| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Mar 2003 : Column 729—continued
Mr. Greenway: I cannot tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how grateful I am for the Minister's intervention, as that is precisely what I intend to do. He so clearly grasps the point that I need not dwell on it too much.
To explain the point briefly, clause 6 requires Ofcom to reduce regulatory burdens and clause 3(1)(a) requires it to promote competition and to further the interests of consumers—there is no better way of doing that than bearing down on prices and the provision of high-quality services. Clause 3(1)(b) on securing the optimum use of wireless telegraphy must surely include the deployment of new telecommunications technologies.
The Minister might argue, as he did in his intervention, that we do not need the new clause. However, new clause 2 adds something that is distinctly absent from the Bill: the two words that were pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—"including broadband". This debate has shown not only that all Members on both sides of the House regard this as a crucial issue for their constituents—I can certainly reflect what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said about his constituency, which is precisely the position in my constituency of Ryedale. The real point, however, is that there is no specific reference to broadband in the Bill. We hammered away on that issue in Committee because it is a serious omission. The new clause gives the House the opportunity to correct that omission.
Mr. Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider broadband to be a telecommunications technology?
Mr. Greenway: Many of the definitions in the Bill include or omit certain phraseology. We spent a lot of time on Report last Tuesday discussing whether music formed part of local material.
John Robertson: That is an important issue.
Mr. Greenway: It is important, as the hon. Gentleman says.
This debate has shown a growing sense among members of all parties that the provision of broadband is not being taken seriously enough. It is therefore important to make a specific reference to it in the Bill as part of Ofcom's general duties. I will say no more than that, suffice it to say that anyone listening to this important part of our deliberations cannot have failed to notice that, no matter which constituency hon. Members represent or to which political party they belong, there is a sense that not enough is being done to ensure that broadband is made available to more and more of our constituents. The importance that hon. Members have put on this issue makes it inconceivable that the Government would want to resist such a new clause.
I want to deal with the issues raised by the Government's amendments—in particular Government amendment No. 215 to clause 3. Clause 3 sets out
Ofcom's general duties, and the Government amendment alters the structure and emphasis of the clause in three important ways. I want to probe the Minister on the Government's thinking, and I would also like him to clarify some points.The amendment will for the first time impose a principal duty on Ofcom. There were once four duties of equal weight, as given in clause 3(1). However, under the amendment, in addition to Ofcom's duty, in carrying out its functions,
- "to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition",
- "further the interests of the community as whole in relation to communications matters."
- "to secure the optimal use for wireless telegraphy of the electromagnetic spectrum",
"to secure the availability . . . of a wide range of television and radio services"
In Committee, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting reminded us that the Government's response to the Joint Committee's report stated:
- "'We are sure that the Committee will recognise how important it is that the duties properly reflect the breadth of all OFCOM's responsibilities, both economic and cultural, and follow the proposition set out in the White Paper that each duty is of equal weight.'"
- "I strongly believe that we should give a clear signal that no single duty under subsection (1) is more important than another; they are all equally important."
- "Subsection (6) expressly enables Ofcom to resolve the conflict between duties in the way that it believes to be the best. That leaves it in control of the situation."
- "The Government have looked long and hard at clause 3, because, like other hon. Members, we recognised that we needed to get it right, and I believe that we have."
- "It covers the breadth of Ofcom's responsibilities and reflects its role as an economic and cultural regulator. I believe that, in respect of the principles on which it is based and its drafting, the clause works for Ofcom and its stakeholders."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 10 December 2002; c. 74–81.]
- "the community as a whole in relation to communications matters"
Mr. Hawkins: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has alluded to Orwell, because the Government have very much introduced a piece of Orwellian newspeak. Does my hon. Friend have any suspicion about the reason for this sudden volte-face from equal duties to one primary duty? Does he think by any chance that there has been huge influence from Europe and that the Minister's officials did not agree with what he said in Committee and have tried to change the Bill at the last minute in the House?
Mr. Greenway: On this occasion, I cannot go with my hon. Friend's conspiracy theory. The matter was debated at length in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) sadly cannot be here for this debate, but he made several comments about the issues that we are discussing. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) agrees with the rest of my hon. Friends to judge by their reaction to my remarks. They have grasped that this change at this very late stage radically alters the architecture of Ofcom's duties in a way that has far-reaching implications for the rest of the Bill.
The second issue that I want to raise is the new duty to maintain a plurality of providers of television and radio. We need clarification from the Minister of the words in Government amendment No. 251 that refer to
- "the maintenance of a plurality of different television and radio services".
In Committee, Conservative Members argued that there should be a greater reliance on competition and less reliance on rigid restrictions and limitations. Until today—I am assuming that the amendment will be accepted by the House—we had an underlying move towards greater reliance on competition but with specific limitations and restrictions in place. However, plurality and competition now conflict with the specific restrictions and limitations in the Bill.
We know that the Government have decided that Channel 3 will be allowed to merge into a single company subject to general competition law, and that is a big qualification particularly in respect of television advertising. However, subject to that, the company will be allowed to merge into a single company that is owned by a single person or single organisation. Strictly speaking, that will represent a reduction in the plurality of Channel 3 providers from two main providers, Carlton and Granada, to one, with the smaller providers—Ulster, Scottish Media Group, Channel Television and others—perhaps being subsumed. Who knows whether that will happen even if it is not the proposal now? The Minister must tell us what the proposed new duty for Ofcom would mean for such a
process. Is it possible that such a merger would be, after investigation, acceptable in the eyes of the Office of Fair Trading, but then rejected by Ofcom under clause 1(3) on the basis that it reduces the plurality of television providers? That is an extremely important question.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |