Welcome to this meeting of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Before we begin, I remind Members to declare any interests before asking their questions. Today, we are discussing the work of Ofcom with Dame Melanie Dawes, its chief executive, and Lord Grade of Yarmouth, its chair. Welcome to your first appearance before us in this Parliament. In March, we heard from Tim Davie and Samir Shah, and last month we heard from Sir Ian Cheshire and Alex Mahon from Channel 4. In fact, since then, Alex has announced her decision to step down from Channel 4—we hope that that was unrelated, and that there will not be an impact on you after this meeting. I know that successive Committees have been impressed by her stewardship at the broadcaster, and we wish her well. Building on what we heard from the BBC and Channel 4, and ahead of the charter review later this year, this is a good opportunity for the Committee to consider all areas of broadcasting, across all media, and some of the concerns that we have around online safety. Thank you so much for coming to meet us today. I will kick off with a question to you, Dame Melanie. In your report on the review of public service media you said that the current challenges facing PSBs mean there risks “being less PSM content in the future.” What can Ofcom do? What levers does it have to help PSBs cope with the financial challenges that they are facing?

In our report in December, which was a backward look at the system, we said, as you correctly cited, that there is a twin challenge for the PSBs. First, audiences are increasingly fragmented, so how do they get their product seen, enjoyed and appreciated? And then, related to that, how do the business models sustain when they do not have the same audiences? There are really two things. What are we doing? First, we are implementing the Media Act. There is a lot in the Act that will help, particularly on the prominence on connected and smart TVs. But we are not resting on that, because we think that the pace of change is too fast, and we risk losing things if we do not keep looking at the future. Before summer recess, we will publish a report that pulls together the results of a very extensive consultation across the industry and the nations, on things that could make a difference in this next phase. I can say a bit more about that if you like, but we will publish that in about two months’ time.

Is there anything more that you would like to do, but that you would need further powers to be able to do?

I think that there are questions around prominence. That comes back to the first problem I cited: can audiences actually find public service content these days, given the number of platforms that we all engage with? The Media Act does something about that for smart and connected TVs, but it does not tackle prominence on, for example, YouTube, which is increasingly where viewing hours are spent in the home, particularly among younger audiences. It also does not deal with social media, so there is a question around that. There are various other things that one could look at. There is nothing straightforward and there will be no silver bullet, but the Government are keen for us to do that work. I think they will be listening and interested to hear what we say.

Your previous report was called “Small Screen: Big Debate” and your findings from that effectively led to the Media Act. Do you have similar ambitions for your current review? Do you want some kind of legislation to grow out of it?

We want a good and forward-looking debate about this. I think that the Government are keen for us to do the work to prompt that debate. Whether they decide to legislate is obviously a question for them and for Parliament, but none of these questions are easy. How do you ensure prominence on social media? It is actually quite hard when you have an algorithm driving people’s feeds. On a smart TV, it is much more straightforward: it can be designed by the person who is responsible for that piece of technology. None of this is straightforward, and we would not say that the Government must definitely take things forward very quickly. I think that a lot of this will need more data and more consideration to take it through.

Another rumour keeps coming back that ITV might be taken over by another media organisation—most recently by Banijay, but before that, there was the Abu Dhabi-backed group, RedBird IMI. Are you concerned about these rumours?

Our role as the regulator is to carry out our job, which is to make sure that the regulatory regime that supports ITV and the other PSBs to deliver what they deliver—our report in December was clear that the PSBs continue to deliver fantastic content for the viewing and listening public—through that system of quotas, prominence and so on, works, and to get on with the Media Act. It is not our job to run companies or to decide who owns what. Sometimes there may be issues around public interest tests, where the Secretary of State can engage us, as you know, but we are very clear, as the regulator, that commercial decisions are for the boards and shareholders of those companies, and not for us.

So even if there was a prospect of ITV being subject to a takeover by an overseas investor, like RedBird, you still would not necessarily have a role in that?

We might have a role, were there to be a decision by the Secretary of State to ask us for advice and launch a public interest test process. That would very much depend on the circumstances, though. But our ongoing role would be to make sure that that licence—ITV has just signed up to another 10-year licence—and those conditions are fulfilled.

Would it concern you if one of our PSBs was owned by an overseas company?

It might be worth adding a bit of context. Channel 5, which is a PSB, is owned by an American company.

Does that concern you?

Channel 5 is doing extremely well under its ownership; it is doing quite a bit better than it used to. The RedBird example is peculiar because the main investors were a sovereign wealth fund from the middle east, which is very close to Government—so that is a specific issue in that case.

Good afternoon to both of you. Ofcom’s response to the Prime Minister’s letter asking regulators for examples of what they would do to enhance economic growth included implementing the Media Act. How is the Media Act going to stimulate economic growth? That question is to both of you.

The challenges faced by the commercial sector of public service broadcasting are considerable—there is the flow of advertising, the big pot of advertising money that is moving online and the fragmentation of the audience, as Melanie mentioned—but the response from the PSBs and the commercial sector to the Media Act has been one of great relief. They have been waiting for the prominence rules to be put in place, and there is a general sense that this will help. It is not the complete answer on long-term sustainability, but it is a huge assistance to them at present.

We believe at Ofcom that growth and regulation can go hand in hand, and it is our job to make that the case as far as possible. Broadcasting regulation is an interesting example, because for decades now, the Government, through regulation, have been able to secure public service benefits in the form of regional news, regional production quotas, and so on, off the back of a commercial balance sheet. That trade has worked—it has worked for both parties. But as the market position of our traditional PSBs has eroded over time, with competition coming in, which is a good thing in many ways, the Government and the regulator constantly need to look at what is doable and achievable, and what is the real priority. That is what the Media Act does: it reduces regulations in some areas, but it is very clear about them remaining in other areas, including quotas and locally gathered news from radio. We are implementing that as fast as we can. It is complex, but it is an important job for Ofcom and a big priority for us this year.

Under the licensing regime for broadcasters, we have been very adept and flexible in updating licences to meet the needs of audiences. A lot of legacy conditions in licences have been surpassed by the move of audiences to online and the different ways they consume media today. I think we have been pretty quick at amending and updating licences to meet what we know is the way the audience is moving.

Lord Grade, in your pre-appointment hearing, you said that part of the reason you applied to be chair of Ofcom was to ensure “continued investment and growth in our internationally successful creative industries.” Where do you see potential for that growth for the PSBs and the creative industries in general?

Well, that will be the subject of our public service media review, which we are in the foothills of doing; we will be taking opinions from across all stakeholders. The great success story of the last 10 or 20 years in the UK sectors has been the growth of the creative industries, and there can be little doubt that the engine of that growth has been the skills and the investment that the PSBs, including the BBC, put into British content for British audiences. That pot of money, I suspect, is challenged at the moment, and we need to look hard at the reasons for that, and look at what the different options might be for ensuring that we can continue to meet the audience’s demand for programmes of all kinds that are made by British producers for British audiences, wherever they may be in the four nations.

Can I ask you both how Ofcom is approaching the subject of artificial intelligence, given the current climate, where the debate about AI in creative industries is framed around copyright?

I think there are two sides to that. On the copyright debate, clearly copyright is central to any part of the creative industries, going way beyond Ofcom’s sectors. That is very much something for the Government; we are not involved in the work that they are doing, but we absolutely see how central it is to the future ability to earn revenues from creative content. On AI, all of Ofcom’s sectors are being disrupted—transformed—by AI, as is most of the economy. That includes the opportunities in TV production to translate into multiple languages or to produce fantastic new effects, and also some of the risks of fake content or really offensive content, and some of the questions around ownership. Most of the time, you are looking at a balance of risks and opportunities, and as a regulator, we are trying to find our way through that and work out whether our regulation needs to adapt. But most of the time, I think it is for commercial companies to lean in as far as they can and to manage to serve audiences in the ways that they now expect to be served, which is increasingly through digital channels. People really enjoy engaging with services that feed them content in ways that are very personalised to them, which, of course, is absolutely driven by AI.

Would you like to add anything, Lord Grade?

No, I am happy with that answer.

You spoke earlier about implementing the Media Act, and I would like to ask about prominence, which is crucial for the longevity and success of our world-leading public service broadcasters. This question is to Dame Melanie first: what is left to do, before the prominence provisions in the Media Act are implemented, to secure the benefits as quickly as possible?

The prominence changes are at the heart of the Media Act; they are probably the most important thing in terms of securing the role of the PSBs for the future. We have concluded the first part of the work, which is to consult on how we would designate PSB players and how we will advise the Secretary of State to designate smart TVs and so on. The next stage is to do those designations. We are expecting that that work will be done some time in the autumn. Once that is done, and we know who the companies are on both sides, we can launch the consultation on the rules. That is really when you get into the meat and drink of this: how should prominence work on the screen? That is about the prominence of the player, such as ITVX or whatever, but also the prominence of the content, where content is being fed through an algorithm. It is also about what the terms of trade are. What is fair? How should advertising revenues and data be shared? What is a sensible contract, recognising that a lot of the companies involved—Amazon and so on—are very, very large? We need to make sure that our companies are able to strike a fair deal. That is really what is going on here. We should be finished by the summer of next year. Those steps have to be sequential, which does make it a bit protracted, but we are moving as fast as we can.

According to the road map for implementation, I think the Secretary of State was previously expected to designate the TV platforms considered to be in scope of the prominence regime by July to September this year. Do you think we are still on track for that?

I think it might be a little later—it might be more like the autumn of this year, but by Christmas, I would hope. Some of the work has just proved to be more complicated on our side, and when we set out our road map last February, none of us had any idea quite when the general election would fall. The new Government have actually moved pretty fast to get on top of this, but inevitably, they had to do some thinking and a bit of work to be sure that they wanted to progress all of this in the way that had previously been planned.

Thank you. Lord Grade, is there anything that you want to add on that?

No, that’s fine; thank you.

Lord Grade, in previous roles, you have been on the other side of the fence as the chair of BBC and ITV. If you were in their position, would you be arguing for “significant prominence” rather than “appropriate prominence”?

No, I think it is what it is. Nobody ever gets what they ask for; there is always a compromise along the way somewhere. But I think that the noises and reaction that we have had from the PSBs have been a sigh of great relief that this legislation now exists, and I think they take great comfort from it.

They have previously discussed wanting “significant prominence” rather than “appropriate prominence”. This question is for either of you: in your engagement with them throughout this process, since the passage of the Act, has the definition of “appropriate prominence” and the movement of regulation in that direction been to their liking? Does it seem closer to what they wanted from “significant prominence”, or have you heard reservations from them?

To be honest, the main thing we hear from all of them—this does come up in every meeting—is, “Please get on with it.” We are going to need to be tough in enforcing whatever code we set in place. It is a commercial code, with important but small, by global comparisons, British companies—even the BBC—up against some of the big global tech giants. Ofcom’s role is the backstop on that, and they are clear that they want us to be tough in enforcing that when they think we need to. Of course, we will do that in a way that is fair. That is mainly how the conversation goes, but it is a big priority for them, for reasons we understand and share.

I am sure that some early case law will produce rounds of applause or tears on one side or the other. I think the tools are there to ensure that we are able to implement the Act in the way in which it was designed.

On the implementation, what progress have you made on implementing the radio selection services on smart speakers?

We have a lot of consultations coming up in June. We thought it might be helpful for you if we wrote to you at that point with an update on implementation timescales, because a few things have slipped—I will be honest about that—for a variety of reasons. Although we have been updating on our website, we thought it might help if we write and explain it to you with a proper tracker attached, so we will do that. I can find out exactly where we are on the radio side and come back to you on that in a moment, if that is okay.

Yes, that is absolutely fine.

Dame Melanie, you have already mentioned the importance of YouTube and social media for news consumption, and just now you spoke about the need to consider algorithmic recommendations when talking about the prominence of individual pieces of content rather than entire channels or platforms on TV devices. When we talk about young people, the prominence of YouTube and social media is that much greater. If we look at some of the big providers of news on these channels, such as TLDR on YouTube or News Daddy on TikTok, it is not a world that most politicians and regulators inhabit. I will put this question to Lord Grade: are we slightly fighting the last war here? Perhaps you cannot have a serious conversation about news prominence, or content prominence including news—news just happens to be something we worry about more than other things—without considering social media and online platforms for young people.

The first thing is that it is incumbent on everybody represented here to ensure that the most-used source of news, the PSBs—namely, the BBC, ITN and so on—are sustainable for the long term. They have the impact that those fragmented small channels do not have. That is not to say that those channels do not have some influence with some younger audiences, but in the end what we can do is ensure the long-term sustainability of fair, impartial and accurate news where it matters most. The pillars of news are the PSBs. When the covid crisis hit, the numbers for BBC News and ITN went through the roof; that is where people turned for trusted news. Rather than chasing the long tail, we must expend the effort on maintaining the long-term sustainability of the PSB news channels—I include Sky, of course; I should have mentioned Sky. 

You can be sustained and still unseen, especially by a younger audience. I was not suggesting, as you say, chasing the long tail. I think probably everybody here thinks there is a particular value to the public sector broadcasters, but they are not being seen in the volumes that you would want in the 16 to 24 age groups. My question really was whether you can really do prominence effectively if you are not doing YouTube and TikTok and Instagram.

I think it is pretty difficult to do prominence properly unless you are also thinking about the platforms that young people are on. There are some positive statistics out there, though. Half of 16 to 24-year-olds who are on YouTube say that they have seen public service broadcaster content in the past year.

Did you say half in the last year?

Yes, in the last year. How much? We do not know; I am just saying they have noticed it, and the PSBs are increasingly getting on to those platforms. We know at Ofcom, from the research we have done, that people generally read the first couple of things that come up in their feed and after that they do not. That choice is made by the algorithm, which is usually a bit of a black box—of course, one reason why this is so complicated is that every social media algorithm is different, but that black box algorithm is highly influential in what you read. That is true for adults as well as for children. We do have to look at that. The issues are slightly different for YouTube, where there are partnerships with broadcasters that you could see being part of the picture. On social media it is usually short form content and is a slightly different kind of problem; it is more about the balance of what the algorithm is feeding you.

Does that mean that in your review you are likely to recommend that PSBs are given prominence in the video sharing platforms?

I think we believe that you cannot really look at this for the future without that being a central thing that we have to consider. Sorry—I am giving you slightly vague words here.

We will take that as a yes. Do Ofcom have the existing powers to do that, or would you need a new media Act to make that happen?

We do not have any powers to do that at the moment either under the Online Safety Act or the Media Act.

I think previously you have asked for platforms to be more transparent about their algorithms. Is your review likely to recommend that again?

That is part of it, yes, but also transparency about what people are watching. For example, we know that there is a lot of really great children’s content from the BBC on YouTube, but we do not know how much of it is being watched. We do not have that Barb-style data set, even for YouTube. I think that is something the industry have been working on for a while—part of this is also about what the industry needs to do—and that is a big priority, because we are all running a bit blind on this at the moment. We know that kids are on YouTube, but we do not really know what they are watching.

How much traction have you had with the tech companies on this issue of data? Algorithms are their most prized possession, aren’t they? How much traction have you had with them on it?

At the moment there is industry effort going into this, but we would like to see it accelerate. We are not driving that engagement, but I am hoping that our review in the summer will be a moment for everyone to shift focus on this just slightly and start to think about what all the different players might be able to do to push this further. With YouTube, for example, there is a positive collaboration already with the PSBs in many respects, but could it go further? If the Government are interested in taking forward any of the ideas around prominence further, that could bring a slightly different conversation across the industry quite quickly.

Keeping in mind that you do not want to say anything definitive ahead of the review this summer, is it likely that you could potentially call for more regulation to bring that forward?

There is always a balance. We are a regulator; will we want to call for something, or will we just want to point out the problem, the options, and how some of the options could be very effective? I am sorry if I am using weasel words a little bit there. It is not for us to advocate what our rules should be in the future. I do not think it is for us to say what Parliament and Government should or should not do, but we will set out, as clearly as we can, the scale of the problem and the solutions that could help to tackle it.

This was brought home to me the other day by a presentation I got from a team at Ofcom, who said that 80% of homes now have smart TVs. I was staggered by that number.

But also a lot of homes are using their smart TVs to access YouTube and other video sharing platforms.

Absolutely, but I was amazed by that number.

Yes. This is the modern world. We will move on to radio. Melanie, how would you respond to the BBC chair, who said that Ofcom’s regulatory processes are too slow and that “PSBs need to be able to move with greater agility, flexibility, and pace”?

It is worth remembering why we scrutinise some of the BBC’s new channels and programmes. It is because, although they are competing against big global companies, they are still very dominant in the domestic market, particularly on radio. It is important that they do not stifle innovation by chasing new channels where one of their competitors has come up with something, following them and wiping them out far too quickly. That is a serious problem for innovation and growth across the industry. That is why the rules are there; that is why Ofcom does what we do. We always seek to do it as quickly as can. We actually have a seven-and-a-half-month deadline for our processes, and we have always met it. We are trying to streamline them—we have consulted on that—to reduce the number of processes we have to run, as well as reduce the arms and legs of the process, so it is a bit quicker. The moment that the Government and BBC have finalised the framework agreement as part of the mid-term review, we will move that forward.

When we asked him for an example, he gave the example of asking you to speed up the public interest test. Have you considered that?

Yes, that is the process that I was referring to, where we have a seven-and-a-half-month deadline, which we always meet. We would like to streamline that. At the moment, there are two consultations as part of each one, and we would like to reduce that to one. We would also like to reduce the number of cases that we have to look at. We just need the BBC and the Government to finalise the framework agreement, and then we are ready to go.

Do we have an answer on radio selection services and smart speakers yet?

I can certainly give you a bit more on that. Again, as with prominence on TV, we have consulted on our principles and methods. The next stage is the designation, and then we will consult on the codes of practice. I think the deadline that we are currently working to is that we will have all this done by next summer. For the bits of the Media Act that are new, such as prominence and voice assistants, the deadline is next summer; for the bits that are about updating the current regime, like PSB quotas and listed events, the deadline is the end of this calendar. That is what we are working to at the moment.

Is that deadline for concluding the consultation or implementing?

For us to have finalised all the rules. It is our own deadline that we are now working to, and we are going to be pushing ourselves pretty hard on it.

When will we start to see a difference?

To some extent, when you start to consult on the ideas, you immediately have an impact on the market, so I would hope that you would see some of that ahead of time. On radio, and particularly voice assistants, there are quite a lot of questions about how this works and exactly what the user experience needs to be to ensure prominence when you are asking a question of a voice assistant. There is quite a bit of work to do there. I do not think we should expect to see an enormous change before the rules are finalised next summer, because we have to engage with the industry quite a bit about what it thinks the right kind of prominence would be.

So we are working towards next summer.

Yes.

Quite often, the timing of our process is dictated by the speed of response from the interested parties. They ask for delays, extensions and so on, and in fairness we most often are as helpful as we can be, within limits. The speed of our processes is quite often delayed by the speed of response or the latent responses that we get.

So the more quickly people respond, the more quickly the implementation will take place.

Indeed. As a former chairman of the BBC, I would have to say that I have never seen the BBC process as an exemplar of speed and agility.

Okay. Talking of the BBC, they have proposed four new national radio stations on DAB that are very similar to commercial stations, and commercial stations are very worried about them. You have said that your provisional view is that the Radio 2 service should be blocked, but there are three others set to go ahead at the moment: Radio 1 Dance, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 3 Unwind. Obviously, commercial radio is concerned about the impact of those and the absence of any news content in that offer. Is that something that Ofcom is likely to have a view on? Is it something that you are likely to step in on?

As you say, we have said probably no to one and yes to the others, and we have weighed up all those issues. Where is there a commercial service already providing this? Where is the BBC right that they are filling an important gap in the market, and using their public service remit and funding to do so? We weigh all that up as quickly as we can, recognising that, as the chair of the BBC said, life moves on. We have to make these processes as smart as we can, and so do they.

So you are likely to recommend the three others. Will there be a requirement for them to have news bulletins, or is that not going to be part of it?

It is not what is proposed.

I don’t think it is what is proposed.

Yes, there is a particular website—none of us like to give its name, because we do not want to help it reach its audience—and a lot of it is illegal content. It is advocating, assisting and giving people the means to take their own lives, and that is simply not legal. It falls squarely against the illegal harms parts of the Online Safety Act. As you say, this is our first investigation against a platform, which we started almost immediately after the duties came into force. As Michael was saying, it can get quite difficult for us to predict timelines—I will be honest with you—because we need to give the other side a chance to respond, and then we need to work out what we will do and when to push things further forward. Ultimately, as you know, we can levy pretty stringent fines. We can also seek, through the courts, a business disruption order against a platform that we feel is simply not listening to what we are saying and to what the Act says, particularly where the level of harm warrants that. We would expect the court to be very careful in judging that test because of the implications for freedom of expression, which has to be part of the conversation, even if it sometimes feels very difficult in cases such as this. That particular forum has been the subject of a number of coroners’ requests of Ofcom and a number of prevention of future death reports, so it is very much at the centre of our thinking under the coroners courts too.

Where content is illegal, the codes are now finished; Parliament has approved them and they went live on 16 March. We expect all those companies to be implementing the provisions of the codes if they need to do so. The first step they had to take was to do a risk assessment. We asked 60 companies for their risk assessments within a fortnight of the deadline of 16 March. We have been interrogating those assessments over the last few weeks and having some conversations with companies where we think there are issues. We have been doing the same when it comes to the need for age assurance for pornography sites, for example. There we are poised to take enforcement action fairly soon against a couple of companies that we are concerned about. We are on the way in doing what the Act requires of us, which is to assess the risk assessments and assess the measures and then start to take action if we think we need to. The children’s codes, which we published and finalised a fortnight ago now, are six months behind that timescale, but it is exactly the same process—sorry, not six months; it is four months behind.

I think we do. The implementation is the thing, but it is the Act that gives us the road map to make sure that we can, over time, reduce harm. All the strength comes from that. We were well prepared. The Government of the day gave us investment that enabled us to tool up well ahead, so that when the Bill received Royal Assent, we were ready to go—we had the right people in place. One of the first things I and the board did when I arrived at Ofcom was to look at our recruitment in that area. I think the board is extremely comfortable that we have recruited extremely well, from the public sector, from NGOs and from tech companies who have been there and done it. I think the quality of the resources that we have been able to recruit will stand us in good stead going forward.

One hopes so. Not everybody can anticipate what somebody in a garage in Sunderland is going to come up with that is going to transform the landscape, but we do a lot of horizon scanning at Ofcom, in our policy team. They are looking all the time. We have got some superb brains who know this stuff inside out, who are looking all the time for what may be the next thing—what is coming. The important thing for now is to implement the Act absolutely in the way that Parliament has handed it down to us. Going back to your original question, I am confident we have got the right resources. We could always do with more—that is a simple answer—but the question is the quality of the people that we have recruited, and I am very comfortable on that front.

There is no question that there is plenty of risk around the question you raise, first because events will keep moving and technology will keep adapting. We are mitigating that particular risk by building as strong partnerships as we can globally and with other regulators in the UK, so that there are as many heads as possible applied to these things, particularly around horizon scanning, which is one of the most fruitful areas of cross-regulatory co-operation. The other risk is that we simply do not know at this stage exactly how the industry is going to respond. If we end up with some really big court cases, that could be quite expensive. We have a good arrangement with the Government, certainly around legal costs. I feel that we have the right sort of partnership where we would be able to say, “This is now something where Ofcom will need more resource.” Everyone wants us to get on with this Act. I have got absolutely no questions at all about the Government’s commitment for us to do that—in fact, if anything, they keep asking us to do even more and even faster. If we end up with resource issues, then that is a good conversation that I would hope to be able to have.

There is an international dimension to this. The tech companies are dealing with this in so many territories—with the European Union, in Australia, all over the world they are having to deal with the onset of regulation. Melanie has been in the forefront of international dialogue with other regulators and Governments around the world to ensure best practice is shared: “This is our problem—how have you solved it?”, and so on. That is a very important part of Melanie’s role.

That has yet to be tested—let’s put it that way—but we have good dialogue. We have had good dialogue with the major tech companies for the last two or three years, but it has not yet been tested. I will explain what I have always thought the test is. The public policy people and the lawyers are wonderful: they really engage; they want to understand this. Will that translate to the people who design the platforms and the products that they are selling? That is the real test, and we shall see.

Has that dialogue with the big US tech companies changed over the last six months?

Not to my knowledge, but Melanie may have a more up-to-date—

Not really to mine, either. We are dealing with people who understand the obligations of the Online Safety Act, and as Michael says, we shall see what they deliver, but we have not particularly detected any change in the last few months.

Can I ask about the demarcation between Ofcom and the ICO, which I think sometimes confuses people a little bit and very understandably? The week before last, you had the children’s codes published, but it is the ICO that produces the age appropriate design code. On age checking in particular, could you say a word about whose responsibility it is to make sure that if there is a nominal minimum age to be on social media, that is the general practice?

Specifically on minimum ages, there is at the moment no requirement in the Online Safety Act for companies either to have a minimum age or to enforce it with highly effective age assurance. They have to enforce it consistently, but the law does not say that that has to be effective, or highly effective, at the moment. That is just not in the Online Safety Act. We have been concerned about that, so what we have done as part of our children’s code is to say that any company that does not have highly effective age assurance at their minimum age—the same test as they need at 18—should assume they have younger children on their platform and design it accordingly. We think that is a very strong incentive for them to properly police that minimum age. The technology is available—it is much better than it was even a year ago—for them to be able to do that. So although it is not explicit in the Online Safety Act, we are, we think, using the tools we have got through the Act to push it pretty hard. And there would be nothing to stop a requirement being introduced in the Act at a later date; it could be done through the Online Safety Act. Meanwhile, the Information Commissioner owns, obviously, the data protection rules, and that means that age 13 is the age of consent. Before that, younger than that, children need the consent of their parents; a platform needs the consent of parents to be able to use children’s data. Again, I think the Information Commissioner has pushed that, through the age appropriate design code, quite hard to try to ensure that if a platform says it has a minimum age of 13, it actually does something about it. We think there is quite a long way to go on age assurance, at both 18 and 13, across the industry. The tick box, “How old are you?”, is not any form of assurance whatsoever. We have been very clear about that.

You have made the point about your requirement that if platforms cannot demonstrate how old people are, they assume they have younger people on their platform. I think that principle is also hardwired into the age appropriate design code, which has been around since 2021, I think, but I am not sure many people believe it has that effect in real life. I think, also, many people believe that the Online Safety Act does say that if you have a minimum age, you have to enforce it. I know there is the distinction that you just mentioned, between consistent application and effective application. I think many people, from the common English usage of the phrase “consistent application”, read that to imply that it is also effective, but I think you are saying that Ofcom’s reading of the Act—you read it more than most, and your understanding is that no, it does not have to be effective. As long as people were doing it equally badly with everybody, that would be compliant.

We think that is the risk.

It certainly is. But I think you are also saying that either Ofcom or the ICO—Ofcom would require additional legislation to do this—could enforce there being an effective age threshold at age 13, if that was what platforms were saying was the case. The ICO could do it instead of Ofcom. Is that correct?

Yes. In theory, it could be done under the Online Safety Act; it could be a requirement in the law and we could then enforce against that. The technology is much better than it was a few years ago, so we believe that the means to do this are there. Up until now, the technology has been getting there at age 18 but it has not been so good at the younger age ranges. That is improving all the time now. I would not want there to be a counsel of despair on this. Between us, with the pincer movement of the ICO and Ofcom, our actions in this area have been quite significant on minimum ages. Of course, the top priority of the Act is highly effective age assurance at age 18 to screen out pornography, suicide and self-harm material from all under-18s. That is very clear and a top priority for 2025. We are going to be pushing hard on companies that we believe are promising parents that they have a minimum age requirement but then are not actually doing anything to enforce it. It is important.

I totally agree. Lastly, the children’s code was a very important step forward, but there are also hundreds of thousands of children under the age of 13 accessing a service that is nominally meant to be for children aged 13 or above. There are also hundreds of thousands of children who are over 13, but because of the age they were at the moment they signed up, appear to be 16, 17 or even 18 and above, and they will be being served different types of content.

I agree. It is a big problem.

On another matter to do with the demarcation between ICO and Ofcom, which of you is more responsible for thinking about the extent to which algorithmic recommendation systems create echo chambers?

In so far as it is an echo chamber for a teenager around depressive content and suicide content, that is core Ofcom business. It is a central part of the code.

To be clear, I did not mean only for children, but obviously that is a very important part.

To answer that question, it is central to the code that those feeds become safer. We want to not only screen some content out altogether, but ensure that children don’t get pushed that very intense and harmful content. When it comes to adults, if you particularly want to focus on that, the illegal harms codes are really more about whether content is there at all, rather than the echo chamber question. Companies will need to have systems and processes to take down content when they find it, as well as good and well-resourced content moderation to make sure that they do that, if it is illegal. I don’t think the echo chamber question is particularly catered for in those codes, and mis and disinformation are not harms named under the Act.

I want specifically to come on to mis and disinformation in a moment. To be clear, unless the content is itself illegal and covered by your provisions on illegal content, howsoever it gets served up to the individual, the work of the algorithm is not part of your concern—I don’t mean that in a bad way—and neither is it part of the ICO’s concern.

The algorithm is central to the illegal harms codes, as it is partly also about preventing content and using things like CSAM hash-matching technologies. It is only when it comes to our women and girls’ guidance on harassment and bullying, and the ways that the algorithms can amplify it, that it is very central to that picture.

Yes, but they will come under your codes even if they were only served up once and no algorithm was involved.

Yes. Bullying and harassment is very much about scale, so it is slightly different. Certainly, it would be more relevant, whether you are calling that an echo chamber or just a pile-on, and it is a slightly different problem. I was acknowledging that I don’t think that the echo chamber question is particularly catered for under those codes. It is possible, when I get back to the office, that one of my colleagues will say, “You’ve forgotten about this.” If we have anything to add, we are happy to do so.

Is either regulator similarly looking at a systemic level at the role of programmatic advertising and/or creator funds in the type of material that is served up to people?

We are not looking specifically at measures that would tackle the business model issues. The Digital Markets Unit may well look at some of this because, as we have seen reported this morning, half of UK advertising revenue goes to Meta and Google. That is a big competition issue. We have certainly identified that the business model is an important factor for risk assessments, which are central to the Act. With an attention-driven advertising-based business model, we need to pay more attention to the role of the algorithms in promulgating harmful content, whether illegal or harmful to children. It is a relevant factor.

Section 152 of the Act requires Ofcom to establish and maintain an advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation to publish a report within 18 months of being established. I think it has its first meeting next week, on Friday. What will it cover?

Do you want to take this, Michael? The board approved this committee only recently.

It is an advisory committee. The people who will inform that are from very good and different disciplines. They will be looking to commission research to help us prioritise our resources in the right way for problems that they see coming up or that they have noticed. That will be a very important resource for us, as we go through. The key thing was, again, the recruitment of the panel itself, which we are very pleased about. Lord Allan, who is now a non-exec and comes from that background, is chairing it on behalf of the board.

Under section 77, you can require information about disinformation from platforms and, I think, then publish that in the form of transparency reports. How will that manifest? Will you, for example, be able to report on the number of automated accounts, or the amount of inauthentic activity on platforms, because they have had to report that to you? Will you therefore be able to expose that to the consuming public?

That is to be determined, I think. Are you talking about the transparency requirements on categorised platforms?

Yes. As I understand it, there are two things in the Act on mis and disinformation—the duty to promote media literacy to counter mis and disinformation, but also the ability to require information of platforms on mis and dis, and I presume on the prevalence of mis and disinformation, and on what they are doing to counter it. I think, as I have understood it, the transparency reports are the vehicle through which you will do that. My understanding is that the advisory committee is something different—it advises the whole process—but the reporting comes to Ofcom itself.

Yes, that is exactly right.

Yes, I think that is right.

Perhaps you can follow up to the Committee with a bit more on what we can expect to be in the transparency reports and how they will therefore be a useful tool for the public.

We are happy to do that.

This is my final question, the Chair will be pleased to hear. This is another area where platforms will have their own terms and conditions. In my understanding of the Act, you as the regulator can hold platforms to account for doing what they have said that they will do—their contract with the customer. What can you do if a platform—as a number of them do—says, “We don’t tolerate interference, or very low-quality, divisive or untrue information,” but they are doing so? What can you as the regulator do about it?

Ultimately, we can investigate, if we think that is a priority given the overall implementation of the Act. It is something that we could do. To go back to mis and disinformation not listed as harms, platforms still need to counter that under the Act. That was a hotly debate issue in Parliament a couple of years ago. We think that the media literacy requirements are quite important, so in the early autumn we will be coming back to finalise the recommendations to the industry of what we think good platform design looks like, to support the public in being more media-literate. That is not a phrase I like terribly, by the way, but we know what we are talking about, I hope. We are definitely pushing that forward. A number of platforms have already signed up to the draft code that we have published, but we don’t have an ability to enforce it or require it of the industry.

When the Online Safety Act was being hammered out here in Parliament, Ministers kept saying that one of the fundamental thrusts of the Bill would be to ensure that online content providers and platforms are doing what they say they are doing when it comes to implementing their own terms and conditions—basically doing what it says on the tin. To what extent does the legislation that you now have to work with equip you to do that?

As you say, it is there. It is a duty just for the categorised platforms. What we have to do there is finalise the categorisation register and identify what those platforms are. Then we will consult on what the codes should look like for the duties that those platforms then have to carry out. It is a later piece of work for us. The priority that we were given by Parliament is to get the illegal harms and protection of children bits of the Act moving first, which we are now doing. We are now into enforcement in those areas. This is still earlier on. We are going to consult on the full detail of those codes early next year on current timescales, although we want to get the transparency notices moving sooner than that—ideally before the summer break.

You are confident that you have the equipment at your disposal in terms of legislation. You have the legislative equipment at your disposal to be able to deliver on what Ministers—

We have certainly got the ability to deliver on what is in the Act. Everyone can debate whether it goes far enough, but we have the ability to take those duties and write a code in consultation with the industry and then hold the industry to account for it.

The key question is, do you think it does that? Do your lawyers think the Online Safety Act enables you to hold platforms to account for what is in their terms and conditions—in this case, specifically on misinformation and disinformation?

Yes.

Successive Ministers across different Government Departments have always, rightly or wrongly, pitched the Online Safety Act as the silver bullet when it comes to dealing with every single harm that is out there in the online world. I think we all know that that is not what it is going to deliver, but we want some reassurance that it will give you the powers that you need to take down the key illegal and harmful to children content that we have been told about.

On the illegal and harmful to children content, absolutely. Those are statutory codes. They are harms listed in the Act. We are really clear about that. We are already enforcing against those measures. On the requirement for categorised services to implement their own terms and conditions, yes, we have the ability to scrutinise and enforce against that. But there is nothing to stop a platform changing their terms and conditions in response. That is the difference, because there is no requirement in the Act for them to have policies on those issues. There are some other things. There is foreign communication interference in election offences and so on—malicious communications. To be clear, after the Southport riots last summer, there was plenty that the industry could have done better in terms of taking down clearly illegal content that incited the violence and so on that some people were convicted of, and that the platforms did not take down. We have already published a report on that. We are clear that the Online Safety Act does have quite a lot of traction on some of those issues.

Dame Melanie, looking through your previous appearances at this Committee, one on 17 December 2020 spawned the headline, “Ofcom boss criticises BBC’s platforming of anti-trans groups”. I wonder whether the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Equality Act the other day changes that. I think at the time the thinking was that trans rights views should not be challenged with gender-critical ones. Does this change anything?

I think there was quite a bit of confusion at the time around that, but to be clear, Ofcom did not and does not give guidance to TV or radio companies about how they should handle questions of gender identity, sex-based rights and so on. The latest Supreme Court judgment obviously is relevant, and it may affect the way that we would approach any individual assessment of a complaint. But this was never something we ever gave guidance on, and it certainly is not now, either.

There may be trans people fearing discrimination and harm, and there may be people thinking that there should be equal space given to the anti-trans people, so I thought I would ask about it.

I just add, if I may, that since the ruling I have real confidence—without having intimate knowledge—that every newsroom and current affairs department in the business is examining it, and seeing how it will affect future coverage, scripts, the words they use and so on. It is for them to decide. It is for us to step in later post transmission, if there is a complaint, and we would look at all that. There will be endless debates going on inside newsrooms and current affairs departments and among documentary makers about how to make sure they do not fall foul of the Act going forward.

I wanted to ask about political bias, and our old friend, GB News, which has had many dozens of Ofcom inquiries—googling it, I think about 50, but it seems they are going up—some harder than others, and definitely some breaches; I think about 13. The two Conservative MPs interviewing a Conservative Prime Minister, and even the fining of £100 k for the Rishi Sunak election show, almost feels like innocent times. Watching it recently, it feels like a lot of coverage and airtime is given to Reform, who triumphed in the elections on Thursday. My problem is that there seems to be a bit of grey area around what counts as a discussion show or as news, and whether the programmes are news programmes or topical programmes, or even the channels, because you also have TalkTV—which is also TalkRadio—and LBC. Where does Ofcom clarify what is what? It is pretty clear with ITN, BBC and Sky News that equal coverage is given, but what do we do with these beasts? Where does the line fall?

We treat all licensed broadcasters equally. They have a duty under the law—which we have to interpret and implement—to be duly impartial, accurate and fair. In the case of various channels—you happened to mention GB News—where there is a complaint that they have strayed from the path of impartiality, either within a programme itself or within a series of related programmes, they are judged exactly the same as anybody else. The key words are “due impartiality”. What one has to appreciate in every news bulletin or news programme, wherever it stems from—whether it is Sky, ITN, BBC, GB News or TalkRadio—is that everything you see or hear is the result of choices that editors make: “What story will we cover? Who will we interview? How will we cover the story? What questions will we ask? How do edit? Where do we put it in the running order of the show? How much prominence do we give it? How do we balance it?”, and so on. With every newsroom—you could watch some nights when it is not an obvious hard news story—you will see different bulletins. I am a news junkie, I am afraid; I watch them all, to my wife’s distraction. You will see they lead on different stories and give different emphases; those are all choices. GB News, since you raised them, make their choices about what stories they think are of interest, but, having made those choices, they are under exactly the same obligations as the BBC, ITN, Sky and everybody else to be fair, accurate and duly impartial.

Your own research showed that the public had concerns about serving politicians presenting the news. Is that not where it gets a bit murky?

I think the public fell short of wanting Ofcom to decide who should or should not be allowed to broadcast.

For current affairs programmes.

For current affairs programmes, yes.

Perhaps I can explain a little how the rules work. The due impartiality requirement for news and current affairs programming, as Michael says, is applied to everybody in the same way, but it very much depends on how broadcasters choose to deliver on that, night by night, day by day, in the programming that they offer. They do not have to give an equal weight to different views; they just need to make sure that due weight is given and that a broad range of opinions is brought to bear in any individual programme. It is important to say that it is about individual programmes, and not the overall coverage of a channel. It is programme by programme; that is how we work as a regulator. Those are the overall rules. When it comes to politicians, the rule has always been that politicians may not read the news in news programmes. In some of the cases we have opened up recently, there has been a debate about whether the programme was a news and current affairs programme, as we believed it was, and whether the politician was therefore caught by the rule and should not have been presenting the news part of the programme, or whether the programme was only a current affairs programme, in which case the rule on politicians not presenting does not apply. The court said that we need to clarify those rules, and that is what we will be doing very soon—in a matter of days, in fact—to make it clear that politicians should not be presenting news in any programme. That is very consistent with where audiences are; the research we have done shows that audiences really do not think that politicians should be presenting the news. They are a bit concerned about politicians presenting current affairs programmes, but when you ask, they would not ban it. We are the broadcasting regulator. We are very clear that our responsibility is to ensure due impartiality, but not to say what politicians should and should not do beyond that.

Balanced with freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is central to everything.

When is the consultation happening?

Very soon. It will be next week.

And that will stop us saying, “This is the news.” But then you have all these grey areas. Again, one of the mayoral winners from the Reform party is one of your presenters, and there was ample coverage given to the campaigning. That is not impartial.

The rule is that for any individual programme, there must be a range of views brought to bear. If a politician, particularly a serving Member of Parliament, is presenting a current affairs show, that broadcaster has to work harder to make sure that due impartiality is achieved. There have been a couple of cases where we have looked at individual programmes, and we have been clear that either enough was done or not enough was done. We have given quite a lot of guidance to GB News and others about the sorts of things we expect to see.

So the consultation is coming out next week. I do not know how long it will go on for. I suggest that you should unambiguously say that sitting MPs cannot present programmes that deal with these sorts of party-political matters in the run-up to an election.

To be really clear, no candidate, or anyone promoting a candidate, can present any programme during an election period, which is the statutory period of a general election. That is a very clear rule. There is no rule preventing politicians from presenting a current affairs programme at the moment, but if you have a politician in charge of a current affairs show, you have to make sure that you take sufficient steps to bring in a sufficiently broad range of views into that programme, because of the risk of bias.

I would hope we would all be very uncomfortable about the idea of a regulator deciding who can and cannot present programmes, or who should or should not. News is separate.

I think eyebrows were raised at the ample time that Dame Andrea Jenkyns had, and she won a mayoral contest on Thursday. She is one of your presenters and she was filmed campaigning. People have complained to me about that and asked me to raise it with you both.

It would depend on the individual case. We would investigate it and see whether the programme itself was compliant with all our obligations to ensure due impartiality, accuracy and fairness. There are enough cases where we have found broadcasters in breach of this issue over the last few years.

You rightly sanctioned GB News when it was airing various medical misinformation conspiracy theories about covid-19 and climate change, but some of those programmes—the one that the presenter Neil Oliver used to do—have now moved online. It is a bit of a loophole that the regs do not apply because it is not a cathode ray-type delivery but is on YouTube. Given that it is increasingly academic whether a channel is an online channel or a traditional broadcast channel, is it not time to get rid of that demarcation and make everyone—

That is a matter for Parliament, not us. We can only regulate those services that we are entitled to regulate through legislation.

For us, the bigger questions are around the increasing plurality of our news ecosystem in general. We could regulate more services on YouTube, let’s say, but that would not capture podcasts or social media. There is so much plurality now, which in many ways is a good thing, but we have to be careful that we do not try to regulate everything. That is why we believe in making sure that the high quality, accurate impartial news services that we regulate have sufficient prominence, that they are still there and that the public still really value them. Some 70% of adults get some of their news from TV still—although it is, increasingly, alongside other sources—and we think it is incredibly important to uphold that.

I just feel that people are working around it and there is no jurisdiction with YouTube. To the naked eye, when these things get clicked and put out nobody knows whether they came from YouTube or a studio.

It is the world we live in.

You talked about how the due impartiality rules apply to everybody in the same way, but does any channel in particular give you cause for concern regarding its willingness to adhere to the requirements?

No, I don’t think so. In any event, we are a post-transmission regulator, unlike the old days when I started in television. We used to have to take films about Northern Ireland and the troubles to the regulator to get them approved for broadcasting. That is when I started. We are a long way from that. We are a post-transmission regulator. If there are repeated breaches of the same offence by an organisation, we would take appropriate and proportionate action.

Do you feel you have all the regulatory tools available to you that would need to be taken if there were repeated offences?

Yes.

Yes, and ultimately we will fine if we do get that repeated behaviour. I should say specifically on GB News, obviously it has had some issues with compliance with the code, across multiple different paths of the code, over the last few years and we have found it in breach a number of times, but in the recent past its compliance record has been significantly improved. Ultimately, that is what we are aiming for: to get compliance with the code and to do so in a way that absolutely upholds freedom of expression and the freedom of the broadcaster to innovate—that is incredibly important—and safeguards those standards for the public.

When we find on a judgment, whether we find a breach or we do not find a breach, we publish a very full account of the arguments as to why we decided to impose some kind of penalty or not, so that that helps all broadcasters. They read that and it helps for clarification.

Looking at the due impartiality requirements again, you talked about how they work programme by programme, rather than as a channel as a whole. Do you think it might be time to look at them as a channel as a whole, or would that simply duplicate existing work if you are looking programme by programme?

I think it is very hard to see how you would do that, and in particular how you do that without being really quite prescriptive and getting into something that I think starts to look more like censorship rather than upholding a standard, post broadcast, which is what we do. It is just very difficult to know how that would work.

Lord Grade, you said that freedom of speech is paramount. It just occurred to me that we had CIISA sitting over there not long ago.

You had who?

CIISA, the new industry body to stop complaints—

The Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority. It was set up, basically, to clamp down on inappropriate behaviour in the creative industries.

It just made me think, because the subject of NDAs—non-disclosure agreements—came up. Why should those exist at all in broadcasting? I know that companies such as Global and The Observer exist. Surely, they are stopping the freedom of speech that you talked about. The fourth estate cannot do its job if people are terrified to speak out.

I understand the point. These are matters for the boards of the BBC, Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky or whoever. We do not run, or have any management responsibilities for, any of these companies, thank goodness. Our role for these licensed broadcasters is very clear and set down in legislation. If there are issues, they should be addressed to the board.

Should these things exist at all?

It is a matter for the individual companies.

They can be chilling on transparency, and on people’s willingness to come forward and to be a whistleblower and to challenge. The BBC’s work here, which they recently published, is very comprehensive, and does look at the role of independent production companies and freelancers, recognising that it is not just the BBC’s own employed staff but also companies they work with that set a culture and that they need to ensure they are doing what they can to support those companies in maintaining standards. It is really good that these issues are on the radar—well, more than on the radar: they are central now to the BBC in particular. The BBC must set the gold standard here in my opinion, and they have a lot of work to do to implement this, but their response a week or so ago was very comprehensive and we were glad to see it. But as Michael said, it is not an area that we regulate.

I actually have BBC questions next. I do think they have been a bit slow. The Greg Wallace report has still not seen the light of day, has it? That was long before Christmas that they said it was coming soon. I do not think it is satisfactory that they are regulating themselves. Lord Grade, you had to write a letter on the “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone” film.

We chose to write a letter. It was a matter of the allegations—as yet to be proven or unproven—being very serious indeed. There are very serious occasions where we could—if we felt it was justified—step in and start an investigation ourselves. In this case, the board of the BBC very quickly responded. Once they were alerted to the allegations about the programme, their statement was very full, and we took the view in Ofcom that we should let the board go through its processes, but that we wanted them to know that we reserved our position and would wait to see the report before we decided if we needed to take any more action. But I was very pleased to see how quickly the board stepped in and the fulness of the statement that they made in light of the allegations.

They have been in here as well. Are you satisfied that this is a good enough system within the BBC?

We did complain a year or two ago about the BBC’s complaint system. The way the system is laid out in the agreement is that if someone has a complaint about a BBC programme, they complain to the BBC first; if they are not happy with the results, they have the right to appeal to Ofcom, and we will decide whether to investigate or not. The BBC lack transparency and responsiveness to a lot of these complaints—that has improved out of recognition of the criticisms we made in our annual report on the BBC, which was pretty scathing about their processes. We think the BBC-first system should work well. It is working a lot better now.

More generally, the BBC plays an incredibly important part in our national life and in our democracy. It is in everyone’s homes and, as we report, it does a very good job of producing high-quality content—entertainment, news, and many other genres—year by year. They have done that in the context of having had about a quarter of their budget cut in real terms in the last few years. But they are responsible for £3.5 billion of licence fee money, and they have a responsibility to govern and manage themselves in an exemplary fashion. Their job is tough and they are under constant public scrutiny. But we as the regulator—and the BBC board, the public, and the media—need to be constantly challenging the BBC to continue to do better. In the behaviours of their presenters—which we talked about and on which they published their report last week—they have recognised that they have a lot more to do, and that is right. On the Gaza documentary, that is really about trust between the audience and the BBC. Not all the information was available to the viewer and the listener when that programme was first broadcast. That is the thing we are most concerned about, because if the BBC cannot retain the public’s trust, its ability to continue to play the important role we all want it to play will be diminished. I think the board understands that; we certainly understand it. I think the BBC will continue to come under constant scrutiny. It is tough for it—it is not easy—but I think that is right, given the role that it plays.

On the trust issue, when Tim Davie and Samir Shah appeared before the Committee, they said that they had had hundreds and hundreds of complaints, and that is what caused the swift action. What measures does Ofcom take to ensure that editorial decisions are made independently and not as a result of external political pressure?

The independence of the BBC and BBC journalism resides with the staff. In my experience, both in a spell as a very senior editorial executive in the BBC and as chairman, I would have to say that pressure usually has the opposite effect on the journalists and the programme makers. If there is external pressure not to publish something or to publish something in a certain way, that normally puts the editorial staff on red alert. In my long broadcasting career, I have never seen any evidence of outside influence—either from your own board, which I have known, or from No. 10 Downing Street in whatever colour—being effective in changing the editorial standards. Once you bow to that kind of pressure, trust has gone forever. That includes commercial—you could have advertisers saying to ITV or Channel 4, “We’re not going to advertise with you if you publish this programme about rotten eggs” or whatever the programme is about. It does not work in this country. That is a very strong tradition and culture in the newsrooms and among the journalists and programme makers.

They are conducting their inquiry into this one, and also into Gregg Wallace—we have not heard anything about what happened to that. What sort of criteria will you at Ofcom use to judge whether their internal processes are sufficient?

We will look at the report, which they have undertaken to publish within certain legal parameters.

This is on the Gaza documentary.

On the Gaza documentary. We will look at that and decide whether or not they have satisfactorily dealt with what may or may not be proven to be breaches of our code, and so on. We will look at it in that light. On Gregg Wallace, behavioural issues are matters for the board of the BBC. The BBC board are the custodians of the public interest in the BBC, not us. They manage the BBC, and the executive, who conduct the affairs of the BBC on a day-to-day basis, are accountable to that board. I am very pleased to see that recently, the board of the BBC has been a little bit more open and taking an interest publicly, and explaining themselves to the public. I think that is a very good sign, and I think it augurs well for Samir Shah’s reign there. I think that is a very good move. When I arrived at Ofcom, there were various controversies and the BBC board was absolutely silent on the matters, which I do not think is helpful to maintaining public trust.

Lastly on this, the BBC’s own editorial guidelines say: “We must take due care over the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of under-18s who take part or are otherwise involved in our editorial content, irrespective of any consent given by them or by a parent, guardian or other person acting in loco parentis.” It has been reported that the child in the documentary is now having online threats made to his family. People say never work with animals and children. Is that where this all went wrong?

We have been kept closely abreast of the BBC’s work on this documentary. They have not concluded it yet, though. We will need to consider when they finish their report whether there are any issues for us as the broadcast regulator with the programme. That would be the locus that we would have on this. We just have to wait for them to get on with this work and conclude it, which we expect them to do quite soon now—in the next week or two, I hope.

A lot of inquiries are going on.

Dame Melanie, what is Ofcom’s current understanding of what advertising is covered by the less healthy food legislation, which comes into force in October?

This is a matter for the Advertising Standards Authority to lead on. We are the backstop enforcement body for that work. The ASA has been leading on the consultation. It has had a lot of responses back from its consultation about the particular question of brand advertising, and that is currently being given quite a bit of thought. I hope that there will be clarity for the industry—I think everybody wants that—but it is still very much under discussion.

Earlier, you mentioned just how important trust is, and the fact that the BBC is in our lives and in our homes. Do you believe that secondary legislation is needed?

On the question of less healthy foods?

Yes.

I cannot say. The Advertising Standards Authority is in charge of this piece of work. We are supporting them. The Government is obviously considering this. The consultation led to lots and lots of responses, as I think you are hinting at, and that is under discussion at the moment, but I cannot say definitively what the response needs to be. It is not an area for Ofcom to lead on.

How do you feel that we can achieve certainty? You mentioned that a degree of clarity is needed. How do we get to that point?

This is why you consult—it is to get people’s views. What people have said is that it is not clear; the line is not drawn in the right place. People have had quite a lot of concerns about it. The right response now is for the ASA to think about where to go next. That is what is going on. They are doing it in discussion with us; I am sure that the Government are discussing it with them as well. Everybody wants to get to a position of clarity on this. It is a big set of changes and it is disruptive, as new regulation always is, but no one wants to be in a situation where people are not sure what the rules are, or where they feel that they are having an impact that was not intended initially by Parliament.

Lord Grade, is there anything you would like to add?

No, Melanie has covered it very well.

Brilliant. The legislation comes in in October. Do we need it before then? Would you be supportive of the legislation moving quicker?

I think that October is probably still quite a fast deadline, given that there has been quite a bit of debate about this. That is the current timetable.

Have you considered the consequences for the commercial public sector broadcasters of the uncertainty, if it leads to bigger than expected hits on their commercial revenue?

The PSBs have always been very clear that this will reduce their advertising revenues. They have been concerned about that. They made representations on those issues during the passage of the original legislation, and they have certainly made similar representations in private and in public during the consultation on the details that has followed, which the ASA has been running. I think those views are absolutely understood and on the table. Obviously, there are policy objectives around public health that the Government of the day decided were important, which led them to want to legislate on this in the first place.

Quite often, there are new areas of advertising that suddenly appear. Not that many years ago, there was no such thing as a market comparator website; now the airwaves are full of ads for that particular sector. Nobody forecast that. There are always new sectors coming along that want to advertise, which may replace or outdo the fast-food sector. We shall see. It is not a matter of that money going forever; there may be new people coming in, new products and new ideas that people need to market with impact through the PSBs. It is not all doom and gloom.

That is good to know. Are you concerned about the broadcasters and the impact on revenue streams?

We are concerned overall with PSB sustainability, which is why we are reviewing it and working on it, as we were discussing earlier, with a deadline of before the summer recess for us to come out with our proposals. So on those broader concerns, yes, definitely. The PSBs are still delivering really well for audiences. They have sustained their programme spend; that is what we found when we published in December our five-year review of what is going on. But all the headwinds are very difficult for them over the future, particularly in their finding audiences and being discovered by audiences, but also in being able to make a commercial return. Those broader questions are absolutely on our radar.

Thank you. Are there any other points that you would like to make?

No, that is fine.

This legislation is due to come into force in October, and we still have no clarity as to what the scope of it will be. You feel a bit lackadaisical about that. You are the regulator; you are the ones that are going to enforce it. Surely you need clarity as to whether you are talking about a ban on advertising a product or a brand, for example. It feels like there is a bit of an impasse between the ASA and yourselves and the Government. Do you not think you should be doing more to give this a bit of a kick up the backside?

I do not think there is an impasse. There are a lot of discussions going on about this at the moment, but the lead is with the ASA; they are the ones with the expertise in the advertising industry, and they have been leading all the engagement. We are the enforcement backstop. It is a co-regulatory relationship, so we are working in partnership with them. It is very live at the moment, as I think I have been indicating, and I hope we can get clarity on it soon. Everyone is very aware of that deadline of October, which I think everyone is quite keen to meet.

What are you doing to push it?

We are closely involved in all the conversations.

Lord Grade, you worked at a very senior level in TV broadcasting. To what extent, at this stage of the year, would a TV company need certainty as to what forms of advertisement they could take financial payment for?

As the market gets more stressed, as more and more money moves online and the economy goes up and down, the biggest concern that free-to-air advertiser-supported broadcasters have is how late the advertisers make their commitments. The money gets later and later, so it is harder and harder to project what your revenue is going to be, there is a long lead-time for programmes and you have to commit your programme budget, and so on. ‘Twas ever thus, frankly—it is one of the costs of doing business. There is always uncertainty somewhere or another in that transactional world between advertisers and broadcasters. This is the price of doing business, as far as I am concerned.

So you would not be putting any pressure on all the players in this to come to a swift—

Oh, they are. They are lobbying like crazy. They want clarity between brand and product and a decision, but what you want is the right decision based on evidence. There are a lot of very big stakeholders in this debate. The ASA has got to allow time for all the information—all the evidence and depositions and advocacy—to come in. It has got to make the right decision at the end. You can have a decision tomorrow, but it may not be the right one.

Can I pick your brains about something else? Over the weekend, it was reported that the Prime Minister is contemplating abolishing the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is quite a busy time for that Department at the moment, particularly in terms of some of the things you are involved in. It has the implementation of the Media Act, the kicking-off of the BBC charter review, not to mention the start of the football regulation process—I think you probably have less involvement in that—and then, of course, potentially the existential threat to our film industry of US tariffs. Would you say that getting rid of the Department at this stage was a good idea?

Well, I have not been consulted on it.

But if they were to pick up the phone and say, “Lord Grade, do you think we should scrap the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?”, what would your advice be?

I would be very happy that it was not my decision. Only a Government can know whether that is a good move or a bad move. We have moved since the election; our sponsoring Department is now DSIT. We work with DSIT and DCMS. It will be what it will be. This is way beyond my pay grade.

So you would not opine on it.

No. Q88        Chair: Okay, interesting. Dame Melanie, the report suggests that, therefore, the Department’s work would be split between Business and Trade, Education and the Treasury, so, potentially, you would not just be working between DCMS and DSIT; you would be spread even more thin with all your governmental partners. How would this impact you?

It is hard to say. It is just a news report, isn’t it? It really is not for us to opine on. Whatever the machinery of government, Ofcom will work with a range of Departments. Although our sponsor Department is DSIT and we have a strong relationship with DCMS, we already work with the Business Department on postal regulation and on regulation generally. We worked closely with the Treasury and with No. 10 when we were all discussing growth earlier in the year and making sure that we were all doing everything that we needed to do and developing plans there. Working with multiple Government Departments is our day-to-day life, and I think that Ofcom can sometimes help by joining up across departmental boundaries, because we can see that overall picture for the communications industries—telecoms, media and technology. We will make any system work, but at this stage it is just speculation, isn’t it?

So we can conclude that the chair and the chief exec of Ofcom are both relaxed about DCMS being scrapped.

I do not think that is quite what we have said.

No. We are completely neutral.

It is not for us. I think we are in violent agreement that it is above our respective pay grades.

You have no opinion on the DCMS—

The important thing if there are changes, whatever the changes are, is that there are not turf wars between Departments—that there is absolute clarity of who is responsible for what. That is the position you want to get to. At the moment, between DCMS and DSIT, it is very clear who is responsible for what, and there are no turf wars.

Okay, so not relaxed. Ambivalent?

Neutral.

It is just not a question for us. It would be wrong for us to express an opinion on it.

But it will impact you, so it is useful for us to have an idea of what that impact might look like. But you do not know—okay. Is there anything else that you would like to share with the Committee before we let you flee?

No. Thank you very much.

Is there anything that you hoped we would ask you that we haven’t?

I cannot think of anything.

No.

Is there anything that you feared we would ask you that we haven’t?

No.

You wouldn’t tell me, would you? It has been lovely to see you. Thank you very much for your time.