§ '.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Office of Fair Trading to exercise their powers under this section to secure that, within a period of one year after the coming into force of this section, no person runs more than one national daily newspaper and no person runs more than one national Sunday newspaper.
§ (2) In pursuance of the duty specified in subsection (1) the Office of Fair Trading may issue an enforcement order which may provide for—
- (a) the division of any business (whether by the sale of any part of the undertaking or assets or otherwise);
- (b) the division of any group of interconnected bodies corporate;
§ (3) The provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) shall apply to an enforcement order under subsection (2) as if that order were an order under section 86 of that Act.
§ (4) In this section the expression "runs a newspaper" shall be construed in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act:.—[Mr. Mullin.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 26—Reviews and report by OFCOM on compliance with Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice in context of newspaper mergers—
'After section 44A of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) (additional investigation and report by OFCOM: newspaper mergers) there shall be inserted—44B Further investigation and report by OFCOM on compliance with Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice767 (1) This section applies where—(2) OFCOM may, within the period required by the Secretary for a report under section 44A, give a report to the Secretary of State on the compliance of newspapers affected by the relevant merger situation with the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice.
- (a) the Secretary of State has given an intervention notice in relation to a relevant merger situation; and
- (b) the intervention notice mentions any newspaper public interest consideration.
(3) Any report given under subsection (2) shall contain OFCOM's advice on the relevance of any information about the compliance of newspapers affected by the relevant merger situation with the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice to any newspaper public interest consideration mentioned in the intervention notice concerned and which is or may be relevant to the Secretary of State's decision as to whether to make a reference under section 45.
(4) For the purposes of carrying out their functions under subsections (2) and (3), OFCOM shall, from time to time, review the operation of the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice.
(5) In this section—
the Press Complaints Commission" means the body first established in 1991, andthe Code of Practice" means the Code of Practice issued by the Press Complaints Commission in December 1999 and any subsequent revision of that Code (including any such revision of the Code after the coming into force of this section).".'.Amendment No. 163, in page 319, line 33, leave out Clause 365.Amendment No. 73, in page 320, line 6, at end insert—
'(2C) The need for transparency in the capital and control structures of businesses that run a local or national newspaper is specified in this section.".'.Amendment No. 164, in page 320, line 7, leave out Clause 366.Amendment No. 74, in page 320, line 23, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert ', (2B) or (2C)'.
Amendment No. 165, in page 320, line 30, leave out Clause 367.
Amendment No. 166, in page 321, line 11, leave out Clause 368.
Government amendments Nos. 279 to 289.
Amendment No. 167, in page 322, line 40, leave out Clause 369.
Amendment No. 75, in page 322, line 46, leave out 'or (2B))' and insert', (2B) or (2C))'.
Amendment No. 76, in page 323, line 8, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert', (2B) or (2C)'.
Amendment No. 168, in page 323, line 11, leave out Clause 370.
Amendment No. 77, in page 323, line 21, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert', (2B) or (2C)'.
Amendment No. 78, in page 323, line 29, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert',(2B) or (2C)'.
Amendment No. 169, in page 323, line 38, leave out Clause 371.
Amendment No. 79, in page 324, line 7, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert', (2B) or (2C)'.
Amendment No. 170, in page 324, line 17, leave out Clause 372.
768 Amendment No. 171, in page 325, line 30, leave out Clause 373.
Amendment No. 80, in page 325, line 34, leave out 'and (2B)' and insert 'to 2(C)'.
Amendment No. 81, in page 325, line 40, leave out 'and (2B)' and insert 'to 2(C)'.
Amendment No. 172, in page 326, line 7, leave out Clause 374.
Amendment No. 173, in page 326, line 25, leave out Clause 375.
Amendment No. 174, in page 327, line 1, leave out Clause 376.
Amendment No. 82, in page 327, line 7, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert', (2B) or 2(C)'.
Amendment No. 175, in page 327, line 16, leave out Clause 377.
Amendment No. 83, in page 327, line 25, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert', (2B) or 2(C)'.
Amendment No. 176, in page 328, line 3, leave out Clause 378.
Amendment No. 177, in page 328, line 12, leave out Clause 379.
Amendment No. 178, in page 473, line 1, leave out Schedule 16.
Government amendment No. 290.
§ Mr. MullinNew clause 22 is a simple clause that invites the Office of Fair Trading to specify, within a year, that a national newspaper corporation or individual proprietor shall be permitted to own only one daily and one Sunday newspaper, and should put all other newspapers on the market. It should appeal to anyone who agrees with me that the free flow of information is the lifeblood of democracy.
Both the main political parties, when in government, have—I was going to say paid lip service to—expressed their support for the principle of pluralism and democracy. The Labour Government's consultation on media ownership stated in 2001:
We want a plurality of voices giving the citizen access to a variety of views.It ruled out a dependence on the marketplace or competition to deliver that principle, continuing:Competition law is not designed to deliver diversity and plurality in the media.Amen to that. The Conservative Government, in their consultation on media ownership in 1995, stated:A free and diverse media are an indispensable part of the democratic process. Special media ownership rules are needed therefore to provide safeguards necessary to maintain diversity and plurality.By some inexplicable oversight, the Bill contains nothing that gives expression to those lofty principles, at least as far as newspapers are concerned. The purpose of the new clause is to make good that omission. The proprietor most affected—although not the only one—would be Mr. Murdoch, who owns about a third of our national newspapers, as well as a satellite television company. He would be required, under new clause 22, to choose betweenThe Times andThe Sun, and betweenThe Sunday Times and theNews of the World. Everything else would have to go on the market.769 I do not want to exaggerate: the new clause would result in only a modest gain, given the long queue of unsavoury characters that forms whenever a national newspaper comes on the market, but it is right in principle. If we wanted to go further, we could lay down a few ground rules that applicants for the ownership of a national newspaper might have to live up to. The new clause is just a way to start the ball rolling. It has the merit of simplicity, and I commend it to the House.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) will get a chance to say a few words about new clause 26, which I strongly support. It would require Ofcom to report on whether newspapers involved in mergers have complied with the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct. Like my new clause, it is very modest. I know—because he tabled amendments to that effect that were not selected for debate—that my hon. Friend wanted to go a wee bit further, and require Ofcom to report from time to time on the newspaper industry's compliance with its own code of practice.
