Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call Sir Christopher Chope to move amendment 1.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Not moved, sir.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you. Consideration is complete. [Interruption.] I understand that King’s consent will need to be signified for Third Reading.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can we move on to the next business, please?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Technically, no—not at this moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously we want to ensure that we proceed effectively and properly, and I take his point and will adapt my remarks accordingly.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

In two years’ time it will be the bicentenary of the Zoological Society of London. Are we not being rather churlish in discussing only an extension of the lease? Why do we not let the society have the freehold of London zoo?

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend and I share the view that leasehold should be abolished completely, with freehold the norm and commonhold in flats. However, the zoo is part of the Crown Estate, so this is a matter for the Crown Estate. If the freehold were to be negotiated between the Crown Estate and the society, that too would be a matter for them, but it goes beyond the scope of the Bill.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The Crown Estate has discretion to provide either an extension or a freehold. The Government are enabling those with long leases to acquire freeholds. Why are the Government not ensuring that the zoo can have the freehold? Why is there one standard for Crown Estate property and another standard for private landlords?

[Bob Blackman]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

What are the Government doing to promote facilities for padel tennis?

[Stuart Andrew]

We work closely with national governing bodies such as the Lawn Tennis Association. It has done amazing work training 17,000 teachers across the country to teach tennis, padel tennis and so on. I went to see it myself recently at the national centre—[Interruption.] I am not doing very well here, I know that, but my hon. Friend raises an important point, and I will continue to raise it with the national governing body in due course.

BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I would slightly disagree with my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] The law does not say that someone can be sent to prison for not paying their licence fee. If they are convicted of failing to have a TV licence, they can be fined. Where they then refuse to pay the fine, custodial sentences can, as has happened in some cases, be imposed. Criminalisation is a matter we have debated before, but it is still one of great controversy. We have looked at it on a number of occasions and I am happy to keep it under review.

Let me go back to the issue of the licence fee for the over-75s. As the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) suggested, in the 2015 funding settlement the Government agreed that responsibility for the over-75s concession should transfer to the BBC. The Government and the BBC agreed to make that change alongside a number of other elements of the licence fee settlement, such as the closure of the iPlayer loophole, to which I have already referred, and an agreement to increase the licence fee in line with inflation from there on. It was also agreed that the transfer would be phased in over two years so that the BBC had time to adjust to meet the additional cost of maintaining that. It was debated extensively at the time of the passage through Parliament of the Digital Economy Act 2017.

The result is that responsibility for the over-75s concession now rests with the BBC. The Government made it plain that we hoped and expected that the BBC would maintain the concession, but the BBC chose to restrict it to those in receipt of pension credit. The Government remain disappointed about that decision. I recognise, however, that even that concession represents quite a considerable cost to the BBC, and how the BBC budgets, and the extent to which it feels able to maintain the concession, is a matter for the BBC.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for responding in such detail on these issues. He referred to the agreement that the licence fee would be able to go up in line with inflation. Does that mean that, from April next year, the £159 licence fee will increase with inflation or remain the same? If it goes up with inflation, how much will that mean in cash terms?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

In the licence fee settlement, which is written into the charter, I froze the licence fee for two years and then said that it should return to increasing in line with inflation, but by precisely how much it will increase and when are matters on which the Government will be able to provide my hon. Friend with further information relatively soon—that is not yet determined. The requirement is written into the charter, as I said.

The Government recognise the importance of television to people of all ages, particularly older people who value television as a source of entertainment and companionship and as a way to stay connected. We remain committed to ensuring economic security for people at every stage of their life. We believe that the BBC has a duty to ensure that it uses its substantial licence fee income to support older people. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) suggested, the BBC has informed the Government that no enforcement action has been taken against over-75s at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

With the leave of the House, I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his comprehensive response to this debate, based on his wide knowledge and experience. It was interesting to see the contrast between his command of this subject and the relatively light touch applied by the Opposition spokesperson today. My right hon. Friend really understands this subject and I hope that he will be able to stay in his position and bring forward the media Bill, following the King’s Speech. I hope that we will be able to come back to this subject again, perhaps with a new clause to that Bill—who knows?

What is encouraging is that the market is working, with 1.9 million fewer licence fee payers—that is great, is it not?—and evasion has gone up to 10.3%. The licence fee is now £159. I am very concerned that if it goes up by inflation next April—it may be 15% or 20% since it was last increased—there could be another £20 on the licence fee at a time when there is a cost of living crisis. Who knows? From what my right hon. Friend was saying, it sounds as though the Government will do something to prevent such an increase taking place in April—just before the local elections, in the year of a general election—but we will have to wait to find out more about that in due course. In the meantime, let us be grateful for the fact that there is, in effect, a de facto decriminalisation, rather similar to the situation in relation to shoplifting, so that is something that we can take into account.

[Philip Davies]

Did my hon. Friend note that the Minister said that he did not agree with decriminalising it for a particular age group, and that the policy should be the same for all age groups? Given that my hon. Friend was uncharacteristically modest with his proposal in this Bill to just decriminalise it for the over-75s, will he reflect on what the Minister said and come forward with a proposal next time to decriminalise it altogether?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. It was only because I sometimes believe in salami slicing. I thought that we would start off with the over-75s—that is without declaring any personal interest in this. As with the previous debates, this is a subject that will continue to be of interest to Members, and for that reason I will ask that this debate be adjourned.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)

Debate to be resumed on Friday 27 October.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am sure that the Minister has that date firmly in his diary.

Access to Broadband Services

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Broadband can no longer be regarded as a luxury and simply an add-on for those who want it. It has become an integral and essential facility for modern-day living. People are now expected to be able to join a meeting online or carry out a transaction online. Transactions with Government Departments and banks, and for paying bills or booking appointments, are increasingly easier to carry out online, but only if we have access to decent broadband.

The alternatives are becoming increasingly difficult, as anyone who has spent hours queuing on a phone call will know—a situation further compounded by the closure of face-to-face facilities in rural banks, post offices and shops, for example. There are often economic incentives for people to go online, as they will be charged less. For anyone trying to run a farm or business in a rural area, access to high-quality broadband is essential to complete all the necessary paperwork, record keeping, communication and transactions.

Broadband is an essential part of levelling up and offering people living in rural areas a broader range of opportunities, for example in education. It can be difficult for a small rural school or college to offer subjects that are less in demand, such as modern foreign languages or music. The use of online classrooms can ensure that students can access a wider range of subjects.

In the past, we might have seen people who were well established in their business or profession coming to live in or returning to rural areas, but now people can start out online, setting up a small business or working remotely. All of that can happen only if they have access to high-quality broadband. In rural areas, particularly those that are more difficult to farm, we often bemoan the outward migration of our young people and worry that no one will be left to run the farm and take care of the countryside, but the truth is that to make a reasonable living, farming families often have to diversify. Without good broadband, their options are limited. How can they run a business or advertise a tourist facility competitively without good broadband?

Broadband is clearly a responsibility for the UK Government, working with the telecommunications industry and Ofcom. It should be a top priority for the Government, because for a relatively small investment it can contribute so much to levelling up and bringing opportunities to our rural areas, where they can be so limited. It matters more to have good broadband in rural areas, as there are fewer face-to-face opportunities than in urban areas, and transport costs are very high. Yes, it does cost more when there is difficult geography and there are not the economies of scale that there are in areas where large numbers of users are concentrated in one place.

It is like the Royal Mail’s universal service delivery or the electricity supply: it should reach everyone. We should accept the principle of cross-subsidy, so that areas where it is more economic to roll out can subsidise those areas where it is more expensive. We should not say that it costs too much in rural areas so we will leave them until last or leave them out altogether. Let us make no mistake about this. I have heard providers who have received Government money to roll out broadband say that they have concentrated on the easy-to-supply areas.

Broadband is not devolved in Wales, but, seeing the desperate need for improved broadband, the Welsh Government have invested in broadband, more than doubling the availability of fast broadband across Wales through the Superfast Cymru programme and repeatedly stepping in to improve digital connectivity, using funding from the EU and other sources. The Welsh Government have, in the past, provided additional funding for the gigabit voucher scheme, but year-on-year budget cuts have meant that since March 2022 they have no longer been able to.

In August last year, the Senedd’s Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee warned that people in Wales are being left behind, with sub-par, unreliable broadband that risks excluding people from modern life, and with rural areas being particularly affected. The UK Government’s Project Gigabit is supposed to address that, but Wales’s mountainous terrain is challenging. The worry is that UK funding does not reflect the real cost of roll-out in those areas.

When Labour was in power at UK level, the Labour Government delivered infrastructure competition in first-generation broadband, but since the Conservatives came to power, broadband and 5G roll-out seem to have been woefully slow. The Government have repeatedly rolled back on their commitment to broadband roll-out. Originally, we were promised full fibre for all by 2025. That has now been downgraded to a commitment to at least 85% of UK premises having access to gigabit broadband by 2025. We can be sure that the remaining 15% will include many rural areas.

The Government are saying that it will be 2030 before there will be nationwide—that is, 99%-plus—coverage. That is another seven years. How many businesses will have gone bust and how many young people will have left rural Wales in that time? Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are on track to reach 85% of UK premises with gigabit broadband by 2025 and whether that will include 85% of residents in Wales? Rather than just saying “99% by 2030”, will the Minister be negotiating interim targets from 2025 to 2030, and will he ensure that the interim targets are fairly spread across the UK so that Wales keeps up percentage-wise with the rest? On that note, I conclude my remarks.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Jonathan Edwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I congratulate my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), on securing the debate.

One of the first areas of improvement that I identified for my constituency of Inverclyde when I was first elected in 2015 was broadband speed and resilience. Today, after many discussions, the occasional confrontation and a lot of repetition, Inverclyde is well served. We now enjoy an average download speed of 133.4 megabits per second, with 96.7% superfast availability, and 85.7% are receiving over 30 megabits per second. Although these numbers are among the best in the UK, I acknowledge that that is not the experience of everyone in Inverclyde. If you are my constituent, and you are one of those that are still not getting a suitable service, I accept that you will be frustrated and angered by the service you are getting. Believe me when I say that I am working on it.

It is important that I do. We live in an instant society, in which we have become used to instant access to entertainment, data, food, travel and a litany of things that were once planned for, looked forward to and experienced at our leisure. We now consume at the quickest possible rate, and the thought of having to wait is deemed unacceptable. I may sound like some curmudgeon, but in truth I am as frustrated as everyone else.

During my 35 years of working in IT, I saw a lot of change. The industry was gearing up when I first joined it, and it was moving at a much faster rate when I left. It now operates at breakneck speed. Changes to technology are being developed and implemented at a far greater rate of knots than we have ever experienced before. The speeds and volumes of data that we accept as normal were once a thing of dreams. We used to squeeze out every last bit of processing power, and then technology ran ahead of us and became cheaper, physically smaller and far more capable. But we were limited by our own imagination regarding what we were going to do with all these new telecoms capabilities. Initially, it was focused on industry and the work environment, and then there was the advent of desktop computers, laptops, iPods, gaming, the internet and online shopping.

The marketplace for digital inclusion and the requirements therein changed. Back in the day, Governments counted the number of households with clean water, as that was seen as a duty and a right. It was deemed important that not just the rich had access. Clean drinking water was required to eradicate cholera and the wider society benefited. The mission was clear, and the fundamentals have not really changed. Electricity and gas connections over time became more the norm than the exception, but where the vast majority of people enjoyed reliable access, the more rural areas were left behind and had to become more self-reliant regarding clean water and energy. That remains true to this day, and it now includes broadband.

We cannot allow that to continue. The legislation has to take into consideration the provision for areas that are harder to reach and not economically viable. Currently, the UK Government have estimated that 0.3% of properties are too expensive to reach. I accept that running a fibre cable to some very rural areas is not the solution, but alternatives exist and funding them must be considered. Simply saying it is too hard or too expensive is not good enough.

When it comes to future-proofing the infrastructure, we must acknowledge that we will never consume less than we currently use. The demand will continue to grow, and the shape and form of our engagement with it will change. The more bandwidth we create, the more uses we will find for it. It is clear that we need to be ambitious beyond our current or even projected requirements. Just as we now expect water, sewerage and power, we must add connectivity to that list.

I caution my fellow Members and those running Project Gigabit and the R100 scheme in Scotland that at some point we will require 1 terabyte per second. That is 1,024 gigabytes. I cannot say at present what for, but with quantum computing and the human imagination, I am sure that some day somebody will, and we must be designing and building the digital infrastructure that supports that growth. It is the responsibility of UK Government to manage, fund and co-ordinate the solution. Otherwise, we shall be standing still while the demand accelerates over the horizon.

Finally, as always, as a Scottish nationalist I look at situations and ask myself, “Could Scotland do this better if it were independent?” When I look at the Faroe Islands, which have some of the best broadband in the world, along with Norway, I am inclined to think that we could do better if telecoms were a devolved area. Some day, as a normal independent nation, we shall get the opportunity to prove that. I just hope it is before we are measuring success in terabytes per second.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call the newly appointed shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alyn Smith]

I am conscious of time so I will not mention anyone individually, but I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and also for their kind words personally. I am not against all unions; I am in favour of some of them—one being my wedding earlier in the summer. I should also mention that the Stirling beheading stone is a historic item; it is not actually used for that practice anymore, although I suspect it might be if I do not deliver better broadband for a lot of my constituents.

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. I will follow up, if I may. I was particularly struck at the progress made in Stirling. We may have slightly different numbers, but from 1% in 2019, the year of my election, to the progress that we have now—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid we have to move on to the next debate.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for over 75s) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am grateful to all colleagues who enabled a little time at the end of today’s sitting to discuss what continues to be a topical issue. People will have heard a report today that some 8 million people in our country are struggling with their bills. My view is that one bill that they should not be struggling with is the bill for the TV licence fee, which I would like to be abolished. Before we can get to that stage—the licence fee is guaranteed under the BBC charter until the end of 2027—we can try our best to mitigate its impact. This Bill is part of my ongoing campaign to try to persuade my Government to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee. On the basis that it is better to try to deal with such issues in bite-size proportions, I have started with the group of people aged over 75 who always thought that when they reached that esteemed age, they would not have to pay the licence fee.

Because of some double-dealing on the part of the BBC when it was negotiating with the Government, we ended up in a situation where, contrary to people’s expectations and, apparently, to the Government’s wishes, the BBC insisted on keeping the BBC licence fee for all those aged over 75 who were not in receipt of benefits. We therefore have a situation where that group of people are vulnerable to being prosecuted for TV licence fee non-payment. I will tell hon. Members what is said by some of the experts in this area.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has made clear his salami-slicing tactic and his attack on the BBC, which has been ongoing for some years. Did he notice in the meantime the BBC’s massive audiences during the events following the sad demise of Her late Majesty and the funeral? In the UK and around the world, people saw the immense quality of the BBC, which is a great British institution. Is this yet another example of the wrecking ball tactic used by some Conservative Members against the fundamental things that make this country great?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

No, that is not my motivation at all. The coverage of Her late Majesty’s funeral was brilliantly carried out by all the broadcasting media, including the BBC. I have nothing but praise for the way in which the BBC dealt with that.

To take a topical example of why a number of people feel that the BBC is not being true to its charter, today we heard the sad news that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) has been put in a situation where he has been suspended from the House for many weeks and, I understand, has chosen to resign and cause a by-election. Has that been prominently featured on the BBC news channels? I fear not. That is a topical example of the way in which some people feel that the BBC is rather selective in the way it deals with its news. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), when he was at the Conservative party conference and in the days following, found himself on the receiving end of some public criticism, which was featured prominently on the BBC airwaves. The contrast between those two cases is an example of people’s concerns.

[John Spellar]

I did notice the rather significant difference that one was a Government Minister and one was a Back Bencher.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

They were both Members of Parliament. One of them has been suspended from sitting in this House for a recommended 10 weeks, I think, and one of them has not been suspended—there was no charge against my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West at all. In a sense, the right hon. Gentleman makes my point for me.

To return to what TV licensing prosecutions do, Tara Casey of the legal charity APPEAL says:

“TV Licensing prosecutions are the perfect example of the criminalisation of poverty. This has got to be wrong, particularly during a cost-of-living crisis.”

How many people are being prosecuted for TV licence fee non-payment? The latest figures that I have are that 49,144 people were prosecuted last year, 92% of whom were convicted. These prosecutions were dealt with in the courts, thereby creating public expense through the court hearings and a great deal of distress for the people—92%—who were convicted.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

At a time when our courts are under increased pressure, a prosecution over a TV licence is surely not a priority. Does it not make a farce of itself?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree. That is why I hope the Ministry of Justice, which is concerned about delays in the magistrates courts, will be saying, “How ridiculous that our magistrates courts should be taken up with cases of BBC licence fee non-payment.”

We talk about bureaucracy and the shortage of people in this country to engage in productive employment. The BBC has said that it wishes to return to the pre-pandemic level of visits to people’s homes in relation to the licence fee. In 2020-21, licensing officers from the BBC visited 671,500 homes, and 62,000 residents were found to have been using the BBC not in accordance with the rules. What an enormous volume of activity that involved—activity that I think we should be able to dispense with, and we would be able to dispense with it if we dispensed with the BBC licence fee, but we could take a staging point halfway if we prevented the BBC from being able to prosecute these normally hapless people.

In February 2020, the Government launched a consultation on the issue of decriminalisation. It took about a year for the results to be published. In their response, the Government were pretty damning about the criminalisation of those who do not pay the licence fee. Paragraph 70 of the report from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport states:

“After considering the consultation responses, the government remains concerned that criminal prosecution is, as a matter of principle, an unfair and disproportionate approach to enforcement of TV licence evasion in a modern public service broadcasting system.”

So there we have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Paragraph 76 states:

“Against this background, the government therefore intends to continue assessing these potential impacts of an alternative sanction on licence fee payers. On this basis, while no final decision has been taken at this time, the government will keep the issue of decriminalisation under active consideration as part of the roadmap of reform of the BBC discussed below.”

I am delighted to see the Secretary of State on the Front Bench, but I hope that the Government are indeed “actively” dealing with this issue.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, but, for the record, I am not the Secretary of State, although I am a Minister in the Department.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am so sorry. In that case, the hon. Gentleman is even more welcome to his position. It is hard to keep up with some of the changes that are taking place on the Front Bench at the moment.

This issue needs to be addressed, and it is good to know that the Government are still considering it, but another year has passed and there is not much indication—not much that I have received, anyway—that the “active consideration” of the issue of decriminalisation is reaching any conclusion. In the meantime, as I have said, people are being prosecuted up and down the country, and people aged over 75 who thought they were going to have a free television licence are particularly vulnerable to such activity.

This is an important issue. Apparently a mid-term review of the BBC charter is taking place this year. We are told that the licence fee will remain at £159 until the beginning of April 2024. That means that if there were to be a general election after that, in 2024, people would be asking, “Why has the BBC licence fee just increased?” I am not sure it is very good timing, but that is the plan. The BBC is expected to receive £3.7 billion in licence fee funding this year. Why are people not more exercised about this? It is a television tax, and it is more than twice the cost of reducing the top rate of tax from 45p in the pound, about which there was a big argument at the Conservative party conference.

Putting it all in context, and as a party in favour of supporting hard-working families, I would have thought we would be taking action to commit ourselves to doing away with the television tax and, in the meantime, doing away with the criminalisation of those who do not pay the television tax.

[John Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, under a Labour Government, the over-75s got their television licence for free? George Osborne took that away, and it is the only reason why the over-75s are having to pay.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The right hon. Gentleman and I agree on a lot of things. I am not sure I would put it exactly like that, but the substance of what he says is correct. We used to have free television licences for the over-75s, and then, with a bit of smoke and mirrors, we suddenly found the system no longer applied. It was done under a Conservative Government, and he refers to George Osborne, who I am sure is prepared to take responsibility.

[Damian Collins]

Just to confirm for the record that it was, of course, the BBC’s decision to end free television licences for the over-75s. It was ultimately the BBC’s decision.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

So it was the BBC’s fault. My reading of it is that there was an attempt to cast responsibility on to the BBC, but ultimately it was the Government who enabled the BBC to put back in place a television licence fee—

[Damian Collins]

The BBC agreed to a financial settlement with the previous Government that provided transitional funding, after which the BBC would take on responsibility. That was always the case, and it was the deal the BBC signed up to at the time.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Okay, so what happened? Did the BBC go back on the deal? If so, what was the sanction against the BBC? Why are we continuing to indulge the BBC as we are, by enforcing the £3.7 billion television tax paid to the BBC?

We have also given the BBC additional powers to raise the borrowing limits for its commercial activities, which are a great success. The BBC is selling a lot of important stuff overseas. Why do we need to subsidise that with taxpayers’ money? Why do we not let the BBC run its commercial arm with freedom, and without imposing additional costs on the hard-pressed taxpayer?

I have made a short point and, unfortunately, there is not time for the Minister to respond. We will have to continue the Second Reading of this important Bill on another occasion, when I hope the Minister will be able to respond in extenso.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

Of course the scheme is really important. We do want to make sure that it works as intended, but it is part of an overall support package for the arts sector, which includes the theatre tax reliefs that were announced prior to Christmas and the all-important culture recovery fund. Again, more money has been released from that. I am confident that the overall package will be of great support to this vital sector.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

4. On what date she last held discussions with the BBC on the enforcement of TV licence fee payments for people aged over 75.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

I meet the BBC regularly to discuss a range of issues, including enforcement, and I will meet the chair and director-general next week. The BBC confirmed recently that no enforcement action has been taken against anyone over 75 years of age at this stage. I am clear that the BBC must support those affected by the decision to end free TV licences for over-75s, and I expect it to do so with the utmost sensitivity.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response, but do we trust the BBC? Would it not be much better to remove the power of the BBC to enforce sanctions through the criminal law against those who are over 75 and who are supporting a policy that the Government say they also support?

[Ms Dorries]

I reassure my hon. Friend that the entire issue of over-75s and decriminalisation remains very much under review and on my desk. The BBC has confirmed that no enforcement action has been taken. It recently began customer care visits to people aged over 75 who may need additional support in paying the TV licence. Those visits are to assist the over-75s to get appropriately licenced, with the fee paid. I expect the BBC to handle those visits with the utmost sensitivity. I reassure him that this issue is under review.

British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 12th March 2021 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, page 1, line 3, clause 1, leave out from “powers” to end of the section and insert

‘at the end, insert “in excess of £1 million in any calendar year”.’

This amendment would limit the British Library Board’s power to borrow money to £1 million per year.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

New clause 1 provides that the Act expires at the end of a period of five years beginning from the day on which it is passed, otherwise known as a sunset clause. I have tabled this new clause because I think it is particularly apposite in relation to this subject.

When the Government, or the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, first contemplated the idea that the British Library might be given the power to borrow, which it does not have at the moment, the report said that there would be an opportunity to have a full debate about the pros and cons of so doing, and I am not sure that that debate has ever really taken place. I am also not sure that the British Library board is that keen to exercise these powers. The reason for that may well be associated with the fact that borrowing incurs future costs, and those costs then have to be budgeted for from a grant in aid. It is well established that many of what are described as “arm’s length authorities”, which are the subject of grant in aid from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, believe that it is better to rely on grant in aid, where they know where they stand, than to go down the route of borrowing.

My concern is that the Bill could be used as a means whereby the Government cut their grant in aid to the British Library board and, if the board whinges, tell it to borrow the money instead. Given that our national debts are at record levels, it seems to me that such an attitude would be completely out of place. If the Bill becomes law, however, there is no guarantee that that will not happen—that it will not be used as an excuse to ramp up costs for future generations: “Spend now, pay later”. The grant in aid process is designed to ensure that the British Library board can receive funding sufficient to enable it to do its work during the course of the year.

My background interest in this comes from the fact that I was the Minister responsible for the Property Services Agency. One of the biggest projects on its books was the construction of the new British Library. That whole process and the way in which it was funded should be the subject of a treatise.

The grant in aid process was used to fund the construction project each year; there would be an agreement between the Government, the Department and the British Library about how much money could be spent on it in any given year. But no limit was put on the overall costs. It was only when the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher got to hear about that that she decided that we could not carry on just funding the capital project of the British Library on a year-by-year, hand-to-mouth basis. We needed to say that that could not go on indefinitely and that there should be a finite sum of money for the project—and that would be that.

I do not know whether you have been round the British Library, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is almost in two halves: part of it is adorned with fantastic panelling and money-no-object interiors, but I can only describe the second part as rather more utilitarian. That is a direct consequence of the then Prime Minister’s having said that there had been an abuse of the grant in aid process. I still have the trowel used in the British Library topping-out ceremony—as we would expect for such an extravagant project, it is made of finest silver and came from Garrard, I think. But that is by the by.

Just as the grant in aid was abused before Margaret Thatcher got a grip on it, I fear that the power to borrow could also be abused if we do not keep a tight rein on it. A five-year sunset clause would enable that assessment to be made, so that at the end of five years, if it had been a great success, it could be renewed, and if not, there would not be any need to renew it. Effectively, it would give this House the opportunity of policing what had actually happened under the powers being granted in this primary legislation. I go back to the point that we are not even sure that the British Library really wants these powers, and certainly it does not want these powers if the consequence is a reduction in its grant in aid.

Amendment 1 is designed to limit the amount of borrowing in any calendar year to £1 million. That is an off-the-cuff, arbitrary sum of money, but it seemed to be a reasonable sum for starters, in the absence of any other evidence as to what the British Library needs to borrow and for what purpose it needs to carry out those borrowings. I have tabled this more as a probing amendment, rather than one that I expect to be accepted just like that by the Government. This is quite a short point—and, indeed, it is a short Bill—but in the context of the national situation of public borrowing, it takes on a totemic significance greater than it might have had when the Bill was introduced last year.

I hope that those introductory remarks in support of my new clause will engender not only a debate but an opportunity for the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who I am pleased to see in his place, to respond and to share with the House his vision for the British Library and how much he thinks that vision is dependent upon the British Library Board having the borrowing powers set out in the Bill.

I would be interested to know whether the Minister has any idea of how much the British Library Board is thinking of borrowing. The explanatory notes make it clear that the board would not just be able to borrow willy-nilly; it would have to get approval for so doing from the Department. My understanding is that, at the moment, there is a sum of £60 million available for borrowing for all the arm’s length bodies that the Department sponsors. Would the British Library Board’s borrowings be subject to that limit, or would they be in addition to it? In the spirit of the need to ensure that we scrutinise these proposed pieces of legislation, I would be grateful if we could get some response on those issues.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I shall speak only briefly on my private Member’s Bill. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said. In relation to the point about whether the British Library Board or the executive committee want these powers, I can assure him that they do. It is also worth pointing out that what is proposed here is simply to align the British Library with all the other similar arm’s length museums, galleries and others that currently sit under the auspices of the Department. The Bill does not propose anything different from what various other similar institutions have. That is a very important point.

The third thing to say is, simply, that this is not about the Government reducing the grant in aid. In fact, in the Budget of March 2020, the Government gave £13 million to the British Library to help it expand. This money is not just for books or for the British Library in London; it is to help the levelling-up agenda all over the country. It is to help the business and intellectual property centres, which help thousands of individuals and successful start-up businesses. The success rate of those businesses—the proportion that are in existence three years after being started—is about 90%, double the national average, showing the value of those business and IP centres.

That is the sort of thing that this money is for. This is simply about aligning the British Library with all sorts of other institutions that sit under the auspices of the Department. I really believe that this is a sensible, practical measure that will help not just the British Library but communities up and down the country.

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

I am pleased that we are at this point with the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). As he said, it is absolutely the case that the Bill seeks solely to put the British Library on the level playing field that it deserves to be on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) raises two points. Putting an expiry date on the powers proposed in the Bill would risk taking up further parliamentary time, which we all know is valuable, but it would also entrench the inequality that we are trying to resolve. The idea that the British Library’s power to borrow would be subject to review when none of the other arm’s length bodies are subject to the same review does not seem to me to be in that spirit of fairness. Of course my hon. Friend raises entirely reasonable points about the burden on the public purse of any borrowing, but it seems to me only fair that we take that as a whole rather than trying to impose separate conditions on the British Library.

The British Library is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, absolutely enthusiastic about the powers that the Bill would give it, it is enthusiastic about the opportunity to use them, and it is enthusiastic about the practical developments that that might bring, be it broader access digitally to its own artefacts or broader engagement with the community. That is currently constrained by the inequality that we see today. That is not fair on the British Library, but more to the point, it is not fair on the British public. It is important that we try to address the legislative barrier that currently and inexplicably prevents the British Library from having the same freedom to borrow that its fellow national museums and galleries enjoy.

Operational freedoms introduced in 2013 have given our national cultural institutions, including the British Library, greater autonomy to make decisions independently and greater flexibility over their income, helping them to innovate and continue their expert work. Flexibility and innovation will be more important than ever as we recover from the effects of the pandemic.

The British Library is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch accepted, subject to a host of scrutiny already. The Bill does not propose to subject it to any greater scrutiny than exists already for other arm’s length bodies. While I agree with him that we should pay close attention to those conditions, I hope that he will agree that imposing further specific conditions on the British Library when we would like, I think, to have the efficiency of dealing with all arm’s length bodies as one is not a sensible approach. While I understand the sentiments behind his amendments, I hope—

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend talks about the other arm’s length bodies. My understanding is that they have the power to carry over surpluses from one year to the next. Is that power now being made available to the British Library? Will the borrowing that it will be able to make under this power be out of the same capped fund that is available for the other departmental arm’s length bodies? Or will this be in addition? If so, how much will the addition be each year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That sounds a perfectly reasonable proposition that my hon. Friend has put forward. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I would like to put on the record my appreciation of the great efforts that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) has made and his phenomenal success in bringing this Bill to a successful conclusion in this House. I hope that that will be duly recognised by his constituents—I am sure it will be appreciated by the British Library. May I put on the record the fact that I think that the British Library is one of the greatest of our British institutions and that I am an immense supporter of it? Although there was a lot of scepticism about the cost and design of the new library, I think it has been able to prove its worth in practice, and we much appreciate it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

BBC Licence Fee

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

Ministers do talk to the public through a wide range of programmes every day, including on the BBC. That has always been the case and will continue to be so, and the lobby meetings happen twice a day, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. I remind him that the media landscape is changing. For example, five years ago a TV licence was not required to watch or download content on the BBC iPlayer. I hope that he raises his concerns about the BBC in Scotland as part of the consultation.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I thank the Government for their wisdom in bringing forward a consultation to remove an anachronistic privilege. Does not the hysterical reaction of defenders of the BBC speak for itself?

[Nigel Adams]

The BBC is an incredibly respected brand around the world. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister recently said the BBC is, in fact, a “cherished British institution”.

Leaving the EU: UK Orchestras

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister.

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)]

What about me?

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Did the right hon. Gentleman indicate that he wanted to be called in this very short debate?

[Mr Vaizey]

I certainly did.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

In that case—if it has been agreed with the promoter, and the Minister has received notice—I call Ed Vaizey.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing a debate on this very important matter. I thank him for advance sight of his speech and questions.

The Government take extremely seriously our responsibility to champion and support our world-leading orchestras, which connect us to more than 400 years of creativity from across the world—particularly within Europe. I agree profoundly with the right hon. Gentleman about the value, success and soft power that our orchestras represent. They help to educate young people and contribute significantly to our cultural life and economy. We take none of that for granted, and we have a range of policies that support our orchestras.

In England, the Arts Council invests more than £25 million a year in orchestras, and related classical music organisations and activities, through the national portfolio. In 2017-18, Arts Council England awarded more than £2.8 million to a range of classical music projects across England through its lottery-funded Grants for the Arts programme, and more than £10 million through strategic funding programmes.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about new tax reliefs. Although that is a matter for the Treasury, I will comment on it as much as I can. The Government keep all tax reliefs under review. Any proposal for a new tax relief must be assessed for its effectiveness, wider economic impact, ability to stand up against abuse, and cost to the Exchequer. I am pleased to note that the orchestra tax relief, available across the UK, was introduced in April 2016. The most recent statistics for the relief show that, since its introduction, 205 productions have benefited and have received £6.6 million-worth of support from the Government.

On other future funding, the spending review will set the first funding envelope after the UK has left the EU, and will look at all Government spending. It gives us the opportunity to look at UK priorities and argue significantly for the hugely important area of culture, including, of course, performing orchestras. The Government have made clear our intention to undertake that spending review in 2019. Leading up to the review, we will continue to listen to the concerns of the sector, and of course we will consider any spending in the light of implications following our exit from the European Union.

The UK Government value the UK’s thriving cultural landscape and have listened to the sector’s concerns about the European market. We will continue to be in close dialogue with the sector, and we will seek a far-reaching relationship on culture and education with the European Union that is mutual beneficial for the UK, the EU, our cultural communities, including orchestras, and our citizens.

Some leading classical musicians have expressed concerns about the future as we leave the European Union, and those concerns have been represented in this debate. I assure them that their voices are being heard. My Department is working hard to ensure that Departments across Whitehall understand what our orchestras need from our future relationship with the EU, and what they need in terms of contingency planning in the unlikely case that we leave the EU without a deal. In either case, we are confident that the creativity and resilience of our orchestras will continue and thrive.

Right hon. and hon. Members have touched on a range of challenges for orchestras, and I will address them in turn. It is tragic that some orchestras have lost bookings on account of Brexit, as we heard from the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). The movement of people is important. A key challenge for our orchestras is how the rules about the movement of people might change. Those concerns have been raised, and I want to address some of them, particularly in the light of the White Paper, which was published this afternoon.

The White Paper is an invitation to interested parties to express their views. I trust that the right hon. Member for East Ham will make his views on the issues pertaining to orchestras apparent during the consultation inspired by the White Paper. In the future, it will be for the UK Government and Parliament to determine the domestic immigration rules that will apply. The Immigration Bill will bring migration from the EU under UK law, enabling us to set out future immigration system in domestic legislation. The movement of people is clearly important to the orchestras of our country. We will continue to work with the Arts Council, and we will look at the proposals it is making for visa waivers in this sector.

In the immigration White Paper, we set out further detail on the system, taking into account the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee’s report on European Economic Area migration in the UK. The future system will focus on high skills and welcoming talented and hard-working individuals who will support the UK’s economy, enabling employers to compete on the world stage. The Home Office is launching a year-long engagement to enable business and other stakeholders, such as orchestras, to shape the final details of policy and process.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Tourism, would meet with the Association of British Orchestras. Following the publication of the White Paper, he will certainly be able to meet the right hon. Gentleman and the Association of British Orchestras to discuss this matter in greater detail.

Orchestras have expressed concern about the salary threshold. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Migration Advisory Committee threshold of £30,000. We will discuss with businesses what a suitable salary threshold should be. If a skilled job is considered to be in shortage in the UK, a lower salary threshold is likely to apply. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that skills do not necessarily relate to salary, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is well aware of that.

Sir Christopher, should I allow a little time for the right hon. Gentleman to sum up?

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

If you allow any time, it will be wasted. Under the rules, there is no right of reply for a Member introducing a short debate.

[Margot James]

I apologise. I am never clear on that point.

As hon. Members pointed out, it is not only the movement of people, but the movement of objects, that is important to orchestras. They move a huge amount of equipment around with them, much of it valuable, historic or both. They work on tight timeframes and are under pressure not to separate musicians from their instruments for long periods. I am aware that some musicians are worried that new customs processes will lead to increased cost, delay and inconvenience, which could disrupt touring schedules.

Hon. Members will know that the Government’s plan for EU exit aims to preserve frictionless trade for the majority of UK goods. Furthermore, in the political declaration, the UK and the EU recognise the importance of the temporary movement of objects and equipment in enabling co-operation in the cultural and education sectors. That, of course, includes musical instruments.

Orchestras are also concerned about customs processes in the unlikely case that the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. I hope hon. Members will understand that the issue of customs processes in the event of no deal is a broader, but no less important, issue than the one before us today. My Department has been working closely with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to understand the pressures on our orchestras to ensure that we are prepared and that communications reach the right people and contain the information they need to allow orchestras are prepare.

Another challenge that was raised is the importance and value of EU funding programmes to the UK’s cultural sector, including orchestras. Creative Europe provides support for international cultural relations and creative projects. Collaboration is vital for culture to thrive. Creative Europe has demonstrated that international partnership enables the cultural sectors to share expertise, build relationships and produce exemplary creative works.

As the Prime Minister made clear in the White Paper on our future relationship with the EU, the UK wants to build on our long history of working together to continue to produce and promote excellent culture.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).