Media Green Paper

I beg to move, That this House has considered the Media Green Paper. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the media Green Paper, a hugely consequential document that has profound implications for all our broadcasters, news publishers and technology companies. I welcome a lot that is contained within it. Nevertheless, it contains some extremely controversial proposals, and I regret that Parliament has not really had an opportunity to debate them since its publication. The consultation period has now come to an end, so I hope that the Minister will still take account of my contribution and those of other Members when considering the way forward. It is also regrettable that we have only an hour. I will try to keep my speech brief, because quite a few Members have made the effort to attend. I will focus on two issues that are perhaps the most controversial in the Green Paper. On the first—the suggestion that in 2034 we should move towards wholly internet protocol TV and discontinue digital terrestrial transition—I am generally supportive of the Government. There are clear benefits to doing so. It will represent a considerable cost saving to the broadcasters, as outlined in the Green Paper. Secondly, it will free up spectrum, for which there could be any number of alternative uses, and that will undoubtedly provide additional value to consumers. The third reason I welcome it is that it opens up an option on the other big issue, which is the subject of a different Green Paper and is perhaps the elephant in the room: the future of the BBC. The biggest argument against moving towards an element of subscription, at least, in the BBC is that that cannot be done while the BBC is subject to digital terrestrial transmission.

I just want to pick up something, because I have not studied the proposal to turn off the digital Freeview signal in enough detail. Every house would need an internet supply, so would that supply be provided free or would people have to subscribe to get it in?

My right hon. Friend asks a perfectly valid question, and I want to acknowledge that there are concerns. We had a debate in Westminster Hall not that long ago, and a number of my colleagues—particularly from Scotland—turned up to express concern about the fact that the quality of reception via broadband in their constituencies is very poor and that the consequence of switching off DTT might be to prevent them from receiving television at all. That is clearly unacceptable. The proposal can go ahead only if we reach the position to which the Labour and Conservative Governments have aspired: universal access to high-speed broadband of sufficient quality to allow IPTV to be received.

I am concerned about the impact of the switch-off on commercial radio. The BBC may be able to absorb some of the consequences of the DTT switch-off, given the savings that it will make from its television distribution, but commercial broadcasters do not have the same offsetting saving. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should therefore consider how to ensure that commercial radio is not the unintended loser in a reform designed principally around television?

I strongly agree, and that is the point that I was coming to next. A lot of the towers in the transmission network, which broadcasts digital terrestrial transmission, are owned by Arqiva, and they also carry the transmitters for commercial radio. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if we turn off the television transmission, all the costs get loaded on to the remaining broadcasters—that is, the commercial radio stations. I therefore hope that the Minister will at least address that too, because the estimate that I saw is that it will potentially result in an increase in costs of more than 50% a year for commercial radio stations.

One aspect of the media Green Paper for us in Northern Ireland is similar to the position in the rest of the United Kingdom, in that it will directly threaten not only our local broadcasting sector but the connectivity of our rural and most vulnerable communities. The 2034 switch-off of digital terrestrial TV is focused almost entirely on what appears on our television screens, but the real casualty is commercial and local radio. The right hon. Gentleman is right to underline the issue. The economic modelling shows that transmission costs will surge by almost 50% per year for commercial radio. Does he agree that that will be the death of commercial radio?

The hon. Member is completely right that this issue must be addressed before we proceed. There is also the question of cost, raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke). There are people who probably do have access to broadband, if they choose to pay for it, but they cannot afford to do so. They, too, would be severely affected if they were suddenly unable to receive television by that means. I support the ambition to reach a point in 2034 when we will be able to switch off DTT, but serious questions need to be addressed before we reach that point. I will turn to the other major issue of twofold concern, because the Government are advancing two parallel policies on the question of prominence. I was the Minister responsible for the passage of the Media Act 2024, during the previous Parliament. It is a great delight to see some familiar faces with whom I have worked with in the past on the officials’ Bench. The Media Act was all about ensuring that our public service broadcasters were still highly visible in a world where people are getting smart, connected TVs. It simply maintained the prominence requirements, which was important, as all the broadcasters agreed. It is now suggested that the same prominence should be extended to video-sharing platforms. I recognise and agree with the Government’s concern about the prominence of disinformation. I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which did a big inquiry into disinformation. The best counter to disinformation is accurate, sourced, objective journalistic content, of the kind that public service broadcasters provide. Nevertheless, YouTube, the main video-sharing platform under discussion, was never intended as the vehicle for the big broadcasters. It is all about user-generated content. There is real concern that if the main broadcasters are pushed into greater prominence, some people will get less prominence. Those are the creators, start-ups and user-generated content. That undermines one of the original purposes of YouTube.

I want to come in on the matter of trust. One of the most trusted media or news sources is local media, with 42 million readers a week. I never miss an opportunity to say that the News Shopper is great. Does my right hon. Friend think that this is an opportunity for the BBC, which has done some great work with the local democracy reporting service, to enhance its effective work with local media so that we do not lose that trusted local news source?

As one of the originators of the local democracy reporting service, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. It is incredibly important to have a thriving local media sector, and the BBC plays an important role in maintaining that. Anything that promotes BBC content would, I hope, equally promote local content, which has not had the same degree of attention that it deserves.

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s views about prominence. How does he see his view sitting alongside reducing the voting age to 16 by the end of this Parliament, almost certainly in time for the next general election? Young people do not get much of their information from linear broadcast channels. They get a lot of it from places such as YouTube. How does he reconcile his views on prominence? In my opinion, it is a necessary but not sufficient way to get good, trusted media to young people to equip them to vote.

