Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill

Debate between Pauline Latham and David Nuttall

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

[Pauline Latham]

It is disappointing, but of course there are never that many Members here on a Friday; traditionally, it is the day we spend in our constituencies—

[Mr Nuttall]

Parliament is sitting.

[Pauline Latham]

Would my hon. Friend like to intervene?

[Mr Nuttall]

I would just like my hon. Friend to reflect on the fact that Parliament is sitting. There is no such thing as a “constituency Friday.” As far as I am concerned, Members of Parliament, if at all possible, should be in Parliament when it is sitting.

[Pauline Latham]

I know that my hon. Friend is usually here on a Friday, and I have to say that I am guilty, as are many other Members, of normally spending Fridays in my constituency. However, I am delighted to be here today to support my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay.

I said at the beginning of my speech that my hon. Friend has brought forward a Bill on an important subject. Those words of praise are often said out of polite custom in this place, but on this occasion they could not be more deserved, as he actually slept in Parliament overnight in order to secure the opportunity to introduce the Bill, such was his passion. As he pointed out afterwards, the reality of sleeping in a royal palace is far less glamorous than it sounds. I hope for his sake that he has had a better night’s sleep before Second Reading than he did on that occasion. I do not know how he passed the hours while waiting to submit his Bill, but it would have been extremely apt if he had listened to a digital radio to keep him company.

As in so many sectors across the UK, digital has become hugely important for radio. In the third quarter of 2016, just under half of all radio listening—45.5%—was on a digital platform, and that figure will increase. The radio industry predicts that if current trends continue, the number will be 50% by the end of 2017—I think that is a fairly conservative view. Small-scale DAB—the kind of digital radio that the Bill deals with—is especially important. Industry data show that 60% of UK homes today have at least one DAB radio, and the DAB terrestrial platform accounts for about three quarters of all digital radio listening. These figures underline the growing importance of the area and make it more important than ever that small-scale digital radio becomes a viable option for as many stations as possible.

I recently listened to Radio Derby on the digital platform, and it does have a better signal than I used to get, so I am pleased that it has been able to move to that platform and continue on FM. Unfortunately, small radio stations currently face a major disadvantage when it comes to digital radio. At present, the costs and the licensing scheme are not conducive to allowing small-scale radio services access to the DAB radio network. As with anything, costs vary, but digital specialists estimate that the cost of carriage for a mono service on a non-London multiplex is between £3,500 and £5,000 per month. That could mean £60,000 a year. Needless to say, that is a pretty hefty sum for a small station, with the consequence that it is priced out of the market. Contrast that with Ofcom’s estimate that using small-scale DAB could allow stations to access the digital market from just £9,000. That is a huge difference, and it would make the market much more accessible for smaller stations.

Alongside cost, the current climate creates a number of other key problems for smaller stations. County-sized local DAB multiplexes exist and are used effectively by several stations, such as Radio Derby, which covers not only the county of Derbyshire but part of east Staffordshire. However, their large coverage area means that they are not suitable for smaller stations that want to transition to DAB but cannot do so. Even if local DAB multiplexes could be used in theory, stations encounter problems in practice as there is not always sufficient capacity for them to operate.

Providers are very aware of the fact that they face dwindling audience numbers and the fall in advertising revenue that comes with that as digital listening by default becomes the norm. Quite understandably, they want to change that. Ofcom trials have proved that there is major demand for change and that appropriate legislation would be followed up with action. In a research report from September 2016, Ofcom states that

“there is a significant level of demand from smaller radio stations for small scale DAB, and that a wider roll-out of additional small scale services into more geographic areas would be both technically possible and commercially sustainable”.

That statement was made after a trial in which 100 small commercial and community radio stations successfully broadcast on terrestrial DAB for the first time. Those stations came from a wide range of different backgrounds, from new entrants to established companies, which provides an even more compelling case that all small stations could make a success of using digital radio.

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Debate between Pauline Latham and David Nuttall

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

It is a bit of both, and partly because the European Union now includes the EU charter of fundamental rights, which essentially replicates the European convention on human rights—for these purposes those things are one and the same. If we are powerless to stop convicted rapists entering our country, we must ask what has become of our national sovereignty. I have no doubt that millions throughout the country will believe that the case that I have mentioned alone demonstrates that we need to change that state of affairs and why the Bill is so necessary.

Clause 1(1) requires the Secretary of State to make regulations, which I believe should deal with the process of removal. We are fortunate that the National Audit Office has investigated the costs and processes of returning foreign national offenders, and that it published a detailed report, “Managing and removing foreign national offenders”, in October 2014. Before anyone starts to complain that this situation is all the fault of the current Government, it is worth noting briefly that, according to the report, back in 2006, the Home Office found that more than 1,000 foreign national offenders had been released from prison without even being considered for deportation.

Although the NAO report acknowledged that the coalition Government put more resources into managing and removing foreign national offenders, it also made it clear that progress on reducing the number of foreign national offenders in our jails was slow. It confirmed—this deals with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering has just raised—that the difficulties that hindered removals were caused by the application of the European convention on human rights, as well as the application of European law on the free movement of persons. There we have it: the National Audit Office has confirmed his concerns.

[Pauline Latham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that Nigerian prisoners call on the European Court of Human Rights when they are not European? They live in this country but retain their Nigerian nationality.

[Mr Nuttall]

If that is the case, it does seem strange—I am sure it will seem very strange to our constituents.

The NAO report acknowledged that the Government have put more resources into managing and removing foreign national offenders and made it clear that progress had been made, but it highlighted that the police had carried out an overseas criminal record check on only 30% of foreign nationals arrested. It made it clear that obtaining relevant documents such as passports at an early stage would greatly speed up the process of removal, and that fostering closer links between immigration officers and front-line police officers would speed up the process.

The Public Accounts Committee provided a commentary in its report, “Managing and removing foreign national offenders”, which was published in January 2015 following the NAO report. The Committee’s report states that

“police forces have been slow to recognise the importance, when arresting foreign nationals, of checking their immigration status and whether they have a criminal record overseas and they rarely use search powers to find evidence of identity and nationality.”

Whatever the reasons for that—it could be a lack of training or a lack of awareness—it is significant, because establishing nationality at an early stage would allow for further background checks to be carried out.

The report also states:

“Only 30% of foreign nationals arrested were checked against one key overseas database for a criminal record in 2013–14, and the great majority of police forces do not have automated links between fingerprint machines in their police stations and the Home Office’s immigration databases.”

The Committee suggested that a massive £70 million could be saved by fostering and developing such links.

The NAO noted in its report that in 2013-14, more than one third of foreign national offenders who were removed left as part of the early removal scheme. That is the scheme that returns foreign national offenders to their country of origin before they would be let out of prison if they were back here in the UK. The NAO also noted a key improvement in reducing the number of failed removals from 2,200 down to 1,400, but 1,400 still fail. That number is still far too high. I hope we will hear some detail from the Minister on why so many removals fail and what is being done to improve the situation.

Very often, we hear that problems with the delivery of Government services are due to a lack of resources, but the Public Accounts Committee noted that the number of staff working in foreign offender management had actually increased from fewer than 100 in 2006 to more than 900 in 2014—a huge percentage increase. The taxpayer can rightly expect to see an enormous improvement for that increase.

It is helpful to consider the cost to the taxpayer of dealing with foreign national offenders, because it demonstrates what an enormous drain on taxpayer resources this problem is. The NAO estimated that the average cost of managing a single foreign national offender was about £70,000 a year. The total bill for 2013-14 was an estimated £850 million, which confirms a figure that was mentioned earlier. I should add that that does not represent the total cost of a foreign national offender to British society. The figure is an estimate from the NAO, because there is an absence of definitive data. There is of course the possibility that the actual cost is much higher when one considers all the costs, from the investigation of the crime through to managing an offender in the community. Perhaps the most notable finding by the NAO, which the PAC also raised, was that managing foreign national offenders costs an estimated £100 million a year more than managing British prisoners. The Committee also noted that the Home Office did not know the reoffending rates of foreign national offenders in the community. The public will want to have confidence that such matters are now being addressed and recorded. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that point.

Both the NAO and the PAC highlighted the delays in the removal process. The NAO carried out a review of 52 cases in which a foreign national offender had been successfully removed and discovered that 20 cases had had avoidable processing delays. They included seven instances where the case had not been worked on for an average of 76 days, and a further six cases where administrative errors had delayed the process. In order to gather information on foreign national offenders, the Home Office sends out to each one a 50-question paper form. On average, it takes 32 days just to send out the questionnaire, which does not exactly give the impression of speed or urgency. It is perhaps not surprising that foreign national offenders are not so keen on administrative matters such as paperwork. It is not a surprise that almost half of the forms are never, ever returned.