Title

HC Deb 02 July 1996 vol 280 cc860-74

Amendment made: No. 172, in title, line 6, after `interest' insert `to amend in other respects the law relating to the provision of television and sound programme services'.—[Mr. Wood.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

10.16 pm

Dr. Moonie

An old dog can be taught new tricks. May I sum up the proceedings as briefly as possible?

First, I wish to raise an important point in the hope that, when the Secretary of State replies, she can give some indication to the ITC on it. Some amendments concerned the need for the ITC to apply its test to a cross-holding, irrespective of its size. I have a letter from the ITC, which says: The purpose of these amendments is to address a defect in paragraph 7(3) of Part IV of Schedule 2. At present if the ITC is notified of a cross-holding, no matter how small a share of the market the acquisition or start up represents, it has to apply the test. If subsequently the same broadcaster acquires a further large cross-holding, the ITC is then debarred from conducting a further test unless a different broadcasting interest is also involved. It would seem logical that, in certain circumstances, say, if a company buys 1 or 2 per cent. of a licence, it is not worth while wasting time applying the test, yet the ITC is forced to do so. If the same company then moves and buys 50 per cent. of a licence, the ITC is no longer allowed to apply the test. The ITC should be given some discretion to decide when it is appropriate to apply the test and when it is not. If some direction can be given to it without it appearing in the Bill, it would benefit all concerned.

We have had an interesting few months since Second Reading. We had a long Committee stage and what appeared at times to be an even longer Report stage, although it accelerated towards the end. Despite our initial misgivings, some of which persist, our view has remained unchanged: in principle, we support the Bill and therefore have no intention of asking the House to divide on this issue. However, it is worth going over some of the changes that have been achieved in the Bill. I do not propose to try to claim all those as fantastic victories for the Opposition, as that is not the case. Although one or two are, I shall simply refer to them in a fairly neutral fashion because the Bill has been improved beyond all recognition during its passage through the Committee and on Report. That is the function of detailed scrutiny of legislation.

Statutory instruments have now been laid before the House in draft form on conditional access. I confess that I have not examined them in great detail, but they appear to be very good and meet most, if not all, of the concerns that we raised in Committee. I am glad of that. We shall see whether that remains so or whether the ingenuity of those who are supposed to be regulated by them finds some way round a measure that obviously will have widespread support in the House.

We welcome the reserve powers on technical standards that have been given to the ITC. We accept the arguments that a common set-top box, although ideal, may be a fantasy—something that we cannot realise in practice. At least giving the ITC reserve powers to determine technical standards has ensured that, if problems are seen to arise and if industry is unable to arrive at a consensus as to how the technological developments should take place, it has the powers to step in and try to do something about it. Everyone will welcome that.

We welcome the link to the provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 on quality, to which the Secretary of State has given at least ringing verbal support. [Interruption.] Rather less ringing, it appears. Perhaps I had better go back and read exactly what the Minister said, but it sounded fairly ringing to us the last time that she gave it.

We are glad that the mechanism for review of switch-off dates has been clarified. That is a very important point, which will raise public concern as time goes by. I could refer to items such as the single nominated news provider for channel 3, which is a welcome clarification of the position, and the protection of news access to sporting events and of channel 3 regions in the event of their being taken over, which was very welcome to many of my hon. Friends and I am sure to Conservative Members.

Some detailed improvements have been made to the position of S4C on digital. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will wish to refer to that if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He will have to be here, of course, but I am sure that he will have returned to the Chamber by that time.

The Channel 4 funding formula arrangements have been clarified, if not necessarily yet resolved. There is the question of future privatisation of that organisation. Perhaps, in the not too distant future, the Government will be prepared to enlighten us as to their intentions. I am convinced that Mr. Grade would be very grateful for that, to enable him to plan for the future. We welcome the must carry provisions that have been introduced on cable. I speak personally when I say that the extra space that has been allocated for Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland will find great favour in vast areas of the country, and I hope that it will be improved in future.

Last but not least was the Minister of State's commitment today to review the perceived anomalies in television licensing. Such a review is long overdue, and we look forward to hearing more about it very soon.

Deficiencies remain in the Bill, which are inevitable, given its size and complexity. We are very disappointed that the Government saw fit to water down the commitment to people with sensory disabilities. I accept to some extent the logic of their argument that such things may be hard to do, but I believe that technological change is occurring at such a rate that this will seem to have been a bit mean-spirited in the not too distant future.

