Economic Crime: Law Enforcement

Debate between Kevin Foster and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Obviously, it would be tempting for me, at the Dispatch Box in the current situation, to make a raft of pledges on behalf of the Government about all the things I might like to see happen. At this stage, I will say that I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for coming to a conclusion on our assessment fairly quickly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) in particular talked about whistleblowers. We recognise the value of whistleblowers’ being prepared to shine a light on wrongdoing and we believe they should be able to do so without fear of recrimination. I want to make it clear that workers can seek redress through the whistleblowing regime if they are dismissed or suffer detriment because they have made a protected disclosure. It is worth noting that uncapped compensation can be awarded by an employment tribunal to reflect this.

If a whistleblower does not feel they can blow the whistle to their employer, they may make a disclosure to a prescribed person. There are over 80 prescribed persons and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy regularly publishes guidance for them and updates the list of prescribed persons.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I appreciate the fact that the Minister is covering this brief. On the point he makes, if whistleblower legislation works, then why has my constituent Ian Foxley, who blew the whistle on GPT Special Project Management in 2011—a company that was found guilty last year and faced £28 million in financial sanctions—been without a single penny of compensation or a single penny of earnings for 11 years? The legislation is not broad enough or all-encompassing, and it needs urgent reform.

[Kevin Foster]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful case for going further. He will be aware that the Government have committed to a review of the whistleblowing framework, and we are considering the scope and timing of that review. We would certainly be happy to engage with him about how that could be taken forward effectively, particularly given examples such as the one he has cited, although he will realise that I do not necessarily want to comment on individual cases from the Dispatch Box.

This has been a helpful and productive debate. I reassure colleagues that the Home Office and the Treasury, when leading the policy response for Government, ensure that we do so through a governance structure that oversees activity across the system. This is not the only area where our two Departments work together in the national interest to deliver the overall objectives we wish to see.

In closing, I again thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. This is an immensely important subject and an area in which we will shortly see significant legislation brought before the House for colleagues to scrutinise, examine and develop, as I know they will want to. Certainly, from what we have heard in this debate, there will be many positive and constructive engagements in that debate. That is something we very much look forward to, because, as has been said, this is not just about tackling crime; it is ultimately about keeping our nation and its allies safe.

Asylum Reception Centre: Linton-on-Ouse

Debate between Kevin Foster and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, we already have a consultation under way about a major reform to the dispersed accommodation system. As he will know, we are moving to a full dispersal system in which all local authorities will be involved—previously, not everyone was involved—and part of that is looking at the cost to local authorities. There is a slight difference with accommodation centres in that in such sites a number of facilities are provided that we would not provide at each individual location where dispersed accommodation is provided. We cannot realistically provide it in contingency hotels. As he will be aware, the London Borough of Hillingdon has quite a large number of people in contingency hotels and I think that, whatever our views on the proposal and some other aspects of asylum policy, we can all agree that we need to move away from that. It is not good for them, for the taxpayer or for the local communities.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Minister makes a good point that the number of sites that might fit the bill are few and far between and that the site’s accommodation may be suitable, but does he not agree that, in the interests of the asylum seekers, it would be better to have the centre where people could access other amenities, leisure facilities and public services? Surely he can see that the selection of a site that completely lacks all those things is pretty sub-optimal.

[Kevin Foster]

We can look at what will be provided on the site. For example, it is fully catered, so there will be three meals a day for those accommodated there. We will provide a number of basic services and facilities for recreation and entertainment and, on top of that—this is perhaps one thing we were to come on to—we will provide the ability to progress cases while on site, such as doing the pre-interview questionnaire and conducting the substantive asylum interview so that people’s cases can be processed more efficiently. We believe that that will deliver a better outcome overall. We are working on healthcare and other areas as well. Again, it is about the balance between having numbers in one location where we can provide a number of services versus more dispersed accommodation where we do not supply specific services and people may be more reliant on those in the community.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Kevin Hollinrake

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Friday 15th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend will be aware from his legal background that marriage or civil partnership affords both members of a couple additional rights to a position where they are just cohabiting. It may well be the case that some people are more comfortable in a civil partnership, and through the Bill they can effectively grant each other greater rights in case there is ever the need for them due to any unforeseen circumstance.

[Kevin Foster]

I agree, and as always my hon. Friend brings his expertise in that industry to the Chamber. Yes, this does create tenancy rights, and again I do not see any reason why extending this to mixed-sex civil partnerships would have any different impact on the landlord-tenant relationship from that which same-sex couples and civil partnerships have had.

This Lords amendment is very welcome, and I want to reflect briefly on one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton): that this does not force a religious organisation to offer civil partnerships. If a Church decides it wishes only to offer marriage in a sacramental sense, it still has that choice. This is not about taking away anyone’s right or ability or forcing someone to offer something they do not wish to offer; it is about extending choice to those who currently do not have it.

I appreciate that not everyone wants to get married in church; that is not the right option for everyone—although for me it was. Not everyone necessarily wants to have the institution of marriage, given what some people foresee as its historical position. I personally profoundly disagree; I believe it is about a unique partnership that puts two people together for life, and that is very special.

My mother passed away in 2014, but my father would still see himself as married to my mother today, five years after her death. My grandparents were together for 57 years prior to my grandmother’s death. For them it was something that was unique and very special, and it signified what they meant to each other. I accept that for my family that was achieved through religious marriage in church, whereas for others it would be through the choice of a civil partnership which they feel better reflects their lifestyle or the choices they wish to make. I do not see why now in the 21st century the law should not allow them that opportunity. No one is not going to be able to get married because this has passed; it just gives people a choice.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Kevin Hollinrake

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some strong points. He will be aware that there is already a requirement for employers to give reasonable time off when people suffer such tragedies but, as he says, the Bill seeks to ensure that the employers who would not normally be generous and sympathetic also give people the time off that they need at times of great tragedy and grief.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is right that a reasonable employer will behave differently from the type of person at whom the legislation is aimed. To be blunt, the legislation will target the sort of person who adopts the employment practices of Scrooge and Marley—an admittedly small number of employers—but I do not want the Bill to offer a get-out for people who may want to act inappropriately. We must ensure that Parliament’s intention is clear in the legislation that we pass.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I take the points my hon. Friend is making. As I said at the outset, I fully support the Bill—I have no intention of giving a five-hour speech as an attempt to talk it out. When it comes to the key moment, I will not seek a decision on these amendments if that would endanger the Bill. However, it is right that we have this discussion today so that Ministers can listen to the opinions of the House. Sadly, tribunals and courts will be called on to interpret the Bill, but our discussion means they will be able to see clearly that Parliament was not setting a maximum and saying that the provision should stop there, but deciding where the floor—the minimum—should be.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. The Bill has an impact on the Treasury, with an annual cost of about £3.2 million, because the taxpayer—not the Treasury itself, clearly—will be picking up the tab for the statutory pay element. We have to take that key consideration into account. We must also consider costs for businesses, especially small businesses, as they will suffer the effects more than larger businesses. Small businesses find it much more difficult to cater for absence. As there is already a predicted cost of £2.6 million a year for small businesses, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to strike a balance by taking into account the interests of both business and the individuals who suffer these tragedies?

