I want to respond briefly to the issues just raised by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter). I wonder whether he has looked at my new clause 20. The definition of “on-demand services” is not as he imagines. In the Communications Act 2003, it covers only those services whose “principal purpose” is the provision of programmes, so services such as those on the iPad or consoles would not be covered by the legislation as it stands. The legislation is specifically about those whose principal purpose is to do with providing programmes. It will cover Fire sticks, for example, or Sky Glass, as was mentioned by the Minister, but it will not cover those people watching on a PlayStation or on-demand services on iPads, so the prominence regime would not apply for those who are not watching on something whose “principal purpose” is television.
Anything in the Bill that relates specifically to on-demand services, therefore, even when it comes to age ratings or some of the other requirements we are putting on on-demand services, will apply only to Sky Glass, Fire TV and those sorts of things. That is why I tabled new clause 20, which would amend the Bill to recognise how quickly things move, as a number of Members have pointed out. The way that we consume media changes very regularly, and it has certainly changed dramatically in the 20 years since a media Bill was previously proposed.
I therefore ask Ministers to look at the definition of on-demand services and consider whether it continues to be appropriate; if it does not, new clause 20 would ensure that Ofcom is able to regulate all those places where people watch television. I originally tabled the new clause because of the incredibly high percentage, comparatively, of people in Scotland who watch television exclusively on consoles, without the PSB prominence that we might expect in services that are specifically for streaming TV.
I will speak to a number of the amendments tabled by Members across the House, starting with those tabled by the SNP. I have covered my concerns about the definition of on-demand services, and generally I do not think that the Bill as drafted is all-encompassing enough. The issue of smaller studios, which is covered in our amendments 82 to 85, was raised with me by the Media Reform Coalition. Having quotas for independent studios is good, but some broadcasters have a predilection to using only the super-indies, which account for about 20% of the companies that make independent productions; the smaller indies account for about 80%. Some broadcasters commission almost everything from that 20% of the market, from companies such as Endemol. Those companies do a great job, but they cannot be considered to be small independent
studios. Amendments 82 to 85 would encourage public service broadcasters to move outside the scope of those largest independent studios and to give some of their work to smaller studios, which would have significant regional benefits.
New clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), looks at how the regions are accounted for, the production hours in each of the regions, and making sure that productions are genuinely regional productions, rather than a lift-and-shift from somewhere else. Those issues are important. Looking at the quota system for stuff being done outside the M25, for example, is not enough. Amendments 82 to 85 would augment the regional quotas recommendations proposed by the hon. Member for Arfon. If broadcasting companies had to look at the smaller independent studios, it would naturally encourage an increase in regional production.
I have one last point to make about the SNP amendments that has not been covered so much by other people. New clause 22, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is similar to my new clause 19 on the diversity of the workforce. That is incredibly important. I made the point in an intervention that I am concerned by the lack of diversity in public service broadcasting. I am concerned by that lack of diversity on and off screen. It is important to look at both areas when considering the future of PSBs. This is not about sticks, nor is it about carrots; it is about transparency. It is about ensuring that all individuals are transparent about whether they are meeting the test of having something that looks like the general population. It is clear that Parliament does not match the diversity of the population, given the incredibly large percentage of men in comparison with women still in this place, even though it has been going in the right direction. However, we need people on screen to reflect the population.
2.45 pm
I was watching the Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration event on Saturday night and there was a dance group, I think called Chickenshed. It was the first time that I had seen on television a dance group involving someone in a wheelchair. It did not strike me how unusual that was until I saw it on television. Then I thought, “Why is this not more common? Why do we not see more people who look like the general population on TV on a more regular basis?” That was one of those moments that brought home to me how rare it is to see people with visible physical disabilities or in wheelchairs on television at all, and certainly in a dance group. It was an amazing dance. If hon. Members get the chance to look it up, it was impressive to watch and incredibly powerful.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) tabled new clause 19, or what was called new clause 5 in Committee, where I was absolutely clear that I was withdrawing my amendment on Gaelic in favour of hers. I also made it clear that I had to leave a few minutes before the end of the sitting, and so missed the vote on her new clause in Committee. I was totally supportive of it, and the SNP continue to be. Unfortunately, I had a clash that I could not get out of and we had
only one Committee member, so I could not have someone else vote for the new clause, but we continue to support it.
In Committee, the hon. Members for Barnsley East and for Arfon and I spoke in favour of the protection of the Gaelic language and the importance of it being used as spoken in Scotland on television. I mentioned the importance for places in Scotland where Gaelic is a very minority language. There is, for example, Gaelic-medium education in Aberdeen, but people in Aberdeen are much less likely to be exposed to Gaelic outside the education system, so things like Gaelic children’s TV are even more important in Aberdeen than they are in places where Gaelic is more widely spoken. They mean that children and young people can be exposed to and immersed in the language, rather than only having it for the few hours a day that they are at a Gaelic playgroup or school.
We continue to support what is now new clause 19. I have had much communication from BBC Alba on this and I continue to support its work. I encourage the Government to do what they can to work with the Scottish Government, the BBC and BBC Alba to ensure that the situation continues as is, and that there is clarity about the future of funding, so that everyone agrees on the importance of Gaelic. To be fair to the Minister in Committee, he was also clear about his support for the Gaelic language. Agreement was very much across parties, but Gaelic still does not have the prominence in the Bill that we would like it to, despite the feeling in the House being in favour of it. Anything that the Government can do to improve the prominence of Gaelic in the Bill would be great.