, as is the scrutiny of all Select Committees, but the Online Safety Bill is groundbreaking and novel and will legislate in an area in which we have never legislated or enforced before. I am quite sure that the place for the debate about whether or not there will be additional layers of scrutiny will be when the Bill comes before the House.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State may have seen the excellent research in The Guardian newspaper this week showing that search engines such as Google are disguising advertisements as search results, particularly those linked to fossil fuel companies, so much so that ClientEarth describes it as “endemic greenwashing”. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that she will use the Bill to crack down on these over-mighty, arrogant tech platforms?

[Ms Dorries]

That is a central purpose of the Bill. As a result of the work by the Joint Committee and others, including the Law Commission and those who have examined the first edition of the draft Bill, when we bring the Bill to the House there will be improvements and enhancements that will go even further in relation to those who use their power on the internet—those big tech companies and others—and the legislation will be there to provide the reassurances that I think the hon. Gentleman is looking for.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

Last year, with 50 of my colleagues, I wrote to five of the major social media companies calling for meaningful change and asking them to recognise their moral duty to make this change. Only three of the five even bothered to reply to the correspondence, which makes me concerned that they are not taking the matter seriously enough. Will my right hon. Friend be characteristically robust about ensuring meaningful change in the forthcoming legislation?

[Ms Dorries]

I am disappointed to hear about the response from the tech companies, but frankly not surprised. We will bring forward legislation that introduces criminal sanctions, including pretty steep fines—10% of global annual turnover, which could be as much as £18 billion, so they will be considerable. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should not be having to do this. Those organisations have a moral responsibility to provide the protections that young people require. It is their responsibility to ensure that illegal material is no longer placed online, that they remove content that is legal but harmful, but most of all that they protect young people and children. The Bill will have those three considerations at its heart. The companies could be doing what they need to do right now—they do not need the Bill. They could be removing those harmful algorithms right now.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Front-Bench team, starting with Alex Davies-Jones.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Happy new year to you and to the whole House.

After years of Government delay, we still do not have a confirmed timetable for implementation of online safety legislation. With thousands of unvaccinated covid-19 patients in our hospitals, appalling attacks on NHS workers, and misinformation about the vaccines circulating readily online, what is the Secretary of State doing now—not in a year’s time, not when the legislation is finally enacted—to properly address misinformation about the covid-19 vaccines online?

[Ms Dorries]

The disinformation and misinformation unit is working, and we have done everything possible. I know there have been—accusations is a strong word; perhaps concerns. Concerns have been expressed by Opposition Front Benchers that the disinformation and misinformation unit is no longer in existence. That is not the case; it is not true. The unit is there and it is working. We had a pilot, which ran for six months and stopped, but the work from that pilot continues with the disinformation and misinformation unit. That work takes place daily. Daily, we work to remove harmful online content and, particularly when it comes to covid-19 vaccinations, content that provides misinformation and disinformation. Daily, we have contacts with online content providers, and the work is ongoing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

4. On what date she last held discussions with the BBC on the enforcement of TV licence fee payments for people aged over 75.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

I meet the BBC regularly to discuss a range of issues, including enforcement, and I will meet the chair and director-general next week. The BBC confirmed recently that no enforcement action has been taken against anyone over 75 years of age at this stage. I am clear that the BBC must support those affected by the decision to end free TV licences for over-75s, and I expect it to do so with the utmost sensitivity.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response, but do we trust the BBC? Would it not be much better to remove the power of the BBC to enforce sanctions through the criminal law against those who are over 75 and who are supporting a policy that the Government say they also support?

[Ms Dorries]

I reassure my hon. Friend that the entire issue of over-75s and decriminalisation remains very much under review and on my desk. The BBC has confirmed that no enforcement action has been taken. It recently began customer care visits to people aged over 75 who may need additional support in paying the TV licence. Those visits are to assist the over-75s to get appropriately licenced, with the fee paid. I expect the BBC to handle those visits with the utmost sensitivity. I reassure him that this issue is under review.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

About six years ago, a previous Government entered into a two-way agreement with the BBC regarding the over-75s. The BBC’s part of the agreement was that it would continue to fund free licence fees for the over-75s. The Government’s part of the agreement was to agree to an increase in the licence fee and to some other aspects that advantaged the BBC. The BBC has broken its part of the agreement. What are the Government doing about our part?