That is perhaps even more relevant to the second prong of the Government’s proposals, which is about social media. I will come to that point, but before I finish talking about local media, I want to mention that another of the Government’s flagship policies is devolution. If we are to have more power given to local authorities, mayors and unitary authorities, people need to know what they are doing, and the absence of local media is a real problem in that respect. It will become ever more important to promote local media. Lastly, I want to come to the second prong, which is about the prominence or promotion of trusted news providers on social media. I have to say that this policy gives me some considerable concern. There are lots of problems around definition. First, what is news? Secondly, what does “prominence” mean for a social media platform on which people access a personalised feed based on their previous content choices? There are practical difficulties with that. I know the Government have already put in place the concept of recognised news publishers under the Online Safety Act 2023, but that had a very different purpose. The problem I have is with the idea that a Government agency of some kind will be saying, “This is a trusted news provider, and therefore this is not,” and deciding, or at least seeking to influence, where those providers appear in people’s feeds. I take the point from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) that young people are turning more and more to social media, but I do not think that this policy is the answer, because it looks to me like a very dangerous extension of Government interference in the freedom of the press and the right to free speech. I would like the Minister’s assurance that there is no linkage intended to any form of regulation. The idea that perhaps news providers might be given prominence if they accept a regulatory structure that the Government want would be equally dangerous. In some ways, I think that this problem is better addressed by the measures that we have already put in place. We have the digital markets competition regime, which is only just coming into effect. The Competition and Markets Authority could be doing much more to require the platforms to make public the algorithms they use to promote content. Before we go down that road, which carries real jeopardy, I hope that we will look instead to use some other measures that have already been put in place to ensure that reputable news providers get the position that they deserve in search terms and search, and also the rewards attached to them.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. As we consider the future of terrestrial television, we must ensure that technological change does not leave people behind, because for millions—especially older people and lower-income households—Freeview remains a vital source of television and an excellent service, which I use. Any transition from terrestrial broadcasting must be gradual and inclusive, as many people still lack reliable broadband or easy access to digital services. Public service broadcasting must remain universally accessible, and as Ministers consider the future of television distribution, I urge them to ensure that no household is excluded from trusted news, information and entertainment simply because of where they live or what they can afford. There are very few pieces of national infrastructure that prove their value more clearly than terrestrial television during an emergency. We do not have to imagine what a national resilience crisis looks like; we just lived through one last month in my constituency when the devastating Stourbridge wildfires ripped through neighbourhoods, destroying 19 homes and tearing down power infrastructure. Entire streets were instantly cut off, rail lines were stopped, power grids buckled, and families were forced to watch their own neighbourhoods burn on television from the evacuation centre. In those critical hours, when broadband and mobile networks faced severe pressure and outages, traditional terrestrial broadcast was not a relic of the past; it was a lifeline. Unlike internet-based networks, Broadcast 2040+ does not rely on broadband infrastructure; it remains a universal and resilient means of communication when other systems may fail. A short-sighted, internet-only switch-off by 2034 ignores the reality of the climate and infrastructure risks. I believe that we must formally integrate terrestrial broadcasting into our national risk assessments and secure its future into the 2040s and beyond. True national resilience means ensuring that, when disaster does strike, every single household remains connected to vital, lifesaving information. Can the Minister assure the House that as television evolves, the public broadcasting service will remain free and universally accessible to all, and that the transmission network will be protected to ensure that, if the lights do go out, broadcasting can stay on?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing today’s debate. As always, we agree on virtually everything, so I will not repeat many of the things he said. I am also in broad agreement with the Government’s goals and much of the Green Paper but, like my right hon. Friend, I have two areas of concern. First, I am concerned about the dynamics and practicalities of the future of television distribution after the switch-off of digital terrestrial television, provided most frequently through Freeview. That will take place in either 2034 or 2044, and it could have a profound impact on remote and rural communities in particular, such as parts of my Droitwich and Evesham constituency. Secondly, I am concerned about the thorny issue of prominence. It is a noble ambition to counter misinformation and to ensure that trustworthy news is more accessible and discoverable, but it raises important questions. What exactly do we mean by trusted? Who decides what qualifies? How will such a system be enforced? The Government have made it clear that a DTT switch-off is coming, so the question is not simply whether the transition will happen, but how it will protect vulnerable users and those at risk of being digitally excluded, notwithstanding all the positive reasons for the change, which my right hon. Friend outlined some moments ago and which I will not repeat. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) highlighted, in recent times of trouble, including storms and fires, we have seen how vital these services are, particularly when other forms of media, such as broadband and mobiles, may be switched off, and we must consider that security aspect to the debate. The prominent media trade body Radiocentre has highlighted the potential impact of DTT switch-off on radio transmission costs. Without appropriate financial mitigation, it could put services, local coverage and listener choice at risk. Commercial radio shares much of the same transmission infrastructure as DTT; if there were a switch-off, the costs that are currently shared between television and radio could instead be transferred to radio broadcasters, creating a significant new cost burden from 2035 onwards and potentially increasing transmission costs by more than 50%. That is deeply concerning, particularly in rural communities. Many rural households still face unreliable broadband infrastructure, while others—particularly elderly households and those on lower incomes—may struggle to afford the internet contracts required to replace free-to-air television. We must not a create a situation where people who have relied on television for decades find themselves unable to access news, entertainment and, importantly, essential public information. The Government must adopt a general rural-proofing approach to this transition, so that no community and no generation is left behind. On a related point, the effects of that wider shift are already being felt in and around my constituency. The iconic Droitwich transmitting station in Wychbold closed its long-wave services in June this year, and I was disappointed that Historic England could not list the station. Furthermore, there are security aspects to retaining long-wave capacity. It is very difficult to block analogue radio signals—at least, it is much more difficult than blocking their internet equivalent—and long-wave transmissions have shown their usefulness in times of crisis. In a future wartime scenario, the UK might be thankful to have retained the infrastructure required to broadcast to the nation and beyond over distances of hundreds of miles. We then come to the issue of prominence. The Green Paper proposes new approaches to make trusted news easier to find on social media and to make public service media content more prominent on third-party platforms. The policy objectives are clear and noble but, as always, the devil is in the detail. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon said, there are concerns about how that will be executed and about the vital protection of things that we hold dear, such as freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and its ability to hold us to account as politicians. We have to strike the right balance between ensuring that people can access reliable information and protecting the fundamental freedoms that underpin our democracy. We must be very careful not to drift towards a society in which free speech is constrained, open and honest debate stifled, and the exchange of new ideas discouraged. The Government must therefore ensure that their definition of “trusted” content does not become a proxy for Government-approved content. There have been, and still are, authoritarian regimes around the world that have adopted such an approach to media regulation. I do not admire such regimes or such strategies. Therefore, although I recognise that a consultation is ongoing, I would appreciate the Minister’s responses on those issues in his reply.

Order. Please note that, to get everybody in, I need to impose a five-minute time limit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for his pertinent opening comments. He said a lot of the things that I was going to say, so I will keep my comments as brief as possible. I very much welcome the Government’s intention to tackle misinformation, but a crucial question that follows is who will decide what is trustworthy. It cannot be Ministers, and it certainly cannot be the tech giants. First off, then, I ask this Minister to consider an independent accreditation scheme based on the Press Council of Ireland model, with an independent chair and representation from journalists, the industry and civil society—protected by legislation but, crucially, independent of Government. To be clear, trustworthy news has to mean more than public service broadcasting. That is a central pillar, of course, but it must include other outlets, independent publications and freelance journalists who meet recognised standards. The Government should support prominence for trustworthy news online, but that prominence must not become de-ranking by another name for journalists who challenge those in power. Alongside regulation, education is critical, so will the Minister commit to a nationwide, properly funded media literacy programme and restore the strategic priorities grant for journalism education, as urged by the National Council for the Training of Journalists? We must have stronger duties on the platforms themselves, as we have heard from colleagues today. One option, supported by the National Union of Journalists—I am a chair of its parliamentary group—is the Cairncross review’s proposed news quality obligation. Will the Minister consider introducing stronger obligations on those technology companies that are amplifying harmful and misleading content, and will he ensure that Ofcom’s standards apply to online content, including video on demand? We know that social media is dangerously fragmenting our information environment, so it is clear that public service broadcasting matters now more than ever. The BBC and other public service broadcasters provide journalism, investigation, culture and local coverage on crucial issues in the public interest, which commercial operators often do not consider profitable. Yet sadly, at the moment, the BBC is cutting hundreds of jobs and programmes. How can we honestly claim to be strengthening our information environment while we are allowing the capacity to produce trusted journalism to be cut away? I have some key questions on which I am pretty sure the Minister is already working. Will the Government use the charter renewal process to secure sustainable funding for the BBC? Will he intervene to protect the jobs and programmes now under threat? If the Government believe, as I do, that over-75s should receive free TV licences, will they fund those licences directly, rather than making the BBC pay? Crucially, at a time when disinformation crosses borders in seconds, will the Government restore full funding to the BBC World Service? We must also address media ownership. Will the Government strengthen ownership rules and invest in local public service journalism, as proposed in the NUJ’s news recovery plan? Finally—this case has been made articulately by hon. Members in this debate—we must protect access to television. We know that Freeview reaches 99% of the population and that a premature switch to internet protocol television risks excluding older people, disabled people and rural communities with poor connectivity. Will the Minister reject any Freeview switch-off timetable until free-to-air public service broadcasting is universally accessible and free at the point of distribution? I welcome this debate and hope that the Government can address the issues raised. Getting this right means truly creating an information environment that serves our communities and democracy, not a wild west that serves whoever has the biggest algorithm, the deepest pockets or the loudest voice.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Universal accessibility is vital in this debate. I agree with much of what has been said so far, but I am concerned about the switch-off of free-to-air as it stands. In the year I was elected, 2010, there were strong proposals to switch off the FM and AM signals. We are now 16 years down the line, and long-wave has just been switched off; the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) about losing the ability to do a long-wave broadcast are important to bear in mind. We keep talking about the technology moving along and about being able to access broadcasts on cables and the internet, but that will never be true for people who live on canal boats, for example. With digital television, these days someone can just stick up a Squarial, point it in roughly the right direction and get their television channels—my wife and I have taken holidays in a canal boat and in a camper van, and we have been able to do that. A camper van is slightly different, because it is probably used more for leisure purposes, but there are people who live on canal boats. How are they going to get an internet connection? Technology may move on, but it worries me that we say, “In order to solve this problem and that problem, you are going to have to buy or rent something, or in some way or another enter into a contract to receive something that you currently get free.” The BBC is one of the most valuable institutions this country has, because it is able to be a public service broadcaster. It loses its way at times, when chasing ratings and saying that it has to be in competition, on some things that only a public service broadcaster can deliver. If we say that people will have to pay something or other to be able to get television, surely that completely destroys a licence fee. People will be not only taxed to watch television, but charged again to actually be able to use the thing that they are paying a tax on. The BBC has to maintain a free-to-air service, however that is delivered. I am not sure that that technology is there yet but, once it is, it will be vital that people are not charged for it. The way forward is having tried and tested technology. A lot of us went out and bought DAB radios when they came out. Most of those DAB radios are now in the bin, because DAB+ was brought out and Classic FM stopped broadcasting on DAB; my previous car did not have DAB+, so I had to go back to FM to listen. I am sure we all have certain digital radio sets that now do not pick up many channels at all. The industry changing what a person can receive on, after they have already invested in new equipment, is also something that must be looked at. My constituency has a lot of people who live on canal boats; I am sure many other constituencies do too. We must give careful consideration to those areas: where there is not a solid land point of contact permanently, how are we going to make sure that people receive the things that they currently get and pay a licence fee for? The licence fee is not a television licence fee; it is a licence fee, because it covers the radio broadcast as well. If it slowly gets to the point where people say, “I am already paying for this, so I am not going to pay for that,” it will remove a whole host of radio, and I think that radio is the most important thing that the BBC does. I very rarely watch television news now, because it is just a second-by-second diatribe as the broadcasters try to fill in a gap all day long, whereas anyone who listens to radio news will actually get the news in half an hour. There is probably more news in the 6 o’clock news on Radio 4 than in two hours on one of the other broadcasters. There are some very sensible programmes; it is a great pity that “The World Tonight” is coming to an end, although replacing it with “Newshour” from the World Service could be very useful. However, there could be some unforeseen circumstances if we are asking people to pay twice. Given the reputation of the television licence, they may stop paying it. Fundamentally, I want to make sure that we do not take away the ability even to receive television, and that we keep considering whether people may be land-based and whether they can get that connection.

I call Ann Davies.

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this debate. Most people are turning to on-demand and streaming services to watch television and digest media content in Wales, but the shift is not universal: 22% of households in Wales still rely on digital terrestrial television to watch their TV. That reality of hybrid media consumption must therefore be reflected in the UK Government’s policy choices or we risk exclusion. We cannot forget that in Wales, a fifth of our population are older and therefore more affected by the barriers to home internet access. Those of us living in rural Wales know that a good and fast internet service is not always available, especially in Caerfyrddin, where the average download speeds are 40% slower than the UK average. Ofcom reports that more hard-to-reach households are turning to satellite connectivity; however, increased costs and limited availability means that this is not an option for everyone. Recent polling found that over half of Welsh adults are not confident that their area’s internet connection is good enough to get rid of Freeview. Improving digital inclusion and access should be a UK Government priority before decisions are made to switch off digital terrestrial television. Noting those issues does not mean ignoring the challenges facing our broadcasters. Those challenges are already playing out, with £9 million of cuts to BBC Cymru. The BBC, ITV and S4C are public service broadcasters. How can they continue to be a PSB while facing such enormous cuts? I therefore urge the Minister to consider S4C’s call for more medium-term funding through a multi-year funding settlement that allows for inflation and protection from outside cuts. The PSTN—public switched telephone network—switchover is a lesson in how people can be left behind when a process is rushed. I believe that the timeline for an eventual switch-off of digital TV should be context led and based on a workable plan. However, if the UK Government will only consider one of two dates as part of their media Green Paper, I urge Ministers to decide on the latter switch-off date of 2044, for the reasons that I have noted, and to support our broadcasters in the interim through long-term sustainable funding, so that the media content in Wales remains accessible and reflects our communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate. It is clear that the media landscape is changing, and changing rapidly. For many young people today, the first time they encounter a major news story is not by opening a newspaper or even turning on the TV; it is when a video appears on their social media feed, selected by an algorithm that is designed to keep them watching. Ofcom’s data tells us that three quarters of 16 to 24-year-olds now get their news mainly from social media. That represents a huge shift in how young people are understanding the world around them and comes with real dangers. Algorithms are not necessarily designed to inform us; they are designed with engagement in mind. That means that, for social media platforms, attention rather than accuracy is the priority. As politicians, we know that this comes with real implications for our democracy. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said about the importance of young and new voters having access to reliable news sources. We welcome the Green Paper, which recognises the change in our media landscape. However, the transformation is creating another challenge for our traditional broadcasters. Public service broadcasters have a vital and unique role in the UK’s media landscape. They provide trusted news, educational programming and content that brings communities together, but as audiences and advertising move online, the financial pressures on these broadcasters are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Just look at the BBC. From finding out who is voted off at the roundtable on “The Traitors” to listening to the shipping forecast, and from tuning in to 24/7 news coverage to watching educational content, the BBC is a quintessentially British service, loved and relied on by millions across the country. That vital public service, however, is under significant financial pressure, as made clear by the recent cuts to the BBC workforce and many of its much-loved programmes. As a former Reuters journalist, I firmly believe in the mission of public service broadcasters such as the BBC. It should be celebrated and protected. It is welcome that the Green Paper recognises the importance of prominence for these unique services, but what is missing is a clear commitment to protecting the BBC itself—its independence, universal availability and ability to remain a properly resourced public service broadcaster. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a permanent BBC charter to enshrine the BBC’s core mission and mandate for generations to come. Do the Government agree that the core principles of the BBC must be protected in a permanent charter? Another key matter for us in the Green Paper is the Government’s proposed transition from digital terrestrial television. The Green Paper sets out two possible deadlines—2034 or 2044—for switching off Freeview, with digital terrestrial television guaranteed only until the end of 2034. On that, we Liberal Democrats completely disagree with the right hon. Member for Maldon. I represent a very rural constituency, and I can tell the House that it is the most reliable and, importantly, free way in which people in my constituency and across the UK watch television. Today, 12.9 million homes use terrestrial television, including around 2.6 million that rely on it exclusively. In fact, more than a quarter of all television viewing in the United Kingdom last year was through Freeview digital terrestrial television. It is the single most popular way for viewers to access programming. It disproportionately serves older people, people on lower incomes and people in rural areas—precisely the groups least likely to have reliable broadband. The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) focused on people who live in canal boats, but there are hundreds of thousands of homes across the country, thousands of them in my constituency, that still do not have a reliable wi-fi connection today, and 6% of adults in the UK lack any home internet access at all. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) made an extremely valuable point about the need for terrestrial TV when communities are navigating any kind of storms, floods or other natural disasters.

In my constituency, more than a quarter of households failed to receive speeds of more than 30 megabits per second, and 11 of our 15 local areas rank among the worst-performing 10% nationally. Does the hon. Lady agree that a delay to the switch-off would afford remote coastal households enough time to adapt?

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am deeply concerned about what it means for some of us in the rural south-west, as there are villages that will never get fast broadband. Setting a switch-off date without first closing this gap risks cutting off the communities that the Green Paper says it wants to protect. We are also concerned by the cost implications for commercial radio. If it is lost, we will reduce the plurality in our media landscape. If we move to an internet-only model before universal broadband is genuinely in place, we do not just inconvenience households; we risk isolating them from local democracy, local information and local culture altogether. For my constituents, that is the difference between staying connected to what is happening in their community and being cut off from it entirely. We cannot ask people to give up a service that works today in exchange for a promise of connectivity that has not yet arrived. We have already seen the Government water down their commitment on superfast broadband. It was initially promised that there would be next-generation gigabit broadband for every home by 2030, but at the spending review in June last year, the Government changed their target to 99% of premises having access to a gigabit-capable connection by 2032, so it is getting slower already. Contracts delivering superfast broadband have been scaled back in the past, after only those areas that were easiest to reach were connected. The Minister will therefore have to forgive me for being less than confident that we will have universal broadband by the sooner deadline of 2034. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will refrain from any Freeview switch-off until every household, including in hard-to-reach rural constituencies like mine, has reliable wi-fi in place? Can he give my constituents that promise today?

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate and setting out the issues in his usual, informed way, based on his expertise. I also thank all other colleagues who have contributed. The way we consume broadcast media is moving away from the traditional channels towards the huge amount of content available on demand and on video streaming platforms. I was struck by the Minister’s introduction to the Green Paper, in which he referred to watching “Noel’s House Party” on a Saturday with his family. I did the same, but that experience would be totally alien to many young people today—as reflected in the data, which shows that YouTube was the most watched service in the country last year. It was seen by more people every month than all BBC channels combined. Furthermore, video streaming services account for three quarters of all video time for audiences aged 16 to 24. The Green Paper is therefore right to grapple with some of the questions and implications. Let me begin with an area that has not been mentioned where there is common cause, namely the proposals on listed events and adding on-demand rights to the free-to-air listed sports regime, which we strongly support. However, one of the most controversial areas that has been covered in the debate is the plan to impose new regulations to make trustworthy news providers more easily discoverable on social media platforms. That may be well intentioned, but it is also deeply problematic and could undermine freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the free society that we enjoy. Are the Government really saying that the state will be the arbiter of what is trustworthy? Where would that leave channels such as GB News, which Ministers and right hon. and hon. Members have criticised and refused to appear on? Media organisations would benefit from the prominence regime only if they received approval from the state. That effectively means that a state body would decide what journalism people see. That would also have the effect of reducing visibility for independent content creators, community journalists and new media voices, thus undermining a free press. How would trustworthy news be defined? The paper suggests building on the recognised news publisher definition. That potentially covers thousands of titles and is so broad as to be meaningless. Many think this is simply an attempt to impose press regulation by the back door. The press regulation panel is explicit that only news publishers approved by a regulator should benefit. That would be completely unacceptable.

On that note, does my hon. Friend also make that link to the licence fee? The reason we have a licence fee, rather than paying through general taxation, is so that the BBC does not fear decisions that Ministers may make. The Government say they want to renew the licence fee, but at the same time are putting in place something that would take away the very reason for a licence fee instead of taxation.

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the licence fee and the independence that it provides. Ministers need to focus on consumers and citizens. Platforms are built around personalisation, with individuals determining the sources of content they trust and want to access. User controls and labelling already exist. The Green Paper refers to misinformation and disinformation around the horrific Southport killings, in part to justify these proposals. However, we should note that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that the information released by authorities after those appalling attacks was inadequate and led to those who wanted to spread disinformation being able to do so. Police forces now share more information as a result. Furthermore, where there are major incidents, people tend to turn to more traditional news outlets, whether that is local papers, radio stations or public service media. More broadly, Ofcom found that more than three quarters of people think it important to check different sources if they are unsure whether a news story is true. That provides some reassurance.