| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Mar 2003 : Column 781—continued
Mr. Yeo: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not impugn the independence of everyone who previously worked for the BBC—only a proportion of them. On the charter, it would be wrong to wait until charter renewal and the debate that is just starting up to decide the matter—wrong because we are unlikely to have the chance of primary legislation on this scale in the House within that period. I understand why people may think that the concern overlaps with the debate about charter renewal, the way to deal with it is to introduce provisions into the Bill that come into force at the time of the new BBC charter. That would be a simple solution that would command widespread support.
The crucial need is to bring the BBC into line with other broadcasting organisations with effect from the earliest possible date and certainly not later than the date of the new charter. That would leave the BBC governors with an important role, in some respects analogous to that performed by non-executive directors at Channel 4.
The success of Ofcom and the effectiveness of the Bill will be judged by whether the Government's claim to favour a light regulatory touch is borne out in practice. Competition between providers supplying well-informed consumers with goods and services in a liberalised market is the best form of regulation. I hope that in 10 years' time, Ofcom will be a smaller body than it will be when the Bill becomes law. In this context, the example of another super-regulator, the Financial Services Authority, is not entirely encouraging.
New technology, if applied properly, can empower consumers. It can promote markets where none have previously existed. Digital switchover makes it possible for television to be priced differently in the 21st century than hitherto. In charting a course for the future of the industry, bearing in mind that Parliament is unlikely to have the chance to legislate again on this scale in the near future, we must not be prisoners of the past. Almost two decades have passed since the Peacock report held out the eventual prospect of progress towards a full broadcasting market. I hope that nothing that Ofcom does will impede the progress that could now be made.
Another criterion for assessing the success of the new regulator will be whether the way in which consumers access television 10 years from now is more like what occurs in the marketplace that exists for books or magazines—a marketplace in which viewers pay for what they watch when they want to watch it and not for much else. I hope that Ofcom will facilitate a move away from a present position, in which all television viewers pay a highly regressive tax to a single and very privileged broadcaster, regardless of whether they consume any of that broadcaster's output.
In conclusion, the Opposition still have significant reservations about aspects of the Bill. We hope that further improvements will be made in another place. In particular, I look forward to the Government accepting proposals to allow the National Audit Office immediate opportunities to scrutinise the BBC. I hope that that will not be long delayed. However, we have no substantial quarrel with the main principles of the Bill and will continue to support it on Third Reading, as we did on Second Reading.
6.41 pm
Nick Harvey: The Government are right to say that the Bill has improved during its long gestation in terms of public consultation and the scrutiny that it received in the House both last summer through the Joint Committee and in the Standing Committee proceedings that we have just completed. Nevertheless, nobody should take the view that the Bill is perfect. Parliament should be realistic about how near to perfection we can make a Bill that deals with a sector like this.
The genesis of the Bill was the speed with which technologies in the various markets that the new regime will cover were converging. Of course, since that time, there has been a significant change in market conditions and some of the progress towards technological advances that was occurring has slowed considerably. The climate now is very different from the climate a relatively small number of years ago. However, we do not know at what speed things will change, including in other markets elsewhere in the world, which will also impact on developments here in the UK.
When we started out on the paving Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked on Second Reading what such regulation of the sector was for and why Ofcom would carry out its role. The amendment to which the Government agreed today that put into Ofcom's remit consideration of the wider public interest rather than the more narrow focus on consumer interest provided through competition changes significantly the answer to the question that he asked on
that occasion. I believe that Ofcom will be significantly better equipped to set about defending the interests of the public as a whole as a result of that amendment.It will not be Ofcom that determines the speed with which broadband rolls out—and neither will it be the Government or the House. It will largely be the market that will deliver on the aspirations, which I think are probably shared across the House, for broadband technologies to spread as quickly as possible. Certainly, hon. Members in all parts of the House have spoken up on behalf of rural areas and other areas that are not enticing economic prospects for those who are rolling out the technology. It is to be hoped that, during the passage of the Bill, we have given that development the best chance and the fairest wind that we can. How Ofcom now takes on its role will determine how successful that is.
Ofcom will have a very demanding task—of that there is no doubt. The initial task of bringing together the five regulators will be a challenging one, but the real work will begin once that initial process of absorption has taken place. A great deal is expected of Ofcom and it will be doing its work with relatively new legislation. That is why it may be premature for the Government to have organised or facilitated at the same time a revolution in the ownership regulations that would more naturally have followed on the occasion of the first three-year review. Nevertheless, it seems that the Government are determined to head down that path.
There are still particular aspects that I hope will be examined in another place, because although we have made significant progress in improving the Bill, I firmly believe that we could make further improvements. I especially hope that the ITN question, which the Conservative spokesman has just touched on, will be addressed. ITN is hampered by the regime in which it operates, and it needs to be set free as a matter of certainty from the shackles that prevent it from operating as effectively as it could if we are to safeguard the existence of three competitive news networks.
I hope that we have the rules for the future of commercial radio about right, although I am not entirely confident of that. A lot of ground has been given to the commercial radio lobby, which protested too much when seeking more ground than it has been given. I also hope that the safeguards that have been built into the legislation prove adequate to prevent local radio from being sacrificed so that it becomes proxy national radio, as we have seen in other countries.
We must hope that Ofcom uses the considerable powers that we are putting at its disposal and that it shows more relish for picking them up and applying them than did some of its predecessor bodies. Expecting the legislation to be perfect it is not a reasonable aspirational benchmark to set ourselves, but its slow evolution means that it is as good as we are likely to get. I hope that the House of Lords goes over those crucial issues and puts right a few anomalies that remain. That having been said, the Bill is necessary and worthwhile, so we shall support it on Third Reading.
6.46 pm
Mr. Mole: I am pleased to participate in the debate, even though perhaps I come late to it, although not at the fag end, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion
(Mr. Thomas) said. I declare my interest: before entering Parliament, I worked for BT for 17 years and I am a member of Connect, the union for professionals in communications. I add my voice to those who have been struggling to make it clear that the Bill is about more than just broadcast and print media issues. Indeed, over time, those issues will become less important.Although the Bill talks a good talk about convergence of different strands of electronic communication, it addresses the broadcast and telecommunications streams separately. It is, of course, welcome that the Bill enacts the operation of Ofcom—a regulator that will span the whole sector—as that will allow markets to be regulated with a common approach as technologies continue to converge. An example might be appropriate.
For many years, I have enjoyed the occasional bit of jazz. Jazz FM is an excellent easy-listening jazz station that operates in the London area. However, I can now receive it at home not just through conventional FM radio broadcasts, but on the Freeview digital television platform and by webcast over a broadband ADSL telecommunications network. Better than that, I can access 91 different jazz radio stations via the internet. Indeed, via that route I can access 2,000 radio stations across all genres. The critical issue here is that different elements of the regulation regimes, and none, will apply to all three delivery routes.
Therein lies the dilemma for the Government. As the technology increasingly shifts from push to pull—I welcome the Secretary of State's comments, although I struggle entirely to understand how some of those separations can be maintained into the future—individual consumer choice grows and content regulation becomes less appropriate. Why should programming be regulated across the watershed if it is available by video on demand or, indeed, at the video rental shop, 24 hours a day? As the Government seek to negotiate with the industry on self-regulation of video on demand, I just observe that the comparative economic model for video on demand is not broadcast TV, but Blockbuster or similar video retailers.
Let us suppose that I am watching interactive television involving two media. Some content may be received via broadcast digital television, and some via a telecommunications network. Which regulation will apply? The dividing lines become increasingly blurred. What can be guaranteed is that many of the problems that must be addressed by the Bill, and indeed by Ofcom, have not yet been thought of. It would therefore be entirely inappropriate for the Bill to be too prescriptive.
The examples I have given tell us something about the pace of change in these markets, and should also tell us something about the framework that the Bill seeks to operate. If our economy is to benefit from the potential that technological development can offer, regulation must be as light as possible. I should like to know whether the Government have accepted the Joint Committee's view that a "light touch" approach should not be commended to Ofcom. I am a natural sceptic when it comes to the effectiveness and accountability of regulators, and the history of Oftel's operation features, in many instances, an attempt to micro-manage
individual businesses rather than providing a comprehensive framework offering a level playing field to all operators.In the past I have been concerned about the regulator's intervention in telephone apparatus supply, and I fear that the new framework may feature the same style. Given that such apparatus has been available in every high-street store for many years, and given that safety and connection standards issues are covered by statutory instruments, what interest should the regulator take? That looks like the heavy hand rather than the light touch. If the light touch is not possible, however, proportional intervention should be the order of the day.
I welcome the Government's wish to see the open and transparent operation of Ofcom, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), I welcomed David Currie's appearance at the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on telecommunications the week before last. I hope that the Government will listen to those who suggest that the "significant market provider" approach could be further enhanced. Given the speed at which products and services are developing, Ofcom should be required to review that approach at least once every two years. There should be standards of promptness, requiring the regulator to ensure that reviews and investigations do not unnecessarily delay the introduction of new services.
The regulator must also be robust in dealing with spurious allegations from competing service suppliers. All too frequently, Oftel allowed itself to become embroiled in litigious warfare between operators. That did nothing more than delay the conferring of benefits to consumers in the form of innovations and new service developments.
This is a difficult area in which to regulate—and, because of its global nature, the internet will remain impossible to regulate. The Government have done well to consult widely and to tackle the issues realistically, and, despite my fear that the pace of change may return us to them sooner rather than later, I commend the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |