Justin Madders
MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance. As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards.”
“As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone.”
“Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon.”
“Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance.”
“She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have di…”
“That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery.”
The complete record
Every one of 8,481 lines we hold for Justin Madders, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 44 of 170.
“We must work across the globe to deal with the many challenges that the planet faces, while at the same time protecting our national security and long-term economic interests. Taking a cautious and proactive approach to risks is central to protecting our country and its citizens. I believe that the way we approach China will be a central feature of our lives for many years to come. On every occasion that we deal with it, the question of security, economic or otherwise, must be the very first thing we ask.”
“In that context, questions must now be raised about our reliance on supply chains that are controlled by China and have such a huge impact on our infrastructure. It is clear that China holds a dominant position over global supply chains that are critical to the net zero transition. It controls a significant proportion of the rare metals necessary for lithium-ion batteries, wind turbines and solar photovoltaic modules. On the lithium-ion battery chains, China is responsible for 80% of the supply of spherical graphite, refined manganese, anodes and electrolytes, so we clearly need a co-ordinated response to that. It feels as though we are at a very important point in global politics.”
“He said that it would be wrong for us to cut ourselves off from one fifth of the world’s population, and that we should continue to engage and work with China in a way that is consistent with our national security. But I do not think we have the balance right. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, that balance will be consistently and constantly reviewed. We need greater international resilience to international incidents. The analogy with what happened in Russia is very important, because that is a real threat that we could face in the next few years, and we do not want to leave ourselves overexposed. As has been said, many western countries have begun to understand the risks that we face, have taken action against firms such as Huawei, and have limited the use of such technologies in sensitive and critical infrastructure.”
“Not in Mandarin, no—in English. There is a very important distinction that we would all make between the Chinese people and the CCP. There is no doubt that the CCP is the malign influence in all this. On the question of social media, there is a concern that there may be an imbalance between what we see in this country and what is seen in China, and there may be deliberate reasons for that. We should certainly look at that and at the dangerous anti-western, conspiracy theory, democracy-undermining stuff that comes out from all around the world, and in particular from China. I echo the comments made by the director general of MI5 in 2022.”
“The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that many of these arrangements were never made clear to people when they purchased their properties, and too often developers have taken a shortcut to create a secondary income stream, when actually they should be paying a lump sum to the local authority to take over those responsibilities. It is a double whammy for those who are on the end of it, is it not?”
“The element that many people found most offensive about the P&O case, which today’s motion seeks to address, is the fact that the P&O management were able to look at the sanctions for which they were potentially liable and then decide whether or not they wanted to abide by the law. In effect, the cost of breaking the law was considered to be just another business overhead to be factored into decision making, and, as we saw, the management decided that those sanctions were not a strong enough deterrent to prevent rule-breaking. In its response to the consultation, ACAS said that a 25% penalty “may not always present a significant deterrent when calculated against the financial costs and risks of an alternative approach.””
“What was once a seldom-used device has become a mainstream practice, and part of the wider pattern of growing insecurity at work. In short, it has become a first choice, rather than a last resort. A TUC investigation found that about 38,000 employers were still using fire and rehire as a tactic. However, when we were finally given the code that we were promised would tackle this Dickensian practice, we found instead a vague, weak and disappointing document that would not actually prevent another case as egregious as P&O. On that basis alone, the Government have failed to keep the promise that they made more than two years ago.”
“During the two years since we witnessed those disgraceful scenes at P&O, it has continued to benefit from taxpayers’ cash through Government contracts, and fire and rehire hasusb continued to toxify our industrial relations landscape. While the P&O Ferries case itself did not entirely constitute fire and rehire, it bore many of the hallmarks of the practice and exposed the gaping holes in our law—holes that continue to be exploited; in the wake of the pandemic, there has been a jump in the number of instances of employers choosing to fire and rehire workers. According to research conducted by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, between August 2021 and 2023, the proportion of firms that conducted fire and rehire almost doubled.”
“Let me begin by referring to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the debate, and for making the necessary amendments to primary legislation so soon after the code of practice was approved. It has taken us more than two years, but today we see the first actual legislative change to tackle the blight of dismissal and re-engagement—or fire and rehire, as it is more commonly known. We will not oppose today’s motion, but we are clear that the order does not go anywhere near far enough towards ending this cruel practice, or meet the promises made by the Government.”
“Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), said: “we will not allow this to happen again…where new laws are needed, we will create them…where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them, and...where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.” —[ Official Report , 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.] Those legal loopholes remain as open as they did two years ago, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent the outrage of P&O happening again. That is yet another example of the long list of wrongs that will need a Labour Government to put them right. It is time to end the race to the bottom. It is time to end fire and rehire.”
“It has taken us two years to reach this point—two years in which we have seen growing insecurity at work, and have come no closer to providing the protections that workers in this country deserve. When the Government committed themselves to responding to the outrage of P&O, there was a moment of consensus across the business world, across the political spectrum and indeed across the whole country that this disgraceful practice should be consigned to the history books. Epitomising that consensus, the then Business Secretary, the right hon.”
“During last month’s debate on the code, I asked the Minister what elements of the P&O case, or indeed any recent mass redundancy exercise, had led him to believe that such provisions were necessary. I am afraid that I did not receive a satisfactory response then, so I will ask the question again. Is it not the case that nothing in recent high-profile examples of fire and rehire redundancy has made it necessary to give tribunals the power to take away compensation from employees? We will not oppose the motion, because it is a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction, but let me make it absolutely clear that what is before us will not prevent another case as egregious as that of P&O.”
“There must be 20 or more employees at the same establishment for the obligations to be activated, which means that many smaller employers—and, probably more pertinently, many more employers whose workforce may be spread across many different settings, retail being an obvious example—can still be excluded. The measure also only protects “employees”, which means that some of the most insecure workers in the labour market will not benefit one jot; and, of course, the Government intend to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, which, as we know from experience, inhibit people from enforcing their rights. The regulations also provide for a 25% reduction in compensation when an employee unreasonably fails to comply with the code of practice.”
“The Government do not know how often the compensatory uplift is used in other areas of employment law where there is a similar penalty for transgressing a code of practice, which prompts us to ask on what basis it has been decided that this measure will be effective in preventing employers from failing to follow the code of practice. We welcome the fact that the order extends the scope of compensation to any situation in which a protective award under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is applicable. I understand that to mean that more traditional redundancy situations will be covered, but there are limitations.”
“The arrogant, uncaring and deliberate trampling of workers’ rights requires a stronger message from this place that those actions will no longer be tolerated. Bad employers should not be able to buy their way out of doing the right thing, but instead we see the status quo preserved. Thankfully, many good employers understand the importance of working collaboratively with unions. We commend those employers, and we know that they already go above and beyond the legal requirements, but there is no evidence that the 25% uplift is likely to prove a deterrent to those who do not.”
“In its response to the consultation, ACAS said that there were “grounds for considering whether additional or alternative financial disincentives might help…the government’s policy objectives”, including “greater uplifts of awards where this is just and equitable” or “where there are especially egregious breaches of the Code.” It also suggested—this is relevant to the intervention from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—that when deciding appropriate awards, courts and tribunals might be required to consider, for example, whether the employer ought to have known better than to breach the code, the degree of legal advice readily available to it, and its financial resources. We agree with those suggestions.”
“We believe that sanctions should reflect the egregiousness of the transgression. If an employer decides to break the law, the sanction should not be capped, but instead should be decided on the basis of the facts. That would mean that any employers who were tempted to brazenly flout their legal obligations, having calculated the cost of breaking the law, would no longer be able to do so, because the cost of the sanction could, in the most serious cases, be much higher than the cost of complying with the law. Smaller transgressions would be treated accordingly by a tribunal. As things stand, the most egregious abuses have a cost ceiling, so those with ill intent can still price in the cost of acting unlawfully.”
“I will refer to other comments made by ACAS in response to the consultation, which I think will pick up some of the right hon. Gentleman’s observations. We now have a clear indication that unscrupulous employers cannot get away scot-free with breaking the law, but there are concerns that a 25% uplift will not be enough to deter bad employers who are determined to do what they feel is necessary. Once P&O had calculated the maximum penalty that it could face in compensation for each employee, it priced that into its decision. In effect, it was able to treat the law on consultation—a law that is there to protect workers’ jobs and their dignity—as optional. Today’s motion means that breaking the law will remain an option; it just might be a slightly more expensive one now. Laws are only as strong as their enforcement.”
“We remain committed to banning fire and rehire, but if the Minister wants to debate our policies properly, let us have a general election and see what the public think.”
“Sadly, we will have to wait another five months for it to be implemented, but the changes set out today will have a positive impact on workers, who for too long have been losing money that was always intended for them. We will monitor the progress of this legislation closely and, if necessary, take further steps to ensure the good intentions behind this Act are delivered in full.”
“Secondly, according to paragraph 13, tipping by app is judged to be out of scope of the legislation. Can the Minister confirm exactly what “tipping by app” means? I take it to be a form of digital tipping, akin to leaving cash, but we need some clarity. Will he outline what work the Department has done to identify the types of tipping practices that will be in scope? There is a concern that, although tipping by app might not be widespread now, it could be seen as a way to avoid obligations under the Act in certain circumstances, to prevent staff from getting the tips that were intended for them. In summary, we welcome the fact that the Government have finally got to the stage of being able to implement this policy.”
“As a minimum, I would expect there to be some monitoring of the legislation’s effectiveness, perhaps through surveys or consultations. After all, paragraph 35 of the code states: “An employer cannot be said to have met its obligation to handle tips fairly and transparently if individual workers are not aware of their entitlements in line with the tipping policy.” If we are to have confidence that those words mean something, surely we need monitoring to ensure that the code is effective. There are a couple of other issues that I would like to raise. First, on when a worker is entitled to receive their tips for a given month, the code makes reference to the provision that a tip must be paid by the end of the next month. There is a question about why tips are not passed over on the same schedule as most workers are paid.”
“If that is the case, it is a huge oversight given that there is protection against unfair dismissal for asserting most other statutory rights. Will the Minister consider looking at this point again, as there is a real concern that, unless people have legal protection and confidence that the law is on their side, they may be reluctant to avail themselves of their rights. In terms of the impact on the tribunal system, have the Government made an assessment of the propensity of those in the hospitality sector to take forward claims? Has modelling been done to judge the expected number of workers who will take forward tribunal claims? It seems to me that the lack of proper protections will mean that the minority of bad employers will be able to continue operating with impunity, withholding the tips that their workers have rightfully earned.”
“More fundamentally, a worker on a zero-hours contract or in another form of insecure work may fear that asserting their rights will be detrimental to their future chances of receiving work. For example, if a worker on a zero-hours contract is concerned that they have been underpaid the tips to which they are entitled and requests to view their tipping record, as is their right under the Act, their employer might consider this behaviour to be stirring the pot and choose to reduce the hours they give that worker, or possibly even to stop giving them work at all. A worker with less than two years’ service can be dismissed without cause and have no claim for unfair dismissal. The legislation does not cater for people to claim that they have been unfairly dismissed for asserting their statutory rights under the Act.”
“The sector to which the Act predominantly applies is made up of workers in insecure, low-paid jobs that are generally in non-unionised workplaces. Staff turnover is high, meaning that many workers do not stay with the same employer, or even within the same industry, for long periods of time. These factors will doubtless have an impact on workers’ ability to assert the rights afforded under the Act. Many may be entirely unaware of the stipulations of the Act. Even if they are aware of the stipulations, they might not always be aware of the ways in which they can enforce them. Particularly if the Government persist with their plan to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, it may well not be financially viable for people to assert their rights, as the fee for lodging a claim might well be more than a worker is seeking to claim back.”
“Paragraph 25, on employers consulting their workforce on the policy, seems pretty minimal in setting out what a good consultation looks like. If an individual makes an employment tribunal claim, does the Minister envisage there being any opportunity for there to be an examination of the quality of the consultation? The very important point at paragraph 26 needs further clarification. It says that employers should review their allocation policy “on a regular basis”, but there is no indication of the timescale within which this should take place. Does the Minister have a view on what the timescale might be? We are dealing with a workforce who might change quite regularly. That leads me to the question of enforcement. I repeat the old adage that people’s rights are only as strong as their ability to enforce them.”
“Will the Minister outline the Government’s approach to working with businesses to ensure that they are aware of their obligations under the new laws? What steps will the Department take to ensure support in the areas where businesses raised concerns in the consultation, such as transparency and record keeping on tip allocation and distribution? I am particularly interested in how the Department plans to engage with small and medium-sized enterprises to ensure that they remain compliant with the law once it comes into effect. Workers will benefit only if employers are aware of and compliant with the law, so it would be welcome to hear the Government’s plans. I draw the House’s attention to a couple of specific elements of the code.”
“It is jarring that, in the face of such clear mistreatment of workers, there has been such a delay to get to this point. That the Government chose to delay the implementation of the Act after discovering the staggering statistics in the consultation rubs a little salt into the wound. Some 73% of workers who responded to the consultation reported that their employer had not sought agreement on the allocation of tips, and 40% of employers consulted did not pass on tips to agency workers, in part or in total, which clearly needs to be addressed, and it will be by this legislation. These statistics may be a reason why we face another delay, because clearly a lot of businesses need to get up to speed in order to be compliant, which begs the question of why more has not been done before now.”
“I will refer to those specific issues in due course. However, I start by referring to the Government’s consultation, which starkly set out why action is needed. The proportion of respondents who reported that they did not receive the tips to which they were entitled was very significant. Only half of those who completed the consultation reported that staff receive all the tips. Of course, this means that half the respondents to the consultation do not. Extrapolated across those working in the sector, around 1 million workers will benefit from this legislation. Of those reporting that staff do not receive all the tips, 21% reported that there was an administrative fee, another 13% said there were other deductions, and a staggering 11% reported that no tips were passed on at all.”
“In that time, it is estimated that workers will have missed out on some £200 million a year in lost tips. That is over £1 billion taken from workers in some of the economy’s lowest paid jobs. It is a little disappointing to see that the Government have delayed the Act’s implementation from July until October 2024. By our calculations, this further delay will cost people in the hospitality sector another £50 million. With that out of the way, I make it clear that we will not oppose the code. Action on tips is already long overdue, and we do not want to see it delayed any longer. We believe that these measures will have a positive impact on the lives of workers in the hospitality sector and other industries that frequently receive tips, but we also consider that there is room for improvement.”
“I thank the Minister for his introduction. Once again, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also join the Minister in paying tribute to the hon. Members for Watford (Dean Russell) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for their work on the private Member’s Bill that led to where we are today. As the Minister outlined, we are finally here to debate the code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips, which is necessary to deliver the provisions of the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. I say “finally” not just because it has taken a year since Royal Assent for a code to be agreed, but because it has been seven years since action was first promised on tips. As far back as 2017, the Conservatives promised to ensure fair tips for hospitality workers.”
“She said that this place has a culture of “deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying, harassment and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed.” We have made progress in dealing with that, but some of the arguments tonight show that some people just have not understood that we have more to do.”
“This again shows that this place believes the rules do not apply to us in the same way that they apply to everyone else, that we do not value the victim’s voice, and that we do not believe people in here should have safe working environments and confidence that they can work in a safe environment. The public should look at us and think about whether we really do value the contribution of our staff, when we put them into these positions in the first place. I will finish with the words of Dame Laura Cox, whose work started this whole process.”
“Mitigations can be put in place that fall short of exclusion and there are lots of examples of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) gave a number of measures that could be taken before we reach the last resort of exclusion. That is what any other workplace would do; it would assess the risk and take mitigating steps. I am afraid we are into a very binary debate about whether this proposal means we should exclude or not. There are a number of different ways in which we can protect our staff without having to reach that point.”
“I also feel there is some conflation, possibly deliberately, between the use of this procedure and the finding of guilt. I would never accept that an expulsion or exclusion equates to a finding of guilt. This process will not replace the role of a court and I believe that the risk assessment process and the adjudication panel that has been suggested would deal with this in a sensible and considered way, and we would have ample opportunity to weed out vexatious complaints, although for the reasons I have stated I do not think we would even get to that point. What we are asking to be done is no different from what we ask of others outside this place. We are asking for the same standards to be applied here as in every other workplace. The original report on this stated clearly that flexibility is the key.”
“We cannot hope to recruit and retain the brightest and best in this country, if we have a working culture from another era. Of course, this is a very special place to work—it is a privilege to be here—but that does not mean we should have to put up with suboptimal standards in how we conduct ourselves. We should aim for a culture where everyone is respected and working conditions are among the best in the country, and when those standards slip we must ensure a robust and swift process is in place. One of the objections to some of the amendments seems to be that Members should not be subject to the same rules and standards to which we hold other people. That is wrong in principle and feeds into the sense—which a lot of people have—that we are out of touch with the real world.”
“However, there is also the other side to this, which is about how a constituent would feel if they wanted support from their MP because they were working in a place that was not dealing with a sexual predator, and they were turning up to work anxious and fearful that they might bump into them—if, for whatever reason, the employer was not allowing anything to be done because the police had not formally charged the individual. I hope we can all see how that could put the victim in an impossible situation. How can we support our constituents to insist that the employer does the right thing if we do not insist on doing those things ourselves? If we cannot get our own House in order, how can we effectively challenge the worst employment practices out there? Should we not be aiming to be one of the best places for people to work?”
“Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) eloquently put it, people do not just ring up the police and get someone arrested on a whim. There is an awful lot of investigatory work done before we get to that point. This is about striking the right balance between ensuring people are able to work in a safe environment and ensuring that the people Members represent do not feel disenfranchised by virtue of a Member’s absence. On our constituents’ view, this is not just about how a Member represents them here; as we have said, there are lots of other things that can be done outside this Chamber to represent people.”
“After all, if there has been enough evidence gathered to charge someone with a violent or sexual offence, in almost any other workplace there would not be any discussion about suspending that person; it would just happen, because most employers in this country believe providing a safe and secure place of work for their staff is a given. That is the place the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) has come from with his amendments. In fact, I am of the view that in most workplaces suspension would happen automatically following arrest. However, the amendment I support does not go that far. It just says that arrest is the point at which we should begin to consider the risk to the people who work here, and that is the key point: we are thinking about the risk to the people who work here. As my hon.”
“I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I remind the Chamber that it is now almost 11 months since the proposals on risk-based exclusion were first debated here, and it seems as though we have had a lot of discussions outside about how to best protect everyone who works here. I think there is a general acceptance, constitutional issues aside, that something needs to be done, but there is a clear disagreement about the threshold for intervention. It is clear that there is a need for a threshold for an assessment to take place. We are talking here about a threshold for an assessment, not a threshold for an exclusion, which is why I support the amendments providing that the threshold should be arrest, rather than charge.”
“I am working with residents in the Chase Way and Kendal Drive area of Great Sutton, alongside Environment Agency representatives and members of the local authority, to try to find a solution to the flooding problems that we have there. There are lots of different pots of money available at different times, and sometimes it is difficult to understand what the realistic chances are of our succeeding in getting the funding that we need to bridge the gap that we have at the moment to get the works done. Will it be possible for me to meet with either the Secretary of State or some of his team to talk about what realistic funding options we have for the area?”
“It seems to me that the BBC has taken the decision not to prosecute over-75s for non-payment. I certainly have no issue with that—we should not be criminalising pensioners—but that does jar with the other stories we hear about seriously ill and vulnerable people being prosecuted for non-payment. It seems that we are ducking the hard decisions that need to be made about how we deal with the licence fee.”
“If that non-payment rate increases at the same rate over the next few decades, we can all see where that will take us. So we need to ask serious questions about why non-payment rates are growing. Clearly that is in part because people are voting with their feet and their wallets, and that is a challenge for the BBC in its overriding mission, which I will address shortly, but it is also a question of enforcement. When I ask questions of Ministers about enforcement action, it is clear that none has been taken against anyone over 75 for non-payment. I certainly know of a constituent in that age bracket who has decided for their own reasons not to pay the licence fee and so far has received 23 letters with various degrees of threat within them, but no actual enforcement action has been taken.”
“A recent survey found that 43% of people did not know what the TV licence was for and 66% agreed that the TV licence should be scrapped in 2027. I do not agree with that, but that survey should be ringing alarm bells. It may only be one survey, and I do not know the age breakdown, but I suspect we would find from it that younger people are less likely to see the value of the licence fee. After all, they will have grown up in a world where on-demand subscription services are the norm, so paying for something regardless of whether they watch it may well seem outdated and probably unfair. But when we look at the hard facts, not just at surveys, that also paints a worrying picture. The number of people not paying the licence fee has doubled in 10 years, and that is despite the threat of large fines for non-payment.”
“That should not make the BBC immune to criticism, however, and because of the unique way it is funded it is often held to a higher standard than many of its competitors. It is right that the BBC should respond to public concerns and reflect the way society is changing, otherwise it will find itself consigned to the history books alongside silent movies and video cassettes. The sad reality is that the BBC’s traditional rivals on free-to-air terrestrial TV are already on life support because they cannot compete with online subscription services in terms of quality and they cannot match the ways online services can target adverts and reach people, which were inconceivable not long ago. So the BBC could become the last man standing in terms of wholly British broadcasters. But the warning signs are there for the BBC too.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He made a wide-ranging speech more at times perhaps suited to the History channel than to BBC Parliament, but I am sure the viewing public will have listened to what he said with great interest. He made some important points, and the attendance at this debate does not reflect the high regard in which people hold the BBC and its importance for our nation, which is why this review is of importance. I was not familiar with the term “BBC sympathiser,” but I suspect that many members of the public would recognise themselves as BBC sympathisers because it does hold a special place in many people’s hearts and is respected around the world.”
“Even if I were only paying it once, I am sure that I would think it represents far worse value for money than any other TV service that I pay for in terms of pounds per hour watched. On one level, that should not come as a surprise—I pay for the subscription services I do because they have things that I want to watch—but could I honestly say that, were I given a free choice, I would pay the licence fee? I probably would, but more and more constituents are asking that question, and will continue to ask it. It needs a serious, sustainable answer. I do not think that the BBC can compete with on-demand subscription services in terms of quality or frequency of output. It does some great TV, but it cannot compete with the investment that some of the on-demand services provide.”
“It is no wonder that sometimes my constituents look at the BBC and ask, “Who are they speaking to?” That does matter, because as figures on non-payment of the licence fee continue to rise, the more that people feel the BBC is talking down to them and does not have a voice in their community, the more likely they are to join the millions who have decided not to pay. If we are not careful, we will soon reach a tipping point where the licence fee model becomes unsustainable. As someone who actually wants the BBC to survive—maybe that makes me a BBC sympathiser—I want this place to look seriously at how we square that circle. I declare an interest as a licence fee payer, not once but twice—I am sure that many other hon. Members who split their time between here and their constituencies are as well.”
“This is not a BBC for the whole country; it is a BBC that is still shaped by the same privately educated Oxbridge, London and home counties viewpoint that has dominated it since its inception. Every member of the board that I have been able to find schooling details for was privately educated. That means there is a real lack of diversity of thought, and that is reflected in the make-up of the senior echelons of management and editorial staff, raising serious questions about the BBC’s commitment to social mobility.”
“That same London-centric view is presented through all politics coverage, and frankly it plays into the impression of large swathes of the country that politicians are out of touch and obsessed with the comings and goings in Westminster, far removed from the realities of people’s lives. Fair play to the BBC, it does deign to visit the regions with “Question Time” and “Any Questions?”, although I recall a recent occasion when “Any Questions?” came to Cheshire, but the BBC still had to bus in the Labour spokesperson from London. It proves that you can take the BBC out of London, but you cannot take London out of the BBC. The same applies to programmes broadcast out of Salford, when everyone jumps on the first train back to London after the show finishes.”