Communications Bill

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Good morning. Welcome to what I am sure will be a fairly lengthy but harmonious and productive series of debates. Before we commence, I shall mention a few housekeeping matters. So long as I am in the Chair, hon. Members have permission to remove their jackets, if they wish to do so in this weather. On accommodation, I am advised that no other Room is available this morning, but we are negotiating to move to a slightly larger Room. The Chairman does not address the Public Gallery because we do not recognise it, but hon. Members may wish to inform friends and guests that we hope that we will be able to accommodate more people in future.

I should like formally to tell the Committee that the Programming Sub-Committee met last night and came up with the programme motion before us. I made it plain at the meeting—and I have discussed the matter with Mr. Atkinson—that, should it be necessary, I will reconvene the sub-committee as its Chairman. That may not prove necessary, but hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that we should have that level of flexibility.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Communications Bill (in addition to its first meeting at half-past Ten o'clock on Tuesday 10th December 2002) the Standing Committee do meet—

(a) on Tuesday 10th December 2002 at half-past Four o'clock;

(b) on Thursday 12th December 2002 at five minutes to Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock;

(c) on Tuesday 17th December 2002 at half past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock;

(d) on Thursday 19th December 2002 at five minutes to Nine o'clock;

(e) on Tuesday 7th January 2003 at half-past Four o'clock; and

(f) thereafter on Tuesdays and Thursdays at five minutes to Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock;

(2) the proceedings to be taken on the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown;

(3) the proceedings which under paragraph (2) are to be taken on any sitting shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table;

(4) paragraph (2) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) at any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (2) if previous proceedings have already been concluded.

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I welcome you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Atkinson, to the Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the Bill with Committee members. I hope that it will be useful, and I am sure that hon. Members will make constructive progress. However, if we do not, I know from previous experience that you can be firm to the point of ruthlessness in driving debates forward, Mr. Gale. I welcome that.

The proposed programme motion was discussed at the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday, and I am pleased to say that there was general agreement on it at that meeting. The end date of 6 February will allow us 26 sittings to consider the Bill and any new clauses or schedules that might be proposed by amendment. The Government will table several amendments but will aim to give the Committee good notice of them. We will provide a written explanation of the nature and effect of each amendment when it has been tabled.

The 26 sittings should provide more than enough time for proper scrutiny of the Bill. We will, of course, work hard to examine the Bill thoroughly and carefully. I hope that we will be focused and consensual in our work, and I am sure that we will be extremely constructive in our approach, and will therefore make your job easy, Mr. Gale. The programme motion proposes that the provisions of the Bill be considered in order, with a few exceptions for reasons of sense that have been agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee. I hope that Committee members will agree that the proposals constitute a sensible and reasonable way in which to proceed, and I ask them to support the resolution.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I join the Minister in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. The imminent prospect of Christmas pales into insignificance compared with the anticipation that Conservative Members feel at the prospect spending the next seven to eight weeks considering the Bill under your chairmanship and that of Mr. Atkinson.

It is a particular pleasure that you and Mr. Atkinson should be in the Chair, not because both of you are political colleagues of mine—I realise that that is entirely put to one side while you are occupying that Chair, Mr. Gale—but because the two of you are veterans of the last time that we debated some of the issues raised in the Bill, when we considered the Broadcasting Act 1996. Many might regret that you and Mr. Atkinson are in the Chair for this Committee, because you will not be able to express any views on the contents of the Bill. However, there are perhaps one or two organisations that are relieved that you, Mr. Gale, are not able to express observations on the contents of the Bill. However, in the case of the organisation that I am especially thinking of, it may be

that you and Mr. Atkinson effectively cancel each other out.

I am sure that every Committee member will agree that this is an enormous Bill in many respects. Its sheer physical size—running to two volumes, 395 clauses, and any number of schedules—is an indication that it has vast scope and covers an enormous part of our economy. Its consequences are likely to be profound and long term. It is six years since we last examined these issues and, even then, many of us felt that we would need to return to them. The pace of technological change is such that developments in these sectors happen quickly and there is a real danger that legislation becomes rapidly out of date.

For that reason, it is extremely important that we get the Bill right. We should try to ensure that it is sufficiently flexible to take account of change. I suspect that, back in 1996, none of us imagined what the broadcasting environment or the telecommunications sector would look like today. Most of the 1996 Bill was concerned with establishing digital terrestrial television, which has come and not quite gone. It has not gone, but it is certainly very different from the type of project for which we created the conditions in 1996. That demonstrates how hard it is to predict how the sector will develop, which is why we must try to ensure that the Bill will, at least, create a framework that is capable of taking account of unforeseen developments.

Clearly, the Bill has already been subject to a lot of scrutiny. It has been through several different stages. We had a communications White Paper that the Government published and to which organisations and individuals responded, and, in the last session we had the paving Bill to establish Ofcom—the Office of Communications. Some aspects of that Bill will be covered again in our consideration of this one. The House has already had a chance to debate the bringing together of the regulators into a single umbrella regulator and some of the issues that arise from that.

In the last Session, the Government published a draft Bill that was scrutinised by the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill, which I am sure that we all welcome as a useful exercise that has saved us time. Undoubtedly, it cleared up one or two points and improved the Bill by making it more technically coherent. Although the Government did not accept the Joint Committee's recommendations in some key areas, in large part, the recommendations were accepted. Therefore, I am sure that all of us welcome the exercise and hope that the Government undertake similar ones for other Bills that could be improved with draft scrutiny. The other Bill for which the Minister is responsible is the Licensing Bill, which we look forward to receiving later this year. I suspect that that might also have been improved had it undergone the same pre-legislative scrutiny process.

Dr. Howells indicated assent.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I am glad that the Minister agrees.

There have also been several outside seminars with a variety of organisations—I spoke at one arranged by the Westminster Media Forum. The process has meant that the Bill's key issues have already received scrutiny

and debate. Some people have suggested that because of all that has taken place, there is less need for this Committee to consider the Bill and scrutinise each clause in detail. I profoundly disagree. I was slightly surprised that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), made that observation on Second Reading. Although his Committee performs many valuable functions, I do not believe that it is a substitute for a Standing Committee scrutinising a parliamentary Bill. Therefore, he was wrong on that point.

Although the Joint Committee was very beneficial, it was subject to certain limitations. No votes were held and although the Government were able to respond to recommendations, they could simply accept or reject them. There was limited representation on the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) did a valiant job for the Conservative party, but we had no Front-Bench representation because of the Committee's nature. There was no opportunity for amendments to be tabled and there was no real debate. There was an opportunity to question witnesses, which was undoubtedly useful, but the exercise in that Committee was different from that in this Committee. Government Ministers were not required to justify their decisions or actions in the Joint Committee and requiring that is one of the principle roles that this Committee must undertake. It is perhaps realistic to accept that Opposition Members are unlikely to defeat the Government.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

The civil service Bill team played a key role during the pre-legislative scrutiny. The Joint Committee was able to question that team on specific points, which was one of that Committee's key benefits.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)

That is undoubtedly right. There is no doubt that that process has added a dimension to the scrutiny of legislation that is lacking in this forum. The two Committees are complementary and one is no substitute for the other.

Trying to defeat the Government in Committee is not one of the Opposition's key purposes, although we shall press amendments if we think that the Government are wrong. As I have said before, we think that the main thrust of the Bill is correct. However, there are many detailed issues on which organisations that are likely to be affected by the Bill are seeking clarification and more justification of the Government's position from the Minister. It is part of the Opposition's purpose to give such organisations the opportunity to raise issues through us in order to get the Government to respond to their genuine concerns. The many amendments tabled by myself and other Conservative Members are an attempt to achieve that. We want organisations outside the House to receive a response to their concerns from the Minister.

There is a reason for that because it always comes as a shock to me that the records of our Committee proceedings are read carefully by lawyers and by those

who are charged with implementing the legislation that we pass. I sometimes suspect that they might be a little appalled by one or two of the diversions that occasionally happen in Committee, although that will certainly not happen in this Committee under your watchful eye, Mr. Gale. The fact that what Ministers, in particular, say in Committee is read and sometimes taken into account is a part of the legislative process. That is a further important reason why we must draw out the Government on several of the Bill's provisions.

We have limited time in which to do that. The Minister said that there would be 26 sittings, which takes us to 6 February. He said that he was confident that that would be ample time in which to cover the ground. I do not wholly share his confidence. I draw the Committee's attention to a comparison with previous Committees that have considered similar legislation. Such a Committee considered the Broadcasting Bill in 1990, which consisted of 4 clauses and 22 schedules. It was therefore just over half the size of the Bill that we are presently considering. However, the 1990 Bill was discussed in 38 sittings in Committee and the debate continued for 101 hours and six minutes.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

It sounds like hell.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)

Sadly, I was not able to participate in it but I know that a number of hon. Members in this room are veterans of that Bill. They will perhaps tell us later whether it was hell or not. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the 1990 Bill received a great deal of scrutiny, as is evidenced by the number of sittings and the amount of time that was spent on it.

The Broadcasting Bill 1996, which I was involved in, had only 150 clauses and 11 schedules. It was therefore about one third of the size of this Bill. However, for that Bill there were 17 sittings, taking 52 hours and 20 minutes.

It is not really proper to use the Broadcasting Bill 1996 and the Broadcasting Bill 1990 as comparisons, because those Bills focused only on the broadcasting sector. The Communications Bill does not focus only on broadcasting—although, from some past debates, hon. Members might think that it did. We are keen that this Committee should consider in detail the provisions on the telecommunications sector. In some ways, they will be even more important for the future development of our economy than the provisions on broadcasting. It is essential that we get them right. The scope of this Bill is far wider than that of the two earlier Bills and yet it is proposed that only 26 sittings be allowed to debate 395 clauses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) has examined this matter in some detail. If we were to give this Bill the same consideration, based on the number of its clauses, as was given to the Broadcasting Bill 1990, we would have not 26 sittings but 76 sittings. Some of us would welcome the opportunity to spend more time on this Bill.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if he goes on giving us history lessons, we will certainly need more than 26 sittings?

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)

This is an important point. If this Committee is to do its job properly, we will need to scrutinise in detail each of those 395 clauses. The amount of time that has been allowed for that is limited; it is certainly considerably less than was available to our predecessor Committees, which were considering similar legislation.

There are one or two other problems to do with the period during which the Committee will sit. It will be helpful, Mr. Gale, to have your guidance. Although the Committee will sit during a period of around two months, Christmas is in the middle of that period. I am perfectly happy to spend a large part of my Christmas break reading the Communications Bill and considering amendments to it—although that may not go down well with family. However, I seek clarification from you, Mr. Gale, on a practical point. This Committee will be sitting on the day on which the House rises for the Christmas break, and will be sitting again on the day on which the House returns. Therefore, in order to table amendments for the day on which we return in January, we will have to table them before the House rises before Christmas. Even though there is a long period between those two sittings of the Committee, it will be necessary to table amendments before that period because the House is not sitting.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I may be able to assist the hon. Gentleman and the Committee. It is clear that there are difficulties but, happily, the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members can table amendments on the last two days of the recess, and the selection will be made shortly before the first sitting of the new year. Therefore, Committee members will be able to prepare their amendments during the Christmas break.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)

That is hugely helpful, and Conservative Committee members are very grateful. The Christmas break will be even more enjoyable than usual, as we will be able to consider the amendments that we will wish to debate immediately upon our return.

That relieves a little bit of the pressure that is on us in the period before we rise. However, that pressure is still considerable. It has been caused in part by the new hours. We now start at 9 o'clock on Thursdays, and after Christmas we will also start at that time on Tuesdays. That means that we have a very limited time to prepare for debates. It is a fact of life that Committee members are always racing to keep up, but the new hours will not help.

It has come as a bit of surprise to several of the groups outside this place who have an interest in the Bill to discover how quickly it has moved into Committee, and how little time has been available to table amendments. That is already reflected in the Amendment Paper, as one or two amendments will have to be starred. The time might come when we will appeal to you, Mr. Gale, to accept starred amendments—for instance, if a matter arises late in the day that it is important for the Committee to

consider. All of this is uncharted water, because of the new hours. We will have to see how things develop.

I am also grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for the indication that you gave that it might be possible to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee if we are unable to give proper consideration to important areas of the Bill before the knives fall in the places where they are currently intended to fall. We will need to watch that.

There are two specific issues that I wish to raise about the consideration of the Bill and the timing of our debates. The Bill has evolved from a huge number of different consultations, publications, reviews and reports. Most of them have now been taken into account, and their recommendations have finally surfaced in the Bill, but the Independent Television Commission's review of the programme supply market has only just come out. It deals with an important issue: how we should encourage and help independent producers to create a viable, thriving, independent production industry.

Most people feel that the ITC review has done a valuable job and come up with some helpful recommendations. My discussions with people in the industry have revealed that there is already recognition that the ITC's recommendations will be valuable. I hope that the Government intend to table amendments to implement some of them, but if that is going to be the case we should be given ample notice, so that we can examine them and talk to the industries that will be affected by them. If we were to be given only two days or so to consider those amendments and the provisions in the Bill, that would be insufficient. Therefore, I hope that the officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will also be working over the Christmas break—and before it—to get those amendments done.

I hope that information on another area of the Bill will also be made available to the Committee before we reach it. It relates to the radio spectrum, and it is the part of the Bill that makes my head spin the most. It is a hugely complicated and technical area. I have no doubt that hon. Members will require several wet towels to be wrapped around their heads before we come to debate it. We will be helped in our consideration of those provisions by the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which is currently taking evidence on the issue. I hope that the Trade and Industry Committee will try to complete its deliberations in time for us to have its report before we reach that section of the Bill, although I fully accept that that is not entirely within the Government's control.

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The Trade and Industry Committee intends to achieve that—I speak as a member of it—but it has a number of other items on its plate at present. There can be no guarantee that that Committee will be able to agree on a report before the recess. A report would need to be published by then if there is to be any possibility of tabling amendments in this Committee that reflect the Select Committee's conclusions. The relevant clauses will be considered on 9 January, according to the

sittings motion. My hon. Friend has put his finger on a relevant point and there is no reason why the whole spectrum section could not be taken as a discrete part of the Bill because, in a sense, it flows from other parts and could be considered later.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)

That is an alternative way to address the problem. I am disappointed to hear my hon. Friend say that there is no strong chance of the report coming out before the recess. It seems unfortunate that the Trade and Industry Committee will produce recommendations on a part of the Bill that will already been considered, and approved or rejected, by this Committee.

There will, perhaps, be an opportunity to return to some of the relevant issues on Report and that will certainly be possible when the Bill is considered in the House of Lords. Nevertheless, it would be helpful, since we will debate the issues, to have the Trade and Industry Committee's views beforehand. Perhaps the Minister and the Committee could consider that matter before we finally approve the programme motion.

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

I understand that the good civil servants, the so-called Bill team, who are doing an excellent job, believe that they have just about got it right and that they have the perfect Bill. Does my hon. Friend consider the Bill to be perfect? Does he consider it likely that the Government might introduce amendments that could take up much of the Committee's time later on?

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I am sure that it is a matter of pride for the Bill team to try to minimise the number of necessary amendments. The Minister has already indicated that the Government might wish to introduce amendments and he helpfully told us that he would produce explanatory notes to ensure that we fully comprehend what they wanted to amend. The hon. Gentleman has, to some extent, already solved that problem. We anticipate that there are bound to be amendments and it is absolutely essential that some be made in the area of the ITC review if the relevant recommendations are to be put into effect.

I do not want to spend much longer on the matter. The programme motion raises serious issues. You will point out, Mr. Gale, that the programme motion was originally approved by the House of Commons on Second Reading. There was, however, no opportunity to debate it at that time, so this is the first opportunity for us to put some of our concerns on the record. The Opposition voted against the programme motion and it is important that we set out our reasons for doing that. On a similar point, the programming Sub-Committee met yesterday in private, so there has been no opportunity to raise our concerns about that and put them on the record.

The Bill is hugely important. The Committee will find it hard to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that it requires. We will do our best, but previous experience of programme motions has demonstrated that Bills often pass through the Committee stage with large sections that have never been debated. That makes for

bad law. Because the Bill is so far reaching and because its effects will be so great, it is all the more important that it should receive proper scrutiny. The Opposition will attempt to give it that within the confines of the programme and sittings motions. I hope that if we are not able to give the Bill that degree of scrutiny in certain areas, that that will be taken into account when it goes to the House of Lords and that the other place will carry on that exercise.

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I do not intend to repeat all that my hon. Friend said about the programme motion, but I wish to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. My hon. Friend referred to the Standing Committee that considered the Broadcasting Bill 1990—a happy experience that you and I shared. Prior to that, we worked together on the Home Affairs Committee on a valuable report in the run-up to that legislation, which was extremely helpful. It has certainly served us in good stead as we have considered these issues over the years.

For the avoidance of doubt, I remind the Committee that, for most of the 1990s, I was a consultant to various ITV companies, a position that I relinquished on 1 February 2000 when I was appointed Opposition spokesman on DCMS matters. I doubt that that experience will mean that any speeches I make, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Gale, during our proceedings will be slanted, but I have been provided with a huge wealth of experience of what has been happening in the broadcasting world. I believe that it is important to place that on the record.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to let us have the benefit of his experience later, because the motion under discussion is time limited.

It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman, put the Question, pursuant to paragraph (9) of Sessional Order C relating to Programming Sub-Committees [29th October 2002].

Question put and agreed to.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a ways and means resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available on the Table. In light of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) who is leading for the Opposition, I remind members of the Committee that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, Mr. Atkinson and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

A further piece of housekeeping advice concerns the conduct of the Committee during our debates. It has been my custom and practice to permit a reasonable debate at the start of our discussions on a clause or group of amendments, or a stand-part debate, but not both. In complex Bills, we have recognised that sometimes it is to the advantage of the Committee and for its convenience to have a fairly lengthy debate at the beginning of a clause. Members of the

Committee can have one stand-part debate, not two, and it is up to them to determine which they require. That being said, clause 1 has no amendments tabled to it and will be subject to a stand-part debate.