The House should be aware that the code of practice is the industry's own; it was not laid down by the House or someone else. That shows how very modest new clause 26 is. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House went a bit further the other day when he suggested that the industry's code of practice should be entrenched in law, with penalties for breach. I thought that that was very interesting. Given that it comes from such a senior member of the Government, I have no doubt that it will be taken very seriously.
However, all that is beyond the modest scope of new clause 26, which is in keeping with the modest ambitions possible in the short time available. I have no doubt that, if it ever came to pass, it would trigger all the usual hypocrisy about the threat to freedom of the press. As we all know, however, we do not have a free press in this country; it is owned by a handful of corporations and rich men. On the whole, they are shameless in their abuse of the power that they have.
I shall end what I have to say in respect of new clause 26 with something that I hope will help my hon. Friend the Minister. I have dug out of the excellent account by Mr. Max Hastings of his life and times atThe Daily Telegraph a passage relating to the PCC. I know that the Minister will find it of interest. Mr. Hastings wrote that some British newspapers flourish on habitual indifference as to whether what they print might be true or not. He went on to name the editor of thePeople as one of the editors of the titles to which he was referring, I think because the latter was an adjudicator on the PCC. Mr. Hastings said that those editors were invited to take their turns as members of the PCC, but that the commission was diminished by the participation of journalists, who should be perceived as being beyond the pale. Perhaps he had in mind Mr. Paul Dacre, who plays a major part in the Harmsworth lie machine and who also sits on the PCC, impartially arbitrating on complaints.
§ Brian WhiteWill my hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. MullinI hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I want to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush time to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.
770 Mr. Hastings goes on to say that the PCC will never deserve much regard from the public as long as it appears willing to justify obvious excesses by some of the newspapers which pay its bills. There we are. All that is grist to the mill of new clause 26. I support new clause 26, and I invite the House to support new clause 22 as well.
§ Mr. WhittingdaleIn respect of new clause 22, I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that we need plurality and diversity, but our newspaper industry already has those qualities. We certainly have diversity and plurality of voices: almost every conceivable opinion is represented somewhere in the British press.
The hon. Gentleman singled out Rupert Murdoch and News International. He is right: the new clause would require News International to divest itself of eitherThe Times orThe Sun and of eitherThe Sunday Times or theNews of the World. However, the effects would not be restricted to that. The proprietors of theDaily Express would have to choose between theDaily Express or theDaily Star and between theSunday Express or theDaily Star Sunday. The proprietors of theDaily Mirror would have to divest themselves of either theSunday Mirror or theSunday People; and if theDaily Record is, as it believes, a daily newspaper, they would have to choose between theDaily Mirror and theDaily Record. It is arguable that theEvening Standard is a national newspaper, so the proprietors of theDaily Mail would have to divest themselves of one or the other.
That may all come as welcome news to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, but I suspect that there would not be a vast queue of people who wanted to acquire newspapers and that his proposals would be likely to lead to fewer newspapers and thus less diversity and plurality—the very objectives that he wants to promote. If every proprietor were allowed to own only one paper, the result could be that they would all move roughly towards the sector where they would attract most readers and the hon. Gentleman might end up with a dozen or so versions of theDaily Mail. I cannot believe that he wants that.
The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) is clearly intended to bring the Press Complaints Commission under some form of statutory control. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the desirability of that in the past. The new clause is clearly a backdoor method for giving Ofcom, which is a Government regulator, a say over the regulation of the press.
I do not defend the PCC in every instance. It has made mistakes, but I have always believed that self-regulation of the press is infinitely more desirable than Government intervention or control. The new clause would be a slippery slope; it would be a move towards Government intervention and statutory interference in the freedom of the press. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is now present because she made it clear in the newspapers this morning that she was opposed to statutory press regulation. She will thus be opposed to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush.
We remain concerned about provisions that give Ofcom some say over newspaper mergers. Our amendments would remove from Ofcom any advisory 771 role to the Secretary of State over newspaper mergers. The Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission have had a long-standing role in advising the Secretary of State on whether mergers are likely to lead to a substantial lessening of competition. Their considerations cover, in large part, a number of the matters on which it is proposed that Ofcom would advise the Secretary of State. Involving Ofcom in that process is thus unnecessary. In fact, it is more than unnecessary; it is dangerous. Ofcom would be given the role of advising the Secretary of State on the accuracy of news presentation and freedom of expression. For the first time, a Government body would have a role in examining the content of newspapers.
I accept the fact that the Government have assured us that the provisions do not represent a first step towards Government intervention in the content of the press, but that is not how the industry views them. The issue has brought together interests right across the spectrum. Last week, Mr. Andrew Neil wrote:
Give Ofcom this power and it will be the end of British press freedom as we know it.Although I do not always share Mr. Neil's rather colourful descriptions, and that statement goes a little further than I might want, he raises genuine concern that the measure would allow a Government body to begin to adjudicate on questions of newspaper content and editorial freedom of expression. That is a dangerous step, so we believe that it would be far better if the clauses on newspaper mergers were removed from the Bill. Ofcom is a body established to regulate the electronic communications industries—
§ It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER,pursuant to order [10 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERthen proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
§ Amendment proposed: No. 163, in page 319, line 33, leave out Clause 365.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 335.