[Kevin Foster]

Obviously my hon. Friend is right to say that a balance needs to be struck. On issues such as how much leave there should be, who this applies to and how it applies, we need to strike a balance against cost, particularly to small businesses. It is worth pointing out, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) rightly mentioned, that many small businesses are likely to be the most reasonable with their employees in any case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton is a great champion of small businesses in this Chamber. Sometimes we rightly talk about not wishing to impose this cost or that cost, but a lot of the time we find that some of the worst examples of poorer employment practice are in one or two larger employers, where a rigid rule is applied fiercely to try to squeeze the last pound out, whereas smaller businesses work more as a team. If we walked into the room and were asked to guess who the owner of a small business was, we would not be able to do so, as the business works as a collective. I can think of hotels in Torbay where the owner of a hotel that is worth millions can be found serving the spuds, as the hotel does silver service—they do literally every job in the hotel, as well as being the owner and manager. However, I accept that there is a balance to be struck.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

I think that I am about to hear it now, so I happily give way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to come back on this point. We are clearly dealing with a minimum here. We expect employers to be—our evidence absolutely supports the fact that they are—generous and sympathetic in such situations. Many of them give full pay and provide whatever time is needed for the parent to try to recover—or to move on—from the tragedy. We are trying to cater for the isolated numbers of employers who do not take that approach. We believe that one in 10 does not provide a sympathetic and generous policy when these things happen. So we are trying to strike a balance while sending a signal to those employers that they should be generous and sympathetic in such situations.

[Kevin Foster]

I take on board my hon. Friend’s point, but legislating is not just about sending a signal—we can do that by tabling a motion, making a speech or putting a question to a Minister. This is about setting down a piece of law that is not signalling what employers should do, but telling them what they must do. He is right to say that the Bill will not make much difference at all to 90% of employers. The small business that works as a team and the larger employer that values its staff will be able to sit back and think, “This is pretty much what we do already,” with the exception that the Bill provides for statutory parental bereavement leave and for the taxpayer to make certain payments. The Bill is about dealing with that 10%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I recognise that for some employers, particularly microbusinesses in which there might be only two, three or even four employees, it is not about wanting to be nasty, but about the position of a business that is operating hand to mouth incurring the costs of agency staff and so on. That is why it is right that the taxpayer is involved in supporting people at a difficult time. I do not think that any of us object to the taxpayer sharing some of the costs of this provision, rather than it all being loaded on to employers. I accept that there is a balance between what we expect employers to do and what the taxpayer should be asked to pay for.

Having discussed microbusinesses, perhaps this is a good time to move on to amendment 8. I will be interested to hear the thoughts of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton about what type of job will be covered. Many people might think, “Really? You have a job and you get paid. That’s simple enough.” Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple in the modern economy. It is not like the situation in decades past when it was perhaps quite easy to identify someone’s employer.

The Bill refers to jobs of a kind specified by regulations, and I am particularly keen to know that there will not be a sort of shopping list of the jobs covered such that if someone delivers milk in the morning, they are be fine, but if someone works on a farm milking a cow, they will not be covered because that job is not listed. My amendment deals with the question of whether someone is employed, and we have a good definition of that in law. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is only too keen to define people as employed so that they can be taxed appropriately on their income from their employment.

I hope that we can explore exactly how we will cover some of the new models of employment, in which someone may not have a job with one employer but regularly works for a group. I am thinking particularly of the gig economy, in which someone might be working irregular shifts, but are to all intents and purposes an employee of an employer. How do we deal with different types of employment model? I accept that we will not be able to cover absolutely every single situation in which someone is paid to do something on someone else’s behalf. There will always be debates about how we treat self-employment. Indeed, the debate about national insurance contributions and what the self-employed are eligible to claim from the welfare and benefits system showed the difficulties with these things.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. The world of work is certainly changing. He will be aware of the Matthew Taylor review, which has been examining issues relating to the gig economy and how we define someone as an employee or a worker, as well as all the different categories of employment and self-employment. We want to keep options open in the Bill so that we can mirror the outcomes of the Taylor review when those issues are settled. We therefore will not have measures in the Bill that we cannot change; we will have flexibility to make sure that people who deserve to be covered by the Bill are covered.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for helping to bring some clarity to the matter. I did not want to get back to the old idea of what a “proper job” is that some of us used to hear at school. It is amazing how many people thought that certain things were proper jobs, and it has to be said that it was mostly men and that a proper job was one that was traditionally male orientated—surprise, surprise—and other things were just basic jobs. However, the sorts of jobs that were once dismissed—in care, healthcare and other areas—are vital in today’s economy, and we need people to be doing them and to see them as the type of job and career that they want to go into.

While exploring the Bill, I was concerned that we should not end up with Parliament in effect asking the Minister to draw up a list of every job he could possibly think of and every type of employment activity that could ever be done for an employer, so amendment 8 is about targeting whether someone is employed. I am conscious that we have to make sure that our language and intentions are fairly clear. We should bear in mind our brief debate on another private Member’s Bill, the Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill. Most of us would think that a trial was a very short period—perhaps an hour or two, just to see how someone mixed with a team—but the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) gave an example of a place that had interpreted a trial as several weeks of working for nothing. Clearly, none of us would view that as a trial; the process was just about trying to dodge minimum and living wage legislation. We need to make sure that there is no opportunity to misuse what we all might think are reasonable words in the English language.

I am conscious of time and wish to give others the opportunity to speak. I shall listen carefully to the arguments made by the Minister and the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, when they speak about my amendments. I have been reassured by some of the interventions I have taken from my hon. Friend, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for his interventions, which have helped to clarify some points. To be clear, I will support the Bill even if my amendments are not accepted. It would not be beneficial for anyone if the Bill was not passed.

This welcome Bill will help many in the darkest times of their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton can take great pride in the difference that his Bill will make to those people, and my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Colchester can take great pride in how they have used their personal experience to help others who end up in the same position. I support the Bill wholeheartedly and hope that the discussion of my amendments will help to make it even better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was pleased that my hon. Friend explained what otiose means. He is absolutely right that the Bill has been shaped as it has passed through the House. The consultation is a key part of that, and it is fair to expect that some of the Bill’s provisions will be different from those that we see today. Finally, I politely ask Members not to press their amendments to a Division and to allow the Bill to pass through the House and on to the statute book as quickly as possible so that we help more parents who suffer these terrible tragedies in their hour of greatest need.

[Kevin Foster]

It has been fascinating to listen to the past few hours of debate, and I am pleased by the discussion of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) and I. I was reassured to hear the Minister’s comments about the consultation, particularly that this is about setting a minimum, not a ceiling, and about practice in the civil service. I hope that the matters we have discussed today will be automatically included in the consultation, as my hon. Friend just said, without us having to write another letter stating, “As I said in the House of Commons on Friday 11 May, these are my views.” I look forward to the matter coming back for debate after the consultation has concluded, when I am sure there will be opportunities for discussion on the Floor of the House. Having listened to the Bill’s sponsor and the Minister, I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.



Third Reading

Queen’s consent signified.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Kevin Hollinrake

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies). The Hansard editors will now have to work out how to spell “blah blah blah” as well as “blah-di-blah”.

I am a natural optimist, but if the House will allow me I want to strike a slightly cautionary note at the beginning of my speech. Leaving the European Union was always going to be difficult. We have been members of the EU, and of Euratom, for 44 years and these are some of the complexities that we will have to deal with over the coming years if we are to make a success of leaving the European Union. Additionally, the European Union was always going to be difficult about this because it does not want us to leave. The negotiations will be difficult. It is also quite clear from their recent remarks that most Opposition Members—not many of whom are present at this time of the evening—are going to be difficult and try to frustrate the process.

However, difficult and impossible are two different things. I believe that the Prime Minister is taking the right approach in her negotiations with the European Union. On the one hand, she made a conciliatory and generous speech in Florence in setting out the terms that we were prepared to work on; on the other hand, she has stated clearly and quite rightly that we will prepare for no deal. The Bill is about preparing for no deal on Euratom, although Members across the House clearly want us to strike such a deal. It is no wonder that the Opposition do not think that this is necessary. We know from the shadow Chancellor’s comments yesterday on “The Andrew Marr Show” that Labour would not accept no deal in any circumstances. That means that they would accept the worst possible deal if that was the only deal on the table. It was also made clear in Labour’s manifesto that it would accept the worst possible deal rather than walk away with no deal. That is the most naive negotiating stance I have ever heard of. The shadow Business Secretary must agree that that is not the right approach to take in any negotiations.

It is absolutely right that we should make provision in the Bill for the nuclear industry, which is very important for the UK’s economy and for our energy needs. Nuclear already supplies around 21% of our electricity, and that will grow to around 42% by 2050. As some Members will know, I have shale gas in my constituency and I am often lobbied by shale gas protesters who say that we do not have an appropriate policy on energy and renewables. I want to pay tribute to the strategic approach that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is taking to meeting the energy needs of this country. We absolutely have a future in renewables, and nuclear will play a key part in that.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is also about building public confidence, and that developing civil nuclear power is separate from anything being used for military purposes? That is why these safeguards are absolutely right. They make it clear that civil nuclear is completely separate from any other objectives.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Civil nuclear is a key part of our energy requirements and, in turn, of our economy.

It might surprise Members—and certainly members of the wider public—to learn that the UK is the third best performing nation on the planet in the international climate change performance index. We are ahead of every country you could name apart from France and Germany. We have a strategic policy around nuclear and renewables that will continue to put this country at the forefront of the green energy industry. We are also investing in other important areas in relation to nuclear power.

The Minister recently said that the Government would continue to support the Taurus fusion project. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) said, the future capability of fusion has been talked about for some time. Indeed, when I was studying physics at Sheffield Polytechnic, which is now Sheffield Hallam University, a limitless supply of clean energy from fusion was talked about as the future. The nuclear industry of course also provides many jobs in the supply chain. My constituency—the bucolic rural idyll of Thirsk and Malton—has James Fisher Nuclear, the Derwent Training Association, which trains new generations of engineers for the sector, and many other such jobs.

All the Bill does is add a safeguarding responsibility to the safety responsibilities of the Office for Nuclear Regulation to ensure that we make good on our commitments under non-proliferation treaties. It will also implement our voluntary commitments with the IAEA. People may ask, “Can the UK have its own policy? Will it be too difficult for the UK to manage its own nuclear responsibilities or put the necessary regulations in place?” Clearly not. The Euratom countries obviously use that body to look after its nuclear interests, but most other countries do that independently. The UK has a long history of nuclear energy dating back to 1956, so we clearly have the experience and knowledge. We can, if necessary, place the current Euratom provisions under the Office for Nuclear Regulation to continue the quality, safe and robust regulations that we have been used to in this country. I commend the Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Foster and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

8. What progress the Government are making on relocating outside London central Government functions.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

12. What plans he has to relocate civil service jobs to cities, towns and regions outside London.

Health and Social Care

Debate between Kevin Foster and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. I do feel that we need more money now. I am sure the question of whether more money might be available is taking up some of the Chancellor’s time as he works on his Budget calculations for 8 March. In the short term, we need more money to plug the gap. In the longer term, we need a cross-party conversation on how we solve this problem.

The Select Committee has been an excellent forum through which to explore this issue and many others. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Committee Chair, mentioned in his remarks, we went to Germany to examine its system. It was very enlightening. In 1995, Germany moved from one system to another: from a local government-funded system that just did not work—they clearly saw this coming before we did—to a social insurance system. They are more used to that system in Germany, which has similar systems in place for health, pensions, unemployment and accident insurance. It works very well. It is cross-party, seems to be apolitical and takes a salary contribution of about 1.175%. It is a bit like auto-enrolment, but it is compulsory—it is a mandatory scheme. It means that when people need care they have a pot to call on. Needs are independently assessed, so they receive the level of provision that suits them. It can also be used to provide domiciliary care. Money coming back out of the system at the right time can go to help family members look after the person who is ill, so it has a social benefit as well as being a sustainable system that works in the longer term. We should look at that model. It is not the only one, but I reiterate—I know Members on both sides of the House feel the same way—that we should look at this issue in a cross-party way to ensure long-term sustainability.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am very much enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that the current method of local government funding does not help? There is a ward in my constituency where 9% of the population are aged over 85. Demographics are not properly reflected and the challenges faced by coastal communities in particular, as opposed to some of the more traditional challenges here in London, are not reflected in funding schemes.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The evidence clearly shows that the current methods of funding adult social care do not correlate with the needs in those areas. We need to take a strategic look at that. The Government are moving toward a different way of funding local authorities by 2020. A key part of business rates retention is the consideration of the allocation of funding. It is critical to put need first and foremost, so that need and the cost of delivering services are the cost drivers. Having a fair and transparent system is fundamental.

