My Lords, radio is the background to my life; I have it playing at home, in the car and even when I am walking about, whether it is the BBC, Global’s LBC or Bauer’s Greatest Hits stations. I cannot be alone in enjoying this wonderful medium, so I am glad that today it is getting the attention it deserves.
The way we listen is changing, and Clause 48 recognises this with the acceptance that, in the future, most people will be listening to the radio online. It covers the Ofcom-regulated stations—BBC, Bauer, Global and others—which make up 85% of our listening, but the methods by which we listen to this medium are changing fast. I have tabled Amendment 78—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for their support—because I want to ensure that the way we listen is future-proofed, and that in the future online radio can be listened to wherever people are and on whatever device they want to use.
I very much appreciate that this clause is the Government’s response to fears that deals can be done between the manufacturers of listening devices, such as voice-activated speakers, to promote their own radio content, or even the content of stations which have paid them to promote their content over that of the Ofcom-regulated station. The clause’s “must carry” obligations for the top three voice-activated speakers takes its cue from the work that Ofcom has done on prominence in TVs, which has already been debated. However, my concern is that the focus on these three big voice-activated devices will be to the exclusion of other methods of listening to radio.
I also support Amendment 77, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the benefits of being able to listen to relevant internet radio services on in-car radio, which is not voice-activated and not covered by Clause 48.
Myriad different devices that might carry these stations in the future are also not covered. We need to be certain that our PlayStations, iPhones and even fridges, to name but a few devices, will carry these popular stations. For example, Sony Interactive Entertainment, which owns PlayStation, is a very competitive and successful company; it could do a deal with a youth station to the exclusion of other stations, stopping gamers accessing and being introduced to the joys of what is described in the new section inserted by the clause as “relevant internet radio services”. I know that the criteria for the “must carry” devices is set out in new Section 362BC(4) and that the Secretary of State can amend this section, but my amendment seeks to anticipate these changes, calling for a review of what devices people are listening on. The Government see this clause as a regulatory burden for the biggest speaker manufacturers, but I see it as protection both for the listening public and the nascent radio selection services.
I want to throw in another important thought here. The Government have been worrying so much about device manufacturers not carrying radio content that
they have introduced a “must carry” burden on them. However, new Section 362BA requires an internet radio service to offer to a DRSS. There is no mandatory requirement for a relevant internet radio station to carry its service. I want the Minister and the Bill team to think very carefully about a world in which designated internet radio stations themselves do a deal with the big device manufacturers to carry their radio channels exclusively. I am sure that whenever this idea was raised during the drafting of the Bill, civil servants would have asked why a radio station would not want to be on a device.
Your Lordships have to look only at what has happened in television to see that content providers are just as active in creating monopolies for their channels as device manufacturers. Netflix and Amazon drove their own discreet prominence regime with specific TV manufacturers for vast sums of money, as noble Lords have already heard in the debate on prominence. It was the content suppliers that drove manufacturers to put a Netflix or an Amazon button on the channel controller and to ensure that they dominated the home screen.
5.45 pm
Global and Bauer are very successful, very aggressive radio companies. They have bought up most of the local radio stations and rebranded them with national content. It is perfectly possible that they would do a deal with a dominant listening device manufacturer, such as Google Home, to create a monopoly for their content. They could pay millions of pounds for such a market-dominant position, to the exclusion of all other device manufacturers. I ask noble Lords to think about the commercial disadvantage for the other device manufacturers which will be excluded from offering a popular radio station.
The problem is compounded by many listening devices requiring the radio stations to make a software fix in order to carry their channels. It might not be an expensive or difficult fix, but it will be a nuisance and an inconvenience for the radio stations to carry out. They might decide not to enable nascent device manufacturers to carry their content because they have not delivered the required software fix. In the process, they stifle the growth and compound the dominance of the big device manufactures covered by Clause 48. I know that the Minister and his Government want to encourage small businesses, so I suggest they take this concern seriously.
There is a way round the expense for radio stations having to perform the software fix so they can be carried on new listening devices: they can use radio aggregators. These are platforms which carry a wide range of radio stations, including Ofcom-regulated stations, and can be downloaded like any other app on to listening devices. I am afraid that, until I did the research for this amendment, I was not aware of aggregators such as Radioplayer and TuneIn, which carry a very wide range of stations. However, I fear that these aggregators could also suffer from radio stations not wanting to be on their platforms—already, BBC Sounds has pulled out of Radioplayer. These aggregators are becoming increasingly popular with young people and should be taken seriously if the Bill is to future-proof radio listening.
Universality has long been a principle of radio listening in this country. As the internet allows us to become increasingly atomised, living in echo chambers created by social media companies, I do not want the same thing to happen in the new and exciting world of online radio. The principle must be that online services of Ofcom-designated radio stations should be available on all speakers. If there is any danger of that service not being offered or carried universally, either because it is complicated for the radio companies to create new compatible software or because there is an exclusivity deal with a device manufacturer, then it should be taken seriously and stopped.
I want the fast-growing online radio channels to be a huge success, easily and universally accessible. The Minister has been very generous with his time, and met me twice about other concerns in the Bill. I ask him to meet me again, so that we can work together to make Part 6 of the Bill as effective and future-proofed as it possibly can be.