We are very disappointed that BBC employees were not given the. assurances that they sought on pension rights. Such assurances have been given in every other recent privatisation. It would not have taken much effort to set those people's minds at rest.

Although we welcome our victory in another place on sporting events, which the Government accepted, we feel that our failure to carry the day on Report on the other changes that we want to the coverage of sporting events will ensure an inexorable decline in the general public's ability to watch popular sporting events on free to air television. That is to be deplored.

Despite the arguments advanced by other parties, we still believe that the cross-media ownership regulations are arbitrary and discriminatory. I hope that, when they are tested, as I hope that they will be, in the European Court, the Government get another bloody nose from that organisation and are forced to change their mind yet again.

The single biggest remaining problem with digital terrestrial television is whether it will ever get off the ground. The Labour party supports the principle—as do the Government—but we are dubious as to whether it will fly. Last week, David Elstein, the head of programming at BSkyB, said inThe House Magazine: Digital terrestrial television is an industrial dead end … no broadcaster has any serious expectation that digital terrestrial will happen. At least with this Bill, if nothing else, we are giving it a chance to happen—and that is all we can do at present. We can only give it a chance and hope that it will confound the pessimists and take off. Although I am not a natural pessimist—as hon. Members can tell by looking at me—I am somewhat pessimistic about the chances of digital terrestrial television.

We have consulted many people in this regard—as I am sure the Government have—and they share our concerns as to whether digital terrestrial television will fly. We believe that digital satellite and digital cable may well be a reality long before digital terrestrial television. That is why we need to have a legislative and regulatory regime that is able to cope with a rapidly changing environment. Broadcasting will continue to change quickly, particularly as near super-highway services are developing.

During the course of the Bill, the Government have said that there will need to be another such Bill in the future—the success or failure of digital terrestrial television will determine just how soon that new legislation will have to be introduced.

I thank my hon. Friends for their sterling support in Committee and on Report. We may not have seen eye to eye on every issue, but we generally managed to arrive at a consensus. I thank them all from the bottom of my heart for their support.

10.26 pm

Sir Wyn Roberts

I compliment the Government on safeguarding the Welsh language—provision has been made for it through S4C and the BBC's contribution to that service. I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and to her colleague the Minister of State.

Some problems still have to be ironed out—such as the operation of the multiplex and the transmission coverage—but the general framework, with regard to the share of the multiplex and financing, is satisfactory so far as we can tell at this stage. We are standing on the threshold of the digital era. That era will be highly competitive, and I am not sure that our analogue broadcasters have fully grasped just how intensely competitive it may be. However, they have an in-built advantage in that they are already in the field and have an assured place in the digital spectrum. They have been given priority, but I have no doubt that others will challenge them.

A fundamental rule in a competitive situation is that people should look to the quality of their product—if they are good enough, they will win through and they will hold on to their audience. We must give viewers not necessarily what we think they should have or what they want, but, if possible, what they have not dreamed of—that was Shakespeare's recipe for success, and it still holds good. There will always be jockeying for advantage among competitive broadcasters.

As far as Wales is concerned, I have a great deal of sympathy with HTV, which has a heavy licence cost and faces the prospect of losing some £6 million in revenue from Channel 4. It must ensure that its changed circumstances are taken fully into account in the re-negotiation of its licence fee. That is the solution to its problem, and I am sure that it is aware of it.

I refer to the BBC in Wales. It is plaintive because it cannot get on the network as frequently as it would wish. That is the position now—it has nothing to do with digital, radio or television. I regret its lack of success as much as anyone in networking because it has some performers of outstanding quality. Essentially, it is an internal problem for the BBC to sort out. I would like to see more English programmes about Wales. That would please Welsh viewers in the first instance and then, I hope, secure recognition elsewhere. I cannot believe that All the air things wear That built this world of Wales"— as Gerard Manley Hopkins put it—does not contain infinite possibilities for good programming for those with creative minds.

10.29 pm

Mr. Kaufman

The Secretary of State was wise to say nothing in introducing the Third Reading of the Bill as there is little to be said for it. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), in his kindly way, was overgenerous in his comments about it. The Bill has been washed up rather than passed: it is part of television's past. Although it has sections relating to digital television, they hold the fort rather than look to the future.

Since the Bill began its passage through Parliament, there have been huge changes in the communications scene—including in television and broadcasting—in this country. However, those changes appear to have had little or no impact on the Bill, despite the many amendments that the Government have made to it. We are seeing a change in the television climate that makes the Bill largely irrelevant.

When Independent Television was introduced 40 years ago, it was a revolution. It doubled the number of television channels and changed the nature of, and the approach to, broadcasting. We shall soon have Channel 5, but a new television channel is no longer a revolution—it is a possibly interesting increment. During the Bill's passage, the scope of non-terrestrial television has expanded. The number of viewers who are linked up either by satellite or by cable has increased during that time and will continue to increase after the Bill becomes law. There will be 12 more satellite channels this autumn—a number introduced by Granada and one by Warner Bros.

Recent developments—which are highly relevant to discussions about the sporting events that have taken place—reveal the direction in which we are moving and the increasing irrelevance of the Bill even before it becomes law. This country has witnessed its first pay television sporting event—the Bruno-Tyson fight—and, although BSkyB did not make money on it, 600,000 people paid —9.95 to watch it. That is the way of the future.

The Premier league has sold its television rights for the next four years to BSkyB—with highlights rights to the BBC—for a much greater price than it paid for them when it entered into the present five-year contract. It is only a four-year contract this time. With the arrival of digital television, the Premier league clubs do not want to be excluded from broadcasting their own matches on pay per view—as they may be doing in the new century.

Rugby league has changed from a winter to a summer game simply because it proved more lucrative when selling television rights. The Rugby Union game has been turned upside down by the perfectly legitimate purchase of its television rights by BSkyB. While that is going on and while we are arguing about who shall own ITV channels, ITV is shrinking. The ITV audience has shrunk substantially and it will shrink even more. The BBC audience is shrinking too, and it will shrink even more. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy was accurate when he said that the prospects for digital terrestrial television are not great. The prospects for satellite digital television are far greater, especially with the possibility of the launch of a new satellite, which Mr. Murdoch will use.

Meanwhile, the BBC, which has made grandiloquent statements about the future of digital terrestrial television, does not have any money to launch digital terrestrial television. It has talked nonsense about obtaining the huge sums of money required from the private finance initiative and by economies on candle ends within the organisation. That shows how unrealistic and impractical the present BBC regime is and how increasingly unfit it is to run the BBC, which has also been shown by the serious attack on the World Service that the BBC has now undertaken.

The National Heritage Select Committee will shortly decide whether to conduct a new inquiry into the BBC and, like the inquiry that we conducted three years ago, it will inevitably be an inquiry into the whole subject of communications. When we conducted our last inquiry, we set the pattern for much of the activity that has taken place since and I hope that we shall be able to do that again. Indeed, some of the Government's setbacks on the Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy referred, would not have happened if the Government had had the good sense to pay greater attention to the Select Committee reports.

The problem with the Bill is not that it is a bad Bill, but that even as it completes its House of Commons stages it is becoming increasingly irrelevant to what will happen to the media, television and communications industry. The Government who will be elected next year will have to bring in the next broadcasting Bill and I hope that that Government will understand the need for vision in dealing with the subject, because vision has been sadly missing from the Bill.

10.36 pm

Mr. Gale

It is a pity that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has been so uncharacteristically churlish, because many people have put a lot of hard work into the Bill. His remarks were wholly out of keeping with the courteous and constructive approach of the Opposition Front-Bench team, certainly in Committee. I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends the Ministers for the courtesy and consideration that they have shown, throughout the passage of the Bill, to the suggestions made by—it is fair to say—hon. Members from both sides of the House, on the Floor of the House and in discussions.

Few of us feel that the Bill has not been improved during its passage. It was never going to be a perfect piece of legislation because, as the right hon. Member for Gorton rightly said, the technology has changed as we have been speaking and will continue to do so. The right hon. Gentleman is profoundly wrong because the future is not in satellite, which is merely a delivery system. The long-term future will be in fully interactive cable services, but that remains to be seen.

The Bill, when it becomes an Act, will create a framework for the development of digital television for the digital future of communications. Those who have the courage to invest in that digital future will justly and rightly reap the rewards. If we have achieved that, we will have achieved a great deal.

10.38 pm

Mr. Kevin Hughes

I want briefly to refer to radio licensing and, in particular, a local radio station. Last year, the Radio Authority reconsidered the franchise covering my constituency, the Doncaster area. It advertised for a local radio station for the Doncaster area. At that time it was served by a Sheffield station called Radio Hallam.

There were two bidders for a local radio station in Doncaster. Doncaster has a population of around 300,000, and the metropolitan borough is, geographically, the largest in Britain. If that is put together with neighbouring areas, the population would be about 500,000. The Radio Authority, after advertising for a local station, saw fit to give the licence back to the regional radio station, Radio Hallam. Therefore, Doncaster still does not have a local radio station. Instead, it has three regional stations—Radio Hallam, Great Yorkshire Gold and Kiss FM. I understand that the Radio Authority's decision was challenged and one of the bidders sought a judicial review. Unfortunately, the Radio Authority's decision was upheld. Recently, the Radio Authority has said that there may be an opportunity to reconsider the Doncaster situation.

When I met the Radio Authority's chief executive he tried to fob me off with a small garden-shed medium-wave-type station which most hon. Members know would probably not get off the ground. We need an FM station with decent coverage; a decent commercial radio which could do the business, make money and provide a service for the Doncaster area.

I raise this matter because, the Radio Authority having agreed to reconsider the situation, at least one of the bidders is still interested in providing a proper commercial radio station to cover the Doncaster and Bassetlaw area. I do not want the Radio Authority to fob the people of Doncaster off yet again. We are not an outpost of Sheffield. We are fed up with being thought of as one. We have three regional radio stations. The Doncaster evening paper is basicallyThe Star of Sheffield, with an additional two or three sheets.

I should like the Secretary of State to bang some heads together at the Radio Authority and tell it that if it intends to advertise for a local radio station for Doncaster again, it should award it to a station that will promise to provide a radio station for the Doncaster people, not yet another regional radio station. We already have three of those and we do not want any more.

10.42 pm

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

I intervene briefly to hand out some medals and to flag up an issue. I have medals for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, her Ministers and the staff of the Department of National Heritage for this remarkable Bill which has achieved a great deal. Legislation will never lead the technological way. It will always be the other way round, I suspect. But I have watched the Bill from the sidelines and it has made remarkable progress. I had hoped that it would address a particular problem, but it has not, so we shall have to wait for the next broadcasting Bill.

I want to flag up the fact that most of the effort seems to go into Britain's highly populated urban areas. However, many people in the United Kingdom live in sparsely populated areas which will never be cabled and where it will probably be impossible to receive satellite programmes, but who cannot receive the news and current affairs programmes which apply to them. I raise this on behalf of my constituents in Wylye, Steeple Langford, Hanging Langford and Amesbury. They cannot receive their local news from the BBC or from commercial television. They have to receive somebody else's local news in which they are completely uninterested. That must have an impact on the advertising revenue of the commercial stations.

I suspect that the problem will not be addressed by digital terrestrial stations, nor by the technology that is currently available, but it must be addressed somehow. It is not for me to say how, but I am quite sure that someone will find a solution. I shall return to the issue in the next broadcasting Bill on behalf of my constituents and the hundreds of thousands of people who must be in similar circumstances wherever there is a boundary problem.

I congratulate the Government on an excellent Bill that will benefit many people and technologies. It will add lustre to Britain's tradition of leading the world in broadcasting technology.

10.45 pm

Mrs. Anne Campbell

I shall be brief. The Broadcasting Bill has raised an interesting mixture of technical and political issues. We have touched on several matters that have not been mentioned so far on Third Reading such as our failed attempt to strengthen the equal opportunities provisions. I hope that we shall redress that, perhaps in the next broadcasting Bill.

I would offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on persuading the Government to relent on the facilities for people with disabilities, particularly in respect of subtitling, signing and audio description for people with vision disabilities. That was a major triumph for which many people will be grateful for many years to come.

I am sorry that we did not succeed in amending the Bill to strengthen the notion of quality, as it is a key issue. There has to be a balance between quality and hard commercial decisions, particularly when they involve new technology that is not certain to get off the ground. However, most of us feel that any effort that is put into providing digital terrestrial television would include the facility to produce high-quality programmes.

Parliament is always better at being reactive rather than pro-active and I regret that we have not been able to take account of the way in which the technology is developing.

Several hon. Members referred to converging technologies—telephony, computers and television—but few of us are in a position to make projections as to the implications of those converging technologies.

We shall need another broadcasting Bill within a short time as the way in which the Government have framed the clauses on cross-media ownership will prove unworkable and will become totally irrelevant within two years.

Reference has been made to set-top boxes and open standards. I expect that manufacturers are convinced that open standards are a good idea. If they were not convinced before, they will have been persuaded by the fact that IBM licensed its operating system to other manufacturers and made a great deal of money, whereas Apple Mac chose to remain technically isolated and lost its market share. There are two lessons to be learnt from that. First, open standards work and can be advantageous in the market and secondly, technical superiority does not necessarily prevail. It is rather curious that the market does not always win. Most people who are familiar with computing technology would agree that Apple Mac is far superior to IBM, yet IBM has triumphed because of its marketing rather than its technical quality.

I shall not delve into today's lobby on the BBC World Service—if I did so, you would no doubt rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the Bill does not specifically mention the World Service—but I am sure that we shall all want to debate the subject in the coming months. Certainly, people who have been here today have made strong representations about the need to preserve the quality of the World Service.

10.49 pm

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

I did not expect us to have an opportunity to debate the Bill on Third Reading. I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Broadcasting Act 1990. As an adviser to Yorkshire-Tyne Tees Television, however, I felt unable to serve on the Committee that considered this Bill: the future of Yorkshire-Tyne Tees Television's ownership is clearly affected by some its provisions.

The real question, which has been lost in many debates on the Bill, is why we should have such a Bill at all. Essentially its purpose is to provide a framework for digital television, and in that respect the Government must be congratulated: we seem to be ahead of the game compared with other western European countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, it is impossible through legislation to drive what will happen in either technology or the market, but at least when the Bill is passed, Britain will have a framework. As our debates on the 1990 legislation made clear, people talk of prescribing quality, but it is impossible to guarantee where the money will come from to pay for that quality.

The lesson that we have learnt over the past five or six years, in radio as much as in television, is that those in the industry know far better than us politicians what will work and what the British people, as viewers and listeners, will accept, support and subscribe to. It is somewhat ironic that Classic FM, although never prescribed in the 1990 legislation, has had such a success with only a glimmer of a legislative framework establishing what it should do. It has been successful because those who run it know how to run a radio station.

One of the main arguments during our debates on the Bill has concerned the future of Channel 4. When we debated the 1990 legislation, we were accused of giving Channel 4 an opportunity to secure its own advertising revenue, and of effectively selling it down the river. We put its remit on the statute book, and by and large that has worked. Channel 4 has been extremely successful in selling its own air time, to the point where channel 3 is receiving money back from it instead of the money going the other way. That should tell us that, while we have a close interest in the quality of our broadcast media, we often underestimate the ability of the talented people in broadcasting to know what works best. As a result of that ability we have some of the best broadcasting in the world, and we are all concerned about its future.

As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out, there are clouds on the horizon that we cannot ignore and I shall deal with two. We have not dealt with them in the Bill, but that is not the end of the world: we can still consider them. First, there is a gross inequality in what some channel 3 licence holders pay for the right to hold a licence. We should have provided for an early review of the matter, but that is still possible; we do not have to put it in the Bill.

Secondly, there is a gross anomaly because channel 3 pays almost £400 million a year to the Treasury while BSkyB, Channel 4 and other commercial broadcasters pay nothing. We must look ahead five or 10 years. As the right hon. Member for Gorton has said, if the ITV audience continues to shrink, as it must when all the other channels come on stream, what will be the ultimate solution? There will have to be a more equitable take of advertising revenue across the television spectrum and more people are beginning to realise that. That is as important for the Chancellor as what we pass in the Bill. The House will need to return to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) alluded to the fact that in many ways new technology is great for urban areas but does not do much for rural areas. In large areas of my constituency, one planning restriction or another means that a satellite dish cannot be put on the roof. Cable television is 10 to 15 years down the line, but large parts of north Yorkshire will not be able to receive Channel 5 unless my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology, whom I am glad to see in his place, and his Department agree to release channel 35 in the spectrum to Channel 5. That channel will be in direct competition with Yorkshire-Tyne Tees Television. Perhaps I should conclude on that happy note.

The Government are to be congratulated on producing the framework for digital television, but it was inevitable that such a Bill would raise many other issues. We have debated some of them and have left others for another day.

10.56 pm

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)

It has been fascinating to take part in the debates on the Bill. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with hon. Members of all parties in the past few months. I congratulate my hon.

Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). As shadow Ministers, they do not have the resources that are available to the Minister of State, whom I congratulate on grabbing pieces of paper from thin air and quickly absorbing their contents and on moving amendments at a rate of knots.

I do not mean to be disrespectful to the Minister when I say that the Bill has been legislation on the hoof. The way in which we deal with such matters shows that there is an underlying weakness in our procedures. Fast-moving technology meant that some of the Government's first ideas were overtaken by events and better ideas emerged. A good example of my concern occurred last night when we dealt with sensory impairment. I intervened on the Secretary of State during that debate. There was good will among all parties when we dealt with the clause relating to that, but we were not able to address some of the technical issues on the delivery of resources. We could not even answer some of the basic questions about the cost of the requisite technology. That was unfortunate.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) correctly explained how technology has taken a grip on the media. In Committee, I raised that issue in the context of local services in my area. Local newspapers are owned by Trinity Holdings, which has a monopoly on all such newspapers in my area. I do not regard that as a threat because it has exercised proper editorial control over the various parts of its empire and there is a diversity of newspapers in the region. It may seek to take a share in or buy a radio station—there is plenty of swapping and changing in this sector. Again, if it kept that clear editorial control, that would not be a problem. The public interest issue needs to be dealt with in the context of such companies seeking to give viewers, listeners and readers the same thing, with one particular editorial slant. Clearly, that is not in the public interest.

Our problem with the cross-media ownership debate, some of which became more heated than anything else during an interesting Committee, was that we were starting not with a blank sheet of paper but with a hotch-potch of different mixes of media ownership throughout the country and in different mediums. As a consequence, the debate was about what were, after all, arbitrary figures. That shows that we have not been able to deal adequately with some of the important issues.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) referred, in an exchange, I think, with the Minister, to the Internet site ofThe Daily Telegraph. What comprises the circulation ofThe Daily Telegraph? Is it made up just of the hard copies that it sells to people through its normal outlets? Does it include the 100,000 copies, or whatever the figure is, that it gives away to British Rail customers, or does it include its Internet site? It is difficult to give a definition of circulation.

The same is true of some of the more sophisticated magazine sites on the Internet. Where does one draw the boundaries between what is conventionally a magazine in hard copy, what is in electronic form and, increasingly, magazines that provide electronic clips? When we have video on demand on the television networks, we will be able to watch a film or a news item at our leisure and when we choose to do so. Broadcasting and magazines will become remarkably close.

One of the weaknesses of this complicated sector is the procedures that we have used. I commend to hon. Members the report of the Hansard Society Commission on the legislative process, which was published in, I think, 1991. In appendix 5, it sets out a case study on the Broadcasting Act 1990 and gives some good reasons why legislation such as this requires a different approach. It makes an extremely powerful argument that we should have hearings from experts during the passage of such legislation in future. I hope that Procedure Committee members will consider the matter carefully in the context of that case study of the Broadcasting Act and of this Bill.

The Minister does not entirely disagree with my view. In an interesting exchange of letters, I brought to his attention an essay that I was using as a source, unusually because it was written by Boutros Boutros-Ghali. In our exchange of correspondence, the Minister agreed that, in this sector, the methodology that we were adopting was a weakness. I hope that I am not misinterpreting what he said.

In Committee, the Minister said: However, I remind members of the Committee that we are dealing with an interim Bill. No one here is in any doubt but that we shall have to return to the issue within the next three, four or five years. I intervened and said, "In two years." The Minister said: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston says two years, and he could well be right."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 June 1996; c. 462] That is the difficulty. It is interim legislation in an area of rapid change.

We have debated a number of particularly important issues. Obviously, the role of the media in a democracy and free society is important. We need to exploit the technologies that are available to us in the interest not just of our internal broadcasting media but of Great Britain plc. Massive export opportunities arise from the technologies at our disposal. We have a huge area of talent and expertise from which we can benefit.

I hope that we have done something positive in providing a basic framework for the beginning of the digital technology that is now potentially available. I do not hold with the view that it will be a failure. There is a huge potential market to be exploited. I wish the Bill well when it becomes an Act because there has been a fair measure of agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House on some underlying points, which will prove to be a useful framework for the developing industry to which I have referred.

In conclusion—[Interruption.] This is wonderful. Having sat here silently all day, I am now being jeered by my colleagues—

Mr. Hoon

Cheered.

Mr. Miller

I prefer to hear that.

I wish the Bill well, but I remind the House of those observations. I think that we will have to return to it much sooner than we would have thought. I urge the House, particularly the Procedure Committee, to think carefully about this and the other broadcasting measure.

11.7 pm

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley)

The note on which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) concluded his remarks has, in many ways, characterized the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. I should like to add my strong thanks and appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology and all the members of the Committee. I should also like to thank the extremely hard-working officials from the Department of National Heritage, who laboured long and hard and who frequently kept their heads when all about them lost theirs. We are extremely indebted to them. I should like to thank the Opposition, especially the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and his team. The spirit of constructive debate has been extremely impressive.

Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about how the Committee could have been handled better, it has been my impression that the regulators and the broadcasters have effectively been offering sessions to hon. Members of whatever persuasion to seek to consider options constructively and to provide information and advice to the best of their ability. In short, in many ways, it has been a model of careful scrutiny. Following the detailed debate and discussion in another place, I believe that it leaves our deliberations improved, modified and made more sensitive and appropriate to the evolving needs that have been described by many.

I dispute the suggestion that the Bill is not appropriate to current circumstances. I believe that the comment made earlier today by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that it is easy to become dazzled by technology was fair. We have to regulate and establish a framework for the world as it is, albeit while recognising the very fast pace of change. It was because of the digital future that it was so necessary to introduce the legislation now, enabling us to be on the front foot and to provide the United Kingdom with a platform to take a world lead in digital broadcasting.

The Bill also gives media companies the freedom to expand into new sectors. It provides greater choice and it protects the interests of viewers and listeners. Hon. Members have already described some of the ways in which they believe that improvements have been made.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy raised a specific point that I should like to address. We think that the regulatory gap that the Independent Television Commission perceives is, in practice, not a major concern. If a broadcaster acquired a small newspaper, it would become a newspaper proprietor and subject to the newspaper merger provisions if it then proceeded to make a major newspaper acquisition. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, on reporting the matter to the Secretary of State, would no doubt take into account the fact that the newspaper proprietor held a broadcasting licence when that appeared to be a relevant factor. In other words, we believe that there is adequate regulatory protection.

I suppose that I am pleased that the voice of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is fairly isolated in being quite so critical of the Bill. The careful process of consultation on cross-media ownership and on digital television was followed by the Bill's launch in December, and that process was widely endorsed and commended by those in the industry and by other commentators for its detailed consideration and debate.

Of course rapid change is occurring, and we must be prepared for the future, but the legislation represents a very substantial process of deregulation, offering media companies a great opportunity to extend and to move into new markets. The divisions that emerged among Opposition Members earlier in the debate over the degree to which they were able to embrace the future were extremely marked and interesting.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has played a very active part in the Bill's passage, and I share his view of the positive opportunities for the future. Few would have predicted that satellite would have expanded as it has; I believe that the opportunities with digital television will be similar.

The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) asked a very important question about Doncaster. I shall never visit Doncaster again without worrying about being interviewed on radio, particularly if it is to see the developments of the Earth Centre, which is one of the millennium flagship projects there. I shall ensure that he receives a proper answer, and that there is further consideration of the matter that he raised.

I am delighted about the tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) paid to officials at the Department of National Heritage, where he is remembered with great affection. I cannot promise that digital will solve all the reception problems to which he alluded, but I think that it will offer greater opportunities—certainly to develop regional and local services, which is not possible on satellite.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made some important points and spoke a little about equal opportunities. Although it does not relate to the Bill, I shall send her a copy of what I told the Royal Television Society and skill set on that matter and on the need for people in television to act on the basis of enlightened self-interest, which, of course, means wise choices in staff. My remarks also dealt with the importance of investing in training and with the need for talented people. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who was a member of the 1990 Bill team. As he rightly said, the great success of Classic FM and Channel 4 since then is only a small indication of the opportunities that we now see for the future.

I thank hon. Members. I believe that we have ensured that the Bill, which we have seen through its Commons stages, will have the overall support of the industry, of regulators and of listeners. It safeguards and enhances the prospects for British business, British jobs and the British people. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.