The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:Chairman:
Mr.
David Amess †
Abbott,
Ms Diane (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)
(Lab) †
Anderson,
Mr. David (Blaydon)
(Lab) †
Betts,
Mr. Clive (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
(Lab) Blunt,
Mr. Crispin (Reigate)
(Con) †
Burgon,
Colin (Elmet) (Lab) †
Burt,
Lorely (Solihull)
(LD) †
Dunne,
Mr. Philip (Ludlow)
(Con) Fraser,
Mr. Christopher (South-West Norfolk)
(Con) †
Gibson,
Dr. Ian (Norwich, North)
(Lab) †
Goodwill,
Mr. Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con) †
Hendry,
Charles (Wealden)
(Con) †
Hodge,
Margaret (Minister for Industry and the
Regions)Howarth,
David (Cambridge)
(LD) †
Joyce,
Mr. Eric (Falkirk)
(Lab) †
McCabe,
Steve (Birmingham, Hall Green)
(Lab) †
Owen,
Albert (Ynys Môn)
(Lab) †
Ussher,
Kitty (Burnley)
(Lab) Rhiannon Hollis, Geoffrey
Farrar, Committee Clerks †
attended the Committee Fourth
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationWednesday
17 May
2006[Mr.
David Amess in the
Chair]Draft Wireless Telegraphy (Pre-Consolidation Amendments)Order 20062.30
pm The
Minister for Industry and the Regions (Margaret Hodge): I
beg to move, That the
Committee has considered the draft Wireless Telegraphy
(Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Order
2006. I might have
chosen a slightly less technical order as the first task in my new
post— Dr.
Ian Gibson (Norwich, North) (Lab): Foreign Secretary
next. Margaret
Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend, and I hope that I can make
some sense of the
provision. The purpose
of the order is to make changes to existing legislation to support our
proposals to consolidate the wireless telegraphy legislation. Hon.
Members will be aware of the legislation that we are consolidating in
the Wireless Telegraphy Bill: the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949; the
Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967; the Wireless
Telegraphy Act 1967, except part 1; part 6 of the Telecommunications
Act 1984; the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998; part 2 of chapter 2 of the
Communications Act 2003; and other provisions of the 2003 Act that
relate to any of the enactments just mentioned. All that legislation is
being consolidated in the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, which was
introduced to the Houseof Lords on 20 April and had its
Second Reading on3 May. It has been referred to the Joint
Committee on Consolidation of Bills.
Why are we consolidating? The
Law Commission proposed that existing wireless telegraphy legislation
be consolidated in a single Act, making the legislation easier for
parliamentarians and users of the radio spectrum and others to
understand and use.
The Bill is our first attempt
to meet the Law Commission’s recommendations. Consolidations
such as this, as hon. Members know, are an important part of the
Government’s better regulation agenda, mainly because they make
legislation easier to understand and use. Our aim is to improve the
statute book and to save considerable effort, time and cost for those
who have to use and consult it. Ofcom will be one of the prime users of
the legislation, and it welcomes the Bill, as does the industry as a
whole. As hon. Members
know, radio spectrum is a finite resource and of considerable
importance to the economy. Its use in 2002 alone was such that it was
estimated to have generated economic benefits estimated at about
£24 billion a year. Improving the
legislation so that it is consistent and easier to use will help all
stakeholders to make more efficient and more effective use of that
valuable resource. That is the reason for the
order. What does the
order do? It supports the consolidation process. We are making it under
a power of the Secretary of State under the 2003 Act to modify existing
legislation in this area by order when such modifications would
facilitate, or otherwise be desirable in connection with, a
consolidation Bill. The changes made by this order relate mainly to
ensuring a consistent approach across legislation and are largely
technical. Dr.
Gibson: Before I can vote for or against the order, I want
the Minister to tell me whether it has anything to do with Radio
Caroline and that aspect of wireless
telegraphy. Margaret
Hodge: That is a clever question for starters. To the
extent that the order is concerned with the issuing of licences, it
will cover all who succeed in obtaining a licence. I do not know
whether my hon. Friend has particular concerns, but to the extent that
the order covers all licences, it will have an effect on Radio
Caroline. Dr.
Gibson: I am not quite clear about this. Can we bring
Radio Caroline back? Can it be consolidated? Many people would look
forward to that and it would be
revolutionary. Margaret
Hodge: None of us wants divulge our age, but I assure my
hon. Friend that Radio Caroline, like any other station, may apply for
a licence and may even find it easier to do so once we have simplified
and consolidated the legislation in the way that we
intend. Dr.
Gibson: Noel Edmonds will be glad to hear
that. Margaret
Hodge: And I might now secure my hon. Friend’s
support for the
order. The changes
made by the order relate mainly to ensuring a consistent approach
across legislation and are largely technical. They will be taken
forward in the provisions that we then intend to repeal or re-enact in
the consolidation Bill. Other changes in the orderwill ensure
a consistent approach on issues such as disclosure of information for
all wireless telegraphy covered in the new
Bill. If I may, Mr.
Amess, I shall take the Committee through the key technical points in
the order. The first proposed change will put conduct that is unlawful
under section 7 of the 1967 Act on an equal footing with conduct that
is unlawful under the 1949 Act in one particular respect. Currently,
the legislation expressly provides that civil proceedings can be
brought in relation to conduct that is a criminal offence under certain
wireless telegraphy legislation, but not under other such
legislation. On that
basis, a civil case could be brought against somebody who had used a
wireless telegraphy station without a licence—for example, a
pirate radio station—but not against someone who had
manufactured
wireless telegraphy apparatus, such as a citizens’ band tower,
without Ofcom’s
authority. The result
of the change is that, in general terms, the right to bring civil
proceedings—for example, taking out an injunction—will
apply to an offence committed in respect of orders that restrict
dealings in and custody of certain wireless telegraphy-related
apparatus in the same way that it applies to proceedings in respect of,
for example, the offence of using wireless telegraphy stations without
a licence. We simply want a consistent approach across all those
offences. The second
proposed change will also remove an anomaly. Under the existing
legislation, it is doubtful whether section 1D of the 1949 Act, which
lays out the procedure for granting wireless telegraphy licences, could
be extended to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, because that bit
of that Act was inserted by regulations made under section 2(2) of the
European Communities Act 1972, and those regulations did not make
provision for the
islands. The order
modifies the legislation so that all provisions on granting wireless
telegraphy licences can be extended to the islands. They will then be
treated in the same way as equivalent provisions for making grants of
recognised spectrum
access. A grant of RSA
is a relatively new spectrum management instrument that fills a
significant gap, as some hon. Members will know, in the management of
the radio spectrum. The 2003 Act empowers Ofcom to introduce RSA on a
selective basis to manage the radio spectrum more effectively. Ofcom
believes that RSA has the potential to promote much better use of the
radio spectrum for a number of receive-only radio services such as
radio astronomy. A
grant of RSA, once paid for, provides the holder with the opportunity
and freedom to identify frequency bands and geographic areas within
which Ofcom will endeavour to ensure that agreed levels of interference
are not exceeded. The
next change, which is in paragraph 4 of the schedule, corrects an
oversight. The 1949 Act contains a provision about forfeiture after
conviction of an offence. For certain offences, the court may order
that items used while committing the offence can be given to
Ofcom. There is also a
general provision on forfeiture following conviction, which appears
elsewhere in UK legislation. There is duplication in respect of what is
called the particular provision for forfeiting items on certain
offences in wireless telegraphy legislation and the general provision
for forfeiting items in other legislation. For example, for the offence
of broadcasting from a ship or an aircraft, both the particular and the
general provisions in legislation could apply. The purpose of the
amendment is to get rid of the duplication of having both general and
particular provisions and to apply only the particular provisions,
rather than the two that currently
apply. The next
amendment, in paragraph 5, is a technical amendment to ensure
consistency in how we modify both wireless telegraphy licences and
grants of RSA. Currently, the language used could mean that
modifications that we make might interpret the UK’s different
international obligations slightly differently. We consider that there
is a very small gap between the
two interpretations, but this statutory instrument gives us an
opportunity to be clear, consistent and unambiguous in our
definitions. Paragraph
6 ensures consistency in definitions in the Act being consolidated.
There are definitions of the terms “broadcast”,
“frequency”, “information” and
“international obligations of the United
Kingdom”. Broadly
speaking, the definitions of those terms, as used in the 2003 Act, will
be applied to all other references to those terms in the other
specified legislation, where they have not been specifically defined to
date. That means, for example, that when somebody refers to
“frequency”, we shall have one consistent definition,
until and unless we amend it.
Paragraph 7 relates to
disclosure of information. There are provisions relating to such
disclosure in a number of places in legislation, but not in all. Where
such provisions exist, they allow information obtained under one Act to
be used by Ministers or other Government bodies for the purpose of
carrying out certain functions. Those functions are described under
listed Acts and statutory instruments. However, the disclosure
provisions are, again, inconsistent across all legislation. Some
disclosure provisions provide for disclosure of information in relation
to the 1984 Act and the 2003 Act, but not the other legislation that we
are consolidating. The
effect of paragraph 7 is to treat all the provisions of the Wireless
Telegraphy Bill, which we are considering, in the same way as regards
the disclosure of information provisions. To give an example of what
could occur if that were not done, disclosure provisions could cover
provisions on making grants of RSA, but not provisions on making
wireless telegraphy licences. We think that consistency of approach is
again desirable, hence the modification we are proposing
today. Paragraph 8
also ensures consistent treatment in how the legislation will be
consolidated. The way that the Secretary of State can exercise powers
varies. In some instances, different provision can be made for
different cases. For example, when making an order for the charging of
fees for approval of wireless telegraphy apparatus, there may be
different fees for different types of
apparatus. In other
cases, such as when the Secretary of State makes an order giving Ofcom
directions relating to its radio spectrum functions, the provisions of
the order could also be subject to exceptions. For instance, the
Secretary of State could direct Ofcom to keep certain frequencies
available for particular use, such as by GCHQ, in very special
circumstances such as an
emergency. We are
attempting in this paragraph to tidy up the legislation, so that the
same variety of provision can apply in all cases. We do not think that
that will significantly widen the powers affected; it is simply a
tidying-up exercise. However, it will lead to a situation that better
reflects Ofcom’s order and regulation-making powers and also
ensure consistency where a power can be exercised either by Ofcom or by
the Secretary of State.
Paragraph 9 has a similar aim.
It enables the same variety of provision to be made by Her Majesty by
Order in Council when extending provisions to the
Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I hope that, with that explanation,
hon. Members are content to approve the
order. 2.45
pm Charles
Hendry (Wealden) (Con): May I say at the outset, Mr.
Amess, what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? May I
add to that a message of welcome to the Minister in her new role? We
spent a lot of time together when she was at the Department for
Education and
Skills. Charles
Hendry: A scandal in the offing. The Minister brought
tremendous dedication to that role, and I hope that she enjoys her time
at the Department of Trade and Industry every bit as much as she
enjoyed her former role. In business terms, I am not yet sure whether
we should call what we have seen at the DTI over the last week or so a
takeover by a new management team or the receivers being called in to
sort things out. However, we have certainly seen a complete
transformation, and I hope that she and her colleagues enjoy their
brief. May I also add
a word of respect for the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon.
Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), and the work that
he did in the sector? He brought to the role tremendous personal
dedication, commitment and understanding of the issues. Such
understanding was always extremely useful to us in debate. I understand
that he left the Government of his own volition. We discover day by day
people whom we thought had done the same, as well as others who left
not quite so voluntarily, but we wish him a happy life on the Back
Benches, if that is where he has chosen to
be. I also
congratulate the Minister on how she introduced the subject. There have
always been Ministers who specialise in taking an extremely
controversial and lively subject and delivering it in such a deadpan
way that everybody drops off and loses interest. This Minister is
exactly the opposite: she took a subject that is a bit dry and
technical, and delivered it with such enthusiasm and liveliness that
she gripped our attention throughout. However, the debate came to life
only when we got on to the subject of Radio Caroline—suddenly,
we thought that this technical matter had wider
implications. We are
well aware that the Prime Minister is looking for his legacy moment. We
thought that it might be sorting out Iraq, or nuclear power and nuclear
waste, but we now realise that he will be remembered for sorting out
the problems of pirate radio stations. It will be a great triumph for
him to have achieved that.
The Minister talks about the
importance of better regulation. We want less, rather than just better,
regulation. It should be the objective to regulate not more, but
better, and to reduce overall the burdens of legislation and regulation
on business. I hope that she can clarify the extent to which the order
does that. Does it just bring things together, or does it reduce the
overall burden of regulation on business?
The Minister said that people,
including Ofcom, are generally in favour of that, but can she also
reassure us that there have been no negative reactions whatever to the
proposals? We have not been made aware of any, but it would be useful
for the Committee to know, before any vote, whether any have been
expressed and the nature of any such
views. Although this
is a complex statutory instrument, it is not particularly
controversial, and I am happy to endorse the direction in which the
Minister has led
us. 2.49
pm Lorely
Burt (Solihull) (LD): I, too, welcome you to the Chair,
Mr. Amess, for the debate on this important, if technical, subject. I
also add my welcome to the Minister in her new role. It is a delight to
find somebody who is newer in her role than I am, as I have been on the
DTI team for three or four
weeks. I welcome this
necessary order and echo the points made by the hon. Member for Wealden
(Charles Hendry). We all want better regulation and, despite some
comments that were made this week in the Chamber, the Liberal Democrats
are extremely keen to see as much reduction in regulation as we can.
However, I want to raise one matter about the order, which is
potentially a missed opportunity to address certain technological
developments in the area of short-range FM transmitter
devices. One of the
more commonly known products that uses such technology is the iTrip.
The Government and Ofcom seem to be burying their heads in the sand
over the use of those devices, which broadcast over a very limited
area. Not only has that failure encouraged their continued illegal use,
but the Government must be missing out on considerable tax revenue from
them, even though they have been deemed acceptable in a number of
countries, including the United States. That is all the more
disappointing considering we will have to return to the issue following
the European Union’s recommendation that member states
reconsider their
legislation. Can the
Minister see her way to amending the legislation, perhaps to force
Ofcom to deal with illegal iPods— I am so sorry, I mean iTtrips.
There was a trip there. Will she perhaps ask Ofcom to review the
spectrum use of iTrips? By that, I mean that Ofcom should take iTrips
into account in its spectrum framework review to make them legal in
future. That could exempt them from the wireless telegraphy
legislation, which is what the company selling iTrips hopes we can
do. I ask the Minister
to do something about this, because we seem to have missed an
opportunity.
2.52
pm Mr.
Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): May I
first declare an interest as a shareholder in the local radio company
that operates Yorkshire Coast Radio, broadcasting to the Yorkshire
coast between Whitby and
Bridlington? This
consolidation procedure represents a sensible simplification of the
legislation. Having read some of the documentation, and the short
speech given in another place on 20 April, I am inclined to concur. My
only concern, which I hope the Minister will allay, is her use of the
words “tidying-up exercise”, which I also encountered in
the Library this morning. The last time I heard those words was in
connection with the European constitutional treaty, which was meant to
tidy up the treaties that preceded
it. I hope that the
Minister will reassure me that this is indeed a tidying-up exercise,
not an excuse to slide lots of things in under the door. She also
mentioned that some legislative anomalies might have been a problem in
bringing forward civil prosecutions, but has she any information about
how many prosecutions have been prevented because of those anomalies
and whether the legislation will increase the number of
prosecutions? 2.53
pm Margaret
Hodge: I would like to apologise for my gross error in
failing to welcome you to the Chair at the beginning of the sitting,
Mr. Amess. I hope that you will accept my welcome at this late
stage. May I also add
a comment that I was going to make in the Chamber? I recognise the hard
and effective work undertaken by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend
the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who has left me with a clear
agenda of extremely thorough work to take over. I am extremely grateful
to him. All my hon. Friends recognise that the various roles he has
played in government have been difficult, but that he has been
effective in them all. I am sure that we shall have other opportunities
to recognise that. I
do not think that this is a takeover bid—the Conservative party
is better at those than us—but it is a seamless transition. As
we conduct our business, I am sure that Conservative Members will
recognise that, and I hope that we can work in the way that my
predecessor worked: trying to share as much information as we can with
all Opposition parties on areas of common concern, so that we can make
real progress in the interests of business and enterprise in the way
that we all want.
Hon. Members asked whether the
order will lead to less regulation and whether it will reduce existing
burdens. The purpose of the order is to simplify how we use
legislation, and I hope that the consolidation Bill, which is under
consideration, will take forward that simplification. Yes, it should
lead to better regulation in the way that we all want. I can assure the
Committee that there were no objections when we consulted on the
order. The hon. Member
for Solihull (Lorely Burt) asked me about iTrips, which I understand
are devices for playing music using wireless telegraphy. I am told by
my officials that this is a matter not for us, but for the independent
regulator, Ofcom. I suggest that she take it up directly with Ofcom. If
that does not achieve her objective, she is welcome to write to me and
I will see what we can do to advance the issues that she
raised. The hon.
Member for Scarborough and Whitby(Mr. Goodwill) asked whether
we are adding to regulation. This is a tidying-up exercise. A
consolidation Bill has to re-enact existing legislation, which is
precisely what we are doing. This statutory instrument will help us to
do it. I cannot tell
the hon. Gentleman how many civil prosecutions might arise from the
consistency that we are introducing as I do not have the answer here
with me, but, if I may, I shall write to him with information on what
proceedings have been taken under other existing provisions and whether
we have any idea as to where we will go with the tidying-up that we are
proposing today. This
has been a useful initiation in the technicalities of telegraphy
legislation. I had not realised that there were quite so many Acts as I
have discovered in my first week in the job. I hope that this statutory
instrument receives the support of all members of the
Committee. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Wireless Telegraphy
(Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Order
2006. Committee
rose at two minutes to Three
o’clock.
| 
