Cultural Attractions: Contribution to Local Economy

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this debate, and I will also say how proud I am to see her leading the debate today. Not all hon. Members will know that I used to teach her at Radyr Comprehensive School in Cardiff. It is wonderful to see her leading our debate today and it is a privilege for me to participate in the debate with her. I am sorry that she ended up the way she did, Mr Walker. [Laughter.] It was despite my best efforts, but there we are.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) who, like me, is a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on his speech. As ever, he made his constituency sound like a wonderful place, although he was unable to establish, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster did with her constituency, that we can literally find heaven within it.

I always like to stress the importance of the value of the arts and culture in and of themselves, as well as their economic benefits. In and of themselves, they are valuable and we should encourage them. Nevertheless, it is important to note that places such as the Sherman theatre in Cardiff, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), make a wonderful contribution—and an important economic contribution too. Cultural and creative industries contribute £10.8 billion a year to the UK economy and £2.8 billion in taxation, and they support over 360,000 jobs. This was also the fastest growing sector of the economy; we should not forget that.

In Cardiff, we have wonderful cultural facilities too. Recently, the Womanby Street campaign tried to protect our music venues—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) was very much involved in that. We have the wonderful Millennium centre in Cardiff, which is also in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and the Chapter arts centre, a world-leading contemporary arts centre in my own constituency. All of these places are wonderful, but they have all been very badly affected by coronavirus and the lockdown.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the Womanby Street campaign; I was proud to work with him on it. Does he agree that Eluned Morgan, our Welsh culture Minister, has been doing an excellent job in securing a package to support our industries, including freelancers, crucially?

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree. She is another of my protégés, and is doing a marvellous job as arts Minister in Cardiff.

Through the Minister, I say to the Chancellor that he must stop the talk about people in the creative industries going on to do something else. In a report today on the ITV website, the Chancellor suggests that musicians and others in the arts industry—actors, creatives and so on—may need to retrain and find new jobs. When asked whether he was suggesting that some of the UK’s fabulous musicians, artists and actors should get other jobs, the Chancellor said that although there is still work available in the creative industries,

“as in all walks of life everyone’s having to adapt.”

That is true and all very well, but he is in danger of becoming the Aunt Mimi of Government if he is not careful. For those who do not know, Aunt Mimi was John Lennon’s aunt, who brought him up and told him to get a proper job rather than going into the music industry. Those are proper jobs! Roles that are involved in our creative industries—actors, such as my brother or the hon. Member for Clacton; musicians; directors; or whatever freelance or employed role—are proper jobs in the fastest growing sector of our economy. It is about time that the Government acknowledged that.

In all fairness, some parts of the Government do, and I welcome the package that they have brought forward—although that money needs to be distributed now—but the view that those are not proper jobs has got to go. The Chancellor has to stop saying that. The Minister may not feel free or at ease to say so in the debate, but will she say privately in the halls of Government that that kind of talk has to stop? The Government’s job is to provide a bridge to the future for what is a very viable creative sector. There is a bright future for it and for those who work in it. We need to acknowledge that and provide more support to enable it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing the debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with support from the Musicians’ Union.

I start with a message to all who work in the creative industries, and to musicians in particular: you are viable, you do matter and you deserve better, because you are the lifeblood of my constituency and our country, not just economically but for our soul. Everyone in the Chamber knows that. I think of the Wales millennium centre, the Glee Club’s stand-up comedy, the theatre and events sector and the amazing film and TV that goes on in my constituency. I think of dance, live music and so much more, which is crucial for our economy and crucial for our soul. All of this is devastating for me personally, as a singer and performer—I know that many others in this room who have come from the industry, whether professionally or semi-professionally, will be feeling the same—and it is devastating for my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth.

Yes, some are adapting. BBC Studios has adapted in a covid-safe way in Cardiff South and Penarth, and the world-leading Iris Prize lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender film festival is starting tonight virtually, online. That is fantastic, but many others simply cannot adapt in a way that is economically sustainable for them and those who work in their industries, and unfortunately the response of the UK Government has been too slow and too little, and too many are falling through the gaps. One major local music body has told me in the past two days that the Chancellor’s declarations about viable jobs are meaningless and insensitive in this context. I want to draw attention to the demands by the Musicians’ Union and many others in this sector, who have said that not only do we need to get musicians back to work safely as soon as possible—70% of them are currently unable to do more than a quarter of their usual work, in order to get the income that they normally rely on—but we need to expand the self-employment scheme, because 38% of musicians are ineligible for the schemes the Chancellor has set out. We also need individual support.

[Kevin Brennan]

Did my hon. Friend see the protest outside Parliament today by the Let Music Live group, where musicians came together to play some of Gustav Holst’s music? I join him in congratulating the Musicians’ Union on their work, including that of Horace, the general secretary, and Naomi Pohl, the wonderful assistant general secretary. I declare my own interest as a member of that union.

[Stephen Doughty]

I totally endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. The scenes outside Parliament today were incredibly powerful; I was not able to be there in person, but I saw them online. They show the scale of devastation in the sector, but also those people’s wish to be able to perform and earn their livelihoods as they otherwise would.

We are well aware of the concerns that are affecting individual freelancers in Wales. The Welsh Government have announced a specific fund for freelancers; I am told that Arts Council England has been told that the money cannot be used to support individual freelancers in England, and I wonder if the Minister can explain why that is the case.

I am aware that over the past 24 hours, there have been some concerns and frustrations in my own constituency about being able to get funding from the freelancers’ scheme in Wales, which shows the huge demand and desperation that is affecting so many people. I want to reassure those who have raised concerns that I have been speaking to Ministers, as have others, and we have been assured that a second phase will be opening very soon, because the Welsh Government recognise that the demand is there. However, that scheme does not even operate in England. In Wales, a total fund of £53 million has been announced for the arts and culture sector; that is the most significant fund across the UK, and £7 million of it is ring-fenced for freelancers.

I will end by reflecting on a couple of the heart-rending messages I have received from constituents, showing the human cost of this crisis. One constituent, who is a friend and a musician, wrote to me saying, “I know many fully professional musicians who are in utter panic. It is their sole livelihood, and it is devastating to see them with distress etched on their faces.” He is thinking of leaving this country. We will lose this talent; it will go elsewhere. Another writes, “I am leaving the profession. There is no hope.”

We need to see better from the Chancellor and from Ministers. I was deeply concerned by the Chancellor’s comments today, when he said,

“It’s a very sad time…I can’t pretend that everyone can do exactly the same job”.

We all need to do better. We need to do better as a country, and we need to support these people through this crisis; otherwise, the cost will not only be to our economy but, crucially, to our country’s soul.

British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill (First sitting)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

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

I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, for the many hours that I expect to speak on this Bill. I thank hon. Members for being here; they did not have to be. I asked them and I really respect their time, so I thank them very much for attending.

I am speaking in support of my private Member’s Bill because it is important, though it may not look that important—it is very short. It simply allows the British Library to borrow—not books, but money. The reason why that is important is that the British Library has a unique, important place in all parts of the United Kingdom, and here I am looking at the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, the leader of Plaid Cymru at Westminster. The British Library is important for all Members of the House, not just this Committee. It needs the ability to borrow money so that it can expand to reach all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Bill. In my 19 years in the House, I have never got anywhere near the top of the ballot, so I congratulate him, with some jealousy, on getting this far. I will also say that I am a Member from Wales as well. This is not entirely clear from the explanatory notes: does the Bill permit the library to borrow money privately, not just from the state?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden on introducing the Bill, and I thank him. As he says, it is small but perfectly formed, and that is why it has the strong support of the Government. As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen says, just before Second Reading—it seems a really long time ago—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed a suite of Government funding: up to £95 million for the British Library’s plans for Boston Spa, £13 million to expand the brilliant network of business and intellectual property centres, and £25 million to help find a site in Leeds for British Library North. After all that good news and positivity, the British Library went into lockdown, and, like so many other cultural institutions up and down our country, lost visitors and valuable commercial opportunities overnight.

The financial impact of covid-19 will of course last a very long time. The British Library, along with many other DCMS-sponsored bodies, will be working out how to manage that in the weeks and months ahead. It will need to be more flexible than ever before, which is why we need to give the British Library the same option to borrow money as its peer museums and galleries. The Bill will remove the legislative barrier that prevents the British Library from having the freedom that its fellow national museums and galleries enjoy.

We are granting the British Library the power to borrow money, but of course that does not mean that it has to, or that it will. There is no guarantee that any application to borrow will be successful, but it is important that it has the option to apply.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister clarify the point that I raised with the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden about private borrowing? Does the Bill confer on the board the power to borrow money privately, or can it borrow only in the way that he suggested?

[Caroline Dinenage]

It is quite simple: the board has the right to borrow commercially, but it would have to prove that such borrowing was better value for money than borrowing via Government loans, so in reality, it would be Government borrowing in most cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden suggests. Of course, that does not mean that the board will borrow, but it is important that it has the option.

As we have heard, the British Library’s response to lockdown enabled its amazing collection and services to be still available to the public, albeit accessed differently. Vitally, it has also continued to support entrepreneurs during this incredibly difficult time, when we need them more than ever, through online services and webinars. The Government invested £13 million to expand the BIPC network in order to ensure that those vital services reach even more parts of the country and more budding entrepreneurs right across England. That is essential as the country recovers from the economic impact of covid.

As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen said, the British Library’s “Unfinished Business” series of events, which was due to open in March—I was really looking forward to it—has been postponed but will finally open next month. It will be brilliant, and footfall is beginning to increase again.

The operational freedoms introduced in 2013 helped all our national cultural institutions, including the British Library, to be more self-governing and more financially independent. Those freedoms have given it the autonomy to make decisions independently and greater flexibility over its income, helping it to innovate and continue its fabulous work. Museums and galleries have also benefited from the power to borrow to improve their sites, give much better access to visitors, and take better options and opportunities to display our incredibly valuable national collections. It is only fair that the British Library should have the same opportunity, and I therefore urge the Committee to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

What further steps he will take to support people in the creative industries who are unable to return to work as a result of covid-19 restrictions.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

What steps he has taken to support the creative industries during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)]

I recognise the huge contribution that the creative industries make both to the UK’s international reputation and to our economy, contributing over £100 billion in gross value added. The Government have provided unprecedented support to employees and businesses through the furlough scheme and the £1.57 billion cultural recovery fund, and we will continue to do all we can to provide support and get the sector back up and running.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am afraid that what has been trailed by the Treasury in the media today will not do anything to help those in the creative industries who cannot work because of covid restrictions, whether in music venues, comedy clubs or theatres, or any of the freelance workers in the sector who already receive no help at all, as we saw from the Musicians Union survey this week. When will the help that has already been promised in the package the Minister mentioned actually arrive for people in the sector, and will the new scheme be targeted to supply life support to our genuinely world-beating creative industries?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The Government’s world-class support package has included the self-employed income support scheme, and about two thirds of our sector have been covered by that. Then, of course, there are the very generous extensions to universal credit as well. However, we know that it is very distressing for those who have fallen between the gaps. That is why Arts Council England has made an additional £95 million of additional support available for individuals who are affected.

Online Harms Legislation

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman]

I know that my right hon. Friend was particularly interested in that area when he was Education Secretary, and I pay tribute to his work. The grey areas that he describes are the hardest and, in some ways, the most important to tackle, particularly around self-harm and eating disorders. Again, it is important to balance this with free speech, but there is no public good in the promotion of eating disorders, and we have to ensure that this regulation picks that up.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I note what the Minister said about watering down, but there is a suspicion abroad—not just on the Opposition Benches—that there has been a change of direction in the Government on this policy and that things such as penalties and prosecution for directors and the banning of companies that egregiously breach the new approach will be dropped in the final proposals. If that happens, it will mean that this policy is being run not from Westminster but from the west coast of America.

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Member could not be more wrong. We will deliver a sanctions regime that is effective. This is a world-leading approach, and we will take a world-leading approach to sanctions as well. The response that we published yesterday mentions director liability—to take just one example—so the suggestion that it is off the table is simply not correct.

Economy and Society: Contribution of Music

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my membership of, and support for, the Musicians’ Union and PRS for Music.

I open by sending a message to Michael, as the song says, and pay tribute to the outgoing chief executive of UK Music, Michael Dugher, for the tremendous job he has done during his tenure, not only because of the way in which he communicates with Parliament but because of his personal passion for music—not just for Paul McCartney, incidentally, but all kinds of music—which shines through in everything he does and in the representations he makes on behalf of the music industry. I wish him well. I also pay tribute to Andy Heath, the outgoing chair, who has done a fantastic job with that organisation.

I went out to lunch many years ago with the former chief executive, Feargal Sharkey, when he announced the setting up of UK Music in the first place. It seems to me that, over the course of that decade, the way that the music industry has got its act together and effectively communicated its message is due in no small part to the efforts of people such as Michael, Feargal and Jo Dipple, who have led the UK Music with such distinction over that period of time.

I also pay tribute to everyone who contributed to the debate, particularly my very good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who quite rightly mentioned—as well as lots of other issues that are so important to the debate—the impact of organisations such as Nordoff Robbins and of music therapy. Having myself volunteered for Nordoff Robbins in a care home on one occasion when I was the Minister responsible for charities in the last Labour Government, I can testify to the tremendous work that it does and the impact that its work has. My hon. Friend rightly raised all the significant issues for the debate, and I shall rehearse them a little bit during my remarks and perhaps add one other issue as I go along.

We had a speech from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), who chairs with great distinction the all-party parliamentary group on music. I welcome very much what he said about music education. I hope that he presses the Ministers in his own party and Government very hard to deliver much more effectively on music education, after seeing personally the transformational effects of music, in his own life, as a music teacher and rightly highlighted during his speech.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), whose remarks featured the very important contribution made by our orchestras in particular. I praise the Association of British Orchestras for the work that it does to promote orchestras. My hon. Friend rightly emphasised the importance of formal training and the impact that that has beyond the classical repertoire, in our film and television industries and so on.

I have seen the son of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) perform, and he is a very fine jazz musician; and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman—it is obviously in the genes—on his own record as a church organist. He is right about the power of music therapy and the impact on people with, for example, autism.

I would also like to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), my immediate constituency neighbour, and pay tribute to the incredible work that she did, along with other colleagues, on the live music and protecting live music in our city of Cardiff. That was done along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who told us that he had once performed for President Clinton. I think that that is probably a unique distinction, as is the distinction that we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), who told us that he is the only former nightclub DJ who is a Member of Parliament—I have not heard anyone else try to claim that distinction in the course of the debate.

I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for her contribution. As well as highlighting the incredible amount of music going on in her constituency in this sector, she rightly highlighted the problems for musicians with the Home Office. She was absolutely right to draw attention to that.

We have therefore had a great debate. It was also added to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who mentioned Longpigs. She will know that of course the chair of the Ivors Academy of Music Creators, Crispin Hunt, is a former member of Longpigs. With the Ivors Academy, he is doing great work in promoting the importance of songwriting and the interests of composers.

My new hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) reminded us why Wales is so well renowned for its contribution to music. I thought that she sounded like the Rev. Eli Jenkins in “Under Milk Wood”, who said, “Thank God we are a musical nation.” My hon. Friend was almost musical in her contribution today.

The main issues that we need to address have been mentioned in the course of the debate. Grassroots music venues were mentioned quite frequently. I welcome what the Government have done about rate relief. Last year, I went with the outgoing chief executive of UK Music to meet the former Chancellor of the Exchequer to urge him to do the very thing that the Government are now pledged to do, so I hope that the Minister will give us a bit of an idea of the timetable for that and how it will be implemented.

Music venues are the R&D of the music industry, and when they are closing down, that is the canary in the mine—to mix metaphors a bit—for the industry. If music venues are closing down, there is trouble ahead for our music industry, so the Government do need to work with the sector, including UK Music, to develop a thorough strategy for the future of our music venues, and I hope that they will do that urgently.

We also heard about freelance employment and the nature of employment in the industry and the campaign of Olga FitzRoy and others in relation to shared parental leave for the self-employed and freelancers. That is a particular issue in the music industry.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I will not, because of the time, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

This issue is extremely important, and I hope that the Minister will press his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to get on with the job that they are doing of reviewing the availability of shared parental leave for freelancers. We found out today from the Office for National Statistics that for the first time ever more than 5 million people in this country are self-employed. That is a huge part of the creative industries in general and the music sector in particular, so I hope that the Minister takes that job on and communicates with Ministers in other Departments to get the job done.

We have heard about the importance of Brexit. That is a massive issue for the music industry, including in relation to the copyright directive and the huge importance that that has for composers and musicians—for the industry. I should mention the work of PRS for Music in this regard and the tremendous work that it does. Some £618 million a year of export revenue is earned just by music publishing, which is an extraordinary statistic.

We have to deal with the issue of organisations, massive corporations, such as YouTube and Google. Google and YouTube will take $5.5 billion-worth of revenue from advertising alone in the US during 2020; and 70% of views on YouTube are of 10% of the content, and I would wager that a lot of that content is music content. Musicians and creators are just not being adequately rewarded in that regard.

The other issue is the musicians’ passport and the importance of freedom of movement. I know that the Minister was a Brexiteer, but it is vital that musicians are able to exercise freedom of movement on our departure from the EU and the end of the implementation period. This is not just about large orchestras or big touring bands, which may or may not have the resources and capacity to absorb that. It is also about the small gigging musician who may have a few fans and followers in Berlin, Italy or wherever, who is on an easyJet flight carrying their own instrument and for whom this is a highly marginal activity but one that could lead to a very major career in music. I hope that the Minister bears that in mind and ensures that the music passport proposal becomes reality and freedom of movement does also.

On music education, I will not labour the points made earlier, but it is extremely important.

I do want to introduce one final new and different issue—the BBC. If the Government are serious about the music industry, they need to think about the undermining of the BBC that seems to be the flavour of the day in Government at the moment. The BBC is hugely important to our music industry. It is hugely important to composers, musicians, orchestras, producers, technicians, mixers, engineers—to all of the music sector. Just look at the behaviour now of some of the big channels—for example, the Discovery Channel—which are trying to buy out music rights in relation to copyright. Undermining the BBC because of petty political issues will damage our music industry, and I urge the Minister to ensure that he makes representations in that regard within Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is going to have to settle for an answer from the Box. We are committed to making the UK the safest place to be online and the best digital economy in the world. As the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, we are developing legislative proposals at pace and we will bring forward a Bill as soon as possible.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

My father used to enjoy a weekly 10 bob yankee down the bookies, but he would have been appalled at the sheer volume of advertising and the dodgy practices that are going on in picking on vulnerable people in relation to gambling. The Government seem to be following rather than leading events in this regard, with today’s intervention from the NHS leadership adding to that. When are the Government going to introduce the new gambling Bill that is so long overdue? Will the Minister tell us that right now?

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

I am slightly surprised by the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government have been taking steady steps to increase protections to ensure that people can gamble safely, unlike previous Labour Administrations, who oversaw a huge liberalisation of gambling. As we committed to doing in our manifesto, we will be launching a review of the Gambling Act 2005, and work is going on right now to identify the scope and timeframe of that review.

Football Association and Bet365

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

May I welcome my hon. Friend to her place? I certainly will wish Scunthorpe United the best of luck—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Who are they playing?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Member asks who they are playing; I can tell him that as a youngster I used to be dragged along to Scunthorpe to watch Scunthorpe United. That was some years ago. I was a very lucky child.

The irony of this story having blown up this weekend is that the FA was launching its Heads Together mental health campaign. It could not have been any more badly timed. As I have said, we have given clear instructions to the FA to look into every avenue possible to have this deal changed.

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.