774| Division No. 100] | [6:01 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey) | Burt, Alistair |
| Amess, David | Cameron, David |
| Arbuthnot, rh James | Cash, William |
| Bacon, Richard | Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet) |
| Baldry, Tony | |
| Barker, Gregory | Chope, Christopher |
| Baron, John(Billericay) | Clappison, James |
| Beggs, Roy(E Antrim) | Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey |
| Bellingham, Henry | Collins, Tim |
| Bercow, John | Conway Derek |
| Blunt, Crispin | Cormack, Sir Patrick |
| Boswell, Tim | Cran, James(Beverley) |
| Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W) | Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden) |
| Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey) | Djanogly, Jonathan |
| Brady, Graham | Duncan, Peter(Galloway) |
| Brazier, Julian | Evans Nigel |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Fabricant, Michael |
| Burns, Simon | Fallon, Michael |
| Burnside, David | Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster) |
| Flight, Howard | Page, Richard |
| Flook, Adrian | Paice, James |
| Forth, rh Eric | Prisk, Mark(Hertford) |
| Fox, Dr. Liam | Randall, John |
| Francois, Mark | Redwood, rh John |
| Garnier, Edward | Robathan, Andrew |
| Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis) | Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry) |
| Goodman, Paul | Robinson, Peter(Belfast E) |
| Gray, James(N Wilts) | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Grayling, Chris | Rosindell, Andrew |
| Green, Damian(Ashford) | Ruffley, David |
| Greenway, John | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Grieve, Dominic | Selous, Andrew |
| Hammond, Philip | Shepherd, Richard |
| Hawkins, Nick | Simmonds, Mark |
| Heathcoat-Amory, rh David | Smyth, Rec. Martin(Belfast S) |
| Hendty, Charles | Spicer, Sir Michael |
| Hogg, rh Douglas | Spink, Bob(Castle Point) |
| Horam, John(Orpington) | Spring, Richard |
| Howard, rh Michael | Stanley, rh Sir John |
| Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot) | Steen, Anthony |
| Hunter, Andrew | Streeter, Gary |
| Jack, rh Michael | Swayne, Desmond |
| Jackson, Robert(Wantage) | Syms, Robert |
| Jenkin, Bernard | Taylor, Ian(Esher) |
| Johnson, Boris(Henley) | Taylor, John(Solihull) |
| Key, Robert(Salisbury) | Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F) |
| Kirkbride, Miss Julie | Taylor, Sir Teddy |
| Laing, Mrs Eleanor | Tredinnick, David |
| Leigh, Edward | Turner Andrew(Isle of Wight) |
| Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E) | Tyrie Andrew |
| Liddell-Grainger, Ian | Viggers, peter |
| Lilley, rh Peter | Waterson, Nigel |
| Loughton, Tim | Whittingdale, John |
| Luff, Peter(M-Worcs) | Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann |
| McIntosh, Miss Anne | Wiggin, Bill |
| Mackay, rh Andrew | Wilshire, David |
| Malins, Humfrey | Winterton, Ann(Congleton) |
| Mates, Michael | Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield) |
| Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian | |
| Mercer, Patrick | Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk) |
| Moss, Malcolm | Young, rh Sir George |
| Murrison, Dr. Andrew | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| O' Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury) | Mr. Mark Hoban and |
| Osborne, George(Tatton) | Angela Watkinson |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Irene(Paisley N) | Blears, Ms Hazel |
| Ainger, Nick | Blizzard, Bob |
| Alexander, Douglas | Bradley, rh Keith(Withington) |
| Allan, Richard | Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin) |
| Allen, Graham | Bradshaw, Ben |
| Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E) | Brennan, Kevin |
| Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen) | Brooke, Mrs Annette L. |
| Brown, Russell(Dumfries) | |
| Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary | Bryant, Chris |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Buck, Ms Karen |
| Austin, John | Burden, Richard |
| Bailey, Adrian | Burnett, John |
| Baird, Vera | Burnham, Andy |
| Baker, Norman | Burstow, Paul |
| Banks, Tony | Byers, rh Stephen |
| Barnes, Harry | Cable, Dr. Vincent |
| Barrett, John | Cairns, David |
| Barron, rh Kevin | Calton, Mrs Patsy |
| Battle, John | Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth) |
| Beard, Nigel | Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V) |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Caplin, Ivor |
| Beith, rh A. J. | Carmichael, Alistair |
| Benn, Hilary | Casale, Roger |
| Bennett, Andrew | Caton, Martin |
| Benton, Joe(Bootle) | Cawsey, Ian(Brigg) |
| Berry, Roger | Challen, Colin |
| Best, Harold | Chapman, Ben(Wirral S) |
| Blackman, Liz | Chaytor, David |
| Chidgey, David | Grogan, John |
| Clapham, Michael | Hain, rh Peter |
| Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough) | Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale) |
| Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands) | Hall, Patrick(Bedford) |
| Hamilton, David(Midlothian) | |
| Clark, Paul(Gillingham) | Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE) |
| Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston) | Harman, rh Ms Harriet |
| Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon) | |
| Clarke, Tony(Northampton S) | |
| Clelland, David | Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart) |
| Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V) | Harvey, Nick |
| Coaker, Vernon | Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney) |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | |
| Cohen, Harry | Healey, John |
| Coleman, Iain | Heath, David |
| Colman, Tony | Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N) |
| Cook, Frank(Stockton N) | Henderson, Ivan(Harwich) |
| Cooper, Yvette | Hendrick, Mark |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Hepburn, Stephen |
| Corston, Jean | Heppell, John |
| Cotter, Brian | Hesford, Stephen |
| Cousins, Jim | Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia |
| Crausby, David | Heyes, David |
| Cruddas, Jon | Hill, Keith(Streatham) |
| Cryer, Ann(Keighley) | Hodge, Margaret |
| Cryer, John(Hornchurch) | Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall) |
| Cummings, John | Holmes, Paul |
| Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S) | Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale) |
| Cunningham, Tony(Workington) | Hope, Phil(Corby) |
| Dalyell, Tarn | Hopkins, Kelvin |
| Davey, Edward(Kingston) | Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E) |
| Davey, Valerie(Bristol W) | Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E) |
| David, Wayne | |
| Davidson, Ian | Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston) |
| Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli) | |
| Davies, Geraint(Croydon C) | Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N) |
| Dawson, Hilton | Humble, Mrs Joan |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Hurst, Alan(Braintree) |
| Denham, rh John | Hutton, rh John |
| Dhanda, Parmjit | Iddon, Dr. Brian |
| Dismore, Andrew | Illsley, Eric |
| Dobbin, Jim(Heywood) | Ingram, rh Adam |
| Dobson, rh Frank | Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate) |
| Donohoe, Brian H. | |
| Doran, Frank | Jamieson, David |
| Doughty, Sue | Johnson, Alan(Hull W) |
| Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W) | Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C) |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak) |
| Eagle, Angela(Wallasey) | Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S) |
| Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston) | Jowell, rh Tessa |
| Edwards, Huw | Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W) |
| Efford, Clive | Kaufman, rh Gerald |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Keen, Alan(Feltham) |
| Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E) | Keen, Ann(Brentford) |
| Ewing, Annabelle | Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W) |
| Farrelly, Paul | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Fisher, Mark | King, Andy(Rugby) |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | Kirkwood, Sir Archy |
| Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna | Knight, Jim(S Dorset) |
| Foster, Don(Bath) | Ladyman, Dr. Stephen |
| Foster, Michael(Worcester) | Lamb, Norman |
| Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye) | Lammy, David |
| Laws, David(Yeovil) | |
| Francis, Dr. Hywel | Laxton, Bob(Derby N) |
| Gardiner, Barry | Lazarowicz, Mark |
| George, Andrew(St. Ives) | Leslie, Christopher |
| George, rh Bruce(Walsall S) | Lewis, Ivan(Bury S) |
| Gerrard, Neil | Lewis, Terry(Worsley) |
| Gibson, Dr. Ian | Liddell, rh Mrs Helen |
| Gidley, Sandra | Linton, Martin |
| Gilroy, Linda | Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C) |
| Godsiff, Roger | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Green, Matthew(Ludlow) | Love, Andrew |
| Griffiths, Jane(Reading E) | Lucas, Ian(Wrexham) |
| Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S) | Luke, Iain(Dundee E) |
| Griffiths, Win(Bridgend) | McAvoy, Thomas |
| McCabe, Stephen | Sanders, Adrian |
| McDonagh, Siobhain | Sarwar, Mohammad |
| MacDonald, Calum | Savidge, Malcolm |
| McDonnell, John | Sawford, Phil |
| MacDougall, John | Sedgemore, Brian |
| McFall, John | Shaw, Jonathan |
| McGuire, Mrs Anne | Sheerman, Barry |
| McIsaac, Shona | Sheridan, Jim |
| McKenna, Rosemary | Shipley, Ms Debra |
| Mackinlay, Andrew | Singh, Marsha |
| McNulty, Tony | Skinner, Dennis |
| McWalter, Tony | Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury) |
| McWilliam, John | |
| Mahmood, Khalid | Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale) |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | |
| Mallaber, Judy | Smith, Jacqui(Redditch) |
| Mann, John(Bassetlaw) | Smith, John(Glamorgan) |
| Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW) | Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent) |
| Marshall, Jim(Leicester S) | Soley, Clive |
| Martlew, Eric | Southworth, Helen |
| Miliband, David | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Miller, Andrew | Stevenson, George |
| Moffatt, Laura | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Mole, Chris | Strang, rh Dr. Gavin |
| Moonie, Dr. Lewis | Stringer, Graham |
| Moore, Michael | Stuart Ms Gisela |
| Morgan, Julie | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Mudie, George | Taml Mark(Alyn) |
| Mullin, Chris | Taylor rh Ann(Dewsbury) |
| Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck) | Taylor Dari(Stockton S) |
| Murphy, Jim(Eastwood) | Taylor Matthew(Truro) |
| Naysmith, Dr. Doug | Tnomas Gareth(Clwyd w) |
| Oaten, Mark(Winchester) | Thomas Gareth(Harrow W) |
| O'Hara, Edward | Thomas Simon(Ceredigion) |
| Olner, Bill | Thurso, John |
| Öpik, Lembit | Timms, Stephen |
| Owen, Albert | Todd Mark(s Derbyshire) |
| Palmer, Dr. Nick | Touhig Don(Islwyn) |
| Picking, Anne | Trickett, Jon |
| Pickthall Colin | Truswell Paul |
| Plaskitt, James | Turner Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Pollaro, Kerry | Turner Dr Desmond(Brighton Kemptown) |
| Pond, Chris(Gravesham) | |
| Pope Greg(Hyndburn) | Turner, Neil(Wigan) |
| Pound, Stephen | Twigg, Derek(Halton) |
| Prentice, Ms Birdget(Lewisham E) | Twigg, Stephen(Enfield |
| Vaz, Keith(Leicester E) | |
| Prentice, Gordon(Pendle) | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr) | Ward, Claire |
| Wareing, Robert N. | |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Watts, David |
| Pugh, Dr. John | Webb, Steve(Northavon) |
| Purchase, Ken | Weir, Michael |
| Quin, rh Joyce | White, Brian |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Whitehead, Dr. Alan |
| Rammell, Bill | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N) | Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W) |
| Reed, Andy(Loughborough) | Williams, Roger(Brecon) |
| Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute) | Willis, Phil |
| Reid, rh Dr. John(Hamilton N & Bellshill) | Wilson, Brian |
| Winnick, David | |
| Rendel, David | Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C) |
| Robertson, Angus(Moray) | Wishart, Pete |
| Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland) | Woodward, Shaun |
| Woolas, Phil | |
| Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW) | Woodward, Shaun |
| Woolas, Phil | |
| Roche, Mrs Barbara | Worthington, Tony |
| Rooney, Terry | Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth) |
| Roy, Frank(Motherwell) | |
| Ruane, Chris | Wright, David(Telford) |
| Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester) | Wright, Tony(Cannock) |
| Ryan, Joan(Enfield N) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Salmond, Alex | Mr. Fraser kemp and |
| Salter, Martin | Gillian Merron |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
§ Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
§ Mr. Simon ThomasOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is written on the Order Paper, and you have just said, that the Queen's and the Prince of Wales's consent is to be signified on Third Reading. I am still finding my way round this place; I know that the Queen's consent is needed for primary legislation, but I did not know that the Prince of Wales's consent was needed, too. I would appreciate an explanation of why that is needed on Third Reading of this Bill.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe Public Bill Office will be able to give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer. I believe that it pertains to the Duchy of Cornwall.
§ The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
All of us in the House care passionately about the health of our country's communications and media. The media industry is unique. Its products, if we can call them that, tell the world who we are. Its outputs help to shape our culture, our identity and our values. It is vital to our democracy and the preservation of a free society.
However, the communications and media sector is also changing extraordinarily fast. It took 38 years for radio to reach just 50 million people; it took 13 years for television to reach the same number; it took just five years for the internet to get to that stage. No doubt, it will be even less for the next development. As technology advances, we are all bombarded with smarter, faster ways of keeping in touch and accessing services and content. The combination of creativity, innovation, technology and entrepreneurial flair is a driving force in our economy. The creative economy and the creative industries are sectors in which the United Kingdom is in the lead. We are determined to keep it that way.
This is a strong Bill. It has undergone extensive consultation and scrutiny and I have been greatly encouraged by the consensus that exists on so much of what it proposes. The Joint Committee chaired by Lord Puttnam, which reported last summer, made an excellent contribution to our work. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I said when the report was published, the Committee took a good Bill and made it better. The scrutiny and debate that we have had in the House have made it better still.
§ Mr. MullinWith all due respect to my right hon. Friend, does she not think that it is a rather large omission that at no stage in Committee or on Report has there been any discussion of the ownership changes that the Bill will make to ITV? Furthermore, there has been only the barest minimum of discussion on the changes to Channel Five. Are they not major omissions?
§ Ms HewittMy hon. Friend makes a very important point. That very issue was set to be debated in 776 Committee, but I regret to say that Liberal Democrat Members did not get up in time. They were not there in Committee first thing in the morning to move their amendments. Last week, we had more than five hours for the first day of Report, but the amendments on that subject were not reached, simply because other Opposition Members chose—as was their prerogative—to use the time to debate the BBC.
As my hon. Friend is aware, there have also been extensive opportunities outside the House—in numerous conferences in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have taken part—for all the issues to be aired. It is a pity that they were not dealt with in Committee or on Report, but that was not my choice.
§ David Winnick (Walsall, North)Although I recognise all the reasons that my right hon. Friend has outlined, will she accept, as I have said on a previous occasion, that there is anxiety among Labour Members—I do not know how many—about the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? That anxiety will not go away. Although there may have been plenty of debate and discussion outside, it does not alter the fact that it should have taken place here in the Chamber of the House of Commons.
§ Ms HewittAs I have said, Opposition Members were between them responsible for the fact that the issue was not debated in the Chamber. I have no doubt at all that it will be debated extensively in another place. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have said on numerous occasions, I also have no doubt that it will be debated inside and outside the House. By opening our media sector further to foreign investment, we will strengthen it. I am very much bearing in mind the fact that, among other things, we would not have Classic FM in this country were it not for the foreign investment that was made available when the City of London and other investors would not provide it.
I am grateful for the constructive approach that Opposition Members have generally taken. I hope that for the most part they feel in their turn that the Government have listened to their views and have taken action on many of the issues that they raised.
The Bill is founded on solid principles. It is about ensuring quality in broadcasting and safeguarding the wider interests of the whole community at a time when new technology is changing very fast. It is about delivering real benefits to consumers through competition and safeguarding their interests through an independent panel to advise Ofcom. And, of course, it is about developing a dynamic, competitive communications sector in which our businesses flourish.
The Bill contains provisions over which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) reminded us, there has been disagreement and about which there will be further debate. We shall continue to listen to that debate and to welcome improvements.
§ Mr. MullinMay I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a paper by Professor Michael Tracey that was prepared for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust? 777 Michael Tracey is an American professor at the University of Colorado who, having studied what has happened to American television since the market was allowed to let rip under Ronald Reagan, describes what we are proposing as
as wrong-headed as it's possible to be without being totally insane".
§ Ms HewittI have not had the pleasure of reading that paper; I look forward to receiving it from my hon. Friend. What we are doing is opening our market to greater investment, but at the same time, and based on the review of content that we commissioned, strengthening content regulation. I believe that we will have the best of both worlds, with both programme quality and investment increasing.
Let me mention some of the improvements that we have made to the Bill during its passage through this House. Ofcom's general duties are crucial in determining how it will operate, so they need to be right. I am pleased that we have tabled and agreed amendments that give greater certainty and clarity to Ofcom and its stakeholders and make it clear that Ofcom has a duty to further the interests of the wider community, as well as those of consumers. In response to the Independent Television Commission's review of the programme supply market, we have toughened up the powers that we had already proposed for Ofcom on content regulation, and we have put in place production quotas to ensure that we keep the vitality of our independent and our regional production industry.
We have tightened the definition of television licensable content so that it only covers, and can only cover, services that consist of radio and television programmes that are available for reception by the general public—in other words, so-called push technology. In that way, we exclude the internet—a point about which several hon. Members were particularly concerned, because it is pull, rather than push, technology. We also exclude the press, because obviously newspapers are not television or radio.
We are keen to go on listening and to continue to improve the Bill in line with the core principles that my right hon. Friend and I have set out, but there are some areas where we believe that the Bill is already right.
§ Mr. RobathanPerfect?
§ Mr. RobathanThe Secretary of State may recall—I am not sure whether she was here at the time—that on Second Reading, when we were told that the Bill was already perfect, I offered hon. Members a wager that at least 100 amendments would be tabled.[Interruption.] I am told that there have been more than 200. Indeed, I was poised to speak on 81 before the guillotine came down—those are 81 Government amendments that have not even been discussed.[Interruption.]
§ >Ms HewittI am being reminded that the hon. Gentleman is not a licensed bookie, so he is treading in 778 dangerous waters. I am sure that he would not want to criticise us for taking serious account of comments that have been made by Conservative Members and by the Joint Committee. We have been happy to table amendments to ensure that improvements are made, but it is clearly impossible to propose changes to the merger regime as it affects newspapers without attracting not only criticism, but extraordinary accusations of censorship and control freakery. We have had overblown remarks from some commentators and suggestions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I are divided—a bad cop, good cop act. That is rubbish. My right hon. Friend and I, and our ministerial and official colleagues, have been at one throughout our deliberations on the Bill. Indeed, it is the product of a unique piece of team work between two Departments. I welcome that and we are both proud of it. Unfortunately, accusations of censorship and control freakery will always gain column space. So let me set the record straight.
My right hon. Friend and I have taken every opportunity, publicly and privately, to give assurances that nothing in the Bill is designed to allow censorship of the press or could allow censorship of the press by the front or back door. Nothing in the Bill would extend content regulation to newspapers. On the contrary, and in distinction to some of my hon. Friends, we are committed to the self-regulation of the press by the Press Complaints Commission.
§ Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)I urge my right hon. Friend not to spend too long on that subject because she has no one to argue against. The vast majority of people accept that no one is attempting to suppress the press. The only exception to that is the press themselves. Let us not spend too much time on that, because we might give credence to their argument.
§ Ms HewittMy hon. Friend makes an important point, but given the misinformation that has been circulating in authoritative sections of the press, it is worth spelling out our case again.
The clauses on newspaper mergers will protect the public interest when newspaper titles change hands. There is nothing new in that. Ministers have been taking decisions on newspaper mergers for more than 30 years. The only role for Ofcom will be to give open and honest advice to help Ministers make those decisions. Ofcom itself will not make any of the decisions. Similarly, there has been considerable debate in the House, most notably last week, on the BBC. Again, our position on the BBC within Ofcom is equally clear. The BBC is a charter body. It has a special relationship with Parliament because of the licence fee. Our policy in the Bill is properly balanced. It ensures that the BBC maintains its independence and unique relationship with Parliament while bringing it within the overall regulatory structure and ensuring that it fulfils its responsibilities as the major public service broadcaster in our country.
For many hon. Members, the Bill is like an old friend, but we should not allow our familiarity with it to detract from the impact that it will have on the sector and, for reasons that we all understand, our public and democratic life. In Ofcom we have created a new organisation with a new vision and remit that will ensure 779 that the digital future in the extraordinarily fast-changing world of communications and media brings benefits to us all as citizens, consumers and members of the business community. The Bill is in excellent shape and I commend it to the House.
§ Mr. YeoMay I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to the Chamber? I think that it is the first time that we have enticed her to the House during the lengthy proceedings on the Bill and, indeed, the preceding paving Bill. I am not sure of the reason for her coyness, unless there was a wafer-thin difference between her and her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which she is now eager to deny. I had hoped for an earlier opportunity to have a debate with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I regret that, even at this late stage, she could not fill many of the gaps that arose in our proceedings.
I shall reiterate our procedural concerns. The Bill is wide-ranging and comprehensive, and contains about 400 clauses. [HoN. MEMBERS: "More now."] That is true—the Bill has considerably more clauses now than it did before Second Reading. The Secretary of State said that scrutiny has made a strong Bill better—a sentiment that would make a strong man weep. The Government have prevented much scrutiny from taking place, as the timetable for consideration of the Bill was grossly inadequate. More than a quarter of the clauses were not debated at all in Committee. At a time when the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny is frequently criticised for its inadequacy, it is extremely unsatisfactory that much of the Bill has not been properly examined in the House. I hope that the business managers will take note when timetables for future Bills are considered.
§ Mr. MullinWe could have got on better if the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had not frittered away several hours the other day talking about the BBC and matters that the Bill does not touch on.
§ Mr. YeoThat intervention ill behoves the hon. Gentleman, who voted for the programme motion in the House.
§ Mr. MullinBut we could have made better use of the time.
§ Mr. YeoOn the contrary. I shall come to the BBC in a moment, but there can be few more important issues to debate in relation to the Bill than one to which the Opposition responsibly devoted a significant amount of time.
I hope that there will be an opportunity in another place to examine some of the 100 or so clauses that were untouched in the Commons, including clauses on nominated news providers and the content of licensed providers. Regrettably, the issue of foreign ownership was not considered in Committee, but we broadly support the Government's position, which is why we did not consider it a priority to initiate such a debate. However, the Secretary of State rightly pointed out that the inattention of Liberal Democrat Members prevented those provisions from being scrutinised, and 780 I am sure that that will be noted in constituencies that the Liberal Democrats will be struggling in two years' time to defend. This is an issue that attracts much attention outside the House, and it would have been interesting to hear the debate had it occurred. The extent to which the Bill as originally presented needed improvement is reflected in the colossal number of amendments tabled by the Government. I dare say that that saga has not ended, and that more amendments will be tabled in another place.
Turning to the substance of the Bill, we have supported its provisions throughout. We believe that it is right to establish a new regulator, Ofcom, and support the general liberalisation of the communications and media industries. We certainly do not underestimate the scale of the challenge facing Ofcom. It must maintain a light touch; it must be accountable and transparent; it needs to be flexible in responding to a rapidly changing market, as the Secretary of State said; and it must not act as a gold-plater of European Union directives. The media and communications industries represent two of the greatest businesses of the 21st century, and are businesses in which Britain has many natural advantages, including a good record of innovation; a large pool of entrepreneurial and creative talent; the English language; a country in which people like to live and work—
§ Mr. BryantThe BBC.
§ Mr. YeoThe hon. Gentleman is a former BBC employee, so it is not surprising that he is pushing its interests. He does so on many occasions in the House.
§ Mr. RobathanPension?
§ Mr. YeoMy hon. Friend has raised the issue of the BBC pension fund, and I hope that if he contributes to the debate later he will go into more detail, as he is clearly an authority on the subject. I have not heard that the BBC pension fund has closed to new entrants, or attempted to revise benefits for existing members, but I may have missed that in the papers.
In this country, we could and should excel in the media and communications industries, but if we are to do so, Ofcom must not over-regulate. There remain a couple of issues of concern. We support the moves that the Government have made to relax media ownership rules, though we believe that Ministers should be bolder and sweep away all the remaining vestiges of the special restrictive regime that has hitherto applied to the industry. The existing competition laws are sufficient to address any concerns that may arise and to protect any interests that need to be looked after. I remind the House that when the Broadcasting Act 1996 was debated, Labour Members on the then Opposition Benches supported my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in his efforts to remove unnecessary restrictions on cross-media ownership. What a pity that, so far from seeing the light in the intervening six years, the blinkers are on and hon. Members are reverting to a more traditional Labour position.
The relaxation of the ownership rules should extend to ITN, so that ITV could if it wished own its own news provider, just as the BBC and Sky do. I favour a 781 situation where there are three competing news providers in the market. I recognise that ITN has regional strengths to which Sky does not aspire, and I hope all three organisations will flourish, but I do not believe that special controls will help that. Indeed, special ownership controls could jeopardise that desirable objective.
I turn briefly to the issue of newspapers, which was covered so eloquently and forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford in the previous debate. I reiterate that we do not believe there is a role for Ofcom in relation to newspaper mergers. We share many of the concerns expressed by the newspaper industry and we hope that those will be considered carefully in another place.
Another substantial flaw in the Bill is that, despite extensive argument, the Government remain obdurate in their attitude as regards the BBC. There is no justification for separating the BBC from the rest of the industry, as the Bill continues to do. To say that is not to criticise the BBC governors, who performed a unique and valuable role in the past. It is a recognition of the change in the industry. The BBC governors should still have a role in the future, but it is a new and different one, analogous in some respects to the role—
§ Mr. BryantIf the hon. Gentleman consulted some of his colleagues, he might find that those who have worked for the BBC in the past did not necessarily always argue the BBC's cause in Committee. Does he accept that the governors have a considerable way to go to prove their independence, but that the best way of conducting that debate is through the process of charter renewal, not in the context of the Bill?
§ Mr. YeoI do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not impugn the independence of everyone who previously worked for the BBC—only a proportion of them. On the charter, it would be wrong to wait until charter renewal and the debate that is just starting up to decide the matter—wrong because we are unlikely to have the chance of primary legislation on this scale in the House within that period. I understand why people may think that the concern overlaps with the debate about charter renewal, the way to deal with it is to introduce provisions into the Bill that come into force at the time of the new BBC charter. That would be a simple solution that would command widespread support.
The crucial need is to bring the BBC into line with other broadcasting organisations with effect from the earliest possible date and certainly not later than the date of the new charter. That would leave the BBC governors with an important role, in some respects analogous to that performed by non-executive directors at Channel 4.
The success of Ofcom and the effectiveness of the Bill will be judged by whether the Government's claim to favour a light regulatory touch is borne out in practice. Competition between providers supplying well-informed consumers with goods and services in a liberalised market is the best form of regulation. I hope that in 10 years' time, Ofcom will be a smaller body than it will be when the Bill becomes law. In this context, the example of another super-regulator, the Financial Services Authority, is not entirely encouraging. 782 New technology, if applied properly, can empower consumers. It can promote markets where none have previously existed. Digital switchover makes it possible for television to be priced differently in the 21st century than hitherto. In charting a course for the future of the industry, bearing in mind that Parliament is unlikely to have the chance to legislate again on this scale in the near future, we must not be prisoners of the past. Almost two decades have passed since the Peacock report held out the eventual prospect of progress towards a full broadcasting market. I hope that nothing that Ofcom does will impede the progress that could now be made.
Another criterion for assessing the success of the new regulator will be whether the way in which consumers access television 10 years from now is more like what occurs in the marketplace that exists for books or magazines—a marketplace in which viewers pay for what they watch when they want to watch it and not for much else. I hope that Ofcom will facilitate a move away from a present position, in which all television viewers pay a highly regressive tax to a single and very privileged broadcaster, regardless of whether they consume any of that broadcaster's output.
In conclusion, the Opposition still have significant reservations about aspects of the Bill. We hope that further improvements will be made in another place. In particular, I look forward to the Government accepting proposals to allow the National Audit Office immediate opportunities to scrutinise the BBC. I hope that that will not be long delayed. However, we have no substantial quarrel with the main principles of the Bill and will continue to support it on Third Reading, as we did on Second Reading.
§ Nick HarveyThe Government are right to say that the Bill has improved during its long gestation in terms of public consultation and the scrutiny that it received in the House both last summer through the Joint Committee and in the Standing Committee proceedings that we have just completed. Nevertheless, nobody should take the view that the Bill is perfect. Parliament should be realistic about how near to perfection we can make a Bill that deals with a sector like this.
The genesis of the Bill was the speed with which technologies in the various markets that the new regime will cover were converging. Of course, since that time, there has been a significant change in market conditions and some of the progress towards technological advances that was occurring has slowed considerably. The climate now is very different from the climate a relatively small number of years ago. However, we do not know at what speed things will change, including in other markets elsewhere in the world, which will also impact on developments here in the UK.
When we started out on the paving Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked on Second Reading what such regulation of the sector was for and why Ofcom would carry out its role. The amendment to which the Government agreed today that put into Ofcom's remit consideration of the wider public interest rather than the more narrow focus on consumer interest provided through competition changes significantly the answer to the question that he asked on 783 that occasion. I believe that Ofcom will be significantly better equipped to set about defending the interests of the public as a whole as a result of that amendment.
It will not be Ofcom that determines the speed with which broadband rolls out—and neither will it be the Government or the House. It will largely be the market that will deliver on the aspirations, which I think are probably shared across the House, for broadband technologies to spread as quickly as possible. Certainly, hon. Members in all parts of the House have spoken up on behalf of rural areas and other areas that are not enticing economic prospects for those who are rolling out the technology. It is to be hoped that, during the passage of the Bill, we have given that development the best chance and the fairest wind that we can. How Ofcom now takes on its role will determine how successful that is.
Ofcom will have a very demanding task—of that there is no doubt. The initial task of bringing together the five regulators will be a challenging one, but the real work will begin once that initial process of absorption has taken place. A great deal is expected of Ofcom and it will be doing its work with relatively new legislation. That is why it may be premature for the Government to have organised or facilitated at the same time a revolution in the ownership regulations that would more naturally have followed on the occasion of the first three-year review. Nevertheless, it seems that the Government are determined to head down that path.
There are still particular aspects that I hope will be examined in another place, because although we have made significant progress in improving the Bill, I firmly believe that we could make further improvements. I especially hope that the ITN question, which the Conservative spokesman has just touched on, will be addressed. ITN is hampered by the regime in which it operates, and it needs to be set free as a matter of certainty from the shackles that prevent it from operating as effectively as it could if we are to safeguard the existence of three competitive news networks.
I hope that we have the rules for the future of commercial radio about right, although I am not entirely confident of that. A lot of ground has been given to the commercial radio lobby, which protested too much when seeking more ground than it has been given. I also hope that the safeguards that have been built into the legislation prove adequate to prevent local radio from being sacrificed so that it becomes proxy national radio, as we have seen in other countries.
We must hope that Ofcom uses the considerable powers that we are putting at its disposal and that it shows more relish for picking them up and applying them than did some of its predecessor bodies. Expecting the legislation to be perfect it is not a reasonable aspirational benchmark to set ourselves, but its slow evolution means that it is as good as we are likely to get. I hope that the House of Lords goes over those crucial issues and puts right a few anomalies that remain. That having been said, the Bill is necessary and worthwhile, so we shall support it on Third Reading.
§ Mr. MoleI am pleased to participate in the debate, even though perhaps I come late to it, although not at the fag end, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion 784 (Mr. Thomas) said. I declare my interest: before entering Parliament, I worked for BT for 17 years and I am a member of Connect, the union for professionals in communications. I add my voice to those who have been struggling to make it clear that the Bill is about more than just broadcast and print media issues. Indeed, over time, those issues will become less important.
Although the Bill talks a good talk about convergence of different strands of electronic communication, it addresses the broadcast and telecommunications streams separately. It is, of course, welcome that the Bill enacts the operation of Ofcom—a regulator that will span the whole sector—as that will allow markets to be regulated with a common approach as technologies continue to converge. An example might be appropriate.
For many years, I have enjoyed the occasional bit of jazz. Jazz FM is an excellent easy-listening jazz station that operates in the London area. However, I can now receive it at home not just through conventional FM radio broadcasts, but on the Freeview digital television platform and by webcast over a broadband ADSL telecommunications network. Better than that, I can access 91 different jazz radio stations via the internet. Indeed, via that route I can access 2,000 radio stations across all genres. The critical issue here is that different elements of the regulation regimes, and none, will apply to all three delivery routes.
Therein lies the dilemma for the Government. As the technology increasingly shifts from push to pull—I welcome the Secretary of State's comments, although I struggle entirely to understand how some of those separations can be maintained into the future—individual consumer choice grows and content regulation becomes less appropriate. Why should programming be regulated across the watershed if it is available by video on demand or, indeed, at the video rental shop, 24 hours a day? As the Government seek to negotiate with the industry on self-regulation of video on demand, I just observe that the comparative economic model for video on demand is not broadcast TV, but Blockbuster or similar video retailers.
Let us suppose that I am watching interactive television involving two media. Some content may be received via broadcast digital television, and some via a telecommunications network. Which regulation will apply? The dividing lines become increasingly blurred. What can be guaranteed is that many of the problems that must be addressed by the Bill, and indeed by Ofcom, have not yet been thought of. It would therefore be entirely inappropriate for the Bill to be too prescriptive.
The examples I have given tell us something about the pace of change in these markets, and should also tell us something about the framework that the Bill seeks to operate. If our economy is to benefit from the potential that technological development can offer, regulation must be as light as possible. I should like to know whether the Government have accepted the Joint Committee's view that a "light touch" approach should not be commended to Ofcom. I am a natural sceptic when it comes to the effectiveness and accountability of regulators, and the history of Oftel's operation features, in many instances, an attempt to micro-manage 785 individual businesses rather than providing a comprehensive framework offering a level playing field to all operators.
In the past I have been concerned about the regulator's intervention in telephone apparatus supply, and I fear that the new framework may feature the same style. Given that such apparatus has been available in every high-street store for many years, and given that safety and connection standards issues are covered by statutory instruments, what interest should the regulator take? That looks like the heavy hand rather than the light touch. If the light touch is not possible, however, proportional intervention should be the order of the day.
I welcome the Government's wish to see the open and transparent operation of Ofcom, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), I welcomed David Currie's appearance at the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on telecommunications the week before last. I hope that the Government will listen to those who suggest that the "significant market provider" approach could be further enhanced. Given the speed at which products and services are developing, Ofcom should be required to review that approach at least once every two years. There should be standards of promptness, requiring the regulator to ensure that reviews and investigations do not unnecessarily delay the introduction of new services.
The regulator must also be robust in dealing with spurious allegations from competing service suppliers. All too frequently, Oftel allowed itself to become embroiled in litigious warfare between operators. That did nothing more than delay the conferring of benefits to consumers in the form of innovations and new service developments.
This is a difficult area in which to regulate—and, because of its global nature, the internet will remain impossible to regulate. The Government have done well to consult widely and to tackle the issues realistically, and, despite my fear that the pace of change may return us to them sooner rather than later, I commend the Bill.
§ Michael FabricantThey say that familiarity breeds contempt, but I cannot say that I have contempt for this Bill, although we all served three months in Committee, some of us served about a month on the Committee dealing with the paving Bill, and still others served on the Committee dealing with the scrutiny Bill—although I do not have that claim to fame. It cannot be said that the Bill has not received a huge amount of consideration.
Along with my Front-Bench colleagues, I support a Bill that was driven strongly by changes in technology. Digital developments have brought about the convergence of technologies, and it is right for the various institutions that currently govern broadcasting and other bodies to converge into one overriding body, the Office of Communications.
Nevertheless, I have a few caveats. Members will know, because I have reminded them on several occasions, that I used to work in broadcasting, mostly radio, before I came here. When I first applied for a 786 licence—in Brighton, back in the 1980s—it became apparent—[Interruption.] Some Members heard this during the Committee stage, but it is worth repeating.[Interruption.] I do not want to delay matters because other hon. Members want to speak. It is worth repeating that radio took a minor role in the old Independent Broadcasting Authority, and it is extremely important that—as when the IBA was broken up and become the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority—radio does not now become a small part of the Office of Communications. It is important that radio should be allowed to thrive.
My second point, which has been discussed at great length and is very important, relates to the BBC. The Government like to claim that they are at the heart of Europe and that the European Union always listens to Governments, yet, time and again, Chirac and Schröder seem to be putting up two metaphorical fingers to the Prime Minister. A similar degree of negotiating skill seems to be apparent when it comes to the Government negotiating with the BBC because, once again, the BBC has got its way. It will not fall under the auspices of the Office of Communications, and I think that that is wrong. Even though the BBC often makes the right judgment when people complain about it, it is right and proper that it should not be seen as its own judge and jury. As I said in Committee—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that such remarks were probably better made in Committee. The new clauses concerning the BBC have not been added to the Bill, and this is a Third Reading debate in which we should concentrate on what is in the Bill.
§ Michael FabricantThe Office of Communications will have responsibility for the BBC under tiers 1 and 2. In that respect, the BBC will have protection but, oh dear, what a shame that it will not have protection under tier 3!
The Secretary of State spoke about the encouragement of the independent broadcast sector, and she was absolutely right to do so because there is still a quota in BBC television for independent production. Sadly, however, BBC radio will not be controlled by such a quota. That is an anomaly, and I hope that it will be addressed when the Bill goes to another place.
The issue of disabilities has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Secretary of State herself said that she wished to see people with disabilities involved in the broadcast media, both as broadcasters and—if they can be—as listeners and viewers of radio and television stations. The Secretary of State was right to point that out, but there is more to be done in that area. I would like to commend the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who has consistently pressed this point, both on the Office of Communications Bill and the paving Bill. The Government should take on board more of those arguments and include them when the Bill goes to another place.
§ John RobertsonJust to help the hon. Gentleman get to the end of his speech, would he agree that one thing that is missing from the Bill is music? I have spoken 787 about this on many occasions, and I know that the matter will be dear to his heart. Does he agree that it should be considered in another place and that we should get the word "music" into the Bill?
§ Michael FabricantI would like to agree with the hon. Gentleman but I would be ruled out of order. I cannot talk about music on Third Reading because it is not in the Bill.
This is an important Bill, and it will be good for the future of the United Kingdom. However, it is not a perfect Bill. There is still room for improvement, and I hope that such improvement—including full control of the BBC—will occur when it goes to the other place.
§ Mr. SoleyWe have little time left on this Bill, but I wanted to speak now, if I may. One of the major things missing from it—
§ It being Seven o' Clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER,put the Question, pursuant to Order [10 February].
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.