| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Mar 2003 : Column 778—continued
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 Hewitt: My 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
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.6.29 pm
Mr. Yeo : May 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. Mullin: We 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. Yeo: That intervention ill behoves the hon. Gentleman, who voted for the programme motion in the House.
Mr. Mullin: But we could have made better use of the time.
Mr. Yeo: On 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
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. Yeo: The 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. Yeo: My 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
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. Bryant: If 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?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |