Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Philip Davies
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
12. What proportion of appeals from housing developers have been upheld by the planning inspector since May 2010.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Philip Davies(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Foster
There is no evidence that across the board there are rising—or rocketing—rents as the hon. Lady described. Only on Friday we announced measures that will make it easier for local authorities to make use of the privately rented sector. We have also introduced measures to ensure that accommodation is appropriate, taking account of not only the accommodation itself but local facilities, including schools. That will help councils keep people in the local area.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
10. What progress he has made on implementing the localism agenda in respect of planning policy.
Horse Racing Levy
Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Philip Davies(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Foster
Given the boundary changes, I have to concede that to my hon. Friend. I share the same passion he does for the course’s continued success.
I was explaining that the mutual interdependence has existed for 50 years, but it has become increasingly difficult. It is now critical to find a sustainable future for the link between the racing community and the gambling community. In so doing, we have to remove the involvement of politicians. I entirely agree with the Secretary of State when he said at the end of last year:
“Frankly, the government should never be the last resort in an essentially commercial negotiation”.
A sustainable way forward should not involve politicians, but politicians will have to help find that way forward, which must be based on a number of fundamental principles.
The first principle is to be absolutely clear about what the levy is about. Many hon. Members will have come across a leaflet put out by William Hill, which says under the heading “Real People, Real Jobs”:
“For every additional £1 million that the bookmakers are forced to pay in horseracing levy, 100 industry jobs may be lost for people like this”.
It goes on to provide examples of such people. That is a bit rich from an organisation that has recently moved its internet betting operation—and is soon to move its telephone operation—offshore, losing many hundreds of jobs and about £12 million of tax revenue for the Exchequer. My key point, however, can be seen on the other side of the leaflet, which says:
“Whilst racing can depend on a 1960s state subsidy it will never have the incentive to modernise.”
My clear understanding of the levy is that it is not a state subsidy; it is a relationship between two organisations. It cannot—as some have sought to portray it—be defined as state aid. We must be clear that this is a relationship between two organisations that get mutual benefit from each other. That is crucial to understanding what we are talking about.
Philip Davies
The right hon. Gentleman says that this should not be considered as state aid, yet his beloved European Union—I, of course, want to be out of the wretched thing—takes precisely the opposite view. In looking at the French proposals for a horse racing levy, the Commission said:
“At this stage, the Commission considers that the aid measure contains all the features constituting the concept of State aid. After exploring several means by which the notified measure could be regarded as compatible with the rules in force, the Commission has not found any clear means of regarding it as compatible.”
I am afraid that that is what the hon. Gentleman’s beloved European Union said.
Mr Foster
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of why I raised the point. There has to be clarification. Personally, having studied the various issues in some detail, I do not accept the definition that we just heard from him. Incidentally, even if he is right, which I do not believe he is, it would not threaten the levy as it was already in existence way before the establishment of those rules. There would not be a problem.
Local Media
Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Philip Davies(14 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Vaizey
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am against Government waste, and it seems pointless to repeat that answer here when it has already been printed in Hansard. I will write him a letter explaining what my definition of super-fast broadband is, but it certainly does not involve the word “megabit.”
We have always been clear that the previous Government’s plans for independently funded news consortia were the wrong way to go, and we opposed those plans from the beginning. We understood why the previous Government wanted to put the measures in place: it was their answer to the challenge of sustaining regional news. There is a legacy from the process that they started, in that it kindled innovative ideas among local media companies. Indeed, my understanding is that many of the consortia that formed as a result of that policy will continue to work together to look at ways of taking their ideas forward. We hope that by, for example, relaxing the cross-media ownership rules, they can follow a deregulatory path, rather than the subsidy path, to bring their ideas to fruition.
We always felt strongly that the issue of subsidy focused consortia on the best way to get access to the subsidy, as opposed to the best way to engage with viewers. That is why we opposed subsidies, and why we took an early decision not to go ahead with the pilots. The savings made from not going ahead with them will go into providing super-fast broadband, a definition of which is available in Hansard.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said, but does he accept that in places such as Yorkshire, ITV regional news—the news programme there is called “Calendar”—is incredibly popular, and that there is great demand for it? Will he think again about the obvious solution that would help organisations such as ITV carry on with programmes such as “Calendar”? That solution is to top-slice the BBC licence fee. The BBC gets more and more money every year—so much money that in most years, it does not know how to spend it. That money could be given to an organisation such as ITV to do something worth while, such as providing real competition within regional news, which is much enjoyed in places such as Yorkshire.
Philip Davies
If that is the case, and top-slicing undermines the BBC’s independence, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the BBC’s independence suddenly disappears in the months and years before the charter and the licence fee agreement come up for renegotiation, because the BBC is looking over its shoulder and thinking about what the Government might do?
Mr Foster
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but two wrongs do not make a right for a start. He should look carefully at the BBC’s current role, because there are ways of involving the BBC—I will come to this in more detail in a minute—in developing things that we need to support local and regional media. The BBC’s sixth purpose, for example, includes responsibility for helping to develop platforms on which BBC programmes will appear. The most obvious example currently is the roll-out of high-speed broadband, the definition of which we will receive shortly when we get our letters from the Minister. That is an important example. Under its existing charter obligations, the BBC could be expected to provide even more support through such activities.
The hon. Gentleman is also well aware that the BBC has recently developed an even more vigorous approach to the concept of partnership. It is working with others in all parts of the media to provide forms of mutual support. That work benefits the BBC, but it also supports others. That is another area that we need to do more about in future.
Recently the biggest area of support, collaboration and partnership has been in developing a key part of the solution to our current problems: Project Canvas. I am sure that all hon. Members present are aware that while we debate the BBC Trust is making a final decision about whether to allow the BBC to go ahead with it. I hope the trust will allow it, because it will be a key driver in solving many of the problems that we have described.