Broadcasting Act 2019

Legislation and motions that have passed.

That this House passes the legislation at Third Reading

Poll ended at Wed May 26, 2021 5:45 pm

Aye
10
67%
No
4
27%
Present/Abstain
0
No votes
Absent/Abstain
0
No votes
Admin
1
7%
 
Total votes: 15

User avatar
Juliet Manning MP
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:57 pm
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Kandler

Broadcasting Act 2019

Post by Juliet Manning MP »

Broadcasting Act 2019

Key provisions:
- Privatises the Channel Four Television Corporation with an IPO on the London Stock Exchange
-Decriminalises non-payment of the television licence fee, making it a civil offence only
-Introduces a code of conduct for persons employed by the BBC in any capacity to maintain political impartiality and objectivity both on and off the airwaves
-Caps BBC salaries to £500,000 p/a and requires that all staff earning more than £99,999 /p/a be named with details of their salaries published
-Defines Government spending on the BBC World Service as a component of Overseas Development Aid
-Sets out a requirement for the BBC World Service to offer own-language services in specific countries as defined by the Government
-Requires all terrestrial channels to broadcast party political broadcasts concurrently
-Renames OFCOM the Broadcasting Standards Authority and gives the BSA new powers to fine channels and producers which are found to have displayed political bias
-Requires broadcasters to make British Sign Language interpretation available for all programming at all times
-Requires broadcasters to implement subtitles on all content displayed via streaming services, like iPlayer or Netflix, and all other online video services supported by the broadcaster
Mr Speaker,

Broadcasting in the United Kingdom has become a swamp of political bias, celebrity profiteering, indiscriminate anti-conservative activism and religious discrimination. In Britain today, celebrities on multi-million pound salaries paid out of the public purse are placed on a pedestal to lecture the British people about right and wrong. Newsreaders on Twitter declare their fellow countrymen to be racist. Our airwaves are dominated by the left-liberal elite, and by the silencing of majoritarian positions. On television, dramatised programming glamorises criminality, drug abuse, alcoholism and sexual promiscuity; it embraces a far-left agenda which denies the sanctity of womanhood and which obfuscates open debate in the name of political correctness. The “woke” brigades of keyboard warriors take to the screens to decry half of their compatriots as xenophobic. And channels such as Channel 4, funded by the general public, exhibit a clear left-of-centre bias which leaves the silent majority excluded. This country is in the midst of a culture war which conservatives did not start but were called to fight; a culture war in which free speech, fair debate and impartial events coverage are the casualties. We live in a world where exorbitant BBC salaries are a serious strain on the Exchequer; where publicly-funded newscasters take clear editorial positions; and where a toothless regulator fails to ensure propriety and ethics in reporting and broadcasting.

This government is ending the domination of the sneering liberal elite, Mr Speaker. It is rolling back the frontiers of the outrage brigade and the wokester mob. It is putting consumers back at the heart of broadcasting policy, eliminating wasteful spending, and introducing transparency into the heart of our national broadcasting apparatus. Most of all, we are restoring trust, Mr Speaker: trust in broadcasting as a source of objective, impartial news, and of television and radio drama as a source of informative and entertaining, rather than debauched and criminal, storylines.

The first measure outlined in the Broadcasting Bill is the privatisation in totality of Channel Four Television. In this day and age, when thousands of broadcasters compete for advertising and subscription revenue, it is simply unacceptable that a fragrantly editorialising and seldom impartial broadcaster, which exhibits with alarming regularity a distinct socialist bias, should continue to be funded by the taxpayer. Channel 4 will be listed on the London Stock Exchange as a public limited company, with the great British public free to purchase shares and set the direction of a channel which was always meant for them.

BBC salaries will be capped, and salaries over the six-figure mark will have to be declared and published. It is completely unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for the multi-million salaries of talking heads like Gary Lineker, who take to Twitter regularly to decry half of their fellow countrymen as backward, racist thugs. It is unacceptable that a top BBC executive should be paid more than the Prime Minister, receive more perks than the Queen; and be utterly unaccountable for how he spends public money in a time of intense pressure on our finances.

All BBC staff will be required to abide by a new code of conduct applying both on and off the air, requiring rigid impartiality and objectivity in the publication of facts. Ideologues with a large following, who spout politically charged propaganda, should not be funded by the British taxpayer. The Broadcasting Bill also decriminalises non-payment of the licence fee, recognising for the first time that failure to pay whilst consuming BBC services is a civil rather than a criminal matter, and a matter for the BBC themselves to pursue in the courts rather than the police and the CPS - who frankly have far more valuable things to do. Gone are the days of mobile BBC vans trundling around estates seeking to catch out non-payers, and gone are the days of prosecuted pensioners begging in the courtroom to be spared a jail sentence for their heinous crime of watching television without a licence.

Interpretation in British Sign Language will be a requirement for all programming at all times, at the expense of broadcasters. It is unacceptable that the deaf community should be excluded from broadcasting when their inclusion is so easy and so cost-effective. All catch-up television services will be required to provide closed caption subtitling for all programmes. And to promote political engagement and understanding, PPBs will now be scheduled concurrently across all terrestrial channels.

The bounds of the BBC World Service will be expanded, with a new remit to speak truth in the most oppressed and repressed corners of the globe. Spending on the World Service will now form part of our wider ODA budget, recognising its contribution to the promotion of democracy, free trade and the rule of law.

A new Broadcasting Standards Authority will have the power to level fines against broadcasters and individuals who are found to exhibit political bias on the airwaves.

Mr Speaker, this bill is about taking back control of our airwaves after decades of their having been surrendered to the liberal elite. It is about empowering the British people to know the truth, and know that the truth shall make them free. It is about decency, fairness, and renewal. It is, in short, what this government is all about. I commend this bill to the House.
Rt Hon. Ms Juliet Manning MP
Member of Parliament for Clwyd West

Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Lord President of the Council
Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs
User avatar
Sir Dylan Macmillan
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:27 am
Constituency: North East Bedfordshire
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: DylPickle

Re: Broadcasting Act 2019

Post by Sir Dylan Macmillan »

ORDER! Second Reading
Sir Dylan Macmillan
MP for North East Bedfordshire 2001 - Present

Shadow Chancellor 2016
Chancellor 2015
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 2014 - 2015
Leader of the House of Commons 2012 - 2014
Secretary of State for International Development 2010 - 2012
Conservative Party Chairman 2008 - 2010
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury 2005 - 2008
User avatar
Ashton Edwards
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:12 am
Constituency: Kensington
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: aboltik

Re: Broadcasting Act 2019

Post by Ashton Edwards »

Mr Speaker,

I’d like to start my statement by repeating a statement made by the Right Honourable Member for Clwyd West: the aim is to empower the British people to know the truth and the truth shall make them free. It’s not a perfect adaptation of John 8:32 but it fits well enough.

I believe in truth. That’s something that both the Right Honourable Member and I share. And it’s my hope that we can speak truths about this legislation. Objective, provable, demonstrable, honest truths.

It starts with the first proposed provision regarding Channel 4. The arguments in favour of privatising Channel 4, when we strip down invective, are that the entity is publicly funded and that this is unfair with many private providers competing for advertising revenue.

But we should first look to the truth, as the RIght Honourable Member has suggested. The truth is that Channel 4 first started broadcasting in 1982, and that since then it has had a mandate to provide innovative content aimed at reaching a more diverse audience. To do this, it commissions content from creators all across the United Kingdom in a way that the other broadcasters- which make their own content in-house- do not. In 2018, it spent just under £500 million on original content, with most of this money supporting production houses outside of London. independent analysis commissioned in 2017 by Channel 4 shows that 3,000 jobs are supported by Channel 4’s spend in the Nations and Regions. And just this year it announced its plan to open a National Headquarters in Leeds, joining creative offices in Glasgow and Bristol as hubs for creativity and innovation in broadcasting and in movie making outside of the Home Counties.

Now I understand that the Right Honourable Member laments that the public has to pay for Channel 4. Here again we should look to the truth. And the truth is that Channel 4 is not supported by government or public funding: it is sustained entirely through commercial means including advertising.

The costs to the public of Channel 4 are so little as to be listed as none- again, given the truth that Channel 4 is entirely funded by commercial activities. And yet the benefits in job creation, in the financing and support of independent creative endeavours and innovation across the United Kingdom, led the Right Honourable Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, a predecessor to the Right Honourable Member speaking here today, to say that Channel 4 is a “precious public asset” that will continue to be “owned by the country”.

I, Mr Speaker, would at least argue that position and statement is based on truth.

Another truth is that if we want to be fair to everyone in this country who should have the ability to enjoy and benefit from content produced by public broadcasters at the least, then we should do everything we can to promote accessibility. To that end, I do applaud the Government for their proposals in this legislation to mandate the availability of captioning as well as the use of British Sign Language in programming. I wish that there had been more focus on that rather than the invective I mentioned before, but that is a minor issue compared to the positivity that the Government is demonstrating it is capable of with this proposal.

At this point, I want to pivot to other provisions of this legislation… ones that deal with truth but in a different way.

The first is the provision relating to the off-air code of conduct. The BBC already has a code of conduct that applies to every employee no matter how junior or senior, and it includes provisions on impartiality and editorialisation as well as the treatment of colleagues, children, and the community. Now the Government is right in that we expect certain behaviours, and there is good reason to expect that a newsreader should not be someone who chooses to, say, start fights on a regular basis. But in her statement, the Right Honourable Member has made it clear what exactly is going to be covered by this content: personal opinions even expressed in a personal capacity would be out of bounds. The Government cites a case for this against the host of Match of the Day as one example of problematic statements. Let us say, though, that this legislation were to go into effect as it is and the host of Match of the Day makes a comment to a friend that might be considered biased or disagreeable or whatever term the Government foresees using in this code of conduct. That comment makes its way to Twitter, to the press, to any one of a hundred different sources and becomes disseminated. To suggest that this might threaten someone’s employment is not a stretch of the truth given the language of this Bill and the statement made by the Right Honourable Member. This raises serious concerns when read alongside Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 relating to the right of freedom of expression; the exceptions provided for which are necessary for a democratic society cannot be read to cover a policy preventing the expression of personal opinions that might be disagreeable.

The second is the provision relating to the renaming of Ofcom yet again and providing this new Authority with the power to police speech for perceived bias- and that such oversight applies not only to broadcasters but to individuals “on the airwaves.” First, the simple truth is that there is not a consistent, objective, free-from-human-error way to detect and to address every potential and possible bias. There is a level of bias, recognised or not, that goes into saying whether a particular word or phrase or statement is biased. But second, and more chillingly, is how broadly this would apply. While “on the airwaves” might imply other media than television, even if this is just looking at television content, this again represents a chilling control over expression by public and private broadcasters alike. Even an off-handed comment which may again be disagreeable would find the broadcaster and the individual subject to some sort of sanction based on a non-objective measure of “political bias.”

There are other relatively minor areas where some more truth might be needed; for instance, the provision relating to the publication of BBC salaries. That information is already provided, although the threshold for that is £150,000 per year as opposed to the £100,000 and above provided for in this legislation.

The decriminalisation relating to payment of the license fee can certainly cause some areas of concern around how much time will be taken up by civil suits and what it may do to the funding of BBC resources, and we could benefit from a further discussion there; however, I am happy to see that the Government is committing to protecting all pensioners from the cost of license fees and look forward to seeing that confirmed in the upcoming budget.

Mr Speaker, I will go back to truth as I mentioned at the beginning and the importance of it. The truth is that there are provisions of this bill that we applaud relating to accessibility of content. And the truth is there are provisions that are rather poorly supported, whose evidence exists only as a lack of full information such as in the funding of Channel 4 or only in the form of invective about why there must be chilling controls on speech. I hope that this Government will still pursue provisions relating to accessibility. But I also hope that this Government now takes a step back, with a clearer head re-read this legislation and the justification for it, and withdraws this legislation. There are flaws and shortcomings that cannot be addressed by simple amendments, particularly relating to the protection of individual rights, and that are rather chilling to think about.

I urge the Government to take back this bill. Barring that, I urge everyone who is concerned about truth- about real truth- and about the basic rights of UK citizens to vote against this legislation.
Ashton Edwards MP
MP for Kensington (2017-) | Labour
Shadow Foreign Secretary (2020-2021)
Shadow Health and Social Affairs Secretary (2020-2021)
Shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary (2019-2021)

Shadow Health, Education and Social Care Secretary (2019-2020)
User avatar
Ashton Edwards
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:12 am
Constituency: Kensington
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: aboltik

Re: Broadcasting Act 2019

Post by Ashton Edwards »

Mr Speaker,

I have two amendments I wish to make to this legislation, based on comments that I have already made to this House.

