| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Whittingdale: A considerable array of different issues seems to be grouped together, but there seems to be a familiar theme. Many of the amendments relate to issues that in the past we promoted at considerable length, but at the time we failed to persuade the Government of their merits. Now they reappear on the amendment paper from another place in the form of amendments that seek to make precisely the changes that we were advocating originally.
A matter of huge importance to the radio industry is the definition of localness when it comes to radio stations. The Secretary of State will recall that we spent some time in Committee considering the issue. We also had a quite lengthy debate on Report, during which we argued strongly that what mattered to people in identifying with their local station was what it broadcast, the fact that the content of programmes should be local and that the way in which localness is defined when it comes to examining individual local radio stations is the content broadcast. A number of the other requirements that were originally within the Bill—the employment of local people and stations' headquarters being located within the community—seemed to us not to be appropriate for regulation by Government and had little bearing to most people on whether they regarded their station as local. We made those points quite strongly, and we were supported by the radio companies, but without success. It appears that the Government have seen the light, and that is something that we welcome strongly.
Another issue that we spent quite a lot of time debating in Committee was the meaning of control, which has cropped up today as Lords amendment No. 139. We have been pressing the substance of that amendment for some time, as we have always thought that a simple inflexible 20 per cent. shareholding threshold was not an accurate reflection of the ability to control, and may well catch shareholdings that do not confer the means to control or significantly influence another company. We therefore argued that it was wrong that the provisions placed the burden of rebutting the assumption on the shareholder. I am delighted that the Government now agree with us, and have deleted the relevant provisions. It is worth reflecting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, that the Government, when forced to examine an argument in the House of Lords, where the arithmetic is rather different from the arithmetic in the Commons, suddenly accept it and agree to make a change. We sometimes get the feeling that because the Government are guaranteed a majority in the Commons they do not give the same consideration to the same arguments when they are advanced here. Nevertheless, we are always happy when our argument prevails.
Brian White: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that in Committee the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was willing to accept the Opposition's
amendments but rebutted mine, which has now become Lords amendment No. 95? May I welcome the Government's conversion on electronic programme guides?
Mr. Whittingdale: It has been suggested to me that the obvious lesson to be drawn from that is that the hon. Gentleman should come and join us. If he did so, he might have more success, so I extend an invitation to him, although without great expectation of it being accepted. While we were disappointed that we were unsuccessful when these matters were first debated, nevertheless it is welcome that the Government have accepted a number of points that we made and introduced amendments that we support.
Another issue that we raised on several occasions in Committee is dealt with in Lords amendment No. 114, a sensible provision that will help to enhance transparency in the regulatory process in this area, which is a good thing. I should like to say a few words about clause 310, which is amended by Lords amendment No. 114. We have tried to convince the Government that a problem has arisen because broadcasters who are subjected to economic regulation by Ofcom through their licences for reasons other than a competition purpose, for example under various clause 3 duties, will not have a right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. In another place, the Government have gone some way towards recognising that in practice, at least in the case of the duty to promote the interests of citizens and consumers in relevant markets, any economic regulation relating to pricing and packaging under that duty will be appealable to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. We are grateful for that welcome statement from the Government.
There are still other clause 3 duties under which economic regulation could take place for reasons other than a competition purpose. The Government have still not said that a right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal exists. The fact that they have not said so remains a source of some concern. It should be the case that any regulation of the pricing and packaging of broadcasting services—not the content of those services—under any clause 3 duty is clearly appealable to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. We will obviously want to keep a keen eye on that when Ofcom assumes responsibility for those matters, particularly the way in which it decides to proceed on economic regulation. If the Secretary of State could say anything more about that, that would be very welcome.
John Robertson: I pay tribute to the Government for agreeing to incorporate in the Bill Lords amendments Nos. 98 and 99, which reflect concerns expressed by the music industry about the impacts of consolidation in commercial radio. I hate to agree with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) but I too believe that throughout our proceedings, Members on both sides of the House voiced their opinion and all felt that the music industry was hard done-by. However, the Government have given careful consideration to the matter and ensured that the concerns of listeners are taken into account. In short, we can retain choice and diversity on our airwaves. We should all agree that these amendments represent
important safeguards for the British music industry and that our songwriters and composers have been protected in this legislation.It is very pleasing that proposed new section 106ZA of the Broadcasting Act 1990 refers to
- "Consultation about change of character of local services".
- "the selection of spoken material and music in programmes"
Secondly, subsection (4) of proposed new section 106ZA specifies that Ofcom is not required to publish a notice under that section if it considers that the publication would result in a delay that would be
- "likely prejudicially to affect the interests of the licence holder".
I have said on many occasions that music is the single most important influence on people's lives. People have different and diverse tastes, and I am made conscious of that every day. My researcher is always berating me because I like Eric Clapton, Huey Lewis and Garth Brooks, while I find it difficult to enjoy her taste in the Smiths and Nirvana, although we agree about REM. However, no matter what our taste, music continues to mould, simulate and entertain, which is why it is important to preserve diversity on the radio. Could the Minister put my fears to rest once and for all and tell the House that Ofcom will ensure that music on the radio will be protected?
Tessa Jowell: I thank hon. Members for their contributions about these specific and detailed changes. May I tell the hon. Member for Maldon and East
Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that he cannot have it both ways? He complained rather grudgingly that a number of amendments have been adopted, thereby improving the Bill. However, that is part of an extremely constructive parliamentary process that has extended over a fair period of time. I hope that he will see that in an area of such national importance as the shape of our media and communications industry, the Government have taken seriously the responsibility to do whatever they can to build a consensus reflecting shared views where they can be established in Parliament, and across the industry. I have said on a number of occasions that I cannot recall a piece of legislation on which there has been such wide and lengthy consultation as on the Bill. The fact that there is such a high level of agreement between the Government and the Opposition and between the House of Commons and another place is the result of that investment and that consultation, and we should be proud of it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |