| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Mar 2003 : Column 785—continued
6.53 pm
Michael Fabricant: They 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
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 Speaker: Order. 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 Fabricant: The 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 Robertson : Just 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
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 Fabricant: I 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.
6.59 pm
Mr. Soley: We have little time left on this Bill, but I wanted to speak now, if I may. One of the major things missing from it—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I feel that I must almost apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
It being Seven o' Clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put the Question, pursuant to Order [10 February].
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
Protecting the Financial Interests of the Communities
- That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. OJ C295, Vol. 45, European Court of Auditors' 2001 Annual Report, and No. 10625/1/02, the Commission's 2001 Annual Report on protecting the financial interests of the Communities; and supports the Government's continuing efforts to promote measures to improve financial management and combat fraud against the European Community's financial interests.—[Derek Twigg.]
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Wildlife and Countryside
- That the draft Code of Guidance on Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Encouraging Positive Partnerships, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Local Government Finance
- That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 112) on Special Grants for the Local e-Government Programme, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Ecclesiastical Law
- That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
PETITIONS
A120 Trunk Road Improvements
7.1 pm
Mr. Ivan Henderson (Harwich): I should like to congratulate the East Anglian Daily Times on organising this petition, and on its ongoing campaign to support the dualling of the A120. I should also like to thank the more than 2,000 members of the public who signed the petition.
- The Petition of the East Anglian Daily Times and of the residents of the Harwich constituency declares
That improvements to the A120 trunk road between Harwich and Little Bromley should be a priority, and that this work is imperative for the safety of road users, for the region's economy, and for the status of Harwich as a prime gateway to Europe.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to prioritise improvements to the A120 international trunk road between Harwich and Little Bromley.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Community Pharmacies
7.3 pm
Bob Spink (Castle Point): Community pharmacies are part of the very fabric of our society. They are the front line of primary care, and they do much—and can do much more—to take the burden off general practitioners. They are not retailers; they are health care professionals. The proposals of the Office of Fair Trading would damage the most vulnerable people. Deregulation would hurt, not help, the consumer, and set back the pharmacy service by 10 years. Pharmacies should be planned at local level by primary care trusts.
- To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of Ms Tracy Trevillion, Mrs. Dorothy Best and others of like disposition sheweth
That local communities are best served by local, community-based pharmacies, and that the OFT's recommendations to abolish the "control of entry" regulations would seriously damage local pharmacies.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continuing provision of services to local communities.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |