My Lords, the introduction of the new online prominence framework is arguably the most important change that the Bill brings about in terms of ensuring that high-quality public service content remains available and easy to find online, and in helping to secure the future sustainability of the public service broadcasting system in the UK, of which we are so proud.
I will speak briefly about government Amendments 48 and 49 together. These amendments are to ensure consistency with Part 3A of the Communications Act 2003 in how the Bill describes the content and channels contained within the internet programme services that may be designated by Ofcom. These are technical amendments and I hope noble Lords will support them.
I now turn to the other amendments in this group that noble Lords have spoken to. The duty on regulated television selection services to give prominence to designated services goes to the very heart of the regime, so I understand why many noble Lords have strong views on this—as we heard today and at Second Reading—and why they are keen to ensure that the drafting delivers sufficient prominence for our public service broadcasters.
Amendments 46 and 47 seek to amend the duty on platforms to give designated services “appropriate” prominence to “significant” prominence. I can reassure noble Lords that a lot of careful consideration has gone into the exact wording used in relation to this duty on discoverability. We have consciously designed the new online prominence framework to ensure that it strikes the right balance between ensuring that important public service content is easy to find online and ensuring that regulation is operable and proportionate.
As I made clear on Second Reading, there is a reason why we chose to use “appropriate”—it is a well understood term that has been delivering effective prominence for our public service broadcasters in relation to linear broadcasting for two decades now. It is the term used in the Communications Act so is understood in this context, even if etymologically—lexicographically—we may continue the debate. We remain of the view that “appropriate” is the right descriptor for prominence and that any amendments to the drafting—including removing “appropriate” or changing it to “significant”—could have unintended consequences for the overall user experience. It is not the intention of the new framework to restrict innovation or undermine customer choice or personalisation, for instance.
6.30 pm
The Government agree with the intention behind Amendment 50 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. That is why, on Second Reading, I confirmed that public service broadcaster applications and the content they provide should be among the most prominent on the platform, whether that is on the homepage, in search results, or through recommendation lists. However, we also need to make sure that the framework is not excessively prescriptive and that it does not compromise service delivery or customer personalisation. That is why we took the decision not to set out what is an “appropriate” level of prominence on the face of the Bill. Rather, we have delegated discretion to Ofcom to set out various ways in which a regulated television selection service could deliver this across its user interface. This is in recognition of the fact that “appropriate” prominence could look different, and indeed will look different, on different platforms.
Although the details of the code are still to be developed, I am happy to clarify the Government’s expectations in terms of Ofcom’s assessment of appropriate prominence, particularly in light of Amendment 51, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It is our expectation that Ofcom’s code would look at things such as: the presence of the applications in high-traffic areas such as the homepage and relevant recommendations lists; how the applications should generally appear consecutively; and how much a user has to scroll or how many clicks are required to access designated internet programme services. Ofcom may also choose to consider the initial set-up choice once “out of the box” in its own guidance.
Given that the code of practice will be a core component of the prominence regime, it is right that Ofcom first consults the industry ahead of developing and publishing that document. I encourage public service broadcasters and television platforms to continue engaging with Ofcom as there will still be ample opportunity to inform and shape its approach.
Let me also address Amendment 42 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which relates to the accessibility of public service broadcasting services, including via electronic programme guides. I should make it clear that the online prominence regime is a standalone and bespoke regime. Clause 28 does not propose any changes to the existing linear prominence framework under Section 310 of the Communications Act. We agree that linear channels will continue to be a popular way of consuming television in the years to come.
Fortunately, the linear prominence regime under Section 310 of the Communications Act applies to designated public service broadcasters’ channels which appear on a “regulated” electronic programme guide, in the context of both digital terrestrial and internet protocol television distribution. The Government already have separate work under way looking at the designation of additional electronic programme guides for regulation, which raises the prospect of public service channels—including IPTV simulcasts—being given appropriate prominence on a wider range of electronic programme guides in the future. We also, however, understand that the route to livestream channels is not always a traditional, regulated programme guide. That is why we took the policy decision to include public service livestream channels in the new prominence regime.
Under the new framework, if the public service broadcaster offers a livestream version of its main channel as part of a designated internet programme service, and that livestream version already receives prominence in the linear space, then a regulated television selection service must give that livestream version appropriate prominence where it appears separately in the user interface. Ofcom will ultimately set out various ways in which a regulated television selection service provider can deliver this appropriate prominence for designated services. There is certainly nothing stopping a service provider ensuring that the route to the TV guide—and thus public service channels—is easy to find on their service. Indeed, that would seem a simple way to deliver that duty.
Overall, we believe the current drafting of this new prominence framework works and that it strikes the right balance. This is testament to the extensive engagement we have carried out during its development, following its publication in draft and the pre-legislative scrutiny that the Bill received from the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in the other place. We have listened to interested parties and very consciously made changes to the Bill before introduction where necessary. For those reasons, I am not able to accept Amendments 42, 46, 47, 50 and 51, but I am grateful for the opportunity to set out again today the reasons for that and the changes we have made in developing the Bill.