Deregulation Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

The mix we have of large and small broadcasters, public service and commercial, has produced the best television in the world. It is a credit to our country, a huge economic success, and a powerhouse of creativity. It is also a delicate balance and not a trinket to be played with. That is why any change to the licence fee must be properly considered at the time of the royal charter review.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I wish to speak briefly on this matter. I have a lot of sympathy with the Opposition’s views, and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is right: we have a lot to be proud of. I am always wary of using the phrase, “It is the envy of the world”, but we have a superb television service and, largely, the British Broadcasting Corporation is responsible for that.

There are those on the Government Benches—I have some sympathy with some of my, as the hon. Lady would put it, “right-wing colleagues”—who worry about the political bias of the BBC. Even its former director-general, Mr Mark Thompson, has referred to that. None the less, I do not think any of us can deny that the BBC does a very good public service with its broadcasting, and it is one that is recognised throughout the world. My concern is this: we are living in a fast-changing world and the notion that the BBC’s licence fee can remain in aspic as the only model of funding is one that would be dangerous for the BBC, as well as for all of us, necessarily to hold close to our hearts.

Criminalisation is also something that I want to speak about briefly. When my late mother died, she was living alone. She had been widowed for some years, and she died in September 2010. I took on the responsibility for looking after her affairs in the home in which she had lived prior to it being sold, which took place some months later. I was appalled by the experience that I had, which I am sure is one shared by many hundreds of thousands of our fellow countrymen in a similar position. Literally on a fortnightly basis, we got threatening letters from the BBC’s licensing department, saying that we were committing a criminal offence by not having a licence. There is a sense, I am afraid, in which the BBC regards every single home as being fair game, whether anyone is living there or, indeed, using a television set. It certainly was not terribly good public relations, not just for me personally, but, I suspect, for many other people who go through that particular rigmarole. There is a sense that the BBC feels it has the right to claim, almost with menaces, moneys, when the particular circumstances of my mother having passed away made it even more upsetting to get one letter after another in this way.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point by talking about his mother’s circumstances. My constituents, too, have had similar experiences with the TV licence and the point they are trying to make is that these approaches by the BBC are overly aggressive. That has helped the push towards the introduction of the amendments.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For those of us who are broadly supportive of the BBC and its values, it is very upsetting to see that aggressive approach, particularly in circumstances such as the ones that I have pointed out, which affect, as I said, many tens of thousands of our fellow countrymen on a day-to-day basis. The notion is put across that somehow, if we lose the money, we will not be able to have CBeebies and BBC4, but again, there has to be a sense of prioritisation in the BBC, which has a very privileged position with its money—some £2.5 billion a year—that it is able to rely on in order to make the excellent programmes to which we have all referred.

I hope that we will have a sensible debate—in fairness to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, she has presented some sensible proposals—on how our British Broadcasting Corporation will be funded. The only warning sign is that we are increasingly living in a world of pay-per-view and a proliferation of channels. Like me, the hon. Lady grew up at a time when, until 1982, there were only three channels. A fourth channel then emerged, and suddenly we had a plethora of channels that we can rely on. As a result, if the BBC is to play as important a part in public life in the decades to come, it must be wise to the fact that there will have to be changes to its funding mechanism, without immediately accusing the House, and others who wish it to survive well into the 21st and future centuries, of being aggressively anti what it does.

I hope that the Solicitor-General will have some proposals regarding what I have said, and particularly that he will ensure that the good will towards the BBC in the hearts of many of our fellow countrymen remains intact. Some of the BBC’s antics are the sorts of things that have allowed people who would otherwise oppose the amendments to hold the views expressed in one or two of them, although, as we see, they will not necessarily be discussed to any great extent.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a brief contribution. I look forward to an interesting debate, which I expect will take place not just on the Floor of the House but will make up an important part of discussions on the renewal of the charter in 2016 and beyond.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and an enormous shame that those who drafted the original clauses are not present to take part in the debate that they began.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. I am not opposed to the idea of ending present licensing offences per se, although I think there are dangers in that which I will come to in a moment. However, doing it in this order, and in a Deregulation Bill that has nothing to do with broadcasting or licensing, is particularly bizarre. On the whole I dislike Christmas tree legislation, which is what the Bill has become, and these proposals are wholly inappropriate. If we had a broadcasting Bill, I would be happy to see these matters debated in the round and in the context of broadcasting. I think we would have a fuller Chamber—better viewing figures perhaps, and not just BBC executives who are doubtless following every second of this debate.

As we consider current offences and whether they should be swept away, we must bear in mind the fact that broadcasting always tends towards monopoly as that is its fundamental nature. It is very expensive to make a programme, but it is more or less as expensive to show that programme to one person as it is to show it to 5,000, 2 million or 5 million people.

[Mark Field]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish this argument, I will give way.

I think it appropriate, especially in markets of the size we have in the United Kingdom, to ensure that a pot of money is available for local, British programming—programmes made in this country that reflect its interests, not just in terms of news and current affairs, but drama, comedy, religion, and all the different genres. That is an essential part of ensuring that monopoly does not always triumph.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred to the £2.7 billion that the BBC is guaranteed as though that were an enormous amount of money. It is nothing compared with Sky, which has £7 billion a year; and how much programming does it produce that is then exported round the world on behalf of Britain? To what extent does it sell Britain abroad? How much does it reflect the whole of British society? It is difficult enough to get a Sky journalist to travel outside the M25, let alone all the way down to Wales, for heaven’s sake. That is why I believe we must have an alternative in the public sector to the monopoly that will otherwise be set up.

[Mark Field]

I had hoped to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about this measure being in a Christmas tree Bill. I agree with him fundamentally that it would be better to have it in a proper broadcasting Bill, but the difficulty is that we focus our minds on the BBC only when the renewal of the charter comes up, which is not necessarily the best time to look at these things in the broadest sense. However, I disagree with what he said about Sky. Ultimately, we are all consumers of Sky. It is the market that decides, and if there were no market for it, Sky would not have £7 billion in its coffers. We have £2.7 billion in the BBC, which I think does a terrific job, given that amount of money, but it is right that the market should prevail to a certain extent.

[Chris Bryant]

Perhaps what the hon. Gentleman says reflects his constituency, but for the majority of the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, the only way in which my constituents could get BBC 3, BBC 4 or, in most parts of it, BBC 2, let alone Channel 4, was to pay Sky. It had an absolute monopoly on digital television in the south Wales valleys. Because of the mixture of platforms, the geography, the various ways in which, for instance, mansion block flats in London work and all the rest of it, it is important that we have a public service broadcaster with a commitment and a statutory requirement to deliver to every household and provide something for everybody: the 83-year-old who likes listening to Chaucer and Mantovani—if there is a person who likes only that combination—and the 18-year-old who is interested only in the kind of things that are shown on BBC 3.

That is an important commitment and we need that combination, because as somebody once put it to me, if we are to have one 800 lb gorilla in the forest, in the shape of Sky, it is a good idea to have a second 800 lb gorilla in the forest, because that is safer for everybody. The competition we have in the UK between public service broadcasting and the commercial sector is positive. We were wrong in the past to campaign against having ITV and the commercial sector and all the rest. It is right to have that mixture. The two feed off each other, and Sky is now finally learning that it is a good idea to produce programmes of its own.

The licence fee is a phenomenal success for this country. The £2.7 billion that the hon. Gentleman talks of is basically an investment in production, which is why programmes are sold all around the world. We are the only country in Europe that manages to be a net exporter of programming. That might be because of our history, but I think it is also because we have a strong BBC. I also think that the alternatives to the licence fee that are experienced elsewhere in Europe, which many people tout—for instance, Germany has a mixture of a licence fee and advertising, others have a public service broadcasting model based just on advertising, and the Netherlands has a fixed amount of income tax—are more flawed than the licence fee. To paraphrase Churchill, yes, the licence fee may be terrible—for all the reasons that I am sure people can adduce: it is not progressive, it bears down unequally, it affects everybody, whether they are rich or poor, and all the rest of it—but it is better than all the alternatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

Clearly the regulations need to be carefully considered and proper consultation is needed to ensure that the effect of the measure, which is to give more freedom to individual householders, is respected while giving proper recognition in the policy to the difficulties the hon. Gentleman mentions, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington also brought to my attention.

[Mark Field]

I endorse the view stated earlier that a process of consultation began as recently as February on this issue and has not yet come to a close, so it feels a little strange that this measure has been rushed through in this Bill. That is the tenor of the concerns expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) as well. Why does the Minister think there is a different regime for London? Why was that put into place some 40 years ago and why is the time suddenly now right for it to be changed?

[The Solicitor-General]

As I think was said in another part of the country today, London is a super-city: it is an enormous city and it does have unique circumstances. The Government recognise the necessity of working with the London boroughs to design the provision to ensure we achieve the right balance between increasing the freedoms for Londoners and protecting London’s housing supply. We would not want that to be undermined. We are trying to ensure that speculators are not able to buy homes meant for Londoners and rent them permanently as short-term lets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I have tabled a number of amendments in this group, but given that we are so pressed for time, I will speak to just one of them, new clause 8, which I hope to press to a vote.

I am deeply concerned about the lack of affordable housing, which is yet another indictment of this Government, who have turned their back on “generation rent”. Housing is undoubtedly at the heart of the concerns of my constituents in Brighton. That message comes across clearly from conversations on our city streets, in my surgeries and from the e-mails and letters I receive.

In addition to tackling things such as letting fees, housing standards and security of tenure in the private rented sector, it is absolutely crucial that we ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing. Yet this coalition’s slapdash, ill-thought-out approach to right to buy is undermining this. The Bill, as currently drafted, would reduce the eligibility period for the right to buy from five years to three years. Giving local authority tenants and some housing association tenants the opportunity to buy their home at a discounted price is not a bad thing in itself, but only on the strict condition that it does not jeopardise affordable housing supply, including the ability of housing associations to build new affordable housing.

The new clause would require the Government to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of right to buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and ask for an assessment to be carried out of changes since 2012 before further policy changes are made. Around 1.8 million households are waiting for a social home, which is an increase of 81% since 1997. The reality of right to buy is about much more than families being able to own their home. Last year, it was revealed that rich landowners are cashing in, buying up multiple ex-council properties and renting them back to people on endless housing waiting lists. In one London borough, as I said earlier, a third of council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords, some of whom own dozens of properties.

Far too often, the rich, not the poor, are the real beneficiaries of housing benefit. Currently, only one in every seven homes sold through right to buy has been replaced, and I find it astonishing that the Government are so complacent that they are not even monitoring the number of homes replaced following the preserved right to buy. Housing associations say that, in fact, the number is likely to be even less than one in seven. It is inexcusable that Ministers have not even consulted housing associations, which provide 2.5 million homes to more than 5 million people.

We are a rich country. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, we need a major programme of direct capital investment to build sustainable council housing, and the constraints on borrowing faced by local authorities should be lifted, so that councils can better meet demand for new homes. We must not inhibit the ability of housing associations to build more homes. This would ease pressure on the private market and, in turn, help rent levels and housing prices. Instead, we have the appalling situation where we are paying housing benefit to private landlords at extortionate market rates for good houses that once belonged to the taxpayer. It is a scandal.

Today, house prices speak for themselves. In my constituency, the average one-bedroom flat costs nearly six and three-quarter times the median household annual income, and three-bedroom houses cost more than 12 times. That is why I hope that people will support my new clause.

[Mark Field]

I think I speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) when I express some concerns about what appears to be the anomalous situation in London with the short-term letting of residential properties. These proposals have caused enormous concern among communities in the heart of our capital.

The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 was originally introduced to ensure that London’s permanent housing stock would be protected from strong market pressure to convert homes into visitor accommodation, and was deemed wholly necessary to deal with the acute housing shortage that London was then experiencing. At that time, London had a population of some 7.5 million and declining. Its population now stands at 8.2 million and, as all London MPs know, increases at a breath-taking annual rate. It needs to be recognised that allowing greater flexibility to change use from permanent residential occupation to short-term letting will have significant implications for London’s stock of permanent housing. It may make it impossible for our local authorities to meet their targets for new homes.

My constituents have very good reason to believe that a loosening of the rules governing short lets, as set out in this somewhat ill-thought-through new clause 21, will make it much harder to keep their buildings safe, secure and well maintained. It risks undermining a sense of community that can be all too difficult to build in an essentially transient urban population. In fact, London’s hyper-mobility and hyper-diversity get greater year by year. It will make it far more difficult for local authorities to deal with noise and antisocial behaviour. Above all, it threatens to make central London homes, already traded by many people as some sort of global currency, into little more than assets to be exploited for maximum profit.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will be a little briefer than I would have ideally liked, but I am extremely obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak to amendment 2, which stands in my name. It would prevent the Government stopping local authorities specifying a higher standard of energy efficiency in new build properties until after the zero-carbon homes policy came into effect. To be clear, the Bill is intended to prevent local authorities from having autonomy, and my amendment would ensure that local authorities must adhere to as high a standard as possible.

The UK’s housing stock is the least efficient in Europe. As a result, we have some of the worst fuel poverty statistics in Europe—only Estonia does worse than we do at the moment—because our housing stock is so old. A great deal of the discussions that take place here are about the challenge of retrofitting, whether through supplier obligations or things such as the green deal. Surely that puts a premium on us to ensure that the new build standards are as high as possible.

The Labour Government introduced the zero-carbon homes policy, with the intention of implementing it by 2016. It was an excellent policy, with a clear implementation framework that allowed the private sector to produce the plans to deliver it. This Government have successfully undermined that policy. The definition was changed substantially some time ago, and that was further diluted in the Queen’s Speech. I am afraid that I do not have a great deal of faith in this Government’s Department for Communities and Local Government to deliver zero-carbon homes, but even if the Government tried to do so, what would happen between now and 2016?

Many people will take a localist view, to which I am sympathetic. The constituency I represent covers a substantial part of the green belt between Greater Manchester and Derbyshire, and if that green belt comes under pressure from new build, I believe we should be able to argue that the standard should be as high as possible for those homes. However, I appreciate that that would widen the debate too much, and I hope that a focus on preventing clause 30 from coming into effect until zero-carbon homes are in operation will command as much support as possible.

Of course, if the Government are sincere in backing zero-carbon homes, they have nothing to fear from my amendment—it would make no difference to a Government committed to delivering an ambitious zero-carbon homes policy in 2016. However, the issues of sustainability, efficient use of energy, and fuel poverty, as well as public acceptance of new build housing, which affects all of us, are so important that I will, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, seek to divide the House on my amendment, as well as appeal to the other place to give the matter the due attention it deserves.