Communications Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: Let me make this point because it may help the hon. Gentleman. When I look at the sports channel page on Sky, it is strange that I see the dedicated sports channels, but not whether there is a rugby international on BBC 1 or cricket on Channel 4. I am not suggesting at this juncture that the technology exists to see all the possibilities, but a key feature of the Bill is to try to deal with future problems—as you reminded the Committee, Mr. Atkinson, during the last debate. In the end, Ofcom will have to deal with the matter.

Mr. Bryant: I sympathise with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says, but the best place to have that debate is on clauses 299 and 300, in which much of the relevant matter is made explicit. By the time we get to clause 299, he might properly understand the S4C issue.

Mr. Greenway: I do understand the S4C issue.

Mr. Bryant: No, you do not.

Mr. Greenway: With respect, I have spent considerable time talking to S4C about the issue and I promised that if the opportunity arose I would raise it in the Committee. I have not raised the issue in such a way as to give my view about who is right or wrong in the argument that S4C has advanced. The hon. Gentleman says that we might have the opportunity to consider the issue again in relation to clause 299, but we simply have no idea whether time will allow us to do that. Time certainly allows us to do that now.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): Obviously, clauses 299 and 300 will allow a discussion of the code and the prominence that is to be given to the public service broadcasters. However, it is only at this point that we can examine whether proper provision is being made for due prominence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for commercial broadcasters without public service obligations.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I said in response to the Minister, who commented from a sedentary position, that I used the S4C issue simply as a way to illustrate difficulties. There are many other issues that one might have addressed, but I did not want to detain the Committee unnecessarily, since time is moving on. The answer to the point about whether we should have this debate under clause 299, notwithstanding the excellent point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), is that clause 70 allows Ofcom to set access-related conditions, whereas clause 299 deals with the code of practice for electronic programme guides, which is a different matter. The Committee needs some guidance on how Ofcom will use the relevant power. We want the Minister to address that issue.

Column Number: 21

The provisions of clause 70—indeed, of all the clauses in this part of the Bill—replicate the directives. We must accept the provisions of the directives and the fact that, to a great extent, many of the clauses might not be amendable by the Committee other than in areas in which the Government might have strayed in drafting. We discussed that earlier in relation to gold-plating. We are not, however, addressing the issue of the provisions of the directive. The issue is how Ofcom will use the relevant powers.

I am sure that those who are affected by the powers would like some early indication about how Ofcom will proceed. Those might include the companies that produce the programmes, which are concerned about the programme guide giving them sufficient prominence—my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned that—or the providers of delivery platforms, which are concerned that difficult conditions might be imposed on them regarding their EPGs.

In answer to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Rhondda, if Ofcom's intention is to rely exclusively on the code of practice, perhaps we need to see a draft of that code before we discuss the code in relation to clause 299. Certainly, that clause provides a requirement for a code. These powers are important and they will affect viewers and their experience.

Many issues relating to this part of the Bill might appear to be as dry as dust, and to have the consistency not of spaghetti, but of linguini, as we try to trace the threads from one place to another. These matters are difficult and complex, but there are some elements in the provisions that directly affect consumers' experiences. EPGs form one such element. I hope that the Minister will respond in the spirit in which I moved and opened the debate.

Brian White: The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has covered a number of points about disability and about the generality of the electronic programme guide and I will not repeat those. However, I have a couple of questions.

As EPGs develop and devices such as TiVo become available, programmes will be viewed at times other than those listed and will be broken into different genres. It is debatable whether the definition in the clause is sufficient to achieve that. I am sure that the Minister will assure me that it is, but is it future proof? I am sure that it covers the current situation, but will he assure me that it will allow Ofcom to deal with the technology as it develops and as EPGs become much more sophisticated?

That brings me to another point. In a previous debate, we heard about the problems of local loop unbundling. I have no wish to return to that discussion, except to say that one of the problems that Oftel had at the time was the lack of skilled resources, because other companies had pinched them. If we are to get the conditions right, it is important that Ofcom has the skilled work force necessary to deal with some of these key issues. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the skills set available to Ofcom will enable it to address those issues as they develop, especially with regard to disability and EPGs?

Column Number: 23

Mr. Allan: I want to clarify the question of scope. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire helpfully intervened to say that this might be the only time when we can talk about differential access to key positions on EPGs for services that are not public service broadcasts. That is important. I was trying to work out how that related to clause 299, and initially believed that clause 70 dealt with technology while clause 299 dealt with content. I now understand that some content issues are included in clause 70.

Will the Minister clarify whether the intention is that access-related conditions in respect of EPGs stop at the point of defining the technology? In other words, can the controller of an electronic programme guide satisfy the access-related conditions by accepting input to a defined standard from other broadcasters? That is a key point, as each broadcaster submits its input for incorporation into that EPG. Do the access-related conditions intended under the clause simply go to that point of defining the technology and the information formats, or do they go further by trying to define, for example, relative ranking within the EPG as presented to the public? That is an important scoping point, which needs to be addressed.

I thought that I understood the intention, because I thought that I understood what an application programme interface is. However, as I read the clause, I realised that we were talking about something completely different from the common understanding. That is a serious point, because there is potential for great confusion. An API—application programming interface, as it is usually referred to—is a well understood term in the context of software, and in subsection (3), it is defined in the context of software, which makes it especially confusing. The ''programme'' referred to is not a computer program, but a television or radio programme. Further into the definition, we have ''programme services'', and if we skip to the great definitions clause—clause 390—''programme service'' lists TV and radio programmes, and so on.

My point may seem esoteric, but when drafting legislation, it is important not to include language that will confuse the public. The phrase ''application programme interface'' is a poor use of language in this context, because people will understand it to mean this technical thing called an API, which is a way of defining how other people can plug their modules into a common piece of software. That is not what the clause intends, yet we are using language that appears to suggest that it does. I hope that that serious point is of help to the Minister.

I have another technical point. The last part of subsection (4)(c) confused me utterly. I wondered whether an ''s'' was missing. Subsection (4)(c) talks about

''allowing a person to become the end-user of a description of public electronic communications service.''

Will the Minister clarify what it means to be

''the end-user of a description''?

Does that mean the person who is looking at an electronic programme guide is therefore looking at a description? If that is the case, I would have thought {**!23**}that ''electronic communications services'' was intended. I would have understood that; instead, I am confused. Can the Minister clarify the phrase? Is the problem the way in which I am reading the provision, or is it not worded correctly? It is a key area, as was pointed out earlier. While I appreciate that we are trying to describe something complex, there could be more clarity in the phrasing used.

6 pm

Mr. Bryant: I, too, shall speak briefly about APIs. Can the Minister clarify my understanding that that is one of the more important relationships between broadcasters and operators of the set-top box? It is vital to any broadcaster producing an interactive service that will be transmitted to the viewer via a set-top box to have full, prompt information about the technical standards of what is inside that box—the API or operating system. That should be provided as swiftly as it is by any other broadcaster integrated with the satellite operator.

I can give a brief example. A few years ago, Sky developed interactive sports viewing—it was able to give viewers the opportunity to choose camera angles and to decide from which side of the pitch they wanted to watch a match. It was an attractive model. For the first year and a half, it was available only on Sky sports channels, because the information was not passed in a timely way to other broadcasters. For instance, the BBC had interactive rights for Wimbledon—three years ago, it should have been able to give people a choice of match and camera angle; viewers could have chosen to receive information about players and so on. However, the BBC was not able to provide that service.

The clause would make it possible for Ofcom to ensure that all broadcasters had equal access to the information that they needed to provide services through the set-top box. It is, therefore, an important clause.

 

---

Prepared 17 December 2002