The comments made by Steve Rotheram, the Metro Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, on 16 May 2022.
Liverpool’s Capital of Culture year was a catalyst for transformation across our whole city region, and we’re still reaping the rewards almost 15 years on. Bradford’s bid could be a boost for the whole North.
The speech made by William Davison, the Conservative MP for Kensington South, in the House of Commons on 22 March 1932.
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the raising of money by means of lotteries for charitable, scientific, and artistic purposes, or any public improvement or other public object. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to be printed so that hon. Members may see its provisions in black and white. When I introduced a similar Bill last year, I confined its scope to the provision of funds for hospitals on the same lines as the Irish Free State lottery. In view, however, of representations that were made to me, I have drawn the present Bill on somewhat wider and simpler lines, though British hospitals will still be within its scope and can take advantage of it should they desire to do so. It is interesting to note that of the 180 Members who voted against the Bill which I introduced last year, 130 have since lost their seats. I would not say that they lost their seats solely because they voted against the Bill, but I do say that they represent a type of mind which is not acceptable to the majority of their fellow citizens.
This is a very short Bill. Clause 1 provides that, nothwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act of Parliament or any rule of law, it shall be lawful for the governing body or trustees of any charity or any trustees or other body of persons appointed solely or mainly for the purpose of raising money for philanthropic, scientific or artistic purposes, or for the initiation and assistance in carrying out any public improvement or other public objects, to hold, with the approval of the Secretary of State and subject to the provisions contained in this Bill, a lottery in order to raise money for such charity, purpose or object. Clause 2 provides that no lottery shall be held under this Bill except in pursuance of a scheme sanctioned by the Secretary of State, and for the charity or object named in such scheme and subject to the terms and conditions of the scheme. Clause 3 sets up certain conditions and regulations but does not preclude the Secretary of State from making others if he thinks fit. The Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland. Such are, shortly, the provisions of the Bill as drafted, but if it is thought that the scope of the Bill is too wide, or that it should be confined to hospitals, as the last Bill was, or that the number of lotteries in any one year should be fixed, that can easily be arranged in the Committee stage.
As the House is aware, there is nothing inherently vicious or demoralising in the holding of a lottery. Such lotteries were held in this country over a period of many years. Queen Elizabeth was the first patron of State lotteries—of a great lottery which was held in this country for the repair of the havens of the realm and other public works. Members of the House often see the statue, close by here, of George Washington. He was a strong supporter of lotteries under public control, and in 1769 he helped to pass a law against ate holding of a lottery without special authority, as my Bill now proposes to do. The penal legislation under which the Home Office now acts was passed so long ago as 1834—nearly 100 years ago. It is under that law that they now search travellers arriving at Holyhead, open private letters, even the letters from a solicitor to his client, as was pointed out in the House a few days ago by an hon. Member. That legislation was not passed with any idea of stopping a vicious or immoral practice, but in order to protect the State lotteries from unfair competition by private lotteries and lotteries organised abroad.
May I remind the House that at the present time we have the totalisator as a national institution, formally approved by Parliament? We have the telegraph and telephone services deriving a large part of their income from transmitting betting news. There is scarcely a church or chapel bazaar in the country which does not have its little raffle. Newspapers of all parties are continually promoting thinly disguised lotteries, and as Socialist Members opposite are aware, the “Daily Herald” has recently held a lottery on behalf of hospitals, offering to pay £20,000 for 6d. I have referred to the “Daily Herald” as representing Socialist opinion, but I would remind my Conservative friends that last year, at the annual meeting of the Women’s Organisation of the National Union of Conservative Associations in this country, a resolution was passed unanimously—without any opposition—condemning the present law respecting lotteries and sweepstakes, and urging that lotteries should be legalised under proper control, exactly as my Bill proposes.
Mr. MACQUISTEN They are women. Marriage is a lottery.
Sir W. DAVISON Hon. Members should also bear in mind that the British Museum was started by means of a lottery; and that old Westminster Bridge was erected out of the proceeds of a lottery. New bridges are still needed. As we know, there is urgent need for a new bridge at Charing Cross. Why should it not be possible now to erect a bridge across the river by means of a lottery? If a bridge were erected at Charing Cross it would save Waterloo Bridge as a national monument, and prevent its demolition, which we should all be glad for. The new Cunarder was started with Government approval and assistance, and there is no reason why, under proper conditions, we should not have funds provided by means of a lottery to enable this great ship to be proceeded with. In Germany, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Italy and elsewhere State lotteries are regularly held. In Madrid a great university building is being put up by means of a lottery. By the Irish sweepstake just concluded the Irish hospitals are the recipients of £841,000. From previous lotteries they have received more than £2,000,000. In all, they have received practically £3,000,000. How much sickness and suffering in this country might have been saved had that money been available to us? A recent visitor to Dublin saw the sweepstake revolving drum which brought £841,000 for the Irish hospitals. When he arrived back at Euston he saw another drum—a hospital student beating a drum in the streets, with a procession behind him collecting money for a great London hospital. Which of the two methods is the more dignified? A correspondent wrote to me yesterday stating: We are letting our brothers and sisters suffer through a lot of old Mother Hub-bards and pedants out of touch with the realities of every day life. A hospital appeal recently stated that a thousand surgical cases were waiting for beds owing to a lack of funds. The funds could be provided by a lottery under this Bill. Hon. Members should bear in mind that of the £3,000,000 raised for hospitals in Ireland more than £2,000,000 came from this country. Let me say at once that no one must imagine that if lotteries were established in this country they would maintain hospitals entirely. Of course they would not; but at any rate they would provide funds for urgently-needed equipment and urgently-needed beds. More than 7,000,000 tickets were sold in the Irish Sweepstake, and it is estimated that 5,000,000 tickets were purchased by citizens of Great Britain. At any rate, British citizens won 800 of the first 1,120 prizes, about 71 per cent. I ask the House why these millions of British citizens should be made into criminals by an absurd and out-of-date law, and why the time of the police should be occupied in chasing people who sell Irish sweepstake tickets rather than looking after the bag snatchers and those who smash shop windows? Why should our magistrates be reduced to every kind of pretext in order not to convict the people brought before them in connection with this lottery? The “Times” of last Tuesday contained 10 columns of the names of 1,100 criminals who had won prizes in the Irish sweepstake, and there were similar lists in other papers. In conclusion, may I quote a sentence from an article last week in the “Morning Post,” of whose Lobby correspondent we all took leave last night with much regret. The “Morning Post” is not a paper which is likely to recommend anything demoralising or vicious. The sentence is: The State finds itself unable to check what it condemns. To conclude that the public is depraved is to bring an indictment against a nation, which is absurd. The only other conclusion is that the law, which is so much in conflict with public opinion, is in need of amendment. It is with the object of altering the present absurd law that I ask leave to bring in my Bill.
Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS I ask the House to reject this Motion, and I hope that hon. Members will not be unduly influenced by the illustration given by my hon. Friend of the 130 Members of the last House who lost their seats. He has talked of the anomalous state of the betting law. I fully agree with what he has said about that law; I agree that a far-reaching inquiry is necessary into the operation of these laws and their codification. It may be that the laws are in urgent necessity of modification and alteration, and there is a wide field for inquiry; but this Motion, if passed by the House, instead of providing for an inquiry, would prejudge that inquiry. During the War a proposal was put forward to set up lotteries, and, indeed, a Bill was introduced into the other House and into this House to legalise lotteries in order to provide money for the Red Cross Society. There could have been no more laudable object. That Bill was preceded by an inquiry. The majority of Members who conducted that inquiry started by being in favour of a lottery for that specific purpose, but by the time they had concluded their investigations they had come unanimously to the conclusion that they ought not to recommend the setting up of a lottery. They heard evidence from different classes of the community. They took evidence from my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Dominions, who told them that when he went to Derby to consult his constituents they asked him about the best investments they could make, and he was alarmed to think that in the future they would be asking him about the best lottery in which to take tickets. In spite of the fact that the Committee’s recommendation was against the adoption of the lottery system, Lord Lansdowne introduced a Bill in the House of Lords, but he said a very remarkable thing in justification for the introduction of the Bill. He said that he supported the Bill because War conditions were abnormal, but that if they were living in peace time, he should oppose it. That was his view. If there was a need for inquiry in those abnormal times, surely there is a need for inquiry now. I do not this afternoon raise the moral issue—not that I brush it aside by any means—but I am basing my case now upon the rights and the obligations of the State. The first obligation of the State in all circumstances is to preserve itself. There are numerous Acts of Parliament dealing with this subject. The Act of 1541, which put a stop to this practice, mentioned in its preamble that the young men in the country, instead of making themselves proficient in archery —the mode of defence of the realm at that time—were spending their time in betting and gambling. The preamble of the Act of 1698 stated that they had to put a stop to lotteries because, in the language of the preamble, it was detrimental to the “good trade, welfare and peace of His Majesty’s Kingdom.”
That was the experience at that time. It was purely a practical reason which prompted the State to put an end to the practice. Act after Act was passed between 1541 and 1823 to stop private lotteries, but the Acts could not be effectively enforced because the State lottery was still lawful. In 1823, however, an Act was passed as a result of a Select Committee which reported—it is a very important finding—that The foundation of the lottery system is so radically vicious that your Committee feel convinced that under no system of regulations which can be devised will it be possible for Parliament to adopt it as an efficient source of revenue, and at the same time divest it of all the evils of which it has hitherto proved so baneful a source. That was the view of the Select Committee. I come to the safeguards. What safeguards are you going to put up? The one exception upon the Statute Book today is the Act of 1846 providing for lotteries to be set up for the Art Union, but even there these lotteries cannot be set up without first of all obtaining a Royal Charter. These are far greater safeguards than are proposed in my hon. Friend’s proposed Bill. Having obtained the Royal Charter they have still further regulations authorised by the Privy Council for safeguards, as far as safeguards can go. Notwithstanding that, you cannot restrict the area; you cannot enforce the law with regard to other lotteries once you have permitted it in one field. That has been the experience. It was the experience in 1823, when they had to abolish State lotteries because they could not enforce the law. [An HON. MEMBER: “It is very difficult now!”] It is very difficult in the case of the Irish Sweepstake. What will the difficulty be when you have lotteries in this country? That difficulty is illustrated by my hon. Friend’s Motion. Last year he asked leave to introduce a Measure merely setting up lotteries for hospitals. This afternoon, as a result of representations, he has asked to be allowed to widen the scope of the Bill. That is a situation where you will never be able to enforce the law. Parliament, I have no doubt, took action in 1823 largely because sweepstakes by then had been set up even for the sale of land. Can anything be conceived that can go further to undermine the social structure than legal sweepstakes?
Now it is said, “Look at the object!” It is to support charitable institutions and hospitals. I agree at once, and every Member here will agree, that the object is a worthy one, but are you going to support this worthy object by questionable means? I am not going to give my own opinion in support of that. I will take the opinion of the hospitals themselves. In London and the provinces last year the sum raised for voluntary hospitals by bequests, subscriptions, savings associations and paying patients was between £13,000,000 and £14,000,000. That was last year—a year of acute depression in the country. Of that sum, between 50 and 60 per cent. came from voluntary contributions. What is the amount of sweepstakes which would be required to assure an income equivalent to that amount?
Sir W. DAVISON That is not suggested.
Mr. MORRIS Take the figures of a very competent hospital accountant. He says it will require three sweepstakes a year each yielding £10,000,000—in all £30,000,000 a year. If you take the figures of the Irish Sweepstake and assume—it is a great assumption—that there would be treble the number of subscribers to an English sweepstake that there are now to the Irish Sweepstake, it is computed that that would yield £15,000,000, leaving a deficiency of £15,000,000 in the sum necessary to be raised. I am not giving my own figures, but the figures of the hospitals themselves. I go further. I have here the testimony of the Chairman of the Royal City of Dublin Hospital itself. He said: that annual subscribers are withdrawing their gifts, on the ground that they are no longer needed. That paying patients—generally working class men and women—are objecting to pay anything for their treatment and ‘keep,’ and that considerable loss has ensued. That business firms whose employés used to pay a penny or twopence a week to the hospital, now refuse to pay anything. Loss from this source is 50 per cent. of income. That people are not leaving money by wills and bequests. That reduction has already taken place, and there is no comparison between the position of the hospitals in this country and those in Ireland. The Irish Sweepstake is a success from the Irish point of view, because Ireland is a small country, and they are drawing English money, but if the hospitals of this country rely upon the same position, the amount of Irish money which they will draw will be negligible. That is why the house-governor of Charing Cross Hospital, Mr. Philip Inman, stated last May: Speaking for myself and this hospital, we will have neither part nor lot in any such schemes. And our reasons are not simply moral ones, though they weigh very considerably. Looking from simply a business standpoint, we believe that the gains would be outweighed by the losses. What does that great expert Sir Arthur Stanley say? This is the testimony of hospitals, the very institutions it is intended to support. This is a case for not prejudicing the issue, for not coming down on one side or the other. It is clearly a case where there should be an inquiry first. This is a great new departure in policy. It is true that man very often over-rates two things—his own capabilities and his own good luck. As my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines said last year in a very powerful speech, you cannot put these charitable institutions, depending as they do upon the moral good will of men, upon a basis of chance, and you certainly dare not do so without a proper inquiry first. On those grounds, I ask the House to reject the Motion.
Question put, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the raising of money by means of lotteries for charitable, scientific, and artistic purposes, or any public improvement or other public object.
The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 123.
The statement made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2022.
