Welcome to this Committee on Standards session on outside employment and interests impacting MPs. We welcome our two witnesses from Ofcom. May I invite you to introduce yourselves? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: My name is Cristina Nicolotti Squires. I am the group director for broadcast and media at Ofcom. I joined Ofcom about 18 months ago, after 35 years in journalism.

Good morning. I am Kate Davies, director of public policy at Ofcom. Before that, I was strategy director at Ofcom.

Thank you. Can you provide an overview of the current rules in the broadcasting code and how they apply to MPs employed in the media?

I will start, and Cristina might want to add something. First off, the rules come from the Communications Act 2003, which sets out very clearly that news, in whatever form, has to be “presented with due impartiality” and “reported with due accuracy”. We are required to produce a set of standards in relation to that and other requirements in the Communications Act, and we call that our broadcasting code. It has various sections. Two sections are possibly relevant to this Committee, and one in particular, section 5, is about accuracy and impartiality. One rule within that—rule 5.3—is really relevant to this Committee, as it is about the fact that politicians cannot present the news. We published a consultation yesterday on slightly amending that rule. The current rule states that politicians cannot present the news in a news programme, which we had interpreted broadly. A recent High Court judgment was very clear that it could only be news in a news programme, as opposed to any other kind of programme. We are consulting on a change that would mean that politicians cannot present the news or report on the news in any programme. As I say, we launched that consultation yesterday. Beyond that, there are no other specific rules for politicians, apart from section 6, which is about elections and referendums—essentially, politicians cannot present at all during an election period. More broadly, there is the requirement for due impartiality across programmes, but that is not specifically related to politicians.

Not only do you regulate licensed service providers, but you regulate on-demand programme services funded by the licence fee and provided by the BBC and S4C. Is that correct?

Yes. We have rules in relation to on-demand programme services.

Are there any other on-demand programme services over which you have regulatory oversight? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: We have oversight of some on-demand programmes. As part of the Media Act implementation, we are drawing up a video-on-demand code, which will apply to a section of on-demand players decided by the Secretary of State eventually—what we call tier 1 players. There are various consultations and things to go through first, but we will be publishing it towards the end of next summer. I think there is a grace period before it is implemented, but it will bring into regulation the likes of Netflix and Disney+.

That is very interesting. We will have some questions about digital media in this evidence session.

Can you set out how you assess whether news has been presented with due accuracy and due impartiality? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: We know that audiences really trust the accuracy of broadcast news, much more than they trust news on social media, so we think it is really important to make sure that news is duly impartial and duly accurate. Accuracy is fairly simple: it is about getting the facts right. We normally expect people, if they have made a mistake, to correct it, which they usually do. The word is “due” accuracy, so it is about significant mistakes. Corrections are scheduled, and people are pretty clear about that one. In terms of impartiality, the word “due” is the important bit here. It is not about giving equal weight to every single opinion; it is about giving due weight to a range of views. You do not have to have every facet of every argument, but it is about a range of voices on a particular subject. There are a number of different contextual factors that we take into account—the nature of the subject, the type of programme, audience expectations and the extent to which the content is signalled to the audience. Context is really important when we decide whether something is duly impartial, in particular, as well as accurate.

You mentioned audience expectation. How are you gauging that? We have a changing political climate. How do you assess the expectations of the audience you are serving?

We undertake a wide range of research. On an annual basis, we undertake a piece of research called the news consumption survey, which looks at where people are looking at the news—social media versus broadcast channels—and how people are thinking about their trust in that news. This year we saw an increasing trend in people getting their news from social media, but still very high levels of trust in broadcast media. We also did specific research on politicians presenting, about which we wrote to the Committee. We did it in 2023 because we felt that, although this had been happening for a while, there were an increased number of formats with politicians presenting, particularly on TV, and an increased amount of attention in the public debate. It was qualitative research, so we would not want to overstate it, but we got views from 157 people across a wide range of focus groups. We had a range of findings but, generally, people do not want politicians presenting the news, which is good, because that is in line with the Comms Act and the broadcasting code. On current affairs programmes, there was not the same kind of single view. Overall, there were some concerns—the most prevalent view was a concern about politicians presenting—but there were also some people who thought that there were benefits to politicians presenting and appearing on programmes. There was also clear recognition of the need to balance for freedom of expression—we have not talked about that yet, but it is clearly a very important element as we think about broadcast regulation—and no consensus on banning politicians from presenting.

Thank you both for coming today. What are the rules, if any, surrounding MPs appearing as guests on radio or television current affairs programmes? Do those rules differ from when they host such shows?

As I said, the only specific rule, which we are consulting on a change to, is about MPs presenting. On appearing, the overall rules apply—in terms of due impartiality and due accuracy—so programmes need to make sure that, as Cristina was talking about, there is a range of views, and that they think about how to make sure there is that range of views on the programme, but there are no specific rules relating to a politician being questioned on a programme or appearing more generally. That is as opposed to presenting, where specific rules relate to news.

Do you think that the horse may already have bolted when it comes to trying to pull this together, as many people can just go on social media or different sorts of media? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: It is important to note that fact and to accept it. We know from our research that more people get their news from social media than from the traditional broadcast news, but as we said, they trust broadcast news more. It is really interesting that, during the last election, people said that they were going to big screens or to the linear programme—the live broadcast programmes—to get their news on the general election, because the public know that what they see on social media is not as regulated. I think it is very important that we hold the standards we still have in broadcast news, because the public trust it so much. The public see that difference.

What has not changed is our focus on due impartiality and due accuracy. Our focus is on ensuring that we balance that with upholding freedom of expression. I do not think those things have changed. There has been innovation in the sector, which can be a good thing—people get to look at different formats and engage with content in different ways.

Good morning. I am one of the lay members of the Committee. Thank you for appearing before us. My question is about the rules, and specifically rule 5, which states that no politician should be used as a newsreader unless “editorially justified”. Your consultation has not changed that. Could you give us an example or describe what you mean by “editorially justified”? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: It is not terribly helpful to come up with hypotheticals. A lot of work is being done in those rules by “justified”. It depends very much on the circumstance. It would have to be an exceptional circumstance—perhaps a breaking news story, and that person was the only one in place to tell it—but I think it should be the absolute exception. Going into examples is not terribly helpful because, equally, I do not want to be held to such a decision. Those decisions would have to be made taking into consideration all the factors at the time. It is very exceptional.

Who would make those decisions? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: We would.

Again, it comes back to the fact that we are a post-broadcast regulator. There are two parts to the rules: it has to be editorially justified but, as Cristina says, there also have to be exceptional circumstances—both have to be very clearly met. If there was an issue or complaint, we would look at it and then we would take a view.

Could I press you on that? Can you give an example to the Committee of an occasion when you had to justify the editorial position?

We can think about what we can share, but in this instance, it is for a programme to justify why it is editorially justified, and then for us to look at that and determine whether we think it is right.

What metrics do you use? You must have an example of when you have had to consider whether or not content was editorially justified. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Not that was actually enforced. If you would like me to go into hypotheticals—

I would not mind you going into an actual example. This is a privileged environment, so you are more than welcome to share with us an actual example. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Okay. There was a case with Jacob Rees-Mogg. There was a security alert at the jubilee celebrations, and he did some news from there. Because of the High Court ruling, that case has now been withdrawn, but that was our view. Exceptional circumstances would be something like a terror attack. As I said, I don’t want to create circumstances, but it has to be exceptional.

That is very helpful.

We are currently consulting on clarifying rule 5.3. If we get through the consultation and decide, based on all the responses and our engagement, that this is going to be the final position, it will make it explicit—and we see this as a clarifying statement—that a politician cannot present the news, report on the news or conduct news interviews in any programme. Programmes need to engage with that and think about what contingencies they need to have in place should there be a circumstance where suddenly they need to cut to news. I think that is relevant to the questions you are asking.

Thank you. We will move on to the issue of public opinion.

Good morning. Thank you both for being here. I am interested in the issues around public opinion. Reading your consultation document, which was published yesterday, there appears to be no consensus among the participants on politicians presenting current affairs programmes, but nearly all participants were against politicians presenting news. There were then comments about freedom of expression. Could you tell us a little more about how you monitor those issues, and about the level of complaints that you receive?

We can provide specific figures on complaints, but I can give you a broad overview. There are ups and downs with complaints, because there will suddenly be a thing that results in lots of complaints. But in each of the last two years we have had broadly 70,000 complaints. Of those 70,000 complaints, lots might relate to one thing. This is across the whole of broadcasting. In each of the last two years, the 70,000 complaints boil down to roughly 10,000 cases, which means a specific instance that is being complained about. We then decide how many to investigate, which lowers the number again, and then there is the question of whether there are any breach decisions off the back of that. In terms of shows where politicians are presenting, for complaints related to accuracy and impartiality—of course, we may get complaints that don’t relate to accuracy and impartiality—last year it was around 270 complaints in total, relating to just over 100 specific instances. We can write to the Committee with the actual numbers.

Yes, please.

And there was a total of eight investigations, so that is the kind of scale that we are talking about. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: To go back to your question about monitoring public opinion, Ofcom undertakes a huge amount of research all year round. We recently published “Media Lives”, which is all about how people consumer media. We did a children’s one and an adult one; I am sure we can send them to the Committee if you have not already seen them. We look at people’s attitudes to news and to wider issues and programmes, and we continue to do that. We have had 20 individuals who for 20 years have been giving us video interviews about their consumption of news. It is fascinating to watch. We also ensure that we are keeping abreast and monitoring what is going on in the industry and what has been broadcast, because at the end of the day that is our job.

What methods do you use for monitoring purposes? You have spoken about the research. How is that collated? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: We pursue complaints—that is one way of doing it. We keep an eye on programmes. We dip into and out of a wide range of programming, and we keep across public debate and opinion.

Ms Davies, you mentioned peaks and troughs—those are my words, not yours. When you have flare-ups, are they around specific issues? Are you seeing any patterns?

No, I don’t think so. I can ask colleagues who are more familiar with complaints data than I am, but in broad terms I would say no. During covid, there were various things. There was a much higher number of complaints, as I remember; it was partly that people had a bit more time on their hands, but there were also specific issues that cropped up. Complaints are across the whole breadth, so that 70,000 figure includes complaints about things people wear on TV—we are talking about the full breadth. No, I don’t think that there are trends in quite that way.

I am interested in the difference between current affairs and news, in MPs presenting either or both, and in the public perception that goes with that. There may be some confusion between current affairs and news. I am interested to hear your views on how we can get better at separating the two and enabling the public to have a clear understanding of what is current affairs and what is constituted as news. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: In our guidance, we have given an outline of what might be news and what might be current affairs. The news is traditionally presented by a person behind a desk or standing in front of a screen; they will be telling you the facts and the old journalistic “who, what, when” details of a story; they will be talking to somebody live on location; there will be a series of video reports. Current affairs is generally more discursive. There might be a panel of people giving their views on things; it is more about opinion than facts. There are ways, but we do not want to be too prescriptive with broadcasters. We want to make sure that broadcasters can innovate in the way they want. A regulator only gets involved when it has to. As we have said, we are post-broadcast. In my previous role, if Ofcom had told me exactly what kind of programmes to make and how to make them, I would not have been terribly impressed. At the end of the day, it is about audiences. Interestingly, in our research—we can share the full details if you are interested—some of the audience came up with suggestions about what could be flagged up more. If you have a “breaking news” ticker underneath a programme, that suggests that it is a news programme rather than current affairs. It is pretty clear. Over the past few years—again, this is an innovation—a lot of programmes have been a mixture of news and current affairs. They go into what, in professional terms, I would call “breaking news mode”. A lot of people who use politicians as presenters are getting smart at handing back to somebody in a different part of the studio to do the news bit. At the top of the programme, there will be a bulletin presented by somebody in a different studio, or a different part of the studio; then you get into the discursive current affairs thing; and when there is news, they usually hand back to another person. You can create a bit more clarity for people.

It would be really helpful if you could provide the information that you have just mentioned, as well as the complaints data.

Absolutely. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Yes, we can send that to you.

Could I just drill down for a moment, before I pass over to Anna on the issue of social media? Let us say that the news is being presented on a breakfast morning chat show, and an MP has been invited on to discuss a particular issue of national concern. The MP has done a little clip to camera, reporting on the issue in question—let us say that a nuclear power station is being built in the MP’s patch, but it is a national issue. They then show the clip of the MP, effectively reporting on what is being built. Is that news reporting, or is it a guest commenting on a public affairs programme? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: It would be very unusual to have somebody sat on the sofa and then throwing to a clip of themselves talking.

It happens very often. The BBC East Midlands news uses news presenters to do that: they are sitting with politicians on the sofa, and then they go over to a clip of the journalist reporting on something. From time to time, I have seen politicians doing the same. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Again, I do not want to get into hypothetical things, because so many contextual factors come into play when we make a decision. In that circumstance, we would have to ask, “What is the audience’s expectation? What is the time of day? What is the programme? What is the range of opinions in it?” As I said, we are consulting on this business of politicians not doing any news in any programmes. I think we need to wait and see what the consultation comes back with before we make a decision on that.

There is a mix of things in the research. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: The important thing is that if a politician is presenting a programme, that programme still has to have due impartiality, irrespective. I have always said, as I think we said in our evidence to you, that if you choose to have a politician presenting a programme, you have to work really hard—much harder, in a way—to make that programme duly impartial by virtue of the fact that you have a politician from a particular party. To go back to your question about evidence on whether that change registers in the audience’s mind, we have not done specific research on that. It is an area that we might look at, but it is important to remember that the broadcast code insists that where politicians are presenting programmes, whatever they are, they have to be duly impartial.

All programmes have to be duly impartial. As Cristina says, if a politician is presenting, a broadcaster has to work that much harder to ensure that impartiality.

Thank you. Anna is now going to raise the issue of digital and social media.

I have older teenagers at home who almost exclusively consume their news from TikTok—and occasionally Radio 4, when they are subjected to it in the car—so I am interested in this area. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: That is a good mix.

What consideration has been given to social media? I know that you do not regulate it in the same way, but I am thinking about politicians and what could look like news on social media. Was any consideration given to that when you came up with your guidelines or proposed changes?

The short answer is no, because our role is to make sure that the Comms Act, which specifically talks about news, is implemented. Our role relates to broadcasting, TV and radio, so it is about news, in whatever form, on TV and radio. Obviously we have a separate role in relation to social media through the Online Safety Act, but when it comes to broadcasting and similar news content on social media, we do not have a role. It comes up in our research, including in relation to news consumption, and we very much look at it when we think about media literacy—I think that responds to some of the questions about how people get their head around this stuff—but when we think specifically about the broadcasting code and what those rules need to say, that has to be limited by our statutory duties, which relate to TV and radio.

I heard what you said in response to Gill’s question about how research shows that people trust traditional media more, and when something happens they go back and refer to that. I do not want to labour this point, but I wonder whether that is a bit generational. I do not know whether my children’s generation will feel the same about traditional media versus social media. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: It’s interesting. I have older teenagers as well, and I asked mine, “How do you know something’s true?” They said that they look at the comments—we have some research on this as well—and then they also go back to the BBC, ITV or other mainstream news sources to verify it. I think media literacy plays a big role here, and Ofcom has a duty on media literacy. It is about explaining to people—not just young people, but citizens of all different ages—that you need to apply a filter to what you see on social media. Interestingly, as I said, our research showed that during the general election people went to broadcast media to get their information, because they knew they had higher trust in it. The media literacy duties that we have—that is an area where we are able to perform a function—are really important and will be more important as we go on.

It is quite undermining if politician Fred Bloggs is not allowed to present news on broadcast media, but they are allowed to run a TikTok channel that says, “Fred Bloggs News”, and they present news on it and millions of people follow it.

Ultimately, that is a question for Parliament. What we have been asked to do relates very specifically to broadcast TV and radio. The questions you are asking are good ones and, as I say, it comes up in our research. As Cristina says, we have a duty to promote media literacy, which was clarified and added to in the Online Safety Act. This is very much a space that we look at. For example, we have done work on the techniques that can help people to engage with information online and identify what is accurate and what is not—things like having to look at another source and various other things. We are trying to build the evidence around the best ways for people to engage with online material, but that is the space we can operate in because of how we have been set up. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: As Kate said, the role of politicians on social media is a matter for Parliament, and particularly this Committee.

Yes, it is a matter for Parliament, and it is certainly a matter for this Committee, because we are looking at the question of media appearances under our terms of reference on outside interests and second jobs. We have to determine whether that includes digital media appearances. You have already confirmed that you have some remit over that. If it is on-demand news programmes from BBC iPlayer or S4C, you do regulate that, so you already have some oversight. This comes from a question from one of my colleagues prior to our inviting you in. It would be helpful to know whether assistance might be given to the Committee, in your own regulatory function, if we want to effectively translate some of your rules into our own. I think Michael suggested that earlier. It would be helpful if you could follow through by writing to us to say, from your expertise in broadcasting, where you see potential issues arising from news presenting or news programmes on digital media, even though that is not your regulatory function. Would you be able to do that?

We can take it away to look at what we can do. I don’t think we will be able to fully answer that question, because—

What restricts you from fully answering that question? You are the director of public policy; you must have a public policy position on it.

I worked in Government before, and it is very different in a regulator. In a regulator, we are performing a role very specifically determined by Parliament. That is what enables us to be independent—“Here’s the statutory function you’re performing.”

Indeed, but it is not unusual for regulators to opine on areas that may be just outside their jurisdiction. That is what we are asking you to do.

As I say, we will take it away and be as helpful as we can.

Okay. I was going to follow up with another helpful comment. You say that the public trust news on broadcast media—you have emphasised that—more than social media. Is that because broadcast media carries implicit authority? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: I think it does. It is very interesting to note that a lot of broadcasters have the content that they put out on different social media platforms comply with the same set of standards as broadcast. When I was at Sky, I was in charge of television output as well as digital output, and we would put out the content according to the same rules, because having a reputation for being duly accurate and duly impartial is really good for your brand. People know they can trust you, so it is a powerful tool for broadcasters to be able to look at the content. Actually, don’t worry too much about your teenagers: there is a lot of good stuff on TikTok. A lot of the broadcasters perform very well and do lots of explainer videos and content on TikTok and other social media platforms. They are taking the news to where the audience is. Part of our job is to regulate the BBC; the BBC has to be there for everybody, so we have been encouraging the BBC to make sure that its content is delivered where audiences are. For any organisation, having a reputation that your news content is duly impartial and duly accurate is a very strong element of your brand.

The authority stems from complying with the rules and the requirements around impartiality and accuracy.

Presumably that implicit authority carries through to broadcast non-news programmes, too. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: I would have thought so, yes. I don’t know the specifics—we don’t have research on this.

We don’t look at trust in non-news programmes.

Let me add two things. First, in your questions about social media, I think it is right for the Committee to look in the round at the ecology of which we regulate one small part—well, a large part. Secondly, it comes back to the point that when people engage with broadcast news, they tend to have higher levels of trust because of the rules in relation to it. The audience research definitely does not look at print media, but more generally, having worked at Ofcom for a number of years and researched in a number of areas, I am always really impressed by how savvy people are when they engage with content. That comes through from some of the research.

Might we have a situation in which an MP can opine in a newspaper and then appear on a current affairs programme to expand on that opinion? For example, the Laura Kuenssberg format is to invite three panellists, who comment on the news of the day; there is the Peston programme, too.

It has to be duly impartial. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Yes. As long as the programme is duly impartial—

How can they do that? If they have expressed a view in newspaper X and then been invited to explain that view in a television programme, are they permitted to do that? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Yes, as long as that programme as a whole has a broad range of opinions. At the end of the day, you do not know whether a viewer has even read the newspaper article they are talking about.

But they are reporting on the news—the news being their own article in a newspaper. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: As I say, they should make sure that the whole programme has a wide range of views on it. If that particular person has opined—to use your word—in their article, the whole programme needs to have a range of opinions, in addition to the person talking about that article and the slant they took in it.

Clearly, you sit on a huge amount of evidence of public opinion, from both the surveys you carry out and the complaints you receive. Does that evidence suggest that when an MP appears on or hosts a programme, there are concerns about impartiality?

The research we did in 2023 involved 157 people across a number of focus groups. There were general concerns pretty much across all the focus groups about the impact on presenting the news. They did not like it; they felt it would be very difficult for a politician to step away from their own position in doing so. On current affairs, the picture is more mixed. The most prevalent view was one of concern, but there was no consensus around banning politicians. There was recognition of the need to balance any concern with freedom of expression for both the broadcaster and audiences—the freedom of expression and the freedom to receive ideas. There was a range of views on potential mitigations, such as having other views presented on a show—ways we would expect a broadcaster to deliver on due impartiality. People felt that those would be helpful. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: You will see from the figures when we send them to you that the number of complaints about politicians presenting programmes is relatively small, in terms of the number of complaints we get in total over the year.

We have been using the word “politician” quite widely. Our remit is MPs. Do you have a feel for whether there is any significant difference between political figures and Members of Parliament?

We do not give an exact definition of a politician. I can give you the exact text. We say that “a politician is likely to include an elected representative e.g. an MP or councillor, a candidate, an applicant to be a candidate or a prospective candidate” for election. We set that out, but again, it would come down to contextual factors. In terms of how people think about it, I do not think that came up. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: I do not think that we delineated between politician and MP.

Do you think the mitigations you put in place as a result of the consultation go far enough in addressing the issues of impartiality? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: As we have said, our job is to make sure that the will of Parliament is adhered to through the Communications Act. The Communications Act made it very clear that politicians should not present the news. It does not make it clear that they should not present anything else.

And that news should be duly impartial. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Yes, the news should be duly impartial. It does not give us any authority to be involved in any other kind of programmes.

The consultation is specifically clarifying the rules in relation to news, noting the various examples people have given of increased numbers of mixed format shows. More broadly, as we have talked about, there are overall rules relating to due impartiality around matters of public controversy, public policy and various other things, to make sure that in the round, programmes think about due impartiality.

Thank you for coming. I am one of the lay members. Inevitably, in any sort of consultation, you pick up information and views about wider matters than the ones that you are consulting on. What you published in the document yesterday are the views about rule 5.3 specifically, but I want to broaden it out a bit. Before I go on to my main question, can I pick up on the main finding, which is that nearly all participants were instinctively opposed to politicians presenting the news? Do you think in the minds of those people who were surveyed, they make the distinction between broadcast news, over which you have a responsibility, and the much wider area of social media? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: This research was done in focus groups. The advantage of that is that you can really drill into things properly. We did stick to broadcast in this. We did not ask them about social media, because our remit is broadcast. In these focus groups, we were just talking about broadcast. We were not talking about perceptions of politicians on social media.

But if a principle about due impartiality and accuracy applies in one part, do you think they make the distinction to the general public?

The research on our news consumption survey about trust suggests that there is a distinction being made. People know that they can apportion different levels of trust to news in different places.

Picking up some of the wider potential areas of public opinion, have you received any feedback from the public on the acceptability of the amount of time spent by MPs on outside employment in media organisations or how much money they earn? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: No, we have not asked them those questions. Our remit is to ensure that broadcasting is duly impartial and duly accurate in this respect. That is more of a matter for this Committee and for Parliament, really.

Was any distinction made about whether an MP is paid or unpaid, or whether it is part of routine employment or ad hoc?

I can double-check, but I do not think so. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: I do not think we went into that level of detail. As I said, when we share the evidence with you, we will double-check, but, from memory, I do not think that was asked.

To follow on from Francis’s question, do you have any remit at all regarding the payments made to presenters?

No.

None whatsoever? You do not have any regulatory oversight? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: At the end of the day, we are a post-broadcast organisation. We need to be able to let broadcasters do their jobs and do what they want to do and attract big audiences. Whether they pay or do not pay is entirely up to them.

Okay. So you do not get complaints about some individuals who are considered by the public to be extremely highly paid for what they do. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: No.

That is helpful.

Hello, I am Carys, one of the lay members. Thank you for coming to talk to us today. It has been really interesting so far. You mentioned earlier that broadcasters who employ or pay MPs to host or present have to work that much harder. Have you seen any changes in actions or behaviours of those broadcasters, or the MPs being paid, or even public perception, since the GB News judgment? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Yes, I think it is fair to say that there were a couple of stations that started doing this a bit more regularly, and now their news is handled by somebody else in those programmes. I think there has been a change.

We talk about things like having a range of views, but we do not get into more detail than that.

I completely understand the question, but that is not how we think about it—

In each individual case, we need to think about the context of the programme— Cristina Nicolotti Squires: We look at the programme.

We look at the programme as a whole and the context in which it was shown. What might be helpful is that, in each section of our guidance, we publish alongside that cases relevant to that guidance. If we find one in particular in breach, there will be a clear, long explanation of how we thought about the various different factors. But that will relate to a significant programme rather than be generic.

There are quite specific rules. The broadcasting code has multiple sections, and each rule stands alone: under rule 5.3, no politician can present news in a news programme. Each rule is quite clear on its own. Where it is not, little bits of extra information are provided. For example, as we have talked about, there are questions about the distinction between news and current affairs. We say that in news you would tend to see these things, and in current affairs you would tend to see those things. They are really quite clear, without saying, “Tick this set of requirements.” Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Having spent 35 years on the other side of it, I do not think it is hard to work out what I need to do in order to satisfy those rules. I would not want to be told by Ofcom, “You must do this, this and this.”

Just to just to comfort you and give you some succour, anything that you say in here is privileged, meaning that it cannot be used against you. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: People will try.

It does not matter how hard they try. Parliamentary privilege applies to what you are telling the Committee. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Thank you.

I think we have covered much of this, but I want to expand a bit more on this: given the legal challenge, if MPs are restricted from presenting news in any programme, what does that mean for current affairs programmes?

Again, I sound like I am standing on the head of a pin. Prior to the court judgment, given the developments in the media landscape, we interpreted news and news programmes broadly. The High Court took the view that we interpreted it too broadly, and that it just applied to news programmes. We have now clarified it to say, actually, it is news in any programme. From our perspective, we always thought that to be true, so we expect to see the same things. It is the things that I was talking about earlier. If we come to a statement, with the rule as we have set out for consultation, which obviously needs to go through the consultation process, and we end up with a final rule that says a politician cannot present the news in any programme, cannot report on the news and so on, broadcasters would have to think—although as I said, I would expect them already to be doing this—where are the circumstances where I might need a contingency plan in place? What if there is breaking news and I have a politician presenting the show, where I might want to stop and present the breaking news, because there is a very clear rule that politicians cannot present the news in any programme?

That strikes me as a very big pinhead, because there are a lot of angels dancing around this one. Coming back to the example that Alberto gave, if you have an MP who has, for the sake of argument, a power station in his constituency, and he is invited on a news programme to talk about that, but he is also hosting a current affairs programme around power stations in his constituency and elsewhere, I do not see the difference. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Both programmes have to be duly impartial. The current affairs programme will have to have a wide range of voices. If he is contributing on a news programme but he is not presenting it, that news programme has to be duly impartial as well.

But in the current affairs programme, does the impartiality not confine itself to the total output of that station? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: No, it is the actual programme.

It is always the programme, never the total output.

You have very opinionated people in LBC, for example. Their argument is that it is the totality of the output that covers the impartiality, not the opinionated nature of the presenter. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: We judge it on the programme.

The rules are that it is the total programme. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: You may have a politician of a particular political leaning, but we make sure that in that programme there is a wide range of views, which often come from the callers or the questions put to the person. It is about the actual programme.

The pinhead is starting to wobble. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: I don’t think so.

I have a final question. On page 12 of your consultation document, you helpfully set out in a table the current text and your proposed text. Are you confident that your proposed text will do what it says on the tin—to use somebody else’s advertising slogan? Are you confident that you will not be challenged on that? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Yes. It is a consultation, so we always put out the proposals for change. We listen to what people tell us and take that into consideration when we decide whether to make it a statement of policy. I do not want to prejudge that. Could there be something that might change our mind? There might well be. Let us see what the responses are. When it comes to the statement, we will of course propose things that we believe will stand up in a court of law.

It may well be that this Committee—we are not prejudging—will look very closely at the wording that you decide to adopt, because we might wish to adopt similar wording if we want to restrict it only to news rather than wider media appearances. We would be grateful if you could keep the Committee updated, when your consultation exercise closes, on whether the proposed text is in fact the text that you decide. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: It is a six-week consultation. I cannot remember the date off the top of my head, but it started yesterday.

Once we get to a statement, we can contact you.

I have enjoyed listening to your evidence today. You are called Ofcom, which makes me think about communication. I well understand your regulatory boundaries, but if I was among the public sitting here today, I would think, “Gosh, it’s not just about broadcast.” This might be something you cannot answer, but for me it is also about social media, future issues and newspapers. If Santa Claus had a wand you could wave, do you think that the regulatory gap could be filled? I am thinking specifically about social media and newspapers as we go forward. Or would that impinge on freedom of information? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Ultimately it is a question for Government and Parliament. We are doing a public service review, which will consider the discussions. Some of our stakeholders have said that there should be prominence on social media for public service broadcasting content, which is a slightly different thing. In terms of regulating social media, Parliament voted through an Online Safety Act, which specifically chose not to put in rules about mis and disinformation. “What is news? Discuss.” Who is a news provider? What is a journalist? The definition of a journalist is a tough one to do. To go back to your point, it is a magic wand, but what is that wand actually going to be able to do and define? It is a huge area but, as I said, it is down to Government and Parliament to decide whether they want to go into that regulatory space and how they would do it. All I would say is that it is perhaps not as simple as the magic wand might suggest.

Do you think the public think you already do it?

People sometimes confuse us with Ofgem. Who goes to bed reading about regulation, anyway? Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Well, we do.

I don’t. The thing I would come back to is this point around our news consumption survey and our media literacy research, “Adults’ Media Lives” and “Children’s Media Lives”, which Cristina was talking about. People think about the trust they place in these different services differently. Depending on whether they know it is regulated, they think about the output differently. I think that is quite important. If you are thinking about the future of regulation in this space, that is something you need to think about.

As you well know, Parliament and Government do not operate in a vacuum. Given that you are a regulator that, in its own document, makes it clear that the majority of the UK adult population now obtain their news from online consumption—you have quoted a figure of 52%—it is surprising that you seem to be expressing some timidity about giving a viewpoint on whether Ofcom might have a more extended role here. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: In this country, we regulate where we have to and where we have the powers to. At the end of the day, we are a stand-alone body that enacts the will of Parliament.

To be clear, we absolutely have looked at news in this space. As Cristina said, in the public service media review, we are looking at how we ensure the continued availability and sustainability of accurate and impartial news in this country. That relates to public service broadcasters, but of course we get into questions of how news is being accessed online, how it is attributed and how people are engaging with it. We previously did some work, related to our duties in relation to media plurality, around how people are consuming news online and what the role of online intermediaries is, so we are pushing into the questions here—most importantly, how are audiences engaging with news? Some of these bigger questions are rightfully for Parliament and Government, not for a regulator.

Are there any other questions before we thank our guests for coming this morning? No? In that case, let me thank you both for appearing before the Committee. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: I hope we have been useful. I am sorry that we cannot necessarily come up with things that you want us to.

If the Committee feels that it needs further clarity on some of the questions we have raised, I am sure that you will not mind if we write to you. Cristina Nicolotti Squires: Of course.

Absolutely. We agreed to follow up on a few things anyway, so we will get that done.