First, there is the issue of Channel 4 privatisation, which this Government is pursuing because the Right Honourable Member for Clwyd West is saying must be done because it is an entity supported by public funding and because that is unfair in the framework that that Member laid out. Now, we have said that is not presenting the full picture of Channel 4 and its impact on Britain; we have said that Channel 4 is entirely supported by commercial activities such as investments and the sale of advertising time. We have said that Channel 4 supports a network of up to 3,000 creative jobs throughout the entirety of the UK through the way it commissions programmes through independent creative houses. We have said that Channel 4’s character of seeking to invest in innovative programming throughout the entirety of the UK is a benefit to our national culture.

To that end, the proposal by the Government to sell off a public asset is not firmly supported by the facts on the ground.

Second, there is the question of this code of conduct, which I have said will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression- a freedom that ought to be protected and preserved wherever possible. At the very least, we question why that would have to apply to everyone who works for the BBC in any capacity- why it would apply to the background production assistant who’s helping to bring to life the latest series of Doctor Who or the staff that are implementing the requirement to use British Sign Language in broadcasts or to custodial staff that help ensure compliance with health and safety rules.

Mandating that anyone and everyone who works for the BBC must sign on to a restrictive code of conduct would turn away talent in so many areas that we could be threatening the existence of the BBC altogether.

To that end, Mr Speaker, I would propose the following amendment of this legislation. Specifically, I move to amend the legislation to STRIKE the language that is in italics and in brackets below, and to ADD the language that is in bold below:
Key provisions:
[- Privatises the Channel Four Television Corporation with an IPO on the London Stock Exchange]
-Decriminalises non-payment of the television licence fee, making it a civil offence only
-Introduces a code of conduct for persons employed by the BBC in an[y] on-screen capacity to maintain political impartiality and objectivity both on and off the airwaves
-Caps BBC salaries to £500,000 p/a and requires that all staff earning more than £99,999 /p/a be named with details of their salaries published
[-Defines Government spending on the BBC World Service as a component of Overseas Development Aid]
-Sets out a requirement for the BBC World Service to offer own-language services in specific countries as defined by the Government
[-Requires all terrestrial channels to broadcast party political broadcasts concurrently]
-Renames OFCOM the Broadcasting Standards Authority and gives the BSA new powers to fine channels and producers which are found to have displayed political bias
-Requires broadcasters to make British Sign Language interpretation available for all programming at all times
-Requires broadcasters to implement subtitles on all content displayed via streaming services, like iPlayer or Netflix, and all other online video services supported by the broadcaster
As to the language on party political broadcasts, the Government has not explained its rationale for why this is included aside from promoting political understanding. However, this is already the rule under Section 333 of the Communications Act 2003 and under regulations promulgated by Ofcom which already are included in every licensed public service television channel, including channels offered the BBC, every local digital television programme service, and every national analogue radio service, and their digital simulcast services.

Further to my amendment, which I hope the Government will consider friendly, I offer a second amendment. Specifically, I move to amend the legislation to STRIKE the language that is in italics and in brackets below, which will strike the provisions relating to the code of conduct and the monitoring of political speech:
Key provisions:
[-Introduces a code of conduct for persons employed by the BBC in any capacity to maintain political impartiality and objectivity both on and off the airwaves]
[-Renames OFCOM the Broadcasting Standards Authority and gives the BSA new powers to fine channels and producers which are found to have displayed political bias]
This amendment would not change any other provision of the legislation- so that the passage of the second amendment would not interfere with the passage of the first amendment in regards to Channel 4, for instance.

This House ought to have a vote, publicly and affirmatively, on these provisions. As I stated earlier, there is a potential conflict with the basic right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998 where someone’s ability to speak as an individual will be policed twice for BBC employees: first as a part of this code of conduct which will apply on and off the airwaves, and then secondly if the new BSA happens to be watching or even watching someone’s Twitter account.

There is also grave concern that there is no definition of political bias, how it is to be monitored or determined, or what the appropriate fine is for being accused of “political bias.” Given that it is nearly- and I would say impossible- to determine an absolute objective determination of when something is willfully biased in such a way to distort the truth, we are setting up a standard that does not allow for a fair defense of someone accused. We are setting up a standard that is based on the political leanings and the personal biases of individuals. And something like that is incredibly dangerous for the rule of law and the principles of representative democracy that the Government has said here is important for our country.