This is a joint statement with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Last week, we published the response to the consultation on a new pro-competition regime for digital markets. As we move to build back better from the pandemic and level up opportunities throughout the UK, unlocking growth in the digital economy has never been more important or urgent.
Digital technologies make an enormous contribution to the UK economy and are positively transforming our daily lives. However, weak competition in digital markets is stifling economic growth and imposing unnecessarily high costs on British businesses and consumers. That is why the Government have committed to establishing a new pro-competition regime for these markets. This will boost competition, drive innovation, and protect those people and businesses that rely on a very small number of immensely powerful tech firms.
Our regime will be able to place obligations on these firms to make it easier for users to communicate across different platforms, switch to smaller providers and deliver new, better alternatives for consumers. The Digital Markets Unit will also introduce clear rules on how the most powerful tech firms should treat businesses and consumers when delivering key services such as social media and online search. These rules will make sure these tech firms are transparent and trade on fair and reasonable terms.
Competition is key to unlocking the full potential of the digital economy as more choice will lower prices for everyday goods and services that rely on online advertising. Countries around the world are developing their policy and regulatory approaches. Now that we have left the EU, we have the freedom to take a bold new approach to regulation in order to ease burdens for businesses, boost competition and help drive a new era of productivity and prosperity for all the UK’s communities and nations. The UK is leading the global debate, as demonstrated during our G7 presidency last year where countries agreed to deepen international co-operation. Last week’s publication set out how the new regime will deliver a world-leading, innovation-friendly approach to driving up competition in digital markets.
The set-up of the Digital Markets Unit last year was a major milestone in delivering the regime. We want to maintain this momentum. We set out the design of the regime in our public consultation which closed on 1 October 2021. We received a large number of submissions to our consultation including from trade associations, the tech sector, SMEs, academics, consumers and representative groups. There is strong support for the regime and growing calls for it to be delivered urgently.
This response builds on the consultation and sets out how the regime will work. In particular:
The new pro-competition regime will be overseen and enforced by the Digital Markets Unit (DMU), housed within the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The regime’s core objective will be to promote competition in digital markets for the benefit of consumers, lowering prices and increasing transparency and fairness. The DMU will work closely with other regulators through a statutory duty to consult them where proportionate and relevant.
A small number of the most powerful firms with entrenched and substantial market power that affords them a strategic position in the market will be designated, by the CMA, as having strategic market status and will fall within scope of the regime; these designation parameters, including a minimum revenue threshold, will be outlined in legislation and supported by guidance.
Once designated, firms will be subject to new and binding conduct requirements to manage the effects of their market power by shaping their behaviour and rebalancing the power between big tech and those who rely on them. The regime will give the regulator the ability to tailor these requirements for firms, to account for the most relevant harms and risks. These requirements will be limited by a set of categories set out in legislation. Rules may include giving consumers clear and transparent information on how their data is used, or preventing a firm ranking its own products more highly in a search result where it harms consumers.
The DMU will also proactively tackle the root cause of market power by making targeted and proportionate pro-competitive interventions. These will ensure that businesses across the economy that rely on very powerful tech firms, including the news publishing sector, are treated fairly and can succeed without having to comply with unfair terms. The DMU will have broad discretion to design and implement remedies, including trials, after an evidence-based investigation.
To ensure the regime’s effectiveness, the DMU will have robust enforcement powers. This includes the ability to impose financial penalties of up to 10% of a firm’s global turnover for breaches. There will also be the option to hold individual senior managers accountable.
The costs of the regime will be partially recouped by levy funding, providing smooth and predictable resourcing for the DMU while ensuring best value for money for the taxpayer.
Finally, designated firms will also be subject to new merger reporting requirements, ensuring greater transparency over their impacts on competition.
2022 is a landmark year for shaping the rules that govern digital technologies around the world. The UK is at the forefront of this, driving forward groundbreaking work, including on online safety, digital competition, data protection, and cybersecurity. Our outcomes-focused and proportionate regulatory approach will be tailored to maximise benefits to the UK economy.
The new pro-competition regime also complements the BEIS-led “Reforming Consumer and Competition Policy” consultation, which considered broader competition reforms and made a number of proposals which will also help to improve competition in markets more widely and fair treatment of consumers in digital markets. The response to this consultation was published in April.
The CMA and Ofcom last week published advice on how the regime would govern the relationship between platforms and content providers including news publishers. The DMU must be able to intervene to ensure fair and reasonable contractual terms, and we are considering the use of binding final offer arbitration as a backstop enforcement mechanism to resolve disputes where needed.
I will be placing copies of the response in the Libraries of both Houses, and it is also available on gov.uk.
The comments made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 2 May 2022.
These are insidious attempts by Putin and his propaganda machine to deceive the world about the brutality he’s inflicting on the people of Ukraine. This evidence will help us to more effectively identify and remove Russian disinformation and follows our decisive action to block anyone from doing business with Kremlin-controlled outlets RT and Sputnik.
The statement made by Nigel Huddleston, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2022.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has today published a report evaluating the impact and delivery of the £750 million of Government funding to support voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations during the covid-19 pandemic. The report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report can also be found online.
This emergency covid-19 funding package aimed to ensure that the VCSE sector could continue its vital work supporting the country during the coronavirus outbreak, including meeting increased and changing demand due to the pandemic. The package was one of several delivered by DCMS to support sectors through the pandemic, including the culture recovery fund and sport survival package, which have been assessed separately with evaluations to be published in due course.
This funding was disseminated to organisations via various funding streams such as the big night in, the community match challenge and the winter loneliness fund. These in turn awarded grants to over 14,000 organisations delivering myriad activities, including encouraging social connection and tackling loneliness (59%); providing information and advice (44%) and supporting people’s mental health (38%).
The grants reached an estimated 21.5 million service users. Common positive outcomes achieved for people and communities included improved mental health and wellbeing (70%); more opportunity for social contact (62%); and reduced experiences of loneliness (58%).
The evaluation found “strong evidence” that the funding package had achieved its aims. Nearly all grant holders (97%) that used funding to cover core costs reported that the funding had helped their financial health during the pandemic, with nearly half (46%) saying it had helped a great deal. Some 13% of grant holders said that, without the funding, they would have had to close or stop services (with the funding, this only happened in 1% of cases).
The funding allowed around 40% of grant holders to maintain or recruit new volunteers, with some 12,000 new volunteers being mobilised, just from those organisations who completed the survey. This had positive outcomes for volunteers themselves, with 93% reporting more than one positive outcome from volunteering, and 63% saying that they would be certain to continue.
The majority of grant holders (76%) also reported that they found the process of applying for grants to be “straightforward and proportionate”. They found the flexibility to use the money for core costs beneficial given the uncertainty of the pandemic.
The report also outlines eight recommendations based on the lessons learnt from this funding package which the Government will carefully consider.
The statement made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2022.
Our TV and radio industry is the envy of the world. Production studios across the country are booming, and British-made shows like “I May Destroy You” and the “Great British Bake Off” are celebrated all over the globe.
Our public service broadcasters (PSBs) are absolutely central to that success. Sitting at the heart of our broadcasting system, they help to develop skills and talent across the country; they drive growth right across the creative industries; and they deliver distinctive, instantly recognisable British content that you would not find anywhere else.
But broadcasting has changed dramatically over the past few decades. The last time broadcasting regulation was overhauled, in 2003, Netflix was a DVD rental business. Today, it is one of several American streaming giants offering viewers a daily selection of new content—from Amazon Prime to Disney+ to Hulu to Apple TV and beyond. Viewers increasingly watch programmes on their laptops, phones or smart TVs, choosing what to watch, and when to watch it.
In this new broadcasting world, the competition for audience share is fiercer than ever. In recent years, as streaming services have enjoyed a 19% rise in subscribers, the share of total viewers for “linear” TV channels like the BBC and ITV has fallen by more than 20%.
The Government are focused on ensuring British broadcasters can not only hold their own in this fight, but also flourish in projecting the best of British across the world. Today, I am therefore publishing a White Paper that proposes major reforms to the sector that will update our analogue rules, and enable our broadcasters to thrive in the streaming age.
The White Paper contains a number of key proposals.
First, we want to ensure that in a world of smart TVs and online platforms, our PSBs continue to receive the exposure they deserve. On a traditional TV, our PSBs are given “prominence”: they hold exclusive rights to the first five channels on every television set in the UK. We plan to update those rules for the digital age, by passing legislation that will ensure public service content is always carried and easy to find on all major platforms—including on smart TVs and Fire sticks.
Secondly, while the UK boasts a vibrant and diverse broadcasting system, we need to ensure consumers are protected in this fast changing landscape. We are therefore proposing a new video-on-demand code that will hold streaming services to similar standards as traditional broadcasters like the BBC and ITV—particularly when it comes to protecting audiences from harmful material.
We also plan to overhaul and simplify the complicated public service remit so that our PSBs can focus on the things they do best—such as creating distinctively British programmes and providing impartial and accurate news.
We are also proposing reforms to the listed events regime, so that PSBs have exclusive rights to bid first for the crown jewels of the sporting calendar—including the FIFA World Cup and Wimbledon.
Finally, over the past year we have been carefully considering the future of one broadcaster in particular: Channel 4.
Channel 4 is a key part of our national, economic and cultural life. Since the broadcaster was established in the early 1980s, it has more than fulfilled the original aim for setting it up—shaking up the TV schedules with original, disruptive programming and boosting our independent production sector. In the last few decades, the independent production sector has grown six-fold—from a £500 million industry in 1995 to £3 billion in 2019.
But the broadcasting world around Channel 4 has changed immeasurably during that same period. Like every other broadcaster, it now faces huge competition for audience share— and many of its competitors have incredibly deep pockets. Streamers such as Amazon Prime spent £779 million on UK original productions in 2020—more than twice as much as Channel 4.
In addition, Channel 4 faces a series of unique challenges. Challenges that other public service broadcasters with different ownership models do not face. While other WSPSBs such as the BBC and Channel 5 have the freedom to make and sell their own content, Channel 4 has no in-house production studio and its ownership model restricts it from borrowing money or raising private sector capital. It is left almost entirely reliant on advertising revenues. Those revenues were already shifting rapidly online. As seen last week, the competition is only set to heat up now that Netflix has confirmed it intends to enter the advertising market.
It is our view that, under its current form of ownership, Channel 4’s options to grow are currently restricted, with fewer options to invest and compete. Those are serious challenges, and anyone who chooses to dismiss them is burying their head in the sand.
As a responsible Government, we are prepared to acknowledge those challenges head on, and do what is needed to protect one of our most important broadcasters not just today, but in the years to come.
The Government therefore believe it is time to unleash Channel 4’s full potential, and open the broadcaster up to private ownership—while, crucially, protecting its public service broadcasting remit.
The sale of Channel 4 will not just benefit the broadcaster. Channel 4 was originally established to help boost independent production and it has been successful in that mission—so successful in fact, that we face a new and very positive challenge: production studios across the country are booming. They are so in-demand, in fact, that we need more and more people to work in them. I therefore intend to funnel some of the proceeds of the sale of Channel 4 into addressing that new challenge, and giving people up and down the UK the skills and opportunity to fill those jobs—delivering a creative dividend for all.
I want Channel 4’s next chapter to be one in which it goes above and beyond what it has already done regionally, and plays a starring role in levelling up our creative industries.
But the sale of Channel 4 is just one part of a major piece of broadcasting reform. As set out in the White Paper I am publishing today, it is a reflection of the transformation that broadcasting has undergone in the last few years—and the need to make sure that our PSBs can keep pace with those changes.
Our TV and radio industry is already the envy of the world. Today, we are giving British broadcasters the backing and support they need to rule the airwaves for years to come.
In connection with the above, my Department has made the following documents available on gov.uk:
“Up next—the government’s vision for the broadcasting sector”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/up-next-the-governments-vision-for-the-broadcasting-sector
“Decision rationale and sale impact analysis for a change of ownership of Channel 4”
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-a-change-of-ownership-of-channel-4-television-corporation/outcome/decision-rationale-and-sale-impact-analysis-for-a-change-of-ownership-of-channel-4
“Government response to the consultation on a potential change of ownership of Channel 4 Television Corporation”
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-a-change-of-ownership-of-channel-4-television-corporation/outcome/government-response-to-the-consultation-on-a-potential-change-of-ownership-of-channel-4-television-corporation
“Government response to the consultation on audience protection standards on video-on-demand services”
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/audience-protection-standards-on-video-on-demand-services/outcome/government-response-to-the-consultation-on-audience-protection-standards-on-video-on-demand-services
“Government response to the Digital Radio and Audio Review”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-radio-and-audio-review/government-response-to-the-digital-radio-and-audio-review
I will also deposit copies of these documents in the Libraries of both Houses.
The speech made by Lucy Powell, the Labour MP for Manchester Central, in the House of Commons on 27 April 2022.
The sell-off of Channel 4 is an important matter for Parliament, yet instead of a statement we had announcement by tweet during recess, and now we hear that a White Paper is to be published tomorrow, when we will not be here and there will not be an opportunity for statements. Where is the Secretary of State to defend her policy today? It is a pattern, and it is a disgrace. Nothing screams rudderless Government like fixating on the governance of Channel 4 while people’s energy bills are going through the roof. It did not even make the list of pretty bad ideas discussed at yesterday’s Cabinet.
Why sell off Channel 4, and why now? Is it because there is an overwhelming clamour from the public? The Government still have not published the 60,000 consultation responses, but my understanding is that the vast majority were against any sale. Is it to help level up the country? Given that Channel 4 commissions half its budget outside London, creating a pipeline of talent across the nations and regions, and stimulating the creative economy in places such as Leeds, Glasgow and Bristol, of course it is not. Is it to create more British jobs in our world-leading creative industries? The Minister and I both know that the likely buyers are going to be the big US media companies, looking for a shop window for their own content. That will mean fewer British-made programmes for British audiences and fewer British jobs. Any UK bidder could lead to less competition, and of course they would be looking at economies of scale.
Is it to support the independent production sector? Channel 4 is currently, uniquely, a publisher-broadcaster, allowing start-ups and independents to retain the value of their own programmes, helping them grow and export. No buyer is going to continue with that model. That is why the UK independent production sector is so overwhelmingly against the sell-off. Or is it to save the Treasury money? I know that the Secretary of State was a bit confused about this in front of the Select Committee, but Channel 4 does not cost the taxpayer a single penny. Indeed, its profits are all reinvested in British jobs and programming.
The Secretary of State says the sell-off is needed to help Channel 4 compete with the likes of Netflix and Amazon. The truth is it will be gobbled up by them. She says the sell-off will generate a pot of up to £1 billion for her to dish out in grants, but Channel 4 already invests that amount here, commercially, each and every year. She says she will protect the essence of Channel 4 in a new remit, but I thought that was the straitjacket she wanted to free it from. The truth is that the sell-off just does not stack up, and the Secretary of State is running scared of Parliament. In fact, it is going to clog up Parliament for months to come because she has no mandate to do it and there is widespread opposition to it on her own Benches.
I can only conclude that this is a deliberate distraction from partygate, a vendetta against Channel 4 news coverage, or another act of cultural vandalism. Channel 4 is a great British asset, owned by the public, that does not cost them a penny. It commissions award-winning British programmes owned by the small independent sector. That is why Margaret Thatcher invented it, and that is why the Government are wrong to sell it off.
The statement made by Julia Lopez, the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, in the House of Commons on 27 April 2022.
Our TV and radio industry is one of our great success stories, and public service broadcasters such as Channel 4 are central to that success. Our PSBs sit at the heart of our broadcasting system, delivering distinctive, high-quality content and helping to develop skills, talent and growth across the entire country.
However, the broadcasting world has changed beyond recognition in recent years. Rapid changes in technology and the rise of American streaming giants such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+, not to mention YouTube and social media platforms, have transformed audience habits. Viewers can watch what they want, when they want, on their laptop, phone, smart TV or Fire stick. As a result, while streaming services have enjoyed a 19% increase in subscribers in recent years, the share of total viewers for linear TV channels such as the BBC and ITV has fallen by more than 20%.
The Government are determined to protect the role of PSBs in our nation’s economic, cultural and democratic life, and to make sure that they remain at the heart of our broadcasting system no matter what the future holds. Tomorrow, therefore, we will be publishing a White Paper that proposes major reforms to our decades-old broadcasting regulations—reforms that will put traditional broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 on an even playing field with Netflix, Amazon Prime and others, and enable them to thrive in the streaming age. We will set out the full details of our proposals when the White Paper is published.
It is important to understand that the sale of Channel 4 is just one part of that major piece of reform. Like the rest of the White Paper, it is a reflection of the transformation that broadcasting has undergone in the last few years and the need to make sure that our PSBs can keep pace with those changes.
Channel 4 has done a fantastic job in fulfilling the original mission that it was set by the Thatcher Government: to spur independent production and deliver cutting-edge content. The independent production sector has exploded in the last few decades, growing from a £500 million industry in 1995 to an industry of approximately £3 billion in 2019. However, since it was structured to address the challenges of the 1980s, there are limits to Channel 4’s ability to adapt to the 2020s and beyond.
Channel 4 now faces a new set of challenges. It faces huge competition for audience share and advertising spend from a wider range of players, many of whose deep pockets have been driving up production costs. Streamers such as Netflix spent £779 million on UK productions in 2020, more than twice as much as Channel 4. While other PSBs, such as the BBC and Channel 5, have the freedom to make and sell their own content, Channel 4 has no in-house studio and relies almost entirely on linear television advertising spend at a time when those revenues are rapidly shifting online.
Under its current form of ownership, Channel 4 has few options to grow, invest and compete. The Government believe that it is time to unleash the broadcaster’s full potential and to open Channel 4 up to private ownership and investment—crucially, while protecting its public service broadcasting remit. We believe we can sell Channel 4 to a buyer who will fund emerging talent and independent and impartial news, and invest in every corner of the UK.
We intend to use the proceeds of the sale to tackle today’s broadcasting challenges. As I said, our independent production sector is thriving. Only 7% of its revenue comes from Channel 4. The much bigger challenge we face is a shortage of skills. Our film and TV studios are booming. We need to give people the skills to fill the jobs in them, so we will reinvest the proceeds of a Channel 4 sale into levelling up the creative sector and giving people in left-behind areas the training and opportunity to work in the industry.
The sale of Channel 4 will not just benefit the broadcaster; it will deliver a creative dividend for the entire country. As I said, the future of Channel 4 is just one part of our wider reform of the entire broadcasting sector, and I look forward to providing the House with the full details shortly.
The comments made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 28 April 2022.
The UK’s TV and radio industries are world-renowned for their creativity, driven by exceptional talent that is delivering groundbreaking public service programming.
Set against the backdrop of the digital transformation of our viewing habits, today’s plans will revamp decades-old laws to help our public service broadcasters compete in the internet age and usher in a new golden age for British TV and radio. This will provide jobs and growth in the future along with the content we all love.
The statement made by Nigel Huddleston, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 25 April 2022.
I wish to inform the House that the Government have today published their response to the recommendations made by the Independent Fan Led Review of Football Governance.
The Government’s response focuses on responding to the review’s 10 strategic recommendations. We accept or support all of the 10 strategic recommendations in our response, which sets out the Government’s planned reform of football. The sum total of our plans amount to significant reform with an independent regulator focused on financial sustainability, and a strengthened approach to ownership of football clubs and their governance.
The Government build on the case for reform set out in the review. We believe that there are two key problems in English football. First, there is significant risk of financial failure among clubs, and secondly, the cultural heritage of English football is at risk of harm. We have identified that these two problems have three root causes: the structure and dynamics of the market create incentives for financial overreach, inadequate corporate governance often affords unchecked decision-making power, and the existing regulation is ineffective. Without reform these financial failures will persist, and the economic and social costs would be substantial. Therefore, the Government believe that there is a need to intervene in football to secure the future of the game.
The issues highlighted in the review are complex and our reforms need detailed and considered analysis to ensure the sustainability of the sector long term. As a result, we have committed to publishing a White Paper in the summer which will set out further details on the implementation of reform.
In response to the strategic recommendations, the Government response sets out a vision for the reform of English football:
An independent regulator for football will be established. The response sets out the proposed objective, scope and powers of the regulator, and that it would oversee a licensing regime of the top five leagues.
The regulator will have a focus on financial regulation. The financial regulation regime will take a holistic approach, bringing together the Owners’ and Directors’ test, corporate governance and equality, and diversity and inclusion as part of one regime.
The current Owners’ and Directors’ tests do not go far enough in assessing suitability for ownership of clubs. The response sets out that the tests should be strengthened by enhancing due diligence to check source of funds and the strength of business and financial plans, and that an integrity-style test will be introduced. The forthcoming White Paper will provide further details on how the enhanced tests will work, and what will be in scope of the integrity test.
We believe that football needs a new approach to corporate governance, proposing a new model to be designed and overseen by the regulator. Football also needs to take further action on diversity and inclusion through their own plans for action. Further consideration will be given to ensure the model is proportionate and appropriate for football.
We agree with the review that supporters should be properly consulted by clubs, but we propose to share details in the White Paper on a more flexible approach to supporter engagement by making a minimum level of fan engagement a condition of the regulator licence. We have also committed to share details in the White Paper on the regulator implementing a licence condition which requires clubs to have a mechanism for fans to consent to changes to key items of club heritage.
On financial distributions in the football pyramid, we agree that more could be done by the Premier League to enhance financial flows through the wider football pyramid, and ideally this would be through a football-led solution. We have committed to revisit whether backstop powers are needed for the regulator to implement a new distribution agreement, if a solution is not found before the White Paper.
We agree with the review on the importance of football clubs to local communities, and set out that the position on “existing provisions”—which applies to football stadiums—in the national planning policy framework will be retained in the revised NPPF, in conjunction with Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities colleagues.
Finally, in response to the review’s recommendations regarding alcohol and football, we are committing to review the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, in conjunction with Home Office colleagues.
The Government are fully committed to reforming football governance to enable a long-term, sustainable future for the game. Accepting or supporting all the strategic recommendations in the review is the next step to doing exactly this, and will represent a wholesale change in the way football is governed in England.
We recognise the scale of change that is required, and the impact that our proposals will have within football and more broadly. That is why we are setting a strategic direction in reforming football for the better, but taking some time to consider the details of exactly how we will enact these changes. We will set out even more information on the precise implementation of our reforms in a White Paper which we will publish this summer, and are committing to implementing the reforms as soon as possible.