| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Mar 2003 : Column 775—continued
Mr. Simon Thomas: On 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 Speaker: The Public Bill Office will be able to give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer. I believe that it pertains to the Duchy of Cornwall.
6.15 pm
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. Mullin : With 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 Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That very issue was set to be debated in
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 Hewitt: As 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. Mullin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a paper by Professor Michael Tracey that was prepared for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust?
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".
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.
Ms Hewitt: Perfectly formed, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Robathan: The 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 Hewitt: I am being reminded that the hon. Gentleman is not a licensed bookie, so he is treading in
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |