Office of Communications Bill [Lords]
Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2002.
Standing Committee E
Office of Communications Bill [Lords]
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
Before we begin, I remind the Committee to ensure that mobiles and pagers are functioning silently, or not at all.
Resolved,
That—
(1) during proceedings on the Office of Communications Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at half-past Nine o'clock and half-past Two o'clock; and
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clause 1, Schedule, Clauses 2 to 7, new Clauses, new Schedules;
(3) the proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, 5th February 2002.—[Dr. Howells.]
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolution are available on the tables. At this stage, adequate notice of amendments must be given. As a rule, neither I nor my co-Chairmen will call starred amendments, which includes starred amendments reached during the afternoon sitting of the Committee.Clause 1 The Office of Communications
Clause 1 - The Office of Communications
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 2, leave out from 'the' to end of line 3 and insert 'Communications Regulation Commission.'.
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
With this it be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 1, line 4, leave out 'OFCOM' and insert 'The Communications Regulation Commission'.
No. 1, in clause 7, page 6, line 6, leave out 'Office of Communications' and insert 'Communications Regulation Commission'.
No. 2, in title, line 1, leave out 'Office of Communications' and insert 'Communications Regulation Commission'.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
Miss Widdecombe, welcome to the chairmanship of this Committee; I look forward to serving under you.
The amendments would replace the original title, ''Office of Communications'', with a new title, ''Communications Regulation Commission''. The proposed changes reflect the fact that the Government intend to replace five regulators—the Office of Telecommunications, the Independent Television Commission, the Broadcasting Standards
Commission, the Radio Authority and the Radiocommunications Agency—with one overall regulator. Hon. Members will notice that amendment No. 2 seeks to leave out ''Office of Communications'' in the title and replace it with the new wording, ''Communications Regulation Commission''.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the new title is excellent, not just because she has suggested it, but because it was the very title suggested by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in its report, the ''Multimedia Revolution''? We should give credit not only to that Committee, but its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who came up with so many proposals that were a precursor to the White Paper.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pre-empting comments I was about to make. I want to record my enthusiasm for his remarks.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
On behalf of Labour Members, will the hon. Lady thank her hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for getting that out of the way before we start?
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I am grateful to the Minister and, in the spirit of co-operation, I look forward to congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield on future such occasions.
Amendment No. 1 addresses clause 7, page 6, line 6 and seeks to take out ''Office of Communications'' and insert ''Communications Regulation Commission''. Amendment No. 4 addresses clause 1, page 1, line 4 and again would insert the proposed new title, as would amendment No. 3.
I have not read the report to which my hon. Friend referred, but in another of its reports, on the communications White Paper, the Select Committee concluded that the internal structure would be better reflected if the new regulator were called the ''Commissions Regulation Commission''.
That report, as I am sure my hon. Friend will recall, went further in 1998 and called for a separate Department of Communications to be established, with its own Secretary of State, assuming the broadcast media responsibilities of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the telecommunications and internet responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Industry and the responsibility for electronic delivery of government services of the Cabinet Office. I did not think it appropriate, and I was not brave enough, to go so far as to suggest an amendment to that effect here, but I give notice that, given the opportunity on another occasion, the Government might see fit to reconstruct the relevant Departments. I think that it is the preserve of the House, once the Bill has been passed and received Royal Assent, to reconstruct the Select Committees.
The question facing us today is why the Government argue that the time is right for a converged regulator, Ofcom, but not a converged Department, as the Select Committee and I have suggested, to provide a coherent strategic direction for
the regulator and for the sector as a whole. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield pre-empted my comments: I find myself in complete agreement with, and admire, the conclusions of the Select Committee. However, one reason why I proposed a new title is that if we remain with the title Ofcom, the Office of Communications, for the new regulator, one public body, Ofcom, will be responsible to two Government Departments.
The new title recognises that dichotomy and more accurately reflects the internal organisation and working structure of the new unified regulator which the Government are introducing, and which we support. The new regulator represents the merging of elements from current competition regulation and current broadcasting regulation. The competition regulation tends to be dominated in its structure by a single statutory regulator, such as the Director General of Telecommunications. It might be appropriate to declare my interest, albeit from 20-something years ago. As a stagiaire, I served as a trainee administrator in Directorate-General IV of the European Commission. I learned, as I thought at the time, quite a lot about competition regulation in the European Union. One of the first acts of the new Labour Government in 1997 was to incorporate article 85 and 86 into our competition law, so I hope that it was appropriate to declare that interest at this stage.
In contrast to competition regulation, broadcasting regulation tends to have a more collegiate structural approach. As so accurately described in the Select Committee's report on the White Paper on communications, in a collegiate approach—I have tabled further amendments on this, which I think have been selected—in which decisions might be taken by a majority, just as in a Cabinet or shadow Cabinet, the whole college of members is bound by those decisions. I believe that a collegiate approach is more appropriate here than regulation by a single individual.
I believe that the amendments reflect what we are aiming to achieve: the merging of five separate, distinct bodies, with five different structures and roles, into one regulator. They are complemented by amendments further down the amendment paper. I hope that the Government are minded to agree to change the title to one that is more appropriate and reflective of the new regulator that they wish to introduce.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve on this Committee under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe? I hope that the Clerk will not have too much difficulty in telling the difference between us nowadays.
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) in arguing that the name of the organisation be changed from ''Office of Communications'' to ''Communications Regulations Commission''. Despite the possible wishes of my hon. Friend, I shall not speak at length, but I will point out two reasons why the name should be changed, the first of which relates to the Federal Communications Commission, in the United States. In some ways, the Office of Communications will be a similar
organisation, and I hope that it will follow the FCC's example. As I said on Second Reading, the FCC is ably chaired in Washington DC by Michael Powell. He happens to be the son of Colin Powell, but there has been no nepotism—Michael Powell has a good background in this area. The FCC has a light touch, and I hope that the Office of Communications, once established, will also have one.
Britain leads the world in communications technology. It is not often realised that the Swedish or Norwegian satellite programmes that one watches—I do not often do that—in Stockholm or Oslo originate from such exotic locations as Battersea. The same is also true of middle eastern broadcasts in the Gulf.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
In the spirit of helpfulness, if my hon. Friend likes I could assist with the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian programmes.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
That is an intriguing offer which I may well take up after our proceedings have finished. Perhaps we can arrange a date and place to meet to discuss—or do—just that.
The Office of Communications should be called a commission, because such a name would suggest its being based on the structures of the FCC. The FCC is not over-staffed and is a light regulator, and I hope that the Minister can assure me that he does not want heavy-handed regulation to impede the work of the independent companies that deal with satellite broadcasting, telecommunications and the provision of broadband. I am glad to see in his place the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who is a keen and good advocate not only of his constituency but of broadband distribution in rural areas—a cause that the Office of Communications will promote.
My second concern relates to the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York said, the Office of Communications will incorporate a number of existing agencies, including the ITC and the Radio Authority. As I said on Second Reading, before becoming a Member of Parliament my career in part involved the setting up of independent radio stations in the UK. In the early days, the radio directorate of the Independent Broadcasting Authority was very much overshadowed as a result of the emphasis that the IBA placed on television transmissions. The radio division, as it was then known, operated in a very small part of the Brompton road headquarters, and was under-resourced and often neglected by the old authority itself.
As a result, the Conservative Government rightly said that radio should have its own authority. The Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission were therefore separated out, and I congratulate Tony Stoller, director-general of the Radio Authority, on the consequent rapid expansion of independent radio. I would not like to see that good trend reversed by the Radio Authority's and the Independent Television Commission's being absorbed into another super-behemoth, which would mean that radio would, once again, become neglected. I also seek reassurance from the Minister about the way in which
the communications office will be structured to ensure that radio maintains its rightful and important place in broadcasting.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I also welcome you, Miss Widdecombe, to the chairmanship of this Committee. It is a great pleasure to serve on the Committee with you.
The communications White Paper set out the Government's proposal to create a new, unitary regulatory body for the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors and the intention that it would be called the Office of Communications. Hon. Members will recall that the second report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which was published in March 2001, made a recommendation that the new regulator's name should be the ''Communications Regulation Commission'', which is a bit of a mouthful, and the amendments echo that recommendation. The Government's response to the Select Committee noted that the nature of the governing body, Ofcom, had been made clear and confirmed the intention to retain the title ''Office of Communications''. That remains the case.
We must move away from the old-fashioned concept of regulation being purely about stopping people doing certain things and towards a more facilitating approach. Ofcom will be involved in more than regulating in the old sense. It will have positive obligations such as promoting the interests of consumers and citizens and media literacy and in relation to various matters concerning public service broadcasting. It will also facilitate the effective use of spectrum and access to a wide range of high-quality services. The use of the word ''regulation'' in the title of the new organisation would therefore set wholly the wrong tone for many of the things that Ofcom will do.
The Office of Communications and the acronym Ofcom are already familiar to many in the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors. Indeed, they have gained currency through use in the media, by the existing regulators and by Government, and are therefore becoming better recognised by the wider public. There is little to be gained at this late stage by altering the name as the amendments propose.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Will the Minister give way?
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
Yes, to that lightning-like intervention.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way and I am somewhat reassured by his point on regulation. However, he did not address the second point. He spoke about the light touch, by implication, when he said that he did not wish to see the word ''regulation'', but he has not addressed the point about the size of the organisation. How many employees does he imagine it will have?
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
That matter is not dealt with in this part of the Bill or in the amendment, and I do not intend to discuss it.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I am grateful for the Minister's comments and his explanatory words. I believe that the Committee is handicapped by having to consider the structure of the new body without knowing precisely what its remit will be. The Minister has a distinct advantage over us, because he has probably had sight of the draft broadcasting Bill.
Even though the long title of the Bill contains the term ''regulation'', the Minister has not responded to my point that we are replacing five organisations with one organisation. The desire to call it the ''Communications Regulation Commission'' reflects the Select Committee's concept of it as more of a collegiate commission: the chairman will share the commission with the members of Ofcom—we shall discuss this in more detail later—but it will not be the chairman on a frolic of his own, as would be the case, for example, with a director general of communications. Will the Minister respond to those points?
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I shall, very briefly. During the Committee's proceedings we will have many discussions about the make-up of the Ofcom board and its committees, and that is the right time to deal with the matter. Every page of the Bill gives a sense, which I hope we have communicated, that we strongly favour the collegiate approach. Nevertheless, we believe that we have arrived at the best title for the body that we aim to establish.
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
May I ask hon. Members to be alert? When we reach the end of a debate I need to be told whether an hon. Member seeks to withdraw the amendment, otherwise I shall put the Question on it later.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
Thank you, Miss Widdecombe. I was not sure whether to expect the procedure of knives to be used in the Committee, but I have been given to understand that it will not.
Mindful of the Minister's comments, and with the proviso that we may wish to return to the matter at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 1, line 5, after first 'determine', insert
'in consultation with and following consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament'.
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 26, in page 1, line 5, leave out from 'of' to end of line 6 and insert
'more than 10 in addition to the Chairman and Chief Executive'.
No. 47, in page 1, line 6, leave out from 'three' to end.
No. 8, in page 2, line 3, after 'OFCOM', insert
'after consultation with and consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament'.
No. 9, in page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (7).
No. 10, in page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (8).
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
Taking the amendments in the order in which they were tabled, amendment No. 25 deals with a new procedure that we have been led to believe the Government intend to introduce: a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. I understand that we are not allowed to refer formally to it by any other name than a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
Conservative Members believe that it is appropriate for the Government to consider setting up such a Committee, and we welcome it. It is particularly appropriate that it should be consulted on the body established by the Bill, bearing in mind that the main broadcasting Bill will not be published until the spring, probably will not be considered in Standing Committee until the autumn and will not reach the statute book until this time next year at the earliest. That is why we want the Minister to agree to consult the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and to allow it to consider and report on the matter.
Amendment No. 26 deals with the total number of members on the body. It will not have escaped your alert and astute attention, Miss Widdecombe, that that is left completely open. Close observers of the drafting of the Bill—Conservative Members are not unique in that regard—have received a mountain of representations, most of which do not relate to the Bill but are in anxious and excited anticipation of the broadcasting Bill. That makes the Committee's work easier, because we do not have to consider those points. There is huge concern among the wider public, especially in the existing bodies that the Government intend to replace with Ofcom and will be subject to its regulation, that we should have a compact Ofcom—one might call it a lean, mean fighting machine—which will not be so unwieldy as to be incapable of taking decisions and that its members should be finite in number. We cannot return to the Bill either at the next stage, a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee that the Government are minded to set up, or in the context of the big Bill.
Once we have left this baby Bill, which is a paving Bill, behind, it will be impossible to return. I seek assurance and agreement from the Minister that, rather than leaving the Bill with its loose and inadequate drafting stating that Ofcom shall not have a membership
''of less than three and more than six'',
we should say that, in addition to the chairman and chief executive, the total membership of Ofcom at any stage will be 10, and I hope that he will respond positively to that.
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Secretary of State has so much power in appointing people, to be able to get away with appointing only three effectively gives her total control over the new body?
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
Indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point.
I must declare an interest: I am a minor shareholder in Railtrack. I have therefore had some experience of the manner in which the Government work, although I must say that that does not include the Minister,
whom I find agreeable to work with—I would hate to stop his career in its tracks and I shall not proceed further down that dangerous path. In several Bills that either are before or have recently passed through the House, the Government have set up an independent regulator whose independence and power have been dispensed with by introducing a power of direction from the Secretary of State. Opposition Members are anxious to ensure that there will be no such power in this Bill.
We support the Government's intention to set up an independent regulator, and we are mindful that that regulator's powers, which we shall consider in the next Bill, should be clear. We want the structure to be right from the beginning with regard to numbers and assistance to the Secretary of State during the appointment of such a Joint Committee. I would hate to pre-empt anything that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is going to say, but I endorse his amendment and I like its thrust.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 reflect the same theme—the Secretary of State setting up Ofcom. I want an undertaking from the Minister that that process will not just pay lip service to the concept of independent regulation, and that appointments to the regulator will be processed in an open and public manner. Members of both Houses of Parliament must have an opportunity to be consulted, which will strengthen the independent nature of Ofcom.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
I rise to speak to amendment No. 47, which has been grouped, and fits well, with amendment No. 26 on which the hon. Member for Vale of York has spoken. I have tried twice to ask the Minister a parliamentary question on the composition of Ofcom and each time I have been thwarted, which must have disappointed him. He has, however, been good enough to give me an idea of the Government's understanding of the need for a small and focused regulatory body that will have the right expertise, and that will not be overburdened with the large governorships that we have seen in other bodies.
In Wales, the national library has a court of governors and an executive committee, and such bodies are also in place in the universities. There are many overarching regulatory bodies that are overburdened with the great and the good, and the Government's intention is to get rid of the great and simply leave the good. People who know the business of communications can take over the five regulators' jobs to ensure that there is a seamless transition from the present system to the new system, which will mean that broadcasting is balanced correctly among different areas and needs in the United Kingdom. I understand and appreciate that, and the Government are right.
However, the Bill is fettering the Government's discretion. It states that Ofcom will consist of between three and six members; it cannot be fewer than three or more than six. The Conservative amendment would allow us to go up to 10, which would be a considerable
improvement, if only because it would allow national representatives from Wales and Scotland to join Ofcom. I shall return to that in a moment.
Having heard the Minister's thoughts, read the paper that he kindly sent to all members of the Committee and reflected on the matter, I think that he has got it wrong. An Ofcom containing between three and six members will not have the necessary breadth to show the public that they can have confidence in it to hold together national interest groups, disabled interest groups and minority language interest groups from cities and towns in England, Wales and Scotland. Those interests cannot be held together by a membership of between three and six.
The Minister needs greater discretion, and I am surprised that he has not given himself that discretion. For example, he could set a minimum standard membership, which my amendment would do, and take control of the upper membership limit. Some members might not like it, but it would allow the Minister to pick and choose, to have his focused body and, in time, to add or take away from the membership as needs dictate. We do not know what the regulatory process in the communications Bill will be, but in preparing the way for Ofcom, we are going too far down the road of strictures; there should be greater flexibility.
We are amalgamating five regulatory bodies and we must consider where radio interests, communications interests, broadband interests, Welsh interests, Scottish interests, Irish interests and English regional interests will come in. I am speaking for Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party in this Committee; Northern Ireland can speak for itself. Other interest groups such as Christian radio broadcasting and disability interest groups will also need to contribute to Ofcom.
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
The hon. Gentleman has touched on several groups whose interests should be represented. The people to whom he has inadvertently not referred, but I am sure that he will, are the vast majority who do not fall within any of those categories. They may be termed the silent majority. They are dismayed by what they see on their television screens and deserve representation.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The hon. Gentleman is right. It is, however, difficult to know what the silent majority's interest is by virtue of the fact that they are silent. Nevertheless, Ofcom is there to protect their interests, and to ensure that their needs are reflected. Ultimately, we have a Minister, and a democratic political process in which the silent minority can make its views felt.
To have three to six members of Ofcom will limit the Minister's discretion too much and will not allow him to examine needs that come online in the future or to change its structure. It cannot have just one or two members—they would be overburdened—and three seems a reasonable de minimis for membership. Will the Minister take the opportunity to explain why he feels that there must be an upper limit of six? Can he
look at the spirit of either my amendment or the Conservative amendment and consider how he might be able to give himself some more discretion for the future, and produce an Ofcom that is focused and streamlined but also demonstrably answering the public's needs?
Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)
This is the first Standing Committee dealing with detailed legislation in which I have been able to take part. May I say that I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe? I am sure that you will correct me if I stray from the remit of the discussion. I understand that we are examining not policy, but the framework and structure of the new body.
I support the amendments, which deal with who should make decisions, who should be on the board of Ofcom and how many people should be on it. I would welcome the widening of the decision-making procedure for choosing the board's membership. To ensure that the wide range of interests in the broadcasting and telecommunications industries is fairly represented, it is critical that the right individuals are chosen. They, like the organisation, will be extremely powerful. The selection of those people will be crucial to the future success of the industries.
I, like most other Committee members, have received a wealth of lobby information from all sorts of interest groups, some of them extremely concerned about their future representation. Hon. Members have already referred to people with disabilities. I have had an interesting communication from the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which, as we all recognise, has an important interest in radio. My mother was blind, and I know how much she relied on the spoken word. It is important that groups such as blind people and those with other disabilities are adequately represented.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Some people might foolishly ask why the blind should be concerned, since they have radio. Does my hon. Friend agree that those people underestimate the importance of blind people being able to enjoy television programmes? That is not only because of the information that those programmes impart, but because they can then talk with sighted people about those programmes, and other things, so that they are not sidelined in life. Blind people should not find themselves in a cultural ghetto because they cannot participate in the situation—some might call it a rather unfortunate one—in which so many people spend so many hours watching television each day.
Angela Watkinson rose—
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
Order. Before the hon. Lady responds, I remind the Committee that interventions should be just that. I also remind hon. Members that there will be an opportunity to discuss disabilities under a later amendment, and that they must keep within the scope of the amendment under discussion. I allow a little latitude to new Members, but it is not endless.
Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)
I am grateful for your advice, Miss Widdecombe.
I welcome the amendment that allows for more people to serve on the Ofcom board. There is a danger in it having as few members as three. If we happened to have three people unsympathetic to a particular group, that group could end up without adequate representation.
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
The concern is not only that three people could be unsympathetic towards a group but that the Secretary of State could be similarly unsympathetic and that his selection of those three might reflect his lack of sympathy.
Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)
I entirely sympathise with that point. We need an organisation that can regulate with a light touch and ensure that all interest groups in the community have the opportunity to use broadcasting services without restriction. I include the BBC in that. I think that we have all had lobby material from the BBC, which is ambivalent—that is the kindest way of putting it—about being included in the new umbrella organisation. I am sure that we will come to that later in our scrutiny.
Broadly, I support a wider body to select members and having a larger number of people on the Ofcom board, to give wider representation to all groups.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
I appreciate that a balance must be struck here. Having just argued for a light regulator, it would be incomprehensible were I now to argue for a very large board. Before the Government get too excited and think that I might oppose my Front Bench, I say hold fire.
Although I know from experience that a large board can become unmanageable, I think that this very small board suffers from two problems. First, there are the issues raised by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. The second problem concerns perception, which is an important point. During the past few years, the charge of cronyism has been levelled at the Government, and the same charge might be made against Ofcom. Whether it was right or wrong, it would be invidious to Ofcom's authority if that charge were made. With a very small board and a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, that charge will almost certainly be levelled.
Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)
Is not the danger of all the arguments so far used in favour of the amendments that they are talking about a representative organisation, not the regulatory one that we need? As it is, representatives from what I have now counted as the 15 different bodies that have been referred to will be difficult to fit into the membership of 10 being suggested.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I certainly agree that were all the different parties represented, we would end up with a wholly unworkable board of 15 or 20. I am not totally convinced that even 10 is a good size for a board, but six is far too small, and the perception of the board would be wrong.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to ask the Minister if, in view of what the hon. Member for Rhondda said, the Government do not wish Ofcom to represent stakeholders in any shape or form and if they want it to be truly regulatory in nature?
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
I rarely disagree with my Front Bench, but there is no way that I will use the word ''stakeholder'', which I think is the most terrible example of new Labour speak. However, interested parties—I think that that is a nicer expression—might well be unable to be represented. The question is valid, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it. Before I give him the opportunity to do so, I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Ceredigion, which I enjoy saying.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman finds something here that he enjoys saying.
Notwithstanding the fair point that the hon. Member for Rhondda made—although it is covered in the next group of amendments, which seek a representative role—does the hon. Member for Lichfield recall that the Towers Perrin report from the present regulators clearly said that Ofcom, with regard to its new functions, should
''actively promote clear links with, and understanding of, all of OFCOM's key stakeholder categories''?
Can we do that with five or six members?
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
No, we cannot, but the problem is that nor could we do it with 10 members. I agree that the interests of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be represented on the board of Ofcom.
Perception is important. I have often criticised the structure of the board of governors of the BBC, not because they necessarily do a bad job, but because they are perceived to be their own judge and jury. That is wrong, and for that reason I may later argue that Ofcom should have greater powers over the BBC simply because of perception. I strongly argue that if there is a board of between three and six, with a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, the charge will be made—rightly or wrongly—that Ofcom is yet another example of Tony's cronies.
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
The amendments are important because they largely shape the make-up of Ofcom. Without straying on to the next group of amendments—you would rightly call me to order if I did so, Miss Widdecombe—we must understand that the amendments under discussion are important if the next group are to remain so. The provisions are restrictive in some ways.
We should remember how important the media are. It is not exaggerating to suggest that children—perhaps children and adults—are greatly influenced by what they see on television, and, to a lesser extent, hear on radio. The question of whether regulations should be a guiding light, as the Minister suggests, or show the heavy hand of regulation is significant. We cannot overstate the importance of what comes through our
television screens. How do we prevent the wrong things from coming through and ensure that the right things do?
Like many other hon. Members, I receive many letters and representations on what people deem to be inappropriate material on television. People often ask me how we can stop too much sex, violence and bad language on television. My response is that it is difficult because we live in a free society and a democracy. I say that one thing worse than a free media is one that is heavily regulated. The problem is how to protect people from bad influences without curtailing the freedom of the press or media.
It strikes me that the Bill achieves the worst of both worlds. It may not reflect the interests of the many groups addressed in the next group of amendments, but at the same time, it has the potential for extreme regulation and control by the Secretary of State, who will determine Ofcom's size. The detail of the Bill suggests that the board will not necessarily be restricted to between three and six, but that the Secretary of State will have powers to modify by order the numbers specified in subsection (2). Presumably, she could determine that the number be reduced to two or even one. If I am wrong, the Minister will correct me. My reading of the Bill is that the Secretary of State could make the matter worse through statutory instrument. She could have only one person to make up Ofcom. I should be glad to be corrected, because it is an extremely important point. Something would have to be passed by the House, but we have seen how easy that is when a Government have a majority of this size.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
That is democracy for you.
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
It gives the Secretary of State even more power than Opposition Members have discussed, and I am concerned about that.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
In the context of a single regulator and democracy, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have an example at present of a single regulator, which is Ofwat. There is one regulator for the water industry. The last review of the water industry began with the Government telling that regulator ''You will have lower water prices''. It had nothing to do with the environment. That may have been a good thing, but without the body behind it, that regulator has little choice but to listen to the Government.
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
The hon. Member for Ceredigion—which I do not enjoy saying—makes an important point. Although regulation of the media is important, it is perhaps not quite as important as the supply of water.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York said, to appoint members to the new body and to frame its set-up when we do not know what its powers will be seems a little like putting the cart before the horse. If I am allowed a brief analogy, before we determine who sits in the House of Lords or how they get there, we should determine what that body does. In the same
way, we should determine what the new body does before we decide who sits on it. It may have little regulatory power, in which case it does not matter who or how many sit on it, but if it is to have great control over what comes through the media, we must first know what its power will be. I fear that I shall stray out of order if I carry on down that road.
I have a problem with the power that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State. I do not want to be party political, but over the past four and a half years, we have seen the Executive taking more and more control over this place. To stray slightly wider, I suggest that it has not just been in the past five years. There has been a tendency over a number of years for the Executive to gain control over this place at the expense of Parliament. I greatly regret that the Bill furthers that process. It gives the Secretary of State the power to decide the size of the body and to vary the parameters. It gives her the power to reflect her interests and intentions rather than those of consumers, which is not a welcome move.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
Given that one of the organisations being replaced is Oftel, where one person makes the decision, and we are moving to a board, can the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks that having a focused board is not an improvement on a single regulator? Is his not an argument against the Conservative Government?
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
The hon. Gentleman has made the point that we are trying to make, in the sense that one is not enough, but nor is three, when media and telecommunications are being lumped together.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
We are lumping together, to use my hon. Friend's colourful expression, not only programme content but also the means of providing it. Therefore, it is not simply control over programmes and ''the internet'', but control over the way in which they are delivered. Three would certainly be inadequate.
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My concern is the power that the Bill could give to the Secretary of State. The Government will almost determine what comes on to television screens. The regulation could be too tight, and political debate could be stifled; or it could be too liberal, in the sense that the three things that I do not like to see on the television screen—sex, violence and bad language—could be given free rein.
John Grogan (Labour, Selby)
Don't turn it on, then.
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
Does not a family have a right to watch television without seeing filth? To say that one can simply turn the television off is, if I may say so, a rather flippant remark. No doubt it was meant flippantly—
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
Order. Could we return to the scope of the amendment?
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
I apologise for being diverted from the theme of my speech, which is that the Secretary of State will have far too much power. As was pointed
out, a larger body would be less likely to be influenced by the Secretary of State. We will discuss in due course the individual organisations and interests that should be represented on it, so I shall not stray down that path now. However, I think it important that we accept the amendments to facilitate the level of representation that the subject's importance warrants.
Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)
May I add my voice to those who said what a privilege it is to serve on this Committee under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe?
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)
Let me get started, for heaven's sake.
In essence, I rise to respond to the contribution of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who began by referring to what he perceives as the lack of regulation of television in this country. I must contest that argument. There are those who say that we have one of the most tightly regulated television industries in the world. As I understand it, Ofcom will incorporate five existing regulatory bodies. We are contemplating a future in which all elements of the communications industry will have to work together increasingly closely. There are already areas of the industry in which it is extremely difficult to define where responsibility lies. They are bleeding into each other in a way that was not possible in the past. All areas will drive for greater integration, and as other members of the Committee have said, there is clearly a need for a light regulatory hand.
My central point relates to the hon. Gentleman's argument that the decision about the chairmanship of Ofcom should not rest with the Secretary of State. His worry, about which he spoke almost exclusively, is that the Government will be able to decide what appears on our television screens. However, if the aspects of television broadcasting that seem to cause him most concern were obliterated from our television screens, there would never be any news, because if we are not allowed to see violence, we cannot have news. That is simply one example.
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
Surely the Committee can distinguish between the reporting of, say, the war in Afghanistan and the gratuitous violence, sex and bad language that is broadcast in so many programmes? There is a very clear distinction between the two.
Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)
Representations have yet to be made directly to me about the amount of gratuitous violence, sex or bad language on our television screens. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman and I move in somewhat different circles.
My central point is the question of where the power of appointment should lie. To consumers who pay their television licence fee and want improvements in programming—I shall not go into detail about what would constitute improvements in my book—it is vital that the person who appoints the chairman be accountable to them. If the planned changes to the regulatory system did not take place as described, or if
Ofcom's sub-committees failed to respect and observe specific national or group interests, it would be essential that the person who determines Ofcom's chairman be accountable to the electorate. It would be extremely dangerous to put such power into the hands of someone whom the electorate could not remove.
The industry has immense power in this country and internationally, so in considering who will be responsible for appointing to such a sensitive post, we must ensure that the electorate will be able to say directly and without fear or favour, ''You are wrong and you are out.'' That would be extremely difficult to do if there is no direct line of responsibility to consumers and the electorate.
Mr. Robertson rose—
Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)
I have finished.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
One thing that concerned me about the remarks of certain Opposition Members was their concentration on broadcasting. Ofcom's remit will be far wider. References to control and to stopping filth suggest that its role has been completely misunderstood. Do the Opposition want a regulator that is concerned with prevention?
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
That is the very point: we do not know what Ofcom's role will be.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper, which makes that clear. If he had followed the debate on communications, he would know why there is a need for Ofcom. Select Committee reports from a few years ago, to which the hon. Member for Vale of York has referred, gave rise to the issue. It has a substantial history and we are not approaching it in a vacuum. Various manifestations of Ofcom have been discussed for some time, so we know what we are talking about.
When considering the Bill, which is about setting up the shadow body that will become Ofcom, we should remember that the industry with which it is to deal is fast moving. The board needs to be small and focused. It needs to be able to take speedy decisions and have the flexibility to respond to changing situations. To create an unwieldy board would be a major mistake.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
The hon. Gentleman highlights a problem about which we can all agree. Ofcom's remit is to be large. In respect of certain powers, the Office of Fair Trading has a concurrent remit. That is why it is better to establish at the outset the board's maximum and minimum membership. We cannot change our minds at a later stage.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
Hon. Members have referred to geographic and sectoral interests in connection with television, but there are many other interest groups that cannot possibly be represented on the board. We must not create a board that is far too large and unwieldy. It must be small and focused, so that it can take decisions quickly, be flexible and give effect to the light regulatory touch that we have all said we want.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, and I said that I do not disagree with the Government in that respect. My amendment is not designed to give a representative role in Ofcom to any particular individual. However, many interests exist; if it is to do its job properly, Ofcom will need the confidence of the public as well as broadcasters, the telecommunications industry and so on. Will it be able to secure that confidence with only a limited number of board members, who might be stretched to do their job?
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
I am not often a fan of Oftel, but it is fair to say that that regulator has achieved the public acceptance to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If we adopt a focused approach, Ofcom will be able to respond quickly and secure public confidence.
The amendments are wrong. The Government must ensure that the board is flexible and responsive, and that it does not become bogged down by a bureaucracy that prevents it from taking decisions quickly.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I am sure you agree, Miss Widdecombe, that we have had an interesting debate. Having spent years in opposition myself, I know that when one gets a chance to bite at something like this, one does so. However, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury understands, this is a paving Bill. The whole idea is to set up Ofcom so that it can hit the ground running when the substantive communications Bill receives Royal Assent at some future date—sooner rather than later, I hope.
I shall deal with each of the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 25 would require the Secretary of State to consult a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament before determining the number of members of Ofcom; in doing so, he or she would not be able to determine a membership of fewer than three or more than six. Members of the Committee might be forgiven for thinking that that would not leave much for a Joint Committee to consider, apart from whether the Secretary of State should determine a board of three, four, five or six members. That would be a rather unproductive use of parliamentary time and would be the cause of inordinate delay should it not be convenient to convene a Joint Committee at an appropriate time. Perhaps the amendment is really aimed at changes to the size of the board that might be made at a future date, should that prove necessary.
I remind the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that we had a long debate on Second Reading and that there was an exhaustive debate in another place. The hon. Gentleman is pointing to his copies of Hansard. The debate is worth reading, because it was excellent, although some hon. Members seized the chance to discuss what the communications Bill might contain, rather than the contents of this Bill.
On Second Reading we said that it might be necessary to increase the number of members of Ofcom at the time that it takes on its regulatory functions. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made an important point about people with disabilities. I feel strongly about that matter, and I think that we are now starting to understand its
significance. Nine million people in this country are registered disabled—that is more than the populations of Scotland and Wales put together, although, of course, many people with disabilities live in Scotland and Wales. I am sure that the issue will be exhaustively debated during the passage of the communications Bill.
Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)
On the point about the Joint Committee, the Minister said on Second Reading that he expects there to be pre-legislative scrutiny of the main communications Bill. He also said that he expects to appoint the chairman or chairwoman of Ofcom shortly, probably before that procedure takes place. Does he agree that it would be appropriate to consider questions of membership again during pre-legislative scrutiny, when we should have a clear idea of the likely identities of the chairman and other members?
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. That is the proper time to discuss the size of the Ofcom board, which could vary. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) made an important point about that. Parliament has been obsessed with debates about broadcasting, but the way in which technology is changing makes it likely that the board might require a member with expertise in a field that we do not yet understand and might not even be aware of. Sufficient flexibility to allow for that is necessary.
On Second Reading we said that it might be necessary to increase the number of members of Ofcom at the time that it takes on its regulatory functions, which will not happen before the substantive communications Bill receives Royal Assent. If it does prove necessary, clause 1(7) and (8) provides for the Secretary of State to make an order that would be subject to the annulment procedure in either House. I note that amendments Nos. 9 and 10 propose to do away with that power and procedure, but it is a perfectly reasonable and proportionate power for the Secretary of State to have. Rather than convene a Joint Committee, Parliament itself would have adequate opportunity to consider any proposed change to the size of the board.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I realise that this is an intervention, but I want to make two points. First, the Minister has embarked on a totally different course. As I understand it, if the Secretary of State proceeds through a statutory instrument, the matter does not come before Parliament and hon. Members do not have a chance to discuss it. The amendments would bring the decision before the House.
Secondly, the purpose of amendments Nos. 25 and 26 is to obtain an undertaking from the Minister that Ofcom's board will never have more than 10 members. The Independent Television Commission said that it must not be so large and unwieldy that it is unable to discharge its responsibilities effectively, and we all agree that regulation must be effective. Is the Minister minded to ensure that the Joint Committee is
consulted not only about the content of the broadcasting Bill, but about appointments to the board?
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I cannot and will not give that assurance. I shall explain why in due course.
I turn, as the hon. Lady asks, to amendment No. 26, which would replace the current limit of not fewer than three or more than six members with a maximum number of 10 members in addition to the chairman and the chief executive. As the chairman and chief executive are automatically members, that would in effect provide Ofcom with a board of not fewer than two or more than 12 members.
Given that the Secretary of State will retain her power to determine the number of members, I am not clear whether the hon. Lady intends to press amendments Nos. 9 and 10, which would remove the associated order-making powers and allow for the annulment procedure to be applied to any such statutory instrument. Alternatively, does she intend that amendment No. 26, coupled with amendments Nos. 9 and 10, should set for all time the size of Ofcom's membership at a range of two to 12? Such inflexibility would create great difficulties.
Amendment No. 47, spoken to by the hon. Member for Ceredigion—although he is really an Aberdare boy, as one can tell from his accent—would have a slightly different effect in establishing a minimum number of three members, but no upper limit. At this point, I remind members of the Committee that initially Ofcom will have only one function—that of making itself ready to take on other functions at a later date. We would all love to get stuck in and ask about this interest or that interest, but the purpose of the Bill is to allow Ofcom to create itself. We are determined that during that process the board of Ofcom should be kept as small as possible, commensurate with the effective exercise of its responsibilities. Appointing a membership of between three and six should be sufficient to meet its needs during the initial preparatory stage.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
I accept the Minister's points. He has outlined the procedure by which the Secretary of State can in future vary the number of Ofcom's members. He is right to consider future technology or future demands arising from the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom, but why does he want to go through a statutory instrument process? I do not share Conservative Members' views on that. I would be perfectly happy for the Secretary of State to determine the number of members necessary for Ofcom, and to be answerable to Parliament, through written questions and so forth, for her decisions. Why do we need a statutory instrument? Why cannot there simply be a de minimis membership and we then give the Secretary of State discretion? Surely she is capable of making that decision.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I share his feelings entirely.
We must not get too Henry VIII about this. That sounds curious coming from a Minister, but there must be parliamentary accountability when serious issues arise, as they do from time to time. The hon. Gentleman is right to mention future constitutional settlements, which might be very different from present arrangements. We must have in place mechanisms such as statutory instruments and direct accountability to Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said. That is the most valuable mechanism to ensure real accountability. I am loth to say that the power is unlimited; it is important to retain some control.
Even when Ofcom is fully operational and has assumed its other functions, its board must not become too bureaucratic and unwieldy. We must keep it small and flexible so that it can react quickly to fast-changing circumstances. Indeed, some have argued that a board of three to six may be too large. The initial debates about what Ofcom should look like examined whether there should be a single regulator, as we used to call it, or whether—using the collegiate model favoured by my the hon. Member for Vale of York and myself—there should be two or three.
As I recall, we went through tortures. I am not sure whether any other member of the Committee was on the Committee considering the Bill that became the Utilities Act 2000. This Bill is paradise after that one. I went into the first day of Committee consideration of that Bill with 300 Government amendments to our own legislation; I then had to rip water and telecommunications out of it. The new regulator, Ofcom, must be capable of being debated and it must have flexibility to proceed. Remember that the four regulators that we were trying to put together under the Utilities Bill were individually powerful.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion referred to the water regulator. I remember him and think it appropriate to name him—Mr. Ian Byatt. I have great regard for Mr. Byatt, but he was a very authoritarian regulator when it came to deciding how many comparators there should be. As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, we should try to get away from that approach and adopt a broader one. Initially, our debate was about whether to have two or three people on the board as opposed to one; now we are talking about 10, 12 or more. We must get things in perspective.
The substance of the Bill is simply to set up Ofcom. That is the sole reason why the board is to be limited in number. We do not want it to become bureaucratic; we want it to be able to react quickly.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
We are trying to help the Minister, although he might find it hard to grasp such a novel concept. I am full of admiration for his handling of the Utilities Bill. Through amendment No. 26, we seek a
ministerial undertaking that the board of Ofcom will never be bigger than 10 members, plus the chairman and chief executive. Can he give us that commitment?
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I cannot give the hon. Lady that commitment. I want the board to remain small, but circumstances may dictate that it should be larger.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion on behalf of his hon. Friends on the nationalist side, or Scottish nationalists—I could stray into the dangerous territory of talking about the regions of England, but I will not, even though regional development agencies show that some regions have much larger populations than Scotland, Wales or the two combined. Those regions might press hard for future constitutional change that might give them greater self-determination than they currently enjoy. One expects our system of regulation to have sufficient flexibility to cope with such developments.
I am loth to accept the amendment, or the return to the days of Buggin's turn, or people being nominated for committees only to make up the numbers. That would be a dreadful fate for the Office of Communications, which, as so many hon. Members have said, is important for the future of broadcasting in this country.
Miss McIntosh rose—
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
Order. Before we come to the winding up from the mover of the amendment, it may be to the Committee's convenience to make it clear that if the hon. Member for Vale of York presses amendment No. 25, I will entertain separate votes on amendments Nos. 26, 47 and 9. I therefore require a clear indication of whether the amendment will be pressed.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe, may I ask about a separate vote for amendment No. 26?
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
I said that I would take a separate vote on amendment No. 26, but will say so again for the sake of the Committee. Votes on amendments Nos. 26, 47 and 9 will be taken if the hon. Lady presses amendment No. 25.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
To assist the Committee, I will not press amendments Nos. 9 or 10, but I will press amendments Nos. 25 and 26. I did not hear what you said about amendment No. 8, Miss Widdecombe.
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
Amendment No. 8 is not a discrete amendment.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
In that case, I will press amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
Is that it?
Miss McIntosh indicated assent.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—
''The Secretary of State shall ensure that the membership of OFCOM includes a representative for Wales and a representative for Scotland, and in appointing these national representatives the Secretary of State shall consult with the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.''.
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 55, in page 1, line 6, and end insert—
''( ) In appointing members of OFCOM, the Secretary of State shall consult with the National Assembly of Wales and the Scottish Parliament in order to ensure that Welsh and Scottish broadcasting needs are considered.''.
No. 54, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
''( ) OFCOM shall establish an office in Wales and an office in Scotland in order to ensure that Welsh and Scottish broadcasting needs are considered.''.
No. 53, in schedule, page 11, line 32, at end insert—
''(2A) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year, OFCOM shall also prepare and send to the National Assembly of Wales and the Scottish Parliament a report of how OFCOM are ensuring that Welsh and Scottish interests are being adequately met.''.
No. 49, in schedule, page 12, line 9, at end insert—
(c) for ensuring that the membership of every committee established by OFCOM contains at least one representative for Wales, and one representative for Scotland;
(d) for consulting the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament in appointing the representatives referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(c).''.
No. 51, in schedule, page 12, line 22, at end insert—
''( ) OFCOM shall establish—
(a) a Welsh Advisory Committee which shall advise OFCOM on the carrying out of its functions in Wales; and
(b) a Scottish Advisory Committee which shall advise OFCOM on the carrying out of its functions in Scotland
and shall, in appointing these Committees, consult the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.''.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I briefly explain the purpose of the amendments before saying a little about their import and my reasons for tabling them.
Amendment No. 46 would ensure that representatives from Wales and Scotland were on the proposed Ofcom body from day one. There is, of course, flexibility for them to come in later, and we have just had that debate, but the amendment would ensure that they were included them from day one. It also provides for those appointments to be made in consultation with and by the recommendation of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.
The other amendments are associated amendments. Were amendment No. 46 to find favour with the Minister, the others would not be so important, as they build the case that amendment No. 46 would achieve at one stroke.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
Why should my region of England be excluded?
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have tabled an amendment, if he feels that way. I am here as a Welsh nationalist Member of Parliament. If he wants to be an English regionalist Member of Parliament, he is free to table an amendment. His point reflects on him, not on me. I am here as a Plaid Cymru Member: he should understand that and understand where we in Plaid Cymru come from. We are here not as United Kingdom MPs, but as Welsh MPs.
Although we often co-operate with hon. Members on both sides of the House, we remain Welsh Members of Parliament.
As for the Tories, I recall that it is former Conservative Members who join the Labour Party and become Labour Ministers and MPs in Wales, not the other way around. Our conservative members leave and join the Conservative party rather than stay in our party.
Amendment No. 55 would ensure that when appointing the members of Ofcom, the Secretary of State consulted the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament to ensure that Welsh and Scottish broadcasting and telecommunications needs were met. Broadband communication is especially important to Wales, because we in Wales failed to get broadband licences working as well as we would like. The amendment is very reasonable, and we see similar provisions turning up time and again in Government Bills. I am surprised that there is not one in this Bill.
Amendment No. 54 would require Ofcom to open an office in Wales and in Scotland—a public office to which members of the public and members of the organisations and industries regulated, controlled or light-touched by Ofcom would have access. That would bring Ofcom to the public and to a very useful level of answerability. It might happen anyway, but I think it useful to test the idea now.
Amendment No. 53 proposes that as well as the annual Ofcom report described in the Bill that, rightly and properly, will be laid before both Houses of Parliament, there should be an annual report to the National Assembly for Wales and to the Scottish Parliament on the work and activities of Ofcom in those countries. I do not think that that would undermine in any way Ofcom's answerability to the Houses of Parliament, which is in the primary legislation. It would add an extra veneer of accountability and an extra means by which people in Wales and Scotland could relate directly to what Ofcom was doing in their countries.
Ofcom will have the power to establish advisory committees, although we do not yet know what they will be. We have debated whether Ofcom will reflect, if not represent, many different interests; I suspect that that will happen mainly at advisory committee level. The board will be small and focused, perhaps to allow a large structure of advisory committees on its different responsibilities. Amendment No. 49 would establish the principle of having on all those advisory committees representatives from Wales and Scotland, who should be appointed in consultation with the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament respectively. It is for other hon. Members to advance a similar argument for other areas.
Amendment No. 51 would establish a Welsh advisory committee and a Scottish advisory committee—distinct geographical advisory committees to advise Ofcom on Welsh and Scottish matters. The key point is that, if amendment No. 46 is unsuccessful and there is not to be representation of
Wales, for example, on Ofcom's board, it will be important that Ofcom has an advisory committee for Wales. That balance should be struck.
I do not want to take up too much of the Committee's time—
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Oh, do.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
No, I will not. However, I should like to explain the reasoning behind the amendments. Amendment No. 46 was not inspired by my party's policy, which is to have an Ofcom for Wales, to cover broadcasting, telecommunications and regulation there, although I shall not bore the Committee and bring down the quality of debate by going into that now. That debate is for another day; hon. Members will have to wait.
Today, I seek to do what the Government would have done if devolution worked. A year ago today, the Cabinet in the Welsh Assembly, which is run by the Labour party, with assistance, reported to the Assembly's Culture Committee. The Minister for Culture, Sport and Welsh Language in the Assembly is a Liberal Democrat, Jenny Randerson, which shows that both parties have been associated with this work. In its report of 24 January 2001, the Cabinet said:
''We recommend that the Board of Ofcom should likewise include a member representing the interests of Wales. We suggest that that Member for Wales''—
in heavy print—
''should be appointed by the National Assembly.''
In other words, the Assembly requested one year ago in its formal response to the communications White Paper that the aims set out in amendment No. 46 be realised. I would have assumed that the Labour party—and the Liberal Democrats, but especially Labour—would support a member of Ofcom to represent Wales being appointed not by the Secretary of State, but by the Assembly. I have not sought that in my amendment: the Secretary of State would retain the power to appoint the person to represent Wales, and that person would be recommended by the Assembly.
Something has gone wrong in the process of devolution. The likely scenario is that the Welsh Cabinet has been told that it cannot have what it wants, and that it should go away and forget about it. It is unlikely that the Cabinet had a rethink, given the way in which things are going in Wales at the moment.
Increasingly, those working in broadcast media and communications in Wales who lobby me raise the Welsh failure to access broadband communications and take up internet connections. Internet connection has been taken up by 20 per cent. of people in Wales, whereas the figure for the UK as a whole is 30 per cent. Many people feel that those issues need a distinct role in Ofcom. Similar arguments pertain to Scotland, although I do not claim to be an expert outside my boundaries—I do not claim to be an expert inside my boundaries, but I can try.
The second aspect that I want to bring to the Committee's attention reinforces the reasons why we need the amendments. It comes from my constituency and my experience, and it involves an aspect of media that is often overlooked—radio. I do not really have an interest to declare because the events occurred more than 10 years ago, and I no longer have an interest in the radio station, but about 10 years ago I was the secretary of a community radio station, Radio Ceredigion. I cannot remember whether the hon. Member for Lichfield was involved in the sector at that stage; I think not.
I was heavily involved with the Radio Authority in putting in a bid to gain a community radio station for the Ceredigion area. I am glad to say that we were successful in the teeth of opposition from commercial radio stations, and that we established the first community bilingual radio station in an area in which 60 per cent. of people are Welsh speaking.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be wrong. Was Radio Maldwyn not the first such station in Wales?
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me about Radio Maldwyn, which was established at the same time. We went through the application process together, and if he was involved in Radio Maldwyn he will remember the time frame. Indeed, my rudimentary broadcasting skills with reel-to-reel tape were learned with Radio Maldwyn. Although Radio Maldwyn had Welsh language broadcasting, as do other commercial stations in Wales such as Champion FM in the north and Swansea Sound in the south, it was not a truly bilingual station.
A bilingual radio station was innovative at the time, and it lasted for eight or nine years. It had English and Welsh side by side in the same programme, which was a new way of broadcasting which was more commonly used by minority Asian language stations in England. Radio Ceredigion has the highest radio uptake in Ceredigion, which means that more people listen to it than any other station in the broadcast area, and that is something to be proud of for any community radio station.
Like anything that comes from the community, finance is a problem. Radio Ceredigion has recently been taken over by North Wales Newspapers, forming a media magnate for Wales. One result has been a diminution of the Welsh language content on Radio Ceredigion. There has never been any evidence that Welsh language content must decline in order to increase audience share. The audience share was already there and the advertising has remained much the same. Commercial interests think that if one is to be commercial one must do it in English, and that one cannot do it Welsh. We were trying to be commercial in Welsh, and to a certain extent we succeeded.
That problem is coming to a head in a dispute between the community arm and commercial arm of Radio Ceredigion—the shares are mainly owned by the commercial arm—that goes to the heart of the licence given to the station in the first place. That is the
kind of dispute that might well come to Ofcom's attention. The minutiae of what happens in rural west Wales demands that Ofcom has some understanding of Wales, of broadcasting in other languages and of what it is like to try to access broadcasting in west Wales. For example, I cannot get any form of digital in my area except satellite from just one platform.
Those issues are not specific to Wales, but with the advent of the National Assembly we have a format to work within. If, for example, we need additional work on broadband communications in Wales, we would have the regulatory body, Ofcom; we would have the Assembly as a potential funding and investment body; and, hopefully, we would have either a member of Ofcom who would be responsible for Wales or some form of advisory committee with Welsh representatives.
In a nutshell, the purpose of the amendments is to enshrine in this early stage of the Bill what the Minister will argue might come later, but I feel strongly that it should be put down as a ground rule now.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. I must declare that on my many visits to Wales I did not do Welsh radio the service that, having listened to him, it deserved.
I shall declare an interest: I was born in Scotland and subsequently qualified as a Scottish advocate. I should like to use the amendments to elicit some information from the Minister about the representation that he would seek from Wales and Scotland. I am sure that he will have read the second report from the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on the communications White Paper, to which we referred earlier. In particular, he will be mindful of the fact that his Department's White Paper refers to the need for the regulator
''to develop good links with the relevant policy committees...of the devolved assemblies''.
However, it does not refer to the new regulator's accountability to Parliament with which we have dealt. The amendments to which the hon. Gentleman spoke so eloquently remind me that the Bill is silent on that point.
I should prefer an undertaking from the Minister, and the Bill gives him an opportunity to give one. Our sittings are yet young and a number of hours lie ahead of us, but he might like to table an amendment that introduces some kind of formal consultation with the committees of the devolved assemblies. I hate to disappoint the hon. Member for Ceredigion, but I would prefer a formal reference to such consultation to his amendments. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity, having spent some time in the White Paper on the need, and presumably the wish, for the regulator to develop good links with the relevant policy committees of the devolved assemblies, to say why the Bill is silent on this point. Perhaps he will also help us by saying whether he recognises that there is an omission, and is therefore willing to table an amendment, or whether he will support the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
We are all in the mood of declaring interests, so I shall declare my interests that my mother is Welsh and that I am a frequent visitor to Llanfanogfach, not a million miles away from Abergynolwyn.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I did not catch that.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Llanfanogfach.
There is great importance in the points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. National interests must be represented. It was revealing that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East asked why the English regions were not represented. I hope that it is because many people realise what nonsense the concept of English regions is. It is clear from the fact that the hon. Gentleman omitted to table an amendment that he agrees with that point of view. That is sound and sensible of him.
Wales has a specific reason to be represented, and that is the language. Although Gaelic is spoken in the islands and some of the highlands of Scotland, clearly it is a minority language, whereas a reasonable proportion—I seek guidance on this—
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Twenty per cent.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
About 20 per cent. of the population of Wales speak Welsh as their mother tongue. That raises all sorts of problems. I have been in the Chamber and in Committee on a number of occasions with the hon. Member for Rhondda, who rightly says that in his constituency there are those who want to listen to programmes in Welsh, but there are also those who want to watch and listen to programmes in English. There is a real problem in the Rhondda, as in other parts of south Wales in particular, in that people want to be able to view Channel 4 television and cannot do so, whereas they can watch S4C. That problem will be partly overcome in due course with the introduction of digital television, but it will take time.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but he may not be aware that he has made only half the point. The other side of his argument is that many people in Wales—the number is estimated to be between 20 and 30 per cent.—cannot get Welsh signals because their antenna is oriented towards the transmitters in England. That is one of the problems of terrestrial broadcasting. The hon. Gentleman foresees the coming of digital television, but again a problem arises in Wales, because of the topography of the country—getting digital television to work in a distinct way that does not impinge on other relay stations. That is a technological problem, in addition to the cultural one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Yes, and now would be an opportune moment to pay tribute to the BBC, particularly the transmission department, which was based in Warwick and now operates as a separate company. It tried to overcome the difficult problem of the topography of Wales, and the coverage there is
now nearly 96 per cent. of the population, albeit, as the hon. Gentleman said, not always in Welsh because of the direction in which antennas point.
Nevertheless, the content of Welsh radio and television programming is an issue. It could be argued that internet content is also an issue, because, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East rightly said, it comes under the Bill's ambit. Should the question of Welsh or English programming, or both, being receivable in Wales also come under the ambit of this paving Bill?
The hon. Member for Ceredigion talked about Radio Ceredigion and its change in ownership; I may be wrong, but I think that similar discussions are taking place for Radio Maldwyn. He rightly said that that is often a problem with radio stations that are funded by the community, not just in the United Kingdom, but in the United States and Australia. If a case goes before Ofcom, it must have members with expertise who understand the particular problems encountered by regional and little local radio stations in Scotland and Wales. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that because he holds a particular interest—he represents Pontypridd—
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
Oh yes, so I do.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
He is a Welsh speaker—
Dr. Howells indicated dissent.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
He is not a Welsh speaker. I therefore suspect that he will oppose the amendment. We must ask ourselves whether he is not only an Anglophone, but an Anglophile. The people of Wales will want to know. Before I get too carried away, I give way to the Anglophonic hon. Member for Rhondda.
Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)
I am almost sad to intrude on such wild divergences. Surely, Ofcom should have a full understanding of the needs of every part of the United Kingdom including rural Wales, the Welsh valleys and the islands of Scotland. On previous amendments, the hon. Member for Ceredigion said that he would not talk about representatives, but these amendments all refer to them. They almost refer to indirectly elected representatives. Why should there be representatives when we are not talking about a representative body? The board will not be a council of all those involved in broadcasting, so I presume that the hon. Member for Lichfield will not support the amendment.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
The short answer is no. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is what I was about to say to the Minister. The Minister will probably answer these questions by saying that there will be officers of Ofcom who will understand the peculiar circumstances of rural Wales and parts of Scotland. However, officers will sometimes have to make recommendations to the main board of Ofcom, so it is therefore important—particularly in Wales—that people on that board understand the circumstances when recommendations are made to them.
I will support the group of amendments because I agree with the general principle. There needs to be a broader range of interests on the main board, although it should not be so large as to become unwieldy. Particular problems exist in areas such as Scotland and Wales because of their rural nature. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, only 20 per cent. of the population of Wales has access to the internet. He said that nationally the figure was 30 per cent., but I think that he is wrong and that it is closer to 60 per cent. We and, indeed, the Government should be proud that Britain has a higher penetration—
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.
Standing Committee E
Office of Communications Bill [Lords]
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Hon. Members who have not already presumed my consent may remove their jackets if they want to, for their comfort. I cannot speak for Mr. Stevenson or Miss Widdecombe, but the Committee can take that as read while I am in the Chair.
Before we recommence the debate on amendment No. 46, I should say that I have taken a briefing from my co-Chairman this morning and the Clerks. I understand that once subsequent amendments to the clause have been discussed, the clause will have been thoroughly debated. I shall therefore not be minded to allow a clause stand part debate. I tell hon. Members that for their convenience, in case they want to raise any issues. I shall be reasonably but not ludicrously flexible in what I consider to be in order.
Clause 1 - The Office of Communications
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 55, in page 1, line 6, and end insert-
'( ) In appointing members of OFCOM, the Secretary of State shall consult with the National Assembly of Wales and the Scottish Parliament in order to ensure that Welsh and Scottish broadcasting needs are considered.'.
No. 54, in page 2, line 18, at end insert-
'( ) OFCOM shall establish an office in Wales and an office in Scotland in order to ensure that Welsh and Scottish broadcasting needs are considered.'.
No. 53, in schedule, page 11, line 32, at end insert-
'(2A) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year, OFCOM shall also prepare and send to the National Assembly of Wales and the Scottish Parliament a report of how OFCOM are ensuring that Welsh and Scottish interests are being adequately met.'.
No. 49, in schedule, page 12, line 9, at end insert-
'(c) for ensuring that the membership of every committee established by OFCOM contains at least one representative for Wales, and one representative for Scotland;
(d) for consulting the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament in appointing the representatives referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(c).'.
No. 51, in schedule, page 12, line 22, at end insert-
'( ) OFCOM shall establish-
(a) a Welsh Advisory Committee which shall advise OFCOM on the carrying out of its functions in Wales; and
(b) a Scottish Advisory Committee which shall advise OFCOM on the carrying out of its functions in Scotland
and shall, in appointing these Committees, consult the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.'.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Thank you, Mr. Gale, and welcome to the Committee.
As colleagues will recall, the amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who represents Plaid Cymru. It has my support, and we might see whether my hon. Friends share my view. Someone on the main board of Ofcom should understand the problems of the language interests in Wales and the differences between its environment and that of England. The same goes for Scotland.
It is clear that there will be problems with small radio stations. We have already discussed Radio Maldwyn and Radio Ceredigion. I was involved in the establishment in Gowerton and Gorseinon of Swansea Sound, which could not be described as a dual language radio station although it has a Welsh language remit.
I hope that officers of Ofcom will include current officers of the Radio Authority, especially Mr. Tony Stoller and Mr. David Vick, who do an excellent job. I must declare an interest in that respect: the other day, we worked out that I had known the two of them for more than 50 years-combined, I hasten to add. At times, the officers of Ofcom will make decisions that have to go before the Ofcom board as a whole. If it transpires that the board contains only English men and women, the problems encountered by small, rural Welsh language radio stations will not be understood.
When I first came to the House, the first Standing Committee on which I served considered what became the Welsh Language Act 1993. I learned much about the culture of Wales from that Bill. I also learned from my mother, who briefed me incessantly and sang the Welsh national anthem to me in Welsh. I would sing it now, but I know that you would rule that out of order, Mr. Gale.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Yes, I would.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
I expounded on the subject this morning, Mr. Gale, so I shall not try your or the Committee's patience now.
Because of the language and the peculiar conditions in rural Wales compared to those in rural England-the spread of internet provision was mentioned this morning-representatives from Wales and to lesser extent Scotland are needed on the authority. If the Minister does not support the making of provision for that, many people in Pontypridd will write to him tomorrow asking why he takes an opposing view.
Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)
It seemed to me that in speaking to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and supported by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), both hon. Gentlemen spent a great deal of time demonstrating not only their ability to pronounce the Welsh language, but their passionate commitment to it. Their arguments were in essence
about proper regard being accorded to community radio, but were specifically slanted towards the Welsh and Gaelic languages. They tended to ignore, for example, my constituents and people in Greater London. If we took into account community and other radio stations broadcast in London, would there have to be representatives for Greek, for Turkish and for other languages and dialects spoken on the Asian sub-continent?
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
That may be a valid point. However, alongside English, the Welsh language is an official language of the United Kingdom. The languages that the hon. Lady mentions do not have that status.
Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)
I appreciate that point. Radio and television stations that one could deem to be the official broadcasting arms of the UK in Wales, albeit they are not, have to broadcast a proportion of programmes in the Welsh language. I understood both hon. Gentlemen to have said that the issue affected small community radio stations. The hon. Member for Ceredigion may shake his head, but the basis of his initial argument was that one small community station-
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
It was an example.
Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)
An example to which the hon. Gentleman devoted a great deal of time. The basis of his initial argument was that there should be some way to protect such stations, especially those in rural areas, against the threat of commercial interests from a wider media base. He said that that was especially true for Wales, where picking up mainstream programmes can be difficult.
To return to my argument, I mentioned some languages represented by community radio stations in the Greater London area. There are pockets in that area where people have extreme difficulty in receiving all mainstream broadcasting, be it radio or television. The problem is not exclusive to Wales, although the percentages may be higher there.
We are considering a period in which there will be an increase in what one might call community television broadcasting. In the Greater London area, there are several small community television outlets, most of which are linked to local authorities. Should all such interests be represented in Ofcom, which is a regulatory, not representative, body?
No one would deny that community broadcasting is important, whether on radio or television. However, if we approached the issue on the basis of languages spoken, and if the Government accepted the amendment, Ofcom would need more than one boardroom. It would probably need two large office blocks.
Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)
I rise to speak briefly because I heard something different from the hon. Member for Ceredigion. As well as community radio, for which he obviously has a passion, he mentioned internet access, broadband access and a range of other issues in Wales. The hon.
Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) was right to suggest that the debate was not about language. If it were, it would not make sense.
The Liberal Democrats' sympathy lies with the amendment because of our feeling that the United Kingdom comprises constituent countries. We have always taken a strong line on the subject. The hon. Member for Ceredigion referred to the views of ''our'' Liberal Democrat member who is part of the Administration in Cardiff. We have always held the view that UK bodies should, so far as possible, respect the fact that the UK is a federation of different countries. It is appropriate to raise the question of the extent to which the different countries should be represented because of their power base rather than their language. Power has, quite properly, been devolved, and whenever possible we would like to see United Kingdom bodies respect the fact that we are a federation.
I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to amendment No. 55, which is about the need to consult. If he is not sympathetic to appointments being made by the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales-one could include the Northern Ireland Assembly as well-it would help to know what sort of consultation will take place. The Government are responsible for having set up those legislative bodies, and we hope that they will be properly respected in the creation of a new UK-wide body.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
Does the hon. Gentleman not share the view of the official Opposition that, rather than making formal reference to representatives from the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in the membership of Ofcom, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Highgate and Hampstead-
Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)
Hampstead and Highgate.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I stand corrected. I apologise to the hon. Lady.
Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)
You managed to say Ceredigion-
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Order.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I shall manage to say it properly next time.
Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)
Is this a speech?
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
No, it is not. Do the Liberal Democrats not agree with the official Opposition that it would be better to do what the Select Committee suggested, which is to have a formal mechanism for consultation with the relevant Committees of the devolved assemblies?
Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)
I was trying express sympathy for that view by referring to amendment No. 55, which expresses that point. The devolved assemblies will take their own view about how they should be represented on UK-wide bodies. What we seek and what the hon. Member for Ceredigion is trying to tease out is a commitment to respect the new constitutional
structure of the United Kingdom whenever we establish a new UK-wide body.
There are different ways to achieve that. It would be a shame to go through the entire Bill without even recognising the issue and without having any statement on the record from the Minister about how he intends to deal with it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion on instigating the debate. I hope that the Minister's response will show that there will be respect, not so much for language, but for the constitutional structure that now pertains.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
As one who grew up in Belfast, I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Ceredigion restricted himself to Welsh issues. That demonstrates what Plaid Cymru is about.
I am worried about the fixation on regional issues. A debate that is solely about Wales and Scotland-and Northern Ireland, perhaps-ignores the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom. There are regional issues in England-centering on Cornwall and other parts of the country-as well as other interests that are ignored when we become fixated on geography.
Previous debates exhibited a tendency to treat the Bill as a broadcasting measure, not a communications measure. We seem to be fixated on the broadcasting element rather than on the new technologies and their convergence, and the other issues with which Ofcom will have to deal. If Ofcom is pushed down the route of dealing primarily with broadcasting issues and ignoring the far more fundamental regulatory issues, we are in for trouble.
I regret the emphasis on broadcasting. There is a distinct problem with it, in that Ofcom will have to deal with issues of dominance as Oftel has done. That will be a key issue for the new regulator, which will not be better equipped to deal with Welsh issues, Scottish issues or Orkney issues by having each of those different elements vested in a board member. Those issues need to interact with the board, and the board needs to be small so that it can interact properly. What is important is the processes that are set up under Ofcom, not the creation of vested interests on the board.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The hon. Gentleman is correct to a certain extent, but is he not in danger of losing sight of one of his Government's great achievements? Devolution comprises the institution of a legislative Assembly in Wales and a fully legislative Parliament in Scotland. Surely, that demands that any UK body should deal with them in an appropriate way. One way is suggested in the amendments, and I would be delighted if the Minister came up with another.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
I believe that devolution is unfinished business. I am a strong supporter of regional government for this country, in which we have a long way to go. The hon. Gentleman may have achieved devolution in his part of the United Kingdom, but I long for the day when there is a regional assembly in the south-east to deal with issues
that affect it, not least its relationship to London. Real issues, particularly economic ones, require regional government, but I will not go into that because you would rule me out of order, Mr. Gale. However, England has strong regional issues that need addressing.
Questions such as how Ofcom and its set-up will deal with the European Union framework directive on telecommunications are critical for the success of the industry. As the hon. Member for Lichfield said, we lead the world in this area and it is important that Ofcom enables that to continue. Although it is important to recognise the interests of Scotland and Wales, to introduce artificial barriers that require board members to be their representatives would undermine Ofcom and its effectiveness. It is critical to have a small board to set up processes of communication, consultation and two-way interaction. That is far more important than having an artificial element on the board, as the amendment suggests.
Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)
In speaking in support of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, I should declare an interest. I had a Welsh paternal grandmother and am proficient at pronouncing Glamorgan and Neath.
The arguments for the amendment are similar to those for having more people on the board. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate was right to say that we cannot have an enormous representative body because it would get out of hand. However, the number suggested is too small to encompass the spectrum of needs and interests that we have heard about. It must be larger, with a sensible balance so that the interests of customer groups in Wales and Scotland, and of those people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) referred, who do not want swearing and gratuitous sex and violence on the television. A wide spectrum of interests should be on the board to ensure that everybody's needs are considered.
Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)
It is certainly true that Wales has special needs in relation to broadcasting, broadband, the internet and almost every field that will fall within the scope of Ofcom. It is good that those issues are being aired.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion did not mention that Wales enjoys the highest level of digital television penetration in Britain. I have said many a time and oft in the House that that is partly because many people want to watch Channel 4 as well as S4C-and some want to watch S4C as well as Channel 4-because of border area complications and sports rights, particularly rugby rights. However, that does not mean that we must go down the route that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
We do not have the 10-member option; we are talking about two of six-possibly two of three-members of the board of Ofcom being devoted to Wales and Scotland.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Minister said that he has powers to introduce at any time statutory instruments to vary the number of
members. It would be in order to accept the amendment, and for the Minister to table the necessary instruments.
Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)
It would indeed be in order, but not sensible because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, we are not talking about a representative body. I worry that hon. Members appear to think that Ofcom should be some sort of council on which every affected interest group-such as the disabled and radio interests-is represented and has a person to whom they can put their case. As my hon. Friend said either we would end up with vast numbers of people, or a fierce process of discrimination would be mounted. Later amendments refer to whether religious broadcasting should have special notification in the process. That, too, would be wrong.
Broadcasting should not be devolved for the reason acknowledged by the hon. Member for Ceredigion: many parts of the country already have problems with channels being received according to the side of the border on which one lives, or in which direction the valley points. As for internet connections, digital television and other issues, the Welsh valleys have more in common with many ex-coalfield areas in England than with parts of north Wales. It makes more sense to have a small regulatory body, especially for the initial processes dealt with in the paving Bill.
The amendment fails before the basic tenet of the Bill. Convergence of the internet, television and telecommunications is the reason why we must bring the regulatory bodies together. The amendment proposes the opposite of convergence: disintegration in a variety of forms. Whether one splits things up into radio, internet and television, or into Scotland, Wales, England, the regions and so on, all those who support the amendment have failed to acknowledge convergence in the industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) said, that is a problem because the EU has a significant role in the framework directive being introduced, much of which will be incorporated in the next Bill. If we start to break down Britain into representative parts, we will do a gross disservice to the broadcasting, telecommunications and communications industry in this country.
Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)
The hon. Member for Lichfield set a precedent this morning by declaring non-interests. I will join him by saying that I am not Welsh, nor have I a drop of Welsh blood-I am Irish. However, my wife affects to be Welsh and my four month-old daughter, Aneira, is named after the great Nye Bevan.
I am sympathetic to the aims of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, as is the Minister. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is from Aberdare, or an original Pontypridd boy, but he is definitely Welsh to my ears and he has made it clear that his views on accountability are strong.
My problem with amendment Nos. 46 and 55 is different from that of my hon. Friends the Members
for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and for Hampstead and Highgate. I had the same problem with the unsuccessful Conservative amendments Nos. 25 and 8. Those amendments tried through the back door to change the system in Parliament to a United States-style system of ratification of appointments, without properly worked out procedures. That is a matter for fundamental House of Commons reform and I look to Opposition Members' future proposals to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to complete that process.
Amendment Nos. 46 and 55 run the danger of extending that process even further to the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament. Their practical effect might be to bog down a sensible paving Bill in rows about individual appointments. I would be the last to suggest that the Opposition were up to mischief, but many Conservatives in the House did not want this paving Bill at all. When he was not straying on to Mrs. Whitehouse's territory, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury made it clear that he did not want the Bill either. I am glad that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) did not take that approach today, and that our debate has been constructive.
The amendments are tantamount to a wrecker's charter that might lead to futile rows that would overshadow the launch of Ofcom, which is to do valuable work in many areas, including the digital superhighway and broadband.
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
I shall not detain the Committee long, but I want to pick up on a couple of points. It is important that the Bill is fair in regulating the industry, but first and foremost it must concentrate on looking after the interests of the consumer. I say that in support of the hon. Member for Ceredigion-I hope that I said that right, having practised all morning.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East consistently stressed the telecommunications aspect of the Bill. That is fair enough, but that part of the industry currently has only a limited influence on children and vulnerable people, other than through internet. He is wrong to accuse Conservative Members of being over-concerned about media effects on the consumer; they need to be considered. That brings me back to my main point. Consumers' interests must come first, over and above those of the industry.
I had wondered why Northern Ireland was not mentioned in the amendments, but I have received a satisfactory explanation from the hon. Member for Ceredigion.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I, too, welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Gale. It will be a pleasure to consider the Bill under your chairmanship.
It was remiss of me not to respond to the point about radio that was raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield. Of course, he has great expertise in that field. I have been informed, reliably or otherwise, that when he worked for Radio Brighton he went by the name of ''Mickey Fabb''.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
I want it on the record that the only person who has ever said that I worked under the name of ''Mickey Fabb'' was Simon Hoggart of The Guardian. I never used that name. He also said that I had a small mobile discotheque and was famous in Hove. That is also untrue.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
That is fascinating, but it has nothing to do with Wales or Scotland.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I have taken note of everything that has been said. We have had an exhaustive debate, but I am sure that there is more to come.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the calls for representation and diversification. We understand the implications of the devolution settlement. However, this is a modest paving Bill; indeed, one Conservative Member described it as a mouse of a Bill. It will not shake the future of broadcasting, but merely set up Ofcom. We can have those discussions when we debate the substantive communications Bill.
It is important that Ofcom represents the interests of the various parts of the United Kingdom, and we want to ensure that that is done properly. We intend to keep the Ofcom board small and flexible initially-we should remember that Ofcom will not be regulating in the initial stages, after the Bill is passed. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion understands that it is impossible to establish a board that represents every single interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said that there will be demands from the substantial minorities who live in her constituency. That is proper, and it is the same everywhere.
One hon. Member-I am not sure who it was-referred to the different language in Scotland. I know that there is a small Gaelic minority there, but they just sound funny; they do not speak a different language from us.
If the new creature were to take on board every single interest, it would be far too large and unwieldy, and it would be difficult to imagine it operating with any degree of efficiency. The Bill therefore does not provide for specific representation on the board from Wales or Scotland, nor from Northern Ireland or England. We should not forget that there are 50 million people in England, and they do matter. The board will be kept small, with between three and six members. The main communications Bill will include measures to ensure that the legitimate interests of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are properly represented within Ofcom's structures.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
The Minister makes an interesting point. We all accept that this is the paving Bill to set up Ofcom, which will either survive when the existing bodies are consolidated into a new Ofcom or be disbanded if that does not happen. Is the Minister saying that initially there will be a shell board that is very different in shape from the board of Ofcom as fully incorporated in the Bill that is yet to be presented to Parliament?
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
Yes, I am saying precisely that. It could be very similar or very different. That is a matter
for Parliament to decide. We are, after all, the United Kingdom Parliament. We are not here to parrot the deliberations, aspirations or decisions of the devolved bodies. We are here as representatives of the constituencies of this Parliament. I owe allegiance to no other body than this one.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Will the Minister give way?
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
No, I will not.
Amendment No. 49 goes too far in proposing that every committee set up by Ofcom should include a Welsh and a Scottish representative. In certain committees-a remuneration committee, for example-it is difficult to see what specific Welsh or Scottish interests would be involved.
I cannot envisage a Greater Milton Keynes standing assembly, but my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East was right to say that modern communications do not recognise frontiers or borders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, our needs in the valleys of south Wales are not unique-they are reflected in many parts of Great Britain-nor are the valleys unique in terms of topography, which causes problems in many parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate pointed out that London has similar difficulties. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport receives more letters from London about poor reception resulting from the construction of Canary wharf and its associated towers and the shadow that they cast across the area, than from any other part of Britain.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I hope that the Minister will not respond by being rude to people north of the border. [Hon. Members: ''Which border?''] Perhaps I should have said north of Hadrian's wall. The Select Committee lamented the absence in the White Paper-an absence continued in the Bill-of any development of good links with the relevant policy Committees of the devolved assemblies.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I shall answer that in a moment. Where there are legitimate interests, Ofcom should ensure that they are reflected satisfactorily in the committees that it may establish.
Turning to amendment No. 54, in December 2000 the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), stated clearly in response to questions from hon. Members about whether Ofcom would have offices in Scotland and Wales that it would have a presence there. I am happy to reconfirm that in Committee. The details of how that will be achieved will be a matter for Ofcom. We should not be so heavy handed as to tell Ofcom what sort of office to set up, where to set it up and what its relationship should be with the devolved bodies, although I am determined that it will have a proper relationship with them.
Turning to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), I expect Ofcom to consult closely with the devolved assemblies and the English regions to ensure that constituents' needs are taken into account in an appropriate way. The
amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion raise some interesting issues about how best to ensure that Ofcom relates properly to the nations and regions. I am certain that those issues will have a good airing when we draft and put out to consultation the communications Bill.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
I want to tease out a little more on methods of consultation because I have suggested two ways of doing that. First, the assemblies could become involved in the appointment of Ofcom members either by being consulted or by directly appointing them. Secondly, amendment No. 51 would set up a Welsh advisory committee that would advise Ofcom on matters relating to the range of issues in Wales. I accept the Minister's statement that communications are cross-border, but government is not: it has been devolved within borders. Is he saying that we cannot address that issue in a paving Bill? Once we have laid the pavement we will be walking on it?
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I am saying precisely that. One cannot do it in a paving Bill, and I do not want to do it in a paving Bill, because that would be the wrong move. Broadcasting in this country does not recognise the new borders because it is not a devolved matter; it is a matter for Parliament. [Hon. Members: ''S4C''] I hear S4C being mentioned, but it does not want to fall under the control of the National Assembly for Wales because it knows that it would not get half the money that it gets from the Westminster Parliament.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion tells the Committee his amendments reflect intense lobbying from Welsh broadcasters. There has been no lobbying, except from something called Radio Ceredigion. If he is saying that BBC Wales, HTV and S4C have been lobbying to make broadcasting a devolved matter, it is interesting that they have not bothered to lobby the Minister responsible for broadcasting. They have also not lobbied me about having a separate Ofcom.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Will the Minister give way?
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Will the Minister give way?
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
No. I have given way to both hon. Gentlemen already. We must be careful not to assume that other bodies have a hold over us that makes us make decisions that we would otherwise feel were improper. The Bill simply sets up Ofcom, and it contains adequate powers to allow the Secretary of State to enlarge its board. I therefore oppose the amendment.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
On a point of order, Mr. Gale, may I ask for your guidance on the way in which you want to deal with the amendments?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
The custom and practice is that only one amendment, in this case amendment No. 46, is moved. None of the other amendments have been moved. If the hon. Gentleman wants to move other amendments, he is entitled to indicate that to the Chairman, and it is up to the Chairman to decide whether to accept that. Initially, we are dealing with amendment No. 46. The other amendments do not have to be moved or withdrawn.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Thank you, Mr. Gale. I should like to respond to the debate on amendment No. 46. The Minister's response, which I was looking forward to, was disappointing because it added nothing to the written replies that I have received from Ministers. With the full communications Bill likely to come in draft form before very long, we should have a better idea of how the consultation process should be undertaken.
The Minister said that somebody described the Bill as a mouse. In my amendments, I have tried to give the mouse a little Welsh squeak and bit of highland dress. The issue will arise again because, despite what he said, many in broadcasting in Wales have been asking for a Welsh representative on Ofcom.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Did the hon. Gentleman notice an inconsistency in the Minister's statement in that there are national members for Wales, Scotland and Ireland on the board of the BBC, the Independent Broadcasting Authority used to have such representation, and the Independent Television Commission still has? Why is it suitable for them, but not for the new consolidated board?
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I add the example of the Strategic Rail Authority, another utility regulatory body that has a member for Wales appointed by the Assembly.
I am grateful for the support of the hon. Members for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), for Lichfield, for Sheffield, Hallam, for Vale of York and for Tewkesbury on the amendment's principle. The response of Government Members such as the hon. Member for Rhondda showed that subtlety does not work and that I should have been blunter in my original speech. Perhaps they forgot what I said this morning; what was fed back to me was not what I said. That was especially true of the speech by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, which was antediluvian and anti-devolution.
The amendment does not mention the Welsh language because it deals with the devolved structure, which is the Government's chosen method. I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) that if anyone were to use wrecking tactics in the devolved Administrations it would be his party because it is in control in Wales and Scotland. The arguments that have been advanced are designed deliberately to thwart my ambitions, which is a pity because I have been advocating something that many in Wales will expect from Ofcom in one way, shape or form.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Does the hon. Gentleman want to move his amendment, or will he seek leave to withdraw it?
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 1, line 6, at end insert-
'( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the membership of OFCOM includes a member dedicated to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are represented.'.
We move to another aspect of representation, but one that may find more favour with Government Members. I hope that it does because it has been advocated by many of their constituents, and it is not confined to Wales.
Amendment No. 48 would ensure that within the membership of Ofcom, a member is dedicated to ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are represented. There is a material difference between this and the previous amendment, which it is worthwhile underlining. I do not attempt to seek a representative member on Ofcom for people with disabilities. That would be very impractical, as it is difficult to think of one organisation that could claim to represent all disability organisations throughout the United Kingdom. It might also be impossible to achieve in the context of what the Minister said in response to my earlier amendments.
I hope that the Minister will appreciate that I have made every effort, and tried every little way, to get my points across, within the Bill's ambit. I hope that he will be a little more open to the spirit of the amendment. As he said earlier, there are nearly 9 million disabled people in the United Kingdom, including 2 million with serious sight problems. The report commissioned by the present five regulators, the Towers Perrin report to the steering group of those five regulators preparing for Ofcom, said that Ofcom should
''actively promote clear links with, and understanding of, all of Ofcom's key stakeholder categories.''
Of all those stakeholder categories, the major one is surely people with disabilities. The way in which disability legislation has moved on, and our tackling of discrimination in society, raises the question of how Ofcom will ensure that in the whole gamut of its responsibilities-from broadcasting to communications to broadband to accessing the internet and wireless services-the doors are equally accessible to people with disabilities.
Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)
Is there not a danger that having only a single person in charge of ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are represented will lead to the marginalisation of their needs and views? Would it not be better if every single member of the Ofcom board were dedicated to ensuring that the needs of those people were represented?
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
I agree with that 100 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman wants to table an amendment on Report laying that out, I will support it. I thought that the danger was that if we did not say in the paving Bill that someone on Ofcom should be responsible for people with disabilities, that would be forgotten and the needs of those people would tend to be neglected if not ignored. Those people would then constantly have to work through their representative groups and campaigning organisations, as they currently do over transport to get access to buses and trains. They would constantly have to lobby Ofcom for recognition.
I want to avoid that. I want Ofcom to represent as many of the stakeholder groups as possible. I accept that if the Government will not move on the number
of Ofcom board members, we must find an alternative way to ensure that Ofcom members are responsible for the different stakeholder groups. It may well be that of the individual members of Ofcom-say there are six-one might turn out to be responsible for broadcasting in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. That might be one way of doing it. Another might be responsible for ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are met. Another member might be responsible for community radio, with some other aspect of broadcasting. One might be responsible for ensuring that access to the internet progresses at the right speed.
That might be an attractive proposition. We have the small, focused group that the Government want, but we also have some idea, especially with the communications Bill coming up, of how we want that group to work, and how the individual members of Ofcom should undertake their responsibilities. If we do not face now the need for a lead from the top for people with disabilities, we are in danger of neglecting how their needs will be addressed.
The hon. Member for Rhondda said that everyone should be responsible for people with disabilities. Of course they should. We all should, as we undertake our tasks as Members of Parliament. We should make sure that our surgeries, and all our work, are accessible and that our publications are readable and available in different formats. We should do all those things, and so should all Government bodies and agencies.
Let us look at an analogy: school governors. All school governors are responsible for ensuring that special needs are met in their schools, but one school governor will have that as a special responsibility. That is the analogy that I would like Labour Members-although I suspect that there is a little more sympathy on the Opposition Benches-to bear in mind. Does the hon. Member for Vale of York wish to intervene?
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
No.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
In that case, I shall conclude. We should bear in mind the need to make it clear now-if not in the Bill, in the Minister's response-how the needs of people with disabilities will be represented and protected in Ofcom's structure.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I formally welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Gale. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion. Everyone will notice that I did not stumble over that this time-a lunch break was fortunate and timely. I am not entirely in agreement with him, but as a probing amendment, his raises a number of issues for debate. We have all received many representations concerning people who are hard of hearing, poor of sight or less mobile. The elderly and those disadvantaged in other ways might also be included. Certainly, many responses to the White Paper referred specifically to the elderly, those on low incomes and those living in rural areas as well as to those with disabilities.
The amendment is helpful in probing and pressing the Government further. Can the Minister assure us
that people with disabilities, as well as areas such as equal opportunities, will be considered both in the composition of Ofcom, which is proper for debate today, and in the way in which Ofcom carries out its work through its constituent committees? I have some hesitation over whether it is right to suggest that one member alone should be dedicated to ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are represented. Without putting words into the hon. Gentleman's very eloquent mouth, I suggest that he considers coming forward later with a Bill-sorry, an amendment; we do not want two Bills on one subject-to say that in the working and decision-making of the committees, regard will be had to such interests.
Many people are deprived, some, as in my case, by choice. Being a Scot by birth, I can say that one is loth to part with a television set until it reaches the end of its proper life unless it can be used for spare parts for the next set. One's home can always have a number of television sets, and if they are not as yet quite so difficult to get rid of as fridges, one can always think of ways and means to add to the complications of getting rid of them. However, many areas are disadvantaged, perhaps through being unable to get the Channel 5 signal, such as parts of North Yorkshire, where my brother lives, less than 40 minutes from the Vale of York. There is not a universally accessible Channel 5 signal in this country for reasons with which we are all familiar. We should also ensure that those who are disabled for whatever reason have access to digital services, perhaps a little earlier.
One vexed question is subtitling, and it should be incumbent on Ofcom to deal with that. That could be done, preferably, in structural arrangements later in the Bill, or through a dedicated board member, if the amendment of the hon. Member for Ceredigion is successful. It is regrettable that, contrary to the wishes of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, the Bill is silent on both subtitling and signing on television. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the idea of helping disabled people, whatever disability they have.
Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)
I too have much sympathy with the amendment. The Minister referred to the Bill being described by others as a mouse, which I think does it a disservice. My understanding of the timetable for the evolution of Ofcom is that through the paving Bill, a chair of Ofcom will be put in place and board members appointed later in the year. Its full powers will not be taken on until the end of next year, and we are constantly referring to the communications Bill that will be published, but the timetable for that is that it will be published in late spring, and we do not know when late spring is. Quite properly, there is a long period of pre-legislative scrutiny, and the final draft of the communications Bill might not be produced until sometime in 2003.
The Ofcom that we create through the Bill will shape future communications policy for some time to come, and will have a significant role-it will not be a mouse of an Ofcom. Once the chairman is announced,
it will become the major player in broadcasting, and on the internet and other communications issues that we want to keep on the agenda. Ofcom's shape, accountability and accessibility are important. The hon. Member for Ceredigion has identified specific interests that will properly need to be translated to Ofcom. We have received many such submissions in respect of this part of the Bill, and as Ofcom's chairman is appointed and it begins to evolve, organisations representing disabled people will properly want to have their input. They will not want to wait for the communications Bill, because a lot of decisions will have been taken by then, including decisions affecting the offices of existing regulators that deal with disability issues.
We anticipate some form of merger-otherwise, there is no logic to Ofcom. However, individual groups will doubtless feel that a particular merger or dismissal is inappropriate, or that the new structure for dealing with disability issues is unsuitable. Under existing legislation, there is no guarantee of an accessible route into Ofcom for those who wish to make representations. Although there is no point in delaying the Bill's passage, the Minister could help by giving us the guidance that we need as soon as possible, and certainly before completion of the main communications legislation, which will not happen for some time.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I told the Committee this morning-you were not present, Mr. Gale-that the draft Bill will be published in full. There will then be a period of approximately three months for full consultation. No one in this country will be unable to respond to that process, and we will ensure that all the hon. Gentleman's concerns will be addressed.
Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)
That is very helpful. It is perhaps safe to assume, therefore, that the rules governing the ability of interest groups-be they disabled people, people from regions and nations of the United Kingdom, or whoever-to access the Ofcom that we create in this transitional period will be those in the draft Bill. Presumably, one could read guidance on Ofcom's operation on completion and assume that the shadow Ofcom will operate in a similar fashion. The question of accessibility is at the heart of the amendment.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
Obviously, I have not made this point clear. As the hon. Member for Lichfield said, the Ofcom that we are creating is a shell. We should not use the phrase ''shadow authority'' because there have been too many of those. According to the Bill, Ofcom has the function to form itself. It will not regulate or perform any other function until the substantive communications Bill receives Royal Assent, at which point the process of regulation begins.
Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)
I hesitate to disagree with the Minister about his Bill, but if that were Ofcom's sole function we would not need to consider a separate paving Bill. Ofcom will have a role in the intervening period-otherwise, there would be no point in creating it-which is to shape existing regulators. Ofcom itself will not regulate, but it will guide regulators on how the merger will take place. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to guide regulators so that the transition to the full assumption of powers is smooth. For
example, decisions on personnel in respect of existing regulators will have to be taken within the aegis of Ofcom, as set up under this Bill.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
The hon. Gentleman is very patient. He will know that, if a communications Bill had been included in last June's Queen's Speech, this Bill would have been unnecessary. The purpose of this paving Bill is simply to avoid a further six-month delay in the setting up of Ofcom, prior to the substantive communications Bill's receiving Royal Assent, hopefully in mid-2003.
Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)
That is a helpful clarification. I shall consider the Minister's words, but I am not persuaded that the new chairman and board members of Ofcom will be sitting around twiddling their thumbs, waiting for something to happen prior to the new legislation.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The hon. Gentleman might find clause 2, headed ''Initial function of OFCOM'', helpful in that regard. It states:
''It shall be the function of OFCOM . . . to do such things as they consider appropriate for facilitating the implementation of, or for securing the modification of, any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications.''
The paved Ofcom will surely do a great deal, therefore, in its first few months.
Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)
That is very helpful. It reinforces the central point-I do not want to labour it, as we have had a lengthy debate-of the amendment, which is that people with disabilities will want to make their views known during the new Ofcom's evolution. They will not want to wait until Ofcom is fully in place, because their natural suspicion is that it is much easier to make changes during the formative stage. Like other hon. Members, I will of course encourage people with disabilities to have their say when the draft communications Bill is published for consultation, but it is none the less valid to try to tease out their route to Ofcom. We will be paying those in Ofcom to do something, and that ''something'', as the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, could have implications for staffing and the new structures, although formal powers will not exist.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
It is absolutely right that this issue be discussed now, even though this is a paving Bill for a shell organisation. There are almost 9 million disabled people in the United Kingdom, and they should not be ghettoised. According to the Rowntree Foundation, the north-south divide and the gap between rich and poor has widened in this country in the past five years, and we want to ensure that the gap between the able-bodied and the disabled does not similarly widen. Indeed, there is no reason why it should, because the technology exists to prevent that, but Government action is none the less needed. The question of whether one person on the shell board should be responsible for achieving that aim is not that important. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, the amendment gives us the opportunity to discuss these matters now, and as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, if there were not more to the shell organisation, we would not be discussing this paving Bill.
As I have said, the technology exists to try to narrow the gap between the able-bodied and the disabled, and there are very good reasons why we should enable access for the blind to, say, television. Many might question the need for that, given the existence of radio, but the blind need to interact with those who watch television. They should not be ghettoised. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East will probably chide me for again talking only about broadcasting, and he would be right to do so. He will know, however, that technology exists-I am not sure how it works-to enable the blind to use the internet. They should have access to it, but that argument needs a strong and powerful advocate, not only in the Government but in Ofcom. Is it really so wrong or unusual for someone to stand up and appeal for the 8.7 million people in this country who are disabled? I think not.
Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)
It certainly is unusual if that person is a member of the Conservative party, who when in office fought tooth and nail to deny people with disabilities civil rights.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
I will treat that intervention with the contempt it deserves. Not only is it cheap, it is inaccurate. It is typical of the hon. Lady to interrupt me while I am speaking on the cause of the disabled with a cheap little party political point.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I share in a more mild way my hon. Friend's outrage at the remarks of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. I hope that he will agree that one of the major achievements of the outgoing Conservative Government was the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
I thank my hon. Friend for putting the record straight.
The Government have boasted about the plug-in modules that enable access to television through the audio description of programmes. Will the Minister confirm that those facilities have so far been made available to a total of 45 disabled people in this country? It is a start and I congratulate the Government on that, but 45 is a very small proportion of 8.7 million.
Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman cannot be deviating from the subject, Mr. Gale, because you would have pulled him up. Surely the point is not who is more on the side of the disabled, but how the views of people with disabilities can best be catered for. He asked how the BBC board of governors is constituted. No individual member has a specific responsibility for disabled people, but the BBC is better than any other broadcaster in Europe in showing its responsibilities towards them. The amendment may be a mistake because it might ghettoise disabled people. It might be better for responsibility to lie with all members of the board.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. We spoke earlier about there being national representatives on the board of the BBC, but no representative for the disabled. I still think it is important that the issue be raised. The hon. Member for Ceredigion who proposed the amendment was the first to say that it should not necessarily be in its
current form, but it gives us an opportunity to tease out a response from the Government. Watching the Minister's rapid scribbling, I believe that we will get a response on those points. I look forward to that.
I will not delay the Committee any further. This is an important issue. The technology exists to enable the disabled to play an active part in those areas over which Ofcom will have control. It is important that Ofcom, even as a shell organisation, recognises that it has a responsibility to the disabled and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion on tabling his amendment.
Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield on audio description for visually impaired television viewers. Visual impairment covers a wide spectrum; only a small proportion of people are registered as totally blind. Many people who are visually impaired watch television in the company of sighted people. An additional help with audio description would enable them to take a fuller part in that. That points towards the need to have someone with specialist knowledge. An interest in disability and specialist knowledge are needed to enable the specific technical improvements to be made available to those who need it.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I appreciate why the hon. Member for Ceredigion tabled the amendment. It deals with an important issue, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides agree. Ensuring that disabled people's interests are properly represented in Ofcom will be extremely important. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam was right to ask for that undertaking, and I hope that he will take my word for it. Currently, there are five different regulators, plus the BBC and S4C, and we are making progress.
I keep returning to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. We seem obsessed with broadcasting, but there are many other forms of communication that we can work on, and to which the hon. Member for Lichfield drew attention. We fully recognise the importance of access to television services for people with sensory impairments, and consultation on the draft of the main communications Bill will enable us to get it right.
The Government recently reviewed the current requirements for the provision of subtitling, signing and audio description. We also considered that in the context of the advent of digital broadcasting, which offers much greater scope for meeting requirements in that regard. We decided that the target for subtitling provision on digital terrestrial television should be raised from 50 to 80 per cent. of programmes by the tenth anniversary of the start of the service, and we are determined to get there. That is one of my main priorities. The current targets for sign language and for audio description, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, are 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively by the tenth anniversary. Those are immediate targets, but we want to drive them forward.
The hon. Gentleman read out a brief from the Royal National Institute for the Blind; he will not
know that I met the RNIB to discuss the issue. The technology relating to audio description services is still relatively new, expensive and, for many people, difficult to get hold of. That is reflected in the numbers that the hon. Gentleman quoted; I thought that they were a little higher. However, we are determined that there will be greater access to the service. I have heard an audio description and I am not sure whether I am a huge fan, but I can see its tremendous potential.
I am sure that you are aware of the technology, Mr. Gale, but for the benefit of the Committee, I should explain that a description comes over an attachment to a television, so that the blind or partially sighted person can hear what is going on in the story on screen during a purely visual passage in the programme. That is important in dramas, feature films and so on. We are very much up to speed on that technology and we want it to be greatly extended.
The requirements on digital terrestrial television for all those services should be extended to digital cable and satellite services when legislation permits. I cannot contemplate Ofcom's having less ambitious targets than some of those that I mentioned. I am determined that it will take the targets forward. Its responsibilities and remits will mean that it has to develop those services in ways that exceed the achievements that we have seen so far.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The Minister will have recognised that this is a probing amendment, and I welcome much of what he says. However, I think that he will accept that, during an earlier debate with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, we established that the early Ofcom would have an important and influential role on the production of the communications Bill and the regulations that follow it. Will he give an undertaking that, notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of the amendment, he will, on appointment, instruct the chairman or the first members of Ofcom, in a letter or guidance, that the needs of disabled people need to be taken into account as part of their influential role set out in clause 2?
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
No, I am not prepared to do that. No Government worth their salt would appoint a chair of a public body who would not address the huge needs of disabled people. Many Opposition Members do not seem to understand that the Bill will allow regulators to prepare the new regime, but it will not interfere with the existing one. During early stages of the discussions, one of my biggest worries was that the existing regulators might lose their best staff because of the uncertainty. They would have been severely weakened as a result. The creature that we are setting up will not have the right to interfere with the role of the existing regulators until the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
As a fellow refugee from the Utilities Bill, my hon. Friend will be aware of the issues that arose during the setting up of Ofgem. People reacted to the shell authority to the exclusion of the existing regulators. The fear is that people will not go to the existing regulators but address Ofcom, in its shadow form, and that fear drives many of the amendments. Relating that issue to the experience of Ofgem and the Financial Services Authority would be helpful.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
That is a valuable point, and I give that undertaking to the Committee. We must understand that the powers of the existing regulators remain intact until the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)
I shall briefly describe the issues that motivate our concerns. The Minister is right: existing regulators will remain in place. However, they may decide that Ofcom's disability unit will take a different form from those that exist in the current regulators. People will express concern if they perceive a weakening during the interim period. We are trying to address that concern: it is a watching brief. During the interim, Ofcom might propose that the radio authority contracts with a different regulator for its disability officer service in order to prepare for a merger. I hope we can keep an eye on those matters.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
That is a good point. I say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam that we might improve the systems of communication. I would have thought that the Committee would welcome that. We have an opportunity to assess what has happened so far to the vast community who suffer from a disability, and the way in which it is represented in communications, and in other ways. That is one of the prime purposes of the Bill, and the way that Ofcom would work.
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
As I said earlier, this is a probing amendment. It was designed to clarify the views of the Minister and establish how Ofcom will look after the needs of disabled people. We have had some encouraging news: the Minister gave a commitment to progress to new targets. He set out how the present regime might co-operate with a shadow Ofcom in ensuring that those needs are met. We will return to the issue, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
We now come to the next group of amendments.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
Mr. Gale, if this is the appropriate moment, I request to move formally amendments Nos. 34 and 36.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
The procedure is that the hon. Lady makes her speech if she wants to speak to those amendments. Amendment No. 34 is moved formally. If the hon. Lady wants to move amendment No. 36 separately, the amendment will be debated now, but will be moved formally later. However, she will need to give plenty of notice of her intention.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Gale.
I beg to move amendment No.34, in page 1, line 11, at end insert-
'(3A) Appointments by the Secretary of State shall be made in consultation with and following consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.'.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 41, in page 1, line 11 at end insert-
'(3B) Appointments made by the Secretary of State falling within subsections (3)(a) and (3) (b) shall be subject to a vote of approval from a designated Select Committee of Parliament.'.
No. 36 in schedule, page8, line 39, at end insert-
', following consultation with and consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament'.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I became increasingly alarmed by the Minister's comments in the previous debate, for reasons that I will share with the Committee. Amendment No. 34 is self-explanatory and seeks to insert a new subsection (3A):
''Appointments by the Secretary of State shall be made in consultation with and following consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.''
Amendment No. 36 would also ensure that the appointment of any member of Ofcom as deputy chairman was made
''following consultation with and consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.''
I look forward to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam moving amendment No. 41. Conservative Members have some sympathy for the role of the Select Committee, and we will discuss that when we debate later amendments.
The Minister in the House of Lords recognised in his concluding remarks on Third Reading that there would be a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, which the Minister confirmed in today's debate. The Minister will have detected in our discussions on earlier amendments the reason why we are loathe to leave the Bill and enter a vacuum for a considerable period between the publication of the broadcasting Bill and its formal consideration in the House. That vacuum will mean that the continued fusion of several matters, under the remit of existing regulators, will not be considered by the House other than through the pre-legislative Committee.
A reliable source informed me that we cannot formally refer to such a pre-legislative Committee as anything other than
''a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.''
There is a need for both amendments, which relate to the appointment of two chairmen and a deputy chairman. When those appointments are made, consideration should be given to the ongoing merger of the work. As the Independent Television Commission pointed out, the ITC and BSC audience research programme and various operational groups set up under the regulated steering group are already co-operating. My concern, which is shared by hon. Members on both sides, is that it is beyond the powers of the House to consider the Bill once we have left it unless we formally work that in.
Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Much has been made of the alleged vacuum that a Bill such as this will leave, rather than it being seen as a sensible, preparatory step. Does the hon. Lady agree that these paving arrangements are nothing new? The Financial Services Authority was set up in advance of the city legislation taking effect, and the transitional arrangements worked well. There was not a massive outcry when that legislation was enacted.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I will be grateful if the hon. Gentleman can confirm my recollection that similar measures were proposed at the Committee stage of
that Bill. We are following exactly the same procedure in tabling these two amendments.
Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)
My point is that there was no vacuum. The measure is a sensible preparatory step, but it is being presented as if it will lead to a vacuum.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I do not want to repeat arguments that were well rehearsed on Second Reading, as you will rule me out of order, Mr. Gale. I simply regret that we are being prevented from considering the two matters because that stifles debate. How can we debate which people are best able to do the job when we do not know what the job is?
The purpose of the amendments is to recognise, as one regulatory body has done already, that matters are proceeding apace and it is regrettable that the main communications Bill has been delayed. The Independent Television Commission welcomed the Government's commitment during the final stages of the Bill in the other place to publish the main communications Bill in the spring and invite Parliament to set up the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee to which I have referred. The ITC is confident that that deadline will be met, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that spring will not become early summer and that he means before the end of March. The Easter and Whitsun recesses have been announced today and they are longer than I have experienced in my short time in the House, and that may push back matters even further.
I received a useful communication from the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, which said
''We also believe that the appointment of the Chief Executive and members of the Board should be subject to approval of a Select Committee.''
I believe that the best way of conducting such approval would be through a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee rather than the relevant Select Committee, as proposed by amendment No. 41. One problem that we will have in the House in relation to establishing Ofcom and reviewing its work is that neither the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, whose work which we have referred to with admiration, or the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is responsible. The Minister may like to share with us an advance announcement that owing to the poor performance of successive Secretaries of State, the Department of Trade and Industry is to be phased out and its responsibilities merged, as was advocated by the Select Committee report on the communications White Paper. I am happy to give way if the Minister wants to make such an announcement, but we may have to wait until the reshuffle, which may be sometime in the spring.
This debate follows on from amendment No. 48, and I want the Minister to tell us precisely what he envisages as the role of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. Will he confirm whether he is minded to support amendment No. 34? The Committee's role would be to consult on, consider and report on
appointments of the chairman in amendment No. 34 and the deputy chairman in amendment No. 36.
Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Before my hon. Friend responds, will the hon. Lady confirm that what she describes as a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee is nothing of the kind? It is a ratification Committee.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's agreement that the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee should ratify the appointments. That is precisely the thrust of my amendments. I am grateful to him for expressing it in a much simpler, clearer way than I did.