§ Lords amendment: No. 44.
7.45 pm§ Tessa JowellI beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerWith this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 45, 46, 55, 69 to 71, 94 to 114, 128, 129, 132 to 145, 149, 150, 216 to 218, 221, 222 and 269 to 271.
§ Tessa JowellThese amendments deal with diverse broadcasting regulatory provisions. They make changes to the provisions on electronic programme guides, amendments Nos. 44, 45, 94 to 97 and 150; the renewal of radio multiplex licences, No. 46; must—provide services, No. 55; regional programming, Nos. 69 to 71; radio localness, Nos. 98 to 113, 136 and 140; broadcasting competition, No. 114; advertising agencies, Nos. 128 and 88 129, 269 and 271; change of control, Nos. 132 to 135, 137 and 138, 216 to 218 and 221; meaning of control, Nos. 139, 222 and 270; and access radio, which we intend to refer to as community radio, Nos. 141 to 145; and a minor drafting error, No. 149.
I do not expect that these amendments will prove controversial, and I am happy to commend them to the House. However, I would be happy to go through them in more detail if hon. Members so wished.
§ Mr. WhittingdaleA considerable array of different issues seems to be grouped together, but there seems to be a familiar theme. Many of the amendments relate to issues that in the past we promoted at considerable length, but at the time we failed to persuade the Government of their merits. Now they reappear on the amendment paper from another place in the form of amendments that seek to make precisely the changes that we were advocating originally.
A matter of huge importance to the radio industry is the definition of localness when it comes to radio stations. The Secretary of State will recall that we spent some time in Committee considering the issue. We also had a quite lengthy debate on Report, during which we argued strongly that what mattered to people in identifying with their local station was what it broadcast, the fact that the content of programmes should be local and that the way in which localness is defined when it comes to examining individual local radio stations is the content broadcast. A number of the other requirements that were originally within the Bill—the employment of local people and stations' headquarters being located within the community—seemed to us not to be appropriate for regulation by Government and had little bearing to most people on whether they regarded their station as local. We made those points quite strongly, and we were supported by the radio companies, but without success. It appears that the Government have seen the light, and that is something that we welcome strongly.
Another issue that we spent quite a lot of time debating in Committee was the meaning of control, which has cropped up today as Lords amendment No. 139. We have been pressing the substance of that amendment for some time, as we have always thought that a simple inflexible 20 per cent. shareholding threshold was not an accurate reflection of the ability to control, and may well catch shareholdings that do not confer the means to control or significantly influence another company. We therefore argued that it was wrong that the provisions placed the burden of rebutting the assumption on the shareholder. I am delighted that the Government now agree with us, and have deleted the relevant provisions. It is worth reflecting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, that the Government, when forced to examine an argument in the House of Lords, where the arithmetic is rather different from the arithmetic in the Commons, suddenly accept it and agree to make a change. We sometimes get the feeling that because the Government are guaranteed a majority in the Commons they do not give the same consideration to the same arguments when they are advanced here. Nevertheless, we are always happy when our argument prevails.
§ Brian WhiteDoes the hon. Gentleman remember that in Committee the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was willing to accept the Opposition's 89 amendments but rebutted mine, which has now become Lords amendment No. 95? May I welcome the Government's conversion on electronic programme guides?
§ Mr. WhittingdaleIt has been suggested to me that the obvious lesson to be drawn from that is that the hon. Gentleman should come and join us. If he did so, he might have more success, so I extend an invitation to him, although without great expectation of it being accepted. While we were disappointed that we were unsuccessful when these matters were first debated, nevertheless it is welcome that the Government have accepted a number of points that we made and introduced amendments that we support.
Another issue that we raised on several occasions in Committee is dealt with in Lords amendment No. 114, a sensible provision that will help to enhance transparency in the regulatory process in this area, which is a good thing. I should like to say a few words about clause 310, which is amended by Lords amendment No. 114. We have tried to convince the Government that a problem has arisen because broadcasters who are subjected to economic regulation by Ofcom through their licences for reasons other than a competition purpose, for example under various clause 3 duties, will not have a right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. In another place, the Government have gone some way towards recognising that in practice, at least in the case of the duty to promote the interests of citizens and consumers in relevant markets, any economic regulation relating to pricing and packaging under that duty will be appealable to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. We are grateful for that welcome statement from the Government.
There are still other clause 3 duties under which economic regulation could take place for reasons other than a competition purpose. The Government have still not said that a right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal exists. The fact that they have not said so remains a source of some concern. It should be the case that any regulation of the pricing and packaging of broadcasting services—not the content of those services—under any clause 3 duty is clearly appealable to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. We will obviously want to keep a keen eye on that when Ofcom assumes responsibility for those matters, particularly the way in which it decides to proceed on economic regulation. If the Secretary of State could say anything more about that, that would be very welcome.
§ John RobertsonI pay tribute to the Government for agreeing to incorporate in the Bill Lords amendments Nos. 98 and 99, which reflect concerns expressed by the music industry about the impacts of consolidation in commercial radio. I hate to agree with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) but I too believe that throughout our proceedings, Members on both sides of the House voiced their opinion and all felt that the music industry was hard done-by. However, the Government have given careful consideration to the matter and ensured that the concerns of listeners are taken into account. In short, we can retain choice and diversity on our airwaves. We should all agree that these amendments represent 90 important safeguards for the British music industry and that our songwriters and composers have been protected in this legislation.
It is very pleasing that proposed new section 106ZA of the Broadcasting Act 1990 refers to
Consultation about change of character of local services".That ensures that the various stakeholders are able to contribute to the process, should they wish to do so. However, I should like to pose three specific questions to the Minister about the provision. First, I would like to clear up any greyness that may result from the change that Lords amendment No. 98 makes to clause 306, and the insertion of new section 106ZA in the Broadcasting Act by Lords amendment No. 99. Lords Amendment No. 99 specifies the grounds on which Ofcom can consent to a departure from the licence as mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1A) of section 106 of the Broadcasting Act. Can the Minister confirm that that does not narrow Ofcom's remit and obligations, and that proposed new subsection (1B) of clause 306, which states that Ofcom must have regard to the character of a service, particularlythe selection of spoken material and music in programmeswill still be taken into account in relation to a licensee's departures in subsection 1A, and that the music provisions are not excluded by Ofcom because of the scope of the amendments? Can the Minister confirm that that is the case?Secondly, subsection (4) of proposed new section 106ZA specifies that Ofcom is not required to publish a notice under that section if it considers that the publication would result in a delay that would be
likely prejudicially to affect the interests of the licence holder".Would the Minister give some examples of considerations that would be judged to affect the interests of the licence holder in that way and would prevent the public and other stakeholders from being told of a proposed format change, let alone given the opportunity to express their response? Finally, can the Minister provide an assurance that the music industry will be consulted by Ofcom before guidance on consultation is released into the public domain? Given the high profile of issues relating to local radio services both in Parliament and beyond, I trust that the regulator will take seriously its responsibilities relating to music output on radio.I have said on many occasions that music is the single most important influence on people's lives. People have different and diverse tastes, and I am made conscious of that every day. My researcher is always berating me because I like Eric Clapton, Huey Lewis and Garth Brooks, while I find it difficult to enjoy her taste in the Smiths and Nirvana, although we agree about REM. However, no matter what our taste, music continues to mould, simulate and entertain, which is why it is important to preserve diversity on the radio. Could the Minister put my fears to rest once and for all and tell the House that Ofcom will ensure that music on the radio will be protected?
§ Tessa JowellI thank hon. Members for their contributions about these specific and detailed changes. May I tell the hon. Member for Maldon and East 91 Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that he cannot have it both ways? He complained rather grudgingly that a number of amendments have been adopted, thereby improving the Bill. However, that is part of an extremely constructive parliamentary process that has extended over a fair period of time. I hope that he will see that in an area of such national importance as the shape of our media and communications industry, the Government have taken seriously the responsibility to do whatever they can to build a consensus reflecting shared views where they can be established in Parliament, and across the industry. I have said on a number of occasions that I cannot recall a piece of legislation on which there has been such wide and lengthy consultation as on the Bill. The fact that there is such a high level of agreement between the Government and the Opposition and between the House of Commons and another place is the result of that investment and that consultation, and we should be proud of it.
§ Michael FabricantNo one doubts the amount of consultation that has taken place, but we find it odd that when the Opposition offered helpful suggestions to amend the Bill, they were rejected outright in Committee, yet those same amendments were accepted in another place and are being accepted today. Could not considerable time have been saved, had they only been accepted in the first place?
§ Tessa JowellLet me go back to the earlier discussion of the proposal to insert a provision to further the interests of citizens among the general duties of Ofcom. I proudly acknowledged that after listening to the debate in Standing Committee, we were persuaded that greater clarity was necessary. However, as has been made clear by the Government and by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) from his experience, inserting the word "citizen" at that stage was deemed not to be possible by parliamentary counsel. Once the matter had been voted on in another place, the more arcane conventions of parliamentary counsel allowed us to adopt the term without its previous narrow meaning relating to nationality, which had obstructed our wish earlier. That is an example of good engagement in the Standing Committee and an eventual solution being found as a result of the amendment passed in another place.
Hon. Members should remember that those outside who feed the Opposition with their briefing, ideas and proposals are free with their advice to Members in all parts of the House, so we receive the same ideas, briefing and argument. Those have been fairly reflected in the Bill as it now stands. The changes that have been made in respect of localness and local radio are a good example. The amendments under discussion were tabled in response to the radio industry's concern about the application of the "localness" clause. Hon. Members will recall that in the draft Bill, the plurality floor in relation to local radio was originally set at three plus one. In consultation with the industry, the Government accepted the case that was being made and amended that to two plus one. Let us have no more criticism. That is the process whereby good legislation is developed, and we can all take due credit.
92 I shall say a little more about the application of the "localness" clause. There was a concern that the Government's original proposals were over-prescriptive. In the amendments we have provided clarification, which has been welcomed by the industry. For example, the amendments make it clear that not all services need to include local material, and that a suitable proportion of local material must be locally made. The reference to a code is replaced by reference to guidance provided by Ofcom. Once again, the Government listened to the arguments from the industry and acted to reflect the balance between the ambition to deregulate where possible, and the need to protect the public interest because of the unique importance of media in our democracy.
The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford asked why we had amended the definition of control. The relevant provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 deal with merger control, whereas the Broadcasting Act provisions safeguard plurality. There is no necessary reason why the definitions of control should be wholly identical.
The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises in amendment No. 114 with regard to broadcasting competition has been a hoary chestnut throughout the parliamentary stages of the Bill. I shall not replay the lengthy debate that took place in Committee. The issue has been debated in both the House and another place, and reflects the concerns expressed, notably by Sky in relation to the packaging of its channel. That broadcaster sought to reduce Ofcom's ability to consider the interests of citizens or consumers in respect of matters that could have an impact on its business.
Along with the important economic and competition issues, Ofcom must be able to balance the wider public and consumer issues. The need to get that balance right exercised the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, as it has hon. Members in the House and in another place. The process has produced a Bill that represents a proper balance, and we should not re-open consideration of such fundamental questions, given the specific concerns of one broadcaster, which I have had the opportunity to discuss with that broadcaster. In view of the many procedural and other safeguards in the Bill, I believe that those concerns are unfounded.
I shall deal with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) about the importance of music, whose protection and promotion we have sought to achieve. Amendment No. 99 would mean that Ofcom did not have to consult on a request for a departure from the character of a service where the departure would not substantially alter the service's character. However, if the departure would substantially alter the character of the service, Ofcom would have to consult on the proposed departure before it could agree to it.
§ John RobertsonWill my right hon. Friend tell me who makes that decision?
§ Tessa JowellThat decision will be made by Ofcom. In considering such matters, Ofcom must have regard to factors including the effect of the change in the selection of spoken material and music.
93 That is one very specific area in which the position of music is safeguarded. That has again been a matter of some considerable debate and interest during the Bill's passage. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and the House about the strength of the safeguards to secure music as part of the wide range of broadcasting genres, whether on television, on radio, and particularly where his interests lie, in relation to local radio.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 55 agreed to.