Draft Small-scale Radio Multiplex and Community Digital Radio Order 2019

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2019 General Committees

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Good morning, everybody. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive explanation of the draft order. She said that there had been extensive consultation about it; she mentioned the Community Media Association and Radiocentre. In fairness to Radiocentre, it tends to represent the larger commercial interests, but it does take an interest in community radio. However, there remain concerns about the order’s proposals among smaller parts of the industry, such as those represented by the Community Media Association. As the Minister says, the draft order gives effect to the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who has now moved on to higher things.

The Local Radio Group, which the Minister did not mention, is another organisation that takes a strong interest in the development of radio in this country. It has expressed quite a lot of concern about the concentration of ownership in local radio, which is becoming almost national radio by proxy because of the changes and deregulation that have gone on recently. Understandably, it has concerns that the measure should not be used—as the hon. Member for Amber Valley suggested it might be—to allow larger entities to get control of community radio. It has raised a number of issues that I would like to put to the Minister, along with the Community Media Association’s concerns. I have also received representations on one specific concern from one part of the country.

The Local Radio group says that with the loss of so many local radio stations and with the demise of local newspapers, the options for local small and medium-sized enterprises to advertise has been drastically reduced. However, the order says that the £15,000 annual limit which is placed on advertising on these community radio stations should be increased in order to allow more opportunities for local advertising or perhaps removed altogether. What consideration did the Minister give to that point in preparing the order, and has the strict £15,000 limit been retained in the order, as it is hoped that the stations which are currently on FM or AM might move towards digital?

The Local Radio Group also believes that the larger players should be prevented from applying for the new multiplexes. Will she confirm whether the large players, such as Global and Bauer which dominate the radio market—what was once the local radio market in the UK–will be able to apply for some of the new multiplexes? Will commercial groups be prevented from hoovering up these multiplexes under these regulations? What does she think this market is likely to look like in five years’ time? I presume the policy objective is to keep community radio on a community basis. What will the market look like as a result of the order?

The Local Radio Group also thinks that any new small-scale DAB stations should be given a large enough area of coverage to be viable. Is she confident that that is the case with this order? It is also concerned about the pricing provisions in the order. It says that the operators should operate in an honest and open manner and that prices should be published on their websites. During the trial, the biggest issue for station owners has been inconsistent pricing. The criteria for pricing ban lack of communication and acting as a gatekeeper protecting their own interests. Will there be sufficient transparency around pricing to allow genuine community players to participate in this market?

Roughly half of regular listeners still listen to radio on FM. The Minister pointed out that 50% listen digitally. This initiative will not serve those listeners. The Local Radio Group feels that the FM radio landscape also needs to be reviewed in the light of recent deregulation and the subsequent consolidation on a large scale. Even though digital radio figures are going up all the time, the group feels it is remiss of the regulator, Ofcom, to under-serve 50% of consumers on FM—a medium that it regulates. Does the Minister have any further plans to look again at what is happening with FM in the light of these representations? I know from recent debates that she is aware of them.

The Minister also mentioned the Community Media Association. The submission from Radio Centre, which represents the larger commercial interests, said that the order was supported by the Community Media Association, which has been around since 1983. It is a non-profit organisation, not a commercial one, representing the interests of community radio. It has also raised a number of concerns. It welcomes the development of the SSDABs as an opportunity for community radio to gain carriage on the DAB platform. However, it says that it is disappointed with the Government for not taking on board several substantive proposals from the Community Radio Centre which, when taken together, would have increased the likelihood that more community services would take up this opportunity and bring greater public value in terms of local media pluralism. Will the Minister comment on some of those concerns? Particularly on ownership, the CMA is concerned that, on its own, a 20% restriction on ownership of all SSDAB licences, which the Minister mentioned during the course of her remarks, will encourage acquisitions, and licence ownership will inevitably concentrate down into a small number of dominant groups of commercial SSDAB providers.

Given what has happened in the FM sector and with local radio, it is understandable that the CMA expresses concern. It thinks that there should be an additional limitation on total coverage of 20%, to help to provide some mitigation against the cherry-picking by commercial SSDAB providers of major urban areas, leaving more marginal areas less likely to have a viable SSDAB multiplex established and also unlikely to benefit from any cross-subsidy that might otherwise arise as a benefit of multiple ownership. Will the Minister comment on the CMA’s concerns on ownership and why she and the Government chose to reject the CMA’s recommendation to limit ownership of multiplex licences to single entities in order to develop a genuine plurality of media ownership and to provide a robust broadcasting ecosystem that would be better able to survive the vicissitudes of market circumstances?

In addition, the CMA expressed concern about public value in relation to these proposals. It believes that weighting should be given to proposals to operate SSDAB services that include provision to reinvest any surplus to reduce cost or to give other support to community digital sound programme services, to assist in the delivery of social gain—a policy objective that the Government said in the explanatory memorandum was a reason for introducing the draft order. In other words, it would bring benefit to the community, rather than simply operating primarily for commercial reasons.

The CMA says that its reasoning on this is informed by precedent—the provisions of paragraph 5 of the schedule to the Local Digital Television Programme Services Order 2012. Given the Government’s proposals for the new platform, the CMA believes that public value would have been better achieved by encouraging, through the licence system and award process, the emergence of non-profit SSDAB multiplex operators in as many locations as possible, and that those should be given priority. Will the Minister comment on that, and also on the CMA’s proposal that offering free carriage to community radio services, or distributing profits to support the creation of local community media content, would have been a better way forward to ensure public value?

As a natural consequence of that, the CMA goes on to talk about affordable carriage. It is concerned that the local ownership proposals are likely to lead to commercial, for-profit multiplex operators seeking to select the most attractive urban coverage footprints, to extract rental value from SSDAB licences without any commitment to return that value to the local communities—cherry-picking for profit, rather than developing proper, local community services. What can the Minister say on that concern? Why were these concerns not taken on board? There is sometimes a feeling out there that only the big commercial operators are listened to by Ofcom and Ministers in relation to radio. Does the Minister recognise that charge? If not, why has she not taken on board those sorts of proposals from the CMA?

The CMA is also concerned with the provisions that deal with the rules on the sources of funding for community digital sound programme services. I know that the Government’s policy intention is to prevent licensees benefiting from the £15,000 fixed revenue allowance twice; in other words, that they should not be allowed to be just a current AM and FM service and then get another £15,000 for operating a DAB service. I understand that policy objective. However, the CMA believes that that is fundamentally unfair to the affected community radio services that already face severe restrictions on their advertising and sponsorship revenue. It thinks that these services will be deterred from applying for inclusion in the SSDAB multiplex, because doing so would incur additional costs arising from carriage fees, contribution circuit costs and contracting, and they would not get any additional revenue centre, because they are not allowed to extend beyond the £15,000 fixed revenue allowance limit. In addition, the CMA feels that it would leave them economically disadvantaged in relation to C-DSP-only services on the same SSDAB multiplex.

The Community Media Association requested that the Department should use the opportunity afforded by this order to remove the additional commercial restrictions on community radio stations to operate a service that overlaps with any local commercial radio service serving a potential audience of fewer than 150,000 adults. Does the Minister acknowledge that the economic situation for community radio stations has become increasingly difficult in the past decade? Does she agree that, as far as possible, a more level playing field should be created between simulcast community radio services and stand-alone C-DSP services?

In addition, the CMA has expressed concern about the size of the community radio fund, which is mentioned in the Government’s explanatory memorandum to this order. It is currently at £400,000, but the Community Media Association says that is insufficient for nearly 290 broadcasting community radio stations. Should the Government meet their policy objective in this order, there is potential for many more community radio stations to join the SSDAB platform under a C-DSP licence. The CMA says it is clear that substantial investment will be needed in the fund in order to deliver tangible social benefits for stations, particularly those that wish to broadcast on analogue and digital. That is the intention of the fund.

According to the Communications Market Report 2019, the average annual income of community radio stations has fallen again and is now around £49,000. It has consistently fallen year on year. In 2008, it was about £84,000 per station—these are nominal, not real, figures, so there has been a nominal and real fall in income. If we adjust that for inflation, it amounts to about £115,000 today. That is a cut of a third from revenues just a decade ago.

The community radio fund cannot be deemed adequate to support the sector, and the CMA believes that a substantial increase in the fund is required. Is the Minister considering that, and does she accept that community radio has been put under a great deal of additional pressure in the past decade? Given that community radio makes a significant contribution to the Government’s social and developmental objectives, should they not consider further support for the sector?

Finally, I want to mention a local issue on which I have received representations. Leicester Community Radio, which is a not-for-profit community interest company, has written to me to express its concerns about the provisions in paragraph 7 of the order, which in effect extends all community radio licences to 20 years by giving an extension, to which the Minister referred. Leicester Community Radio is concerned that the order denies similar groups the opportunity to bid for FM licences, because it will be automatically extended for current players in the market. In allowing for the automatic extension, did the Minister consider the needs of other community radio stations in the area that might wish also to apply and have perhaps been planning for some time to apply for an analogue licence the next time it becomes available? I did not see an impact statement for this particular order—indeed, I know that the Government have not prepared one because it will have a small impact on businesses, but that is an impact on a community business or a community interest company, and I wonder whether she has received any other representations of that kind and whether she could explain to Leicester Community Radio why she thinks that the provision, which will deny them the opportunity to apply next time for their licence, is necessary.

[Margot James]

I thank the shadow Minister for his forensic analysis of the regulations. He asks many good questions; I will do my best to answer them here and now, but if he feels toward the end of my summary that there are some burning issues outstanding, no doubt he will intervene, and I will then write to him on any other matters that require further explanation.

The hon. Gentleman has been through the consultation, to which we received 70 very detailed responses. We have assessed all those responses. He asked for my vision of how this will look in 10 years’ time; we have tried to strike a balance between the need for commercial investment, knowledge and know-how into the radio sector as we move toward majority digital listening, and the absolute protection of the opportunities for genuine community radio stations, so that they are not priced out of business or consolidated to form, in effect, a national chain.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that that is the tension. We have done our best to strike the right balance. I will go through some of the points he raised in more detail. Reinforcing these regulations is the fact that Ofcom completed its localness review and developed new localness guidance at the end of last year, to ensure that in any consolidation of radio stations there must be strong local reporting, local news and other local content to all stations, regardless of ownership. We are seeking to protect localness not simply through the ownership structures but through regulations.

We have a great number of restrictions, which I will go through. Returning to the vision for the future, the other important element is that we want radio to continue to grow, to be dynamic and to meet the needs of not only local populations but diverse populations. There is endless capacity, with the digital revolution in radio, for radio stations to be set up to serve niche interest groups as well as localities, and we want to see that dynamism flourish. That is what is behind these regulations.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the digital figures are going up, but they are still only just more than 50%, so we need to look after the rest of radio. My Department and I announced two months ago that we would undertake a review of radio overall, which will look at analogue services as well as the future of digital radio.

We intend to apply protections to the licences that Ofcom will provide. We will limit any company to a maximum of 20% of all licences that are available at any given time. We will limit the involvement of existing national operators. The hon. Gentleman asked about the likes of Bauer and Global; those types of national operators will only be able to hold a maximum 30% stake in a company holding the licence, and they will be limited to being involved in a maximum of six licences.

Local radio multiplex operators may hold a small-scale radio multiplex licence, except where the coverage area of that local radio multiplex overlaps with the coverage area of the small-scale radio multiplex service. The overlapping regulations are complex, but they are designed to prevent the creep of local stations into regional stations and ultimately under national ownership. Preventing small-scale radio multiplex licences from holding adjacent licences from the coverage overlap is significant within a single local radio multiplex area. We believe that it will prevent the build-up of regional licensees.

In terms of community radio, the hon. Gentleman asked about small-scale multiplex licences, and whether Ofcom should give additional weight to applicants promoting C-DSPs to return any surplus into the local community station sector. We think that the current position is reasonably clear. Ofcom has to consider the extent of involvement of community radio in a particular application when awarding small-scale radio multiplex licences. Specific requirements on multiplex operators to promote or invest in the sector have not really worked for local television.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about price transparency and whether we should charge C-DSPs at net cost. We considered that as part of the industry consultation, but we believe that the extensive protections that we have in place will ensure that the carriage costs for community radio services will be reasonable. The conditions and restrictions that we have put in place form a better approach than undertaking a complex price control structure, which would be difficult to enforce.

I think the hon. Gentleman asked about fixed-cost allowances—I cannot remember whether he did or not, to be honest. Ofcom has created a regime for community radio stations on a digital platform, comparable to the analogue stations set up under the original community radio order. He did ask about simulcast broadcast over FM and DAB services. That will be permitted and encouraged under Ofcom guidelines, and will be supported.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about the fall in income of radio stations and community radio stations. It is a diverse market. Some stations have flourished, in terms of not just the content that they provide but the income that they are building up and the number of listeners that they reach. As I said at the beginning, it is important that we balance the need for investment and the profit motive with the community structure, because if the market becomes too fragmented and too oriented to not-for-profit, one might find that the picture that he paints of declining revenues persists.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Margot James]

Yes, I will gladly give way as I try to find my notes!

[Kevin Brennan]

Some in-flight refuelling required, I think. Can the Minister say anything about the £15,000 limit, and why the automatic extension of licences is being applied across the piece, preventing other community radio players from being able to apply for FM licences?

[Margot James]

To answer the second question first, we are undertaking a review of radio, into which I will happily incorporate his concerns. There is a scarcity of available FM, which is a key constraint, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept. With regard to funding, in addition to the £15,000 limit, 50% on any income above the £15,000 would be permitted. That was changed in 2015. Any further relaxation would, we think, take community radio away from the not-for-profit model. We believe that there is a need for some restrictions, as well as demand for community radio, as seen by the demand in recent Ofcom licensing reviews.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the community radio fund, which is at the moment £400,000. That has gone up in the last two years, and we will keep that figure under review. We recognise the need for the fund, but we do not envisage its being spread about all the stations. We want to give some mind to innovation, and to areas where there is a scarcity of supply of community radio. There are all sorts of criteria by which community stations can apply to the fund for resources, so it will not be equally spread over all the stations; not all of them will need it.

Unless the hon. Gentleman wishes me to write to him on any other points, I express my gratitude again for his scrutiny. We believe that the widespread development of small-scale radio multiplexes will result in huge collaboration between commercial and community radio to provide a more diverse mix of exciting new content for listeners. I believe that we have the constraints on the potential for too much national direction about right, but we will definitely keep that important matter under review. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Small-scale Radio Multiplex and Community Digital Radio Order 2019.

BBC

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate and I join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on her speech. Once again, she gave an object lesson in how to open a debate and how to deliver a parliamentary speech, with her customary lucidity and gusto backing up the powerful facts she cited. She is a wonderful Chair of the Petitions Committee and long may she be able to introduce these debates on our behalf, setting the tone so well.

However, there was something that my hon. Friend said that I disagreed with. She said that she thought that this Government were the Arthur Daley of public administration. That is very unfair on Arthur Daley, Del Boy and others, because I cannot imagine for one moment that they would have tried to pull off a scam such as the over-75s scam that the Government have tried to pull off by outsourcing social policy in this way.

My hon. Friend also pointed out the extra costs that older people face, in relation to extra heating and so on, which I thought was a new and original point in the debate, although it is not often taken into account when discussing the importance of free TV licences for the over-75s. Also—I think people should take note of this—she quite rightly predicted that the scammers, conmen and fraudsters will soon move in on vulnerable older people when free TV licences for the over-75s are ended if the Government do not reverse this very poor decision.

The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) revealed a new and interesting fact, because we had not known that in years gone by he was part of the BBC’s talent, and that he had even been big in India, which I had not anticipated. As for the substance of his speech, he seemed to suggest that advertising should perhaps be more widely used in the BBC as a funding model. I am afraid that is something that Labour Members disagree with.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) quite rightly pointed out that free TV licences for the over-75s is a social policy, and that if the Government want to change a social policy they should have the guts and commitment to make the argument themselves and put it in their manifesto. They should argue the case in Parliament themselves, take it to a vote here, have a consultation with the public—all the things that every Government should do when changing social policy. They should do that themselves, rather than taking BBC executives into a darkened room with a rubber hose and duffing them up until they agree to do this, under the threat of future Treasury cuts to BBC funding.

Even having done that, which was wrong in itself, for the Government subsequently to put into their 2017 general election manifesto the proposition that the free concession would be retained, when they had already outsourced it to the BBC, really was an example of the most egregious misuse of a general election manifesto—no wonder the manifesto went down like a lead balloon.

The right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey)—unfortunately, he is no longer in his place—who is a distinguished former Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, rightly referred to the wider work that the BBC does in our cultural and social life. To the many things he listed, I would add podcasts, which are becoming more and more important. I have just listened to “Shreds”, a brilliant podcast about the so-called Cardiff Three and the murder of Lynette White. I recommend it to right hon. and hon. Members as a fine example of public service broadcasting, as we used to call it, although I suppose in this case it is public service streaming or downloading. Brilliant content is being made available to licence fee payers by the BBC in a way that is new and innovative.

The right hon. Member for Wantage also asked, quite clearly and straightforwardly, whether reforming free TV licences for the over-75s should be the BBC’s role, and he said that the answer is no. I therefore say to the Minister who is here today—the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James)—that the right hon. Gentleman, a former Minister, made that absolutely clear. He was even a Minister in the Department when this decision was made, but he is absolutely clear that this is not a role that the BBC should play. That is her own right hon. Friend making that statement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who unfortunately is also no longer in her place, mentioned her own 89-year-old mother—indeed, I have an 89-year-old mother who also relies on her television licence. My hon. Friend pointed out the amount of pension credit that remained unclaimed just in her own constituency of Swansea East, which is one of the more deprived parts of the country. She said that there was £6.5 million of unclaimed pension credit for her constituency alone, which prompts a question: what will happen if pension credit is claimed by a greater proportion of the population, as we all hope it will be, than is the case currently?

If that happens, the Government might find that, as a result of this policy, more people are claiming pension credit, which would be a good thing, but the Government would have to pay it. However, the increase would also mean an extra burden on the BBC, because of the greater number of free TV licences. I put down a written question to the Government to ask what estimate they had made of that effect and the answer was, “None whatsoever”. It is as if they are making all this up on the back of a fag packet as they go along.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) described the TV licence as “archaic”. I simply say to him, because he has obviously read and even swallowed some books on market economics along the way, that there are some things in life that are the opposite to the usual rule: they work in practice but not in theory. That is the case with the TV licence, which works in practice and has broad public support, as is clearly evidenced in the statistics that have been cited. It does not work in any economic theory textbook, but so what? It actually works very well and very effectively.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), who unfortunately is also not here for the wind-ups, told us about the positive response that there had been to the petition in her constituency. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who does a lot of work in this place on issues affecting the BBC, described it as “much-loved” but an “anomaly”. In some ways, he is echoing some of the sentiments that I would like to express from the Opposition Front Bench. However, he also admitted that the BBC had not really been funded to pay for the free TV licence concession and that the commitment in the Government’s manifesto up until 2022 should be honoured.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned, very importantly, the impact that this change could have on people with dementia, and the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said that it was “inevitable”—I think I am quoting him directly here—that the BBC

“would opt out at the first possible opportunity.”

The Government are trying to maintain the fiction that they did not need to opt out at the first opportunity, and that the BBC should continue to run this concession despite the fact that the funding has not been supplied.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) pointed out that the outsourcing of blame is a speciality of this Government, and that this is a fine example. He also made the very important point that “talent” should not be used to refer just to on-air employees of the BBC. As we in the Opposition like to say, talent is everywhere; opportunity is not. We are here to try to extend opportunity much more widely than it currently is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) quoted research from Cardiff University, and being from Cardiff, I have to accept it at face value as a very good piece of research. He made some points about BBC bias and so on, but I would say to him that the BBC is still the most trusted source of news among the public, and is also subject to Ofcom regulation and has to meet standards. He is right that we should hold the BBC to account but, imperfect as it is—I know that he accepts this point—it still plays a role in maintaining the gravitational pull of standards in this country’s broadcasting that is rarely matched in other parts of the western world.

We all give my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) our sympathies for the loss of his mother. He appealed to the Prime Minister, even at this late stage, to act on this matter. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) that he should not put everybody from Oxbridge in the same category. There are working-class Oxbridge graduates—I include myself in that category, as well as the final speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan). He was at Oxford at the same time as me, and also came from a working-class background, breaking through the typical mould that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton described. As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley talked a lot of sense about the future of the BBC.

At the moment, the BBC is under attack from a number of different directions, and it is very sad that on the issue of the over-75s licence fee, the Government are joining that attack. It is sad that they are joining in the predictable attacks that come from some sections of the tabloid press, often owned—as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South said—by a small number of individuals. The Government should do more to stand up for the BBC and support it, not try to outsource their responsibilities to our national broadcaster. As Joni Mitchell once said,

“you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”

We should cherish the BBC as a uniquely British institution that works very effectively. Yes, let us hold it to account and try to improve it, but let us not use it as a whipping boy because of the Government’s own failure in their social policies. Finally, the Government’s handling of the over-75s licence fee is a disgrace. With the change of leadership, perhaps now is an opportunity for a change of mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I am glad my right hon. Friend loved it. It was a series that illustrated the importance of diversity in the BBC: a regional series set in Halifax, written by a BAFTA-winning director and playwright, Sally Wainwright—also from Yorkshire—and co-produced by BBC Studios and Lookout Point. I wish that such a series had been aired when I was growing up in the 1970s.

Of course, it is the licence fee that delivers that public value and allows the BBC to reach UK audiences everywhere, from the TVs in our homes to all the gadgets and devices that we carry around with us. The BBC is also required to represent and cater for all sorts of niche interests that may well not attract the attention of a channel that depends on advertising, or even broad-based subscription revenues, for its identity and position. The BBC received close to £3.7 billion in licence fee income last year, and its unique position of providing distinctive content in under-served genres to under-served audiences is vital.

Right hon. and hon. Members will know that we carefully considered the question of the licence fee as part of the BBC charter review process in 2015 and 2016. We found that independent research demonstrated a great deal of public interest in the licence fee. Some 60% of people surveyed backed it as the least worst option, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) mentioned. For 60%, the licence fee was the mode of payment that they most supported, with fewer than 3% backing either an advertising model or a subscription-based model. Those figures are quite powerful, which is why we have committed to maintaining the licence fee funding model for at least the duration of this new 11-year charter period, which will bring us to the end of 2027. That provides the BBC with the funding certainty that it needs to thrive and deliver its mission and public purposes.

The media landscape is changing all the time, and citizens and consumers have more choice than ever before, particularly in the form of subscription-based services. However, the BBC’s content remains hugely popular. Some 91% of adults in the UK use its services each week, spending an average of 18 hours watching, listening to or using those services. Such figures demonstrate the continuing importance of the BBC in the fast-changing and increasingly competitive media landscape. In addition, the BBC directly invests over £2 billion in the UK’s creative industries each year, and invests billions of pounds in the digital and high-tech industries that support content creation and distribution. It is therefore a very important contributor not only to our shared experiences and public life but to the economy.

I now turn to the over-75s’ licence fee concession. Of course, the Government recognise the importance of television to people of all ages, particularly older people. We have heard a lot today from Members who, having talked to their constituents, have recounted what we all know: that the television can provide a lifeline to older people, particularly those who are recently bereaved or live alone, as a way of staying connected with the world. Right hon. and hon. Members have made that point clear, and I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments.

However, if we cast our minds back four or five years to the time of the 2015 funding settlement, the Government had an expectation that all public services and public institutions had to find some economies and play their part in reducing the budget deficit overall and bringing some stability and sense to the public finances. Older people, like everybody else, mostly agreed with the need to do so, although they did not necessarily agree with all the means that were identified as routes towards restoring that stability and sense. However, it was agreed with the BBC that the responsibility for that concession would transfer to the BBC by June 2020.

In return, the Government closed the iPlayer loophole so that more people paid the licence fee. Many more people now pay the licence fee, leading to an uptick in the BBC’s revenues. The Government also committed to increase the licence fee in line with inflation during the charter period, which for the first time gave the BBC a more sustainable income for the future. At the time, the Government and the BBC agreed it was a fair deal. Indeed, the director-general said:

“The Government’s decision here to put the cost of the over-75s on us has been more than matched by the deal coming back for the BBC.”

Parliament debated the issue extensively in passing the Digital Economy Act 2017 and approving the transfer of the legal responsibility for the concession to the BBC. I was a Whip in that Government, and I can tell Members—I am sure you will remember this too, Dame Cheryl—that we had to compromise greatly on a number of very contentious issues, but this was not one of them.

[Kevin Brennan]

Rubbish!

[Margot James]

I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman if he likes.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will not let the Minister get away with that absolute rubbish. We tabled extensive amendments in Committee and on Report and opposed the proposal throughout. It was a highly contentious matter.

[Margot James]

To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he has a fair point—that the matter was contentious—but the proposal got through without the Government having to make compromises, unlike other things. For example, Members might remember the proposals to change Sunday trading laws. That is one of several examples of legislation that the Government had to change because opposition was so great. This transfer of responsibility did not attract the same level of opposition. Enough Members voted it through and Parliament therefore approved it, which is something we have to bear in mind. The responsibility was therefore passed to the BBC with parliamentary approval, and it was accepted by BBC governors and the director-general, no less.

I am willing to take more interventions on the other points that I have addressed, but I will turn to perceived bias and the BBC. Under its royal charter, the BBC has a duty to deliver high-quality, impartial and accurate news coverage and content. Members have already mentioned that 90% of the public value the news coverage of the BBC and believe in its impartiality. As with all other broadcasters, the BBC is subject to the Ofcom broadcasting code, which includes requirements on accuracy and impartiality. Ofcom is now firmly established as the new external regulator for the BBC. It will act to safeguard the high standards of impartiality that already exist at the BBC.

The Government are clear that the licence fee is the right funding model. It is clear that Ofcom’s robust approach to regulation will safeguard the impartiality that the BBC has a duty to observe. The licence fee concession was passed over, so I do not criticise the BBC for making the decision that it did. The BBC accepted the responsibility, and we should now let it get on and deliver at least a free licence to those over-75s who qualify for pension credit. As the shadow Minister said, the BBC will now write to all people in receipt of a free television licence with the new rules, setting out how they can apply, and I am hopeful that the decision will to a certain extent rectify the underclaiming of pension credit. Those 37% of people over the age of 75 who are entitled to pension credit will now have another incentive to claim it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but the localness guidelines are strict and tough, and will require large commercial radio corporations to have local studios. They will have to provide a serious amount of local news content, weather, driving information and so on, so I do not share his concern. It is up to Ofcom to police this, and it is doing a good job. We must remember that for local commercial radio, and indeed community radio, to be sustainable, they needed a lighter touch regulatory regime.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May I briefly beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to congratulate St Fagans Museum in my constituency on winning the museum of the year award, which was presented last night in a ceremony at the Science Museum?

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) said earlier that we needed more local radio, but the results of this deregulation have been job cuts and fewer stations in what is a profitable commercial sector. Is it not time for the decision to be reviewed to assess its impact on localness, and to ensure that local radio does not just become national commercial radio?

[Margot James]

The localness guidelines were published as recently as October last year, so I think it would be premature to announce a review of their impact, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that they were welcomed by both commercial and community radio stations. Ofcom has received about 700 expressions of interest in the small-scale DAB multiplexes for which we legislated last month. We hope to be able to complete that legislation by the end of the year so that Ofcom will be able to start issuing licences to hundreds of community radio stations up and down the country. I think that we will see a great growth in this fantastic sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

We are not pulling up any drawbridges. The political declaration agreed between the UK and the EU specifically acknowledges the importance of mobility for cultural co-operation. Indeed, the Government have announced plans to negotiate reciprocal mobility arrangements with the EU, which will support businesses to provide services and to move their talented people.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May I recommend to the Minister the RSC production of “As You Like It” that my brother is appearing in at Stratford-on-Avon?

As part of the preparations for leaving the EU, the EU has indicated that there will be an opportunity for reciprocal agreement for up to 90 days in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Given the importance of the EU for our performing artists, and for our world-leading musicians as well, can the Minister give us the strongest possible indication that the Government will honour that reciprocal deal with the EU—whoever ends up in charge?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s brother is a magnificent performer, but I hope he will forgive me if I add that my daughter, Jemima, will be performing in “As You Like It” at her primary school in a matter of days, and it is a key priority for me to observe her at work.

TV Licences for Over-75s

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I very much support the continuation of the concession, but is it not important to recognise that when the House passed the Digital Economy Act 2017, which transferred responsibility for the concession to the BBC, Opposition Members supported it?

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

No we did not!

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will not get involved—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s asking whether the BBC could find something better to do with the money. Opposition Members have been full of reasons why it would be desirable for the BBC to continue to honour—

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Margot James]

I will in a minute, but I am still answering the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), because the point he raised was rather moot. Let me address some of the other aspects of his intervention. The BBC enjoyed a significant increase in its income following the most recent licence fee settlement: it received the benefit of iPlayer users having to pay a licence fee and built-in year-on-year inflationary increases for the duration of the five-year licence fee agreement, and the number of licence fee payers grew over that time by at least 300,000. All that has increased the income available to the BBC.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am acting on Mr Speaker’s instructions, because I wish to point out to the Minister and the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who I do not think was then a Member of the House, that at the time my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said in the Digital Economy Bill Committee:

“I rise to address new clause 38, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West. I am sorry to say that this is where any cross-party consensus on the Bill ends. We absolutely do not support clause 76 or any of the amendments to it. Not only the Opposition, but the more than 4 million over-75s in this country who currently make use of this benefit oppose the clause.”––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 27 October 2016; c. 390.]

[Margot James]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting the record straight in terms of who voted for what and when, but the point is that Parliament passed this measure into law through the Digital Economy Act 2017. Of course the Government recognise the importance of providing both this valuable service and opportunities for older people to engage, which is why we launched our loneliness strategy last year. The Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), has done a fantastic job in promoting the various services that the Government are funding with new money to enable older people to get connected, whether that be online or through social and sporting events, in 140 hubs across the country. We do take our responsibilities to older people very seriously. We are trying to help combat the loneliness that, as Opposition Members say, is a scourge of the lives of too many older people.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby). I stood in Lewisham, Deptford in 2005 when my now neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), stood for Lewisham East; obviously, we have both been a bit more successful since then. It is the first time I have spoken after the hon. Lady, and I welcome her to the House.

I was not intending to speak, but earlier I intervened on the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), to ask him a question that is fundamental to this debate. I asked him whether, in principle, a multimillionaire should receive a free TV licence, and he said, in effect, “Of course they should.” I happen to disagree fundamentally with that proposition.

[Kevin Brennan]

In principle, should a multimillionaire receive free treatment on the NHS?

[James Cartlidge]

That is a completely different point, and let me explain why—[Interruption.] Calm down; give me a moment. The original response—the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) made this point, very fairly—was that it is about universality. The justification for providing free TV licences regardless of wealth is that they are a universal benefit.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) pointed out, however, eligibility for a free TV licence over the age of 75 was introduced only in 2000. There is no way that anyone could say it was a fundamental tenet of the welfare state contract—something that someone would expect to receive in exchange for their contributions—unlike treatment on the national health service, which has been there since just after the war and is very clearly based on the principle of paying into the system, sharing risk and receiving. I think most people accept that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have had a very good debate with some excellent contributions from the Back Benches. Like other hon. Members, I wish to declare an interest at the outset, which is that although I do not qualify for the concession myself—a fact that is well known by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), as we share a birthday, having been born on the same date in the same year—my mother does. Like the parents of other hon. Members, she is, with her free television licence in hand, a keen follower of the BBC Parliament channel. Like others, she could perhaps afford to pay for her television licence, but she is a miner’s daughter who left school at 14 and worked hard in a factory all her life. It is the sort of concession that is extremely important to someone living on their own at that age. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it can be very lonely for those people. We should bear it in mind that there will probably be many people taking an interest in our proceedings today—I am told that there are often dozens watching the BBC Parliament channel—including many from the over-75 bracket.

We have had some excellent speeches today, including that of the right hon. Member for Maldon, the former Secretary of State. I thought he tried to give the impression that the BBC was delighted with the deal that was struck back in 2015, even though it has been described by others as a hospital pass. I am afraid that nobody really believes that, and deep down, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman does either. He is entitled, I suppose, to believe that ultimately there should not be a licence fee, which is what he said—he felt that it was unsustainable. However, knowing him as I do, if he wanted that to happen he would probably believe that it should have been in his party’s manifesto, and that it should have been consulted on, because it would be a major change in Government policy. Similarly on this—the potential ending of the free concession on the TV licence for the over-75s—it should have been in the manifesto if the intention was to end the free television licence concession, rather than pretending in the manifesto that it will be maintained rather than outsourced to the BBC.

[Mr Whittingdale]

To some extent I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I remind him that the charter review, which was carried out in 2015-16, was the subject of the biggest public consultation in the history of public consultations in terms of the number of responses that were received. Obviously, the same degree of interest will be generated before the next charter.

[Kevin Brennan]

We also know what actually happened in relation to the free television licence concession. Basically, as I will say later in my remarks, the BBC hierarchy were taken into a darkened room, rubber hoses were taken out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a punishment beating was administered, and they came out making the hostage statement that had been prepared for them, which was that they were delighted with the outcome of these negotiations. I note that the right hon. Gentleman laughs at that, so perhaps my description is not as far-fetched as it might sound.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) pointed out that she could make the shortest speech on parliamentary record if the Government would simply honour their manifesto. We could have done without having this debate today. We would not have needed to be here at all if the Government had actually made real the words of their 2017 manifesto. Instead, as she said, they have used this smoke and mirrors approach to avoid their real responsibilities.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), who is unfortunately not in his place at the moment, worked for the BBC for many years and often participates in our discussions about the BBC. He said that the 2015 deal with the BBC represented, from the BBC’s point of view,

“all their Christmases come at once”.

Well, I do not think that it was actually the intention of the former Secretary of State that the BBC should walk away from that negotiation thinking that all its Christmases had come at once; in conjunction with the former Chancellor, it was quite the opposite. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the deal on the funding for the future of the BBC, it was wrong in principle to pass on responsibility for this social policy to the unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic BBC.

[Mr Sweeney]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point about this classic insidious strategy that involves attacking core public services—the strategy of defunding, claiming a service is dysfunctional and then using it as an excuse to privatise. We have seen that happen not just with the pensioner costs being borne by the BBC instead of the state, but also with the defunding of the overseas World Service by the Foreign Office, which resulted in major damage to Britain’s international profile.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend accurately describes what is often the modus operandi of this Conservative Government.

The hon. Member for North Devon also said that the BBC had agreed to continue the concession, but that is not true. In the end, the BBC was forced to agree to take on the concession, but with the right to change it. That is the essence of why we are here today—because the BBC is consulting on doing that, and that agreement was made with the Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) was one of many Members who pointed out that her mother watched the Parliament channel and was probably watching our proceedings today. I am sure that she would have enjoyed my hon. Friend’s excellent speech, in which she pointed out the importance of the free TV licence concession to older people.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said that he had not intended to make a speech and was only prompted to do so by his own intervention on the shadow Secretary of State, in which he asked him whether, in principle, a multimillionaire should receive a free TV licence. In response to that, I asked him during his speech whether a multimillionaire should receive free NHS treatment. It is true of any universal benefit that it is available to all; that is the underpinning principle of a universal benefit. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to make the argument that the TV licence should not be a universal benefit to over-75s. I disagree profoundly with that argument, but it is a perfectly respectable one and he is entitled to make it; but he is not entitled to palm that decision off on the BBC. That is the essence of the argument today. Just like the former Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman said that he wants ultimately to abolish the licence fee. Well, if that is what he wants, I hope that he would agree that he should come here as he did today and argue for it, put it in his manifesto, put it to the people at an election and see whether they support his proposal.

[James Cartlidge]

We do not have time today to go into this issue in the detail that one would want, but let me say that the NHS is profoundly about risk-sharing. Even a multimillionaire would not be able to afford the huge cost they could face if they had to pay for NHS care for a whole manner of conditions. The TV licence is a set fee of £157, and the hon. Gentleman is arguing that someone who owns vast acres and many mansions should get that for free.

[Kevin Brennan]

As I said, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that argument but is not entitled to palm the decision off on the BBC. That is the essence of our point.

My old university friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan)—who is still, I think, the distinguished chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the BBC—said that George Osborne is the villain of the piece. I think that many of us can agree with that, in many ways. I am looking forward to the rapturous coverage of my hon. Friend’s speech in the Evening Standard tomorrow. He said that his majority is currently 249, I think. I am sure that he is going to romp home after his speech today when his older constituents read how he so ably supported them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) pointed out that for over-75s living alone, TV can literally be a lifeline. She mentioned the amount of money that will be taken out of the pockets of people in her constituency. That is the essential point. If this concession is ended, people in an already hard-pressed community will have to pay in full for their TV licence. That is money that should not be taken out of communities that are struggling at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) read out some of the quotes from constituents who had written to him and pointed out that they understand what the Government are up to and will not be fooled by the approach they are taking.

My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) knows a lot about TV. Like my brother, she has appeared as an actor on “Coronation Street”, and she knows what she is talking about when she says that TV is a friend to the lonely. The work that she has continued with the Jo Cox Foundation, which she mentioned, is to be commended. It is a pity that the Government are not rethinking their approach in the light of all the evidence about loneliness and older people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) accused the Government of devolving their political responsibility for the cuts, and she is absolutely right—that is exactly what they are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) pointed out that 7,000 people in her constituency receive this welfare provision, as she rightly called it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) correctly pointed out that this policy has two effects—on the BBC through the hospital pass that it has been given, and on pensioners in the form of the stealth tax that it will represent if the Government do not act. He also pointed out that 40% of people entitled to pension credit do not receive it, so there will be a double whammy for them. He mentioned the Government’s claim that austerity is over and gave them some political advice. I knew him when he was a political adviser to the former Labour Government, so I would advise the Minister to listen very carefully to what he said, because the Government will pay a political price if they do not.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) quoted “Flower of Scotland” when referring to the fact that I pointed out that his Scottish Conservative colleagues had been completely wrong when they said that we—his party and my party—had not opposed this measure during the passage through this place of the Digital Economy Act. I can add to what I said about the Committee stage. On 28 November 2016, my colleagues and I tabled an amendment on Report in which we also opposed this measure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) told us about her own representations to the BBC’s consultation. I hope that it will listen to what she said, but more importantly, I hope that the Government will listen, because ultimately that is where the responsibility lies. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) rightly said that this was a “Let’s blame the BBC” policy, and that his constituents would pay the price for the Government’s cynical breach of their promise.

I remind the House that we have consistently opposed this underhand stealth tax on older people and the creative sector. We strongly support the excellent campaign that has been run on this by many of my hon. Friends, but also by publications such as the Daily Mirror. It is wrong to outsource social policy to an unelected organisation whose historical mission is to entertain, educate and inform the country, not to decide who should be the beneficiaries of Government social policy. But if the Government believe that that should be part of the BBC’s role, they should have argued for it. They could have put in their manifesto—

[Mrs Hodgson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

Not for the moment.

The Government could have put in their manifesto that they intended to outsource to the BBC—an organisation that is not democratically accountable—a concession intended to help older citizens. They did not do that. They could have consulted civic society, such as the National Pensioners Convention, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) mentioned—I am sorry that I cannot give way to her at this point—or Age UK, which said in its briefing for the debate:

“Age UK firmly believes it is the Government’s responsibility to look after vulnerable older people, not the BBC’s.”

Did they do that? No. Did they have the courage to make the argument for cutting the money that pays for free TV licences for the over-75s? No. Instead, they took the craven path of taking BBC management into a dark room, with the cynical intention of offloading their responsibility for helping older people on to our national broadcaster. The sheer brazenness of it is something to behold, even for the Tories. When combined with a promise in the party’s manifesto to maintain a concession that it has already offloaded to a reluctant third party, it is even more brazen. You cannot pass the parcel with social policy like this and call yourself a responsible Government.

The Government say that this is now a matter for the BBC, but they hope and expect the concession to stay. That is cynical. They say that the BBC willingly agreed to take over responsibility for the licence fee concession, but only in the same way that the victim of a robbery agrees to hand over their wallet with a gun pressed against their head. The Government’s whole approach to this has been underhand, aggressive and based on bullying. Many Members here today have been involved in trade unions as members, representatives or officials, so we know what a negotiation looks like, and this was not a negotiation. It is the kind of politics that gives politicians a bad name. If the Conservatives want to rid themselves of the cost of free TV licences, they should have the courage to say so and say that they are doing it.

This is a point of principle for us. We cannot accept a policy that takes responsibility for even a small part of our social security system away from Government and palms it off on an organisation with no accountability to the electorate. That is not principled political leadership. It is craven and cynical political opportunism, made worse by the false promises in the manifesto. Older people are not stupid. They will see this for what it is: a Tory stealth tax on the elderly, and a cynical, despicable ruse to pickpocket our older citizens.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I do agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course, as she knows, the creative industries more broadly are some of the fastest-growing sectors of our economy. We should be proud of that and encourage that development.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker,

“Too many politicians are being told a message that is glossy and bears little relation to the reality of what is going on.”

That is what an instrumental teacher told the Musicians Union in its recent report on music education, “The State of Play”. Music teacher training places are down from 850 to 250 per year since 2010, teaching staff are declining year on year, exam entries are down, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) said, there is a worsening class divide in learning an instrument. When will the Secretary of State drop the glossy rhetoric about the Government’s record on music education that is so out of tune with reality?

[Jeremy Wright]

No one doubts the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to music in this House, and he is right to be so committed, but he will get no glossy rhetoric from me: what he will get is facts, so let me give him some more. My reference to £500 million-worth of investment includes £300 million in music education hubs, which have so far reached 89% of schools. He will also know that 10% of the funding allocation for those hubs is based on the number of pupils in the area eligible for free school meals, so we are doing something to ensure that this kind of education reaches the right people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

First, the responsibility has been transferred—that happened by statute in 2017. The deal was done with the BBC in 2015. What we do not yet have are the proposals that the BBC intends to make. My suggestion is that we all wait to see what the BBC actually decides to do, and then we can comment upon it.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is right: it is in statute. We opposed it, and right now the National Pensioners Convention is protesting outside DCMS—not outside the BBC. That is because this policy was invented by this Government. It is about transferring social policy to the BBC, which should not have happened. Should this not be up for the prize for the most cynical policy this Government have ever created?

[Jeremy Wright]

No, but what is truly cynical is to criticise the Government for the transfer of a financial liability without any hint whatsoever from Her Majesty’s Opposition that they would be prepared to take it back. So I would be very interested to hear whether it is the policy of the Labour party, in government, to take this responsibility back into the Government’s hands, and exactly what would be cut, what extra would be borrowed or what taxes would be raised to pay for it. Otherwise, it is just hot air.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

The law is the law. The question of whether whatever is negotiated with the European Union affects the legal risk of the indefinite duration of the backstop is a matter that I shall judge entirely impartially and objectively. If I did not, I would be conscious that there are many lawyers—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Too many.

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman may be right. There are many lawyers who are eminently capable of deciding whether I have got my judgment right or wrong.

Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Bill (First sitting)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to rise, albeit briefly, to support this important Bill and to once again thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet for having brought it forward. She has been assiduous in doing so, and in all the other work she does in the House against antisemitism. The strength of support across parties for her Bill, and also against antisemitism, is a credit to her.

I support the Bill legally, morally and in terms of justice. Justice cannot be time-barred, and remembering the holocaust cannot be time-barred either. It is important that we pass that on to future generations, and that future generations also have the opportunity of restitution. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole just said, it is unfortunate that so many people seek to deny the holocaust. It is therefore important that we work together to put in place measures such as this and, collectively, to do all we can, and all that is right, to ensure that it does not happen.

Antisemitism is on the rise in society and in politics, from the left and the right. I have experienced it myself. All party leaders must act—I have said that before, and I say it again. As parliamentarians, it is important that we act. Today, we act together and send out a strong signal that there is collective cross-party support for the Bill, not just in the UK Parliament in Westminster, but in our Scottish Parliament. I wholeheartedly thank everybody who has been involved.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank everyone who has spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw and for Ilford North, who are here in support of the Bill and who have done tremendous work themselves in this area over the years.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet on bringing this important Bill to Committee. I am happy to confirm that it has the full support of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. She spoke once again with great force and authority on this issue. In doing so, she does a great service to not only the British Jewish community and the Jewish community throughout the world but humanity as a whole. The Bill says that the sun should never set on justice and righteousness, and that principle, despite its application to the uniquely horrifying episode that was the holocaust, nevertheless carries universal force in its message of human redemption.

I was privileged some years ago to travel with a group of MPs, prominent figures and sixth-formers to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau. It was one of many such visits organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust, led by its inspirational chief executive Karen Pollock and supported by the then Government. I am glad to say that the scheme exists to this day. Anyone who has undertaken that visit could not help but be horrified by the capacity for human depravity exemplified in the industrialisation of death at the Birkenau death camp, or to be moved to renew their pledge to fight antisemitism and oppose the politics of racism and hatred. The Bill is a small practical manifestation of the fulfilment of that duty, and I thank the right hon. Lady for piloting it thus far.

I also pay tribute, as the right hon. Lady did, to the work done by Andrew Dismore, the former Member of Parliament for Hendon and a current London Assembly member. He was rightly praised by the shadow Culture Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), on Second Reading. Andrew Dismore worked tirelessly to get the original Act, which the Bill seeks to extend, through the House in 2009—even sleeping on the floor of the Public Bill Office overnight, as one used to have to do, to ensure that he had a high enough place in the ballot to get his Bill heard.

Andrew Dismore also introduced the private Member’s Bill that established Holocaust Memorial Day in 2001. I recently attended the Welsh national Holocaust Memorial Day event in Cardiff city hall, and other hon. Members will have attended their own events. We heard from the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, and from Renate Collins, who was “torn from home”, which was the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham said. As a child, Renate Collins was evacuated from Prague in 1939, and she came to live in Wales, where she still lives.

As we know, the holocaust was one of the worst events in human history, with millions of lives extinguished and millions more changed forever. The fact that it happened on our continent, in the heart of western civilisation, is a reminder of why we must be constantly vigilant against antisemitism and all forms of racism and remember that genocide starts with casual prejudice—in the dehumanisation of others who are deemed different by virtue of religion, ethnicity, lifestyle or sexuality. That such horror could be perpetrated, not just by those directly involved, but because of the indifference of others in the general population, should make us all reflect on what Hannah Arendt called the banality of evil and on our own roles in actively preventing it from taking root. Let us give thanks to the important work of all organisations that ensure that the world will never forget.

The Bill addresses an extremely important subject: the return of cultural objects looted by the Nazis. During the Nazi reign of terror, millions of precious cultural objects were stolen from the Jewish community. Some have been recovered, but many thousands remain missing. It has been estimated that around 100,000 objects stolen by the Nazis are still missing. We should do everything we can to reunite cultural objects that surface with their rightful owners. More than 70 years from the end of world war two there are still families who have not been reunited with precious artefacts that rightly belong to them.

As many survivors of the holocaust reach the sunset of their lives, it is vital that their descendants have confidence that this Parliament is committed to ensuring that the sun does not set on their ability to recover what is rightfully theirs. The Bill, as we have heard, repeals the sunset clause provision of the 2009 Act, which gave our national museums and galleries the power to return these special cultural objects on the recommendation of the Spoliation Advisory Panel.

Since 2000, 23 cultural objects taken by the Nazis have been returned to their rightful owners, including a John Constable painting, stolen by the Nazis after the invasion of Budapest, which was returned by the Tate in 2015. We must ensure that the panel can continue its vital work. It has carried out its work fairly and delivered justice to the families of those whose precious possessions were stolen. It works in co-operation with our national museums and galleries, the directors of which I addressed at their council meeting at the Science Museum yesterday. They support the panel’s work and are in agreement on the urgency and necessity of returning stolen objects to their owners.

This is a carefully targeted, specific piece of legislation that works well. It is particularly important for those whose stolen possessions have, sadly, still not been found. For those who might not even know about this process and might not even harbour a hope of getting back what their families once treasured, the Bill can also give hope.

When I undertook that visit with the Holocaust Educational Trust over a decade ago, the spectre of antisemitism might have seemed, to some, to be on the wane, but it is clearly on the rise again, with antisemitic hate crimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham mentioned, hitting a record number in 2018. That should anger us all, and we must do everything in our power to face it down, including by supporting honourable colleagues from all parties who have been the subject of death threats, racist and misogynistic abuse, bullying and antisemitism. I once again thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet for all the work she has done on this vital Bill, which delivers a small amount of justice to those who have suffered so greatly.

In closing, let me say that I had the pleasure in 2017 of watching the Liverpool Everyman theatre production of the beautiful musical “Fiddler on the Roof”, which included—I hope no one minds my mentioning this—my brother Patrick in the starring role of Tevye. Colleagues will know that it tells the story of a Jewish family in Russia who were forced from their home by the pogroms that were the precursor of the ultimate obscenity of the Nazi holocaust. In thinking of the Bill and what it seeks to do, the words of one song my brother sang in that production came to mind:

“Sunrise, sunset, sunrise, sunset

Swiftly fly the years

One season following another

Laden with happiness and tears.”

As the years fly ever more swiftly by, let us hope that the right hon. Lady’s Bill, in removing the sunset clause, will bring a small ray of happiness to some victims’ families, as they contemplate through tears the horror that befell their relatives because good people did too little, too late to stand up to evil.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michael Ellis)]

I start by thanking all colleagues who have spoken so powerfully this afternoon. This is one subject where we should all speak as one. Let me say on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government that we strongly support the Bill. As a nation, we must continue to pursue every effort to track down and return cultural objects lost during the Nazi era, when families were wrongfully and criminally dispossessed of these items, often in the most vicious and cruel way.

Our national museums take these issues very seriously, as they should, and they have been working to identify objects in their collections with uncertain provenance from between the years 1933 and 1945. That research is held on a recently upgraded online database, which is actively maintained by editors from the 47 contributing UK museums, and co-ordinated by the Collections Trust on behalf of the Arts Council.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

It is important to have music in schools—I absolutely recognise that—and I am working closely with colleagues at the Department for Education. I have meetings with the Minister for School Standards and am pleased to be hosting a roundtable with him next week on the provision of music in schools.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Government’s recent funding announcement on music education will barely cover the pay increase for people who teach music. Since 2011, more than 1,200 music teacher jobs have been lost. Is that not a direct result of the Government’s contemptuous attitude towards creative subjects?

[Michael Ellis]

Of course, the state of education that the Government inherited in 2010 was because of the previous Labour Government’s incompetence. As a consequence of Labour’s education failures, this Government focused on science, technology, engineering and maths. We now want to focus on arts subjects, including music, as well.

Draft Broadcasting (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 General Committees

[The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Broadcasting (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has worked hard to prepare for the UK’s departure from the EU and to ensure that our statute book continues to function. The draft regulations will achieve three broad aims and were laid before the House on 13 December 2018.

First, the regulations will ensure that Ofcom, as the UK’s audiovisual regulator, can continue to regulate broadcasters effectively. If the UK leaves the EU without an agreement in place, the EU’s audiovisual media services directive will no longer apply. The directive provides for freedom of reception and re-transmission for audiovisual services such as television and video on demand. It also establishes minimum content standards and provides that a service that is regulated in one member state can adhere to that country’s rules while being available across all the EU. This is known as the country of origin principle.

The audiovisual media services directive underpins several pieces of UK primary legislation, including the Communications Act 2003. We are therefore using section 8 powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to fix deficiencies and inoperabilities in primary legislation to ensure that Ofcom continues to have jurisdiction over services that are available to UK audiences or established in the UK. The draft regulations also ensure that cross-border services that originate from Europe under the Council of Europe convention on transfrontier television can broadcast to the UK. Services from countries that are not parties to the convention will be regulated by Ofcom.

We are not amending the current standards or restrictions placed on UK broadcasters through this instrument; they will continue as before. Should the Government wish to make any changes to the standards or restrictions in the future, that will be subject to consultation and the parliamentary process as normal.

Secondly, the draft regulations will implement the aforementioned Council of Europe treaty in UK law. The European convention on transfrontier television was signed and ratified by the UK in 1993, but it has not been implemented in the UK because the treaty provides that EU member states must apply the relevant EU legislation in their mutual relations instead. The ECTT provides for a similar system of freedom of reception and transmission between the parties to the convention. Both the AVMSD and the ECTT provide that a majority of transmission time on a television channel must be reserved for works of European origin. The AVMSD references the ECTT in its definition of European works, and that in turn safeguards the UK’s status as a producer of European works. The quota system provides a preferential market for the UK’s excellent content across other European states and has benefited our production sector enormously in the last decade.

Finally, the draft regulations will ensure that services with Irish-language content—RTÉ One, RTÉ Two and TG4—will continue to be available in Northern Ireland. The UK made those commitments in the Good Friday agreement and later through the European charter for regional or minority languages. Because those services are established in Ireland, which is not a party to the ECTT, they would need to be licensed by Ofcom under the changes introduced through the draft regulations, but that would not be in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, so the UK has decided unilaterally to exempt the services from the requirement to hold an Ofcom licence.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Before the Minister concludes, paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory memorandum states that the instrument will remedy the deficiency by amending the Communications Act 2003

“to require that any television service that is available in the UK, whatever its country of origin, is required to be licensed by Ofcom”.

How many businesses that have not required a licence from Ofcom will now have to get one?

[Margot James]

I know what the hon. Gentleman is driving at concerning the risk to businesses that transmit and will require a new licence from Ofcom. I will try to cover that in my concluding remarks, if I may.

My officials have worked closely with Ofcom to ensure that the regulatory regime remains operable and effective in the case of no deal. I believe that the draft regulations are necessary to ensure that the UK statute book works and that audiences are protected from harm.

I can now give the hon. Gentleman something of an answer to his question. Approximately 50 to 60 channels have been identified that may need a licence from Ofcom to continue to be received in the UK. They are mostly specialist minority language channels, religious channels or adult services. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, especially in the light of your recent eminent elevation elsewhere, about which I have been told not to go into any detail. I will say only that we will all sleep safer in our bed in the knowledge that you are looking after our interests.

I thank the Minister for her explanation, which highlights just one of the myriad complexities of Brexit and the prospect of no deal. Today, we should rule out that prospect, rather than continue to play chicken with the EU, but that will take place elsewhere and is not within the scope of this Committee’s business. Nevertheless, the instrument highlights one of the many complexities we face in trying to take the egg back out of the omelette, which is what Brexit entails.

I intervened on the Minister because I noticed that the Government say in the explanatory memorandum that they felt no need to conduct an impact assessment for this statutory instrument, and the explanatory note says:

“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen.”

Yet the Minister has just told the Committee that 50 to 60 channels, at the very least, will be required for the first time to be licensed by Ofcom. If that is not a significant impact on the private sector, I do not know what is. I understand that the Department and the Government have an incredibly difficult task in passing all these statutory instruments at great speed, and I am glad that we are scrutinising the legislation this morning; that is our job. However, it seems to be a dereliction not to produce an impact assessment of a statutory instrument of this kind, which is just one example of the significant impact on the private sector.

Through this statutory instrument, we are essentially trying to minimise the failure that Brexit represents to a great British success story. Hundreds of television, broadcast and audiovisual content companies currently have a choice of where they can be licensed. Under the audiovisual media services directive and its country of origin principle, a licence in one EU country licenses the holder in all the other member states. Part of the requirement is that the company’s headquarters and essential editorial establishment must be located in the member country where it is licensed. Companies choose to license here in the UK because we have a widely admired and trusted regulatory regime, with a high-quality regulator in the form of Ofcom. The Minister and I probably agree on that point. Leaving the EU and, worse still, leaving with no deal, will have a serious impact on those companies and on the sector. We have already heard press reports about companies such as WarnerMedia, the Discovery Channel and even the BBC having to move some of their operations out of the UK as a result of needing to license their operations in the EU post UK withdrawal. That is the context of the draft regulations.

The statutory instrument is intended to ensure that broadcast licences granted by Ofcom would still be legally valid after a no deal Brexit because they have been issued in the context of our membership of the European Union. From the point of view of Her Majesty’s Opposition, I accept what the Minister says: this is a necessary measure that has to be taken. As a responsible Opposition, it is not our intention to divide the Committee this morning, because the Minister is correct that it is important for the directive to go through. However, I have a number of questions on which I would be grateful for clarification.

First, as the Minister knows, the way in which content is consumed by viewers is changing rapidly, with the advent of streaming services such as Netflix. Surprisingly, Netflix is licensed in the Netherlands. My understanding is that under the SI, on-demand services such as Netflix that are located in the EU will in future be treated the same as on-demand services licensed in other parts of the world—particularly the USA, where most on-demand services are located. Will the Minister confirm that my understanding is correct, and that services such as Netflix will now be treated the same way as streaming and on-demand services located elsewhere in the world, rather than having the European model of treatment?

Secondly, what are the implications for the UK of this change—for example, what if post Brexit we were to introduce new regulations to limit the advertising of junk food? Lively debate is taking place on that issue at the moment. Currently, we would be able to argue our case within the EU that on-demand services licensed in the EU should respect that change in our domestic law. We have a forum and a means by which we can press that case. What will be the position after we leave the European Union, should we decide to take that kind of action? In her remarks the Minister referred to the implications post Brexit if we decided to make changes in our own standards relating to broadcasting and streaming.

Thirdly, what will be the impact on on-demand services with adult content? The Minister referred to the fact that many of the services that will be required for the first time to get a licence from Ofcom as a result of our leaving the European Union with no deal will be adult services—that is, content that we do not want to be available to people under the age of 18. Will there be any impact on the UK’s ability to place effective age restrictions on such services when they are treated on the same basis as on-demand services located in the rest of the world?

An opportunity offered by the SI has been lost. Why have the Government not taken the opportunity to create a level playing field for on-demand and linear services? If my understanding of the instrument is correct, a linear service wishing to operate in the UK—for example, German news broadcasting into the UK, licensed in a European Union state—will in future require an Ofcom licence to do so. The Government could surely have taken this opportunity to require all on-demand services to set up a presence here and to license in the UK. Why should on-demand providers not be required to be licensed and have a presence here if they do business in the United Kingdom, if such requirements are placed on linear services? Will the Minister at least commit today to launching a consultation on what licensing policy should be for all overseas services targeting the UK market?

Next, in relation to the need for broadcasters currently licensed by Ofcom to license in an EU jurisdiction post Brexit, what estimate has the Minister made of the number of jobs that will be transferred out of the United Kingdom as a result? The Government say in the impact assessment that there is no impact on businesses from a lot of these changes. The Minister knows, as I do, that many businesses are already making arrangements because of the future requirement to license in European Union countries. To make the country of origin principle effective, they will have to move their headquarters and a minimum editorial establishment. At this moment, jobs are being relocated out of the UK to Dublin, Amsterdam and Luxembourg as a result of that requirement. What estimate have the Government made of how many jobs will be affected by that and what the economic value of the jobs lost to the UK will be? If the Minister is able to tell the Committee what she knows about which companies are having to take those steps, that would be useful. We have read some press reports, as I mentioned earlier, but we do not have the full picture.

Which companies have told her Department that they are moving their editorial operation or headquarters out of the UK, and where are they relocating? What estimate has the Minister made of the likelihood that countries that are party to the Council of Europe ECTT will choose to use its provisions to continue broadcasting? Will she also clarify which of the Irish language services she referred to are exempted from licensing in the UK by this regulation?

[Margot James]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s scrutiny of what he rightly calls a complex area post Brexit. The 50 or 60 companies that will for the first time require licences from Ofcom are foreign owned, which is why there is no requirement for an impact assessment, as impact assessments are designed to consider the cost implications of changes in regulations to UK-based companies.

The hon. Gentleman rightly describes the UK’s performance in film, broadcast and television as a great success. A sector that grows at 25% more than the average rate of the economy is certainly a success. In part, that success is indeed down to the very beneficial regime, the AVMSD. As he said, to comply with the requirements of one regulator allows transmission across the entire European Union. The entire European Union’s production in that sector grows by about 18% per annum, following the introduction of the directive. The UK constitutes 21% of the entire European television market, with 1,200 out of 3,000 European channels emanating from the UK. That sector is indeed a great success.

The hon. Gentleman talked about jobs transferring, and some companies have already started to seek licences elsewhere within the European Union. Discovery Channel, NBC, Sony and Turner are all seeking licences elsewhere. Of those four channels, only Sony proposes to move its European headquarters out of the UK. The other companies are content to seek a licence elsewhere, whether in the Netherlands, Ireland or Germany, and move a number of editorial staff so that they have a meaningful presence in the country that entitles them to the country of origin broadcasting privileges. At the moment, it is not possible to assess the number of jobs that are transferring and what will constitute a meaningful presence in a market to get the benefits of the European directive, but the signs are that the majority of companies will continue to operate in the UK, with a presence outside the UK should they need one to qualify for country of origin privileges.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the advertising of junk food and other such issues, which he is right to say that we are looking at, and the question of on-demand services licensed in the EU respecting UK rules on advertising foods high in fat, sugar, salt and so on. The UK has been unable to insist on country of destination rules up until now, either under AVMSD or through country of origin services that adhere only to host country rules. However, the existing standards will continue to apply.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Netflix and other video-on-demand providers, which are currently regulated differently. In practical terms, Netflix will still be regulated under AVMSD because, as he says, it is based in the Netherlands. The same content standards will apply after exit as now. We recognise that after exit we may need to consider a long-term and future-proofed approach to video-on-demand regulation.

I think that deals with most of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I hope that the Committee has found the sitting informative.

[Kevin Brennan]

I also asked whether the Minister could tell us about the likelihood that countries that are party to the Council of Europe ECTT would choose to use its provisions? If she needs to write to me, I am happy for her to do that, because I realise that that is a technical question, I would be interested to have an answer. Perhaps she should to other Committee members as well, if that is acceptable to them.

Secondly, which Irish language services are exempted from licensing in the UK by the regulation? Again, if that information is not immediately to hand, I am happy for the Minister to communicate that to me and the rest of the Committee later.

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman is very generous. I will write to him with any further information. The ECTT guarantees similar content standards and freedom of reception between signatories, but as he will know, approximately six EU member states are not signatories to it. We will therefore not be relying on that, but I will write to him with any further technicalities associated with the ECTT. The Irish channels exempted from the requirement to seek Ofcom licences for continued transmission are the three that I mentioned: RTÉ One, RTÉ Two and TG4.

I commend the regulations to the Committee. I hope that Members will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has already indicated that he will do so.

Question put and agreed to.