| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Feb 2003 : Column 143—continued
Protection of Freedoms
Mr. Prisk accordingly presented a Bill to require each item of legislation to be subject to a statement as to how each measure included in it affects the freedom of expression, assembly, conscience and association; and why the benefits of the measure outweigh any loss of freedom. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 60].
Orders of the Day
Communications Bill
As amended in the Committee, considered.
New Clause 3
Composition of Services in Radio Multiplexes
'(1) Section 54 of the 1996 Act (conditions attached to radio multiplex licences) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (h) of subsection (1) (conditions as to composition of service) there shall be substituted—
"(h) that, while the licence is in force, at least the required percentage of the digital capacity on the frequency or frequencies on which the service is broadcast is used, or left available to be used, for the broadcasting of services falling within subsection (1A)."
(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The services falling within this subsection are—
(a) digital sound programme services;
(b) simulcast radio services;
(c) programme-related services; and
(d) relevant technical services."
(4) In subsection (2) (meaning of services referred to in paragraph (h) of subsection (1))—
(a) for "paragraph (1)(h)" there shall be substituted "subsection (1A)"; and
(b) in subparagraph (i), for the words from "(within" to "1990 Act" there shall be substituted "(within the meaning of section 240 of the Communications Act 2003)".
(5) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(2A) In subsection (1)(h), the reference to the required percentage is a reference to such percentage equal to or more than 80 per cent. as OFCOM—
(a) consider appropriate; and
(b) specify in the condition."
(6) In subsection (3) (power to vary percentage in subsection (1)(h))—
(a) for "subsection (1)" there shall be substituted "subsection (2A)"; and
(b) for "paragraph (h) of that subsection" there shall be substituted "that subsection".'—[Dr. Howells.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
1.47 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 158, page 265, line 12, [Clause 303], at end insert 'and'.
No. 159, in page 265, line 13 [Clause 303], at end insert 'and music'.
No. 160, in page 265, line 16 [Clause 303], at end insert
'taking into account the way in which the existing range of programmes and music (taken as a whole) is calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests'.
No. 181, in page 266, line 6 [Clause 304], leave out from 'services' to end of line 8.
No. 182, in page 266 [Clause 304], leave out lines 20 to 30.
No. 162, in page 267, line 4 [Clause 304], after 'news', insert 'and music'.
Dr. Howells: I will deal first with new clause 3. At present, clause 239 allows the Secretary of State to set a minimum percentage of television multiplex capacity that must be devoted to broadcasting services and not, for instance, to data services. The Office of Communications may set a higher percentage in a particular licence, but not a lower one. There is a no similar provision for radio, and consequently any change in the percentage for broadcasting material on a radio multiplex can be made only by order.
We now think that it would be more sensible to bring these provisions into line by replicating the television provisions for radio multiplexes. This would allow Ofcom, rather than the Secretary of State acting through Parliament, to set a higher percentage for the minimum amount of broadcasting data that must be carried on a particular radio multiplex. The percentage set by the Secretary of State would still represent the lowest percentage that could be specified in a licence.
Amendment No. 65 corrects a minor omission from earlier drafting. Paragraph 3 of schedule 18 is a transitional provision to ensure that contracts and agreements between relevant parties are not terminated because the prevailing regime of licensing changes to one of general authorisations in cases where the contract or agreement depends on one or other of the parties holding a particular licence. Although it is mainly aimed at the holders of telecommunications licences, it also covers cases in which a Broadcasting Act licence may no longer be needed for a particular activity as a result of the Bill.
Paragraph 3(2) of schedule 18 defines "relevant licence" for the provisions of the paragraph. The list should also include satellite radio services as defined in section 84(2)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Such licences will be abolished and most services will be provided under radio licensable content service licences. However, it is conceivable that some services that currently need a satellite radio service licence might not need a radio licensable content service licence. That outcome will be made more likely because the Bill changes the jurisdiction rules. Our minor amendment rectifies that omission so that the list of licences to which the provisions apply is comprehensive.
Amendment No. 68 is to schedule 19 and repeals section 54(7) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 which is now superfluous.
Rosemary McKenna (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth): I am interested in amendment No. 65. The Minister will be aware that many hon. Members, especially those in the cross-party music group, are concerned that local radio stations play the same music throughout the country and that there is no diversity. Will he reconsider our concerns and those of the industry and require Ofcom to ensure that local music is treated in the same way as news?
Dr. Howells: We discussed that at great length in Committee and will revisit it on Report. I know that my
hon. Friend cares passionately about the subject. I assure her that we want to do all that we can to promote and strengthen the localness and regional identity—by which I mean the cultural identity as much as anything else—of areas. As music is such an important factor in the health of broadcasting, especially radio broadcasting, we will give her suggestion serious consideration.Section 54(7) provides for section 94 of the 1990 Act to apply to radio multiplex services. Section 94 gives Ministers power to require radio broadcasters to include specified announcements in their services or to refrain from including specified matters in those services. The Bill reproduces section 94 in clause 326 and repeals it. The application of section 94 by section 54(7) of the 1996 Act is therefore no longer needed.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): New clause 3 seems sensible and will help to ensure that Ofcom has the flexibility to set higher percentages devoted to radio multiplexes which match the television arrangement, as the Minister said. However, as I said several times in Committee, we want a greater sense of urgency and a greater priority afforded to the roll-out of digital radio. The new clause would allow Ofcom to provide more digital radio opportunities if more of the multiplex was devoted to radio. I hope that the need to ensure a faster uptake of digital radio is well registered in the Minister's mind. We will need to consider his explanation of amendments Nos. 65 and 68, but we are happy to accept that they are minor drafting amendments.
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 181 and 182, which relate to the new provisions in the Bill now renumbered as clause 304, which seek to define localness for commercial radio stations. It is fair to say that the clause is the cause of deep resentment in the commercial radio industry. The clause was not included in the original draft Bill and was added after the Scrutiny Committee did its excellent work on the draft Bill, not as a result of anything that the Scrutiny Committee said about the original draft Bill, but as a result, we strongly suspect, of the decision by the Secretary of State—a decision that we wholly applaud—to change the original three-plus-one requirement to only two-plus-one.
That could be said to have given rise to concern that there may be a greater concentration of ownership, but the question for the House is whether the change justifies the far-reaching and, some would say, draconian powers given to Ofcom in respect of clause 304. The clause has been described by the Commercial Radio Companies Association as
- "an astonishing leap from a proposed duty to protect output to a recipe for interfering in microregulation."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |