Deregulation Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

This group contains amendments to schedule 18, which makes provision for repealing legislation that is no longer of practical use. Before I outline the amendments, may I say how much I welcome re-encountering the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), whose very helpful and constructive approach in Committee has improved the Bill?

The Mining Industry Act 1920 and section 20 of the Mining Industry Act 1926 will be repealed as they are no longer needed for mining and quarrying. Most of the Mining Industry Act 1920 has already been repealed, and we now seek to repeal the remaining provisions. That will not affect rights to ownership. The remaining sections are outdated administrative arrangements. For example, functions were originally conferred on the Board of Trade, but were long ago transferred to the Secretary of State through a transfer of functions. Sections 18 and 22 concern the powers to make drainage schemes for groups of mines, but they are now dealt with by negotiations between mine owners and other local landowners. Sections 25 and 26 are technical provisions.

Overall, the only matter that needs to be mentioned is section 20 of the 1926 Act, which provides for the establishment of profit-sharing schemes. It of course pre-dates the nationalisation and privatisation of the coal mining industry, as well as modern companies legislation. Such legislation should apply to coal mining companies in the same way as it applies to any others, so there is no need for any special provision. However, the amendment contains a saving provision, because it would clearly not be fair to undermine any existing profit-sharing schemes, and they will be allowed to continue.

Most of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 has already been repealed. Section 37, which relates to the licensing of tidal works by harbour authorities, disapplies the requirements of section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. That Act has already been repealed, so the saving provision is no longer of any practical effect.

Amendment 59 will extend the repeal of the Milk (Cessation of Production) Act 1985 to Northern Ireland. EU legislation in 1984 set up a system of production—the milk quota system—in which, in essence, each producer was allocated a quota. That will end on 31 March 2015, so the underlying EU legislation will cease to be effective next April. The amendment will allow the Bill to repeal and revoke all relevant UK legislation relating to Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales.

Amendment 60 will ensure that the saving provision in paragraph 3 of schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1988 will cease to have effect in England, although it will continue to apply in Wales. The saving provision has become redundant in England. Essentially, sections 56 to 58 of the Housing Act 1980, which have been repealed, enabled landlords to grant assured tenancies for newly built or newly repaired dwellings. The vast majority of tenancies were converted in 1989 into new style assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988. Sections 56 to 58 were repealed subject to a saving provision, which is now being abolished because there are no longer any assured tenancies under the 1980 Act in existence in England, and it is therefore redundant.

To turn to the non-Government amendments, amendment 73 would require the Government to revoke section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for raising that important issue. The effect of section 73 is that public service broadcasters cannot charge cable services for the inclusion of their channels on these services.

Section 73 is part of a much wider framework supporting the availability of television and investment in television programming in the UK. A variety of rules and regulations affect the production, availability and ease of discovery of public service programming and its relationship with the different platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—that carry it. They include the obligations on public service broadcasters to offer their content to all relevant platforms, the rules governing payments by broadcasters for technical platform services and the powers for regulators to compel these services to carry public service broadcast content.

This is an area with many competing interests. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport produced a policy paper, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers” last year. The Government stated that their policy objective was zero net charges, where fees for access to the main platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—would be cancelled out by charges made by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, so creating a zero net charge regime. That is close to the current market position, and it recognises the benefits to platforms, public service broadcasters and consumers.

Section 73 is an integral part of that picture, but the arrangement is under pressure. Online services rely on section 73 to exploit public service broadcaster content, but no benefit flows back to the public service broadcaster.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The problem is that the litigation has been going on for four years already. Of course there are competing interests, but does my hon. and learned Friend not accept that section 73 was created in the 1980s, when the Government wanted to encourage the roll-out of the cable network? Given that that policy objective has been achieved, the section should surely be repealed.

[The Solicitor-General]

I agree to a considerable extent with the point that my hon. Friend makes. There is no question that the legislation was introduced to help cable roll-out. However, it is the definition of a cable service that is at issue in the Court of Appeal case. It is correct that it has taken a considerable amount of time to get to this point, where the Court of Appeal will soon be able to list the case and, hopefully, determine it. Having waited for that period for a definite conclusion, it would be wrong to act in haste and perhaps repent at leisure. I will be interested to hear his remarks and I think that there will be time for him to make them—I hope so, anyway.

I am pleased to announce that the Government will support the defamation amendment—amendment 4. It is a sensible amendment. As the House will be aware, the Government have made a commitment to repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. Their response to the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 2013 stated that

“repealing Section 13 would be the wisest course of action”

and that the Government

“intends to do so when Parliamentary time and a suitable legislative opportunity allows.”

There has long been discussion about the provision. The 1999 and 2013 Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that section 13 be repealed. The Government agree with the conclusion of those Committees that section 13 is at odds with the principle of freedom of speech, which it is the privilege of this House as a whole to enjoy, not just individual Members. Section 13 also creates an imbalance, because one party to a proceeding may choose to use the parliamentary record when the other party does not wish that to happen. The provision has never been used and it creates an anomaly. For those reasons, I urge the House to accept amendment 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

As my hon. Friend says, it was forward thinking. However, those 10 years have elapsed and we are left bereft of a long-term strategy. With no communications Green Paper and no communications strategy, is it any wonder that it is left to Members such as the hon. Member for Shipley to raise such key issues? Having said that, we are not confident, given the lack of strategy and long-term vision, that the Government would have a handle on the impact of repealing this measure. We therefore find it difficult to support amendment 73.

I will turn briefly to amendment 4 on defamation. As the Solicitor-General said, it has cross-party support and it appears to be sensible, so we will support it.

[Philip Davies]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and I am grateful for her kind words. From what she said I understood that there is overall, general support—if perhaps not specific support—for my point. This is the second day running on which my amendments seem to have had more support from the Labour Front Bench than from the Government Front Bench—a rather uncomfortable position in which to find myself, but I am grateful nevertheless.

I will speak briefly because time is limited and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) wishes to contribute. Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was created in the 1980s, when the Government—understandably—wanted to encourage the roll-out of the cable network to stimulate competition with terrestrial TV. That was a noble aim, but it has been achieved. The cable network now reaches half the population, and there is fierce inter-platform competition between pay-TV platforms and free-to-air TV platforms. It is therefore clear that section 73 is completely outdated and not achieving the purpose for which it was intended. That purpose has already been achieved, so the measure needs to be repealed.

Since cable TV derives even greater value from public service content, and delivers less and less in return as more adverts are skipped on pay TV, section 73 is preventing the normal commercial response, which would be to commercially negotiate the supply of content, putting at risk investment in the programmes that people want to see. Why should public service broadcasters, which are investing heavily in the UK’s creative economy, subsidise the business models of large global companies such as Liberty Global? That is clearly not fair. The litigation that the Solicitor-General mentioned has already taken four years and could still take a while longer, and I am not sure that we can afford to sit back and wait more years, while the issue is kicked into the long grass in such a way. Under the Communications Act 2003, public service broadcasters must, under their current licences, offer their public service broadcast channels to cable and satellite platforms so that consumers will not lose out if that is repealed.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, the Opposition have a lot of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but we were not clear whether it means that things would be opened up for negotiation—whether or not to pay; how much to pay—or whether no payments and no broadcasting would be possible. That is our uncertainty.

[Philip Davies]

It would enable a normal commercial arrangement to be reached, but it would not do anything to stop the terms of the Communications Act 2003, under which broadcasters must offer their public service broadcasting channels to cable and satellite platforms. That would still be the case, but the amendment would enable a commercial negotiation to take place, which would be fair to both parties. Otherwise, the situation works for neither party; it is to everybody’s advantage that an agreement is reached. Terrestrial broadcasters want their content on cable, and cable wants that content out there, so there is reason for reaching an agreement.

[The Solicitor-General]

I am carefully following my hon. Friend’s logic and he is looking at two aspects: pay TV and satellite. The fastest-growing area, however, is online, which is what the court case is about. Does he recognise that it would be a mistake to leave matters on the basis he suggests, without taking account of the online position? That needs to be tackled once we know the court decision.

[Philip Davies]

All these matters need to be tackled, and my amendment seeks to say just that to the Government. The problem is that they are not being tackled and are causing an unfair disadvantage to public service broadcasters. That is my point. Pay-TV companies are charging monthly subscriptions for access to pay TV, when most of the viewing is on public service broadcasting channels, which are an essential part of the offer being made. For example, ITV invests around £1 billion a year on programming, the majority of which is original UK content, driving UK economic growth and provided free to viewers at no cost to the taxpayer. Continuing to do that depends on its being able to make a commercial return on its investment, which at the moment it does not.

Section 73 currently allows platforms and online operators to extract increasing amounts of value from free-to-air content, with no return to investors, rightsholders and talent, or the UK creative economy. Those platforms are perfectly happy to pay for other channels on ITV, such as ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4, through normal commercial negotiations, so it is hard to understand why they would not also be prepared to do that for the main channel. Section 73 of the 1988 Act is completely outdated and does a great disservice to public service broadcasters. It has created unfair terms and conditions for public service broadcasters, and even if the Government do not accept my amendment, I hope that they will consider the issue and come back soon with proposals to deal with this serious anomaly concerning cable TV and online content.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Surely one of the cornerstones of British law is that everybody is equal in the face of it. Either people should have to wear helmets for safety reasons or they should not. If a Sikh can decide not to wear a safety helmet on religious grounds, why cannot other workers decide not to wear them on grounds that they choose for themselves? Why should we have different laws for different people in this country? Many people find that troubling and offensive.

[The Solicitor-General]

An important history and a religious ethic applicable only to Sikhs are involved in this matter. It is a religious tenet for a Sikh male to wear a turban—that is not true of other religions. It is therefore a special circumstance. While addressing that, I should say what a great contribution the Sikh community makes in our country. Sikhs should be free to practise their religion and that central tenet of it. In certain circumstances, it would be wrong to allow a person not to wear their helmet because of the extreme danger involved—for example, when a fireman goes into a burning building. The circumstances where this provision cannot be followed are very narrow.