On adult social care and learning disabilities, one of the most heartening examples of how to deliver them in a different way, rather than looking at them from a single viewpoint, is the Botton Village “shared lives” concept, where people look after each other—co-workers and people in need of care alike. It is a fantastic and inspirational scheme.

Finally, I will touch on a couple of very small points. We should look at how people are charged for domiciliary care. Financial assessment for domiciliary care is different from that for residential care. I think money could be taken out of the system—it does not make much sense to me that the Government fund one thing one way and another thing another way—or people could contribute, if their houses are taken into account in their domiciliary care assessment.

My final point relates to co-terminosity. There are so many different services provided by so many different agencies working in different geographical boundaries. Co-terminosity works well in Sheffield, where all the agencies work together very effectively. In my area, it is completely different. There is a real mish-mash of different providers and geographical areas, which makes it difficult to provide a joined-up service.

Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Kevin Hollinrake

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 3rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

No, councils can make a reasonable surplus from their car parking and contribute it to their bottom line. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) is not present, as I think he would confirm that the town council in Stratford-on-Avon owns the car parks, rather than the district council, and, given the popularity of Stratford as a visitor destination, almost funds its operations—legitimately—through its car park ownership.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Increasing parking charges may be legitimate, but it might have a very damaging effect on local businesses. Is not the Bill’s purpose under clause 2(2) to give local authorities opportunities to put in place different conditions? If they want to raise charges, they might have to go through a consultation, but if they want to lower them, it makes it easier for them to do so, whereas my hon. Friend’s amendment allows them to do virtually anything without consultation?

Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Kevin Hollinrake

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 3rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I urge my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) not to press their amendments.

I understand the purpose of amendment 1, and I also noted the comments of the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). I realise that the amendment is intended to ensure that the views of local communities can be heard when a licence application is made. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will consider withdrawing it, given that the aim of the Bill is to create a lighter-touch regulatory regime for the smallest radio stations.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Bill is indeed about small commercial stations, and about the ability of community groups to broadcast. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must not allow the multiplexes to be dominated by large media companies, so that we do not end up with monopolies or people holding several licences?

[Kevin Foster]

I shall deal with the point in some detail when I speak about amendment 3. However, I agree that the thrust of the Bill is to enable community stations to go on to DAB. Theoretically they are already able to do so, but at present the scale is so large that very few operators of community stations have that opportunity. The example of London is often given. London’s local area is London, so community station operators wishing to operate in a particular part of it would find it extremely difficult to do so, because they would have to pay the costs of transmission to London. The sponsor’s message about an MOT for a car in Croydon is unlikely to be very relevant to someone living in Barking and Dagenham.

As I said in Committee, the Bill should be seen as the first stage of a three-stage process. It provides a legal framework for Government action. Without it, the DAB community sector simply will not exist, and the 10 trials will disappear. It also provides for a very limited ability to amend primary legislation through the affirmative procedure for specific purposes. That reflects what was done with community radio in 2004 and with local television in 2012, in strikingly similar circumstances and for strikingly similar purposes. I know that Members rightly wish to be careful about provisions of that kind, but I think that this provision makes sense, given its striking similarity to parliamentary precedent. The second stage will be the orders that will be necessary to create the detailed structure, which will be subject to detailed consultation. The third and final stage will be the issuing of licences by Ofcom to the individual multiplex operators.

Amendment 1 asks for public consultation. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital and Culture confirmed on Second Reading that the Government would initiate a full consultation on the details of how the new licensing scheme for small-scale digital radio multiplexes should operate. That consultation will enable the Government to take account of the different views expressed by community and commercial radio operators, and provide appropriate protections to ensure that licences offered by Ofcom are taken up and the position of community stations wanting DAB carriage are protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about small community radio stations that are on FM, rather than DAB. Vale Radio in my constituency has exactly that problem. It covers the Vale of York and the Vale of Pickering, but it cannot currently get on DAB because of the costs and the licensing regime. The Bill is intended to help such organisations.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the whole purpose of the Bill, and we can discuss the current regulatory system further on Third Reading. If the Bill does not survive today, or if it gets talked out, the national and local multiplexes will continue, which is fine for the largest radio operators because it suits their needs. The small community radio stations would take the hit and ultimately have fewer users. There would be less choice and diversity, and we would have a regulatory system that just does not reflect advancing technology.

I made the point on Second Reading that in the 1960s the outcome of an outdated attitude to broadcasting regulation was ships sitting just off our shores. The reality of not passing the Bill would be more community radio stations moving on to the internet. If we wanted to, my hon. Friend and I could set up an internet radio station in our office and start broadcasting. I am not sure how many people would want to listen—I see some nods of assent—but that is how technology is moving.

We can broadcast over the internet, but it does not have the ease of access of traditional radio broadcasting mediums. Yes, it is there and, yes, it is growing—the tech-savvy probably have apps on their phones so that they can listen—but it is not as easy as carrying around a simple, portable digital radio that is possibly smaller than a laptop, an iPad or a smartphone. That is why it is so important that we look to progress and look to pass the Bill unamended. There needs to be flexibility for the future. I would not want to set up restrictions in the Bill for well-intentioned reasons and find that, in a year or two’s time, we are stunting growth and development in a rapidly moving technology.

Let me be blunt. If we told our forefathers 30 or 40 years ago that a radio broadcasting system could be run off a laptop this big, they would have sat there in amazement. A broadcasting station then was a large room with a whacking great tower on it.

[Kevin Foster]

Yes, and that is the way technology is moving on. The Bill needs to be flexible, but it also needs to be adaptable because there are so many different locations. The Bill does not replicate the BBC’s guarantee of carriage on local and national multiplexes. The guarantee was relevant for the time and for the scale of those operations. I am loth to set a specific requirement in every single licence to guarantee community access, but it is almost certain that Ofcom, when looking at licence applications, will want to consider how it keeps diversity on a particular multiplex or how it gives opportunity. The evidence is that community radio stations have benefited fairly well from the small-scale trials. If we start to have a reservation or price controls—that is another thing we could consider—Parliament would get into odd arguments about exactly where we set those price controls in particular areas. The nature of small-scale multiplexes means that there will be lots more of them, which will inevitably bring down some broadcast costs.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kevin Foster]

Briefly, but I will then make some progress towards a conclusion.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There has to be an incentive for multiplex owners to invest in technology and equipment. Does this require significant investment? What rate of return can they expect? Obviously we need to create an incentive for such equipment to be established.

[Kevin Foster]

The Bill gives permission for some of these multiplexes to be run not for profit, effectively as community multiplexes, and there is some evidence that other operators—I gave the example of a university or a local authority—might wish to provide the infrastructure. I make it clear that we do not want to get into the game of local authorities running radio stations—that is not a council’s job. We could run the infrastructure under this licence for not-for-profit purposes, but a commercial station that makes a profit could be carried. The key issue is that, at the moment, someone can go from running an internet radio station in their bedroom to running a small-scale FM operation, and then build up their business and their listeners to become a more significant company. Under current regulations, someone wanting to go on to the digital system in some areas needs to be turning over £1 million a year to be able to pay the broadcast fees as part of that turnover. That is why this Bill is so important.

I am conscious of time, so I will wind up. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to withdraw her amendment for the reasons that I have outlined. I also urge the Community Media Association and groups such Radiocentre, which have been active in contacting Members, which I welcome, to work with the Government through the consultation to produce the best outcome that can deliver the objectives that I have outlined. This Bill is about opening up an opportunity, giving community stations a chance to go digital and helping stimulate creativity as we have seen in the 10 trial areas. I will say more on Third Reading, but, for now, I hope that my hon. Friend has received the assurance that she needs and will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on bringing the legislation forward, and on his deep understanding of some of the technologies that lie behind the fantastic evolution in our broadcasting abilities. I very much support the Bill, particularly as my hon. Friend said that it will create more competition for commercial operators in a marketplace that can be dominated by quite large national chains, even though they may present themselves as local operators. Small commercial operators competing for revenue and advertising with larger stations or networks can only be good for the opportunities of local people, businesspeople and community operators.

Vale Radio in my constituency is an excellent community operator with a deep understanding of the local area. It is run by local people, who regularly do slots such as “A day in the life of an MP”. In fact, they came to Westminster only last year to see what happens in a typical MP’s day. That local connection is incredibly important. Of course, these smaller operators need more affordable access, which is what the Bill is about. It will break down the larger DAB areas into chunks that are about 60% smaller than typical schemes available now. That inevitably means better, cheaper accessibility with bandwidth and spectrum put aside specifically for small commercial operators and community stations.

As my hon. Friends have mentioned, the equipment, including the multiplexes themselves, can be provided for not-for-profit operators, which again will mean better access at a lower cost that is more suitable for community operators. Community operators may be niche channels, but they very much relate to the local area with the content and local insights of their programmes. There is clearly demand for such channels and for this spectrum. I believe that there are 444 small commercial stations or community operators that would like to get on to DAB, but have no access at the moment. DAB is a growing part of the broadcasting market. Some 45% of consumers today listen on digital, and that figure will grow to 50% by the end of the year. Digital radio is certainly significant in providing access to the market, and it is how people will listen to radio in the future.

I would like to question my hon. Friend and the Minister about the number of licences multiplex owners can own. I referred in an intervention earlier to the need to make sure we do not end up in a monopolistic situation, with a media company owning lots of these multiplexes and having control over pricing. It is vital that there is a restriction on the number of multiplexes that one licence holder can hold. At the same time, of course, we need to balance that with the need for investment—clearly, there is investment in the technologies and the equipment and in the staffing—to make sure the Bill delivers a solution that sees the roll-out of multiplexes, while making sure community operators and small commercial stations get access at the right price.

[Kevin Foster]

I will keep this intervention fairly short because I am conscious that the Front Benchers will wish to say something. Perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend. If he looks at clause 1(4)(b), he will see that Ofcom would be able to

“make provision as to eligibility to hold a small-scale radio multiplex licence, including provision disqualifying persons who have an interest in a national or local radio multiplex service”.

That means that if it felt a monopoly was emerging in an area, it could use its powers. However, this is probably one more issue for detailed consultation and for the order, rather than for the Bill itself.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps monopoly is too strong a word. Nevertheless, we could get into a situation with a bit of a hinterland, where the operator of these multiplex licences has too strong a control, particularly in a given area. Putting some protections in place would make sure that affordability of access remained, while retaining an incentive for a commercial operator—these may well be commercial operators rather than not-for-profit operators—to invest.

I would like to congratulate the Department on its foresight in starting the trial in 2014 and on putting the time and investment into this new technology, which has led to its potential roll-out and created a new opportunity for a lot of commercial stations and community operators.

To conclude, I congratulate my hon. Friend again on the deep understanding he has shown of the process of Parliament in getting this far—he is nearly over the finishing line—and on his understanding of the technology. His work will help many operators and many communities.