Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Main Page: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)My Lords, I am here because this is really interesting. I declare an interest, as I played a small part in the days of offshore pirate ships when they were broadcasting; and I have a legitimate interest, in that I helped to advise the then Government before the White Paper that came ahead of commercial broadcasting in the early 1970s. I also made a failed application for one of the first commercial radio stations in Tyne and Wear, of which my noble friend will be aware; I think my little group came second. But I also have an interest in hospital broadcasting, which is really the element of community radio about which I want to talk for a moment, in connection with what I think is a very welcome order.
I have been involved for more than 50 years with one of the largest hospital broadcasting entities, Radio Tyneside, which covers an area around Newcastle upon Tyne and for all those years has served a number of hospitals and the patients in them. When community radio became available a few years ago, my hospital broadcasting people decided to apply for a community licence to broadcast in FM, and it was granted. Currently, Radio Tyneside can be received—I am selling it now—on the web, by FM and of course in direct communication with patients.
I mention all that as background because what is being proposed here seems very important. It is giving a greater level of certainty and continuity to those that broadcast in that way. In a way, it aims more for different kinds of community broadcasters, but the extension, in obtaining that FM licence, from merely serving hospital patients to serving the wider community and, indeed, pursuing its well-being and health outside of the health service, as it were, seems a really fine aim and one which, again, fits exactly within the requirements of community radio.
As I say, I generally welcome these provisions, but I have two concerns and questions, the first of which is about extensions on the basis of analogue broadcasting being regarded as running until 2030. The extensions of time on licences are very welcome. I note, by the way, that the proportion of those listening to analogue varies enormously depending on the nature of the people who are listening, the nature of the community broadcasts themselves and the areas of the country served. Although DAB is fine, it presents certain problems for community radio stations. There are technical problems, and there are problems associated with being part of a multiplex, which is not easy at all, particularly for an organisation such as a hospital broadcasting service. While not much is said about it here, it is important that as much encouragement as possible can be given to entities of that kind. Indeed, the Minister mentioned a number of minority areas, as it were, that are well served by community radio, as they should be, but I hope that the whole group of hospital broadcasters, wherever they may be, will be encouraged to continue and to extend their services in the way in which Radio Tyneside certainly does.
Secondly, there is the question of advertising revenue. Most of these entities have a charitable status of some kind, and sometimes the charitable status and the aims of a charitable operation do not allow anything other than voluntary contributions, so that taking advertising, for instance, somewhat conflicts with the activities. They have to rely wholly on donations and, as we are all aware, donations put pressure on in terms of guaranteeing continuity for income and budgets.
There is an element of competition for audiences between different community providers when an increase in the advertising revenue is available but not necessarily achievable in certain areas. There is possibly a certain unfairness in that. Therefore, while I welcome the idea that this would help some community stations continue when they otherwise could not, there perhaps has to be some kind of balancing to help community stations, such as the one that I am involved with, which have to raise money in a different way. Otherwise, I very much welcome these proposals, and I hope that we can make some progress in continuing with community radio in the future.
My Lords, the Minister may have had a small audience for her speech introducing this order but, much in the way of community radio, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate set out, the small listenership has still provided a very important and valuable discussion, and I am grateful to my noble friend—my noble and former piratical friend, I should say—for his contribution. I pay tribute to his work and that of Radio Tyneside. With a number of relatives and friends back home in the north-east who have worked in the NHS or who have been in hospital for a period, I know how important that radio station, and the work of hospital radio stations more widely, is to patients and the people who work in our NHS.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the background to this order. As she says, it follows on from consultation which the previous Government undertook in the last Parliament. She set out the approach that this Government are taking. There are two areas of concern that I want to touch on, which I hope she will be able to help allay.
The first community radio licence was issued in 2005 following the Community Radio Order 2004, which created the regulatory framework. The purpose of community radio is to provide services for the good of members of the public or of particular communities, rather than for commercial reasons. In doing this, community radio stations should provide some form of social gain. They should be not for profit and non-profit distributing. Any form of profit should be used to secure or improve the future of the service, or to deliver a social gain for the community that it serves. I am a little concerned that this order could risk undermining those principles.
The extension of the licences for community radio stations entrenches current operators at the expense of new entrants and could risk locking out competition. Barriers to entry could harm the community radio sector more broadly, particularly in rapidly changing urban areas or rural communities where there is high demand for specific and relevant programming. Extending the licences also eliminates a key check on the service provided by community radio stations. A relicensing process and review of current licences would ensure that current operators are holding up their end of the bargain. They would have to prove that they are delivering social value and serving their communities. New stations would be able to compete for licences, guaranteeing that only those stations which are truly committed to their social purpose are licensed.
Can the Minister set out why the Government are simply extending the licences, rather than taking the opportunity to review the current providers, ensure that they offer the social value that we all want and potentially allow new entrants where there is a need for them? If the Government are committed to these licence extensions, what action will they take to make sure that community radio stations do indeed deliver social gain in future and provide the community-centred public service broadcasting that we all value?
The other area of concern relates to the phasing out of analogue radio in favour of small-scale DAB radio, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope touched on. Many community radio stations report that SSDAB is unaffordable, unreliable and inaccessible in key areas. As my noble friend set out, it can be very variable across the country. Many stations struggle with poor reception and limited reach, particularly in areas with high-density housing or rural areas with uneven topography. The high operating costs make SSDAB unviable for smaller, social-purpose broadcasters, such as those we are concerned with today.
This lack of coverage means that community radio cannot effectively serve minority or overlooked audiences. Stations such as Panj Pani Radio in Leicester and Rutland and Stamford Sound, which serves the county of Rutland and parts of Lincolnshire, have reported critical DAB coverage issues—in their very different geographical areas—preventing them from serving their target audiences effectively. We saw during the pandemic how important these small community stations are and what important local lifelines they can be to people through the provision of local information. Without spectrum alternatives, these issues jeopardise their survival. Regional DAB costs upwards of £78,000 per year, pricing out many community stations. Would the Minister consider the limitations of SSDAB for many community radio stations? Would she commit to reviewing the policy of pursuing that over FM and AM?
The Minister was right to highlight the important of community radio, not just to their audiences but as a stepping stone for those who are starting out in the industry, whose voices may become well known and trusted. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope for his good question about charitable organisations operating community radio and how the advertising revenue implications of the order might apply to them. With gratitude to the Minister, I look forward to her response.