So I would ask that the language be stricken. The potential costs to the rights of UK citizens in terms of losing a basic right far outweigh any potential benefit. It is our duty in this House to consider that carefully, and so we need to consider this amendment.
Ashton Edwards MP
MP for Kensington (2017-) | Labour
Shadow Foreign Secretary (2020-2021)
Shadow Health and Social Affairs Secretary (2020-2021)
Shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary (2019-2021)

Shadow Health, Education and Social Care Secretary (2019-2020)
User avatar
Sir Dylan Macmillan
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:27 am
Constituency: North East Bedfordshire
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: DylPickle

Re: Broadcasting Act 2019

Post by Sir Dylan Macmillan »

The Amendments are in order. Division! Clear the Lobbies!
Sir Dylan Macmillan
MP for North East Bedfordshire 2001 - Present

Shadow Chancellor 2016
Chancellor 2015
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 2014 - 2015
Leader of the House of Commons 2012 - 2014
Secretary of State for International Development 2010 - 2012
Conservative Party Chairman 2008 - 2010
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury 2005 - 2008
User avatar
Sir Dylan Macmillan
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:27 am
Constituency: North East Bedfordshire
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: DylPickle

Re: Broadcasting Act 2019

Post by Sir Dylan Macmillan »

Clerk: The Bill has been updated to read as follows:

Key provisions:
-Decriminalises non-payment of the television licence fee, making it a civil offence only
-Introduces a code of conduct for persons employed by the BBC in an[y] on-screen capacity to maintain political impartiality and objectivity both on and off the airwaves
-Caps BBC salaries to £500,000 p/a and requires that all staff earning more than £99,999 /p/a be named with details of their salaries published
-Sets out a requirement for the BBC World Service to offer own-language services in specific countries as defined by the Government
-Renames OFCOM the Broadcasting Standards Authority and gives the BSA new powers to fine channels and producers which are found to have displayed political bias
-Requires broadcasters to make British Sign Language interpretation available for all programming at all times
-Requires broadcasters to implement subtitles on all content displayed via streaming services, like iPlayer or Netflix, and all other online video services supported by the broadcaster
Sir Dylan Macmillan
MP for North East Bedfordshire 2001 - Present

Shadow Chancellor 2016
Chancellor 2015
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 2014 - 2015
Leader of the House of Commons 2012 - 2014
Secretary of State for International Development 2010 - 2012
Conservative Party Chairman 2008 - 2010
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury 2005 - 2008
User avatar
Sir Dylan Macmillan
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:27 am
Constituency: North East Bedfordshire
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: DylPickle

Re: Broadcasting Act 2019

Post by Sir Dylan Macmillan »

DIVISION! CLEAR THE LOBBIES
Sir Dylan Macmillan
MP for North East Bedfordshire 2001 - Present

Shadow Chancellor 2016
Chancellor 2015
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 2014 - 2015
Leader of the House of Commons 2012 - 2014
Secretary of State for International Development 2010 - 2012
Conservative Party Chairman 2008 - 2010
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury 2005 - 2008
User avatar
Juliet Manning MP
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:57 pm
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Kandler

Re: Broadcasting Act 2019

Post by Juliet Manning MP »

Aye
Rt Hon. Ms Juliet Manning MP
Member of Parliament for Clwyd West

Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Lord President of the Council
Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs
User avatar
Scott Elliot
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 6:18 pm
Constituency: Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: JoshWB#1363

Re: Broadcasting Act 2019

Post by Scott Elliot »

Aye
Daventry District Councillor 1998-2004, MEP for East Midlands 2004-2014 MP for Daventry 2015-present Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Environment 2016-present
User avatar
Sir Dylan Macmillan
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:27 am
Constituency: North East Bedfordshire
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: DylPickle

Re: Broadcasting Act 2019

Post by Sir Dylan Macmillan »

(You only need to vote in the poll above)
Sir Dylan Macmillan
MP for North East Bedfordshire 2001 - Present

Shadow Chancellor 2016
Chancellor 2015
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 2014 - 2015
Leader of the House of Commons 2012 - 2014
Secretary of State for International Development 2010 - 2012
Conservative Party Chairman 2008 - 2010
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury 2005 - 2008
Post Reply

Return to “Passed Legislation and Motions”