|
Column Number: 531
Standing Committee E
Thursday 16 January 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
2.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): On a point of order, Mr. Gale. It will not have escaped your notice that we have lost the opportunity to debate 16 clauses, as well as groups of amendments relating to local television services and the handling of complaints about contravention of conditions on television licensable content services licences. In effect, we lost the chance to debate clause 226 and amendments Nos. 16 to 19, which stand in my name. I raise this point of order not to whinge about that—although I am doing so—but because amendments Nos. 16 to 19 relate to clause No. 347, which we shall come to considerably later. Technically speaking, I could raise the issues on a clause stand part debate on that clause, but I could not move the amendments, because they were grouped for discussion at an earlier point.
I understand the merit of the amendments being grouped as they are, because they relate to similar subjects, but that has had the perverse effect of their not being debated. I wonder whether, in those circumstances, you have discretion to reconsider the selection of amendments, Mr. Gale, so that my amendments can be grouped and debated under clause 347?
The Chairman: So far as the grouping of amendments is concerned, I do not have discretion—I have total power. Not many in this place can say that. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Chairman is bound by the sittings motion, but what happened this morning is unfortunate and the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, so I shall consider the matter. As he rightly says, there is a short time before we come to clause 347. We shall see whether it is possible to accommodate his request on this occasion, but I must emphasise that I will not regard this as a precedent. Amendments are grouped, extremely skilfully, not by the Chairman but by the Clerk—albeit, obviously, with my approval. However, we will take another look at the matter. Clause 239
Regulation of independent radio services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford): We have now come to a clause dealing with the regulation of independent radio. Whenever broadcasting is discussed, there is a tendency for attention to focus 99 per cent. of the time on television broadcasting, and for radio to get very little attention. I would be sad if that were the case in our proceedings, and I want to ensure that it does not happen.
Column Number: 532
It is worth pausing and saying something about radio and the way in which the Bill proposes that it should be regulated. When Ofcom was first mooted as a single regulator bringing together five existing regulators, some were slightly concerned that, under Ofcom, the Radio Authority's role might only occupy Ofcom's time from 4 o'clock onwards on a Friday afternoon. I am sure that that will not be the case, but it is important that the Committee sends the message that we consider the role of radio to be important, and that Ofcom's responsibilities towards the radio sector are crucial.
It is arguable that the justification for the creation of Ofcom—the gradual convergence of various communications and media industries—may well, in time, embrace radio. However, radio currently lags behind in some respects. It has several distinct advantages that make it different from other communications industries. Its two greatest advantages are its transportability—one can carry a radio around or have one in the car—and the fact that one can do other things while the radio is on in the background. I suspect that every hon. Member will have had the experience that I have regularly. People say to me, ''I heard you on the radio this morning,'' and I say, ''Gosh, what was I talking about?'' and they say, ''I've absolutely no idea but I know you were on.''
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): No—they say, ''You were good!'' [Laughter.]
Mr. Whittingdale: I thank my hon. Friend. Such experiences are typical of radio. It is there as a sort of wallpaper and every now and again one perks up when something comes on that sounds interesting. However, radio plays an important role. When considering this part of the Bill, I turned up the submission that was made by the Radio Authority to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry when this matter was first considered. The Radio Authority was right to say that
''The radio medium will remain distinct for the foreseeable future, and that distinctiveness will be more evident over the coming years as other media, including television, are more swiftly affected by the implications of technical convergence.''
Ofcom will have a separate radio responsibility that is slightly different from its responsibility for other communications industries, but the radio industry feels that it is important that radio interests should not occupy the corner of one floor of the Ofcom building. Radio should be integrated into all of Ofcom's activities. The Minister may wish to address the fact that people in the radio industry are slightly concerned that they may be relegated to a second division in Ofcom's priorities. For many of us, radio is extremely important and we want Ofcom to acknowledge that.
It is impossible to consider the role of the regulation of independent radio without taking account of the fact that radio has one hugely dominant player. You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Gale, that I do not intend to repeat my speech of Tuesday morning, but when considering the regulatory regime for independent radio as set out in the clause, one should at least bear in mind the fact that the biggest radio broadcaster is not covered by it. The Radio Authority said in its submission:
Column Number: 533
''The Radio Authority is concerned at the anomalous position into which the BBC is being forced in respect of its public service remit. Many of the activities of the BBC, while not in themselves driven by commercial imperatives, have a direct impact on the commercial radio industry. Thus commercial radio's main competitor operates without constraints from comparable regulation, distorting the market.''
It went on to say:
''We believe that the best way of achieving this regulation without compromising the BBC's essential independence is to place the BBC under the over-arching, converged regulator.''
John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland): Does the hon. Gentleman agree whether we were talking about a large radio company or a very small one, it would have an effect on independent radio?
Mr. Whittingdale: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the BBC's activities impact on all radio broadcasters, big or small, I entirely agree with him. I therefore hope that he accepts that the argument for subjecting the BBC to the regulatory regime is thereby strengthened. I said that I would not go over that argument again; suffice it to say that the organisation set up by the Government and given responsibility for the regulation of independent radio clearly believes that, because the main radio broadcaster is outside its scope and will be outside Ofcom's scope, the market is distorted. It believes that that distortion should be corrected. However, after failing to persuade the Minister of that on Tuesday, I do not expect him to change his mind suddenly this afternoon.
Digital audio broadcasting is another aspect that will dominate much of the consideration of the regulation of radio, especially the question of licences—they are covered by later clauses but this seems an appropriate point at which to deal with them because we are considering the introductory clause of the chapter that deals with the regulation of independent radio. DAB has been a disappointment so far to those of us who think that it is an exciting technological development. We are not disappointed by the number of stations broadcasting digitally, because any number of stations do that. The disappointment is that nobody is listening to them. I suspect that that is not because people do not want to listen, but because it is incredibly difficult to find a digital radio receiver.
The biggest obstacle to the switchover to digital audio broadcasting is the apparent determination of retailers and manufacturers to make it as difficult as possible for people to purchase a product to enable them to listen. I visited Dixons on Victoria street just before Christmas. I saw an array of radio receivers—big ones, small ones, ones with digital displays, and ones with normal dials—and asked whether the shop stocked a digital radio receiver. There was a long pause and the assistant went off to find somebody else. On his return, he said, ''I think we have one. It's in the storeroom, if you want me to go and get it out.'' That is absolutely typical.
There is now an affordable digital radio receiver on the market. It is a little more expensive than old-fashioned radio receivers, but the Pure Evoke radio costs about £100, which brings it in reach of many
Column Number: 534
people. One would have thought that, now that there is a product for which there is huge demand, manufacturers would go out of their way to promote it. Ralph Bernard, who talked to the Westminster media forum a few weeks ago, said that the Pure Evoke radio receiver was this year's equivalent of the Thunderbirds Tracy Island, although I recall that it was much easier to get a Tracey Island than any of the radio receivers. There was a hope that they would take off this Christmas, but I have seen no evidence of that.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Whittingdale: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) first.
Mr. Robathan: Seven years ago, in 1996, when we considered the Broadcasting Bill, we were told about—and I heard—digital audio broadcasting. We were told that it was about to take off and that it would be fantastic, yet seven years down the line, receivers are still rare.
|