[Ms Dorries]

As I said in my previous answer, this is something that I am continuing to review. I reiterate that the BBC has taken no action against anyone over 75 years of age—no one. This is something that I am watching very carefully. I cannot say much more at this stage, but I do have a close eye on it.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

5. What steps her Department is taking to support the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

My Department is making an enormous contribution to levelling up that positively impacts on people’s lives across the country. Our £1.4 billion investment in digital infrastructure is connecting people wherever they are in the UK; we are investing £850 million into local culture and £560 million into youth clubs in the places that need them most; and we are levelling up through sport with £205 million for community sport pitches, plus our flagship 2022 events such as the Commonwealth games and the rugby league world cup.

[Tom Hunt]

The Secretary of State will know that grassroots football clubs, particularly those in deprived areas, are very important for levelling up. I had the pleasure before Christmas of visiting Bourne Vale social club, which helps to sustain Ipswich Vale Exiles, who have 22 youth teams and four men’s teams in one of the most deprived parts of Ipswich. The football teams are dependent on the social club, but the social club is going through really hard times and is struggling to raise enough money to continue to exist. That puts at risk all those football teams. Will the Secretary of State meet me to try to find a way through? Potentially, some of that money might go to the social club, because by helping the social club we would be helping Ipswich Vale Exiles, who are critical to Maidenhall and Chantry, which are up there among the best parts of the town.

[Ms Dorries]

I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that we have paid a huge amount of attention to local football clubs, particularly over the past year, not least as a result of the fan-led review that has been undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is here today.

We continue to provide considerable support for hospitality businesses this year. That is part of around £400 billion of direct support for the economy, which has helped to safeguard jobs, businesses and public services. We have also provided an unprecedented £1 billion to ensure the survival of grassroots professional support and leisure sectors. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The current Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is the fourth to promise this House a White Paper on devolution initially and then a White Paper on levelling up. Indeed, we were absolutely promised that the levelling-up White Paper was coming before Christmas. I will not ask the Secretary of State to gaze into the future and predict whether we are actually going to get the White Paper this year, but given that she has answered a question about the levelling-up agenda, could she explain to the House precisely what it is?

[Ms Dorries]

It is about levelling up—I am very sure. Equality and opportunity for all is probably the best way to describe it. It is certainly an ethos that is overlaid as a filter on every policy in my Department: equality and opportunity for all. I am very sure that the paper he is looking for will be here shortly, too.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important part of levelling up is to strengthen local and regional media? They are under terrific pressure at the moment, yet do an important job in holding local institutions to account. Will she look at other ways in which we might do that? Perhaps by extending the local democracy reporting scheme, funded by the tech platforms.

[Ms Dorries]

I bow to the expertise of my right hon. Friend, who has served in my job and in the Department for many years, and served as Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I do not think anybody in the House knows as much about this as he probably does, so I bow to his expertise. I would like to talk to him about his ideas on how we can move forward, and I pay tribute to him for having always championed local media throughout his career. I am happy to meet him to discuss that further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Lucy Powell.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your warm welcome to me and my new team. I am delighted to be here for my first DCMS questions. May I thank the Secretary of State for her very warm welcome? In the tradition of the Manchester-Liverpool rivalry, I look forward to us fiercely disagreeing at times, but also to us joining forces to advance much-needed change in this agenda.

Does the Secretary of State agree that sport and culture, and the fast-growing creative industries, are absolutely central to levelling up, to place and belonging, and to ensuring that creative jobs are across our regions and nations? If she does agree, now that—I hope—she has read up on the funding of Channel 4 and found that it is not actually funded by the taxpayer, perhaps she could explain how privatising that public service broadcaster will not diminish its crucial role in levelling up, given its unique funding model and its strong track record in creating jobs and opportunity across our regions and nations?

[Ms Dorries]

I think Mr Speaker might call me to order if I start discussing Channel 4 on the back of a sports question.

[Lucy Powell]

It is not a sports question; it is a levelling-up question.

[Ms Dorries]

I am absolutely grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to explain my answer about Channel 4, which was misrepresented on social media. Channel 4 does take its public borrowings from the Government and the taxpayer, and that is what I was referring to. Channel 4 borrowings do not come from investment; they come from the Government, and that is what I was talking about in my answer to the Select Committee. I really thank her for the opportunity to put that right.

To go into Channel 4 in more detail—

[Lucy Powell]

Levelling up.

[Ms Dorries]

I think it is very loosely connected to levelling up. I am happy to have a discussion with the hon. Lady about Channel 4 and its impending privatisation, or indeed, whether that happens or not. A consultation has taken place, and we have had over 60,000 responses. We have been working hard in the Department on the unprecedented number of responses; we have been working our way through. We will reach a response very shortly on what we will do with Channel 4, but I give her my assurance that it will be what is best for the sustainability of Channel 4 in the future.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

6. What plans she has for the future of the TV licence fee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Unfortunately, Mr Blomfield is not here to ask the first question. I would like the Secretary of State to answer the question about departmental responsibilities, and then I will move on to the next one.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not think I said happy new year to you at the beginning of questions. Happy new year to everyone here today.

I know it has been a tough few weeks for our world-class arts and culture sector, which has found itself grappling with omicron and covid rather than the festive rush. We have supported the sector throughout the pandemic and in December we doubled the emergency funding available, to £60 million, to overcome this latest challenge.

In the meantime, UK tech enjoyed another record-breaking year in 2021—I think this country had three times the tech investment of any other EU country. As we head into 2022, it promises to be a historic year for the future of the UK. We continue to make fantastic progress on our three showstopper events—Birmingham Commonwealth games, Unboxed and Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee, all of which will bring the whole country together in a year of celebration and renewal.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

T2. So-called conversion therapy is a horrific abuse of some of the most vulnerable people in society, specifically targeting LGBT young people. The introduction of the online safety Bill will hopefully coincide with progress on banning conversion therapy. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that online promotion of this terrible abuse will be banned in all circumstances in the Bill?

[Ms Dorries]

The online safety Bill will be before the House very shortly. I do not think I can answer the hon. Lady’s particular question, because that is not a policy of the Department—it is not our policy area—but the online safety Bill will be here shortly and we can discuss it further.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

T4. Last month, I was lucky enough to attend Keighley’s very own rugby league world cup, organised by Joe O’Keeffe and his brilliant team at the Keighley Cougarmania Foundation, which involved 12 local primary schools each representing a different country. The energy and enthusiasm was absolutely fantastic, but we can do much more to support grassroots sport. What more can the Department do to support primary schools and grassroots sports foundations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

As I have said before, all our interview processes are undertaken in full compliance with the governance code and the principles given by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. We asked Martin Thomas at interview whether he had anything to declare, which he said he did not. He has rightly apologised for his error of judgment during the application process. I have accepted his resignation. The Select Committee will examine this matter and the error of judgment, but of course he also passed through the cross-party Joint Committee process. We are reviewing our processes; we review them constantly. I am afraid there is not much more I can say about this.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

On Monday I visited Harefield United football club in my constituency, which told me, as many other grassroots football clubs do, of its frustration at being unable to access excellent facilities in local schools. What discussions have taken place between the Department and the Department for Education about opening up those brilliant facilities to a wider range of grassroots sports clubs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

If there is evidence that officials in the Department have inadvertently advised the Secretary of State on the application of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the HMRC film production company manual, would this be of concern to her, and would she agree to meet me and my constituent about this matter?

[Ms Dorries]

I have met my hon. Friend in my office and we have discussed at length the situation regarding transport between film venues. It seems to fall into a difficult area. I have written to the Secretary of State for Transport and am awaiting his response. When I have had his response, I will revert to my hon. Friend further.

Events Research Programme

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Friday 26th November 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

The Government have published today the final reports from the science-led events research programme.

The events research programme has gathered evidence on the risks associated with events-related transmission routes of the covid-19 virus, characteristics of events and surrounding activities, and the extent to which mitigation measures could be effectively implemented and address these risks.

The events research programme was commissioned by the Prime Minister in February 2021 as part of the Government’s road map out of lockdown. The programme consisted of three phases. Between April and July a total of 31 pilot events were conducted in England across a range of settings and sectors, with over two million participants involved in the programme. The programme used an innovative and collaborative approach involving leading university research teams, independent scientific and ethics advisers working in partnership with multiple Government Departments and agencies, national and local public health leads, events industry stakeholders and 27 local authorities.

The findings of the events research programme have already been instrumental to inform both Government and industry on how to conduct events safely, and this publication further strengthens the evidence base already generated by the events research programme.

Full copies of these findings can be found on gov.uk. and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS426]

Fan-led Review of Football Governance Final Report

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

Football clubs are at the heart of our local communities. They have a unique social value and many possess great history and legacy. Fans are at the centre of our national game, which is why the Government committed to a fan-led review of football governance in our manifesto.

In April this year, the Government launched that review, led by the chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).

As the terms of reference set out to this House, the review was a comprehensive examination of the English football system with the aim to explore ways of improving the governance, ownership and financial sustainability of clubs in the football pyramid, building on the strengths and benefits of the game.

Today the Government have published the final report setting out the recommendations of the review. This report is founded on the basis of over 100 hours of engagement with supporters’ trusts, fan groups, women’s football representatives, football authorities, club owners, players representatives, and under-represented interest groups, alongside over 20,000 fans responding to an online survey. The report is extensive, so we will now be considering the detailed recommendations ahead of a full Government response.

All football stakeholders have had the chance to contribute to the review and I am very grateful to all those who have given evidence. Most importantly, fan voices were at the heart of the review and will remain at the heart of the Government’s thinking in responding to the recommendations.

I would like to place on record my thanks and appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for her tireless work and for delivering her recommendations so swiftly. She has done a superb job in bringing together such a range of views from across football with such credibility and consideration.

The final report is a thorough and detailed examination of the challenges faced by English football. It is a demonstration of the financial problems being caused by incentives within the game and reckless decision making by some clubs and owners, both of which are unsustainable and threaten the future of the game. It is clear that current oversight of the game is not up to the challenge of solving the structural challenges and action must be taken.

To address this systemic challenge, the review presents the following 10 strategic recommendations, which are accompanied in the report by detailed sub-recommendations:

To ensure the long-term sustainability of football, the Government should create a new Independent Regulator for English Football.

To ensure financial sustainability of the professional game, the Independent Regulator for English Football should oversee financial regulation in football.

New owners’ and directors’ tests for clubs should be established by the Independent Regulator for English Football replacing the three existing tests and ensuring that only good custodians and qualified directors can run these vital assets.

Football needs a new approach to corporate governance to support a long-term sustainable future of the game.

Football needs to improve equality, diversity and inclusion in clubs with committed equality, diversity and inclusion action plans regularly assessed by the Independent Regulator for English Football.

As a uniquely important stakeholder, supporters should be properly consulted by their clubs in taking key decisions by means of a shadow board.

Football clubs are a vital part of their local communities. In recognition of this there should be additional protection for key items of club heritage.

Fair distributions are vital to the long term health of football. The Premier League should guarantee its support to the pyramid and make additional, proportionate contributions to further support football.

Women’s football should be treated with parity and given its own dedicated review.

As an urgent matter, the welfare of players exiting the game needs to be better protected—particularly at a young age.

The Government welcome the work of the review and will now consider the detailed recommendations ahead of providing a full Government response in spring 2022.

The review demonstrates that there are fundamental issues with our national sport, and that this merits radical reform. Fans across the country want and deserve that reform. We have seen in the past how football has been unable to reform itself and to deliver changes that stop the likes of Bury FC or Macclesfield Town FC going out of business, or which stop clubs breaking away to set up the closed shop of a European super league.

We are at a turning point for football in this country. The review is a detailed and worthy piece of work that will require a substantive response and plan of action from across Government. But the primary recommendation of the review is clear, and one the Government choose to endorse in principle today: that football requires a strong, independent regulator to secure the future of our national game. The Government will now work at pace to determine the most effective way to deliver an independent regulator, and any powers that might be needed.

This is an important review that we hope will lead to change for good in football. The Government will now work at pace on how to make that happen.

I have today deposited a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS417]

News UK: Release of 2019 Undertakings

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

On 1 February 2021 News UK submitted an application requesting the Secretary of State to release in full the undertakings accepted in 2019. The 2019 undertakings were accepted in lieu of the conditions put in place when the newspapers were acquired by News International in 1981.

The conditions included provisions relating to the continued publication of The Times and The Sunday Times as separate newspapers, to the number and power of the independent national directors of Times Newspapers Holdings Ltd, and to editorial control over the journalists working for, and political comment and opinion published in, each of newspapers.

The undertakings accepted in 2019 made changes to the conditions, to allow for sharing of journalistic resources between the two publications and to strengthen the arrangements relating to the independent national directors. News UK now seeks the release of the undertakings in their entirety.

On 24 June DCMS issued a public “invitation to comment”, which included a redacted copy of the application, and the written views received from the editors and independent national directors. On 30 July, DCMS requested Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority to advise by 24 September on the public interest considerations and changes to market circumstances relevant to the case, respectively.

I have now taken into account the reports and all relevant information submitted to the Department. Acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, I am minded to grant the request by News UK and release the undertakings. I am satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since the acceptance of the undertakings in 2019 and that, having considered the public interest considerations applying to newspapers, the undertakings are no longer appropriate or necessary for the purpose they were intended to achieve (and so should be released).

In accordance with the Enterprise Act 2002, I will now consult on this minded-to decision and publish the reports commissioned from Ofcom and the CMA. Respondents will have 15 working days to provide representations, after which I will come to a final decision.

[HCWS418]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

1. What plans she has for the future of the BBC licence fee.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

The Government have committed to maintaining the licence fee funding model for the duration of the charter period. Ahead of the next charter review process, we will undertake a detailed look at the TV licence model to ensure that it is fit for the future.

[Alun Cairns]

I warmly welcome the encouraging comments made by the Secretary of State, publicly and in the Chamber, on the BBC. There is the potential to cut or at least freeze the licence fee. It raises over £3.5 billion a year, much of which is used to create quality broadcasts. However, significant sums are used to squeeze out competition from the independent sector. This is the most regressive form of taxation, akin to the poll tax, so does she agree that a freeze or a cut would be not only a welcome boost to hard-pressed families, but a way of facilitating innovation within the BBC and encouraging competition from outside, creating a much more dynamic broadcast provision?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. My priority is to secure a settlement that delivers value for money for those hard-pressed constituents and for the licence fee payer, while making sure that the BBC can continue to provide those very high-quality services to which he just referred. I have been having constructive discussions with the BBC and I believe that we are close to reaching an agreement. I hope he understands that I am unable to comment further while negotiations are taking place and are ongoing.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State is thinking about the future of the licence fee, will she talk to those in the independent sector that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned? Far from saying that they are being squeezed out, they will tell her that the BBC and the system we have of a mixed economy in our creative industries in this country are underpinned by the quality of the BBC. It exercises a gravitational pull that is the envy of the world. I know she thinks deeply about these things, but let me say that it should not be tinkered with just because of ideology; this should be a practical decision on her part.

[Ms Dorries]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his comments. He is absolutely right; I do speak regularly to the independent sector, including Channel 4 and other bodies within the sector. I take his comments on board and hear what he is saying. The BBC is a beacon for Britishness—for all that is British; it is a beacon across the world for broadcasting excellence. But even the editors of the BBC and those who run the BBC accept that there have been some problems. They are being dealt with and that is part of the ongoing discussions. I know that he is particularly concerned about this, but I am sure that he appreciates that while negotiations are ongoing I am limited in what I can say.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In 2017, the BBC agreed to take over the funding of free TV licences for over-75s in return for increased income from increases in the licence fee and other commercial funding streams. The BBC’s behaviour since, in abolishing free TV licences, shows that it cannot be trusted. For its disgraceful treatment of pensioners, will the Secretary of State use the funding review in 2022 to scrap the licence fee altogether and let the BBC compete on a level playing field with other broadcasters?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. On the charter review, the mid-term review does begin—and we will start discussions—next year. The charter renewal, which is the point at which the future of the licence fee will be decided, does not take place until 2027. As I have just said, in those discussions the editorial perspective and a number of layers and things recently highlighted during the response to the Serota review are all under consideration, and my hon. Friend’s comments have been noted.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

We have spent much of the past two weeks talking about standards in public office, and on this side of the House we care deeply about the independence and impartiality of the BBC. I know that the Secretary of State also cares, to the extent that she actually has the time to police the BBC political editor’s tweets and publicly rebuke her. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be highly inappropriate for a Government Minister overseeing licence fee negotiations to seek to influence editorial decisions, including how the Prime Minister was interviewed, and use the threat of reducing BBC licence fee funding while doing so?

[Ms Dorries]

There were four elements to that questions. On the tweet, I did not rebuke Laura Kuenssberg, somebody who is perhaps the best in the business—very professional; a very polite tweet. Some people, particularly some Opposition Members, do seem to have a problem understanding a composition of 240 characters; the tweet was completely misinterpreted. I was not rebuking Laura Kuenssberg and I never would.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

4. What progress she has made on introducing legislative proposals to establish a new regulatory framework to tackle harmful content online.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

The draft Bill was published in May 2021. Pre-legislative scrutiny is under way, but we expect the Joint Committee to report by 10 December. This scrutiny is a vital part in ensuring that the Bill delivers what we need to protect people online. I look forward to hearing the Committee’s recommendations, which we will consider fully.

[Owen Thompson]

A Facebook whistleblower recently revealed that hateful political ads are five to 10 times cheaper for customers in what has been referred to as subsidising hate. Facebook has since banned companies from targeting ads based on users’ political beliefs, sexual orientation or religion, but these decisions should not be left to tech billionaires who could change their mood at any time. It is the Government’s job to regulate, so what proposals can they come up with to take account of the views of the whistleblower in calling for further action to end subsidising hate online?

[Ms Dorries]

I take this opportunity to thank the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for the work that it has undertaken, particularly gathering the evidence from Frances Haugen and others. We have taken a huge body of evidence. The Joint Committee is doing that very work at the moment. I am confident that every one of the examples that the hon. Gentleman has just highlighted will be legislated for in the regulatory framework, which will be given to Ofcom, to regulate those online platforms once the Bill becomes law. I appreciate his interest. I would also appreciate his input when the Bill passes through the House.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the key principle of the online safety Bill should be that offences that exist offline should be applied online—not only to those who post content with the intent of harming others, but to the platforms that host such content—and that we need to have ongoing close parliamentary scrutiny of which offences should apply and how?

[Ms Dorries]

This is a novel and groundbreaking Bill that will legislate in a way that has never been done before, in a new sector and a new environment. Ongoing scrutiny on a regular basis once the Bill becomes an Act will be extremely important. We will look at how we are going to manage that within the Bill.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

5. Whether she plans to publish a White Paper on the gambling review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

T2. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

Our world-class arts, culture and heritage received another huge boost in the Budget and spending review, with more than £850 million to protect museums, galleries, libraries and local culture in every corner of the country. The Budget also contained a number of measures to back our booming tech sector. The Budget also contained measures for football pitches and tennis courts, to the value of £205 million of investment across the country. In the meantime, we continue to make good progress on our trailblazing online safety Bill. I met the Joint Committee two weeks ago, and I look forward to receiving its report.

[Antony Higginbotham]

Culture and heritage are so important to our local communities, and that is particularly the case in my constituency of Burnley and Padiham. We have some real gems, like Townley Hall and Burnley Empire theatre. The latter would be a real benefit to our town centre, but it is in need of regeneration and restoration. What is the Department doing to help communities restore some of these assets so that we can make them better?

[Ms Dorries]

My hon. Friend raises an important question. Historic and cultural buildings, such as the Empire and Townley Hall, are at the heart of their communities, and we are determined to protect them for future generations. I am pleased that eight organisations in my hon. Friend’s constituency received just over £1 million from the culture recovery fund, as well as £20 million from the levelling-up fund, and a grant of more than £1 million from Historic England’s high streets heritage action zone initiative. I urge my hon. Friend to contact Historic England and the National Lottery Heritage Fund to explore further funding opportunities.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind everybody that we need to be short and sweet in topical questions to get everyone in.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

After the Owen Paterson scandal, where the Government did not like the fair process that was set up and just ripped up the rules, now the Government have changed the job description for the chair of Ofcom to give failed candidate Paul Dacre another go and put a lobbyist whose firm has represented Facebook, Apple and Sky on the panel to scrutinise candidates. Will the Secretary of State restart the process with the original job requirements and an independent panel free of any conflict of interest, and confirm that she will accept the recommendations of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport when it reports on the prospective candidate?

[Ms Dorries]

As the hon. Lady knows, the appointments process follows due process, is in line with the governance code for public appointments and is under the auspices of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. We are very careful to follow that code to the letter, and that is exactly what we are doing. As the process has already been launched and is under way, as the hon. Lady knows, I cannot comment further.

[Rachael Maskell]

It seems that theory and practice just do not add up. As we have repeatedly heard, Government corruption is not restricted to this place. The public appointments process has led to a litany of political appointments, notably Tory peer Baroness Tina Stowell as the chair of the Charity Commission after the DCMS Committee rejected her appointment. Her tenure was marked by political manipulation rather than independent governance. The current process for a replacement is being led by John Booth, who donated £200,000 to the Tory party. Will the Secretary of State recommence the appointment process, removing all political interests and ensuring full independence of the appointment panel, and then—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have to get other people in on topicals. It is unfair for people to take all the time, when it is Back Benchers’ Question Time as well. Please, we have to help Back Benchers. I call the Secretary of State.

[Ms Dorries]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady mentioned sleaze and this Government about four times: I thought she was going to enlighten us on the earnings from Mishcon de Reya received by the Leader of the Opposition, but she failed to do so. She also failed to mention that this Government appointed Vera Baird, the former Labour MP for Redcar, as the Victims’ Commissioner. The process is fair. It is overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and a code of governance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

Last night I met the national Girl Guide advocates, who spoke passionately about the need to tackle online abuse and cyber-flashing, which is made much more scary when it is anonymous. I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cares deeply about these issues. Will she meet me to discuss the ten-minute rule Bill I am introducing next week to look at choice of verification?

[Ms Dorries]

I am happy to.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Channel 4 makes an enormous contribution to job growth and region-based media production. In fact, of the 200 independent media production companies that Channel 4 has commissioned over the past two years, almost 140 rely on the broadcaster for at least half their work. Will the Minister concede that the privatisation of Channel 4 will endanger hundreds of jobs and make a mockery of the Government’s levelling-up agenda?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating his constituents. He is absolutely right, and the online harms Bill and the regulatory framework that will accompany it will do just what he asks. Those online platforms and online giants have the ability right now to remove those harmful algorithms that direct children and young people to suicide chat rooms. I call on them to start that work, because if they do not, the Bill will be here in the new year and they will be subject to huge fines and possibly criminal action.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

The actions of Football Index can only be described as scandalous. The Scottish National party called for an inquiry, and that has been delivered. Can the Minister guarantee that the actions the Government take as a result of the inquiry will ensure that such shameful behaviour by the gambling firms will never be repeated?

Film and TV Production Restart Scheme Contingent Liabilities

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 or for which there is no statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament, giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances.



I am tabling this statement for the benefit of all Members of this House to bring to their attention the departmental minute issued today that provides the House with notice of a contingent liability created by my Department. This is in relation to the Film and TV Production Restart Scheme, for which Parliament approved substantial budget cover at supplementary estimates in 2020-21.



The Film and TV Production Restart Scheme was announced by the Government on 28 July 2020 and supports film and TV productions across the country that are at risk of being halted or delayed due to an inability to obtain covid-19 insurance. HMG has established a discretionary compensation scheme which will provide cover for losses associated with certain covid-19 related delays including civil authority restrictions and cast losses. Cover is available to purchase for an additional premium. The duration of the cover is from July 2020 to 30 June 2022.



The scheme provides cover for up to £500 million in claims with a current maximum contingent liability of £732 million. This figure is based on the abandonment of all productions using the scheme, an extremely unlikely scenario. The amount will increase and decrease as productions come on and off the scheme. While the contingent liability is theoretically unlimited, to retain control of the fiscal risk, the terms of the scheme allow DCMS to close the scheme to new registrations and/or review the value of the scheme limit, if it determines that the aggregate value of estimated claims payable is nearing the scheme limit of £500 million. Our internal central estimate of costs is significantly below this figure.



It is normal that any contingent liabilities should not be incurred until 14 sitting days after Parliament has been notified of the Government’s intention to incur a contingent liability. There is an exception in cases of special urgency. This is one such occasion.



This policy was developed and implemented at great speed in a time of emergency, while the Department was also delivering other innovative support packages. In order to make timely progress, it was necessary that production companies were certain of DCMS’s funding commitment in order to restart immediately, as DCMS worked on implementing the scheme. While Parliament was informed via the significant budget cover secured at supplementary estimates—which would more than cover the likely costs—a procedural oversight which has only recently come to light has meant Parliament was not informed of the theoretically unlimited contingent liability.



I note that DCMS’s work on the Film and TV Production Restart Scheme has contributed to the remarkable bounce back of the film and TV sector, with first half-year spend estimates topping £3 billion, and that the scheme has now supported more than £2.4 billion of production spend and secured over 80,000 jobs on set. Given this success, I hope the House is in agreement with my assessment that to delay signing the aforementioned agreement would have been inappropriate and to the detriment of the beneficiaries of the scheme.



A copy of the departmental minute is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS397]