Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Rebecca Pow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 13th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting observation. In some cases, community radio can become quite famous across the country—I will touch on hospital radio later—because it reflects the community in which it is being broadcast. As I will go on to say, some communities have different language services that would not necessarily have an appeal across the UK, but they speak to a particular need and provide people with what they want to hear. There is an explosion of opportunities on the internet, so it is strange that what one can get on to the radio is restricted. We even have the bizarre situation in which many areas can receive more TV channels, broadcast free-to-air to homes, than radio stations. That contrasts with the situation that most of us will remember from about 20 or 25 years ago when we still only had the main analogue TV stations, but radio had started to expand. The Bill seeks to expand that sort of choice so that people can get more local news and things from their local community that mean something to them, but not necessarily to an entire region.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his clear explanation of the difference between digital and analogue. Does he agree that rural areas such as mine are where community radio stations can really come into their own? Such areas often cannot link into the main transmitters and have sparse populations, and small community radio stations can serve a really important purpose.

[Kevin Foster]

I absolutely agree. One issue at the moment is that if a community radio station is looking to serve a small community, that might be viable via FM but the jump to DAB is impossible owing to the current licensing structure and the revenues that it would have to produce. Even in a rural setting, the station might have to cover a nearby city to make the move to DAB worthwhile, which can take away from the special element of community radio. The Bill aims to provide more communities and areas with a practical, rather than theoretical, way of getting a digital radio station. Many rural areas would be unable to generate the type of revenue necessary to support such a move and, to be blunt, many people in the theoretical listening area might not want to listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend will have read the Bill, and he will have seen that subsection (4)(c) of proposed new section 258A of the Communications Act 2003 states that Ofcom may

“require small-scale radio multiplex services to be provided on a non-commercial basis”.

The main thrust of my argument is that we would have a shelf—meaning that a service that is trying to grow has to jump immediately from a very cheap internet, almost market stall-style, operation to a £1 million a year turnover operation—which exists in very few other industries.

My intention is that such multiplexes will mainly focus on community radio and will be the main focus of Ofcom licensing, although I emphasise that if the Bill were to become law there would need to be detailed consultation with the industry on its operation. It is possible to provide very small-scale services through such multiplexes but, fundamentally, we are looking at non-commercial services. My hon. Friend will see that non-commercial does not necessarily mean a totally non-profit or charitable operation—we should be clear about that. The Bill provides for infrastructure that allows digital radio to be broadcast into a certain area, and that infrastructure may carry some for-profit stations. If the Bill gets its Second Reading today, it will be interesting to explore in Committee how to refine it to ensure that its target is clear and absolute.

I make it clear that the Bill would not put any new requirements on existing multiplex operators, nor is it intended to provide a way of bypassing licensing regimes. An operator would not be able to have multiple small-scale licenses to avoid going through the current Ofcom licensing procedure for clearly large-scale commercial operations. I use the analogy of a retailer—either charitable or any other form of retailer—that grows from a market stall. Imagine if the only options that a retailer had were either a market stall or a large department store.

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way again. He sparks many memories from my long career in radio. I used to get incredibly frustrated when I tried to bid into tortuously complicated systems, particularly the BBC system, to try to get my ideas through. The Bill would offer an opportunity for people to set up their own outlet and broadcast their own ideas. It would give many opportunities to people on many different levels. I know that we can now do these things on the internet, but will he comment on that? I particularly wanted to pursue environmental, gardening and countryside ideas, and, back in the day, I was told that no one was interested in those things. Of course, that has been proved quite wrong.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend makes the fantastic point that sometimes a community radio operation can take a broadcasting risk that a large-scale commercial operation, or even the BBC, with its requirement to satisfy licence-fee payers that their payments offer value for money, cannot take, and can develop a service and show that it works. Earlier this week we were talking about the Green Investment Bank, which was started to address a perceived market failure, but now private investors want to take it on and develop some of its actions into a profit-making venture because they believe the market has changed. As my hon. Friend points out, broadcasting is the same.

A service that may not be seen as inherently profitable, or as something that a broadcaster would want to launch fully commercially, could be allowed to build its name in a community setting. Indeed, an individual can build their abilities and talents with a community service, allowing them to move on in broadcasting more generally. Community services would effectively act as an incubator for what might become successful and popular services. However, if people cannot make that jump, we are in essence restricting the options to those who are tech-savvy and can go online to access such content. People will then find that there are no community services out there when they tune in on their DAB radio, or they will have to rely on FM technology, which clearly puts them at a disadvantage because of the quality of the output they will be able to produce.

The Bill would fix the issue with the scale of digital broadcasting by allowing the creation and licensing of smaller-scale multiplexes that can operate in a local area, giving a new opportunity to create the infrastructure to deliver digital radio. I make it clear that the technology has moved on hugely since the House last considered these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for such a passionate intervention on behalf of hospital radio stations. I totally agree that it is about providing not only a song to listen to but a sense of community in the hospital. Why would we want to maintain a licensing system that effectively bars such stations from any possibility of transmitting digitally? Why would we want to say to them, “You can go digital, but you’ll have to do so on the same basis as fairly large regional radio stations, or radio stations owned by fairly large media conglomerates”? Why would we want to send that message by not giving the Bill its Second Reading and thereby not allowing the development of a small-scale DAB transmission system? We want to do that not only for the technical reason that it would be nice to have a slightly better sound system, but because we think it is right to give stations the opportunity, if that is the direction they want to go in.

The whole point of the Bill is to provide options. It provides the option if stations want to go to DAB. It does not make any requirements on anyone, and nor does it require any of the existing multiplex operators to do anything to allow smaller stations to go to DAB. It simply gives those stations the opportunity to do it themselves, in a practical and affordable way. Without a licensing system of this nature and without the framework in the Bill, they would not be able to do it. Those are all reasons why giving this opportunity to the community radio sector is the right thing to do.

There are lots of examples of how the Bill could help to drive a local service, creating news and information from South Uist to the Isles of Scilly. As I keep saying, the point is to give people a chance and take the legislative opportunity to form infrastructure for that growth. I am not asking the taxpayer suddenly to fund a whole load of small-scale multiplexes and broadcasting equipment throughout the country, and I am not asking existing multiplex owners to provide space for these services on their broadcast systems. The Bill is about providing an opportunity.

Although it is not the main thrust of the Bill, I have given a little thought to whether services of the type I have described might in future provide an opportunity to help to sustain local newsrooms. Throughout the country, many local newspapers are struggling to maintain the capacity for investigative journalism at a local level. In the past, Parliament rightly ensured that there were strong restrictions in place to prevent a potentially dominant local newspaper owner from also owning one of the handful of local FM licences. The coming of the internet and the growth of other news sources means that in future a wider platform may be needed to sustain some level of professional journalism in a local area, or, bluntly, to avoid it being reduced to only the BBC having a pool of paid local journalists available. That is not something I wish to dwell on in discussing the Bill, but it is perhaps worth considering the role of smaller-scale digital radio operations when it comes to future policy development.

[Rebecca Pow]

If my hon. Friend is saying that the taxpayer will not have to fund these mini-multiplexes, where will the money come from? Will it have to be factored into what each community radio station pays to use the service?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. In essence, it would be similar to how FM transmissions are funded, with stations getting the equipment and going on to the licence. There might be grant funding in other environments. For example, a local authority might decide to help by providing the infrastructure—I must emphasise here that I am talking about the infrastructure, not the service. It is not the role of a local council to provide a radio station, in the same way that it is not its role to use taxpayers’ money to provide a local newspaper. For me, it is about providing an opportunity, but who would it be funded by? I think that we have seen from the trials that, yes, there would be some demand from community stations for the infrastructure to be provided, and, as has been mentioned, the costs have fallen significantly. The cost to install such a service can be relatively low, particularly if there is a friendly owner of a tall building nearby, which means that a station does not need to go to the expense of building a mast.

We see the community radio sector flourishing on analogue without heavy taxpayer support or subsidy. I do not see any reason why the community digital radio infrastructure could not develop in a similar way. Allowing schemes to go ahead would give us an opportunity to see what happens in reality. It is possible—particularly if we move to all digital—that the Minister will decide to provide some sort of support to help community radio stations convert to DAB, but that is not the focus for today. Today is about creating an opportunity for radio stations. Once those stations have taken up the opportunity, we can look at their experience and see where new services have started up. I cannot see why things will be any different in Torbay than they are in Bristol or Taunton. If the opportunity is there, people seem to want to take it up and move forward with it.

There may be some opportunities for groups such as councils and universities to consider providing the infrastructure to allow creativity to spawn in their area. Again, as I keep saying, this is about infrastructure and about providing an opportunity. It is for others then to use their sparks of entrepreneurship to take specific ideas forward. It is not for Parliament to legislate on whether there should be a community digital radio station in a particular area or whether a particular operator should be required to put up an aerial or a broadcasting system.

As I have said several times, the Bill does not require any station to move to DAB; nor does it require anyone who has a multiplex to provide space on it. There has been a debate about our entire radio system going digital, but that is not something I want to discuss today. Today is about merely providing an opportunity to go digital; it is not about forcing anyone.

This Bill does not seek to interfere with current national or local multiplexes. It is quite specific in clause 1. Paragraph 4 (b) clearly says that provision may include

“disqualifying persons who have an interest in a national or local radio multiplex”.

Any licence may also include provision to require services provided via the multiplex to be done on a non-commercial basis. Yet there is a small bit of flexibility to allow for unique circumstances where there might be a pressing case. I urge Members who have specific concerns to join the Bill Committee to look at the whole matter in depth. I know that there will be a debate about how exactly we get the law just right on this point.

Under paragraph 4(e), it is possible to reserve some space on a small-scale multiplex for particular services, which might be of benefit in more isolated communities or where there are limited opportunities to install new infrastructure. One point that may come up is that, in some locations—it certainly would not apply in central London—a small number of tall buildings may be the only realistic option for installing the infrastructure. It therefore might make sense in an individual location to have the requirement in the licence that access must be provided for another service. This is about not compelling people to do so on existing infrastructure; it is about ensuring that, for example, where there are four tall buildings in a particular area, one operator cannot make an agreement with the owner that they should be the only one who has the right to install broadcast equipment and then seek a licence, effectively excluding others.

The Bill aims to put a draft framework in place that makes it clear that Parliament intends to legislate without making the provisions so rigid that unique circumstances cannot be accommodated. As stated in the explanatory notes, the final details of the regulatory framework will be subject to a full consultation with the industry.

I recognise that this Bill has a targeted power to modify primary legislation by statutory instrument. However, in justification, there are already precedents in using such a power to create lighter-touch regulatory regimes for smaller audio visual services. A similar approach was taken by Parliament to create such regimes by using secondary legislation for community radio—via the Community Radio Order 2004—and local television, with secondary legislation in 2012. This Bill builds on those precedents in strikingly similar circumstances. The power in this Bill will be used in such a deregulatory way and, as mentioned earlier, the Bill will not create additional burdens for existing multiplex operators. Finally, I can confirm that the power is exercisable only by affirmative order, ensuring scrutiny in both Houses before such modifications could come into force.

I am sure that the Minister will wish to set out in his speech similar points and to confirm that that is the intention of the Government, although I hope that Members will be reassured both by my comments and the affirmative order provisions. As I have said, the power builds on precedents in very similar areas of policy development. Therefore, it is appropriate to have it in this Bill.

In summary, this Bill creates opportunities for new creative talent to flourish, gives hundreds of community stations a practical and an affordable opportunity to go digital, and provides—I know that we will hear this from many Members who are about to speak—the chance for more communities to have a unique choice of radio stations that reflects the area in which they live. Not to give this Bill its Second Reading would not help any radio operator, would not protect any interest and would not see things develop in a better way. It would merely block the growth and development of community radio stations and restrict development in the industry in a way that we would find absolutely ridiculous in any other sphere. This is about supporting small community stations, giving that local opportunity and allowing broadcast radio to reflect the explosion of creativity that is taking place on the internet. The days of strictly regulating and controlling very small numbers of operations are gone, which is why I hope all Members will support giving this Bill its Second Reading today.