Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

Interestingly, I was happy to give way to the hon. Lady, but she did not give way when I wanted to intervene, but we will leave that aside. If the large organisations that run these sporting bodies put half a mind to it, there would be many ways in which they could ensure—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. All Members are doing is holding up the debate.

[Mr Nuttall]

If those organisations want to ensure that the tickets are being used by the clubs, that is for them to deal with. We have seen what happened with the Rugby Football Union. The tickets are sent to the clubs, supposedly for use by the grass roots, and they are then sold on by the clubs. The tickets get leaked out into the open market. We cannot interfere with the free market; that is a fact of life. No matter how we dress it up or what legislation we introduce, tickets will find a way to be sold at the market price—what somebody is prepared to pay for it.

United Kingdom Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My view—I suspect it might well be that of my hon. Friend, too—is that if the Government wish to increase the tax yield on behalf of the nation and to make it easier for individuals and companies to abide by their obligations, the way forward is to pass simpler tax legislation that we can all understand. I am sure that my hon. Friend has greater expertise in these matters than I do, but I have always found tax legislation particularly difficult to follow. I do not know the latest figures for Tolley’s tax guides, but when I was in practice in the legal profession they were substantial volumes and I suspect that they can only have grown in the past few years. Each one, on one tax alone, is a substantial doorstop.

It is no surprise that loopholes are discovered by accountants and tax advisers because the law is so complex and convoluted. There are so many different taxes, some of which overlap, that there is scope for tax loopholes to arise by accident. Governments do not set out to create tax loopholes other than those that are set out in legislation by design, they are precisely what they are called—tax loopholes.

As has been mentioned, it is often the Government’s desire to create what might be called loopholes, such as ISAs. I have been waiting to get to this point, as it gives me my second opportunity this morning to refer to ISA. This time, I do not mean the International Seabed Authority but the individual savings account. Before I looked into deep-sea mining, that was the only form of ISA I had heard of. ISAs are a form of tax avoidance set up to replace personal equity plans and were established as a means of encouraging people to save. They were set up to encourage private individuals to save in a tax-efficient manner in that they would not have to pay income tax on the income their account had earned. That could be called a tax loophole, but it is a legal tax loophole set up by the Government.

Let me return to the Bill. We must draw a distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Let us be clear: tax evasion is already illegal, but almost weekly in this House I hear the two terms being confused. People say that someone has been a tax avoider, suggesting that they have acted illegally. Well, if they have, they are not a tax avoider; they are a tax evader, and they should be brought to book and prosecuted. I have no sympathy with them whatsoever. If someone has deliberately under-declared their income, I entirely agree that they should be brought to book by the Revenue and Customs, that they should be prosecuted and, in certain cases, sent to prison. Let us not beat about the bush. I am sure I am in agreement with my hon. Friend the Minister on that. I do not want to go easy on people who have deliberately avoided their obligations to society by breaching our tax legislation in such a way as to avoid paying their dues and demands under the law. That increases the burden on everyone else.

Of course, we already have measures in place to provide the mechanism for the Revenue to ferret out these people. It can open up inquiries into their tax affairs, and it frequently does. A whole industry exists around dealing with inquiries into people’s tax affairs. My accountant sent me details of an insurance policy that I could take out for that very occasion. I could pay a premium, and then if my tax affairs were investigated by the Revenue, the policy would cover my accountancy costs while the inquiry was dealt with.

However, returning to the Bill, our Government have already taken a great deal of action on tax avoidance and tax evasion. Since 2010, the Government have collected over £23 billion in extra tax by challenging the tax arrangements of large businesses. I am informed that, by tackling transfer pricing alone, the Government have collected £2 billion since 2010. It may well be that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is introducing the Bill because he thinks that those figures are not high enough. If the measures in the Bill are such a good idea, why, in the 13 years of the previous Labour Government, under Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), was none of these measures introduced? If it is such a good idea now, why was it not such a good idea then? I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister ever went to the Treasury team at the time with this Bill and said, “Look, here is the answer to our problems.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The debate is not about then; it is about now, and it is about the Bill before us. I do not want a debate on whether it should have been done in 1985 or 1998; it is about now. I know that you are very good at wanting to get into the detail of the Bill; you must get back to it.

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would just make the point that perhaps the reason why such legislation was not introduced by the last Labour Government is that it is not a very good idea. I will attempt to demonstrate, if I may, by looking, as you rightly suggest, at the detail of the Bill, why it is not a very good idea.

Detailed the Bill indeed is, running to 13 clauses. It deals essentially with three elements: the disclosure of the tax affairs of large companies, the tax affairs of individuals, and the tax affairs of trusts. Those are the three primary areas that the Bill seeks to attack. The first of those relates to large companies, which, in answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, we have already established covers not just public limited companies but those purely in the private sector.

The Bill provides that the Companies Act 2006, passed under the last Labour Government, should be amended by adding new section 409A, which would require a company to provide in respect of each one of its related undertakings its registered name; the jurisdiction of its incorporation; its company number; the jurisdictions in which it trades; the trading name it uses in each jurisdiction if that is different from its registered name; the precise nature of its trade, sufficiently described in such a manner as to enable those activities to be accurately identified; the percentage of the related undertaking controlled by the company; a statement of the turnover, net profit before tax, current taxation liability owing, number of employees and their total employment cost and the net assets of the related entity for the period for which the company is reporting, whether such data be audited or otherwise; and finally, the web address where the most recent financial statements can be found. If that does not increase the burden on companies, I do not know what does.

The real danger with all this added bureaucracy and red tape is that it makes this country a less desirable place to do business. As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, there may well be merit in respect of a public company putting this information in the public domain, but I do not see that to be case in respect of private limited companies, which are not excluded. Certainly I do not see the benefit in respect of individuals.

Clause 3 places on HMRC an obligation, no later than 1 March each year, arithmetically to combine for each taxpayer who has submitted a tax return by 31 January in respect of all their taxable income of all sorts, with a few exceptions, and to publish those in descending order of magnitude—in other words, the 250 wealthiest individuals. This clause gives the revenue just one month to complete the task. The tax returns need not be in until 31 January, and within one month it has to have carried out this rather complicated calculation, which I will not go into the details of. Subsection (2) requires HMRC to publish, no later than 15 March each year, the 250 tax returns for the previous tax year ended on 5 April that ranked highest on the listing produced in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1). Subsection (3) requires that they should not be anonymised, and this is the crucial point about this clause—they would all be public information. In other words, the private tax affairs of any individual will no longer be private.

I can draw only one conclusion from that: there is a real risk that, were the Bill enacted, it would cause the wealthiest individuals in our society—I hasten to add that I very much doubt the Bill would ever bother me—to go elsewhere. We as a nation would lose their wealth and the income it produces. To return to the point with which I started, I fail to see how that would benefit what both the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton and I want to see, which is improved public services. We would not be able to improve our public services if the wealthiest individuals in our country and all the tax they pay disappeared as a result of onerous and intrusive obligations that the Bill imposes on them. They would simply use their wealth to look around the world, find a more suitable home and tax regime and leave our shores.

I want to address in particular the obligations that the Bill places on our banks, because they give rise to a great deal of complication. Clause 5 requires financial institutions to

“notify Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Companies House that they have opened or closed an account in the United Kingdom for a company within thirty days of that account being opened or closed stating—

(a) the name and registered number of the company;

(b) the address at which they correspond with that company;

(c) the names and full addresses, dates of birth and nationalities of those persons who they have accepted as having authority to take action with regard to the account;

(d) the names and addresses, dates of birth and nationalities of those persons who they have identified as the beneficial owners of the company in question as required by Regulation 5 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007;

(e) the number of the account that they have opened; and

(f) the numbers of any other accounts that they maintain for the company.”

I may be reading this wrongly, but there does not appear to be any question whatsoever about the size of the company. It does not say that the company has to be of a certain size; it simply says that if a company opens a bank account, it has a duty to report it. That covers literally thousands and thousands of bank accounts. It would increase enormously the burden on our financial institutions and banks at a time when we want them to concentrate on the much more important task of getting the British economy moving again and on lending to businesses. I do not want our bankers to have to fill in forms and write down the names and addresses of companies and the addresses to which they write. That would stop them doing their primary task, which is to play their part in getting the British economy moving and growing. As we know, it is starting to grow, but there is much more to do.

Let us be clear: no one is suggesting that the Bill does not have the best of intentions behind it. However, the Government have already increased significantly the compliance yield, which is the amount that the Government expect to get from tax—

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister gives way, it may help if I say that we are not going to have a love-in about Bury, either North or South, or the north-west.

[Mr Nuttall]

I will take the Minister’s good wishes back to Bury, but to return to the Bill, does he agree that it has potential advantages for businesses based there? Opportunities will open up for them as a result of it, maybe not directly but through the supply chain.

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember—he will know this from first-hand knowledge—how wide the industrial base is in Bury. For example, I recall being very impressed with how many were involved in the aerospace industry.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What a choice! I call Mr Nuttall.

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As always, it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who went through the amendments with his usual courtesy and in a good-natured and thoughtful way. I am extremely grateful for some of the explanations he gave. I am not entirely convinced by every one of them, as I will explain, but I am extremely grateful that he put forward the promoters’ case so eloquently on their behalf.

It has already been a long old road for this Bill, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. Only yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I noticed that it was up for debate this evening, I said, “I seem to recall that I might have spoken on Second Reading.” He said, “I think you did.” I said, “I can’t recall when that was.” He replied, “Oh, it was about March time,” so I went away and looked it up. I found that Second Reading did indeed take place about March time, but March last year—on 6 March 2012, to be precise.

The Bill has changed fairly substantially since it was first introduced in the other place. It has gradually shrunk in size, as clause after clause has been shed, for one reason or another. Members might well be wondering what has happened in the intervening period—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Well, let me help the hon. Gentleman. We are discussing the amendments, and we do not need to hear the history of the Bill prior to the amendments because, in fairness, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has already set out the subject very well. I know that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is desperate to speak only to the amendments.

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am indeed. In one sentence, let me say that this is relevant because there was an opposed Committee meeting on 6 November last year that resulted in the Bill shrinking since the last time we discussed it, so we now have a different Bill—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Don’t worry, I do not need to see the Bill shrinking before my eyes. All I want to hear being discussed are the amendments, and I know that that is all the hon. Gentleman is going to do. No more sentences; we are going to stick to the amendments.

[Mr Nuttall]

I was just finishing the sentence, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I shall start with amendments 1 and 2. I am surprised that only two of the amendments have been accepted by the promoters. As has already become evident, there are some good arguments for many of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Amendments 1 and 2 deal with the starting dates. They are worth considering because it would make sense, if we are introducing new laws that will apply all across London, to have them start at the same time. I listened carefully to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about the need for complete flexibility. He also suggested that it would be somewhat draconian to introduce new rules to be applied across London all at the same time. The other side to that argument is that, if the boroughs introduced the new rules on different dates—or even in different years—there could be confusion, to say the least, as to which boroughs had adopted a particular new rule and which had not.

Let us look at the details of clause 3(2) and (3). They imply that different start dates could be set even within the same borough. Subsection (2) states:

“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purposes of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to different areas.”

I emphasise the words “to different areas”. The only way in which subsection (3) differs is in its final three words, which are “to an area”. It states:

“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purposes of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to an area.”

I appreciate the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East that the signs could be put in place for temporary reasons, or to implement temporary traffic flow measures. Obviously, no one could possibly argue that that kind of sign should not be put up and then taken down again so as to suit the circumstances. However, I see no reason why that could not apply even if amendments 1 and 2 were accepted and those two subsections were left out of the Bill, which would be a sensible step to take.

Amendment 3 would add the words

“and approved by the Secretary of State for Transport”

to the end of clause 4(13). In an intervention, I said that I took issue to a small degree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. First of all, by limiting the provision to the Secretary of State for Transport, there could be problems in the future if, for example, there were not a Secretary of State for Transport. Personally, I would prefer the description “the Secretary of State”. I heard the Minister say in an intervention that in any event, this matter should be dealt with by the Mayor of London, and there might well be some merit in that.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The Question is, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment C6 to the Canterbury City Council—

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Nuttall, I was waiting, but you did not jump up as quickly as you normally do. I do not want to stop you from having at least a minute.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Quite a few Members wish to speak, so may I ask for short speeches? That will mean that we can get everybody in and all the views will be on the record.

[Mr Nuttall]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), although I do not agree with him on many occasions. I do not agree with him today either, except on one thing—the Government will get this measure through today, and that is because they are doing absolutely the right thing. One thing that I heard time and again from my constituents in the last election campaign was that they were sick and tired of the number of people taking a lifestyle choice to live a life on benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has mentioned.

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I appreciate that my hon. Friend, for reasons that I know not, opposed last week’s motion to allow electronic hand-held devices in the Chamber, but one great advantage of now being allowed such devices is that I was able immediately to follow his advice, go to www.capc.co.uk and access the website of the Campaign Against Political Correctness. On it, there can be found the “Not in my name” section, where Bolaji Alajija, a 42-year-old student nurse from north London, says:

“I don’t see why there is all the fuss. What’s the harm in having a black doll? It’s exactly the same as a white doll. People shouldn’t be so sensitive.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind Members that, although they are allowed to use iPads, they have to make a speech without continuously reading from them. I am sure Mr Nuttall will take that on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who spoke with such authority on the matter. I am a sponsor of the Bill and am obviously rising to support it.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for bringing us the Bill. Millions of people across the country will be saying, “Hooray” this morning because at last somebody has started to roll back the tide of political correctness. I am pleased to be joined in support for the Bill by my right hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), and my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).

I want to follow up one or two of the points made by earlier speakers. The first is about racist jokes. Over the years, the nature of comedy in this country has changed, but we must not think that because we have changed it means that racist jokes were restricted only to this country. I understand that in Canada jokes were often told about the Newfoundlanders—the Newfies. No one took offence. It was part and parcel of their way of life—their culture—just as we have Irish jokes. It is not demeaning in any way.

Like the Bill’s promoter, I am a Yorkshireman and we also have jokes about Yorkshiremen. Jokes about sections of the community are common. I have often heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tell jokes about Lancashire, and, indeed, I have heard him telling jokes about people from Sheffield and Rotherham. Nobody took offence at that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

They may not have taken offence, but as we both know, there is nothing about jokes on the face of the Bill. I know that an argument is being built, but I think we can move on from the jokes now—much as I am tempted by the mention of Yorkshire.

[Mr Nuttall]

Earlier in the debate the question was asked: can we take equality too far? Does it mean changing the nature of our society? Can we take free speech too far? In the same way, when I was young—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure doors matter to people who are over 2 metres—usually it is 6 feet 6 inches—but I cannot see the connection between the Bill and where we are being led, so I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to bring us back now to the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

I will indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I make is where do we draw the line? I will leave—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. To help the hon. Gentleman, I have drawn the line at doors.

[Mr Nuttall]

I entirely accept that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will leave that point there.

The new positive action provisions make it clear that employers must not adopt policies or practices designed routinely to favour candidates with a certain protected characteristic of whatever nature, even where there is evidence of under-representation or disadvantage. All suitably qualified candidates must be considered on their individual merits for the post in question. Current positive action provisions in employment relate only to training or encouragement—for example, mentoring schemes for ethnic minority staff where they are under-represented in senior roles, or open days to encourage women applicants in male-dominated sectors. This merely serves to upset and discriminate against all those who are not allowed to take part in such training. Why should they not receive the same training just because of their racial background, sex or particular individual characteristics?

The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 was originally presented on 17 October 2001. The key objective of the Act was to enable a political party, should it wish to do so, to adopt measures that regulate the selection of candidates for certain elections in order to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women as candidates in that party. In south Yorkshire in the 1980s I was regularly involved in the selection of parliamentary candidates. Of, say, 50 applications that we would typically receive for a seat, there would be on average 45 from men, three from women and two from ethnic minority candidates. It follows, therefore, that with 90% of the applications being from white males, very often a male was selected, but we were selecting purely on merit.

There were many examples, and there continue to be many examples in the Conservative party, of women who have succeeded on their merits. I know from Mrs Nuttall that she feels extremely patronised whenever there is any talk of special treatment being given to women.

Broadcasting (Public Service Content) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 1st April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I know that I look old, but I must admit that I do not remember that. Indeed, I was not aware of it. It is interesting to learn why they are called soap operas. I always wondered why it was. That is well worth knowing.

There is a huge amount of content on the BBC that most people outside the House would not consider to be part of the public service remit. It is worth examining the definition of public service broadcasting in more detail, and it is worth looking at how other countries deal with the issue, because the problems that we are discussing are not unique to this country.

An independent media is part and parcel of any free democracy. People always think about newspapers in this respect, of course, and talk about “the free press”, but it is not just about the free press nowadays; rather, it is about free broadcasters. It is often considered to be one of the defining qualities of a banana republic or a dictatorship that the Government have seized control of the state broadcaster. I well understand the points made earlier that we, as politicians, do not want to go down that route; of course we do not. The way to stop that happening, however, is to allow a diversity of broadcasters, each of whom if necessary would—as the Bill allows—be able to receive small sums in funding. I am talking here not about billions of pounds, but about perhaps £20 million or £30 million.

Let us consider how many separate public service broadcasters we could therefore have in this country. That is a tremendous vision; it is a vision for the 21st and the 22nd centuries. There could be dozens of broadcasters, and they would, perhaps, be broadcasting in a different way from in the past: not over the television, but via the internet—and, increasingly, the mobile internet. People will therefore be watching these different providers as they go about their daily lives.

That points to an issue that I might address after I have finished my opening remarks. In the past, if someone watched a show on television on a Saturday night, they could be pretty sure on the Monday morning when they went into school or work that almost everybody else had also watched it. However, we have now already reached a situation where there are so many TV channels that the odds are that no one else has watched that show, because what takes one person’s fancy to watch of an evening will most probably be different from what takes someone else’s fancy to watch.

Some people, including me, have not even subscribed to Sky television. Therefore, if someone talks to me about a Sky programme that they have watched, I will not have been able to see it because I do not have a Sky box. That is my choice, however; I have chosen not to subscribe.

However, I might choose to subscribe under certain circumstances. The programmes the BBC no longer broadcasts that I miss most are the cricket test matches. A process was gone through, and they were bought up by a different broadcaster. I accept that, but one of the problems with the power and might of the BBC is that it can very often bid up the prices far more than a small broadcaster could afford. Nevertheless, live television coverage of the test matches has been lost from terrestrial TV. Although there is still the highlights package, which is available in the evening, ball-by-ball coverage has now gone to Sky, and I have no problem with that. However, if the cricket was available as a package on its own, so we could pay just for the Sky cricket content rather than the whole sports package, I might be interested in subscribing.

We have seen that development in horse racing. There are now channels specifically for horse racing. This is relevant because our debate is about the future of broadcasting. At present, horse racing is also on the BBC, however. The BBC uses some of the taxpayers’ licence fee to pay for the cost of broadcasting horse racing, and it is directly competing with other broadcasters such as the At The Races channel. That channel might like to broadcast the Cheltenham gold cup, the grand national and other major races.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are now getting into too much programme detail. We have touched on cricket, horse racing and “EastEnders”, and I recognise they may all be important, but we now need to turn to the content of the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

Hon. Members have raised the question of public service, and it may well be that sport does not fall into that category, although as a matter of fact these things are being dealt with at the moment.

I wish briefly to examine the arrangements in some other countries, which have struggled to tackle this problem of how to deal with paying for an independent broadcaster. In Pakistan, the public broadcaster is a state-owned corporation—the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation—which was funded publicly through money obtained from television, radio and video cassette recorder licensing. Its Radio Pakistan has stations covering all the major cities and 80% of the country, serving 95.5 million listeners, which is more than we have in the UK. It also has its own world service, broadcasting in seven languages daily.

Sadly, events in Japan have meant that the Japanese station that many of us have been able to see recently, as it has shown the coverage following the earthquake and tsunami, is its main public broadcaster, NHK—the Japan Broadcasting Corporation. Many English speakers often refer to it informally as “Radio Tokyo”. It was set up in 1926 and was modelled on the BBC. It is funded by a receiving fee paid by every Japanese household, it has no commercial advertising and it maintains a position of strict political impartiality.

Malaysia has a public service broadcaster that is entirely state-owned. It was previously funded publicly through money obtained from television licensing, but it is now state subsidised, as Malaysia has abolished TV licences. Malaysia operates 16 state and seven district radio stations, as well as two national terrestrial television channels. Croatia, interestingly, has a mixed approach. The last figures I could find were from 2002 and they showed that 70% of the funding for HRT—I will not attempt to pronounce the name of Croatia’s national broadcaster—comes from broadcast user fees for each house, with the remainder being made up by advertising.

The best and most well-known other example of public service broadcasting can be found in the United States, whose arrangements are entirely different. Its public service broadcasting is decentralised and is not Government operated, yet nobody in this House could possibly say that the media—the broadcast and electronic media—in the US is anything other than free, impartial and independent.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Interventions should be short and stick to the point of the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

There is a danger that the Bill will do exactly that, because the more well-off members of our society will be able to afford to pay the premium, while the vast majority—ordinary, working-class members of our society—will simply be prohibited from purchasing higher-priced organic goods.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. One point is enough, and I am sure Gibraltar will not be affected.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to ensure that these policies are consistent at an international level. One would think that the first place to start would be our overseas territories, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) would support that view and ensure that that is where we started, although whether the overseas territories would be that keen on having these burdens imposed on them is another matter.