Note of the 2nd Meeting of the Ofcom Advisory Committee for Scotland (ACS), 2 June 2004

Welcome, introductions and apologies for absence

1. The Chairman welcomed members to the second meeting of the Ofcom Advisory Committee for Scotland. Peter Davies (Ofcom), Alan Fraser (Ofcom), Neil Fraser (Gaelic Media Service), Graham Howell (Ofcom), Matthew MacIver (Ofcom Content Board), Claire Mack (Ofcom), Paul Rogers (Ofcom) and Alan Stewart were also present. . Apologies had been received from Tony Stoller, Ofcom’s External Relations Director and Fiona Ballantyne, the Consumer Panel Member for Scotland.

Minutes of the last meeting and Matters arising

2. The minutes were approved. There was general agreement with the proposal that there be targeted advertising to encourage applications from the South of Scotland and from younger people

Telecoms Review Phase 1

3. A presentation took place on Phase 1 of the Telecoms Review. The Review would be in three phases: (1) an assessment of the current position; (2) the options for a strategic approach; (3) Ofcom’s proposed approach to the regulation of telecommunications.

4. The members were concerned that the growth of mobile phones, use of broadband and convergence of technologies might have an adverse impact on lifeline services and rural communities reliant upon the fixed line network. Another area of concern was the lack of effective competition in the telecommunications infrastructure for the provision of broadband; 400 of the 600 exchanges in the UK not yet enabled for broadband were in Scotland. Access to broadband was so important it should be regarded as a universal service obligation; Ofcom should consider the use of subsidies to enable unprofitable rural areas to be provided with broadband connections. The members also thought that demand from educated consumers would provide the stimulus to overcome technical problems so that more remote areas would get coverage ;they thought that Ofcom had a role to play in the education of consumers and wished to explore the regulator’s relationship with the Scottish Executive and industry.

Radio Review

5. A presentation took place on the Radio Review. The Review would cover areas such as localness, FM licensing, AM development, spectrum allocation and Ofcom would submit a report to the Secretary of State by autumn 2004. The members were interested to learn why the Radio Review was not being carried out in conjunction with the PSB Review. The members thought that the BBC did not offer the same kind of localised service as in England. The different demographics of Scotland meant that the requirement for digital radio could be covered by two major population centres, leaving sparsely populated areas uncovered. The members also thought the issue of localness was particularly important. They were interested in learning how Ofcom would define ‘localness’ for Scotland. They were concerned that the limited resources available to them as members of the Advisory Committee restricted the scope for involvement in the Review. Whilst the Review would be backed up by audience research the members thought that the focus groups invited to participate would be too small ,have too little time available to play an effective role and, insofar as the Scotland focus group was proposed to be held in Stirling, unrepresentative of the range of Scottish views. There was a danger that the Review would become London-centric if insufficient resources were devoted to assessing localness and resourcing national focus groups.

PSB Review

6. A presentation took place on the PSB Review. Members were concerned about the short timescale within which they were expected to submit comments on a very complex subject particularly as information from the Glasgow Focus Group had still to be made available to them. One reading of the Review suggested that it envisaged the end of public service broadcasting and that market principles were being incorrectly applied. It was felt that the Review would rouse very strong views. The members thought it important that the Review clarified exactly what was meant by Scottish interests and why PSB was thought to be important. The BBC was not as well regarded in Scotland as in the rest of the UK. Whilst many people might value the availability of public service broadcasting that did not necessarily mean that they would be prepared to watch it. It was therefore likely that in a market led environment that there would be a perceived need for PSB. It was agreed that Fiona McLeod, Joyce Taylor and Philip Schlesinger would consider the response further and feed their views to Claire Mack by Wednesday 9 June so that a formal response could be prepared.

Summary of complaints received for Q2 04

7. The members were disappointed to note that CLI was not yet available and stressed the importance they attached to the facility being available by their next meeting

Items raised by members

8. The members wanted the opportunity to consider how the Advisory Committee would work best. The members thought that they should be given more time to consider papers and advance notice of the questions and areas for consideration which were going to be put to them. They also thought that the Committee should meet more frequently and have an independent Chairman.

Ofcom Update

9. The members were briefed on the major initiatives under way by Ofcom. There were eight major project streams running - covering subjects such as PSB, Telecoms Review, Driving Digital Switchover, Broadband, Spectrum trading, content regulation and handling of Section 351 referrals. The members thought that there should be a mechanism for the Advisory Committees to feed their views to Ofcom and, at the least, be given extra time to consider consultations to which that Ofcom wished them to respond

Next Meeting

10. The Committee would next meet on 16 September in Aberdeen

Any Other Business

11. There being no other business the meeting concluded at 4.00pm.