Communications Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister not take on board the point that was made very well by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam that there is a tension here between services that need to be universally available and market forces? Has new Labour become so capitalist that it has gone off the scale, or does he think that there must be some control of market forces with regard to frequency allocation?

Mr. Timms: Of course I do. Those constraints are set out in the Bill, and we will debate how they will work.

Several hon. Members asked me about the progress that is being made towards achieving digital switchover. Those who have followed the fortunes of digital television over the past 12 months or so have been on something of a rollercoaster ride. I freely acknowledge that at one stage last year things looked rather bleak after ITV Digital went into receivership last year. However, in a remarkably short space of time the Independent Television Commission was able to reallocate the licences that had been held by ITV Digital to the Freeview consortium, which the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) mentioned. That has been successful and those who expressed much scepticism earlier last year about the timetable for the digital switchover should have been encouraged by the progress of digital broadcasting in the past months.

The position set out by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and

Column Number: 017

Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was that we could look forward to digital switchover at some point during the period 2006–10. There is no reason to believe that that cannot be achieved.

Michael Fabricant: As the Minister implicitly corrected me by saying that it was the ITC—not the Secretary of State—that awarded the licence, can I withdraw my praise to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and transfer it to the ITC?

Mr. Timms: All those who were involved should be congratulated for the success of that exercise.

Mr. Lansley: Regarding the date for digital switchover, Committee members will be aware of a number of Government amendments, which we will discuss later, that are designed to allow the expiry date of licences to be shifted from 2014 to some other unspecified date. That is because the Government are not 100 per cent. confident that digital switchover will happen between 2006 and 2010 and they do not even appear to be sufficiently confident to insert some other time parameters in order to establish those in the Bill. Why does the Minister suddenly shift to such uncertainty?

Mr. Timms: I look forward to the debate on those amendments when we reach them.

There is no reason to depart from the view that we set out some years ago, which was that we could look forward to switchover during the period 2006 to 2010. I have had discussions with Ministers from other countries and it is striking that they are considering much the same period for switchover. That is already happening in Berlin. We can be optimistic about the timetable being met.

Mr. Bryant: The Minister has already referred to the great success of Freeview since its launch, but there are still problems relating to the signal and the use of the spectrum in many areas of the country. Only 75 per cent. of England and 60 per cent. of Wales is covered by Freeview. Does the Minister think that Ofcom's powers in relation to spectrum management and its slightly interventionist approach will give it a more active and proactive role in ensuring that Freeview and digital terrestrial television, and does he think that issues relating to the signal can be resolved?

Mr. Timms: We have set out a changeover plan—available on the web—that addresses all the issues that must be resolved in order to achieve a successful switchover. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford referred to second sets and video recorders—those must be addressed. We must also address the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) made about availability. One of the criteria set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in 1999 was that everybody who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form must be able to receive those on digital systems. It is essential that questions about access are resolved successfully by all those who are working on the switchover, including the industry, the regulator and the Government. I am confident that we will be able to do that successfully.

Column Number: 018

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked me to comment on the valuation of the spectrum. Undoubtedly, the figure assigned by the market would be lower now than it would have been some years ago, but I do not want to give a figure at the moment. The valuation will continue to vary. However, the issue is significant for making decisions on how digital spectrum will be allocated across the country in order to enable the switchover to take place.

There are some quite difficult questions and cost-benefit issues relating to how digital spectrum will be allocated to facilitate digital television. There are more expensive options that would free up more spectrum, and less expensive options that would free up less spectrum. A cost-benefit view will need to be taken on the valuation of the freed-up spectrum, so that a decision can be taken on how much investment is warranted if that spectrum is to be released. Those issues are being considered.

We are not driven by revenue-raising ambitions; I give hon. Members that reassurance. At no point in the Bill have we introduced measures simply because we think that there is an opportunity to raise extra money. That is not the concern driving the clause, or any other part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East wondered whether the arrangements set out for the relationship with the Treasury will be a problem. I do not think so; the arrangement included under subsection (7) is entirely conventional, and I do not think that Ofcom will have difficulty working successfully under it.

My hon. Friend and others asked about the grant-making powers under the clause. Those mirror existing powers under section 5 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998. It takes time to move assignments by regulation because of the need to consult and give due notice, and grants can accelerate that process by smoothing the way for incumbents in part of the spectrum to move voluntarily. Such grants are subject to value-for-money and additionality tests. Also, they require Treasury consent under section 5, and must comply with state aid rules, so there are constraints on what can be done.

Those are the reasons why the powers exist. They have existed since 1998, but no grants have yet been paid, although some cases are under consideration. The Radiocommunications Agency announced at the end of November that the Treasury had approved £2.5 million for grants to support research into improving radio spectrum efficiency in the coming financial year. The possibility of grant-making is also under consideration in the context of accelerating the reformatting of the spectrum for fixed wireless access, although the agency has not yet make a commitment to that.

Finally, I shall respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. I shall say more on spectrum and the accounting arrangements that he asked about when we reach clause 386, but I give the hon. Gentleman and the Committee the assurance that an arrangement will be put in place that broadly translates the existing arrangements, which he rightly identifies as being different in respect of the

Column Number: 019

Secretary of State and Ofcom. The Treasury and Ofcom are currently discussing the precise handling of those arrangements, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that spectrum management functions will be adequately funded—as they are now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 148

United Kingdom plan for frequency authorisation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: I have a series of questions on this. The clause appears to be straightforward: it basically says that Ofcom will publish,

''from time to time as they think fit . . . ''the United Kingdom Plan for Frequency Authorisation'' ''.

My first question is obvious: how often does the Minister think that it will be published? Will it be on an annual basis, or only when Ofcom thinks that the frequency plan might be changed?

My next question is, will the provision apply to all frequency usage in the UK? I assume that the answer to that is yes, but will it include the use of frequencies by the BBC? If that is the case, clause 149(1)(c) becomes relevant, as it talks about the demand that is likely to arise for use of spectrum for wireless telegraphy. Will the United Kingdom plan for frequency authorisation set out not only the matters that are addressed in subsections (2)(a) and (b) but the future possible plans that are outlined in the following clause?

It seems to me that there is a little tension between clauses 148 and 149 because clause 148 does not have a comparable provision to clause 149(1)(c). I did not bother to table an amendment as I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the plan will also include the future frequencies that Ofcom think might need to be made available.

Will the plan also address the problem of co-channel interference from transmissions from outside the UK? I remember visiting the television transmitter site at Rowridge on the Isle of Wight: the people there told me that they experienced considerable co-channel interference from the television transmissions of ORTF—Office de Radio-Téléfusion Fran¢aise—not just because of changes in the atmosphere, when local television transmissions can then go further because of the heavy side skip, but because the television transmission from France was not as stable as that from the UK and it was going off frequency. The French were not using a stable television transmission system; the transmitter was made by Thompson, and it was not as stable as it should have been, so there was co-channel interference. Will that sort of issue also be addressed?

The Minister talked about WARC—the World Administrative Radio Conference. Will the issues that it addresses be dealt with as well? Finally, the whole

Column Number: 020

issue of frequency spectrum applies not only to power and the frequency used, but to the range that the frequency is planning to achieve. The Radio Authority is to be applauded for the introduction of very low-power and small-scale temporary radio licences. Will that issue also be addressed?

I have a picture in my mind that the minimum requirement for clause 148 would be simply a spectrum chart. Can the Minister assure me that it will be far more than that, and that there will be a thorough discussion of the issues that I have just raised?

10.15 am

 

---

Prepared 9 January 2003