Draft Small-scale Radio Multiplex and Community Digital Radio Order 2019

Debate between Margot James and Nigel Mills

Tuesday 16th July 2019 General Committees

[The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Small-scale Radio Multiplex and Community Digital Radio Order 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The Government are a passionate supporter of radio, whether it is from the BBC, the commercial sector or the growing community radio sector. Today, we are debating a new approach that will open up digital radio to the smaller commercial and community stations.

Radio is a very popular medium. The latest industry figures from RAJAR—Radio Joint Audience Research—indicate that more than 89% of UK adults, or almost 49 million people, still listen to radio each week. Although radio’s popularity has been stable over recent years, radio is changing, and listeners’ habits are changing too. Audience listening figures published by RAJAR a few months ago highlight the continued strong take-up of digital radio, which now accounts for 56.4% of all radio listening. A key driver has been the installation of digital radio in new cars. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, 93% of all new cars sold now have digital radio receivers as standard, up from less than 5% a decade ago, and more than a third of in-car listening is now on digital radio.

The radio and automotive industries expect the long-term shift to digital to continue. It has important implications for approximately 300 small community and commercial radio stations that are currently broadcasting on FM and AM frequencies but not on digital radio, owing to insufficient capacity available on the mainly county-sized local radio multiplexes, especially those serving urban areas. The costs of carriage on those local radio multiplexes can also be too high for some small local stations, while the coverage area that they provide may be too large for small stations in comparison with their own core FM/AM transmission areas.

Small stations recognise the risk that they will lose prominence with local audiences as digital radio becomes increasingly the default mode of listening, so they have lobbied strongly for an affordable route to broadcast via terrestrial digital radio. To address the issue and provide small stations with a viable route to broadcast on a digital platform, we supported the development of a brand-new approach to digital radio transmission, known as small-scale digital audio broadcasting.

Small-scale DAB is digital radio. It uses advancements in software and new transmission techniques to provide a flexible and cheap approach to digital transmission that performs well in localised geographical areas. With funding provided by my Department, Ofcom successfully tested the viability of small-scale DAB technology in 10 technical trials in various locations around the country. However, the temporary licensing arrangements used for those trials was not appropriate for the long-term licensing of small-scale radio multiplexes.

The existing legislative framework set out in part II of the Broadcasting Act 1996 places a number of burdens on radio multiplex operators that are not necessary or appropriate for small-scale radio multiplex services. Crucially, it does not allow Ofcom to reserve capacity for the community radio stations or enforce restrictions on ownership, both of which are essential if smaller stations are to be on a fair playing field.

To address the issue, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport supported the private Member’s Bill successfully taken through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), which received cross-party support. That legislation, the Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Act 2017, amended the Communications Act 2003 to provide a power to modify through secondary legislation the rules for radio multiplex licensing set out in part II of the Broadcasting Act. I place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend for his skill and energy in getting that legislation through the House.

Following that, we consulted the radio industry early last year on detailed proposals for a new, lighter-touch licensing framework and received 87 responses. We published our response to those responses last October. Overall, there was strong support for the proposals, but there were representations on whether we had got the balance right between protecting the legitimate interests of the community radio sector and allowing the commercial sector some involvement. We have reflected those points in drawing up the framework and have worked closely with Ofcom during the preparation.

The order seeks to protect the interests of community radio and small commercial stations, while ensuring that only the minimum necessary burdens are placed on organisations that want to operate a small-scale radio multiplex service. The order exercises powers under new section 258A of the 2003 Act to introduce a lighter-touch framework for licensing small-scale radio multiplex services. It also uses the pre-existing power under section 262 of the 2003 Act to provide for the creation of community digital sound programme services, known as C-DSPs.

The issue that attracted the most attention during the consultation was focused on who could hold a small-scale radio multiplex licence and the proposed limits to the number of those licences that could be held by one player. The Community Media Association wanted strict rules that limited licences just to not-for-profit entities and limited them to holding a single licence. However, we were concerned that that approach would exclude many of the existing operators of the successful small-scale trials. We think it important to have a mixed economy —for commercial entities to be involved and apply their skills and investment to develop small-scale DAB. None the less, we recognise that restrictions on ownership are necessary to avoid a potential concentration of ownership —that would undermine the ability of community radio—and to promote diversity of ownership of small-scale radio multiplex services. The provisions in the order seek to strike the right balance between those aims.

As part of the consultation, and following further discussions with the Competition and Markets Authority and Radiocentre, we have made a number of changes to the original proposals to strengthen the protections for community radio. The order ensures that the spectrum capacity reserved for community radio on a small-scale radio multiplex is a firm reservation. In other words, it must be maintained for use by community digital radio stations—C-DSP licence holders. The order requires Ofcom to place a condition in the licence that requires a small-scale radio multiplex licence holder to publish information about the carriage fees charged. Finally, the order requires Ofcom, when awarding a small-scale radio multiplex licence, to consider the extent of involvement of community radio in a particular application.

In addition to those measures, the order sets out the detailed framework that will allow Ofcom to license small-scale radio multiplex services.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I look forward to hearing the excellent Amber Sound if it gets to move on to DAB in the future. Can the Minister confirm that the restrictions on ownership will apply not just at the start of a licence but throughout, so that if someone tried to consolidate and produce some sort of national or regional network via the back door, that would invalidate their licences and those would be freed up again for community radio stations, so that we do not end up with what has happened on the FM or existing networks when what we thought were regional stations had become a national one by the back door?

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a very valid point. A duty will be placed on Ofcom to ensure that what he fears cannot come about. There is quite a complex array of conditions. For example, no station can own more than 20% of the entire number of licences that are issued under the new format. I think that my hon. Friend will be reassured by the various measures that we have in place to ensure that a concentration of ownership and a national channel by the back door do not come about. I will go through a few of those restrictions and conditions.

We will require Ofcom to reserve capacity on small-scale radio multiplexes for community digital radio stations. A minimum of three slots must be available, with a variable upper limit set by Ofcom based on its assessment of local need. We will create a new community digital sound programme category of licence for community stations broadcasting on digital; C-DSP licensees will need to commit to the same social value requirements that apply to existing community stations.

We will restrict the total number of small-scale radio multiplex licences that one company can hold at any time; I hope that that allays my hon. Friend’s concerns. We will also place restrictions on the number of small-scale radio multiplex licences that existing national operators can be involved with, and require them to exercise their involvement in consortium with other partners.

We will give Ofcom the flexibility to determine the size of small-scale multiplexes, but with a policy target to set a maximum based on 40% of the population served by any overlapping local radio multiplex. If there is no overlapping multiplex, the draft order sets a limit of 7,500 sq km.

The draft order contains a small but important provision in relation to community radio licensing. Community radio has been a major success, with more than 280 services on air. The licence terms for the first stations launched in 2005 are due to expire in 2020. We want community stations to continue to focus on what they are doing well—serving their local communities—rather than be concerned about the renewal of licences at a time when they will need to think about digital radio carriage on new small-scale multiplexes. The order will therefore allow for a further extension of analogue community radio licences for a fourth five-year term, bringing the maximum total up to 20 years. That will avoid the need for Ofcom to re-advertise the first wave of community radio licences, which it would have needed to do later this year.

We believe that small-scale DAB has the potential to revolutionise community radio in the UK, and radio overall. The draft order will facilitate a more appropriate structure of licensing and will provide an opportunity for the 300 existing community radio stations—such as Black Country Radio, which is owned by a community interest company in my constituency of Stourbridge—and for small commercial radio stations, as well as for new entrants. The extensive technical trials have demonstrated that small-scale DAB provides a low-cost and viable option for smaller stations to broadcast on a terrestrial digital platform. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Margot James and Nigel Mills

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to increase transparency in the property market.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

Knowing who ultimately owns and controls a company is crucial in the global fight against corruption, and the UK is leading by example. Our public register of company beneficial ownership went live in June 2016.

[Nigel Mills]

Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will proceed with the public register of companies that own high-value property in the UK and whether we will still see it in April 2018, as intended?

[Margot James]

We published a call for evidence on the proposal to create a new register showing the beneficial owners of overseas companies that own or buy property in the UK. The responses are currently being analysed, and we will publish a response in due course.

Taylor Review: Working Practices

Debate between Margot James and Nigel Mills

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I can assure the hon. Lady that, as the First Secretary of State said earlier this week, Parliament has spoken on the issue of national insurance class 4 contributions. That matter is now settled, and will not be revisited. I agree with her that we should pay close attention to ensure that people who are genuinely contracted to provide an ongoing service are given the protections that workers enjoy, and are not falsely labelled as self-employed.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

On a similar point, will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a real risk that introducing the term “dependent contractors” will fudge the issue of whether someone is really employed or self-employed? Should we not focus on ensuring that the line is drawn in the right place and that those who engage so-called dependent contractors are paying employers’ national insurance, so that our own tax regime does not distort the market?

[Margot James]

We will certainly consult carefully on those points. We will make sure not only that the Treasury is satisfied in respect of tax issues, but that we are satisfied that people are getting their rights if they are employees or workers—or, as Matthew Taylor is proposing to rename them, dependent contractors.

Draft Important Public Services (Education) Regulations 2017 Draft Important Public Services (Transport) Regulations 2017

Debate between Margot James and Nigel Mills

Tuesday 31st January 2017 General Committees

[Margot James]

I imagine it was, but as I was not the Minister responsible at the time I cannot confirm that categorically.

As I said, the Government believe that the measures being put place strike the right balance. During the passage of the Trade Union Bill last year, the Government consulted on which services within the public service categories set out in the Bill should be subject to the additional 40% threshold and on how the threshold should operate in practice. The Government response to the consultation was published in January last year, when we also published draft regulations. The substance of those was discussed in Parliament during the passage of the Trade Union Bill. The regulations we are introducing today limit the application of the threshold to those services where there is the most compelling evidence of the impact of strike action and ensure that its scope is proportionate.

What does that mean for the education and transport sectors affected? The Government aim to ensure that all children have the right to an education, so we have focused on teachers who work with pupils of a compulsory school age in state-funded institutions. That reflects the importance of those years for children’s education and the disproportionate impact on learning that strike action can have. In the transport sector, our priority is to ensure that large numbers of people can rely on the services they need every day to make important journeys as far as possible. We have therefore focused on passenger services, because strike action is more likely to have an adverse and immediate impact on people’s ability to go to work, school, college and important appointments. That is why the regulations cover passenger railway services, including the maintenance of trains and the network, and the signalling and control of the operation of the train network. The regulations will also cover any London local bus services, civil air traffic control services and airport and port security services.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain how the Government came to think that only London bus services counted as important public services? I assume that my constituents who travel on buses into Nottingham or Derby to work would find a strike on those routes inconvenient, too. Is there some reason why the regulations are restricted to London buses?

Jobs and Social Security

Debate between Margot James and Nigel Mills

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills]

One problem of the Work programme is that the year we are looking at contained the second part of the double-dip recession. We all accept that it is hard for anyone to find work in a recession, let alone those who have been out of work for a long time and have the most barriers to overcome. We hope that as the economy gathers strength in the coming year, that will give the Work programme even more chance of success in meeting its second-year targets.

[Margot James]

My hon. Friend draws attention to some of the similarities between the Work programme and what went before. Does he agree that one key difference is the remuneration paid to Work programme providers? They get a £300 attachment fee when someone is referred to them, but do not receive further remuneration until a candidate has been in work for six months. That provides a huge incentive—along with the fact that some applicants will have their benefits docked if they do not co-operate—and makes the Work programme a greater success than what preceded it.

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The motion suggests that people would have been better off without the Work programme and with no extra support, but the support it provides is valuable and not entirely different from that provided in previous programmes. Payment by results, which I will come to, provides a far greater incentive to providers to get people back into work and, most importantly, not just to start a job but to find a sustainable position where they can remain for a long time. That is a key part of the programme.

The Work programme also fixed the problem of providers going for low-hanging fruit and getting back into work those who could do so most easily, while not placing quite the right focus on those who were more challenging. Remuneration for the Work programme means there are far more incentives to focus on the harder parts of the cohort.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), I have visited providers in my constituency—A4e and Ingeus—and I have seen their work and how they go about it. Importantly, somebody does not come through the door on the first day and start applying for jobs on the second; there is a long period of working out a person’s needs, what support they have, the training they need, and building their confidence, before they start applying for jobs. One does not expect providers to get people into work in the early months of their referral, which is why there is a problem with the statistics. We are looking at numbers of people who have been in work for six months of a programme that has existed for 13 months during a double-dip recession. The providers might not have even tried to get some of those people into work at the start of the programme—it is not a fair measure. Providers in my constituency are doing great work and the support they provide is valuable. I commend them on that, rather than saying that their work is worthless or worse than nothing.

No one would pretend that yesterday’s results were anything other than disappointing and concerning. We all wish that progress was quicker, and the whole House wants to get people back into work to improve the quality of their lives and for the sake of the taxpayer. However, the Work programme is a seven-year programme that gives individuals a two-year programme, and it is unfair to judge it on the basis of its first-year performance. We should look in a year’s time when the first cohort has spent two years in the programme. Let us look at the outcomes after the full two years, and see how many people are in work at that point.