UK House of Commons discuss pirate radio stations (part one)

Pirate Radio Stations: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -[Mr. Michael Foster.] 8.26 pm today.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight the serious and increasing problem of illegal radio broadcasting and the criminality associated with it. I choose those terms advisedly, as the description 'pirate radio' does not convey a real sense of the activities undertaken by those involved.

Many people retain a nostalgic view of the pirate radio broadcasters of the 1960s-the Radio Carolines of the era, which challenged the BBC with their line-up of cheesy disc jockeys, who are now part of radio history. Indeed, the Minister for Industry and the Regions recalled that era of broadcasting during a recent debate on the Draft Wireless Telegraphy (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Order 2006. When she was asked by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) whether Radio Caroline could be brought back, she replied:

"None of us wants to divulge our age, but I assure my hon. Friend that Radio Caroline, like any other station, may apply for a licence and may even find it easier to do so once we have simplified and consolidated the legislation in the way that we intend."-[ Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 17 May 2006; c. 4.]

As the Minister's comments show, there is still a perception that pirate radio is a bit of harmless fun. I am not referring to the Minister in particular, but the traditional attitude towards illegal broadcasting is a significant part of the problem of tackling that serious issue. Of course, Radio Caroline was not illegal; it was just not regulated because it
broadcast from offshore-my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) nods in concurrence.

The real world of pirate radio stations nowadays is very different from the romantic and nostalgic picture of the 1960s. The reality is that illegal stations do real harm to the communities they purport to serve. They are ope rated with wanton disregard for the health and safety of others and, in many cases, are highly profitable operations that feed other criminal activities.

They cause significant disruption and damage to legitimate businesses that have paid significant sums to the Government in licence fees for radio frequencies that are in large part unusable. Many illegal stations are tied to the drugs trade and are used to promote events where drugs can be bought or sold. A report in the The Times last November summarised the position well when it said:

"There are more than 150 illegal stations across the country, a third of which are said to be run by criminal gangs who use them as a front to sell drugs. Previous raids have found drugs, guns and ammunition among the piles of CDs. Drug dealers within earshot of some stations keep tuned to wait for a particular song to be played or a phrase to be uttered, knowing that it is the signal that their next shipment is ready for collection."

Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the measured way in which he is contrasting the care-free days of Ronan O' Rahilly and the offshore stations, and the present reality. It is not just drugs and raves that are the problem with pirate radio stations in my part of the world. Typically a pirate radio station occupies a squatted council flat with steel doors. It is a living embodiment of contempt for the law. I am as a romantic as the next person and as affectionate for Radio Caroline and Radio London, but I entirely endorse the points that he is making and I wish him God speed, because this is a real problem. It is not about music; it is about menace.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will certainly come on to some of the issues that he has highlighted and will give some examples of the real misery and danger that is caused by a number of the operators, because that is a serious point. The links to crime are demonstrated by an example that Ofcom, the regulator, gave to me of a raid that was undertaken in the course of the past month.

This is an example of what he was saying:
"Two persons were found on the premises and were arrested for offences related to illegal broadcasting. Two knives and two samurai swords were found during the operation. A further arrest was made of a person wanted by the police for questioning as part of their operation trident investigations".

Illegal broadcasting, by its very nature, is entirely unregulated. It feels no prohibition on playing music that glamorises gang violence and drug culture. It is accountable to no one for what it broadcasts. It abides by no
programming codes on taste or decency and it operates without any regard for the consequences of what may be said on air.

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): Is my hon. Friend also aware that, whereas in the old days people complained that somehow Radio Caroline would interfere with the radio for air traffic control, which 30 years ago was absolute nonsense, in this instance sloppy engineering by many of the pirate
stations creates harmonics? In other words, they end up transmitting not only on the main frequency, but also, inadvertently, on other frequencies.
That interferes with legal broadcasters such as BBC Radio 4, Radio 3 and commercial broadcasters, as well as with emergency transmissions used by the fire service, the ambulance service and, I understand, air traffic control.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend's point about the engineering that goes into the transmission equipment is right. The equipment poses dangers in the way he has alluded to. In addition, the way in which it is installed is
highly dangerous for residents living in the high-rise blocks where such pieces of equipment can often be found. I will go on to illustrate in more detail some of the points that he has raised in his timely intervention. A recent example is germane to the wanton disregard for safety and the issue
of the implications of what is said. It has been alleged that pirate radio was the trigger behind the Lozells riots in October 2005 because it incited racial tensions in Birmingham by spreading false rumours that a black woman
had been raped by Asian men. That example shows the serious nature of the unregulated environment that pirate radio stations operate within.

There are other ways in which pirate radio can cause harm in the manner that has been indicated in the interventions. Illegal broadcasting causes interference to safety-of-life radio networks, such as those used by air traffic control, the fire service, the ambulance service and the police. It is interesting to note that in 2005, Ofcom responded to 41 safety-of-life cases. One example was on 14 July 2005, when, following contact from the Civil Aviation Authority, the Ofcom investigation team were mobilised to east London to
investigate serious interference with the ground-to-air communication system in use at London City airport. The source was traced to a pirate radio station in the Hackney area. The offending transmitter was subsequently removed by Ofcom staff. The problem was reported as being "the most serious case of interference for many years", because London City airport was about to close as it had no alternative means of reliable communication with the aircraft seeking to land at the airport. In the wake of that shocking incident, during a week long operation in London last
October, 53 illegal broadcast transmitters were seized and 17 further transmitters and aerials were disabled-all in just seven days.

There are also other health and safety implications. An illegal broadcaster will identify a slot in the FM broadcasting band. It will then locate its transmitter on high ground, usually on the roof of a local authority building, which will typically be a residential tower block. To feed the transmitter, the illegal broadcaster will tap into the building's power supply, often by diverting electricity from the lift motor room-in the process, putting the lift out of action for the residents. In some cases, illegal broadcasters will place their transmitters on mobile phone masts.

Increasingly, illegal broadcasters are placing obstacles in Ofcom's path to thwart enforcement activities. Ofcom has told me that it has recently encountered: the placement of transmitters down ventilation flues, or chimneys, and on rooftops, with access to the device being restricted through the use of scissor-type car jacks; the attachment of live 240V electric cables to the access doors on rooftops in an attempt to cause shock or injury; the utilisation of scaffold poles to jam main access doors on rooftops; the changing of locks on perimeter fencing and electrical cabinets; the attachment of barbed wire to structures around the
transmission equipment; and, in some instances, the detachment of the main access ladders. The illegal broadcasters can cause significant damage to rooftops when installing apparatus. The pirates have also been known to
intimidate the caretakers and their families in an attempt to gain access to high-rise blocks. As we have heard, the transmitters are crude in construction and are not electronically safe.

All that can have a direct impact on the safety of people living in the blocks of flats that have been hijacked by the illegal broadcasters. One example given to me by Ofcom was of a woman living in a top floor flat who had to be evacuated following a carbon monoxide leak into her home. A crack
had appeared in her kitchen wall following the installation of a transmitter that had been located in an adjacent gas ventilation flue. The incident was caused by an expanded car jack. Some £7,000 of damage was caused and the fumes from the flue were allowed to leak into her premises. I fear that it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed as a result of illegal broadcasters' activities.

There is a misconception that the people behind illegal radio stations are just enthusiasts with an interest in music and broadcasting. Some claim that they break the law because they want to serve a community need, but Ofcom provides an outlet for that through the new community radio licences that it is advertising. The licences are awarded regularly throughout the country to meet that unfulfilled need.

Michael Fabricant: In the past, regulators such as the radio division of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the Radio Authority and Ofcom used to say that there was a lack of frequencies. However, owing to digital audio broadcasting multiplexing and the extension of the FM band from 104 to 108 MHz, frequencies are available, albeit with some limitations. As my hon. Friend said earlier, if Radio Caroline was to ask for a two or four-week local broadcast licence now, it would probably get one.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the use of the spectrum. Indeed, there are various ways in which communities can promote different types of music or reflect a community need, whether that is through restricted service licences for the time periods that he suggests, or the new community licences. I have had the privilege and pleasure of supporting my local community radio station: Link FM in Havering. I am pleased to report that it has now been given a full-time community radio licence. That demonstrates that if people wish to undertake legal
broadcasting, there are the means and method to achieve that in a regulated environment.

One of the most famous cases of a pirate going into a regulated environment was probably Kiss 100. The station had its roots in the pirate tradition, but was then able to broadcast music that had perhaps not been accessed before lawfully and with a licence on FM. The station is now very
successful. Those who argue that pirate radio is about giving a voice to, or promoting music among, a wider community should be aware that the means exist to do that. Given the expansion of internet broadcasting, too, it is now even easier and more cost-effective to produce such output and reach a wide audience.

The truth is that the majority of illegal broadcasters are motivated by money. The turnover of an illegal station can be significant. Set-up costs are minimal; a transmitter costs about £350 and a good-quality studio can be assembled for just £2,000. According to Ofcom, a large illegal radio station
can generate up to £5,000 a week in cash, without the need to pay tax, licence fees or copyright charges for the music played. Such stations advertise parties, clubs, records and the like. A good number even have websites with discussion groups. The stations are full-blown black market businesses and the licensed broadcasting industry is bearing the direct
economic cost of the illegal competition.

It is interesting to note that many of the broadcasters and DJs who appear on pirate radio stations actually pay for the privilege. They are often teenagers and young people who may be impressionable. The pirates often prey on that and charge them as much as £20 an hour to broadcast on the stations.

It is the mainstream stations that bear the brunt of the problem because their signals are scrambled and interfered with. It is interesting that Paul Brown, the outgoing chief executive of the Commercial Radio Companies Association, says: "Pirate radio operators steal music copyright, endanger the lives of airline passengers and those needing the help of emergency services, and interfere with the broadcast signals of legal radio services. In doing so, they rob BBC licence fee payers of services they have paid for and commercial and
community radio listeners of services licensed to serve them. By reducing listening to legal advertiser funded radio services, they impair revenue generation and investment in content."

Locally, the experience of Time FM 107.5, which serves the London boroughs of Havering, Barking and Dagenham-it covers my constituency and that of the Minister for Industry and the Regions-is a good example of the direct impact that illegal stations can have on the ground. As Neil Romain of London Media Company, which owns Time and several other stations, puts it:
"They affect our business at its most fundamental level. They prevent us being heard by potential listeners. We have four pirates on an adjacent channel with poorly configured equipment which blocks our signal. We have clear evidence that advertisers who would use us do not do so because they
are aware of the intermittent service. Barking and Dagenham council who have advertised with us in the past are currently not doing so because they cannot receive the station in their offices whilst the pirates are broadcasting."

Another example is LBC 97.3 FM, in London, which is owned by Chrysalis Radio. Daniel Owen, head of regulatory affairs at Chrysalis, says the following:
"Interference from pirate radio is ruining listening enjoyment for LBC listeners and having a potentially significant impact on LBC's business. One pirate station has been on-air on an adjacent channel to ours for many months and continues unabated, despite being a clearly well-organised determined outfit with its own website, promotional events and even phone-in number. The confiscation of pirate transmitters is of negligible value to LBC. Last time it happened, the offending station was back within hours on a new transmitter".

Therein lies one of the problems. Ofcom has to mount a continual battle against illegal broadcasters, and it is not being given the back-up that it needs in terms of resources and the support of other agencies.

Although there is the right to sentence such a person to two years' imprisonment, and an unlimited fine for unlawful broadcasts, even when Ofcom secures a conviction, offenders get little more than a slap on the wrist. There were 58 convictions last year, but the average fine was a paltry £563,
with average costs awarded to Ofcom of just £452 per case.

It has been suggested to me that illegal radio broadcasting offences are treated as little worse than not having a TV licence. Against that backdrop, it is hardly surprising that the Commercial Radio Companies Association has resorted to using its own funds to take out private injunctions-at a cost of several thousand pounds per case-against twice-convicted pirate broadcasters, in an attempt to reduce reoffending. But it is absurd that it should be forced into taking such action.

Given that illegal broadcasters are making as much as £5,000 a week, such absurdly low fines can almost be viewed as a minor business cost-assuming that they ever get paid. Ofcom is currently dealing with £58,000-worth of unpaid court debts relating to illegal broadcasts; some of those debts are connected with cases that concluded many years ago. Illegal broadcasters are employing more elaborate methods of securing their equipment, and the result is that the cost of enforcement has increased significantly.

The Government have not given this issue sufficient attention to date. The Minister's Department needs to make a more significant contribution in the battle to reduce the impact of illegal radio broadcasts, but only a co-ordinated approach will work. I understand that the possibility of a
summit meeting is being discussed which would bring together all interested stakeholders-including broadcasters, the Government and law-enforcement bodies-to agree and implement a real solution to the pirate problem. Will the Minister commit to her officials attending such a meeting?

In concluding, I have a few further questions for the Minister. Will the Government grant Ofcom additional powers, if they are needed, to make it more effective in dealing with pirates? For example, will they allow it to act more quickly to shut down telephone numbers known to be used by pirates?
Indeed, will the Minister undertake to review the funding made available to Ofcom to enable it to pursue its enforcement activities? I understand that the licence fees paid by radio operators are merely a statutory fee for the
grant of the licence. The money is not Ofcom's-it goes directly to the Treasury, and Ofcom's spectrum management and enforcement activities are funded by grant-in-aid, via the Department of Trade and Industry.

If dealing with the increasing costs associated with enforcement gives rise to resource issues, that needs to be examined very carefully. If the Minister is unable to commit to providing additional resources, I hope that she will at least commit tonight to examining the funding for enforcement activities undertaken by Ofcom. In addition, will the Government encourage the police to make dealing with pirate radio a higher priority, and to work with Ofcom on devising enforcement solutions and increasing the arrest rate
for pirate broadcasters? Will the Government review sentencing guidelines for pirate radio offences and encourage magistrates to impose stiffer penalties on convicted pirates? In many ways the problem is one of perception-the perception that pirate radio is harmless. I hope that my
comments this evening have given the lie to that and highlighted the need to take this sort of criminality much more seriously.

The co-operation of the BBC is also essential if any co-ordinated approach is to work. The BBC's attitude to pirate radio is, to a large extent, unknown. Will the Government commit themselves to including in the new BBC charter and agreement a duty to work with Ofcom and commercial radio
broadcasters to discourage illegal radio broadcasting activity?

Pirate radio is a serious problem in terms of crime, the dangers that it poses to public safety, and the significant business damage that it causes to legal and legitimate radio companies. It is not a case of "Smashie and Nicey"; more one of "Dangerous and Nasty". As policy makers, we need to tune into the debate on the steps needed to tackle this criminal activity. I hope that the Government will be on the right frequency.

8.51 pm
The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Margaret Hodge): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to debate with him on something other than the Company Law
Reform Bill, to which we will return with all energy tomorrow morning.

I come to the debate as a radio addict, rather than an addict of other media. I have the radio on every moment I can-although not, I hasten to add, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on my mobile in the Chamber. The radio brings us massive benefits, including music and drama, news and information. We can follow our football or cricket team in action, or listen to entertainment such as quizzes, games and conversation. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been talking with LBC; he, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North
(Stephen Pound) have spent much time over the years in the LBC studios participating in creating radio broadcasts.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on his contribution. He is better known to us all, and fondly remembered, as Mickey Fabb, as he was in his younger days.

Stephen Pound: The hair is the same.

Margaret Hodge: I am told that the hair is the same. The hon. Gentleman clearly has something to contribute to the debate.

The hon. Member for Hornchurch spoke at length and I do not think that I disagreed with a word of his analysis of the problem. I admit to having been a Radio Caroline fan in the days before it was banned, by Harold Wilson, I believe.

Stephen Pound: Reluctant though I am to correct my right hon. Friend, the rascal was, in fact, the then Postmaster General, Anthony Wedgwood Benn.
Margaret Hodge: I stand properly corrected.

Many of those who have now become household names learned their trade in the pirate radio industry and the ships that were anchored offshore in the 1960s, and some of today's stations, such as Kiss FM, that started and were
nurtured in the pirate radio world now provide a high standard of entertainment. However, that is a partial view, and I accept what the hon. Member for Hornchurch said about it taking no account of the damage that pirate radio can do. It is important that we do not allow the ring of
excitement about the term "pirate radio" to blind us to the importance of ensuring that use of the radio spectrum is effectively managed. In that, I disagree with the hon. Member for Lichfield. The spectrum is a limited and
extremely valuable asset. One of the tasks for Government, and through that Ofcom, which has the job of ensuring that there is the best use of our spectrum, is to maximise the benefit to all our citizens from the allocation of spectrum throughout the media, so it is not that readily available.

However innocent pirate radio may seem to the listener, it is not innocent. Misuse of the radio spectrum will cause interference to other legitimate radio users. It can have extremely serious consequences. Some illegal broadcasters claim that they break the law because they want to serve a
community need. Ofcom enforcement officials believe that the majority of illegal broadcasts, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch said, are motivated by money. If it is possible to generate in excess of £5,000 a week in untaxed revenue that comes from a mixture of local advertising and charging young
and often impressionable DJs to appear on the station, it is an ill-gotten business from which there are ill-gotten gains.

The hon. Member for Hornchurch is right that owners of illegal radio stations have often been found to be part of wider criminal families. The joint Ofcom-police raids on stations have uncovered things such as drugs and weapons when they have closed down pirate stations. Those involved with this criminal activity have been known to threaten and intimidate neighbours and communities to obtain access to rooftops as transmission sites. Sometimes, they have even booby-trapped aerials by wiring to the mains electricity.

As has been said, in the absence of regulation there is much harmful and offensive content in transmission. This can be broadcast through illegal broadcasters-pirate radio. This includes racist and offensive material that can be put on the air.

I shall talk about Ofcom's role as the regulator. It is Ofcom that takes action. Funding is not necessarily the issue. Ofcom currently spends-the hon. Member for Hornchurch may not know-less than 1 per cent. of its current income on shutting down pirate radios. It may be that within its budget it will want to consider that issue. Even in my first few weeks in this ministerial role, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that Ofcom has to deal with various abuses of information in the form of faxes, telephone calls and so on. A great deal of work is undertaken in tracking abuse within systems by illegal operators. Pirate radio stations have to be seen in the context of all the other regulatory activities in which Ofcom has to be engaged in tracking down abuse. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that. I am not sure that money is particularly the problem.

Pirate radio is much more of a problem in the UK than it is in the rest of Europe. Ofcom has estimated that there are more than 150 illegal broadcasters operating in the UK. We can listen to the radio at any time and find that there is often an interruption. At any one time there are probably about 60 illegal radio stations clogging up the radio spectrum.

The main problem is concentrated around the London region and Birmingham. Ofcom responds to that appropriately and most of its resources are focused on those areas. It has established a separate investigative team to try to tackle some of the misuse of the spectrum by pirate radio stations. Eighteen out of the 21 staff in the investigative team are located in London and Birmingham.

James Brokenshire: I have been listening attentively to the right hon. Lady' s points about resource and where people in Ofcom's enforcement department are allocated. There is a perception, at least in the commercial radio sector, that the issue is about funding and support in terms of the ability
to ensure that enforcement is dealt with effectively and seriously. I heard what the Minister said, but I would be grateful if she made a commitment to examine the situation. Will her officials discuss funding problems with Ofcom, and determine whether other funding can be secured so that radio operators can be sure that their licence fees provide value for money?

Margaret Hodge: I do not think that I could persuade the Chancellor, other colleagues in the Treasury or anyone else that additional income from the licence fee should be spent on that function. I was trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that only 0.8 per cent. of Ofcom's budget is spent on such activity, so a small increase in that percentage would have a minimal impact on the total budget. No doubt, Ofcom would argue that it requires more resources, as it has to carry out a great deal of policing in all activities. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but that is not necessarily the key issue.

The hon. Gentleman said that very few people have been taken to court or, indeed, been subject to action. In one time period, Ofcom conducted 770 operations against illegal broadcasters. Most of that work consisted of seizing the transmitters, because by the time that Ofcom staff arrived at
the premises, the broadcasters had gone. Only 58 of those 770 operations, therefore, resulted in prosecutions. We can argue about whether sentencing guidelines are appropriate-I shall look at the issue to see whether that is the case-but it is difficult to catch the criminals, because they have gone
by the time that Ofcom and the police, with whom the regulator co-operates closely, arrive.

• UK House of Commons discuss pirate radio stations - part two