House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 May 1990

Mr. Mellor : I have always considered that Channel 5 should be a unitary channel to succeed, although that may show the limitation of my own imaginative response. Plainly the idea that Channel 5 could involve a host of local opt-outs--far more extensive than the regional opt-outs on Channel 3--is gaining currency in some circles. If a serious bid is made on that basis, the ITC could accept it as we are placing no block on an imaginative response to the potential of Channel 5. The House is in a worse position to determine these issues than those who

Column 89

will have the challenging task of making Channel 5 viable. To win themselves a place in the broadcasting future, they will need to be able to create a specific and different atmosphere on their channel which will attract viewers. They will start with the difficulty of not having national coverage and of not having within their immediate reach some of the most attractive areas in terms of the amount of advertising revenue that could be unleashed.

The ITC will be able to offer more than one franchise. The idea that the system could be based on town or city opt-outs is not blocked, enabling Channel 5 to be a national and a local station. All of that sets a challenge to the broadcasting community and I have sufficient confidence in the broadcasting community to believe that it will respond positively to that challenge. I have been heartened by the number of people--including one or two of the better people whom I know who are involved in various production activities--who are seriously interested in such ideas. Channel 5 will be a good shop window for British broadcasting talent. It will be none the worse if, having set a framework that is appropriate to ensure that there is a decent standard, we leave some of the more creative thinking to the broadcasters and do not try to usurp that function ourselves.

Mr. Buchan : I am glad that the Minister is talking a lot more sense than he did in Committee. He has learnt his lessons in our long, three months' struggle. I do not remember the technicalities. However, is he now saying that "exceptional" will apply not only to quality as a result of our discussions in Committee but to interesting and original ideas on the structure, such as his suggestion of opt-outs? Can that now supersede the highest bid?

Mr. Mellor : That goes to quality. If someone puts forward a set of proposals with a series of local arrangements within a national framework, nothing would preclude the ITC from seeing that as an exceptionally good quality bid. I see that as part of surmounting the quality threshold. It would be an imaginative response and its evaluation would be a matter for the ITC. I profoundly believe that the remit we give to Channel 5 will prevent it from being lowest common denominator trash. It will also give the broadcasters, who are better placed than we are, the opportunity to find a solution to the key question, "Can Channel 5 find its place in the order of things?" I believe that it can, but only if it receives a highly imaginative response from broadcasters. In effect, I am saying that I trust the broadcasting community to respond, and I urge others to do so. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Opposition that there is not much difference between us on these matters. Although I realise that this is one of the key areas that the Opposition have identified for debate, I hope that--

Mr. Buchan : It might be useful if the Minister could carry his remarks a stage further. The proposals will be going to the other place for discussion and it might help if the hon. and learned Gentleman said not only that such matters were not precluded but that they would be accepted as exceptional. It would help if he took that little step forward to ensure that their Lordships had at least heard the argument. After all, they may be able to secure that which the Minister says he seeks--original ideas and good quality. Why not spell it out?

Column 90

Mr. Mellor : I am arguing that original ideas are the essence of a quality bid but that it is a matter for the ITC to evaluate such ideas. I cannot usurp the ITC's function by telling it what to find exceptional-- that would be wrong--but it will have plenty of scope to respond to an imaginative approach.

The ITC may well prefer a set of proposals that suggest a national framework, with no local dimension. I referred to the local dimension because it is certainly not ruled out and could very well be ruled in by the right kind of application. The fact that the chairman of the IBA is very much aware of these matters--he and I have talked about them--is a sign that, gradually and steadily, more people may come to consider them. There is quite a bit of time to go before people have to commit themselves. I am not just a vague believer in Channel 5--I have clear ideas about it-- but in the end it will be to the broadcasting community that the challenge will go out.

I shall understand it if the Opposition feel obliged to push the new clause to a vote, but I hope that there has been a sufficient meeting of minds to render that unnecessary.

Mr. Corbett : Doubtless buoyed by some surprising local election results in Wandsworth, the Minister has gone a long way to meet the concerns expressed through the new clause.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made good points about people's ability to receive the proposed new Channel 5. The Minister referred to local opt-out. Large parts of the Principality are opted out, in the sense that they will be unable to receive the channel. I know that that is not what the Minister meant, but that will certainly happen.

Those of us who were privileged enough to serve on the Committee will remember with mixed feelings the advice that we regularly received from Dr. Brian Evans of Tantara Tek--a veritable electronic wizard, who tempted us to look beyond our present penny-farthing arrangements for the distribution of broadcasting. Dr. Evans never ceases to amaze. He was explaining the other day that digital television could overcome many of our problems with distribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was concerned that only 70 per cent. of households in the United Kingdom, and a very much smaller proportion in the Principality, would be able to receive the new Channel 5. It is also the case that only about 70 per cent. of homes in the United Kingdom will be able to receive satellite, because to do so one needs direct line of vision on to the signal. Trees and leaves-- even those of broad-leaved varieties of plants--can interrupt that. By the addition of yet another black box--a digital television decoder--we could make use of an existing television aerial to provide either 20 extra channels or 10 extra television channels and 50 extra radio channels for an estimated £250. There would then be no need for unsightly satellite dishes and we should be able to close the gap in the availability of cable television, which, on best estimates, is unlikely to be available to more than about 40 per cent. of those who live in urban areas. Perhaps we have not given enough thought during our proceedings to the technicalities of distribution.

Like many other hon. Members, I welcome the Minister's remarks about what can happen with Channel 5. I make no complaint, except to say that what he said is not immediately obvious from the 15 lines in the Bill and

Column 91

that we are again relying rather heavily on the nice Mr. George Russell. We are used to relying on that nice Mr. George Russell, but some of us wondered whether it would help him if we gave him the odd hint and nudge about what we think Channel 5 might usefully do. The Minister has gone a long way towards meeting the central point that, if the channel is to have any chance of commercial success or of attracting viewers, it will have to provide something that is not readily available on the other channels.

The idea of a national channel from which large towns, cities and conurbations might be able to opt out is an interesting one. We should not get too carried away, however, because making television programmes is expensive, so there is an argument for that idea not being adopted. Most towns and cities that might consider opting out would probably be restricted to about one or two hours a day at best, although the House will forgive me if I say that we in Birmingham would probably manage four hours a day. Such arrangements could provide an interesting mix.

When I opened the debate I expressed some ideas about what Channel 5 might do. I did not mean them to be exclusive. Having heard what the Minister said, I now think that some of those ambitions might be more easily achievable on a local opt-out basis. As I said, if the channel is to succeed, it must have something distinctive about it. It must provide people with a reason for switching over to it and then staying tuned in. The Minister has suggested that there are at least some signs that that is well understood by those in the broadcasting industry.

At one stage in Committee, the Minister was giving out Smarties regularly. It is only right that I should return the compliment and offer him a small chocolate biscuit, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 13

Equal opportunities

(1) The Commission shall require applicants for a licence under Part I of this Act to provide an undertaking of their commitment to an equal opportunities policy and from time to time to review its operation.

(2) The Commission shall require licence holders to obtain from independent producers used by them an undertaking of their commitment to an equal opportunities policy.'.-- [Mr. Fisher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fisher : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : With this we may take the following amendments : No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after second chairman', insert,

who shall not be of the same sex as the Chairman'.

No. 1, in page 2, line 1, after members', insert

at least half of whom shall be women'.

No. 4, in clause 6, page 5, line 42, at end insert--

(that it will deliver a wide range of diverse programmes of particular interest to women and which provide a balanced portrayal of the lives of women.'.)

Column 92

Mr. Fisher : The new clause deals with equal opportunities policy. Many of our debates--both in Committee and today, on Report--have been both detailed and technical, but behind them all lies the idea of the power of broadcasting to shape values, to carry forward our beliefs in our traditions, to stretch our prejudices and try to change them and to shape the way in which we think and live--in other words, to define our culture.

One of the strongest characteristics of our culture is that it is dominated by the views of the majority, as opposed to those in minority groups such as people with disabilities and people of Asian or Afro-Caribbean descent. We can include in that category one majority of which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be well aware. Women represent 52 per cent. of our population, although in the House we always seem to consider their view a minority view--in a way, correctly so, because the dominant culture in our society is a male culture.

Most institutions in our society are run by men, with a male perspective on life, and that colours the values and perspective that they have. Given that broadcasting is the most powerful element in our democracy--the most powerful element in our culture--the existence of a dominant culture in broadcasting shapes the way in which we shall think in future, the way that we are carrying forward views of our society, in a narrow and unhelpful way for a wider pluralist society.

8 pm

This is an important issue that the Bill and broadcasting in the 1990s should take on board. Unless we have a wide-ranging culture--if we continue to have a partial culture--we shall do ourselves and society a disservice. Opposition Members recognise--I hope that the Minister of State does, too, because he is fair-minded--that many cultures are missing out in our society. Broadcasting has a peculiar and a particular responsibility, because it is so powerful, to put that right. We have already recognised that in some parts of the Bill.

The Minister of State has already paid tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has done for the Welsh culture. I refer also to the Gaelic culture, but the Bill fails to recognise other cultures. The new clause would put a responsibility on the ITC to ensure that all holders of ITV, or Channel 3, franchises would have a responsibility to ensure that there was a wide range of views in their employment policy and in the way in which they represented the world around us. That seems to be eminently fair.

Mr. Mellor : I wonder whether it would help the hon. Gentleman if I said that I too feel that that is an eminently fair point. Although I cannot accept the new clause as it stands, I shall want to accept it in principle, with one or two little caveats about precise scope that I shall mention. However, I accept the essential thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said. That might help him in terms of how long he will speak.

Mr. Fisher : That helps me enormously. I welcome what the Minister has to say. I look forward with some apprehension to his caveats, but if he accepts the thrust of the new clause, I welcome it very much indeed. I hope that, when he is shaping his own wording, he will have in mind, as we had in mind when shaping our new clause, the

Column 93

experience of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which had the same experience, particularly in relation to the views of women, that we have had in this country.

A couple of years ago, only five of the 165 top jobs in the BBC were held by women. Ten years ago, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation found that only 8 per cent. of its top jobs were held by women. It set up a monitoring unit. I am delighted to say that Mr. John Birt, the deputy director-general of the BBC, has similarly taken positive steps in the past two or three years. I pay tribute to him and to the people whom he has appointed, such as Miss Cherie Ehrlich, to develop an equal opportunities policy in training, recruitment and the representation of views.

If the Minister of State says that that is the future road for broadcasting and that he will help the ITC which, in the form of the IBA, is concerned about this matter, we shall welcome it enormously. I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say. Obviously, I reserve the right to comment on any of his caveats. I am delighted that he will accept the new clause.

Mr. Mellor : I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on- Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) for curtailing his remarks to allow me to say my piece. It is appropriate that we should put in a statutory arrangement for an equal opportunities policy. I envisage that the ITC will be placed under a duty to attach conditions to the relevant licences, requiring the licensees to pursue an equal opportunities policy in matters of employment and promotion and to review it from time to time. That would enable the ITC to ask applicants how they would propose to fulfil that condition. Once a licensee has been appointed, the requirement to pursue an equal opportunities policy would be enforceable in the same way as other licence conditions. That is the basic statement of intent. The new clause should also apply to the Radio Authority in so far as national independent radio stations are concerned, because they will be national organisations. I propose that the new clause should apply to the Radio Authority in so far as national commercial radio stations are concerned.

On the limited number of derogations, we should apply the new requirement to those television licensees to whom positive obligations are already applied elsewhere in the Bill--that is to say, Channels 3, 4 and 5 and the domestic satellites services. I do not see the same strong case for applying it to those licensees who are subject only to negative consumer protection requirements--that is to say, non-domestic satellite service licensees and the licensable programme services.

That still means that we embrace all the main structures of British broadcasting, but we are adding a further positive requirement to those to whom we have already decided to attach positive requirements. I do not think that we would be justified in adding this positive requirement to those services in which we seek only to have protective rather than positive requirements in other respects. I am not sure that that model would carry over well to independent producers. The ITC and the Radio Authority would be in a direct regulatory relationship with their licensees and would therefore be able to monitor compliance with the equal opportunities condition, but their relationship with independent producers would be much more distant. That is why I would not propose to extend the new clause to independent producers. I do not

Column 94

think that that substantially derogates from my acceptance of the principle that, to those major broadcasting organisations to whom positive programming principles are attached, this will be a further additional positive requirement enforceable in exactly the same way as every other part of the obligations into which they will enter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a full- hearted response to what he has said. I am grateful to him for bringing forward the new clause. I hereby undertake to bring forward in the other place a new clause in the terms that I have described. The House will have an opportunity to monitor the accuracy of the new clause when it returns.

Mr. Fisher : The House will appreciate and applaud the terms in which the Minister has responded to the debate, and the positive way in which he has accepted the new clause. I particularly welcome the extension to national commercial radio stations and to employment and promotion. Is training included as a subsection of employment? It would be extremely difficult to push forward equal opportunities in employment and management without having it as a positive requirement in training. That is certainly the experience of the BBC. The Minister did not mention the more difficult, contentious and less tangible subject of representation in programmes. That is an important element, certainly for groups of people such as those with disabilities. Very few of us can think of programmes that give a balanced view of what it is like to suffer from cerebral palsy or spina bifida. If such matters are included in broadcasting programmes, they are a matter of curiosity because there is a different view of the world if one has disabilities--there is a disability culture. That is difficult for us who are lucky enough to be able-bodied to accept, but it is an important point. I appreciate that representation is difficult and intangible, but I hope that the Minister of State will think about this matter when he is drafting his response, because, good though his response on employment and promotion was, training and representation are important matters. The Minister of State did not say whether he will accept our point that, if it is to be effective, it must be monitored.

Mr. Mellor indicated assent.

Mr. Fisher : I am glad that the Minister is nodding that that is the case.

I understand the point that the Minister of State made about the difference between positive and protective. There is a distinction. I am glad that it will carry over to Channels 3, 4 and 5 and BSB. Again, it was a point of contention in Committee. We do not see why Sky Television, as a non- domestic carrier, should be in a different position. It is illogical that it should not have the same requirements. If it is considered important for one, the same conditions should apply to the other.

It was interesting to hear the point that the Minister made about producers. Many independent producers have, in their own production companies, been at the forefront of equal opportunities. There are several all-women independent production companies doing extremely good work. The Minister is saying, by excluding them, that 25 per cent. of production shall, in a couple of

Column 95

years or so, be excluded from the provisions of the imaginative move that he is about to make. I hope that he will have second thoughts about that.

Having made those small points for him and his advisers to ponder when they draft the clause, and having been delighted with the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 17

Takeovers of Channel 3 licensees

.--( ) The ITC shall only allow a takeover of a Channel 3 licensee by another person or body when it is satisfied that the full licence obligations can be met by the prospective licence-holder. ( ) No such takeovers will be allowed within the three years following the licence award except where the incumbent is unable to fulfil the licence obligations.'.-- [Mr. Bill Walker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take the following : New clause 34-- Revocation of Channel 3 licence on takeover during limited period.

3-- (1) Where--

(a) a licence to provide Channel 3 service is awarded before 1993 to a body corporate, and

(b) it appears to the Commission that, within the period of two years beginning with that award, a person who at the time of the award did not control the body has acquired control of it. the Commission shall revoke the licence by notice given to the holder of the licence and taking effect forthwith or on a date specified in the notice not being more than six months after the giving of that notice.

(2) Upon such revocation any security given by the holder under section 18 shall be forfeited to the Commission.

(3) Every licence which is awarded before 1993 to a corporate body to provide a Channel 3 service shall include such conditions as the Commission consider necessary or expedient to secure that they are given--

(a) such advance notice of any proposal of which that body becomes aware and which if carried into effect would--

(i) affect shareholdings in the body.

(ii) affect its directors, or

(iii) be in any other way relevant to the control of it. as is necessary or expedient to enable the Commission to ascertain that such an acquisition of control as is mentioned in subsection (1) is likely to occur, and

(b) immediate notice of any such acquisition of control. (4) In this section "control" has the same meaning as in Schedule 2.'.

Amendment No. 42, in clause 3, page 3, line 30, leave out from 36(1)(b) ;' to end of line 33.

Amendment No. 577, in page 3, line 35, after person', insert-- for two years after the grant of a licence and subsequently not'. Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 36, at end insert--

and such consent shall not be given before 31st December 1995'. Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 36, at end insert

and such consent shall not be granted before 1st January 1994 unless it is agreed to by the person holding the licence'. Government amendment No. 229.

Column 96

Amendment No. 484, in clause 5 page 5, line 34, leave out subsection (5) and insert--

(b) In subsections (3) and (5A) "control" has the same meaning as in Schedule 2.'.

Amendment No. 483, in page 5, line 34, at end insert

(5A) Every licence shall include conditions such as the Commission consider necessary to ensure that where--

(a) the holder of the licence is a body corporate, and

(b) for a period of three years from the award of the licence the Commission shall have the authority to take whatever steps they consider necessary and expedient to prevent changes in the persons having control over or interests in the body where they think appropriate.'.

Government amendment No. 418.

Mr. Walker : My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and I tabled new clause 17 because we were concerned with the changes that are taking place and the effect that they could have--I make no apology for saying this--on regional broadcasting. Being Scots, we have taken a somewhat parochial view of what is happening in our area.

The increased emphasis in the Bill on quality and regional service will be wasted if any company seeking to take over a licence-holder is not obliged to fulfil the licence obligations. It will be expensive in time, effort and money to prepare a licence application. If predators can launch a take over bid immediately after the award, there will be a strong incentive not to bid but to wait and see who is the successful applicant, and then attempt a takeover. After each franchise round in the past it has taken a considerable time for new companies to become properly established and fully to contribute to the service. The dislocation would be greatly exacerbated if companies were fighting off takeovers or being taken over in the early years of their lives.

Unless there is a moratorium on takeovers--three years appears to be about right--there could be chaos in Channel 3 and a consequent loss of service to viewers and advertisers. So we in the north of Scotland, who are serviced by Grampian Television as our local ITV station--my constituency is serviced substantially by Grampian, although Scottish Television is also concerned--are worried lest we suffer a loss of service. We are anxious to avoid the uncertainty that could result from an early takeover attempt following the award of a licence.

Mr. Maclennan : The new clause follows closely the debates we had in Committee in which we drew attention to the predicament that would flow from a speedy takeover by incoming companies and the difficulty that would face the regulatory authority if that were to happen. Indeed, the IBA and its chairman have drawn attention to the problem from the beginning. They recently said that they would regard a moratorium of a year as the absolute minimum necessary to enable them to do their job properly. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), whose involvement in these matters everyone in the north of Scotland will no doubt welcome, is right to say that it should be longer than one year.

8.15 pm

Mr. Mellor : I met the chairman of the IBA this morning to clarify the position of the IBA on certain points. He regards 12 months as a desirable moratorium limit, not as a period for which he is asking as a second or third best.

Column 97

I understand that, in his view, 12 months is long enough. In other words, it is not his view of a minimum period--he would prefer longer--but his view of the right period.

Mr. Maclennan : I am happy to rephrase my remarks to take account of what Mr. Russell told the Minister about one year being sufficient. I believe that it is not enough and although I defer to Mr. Russell in many matters--I have no doubt that he has given the issue much thought, not only in terms of what is right but what is achievable from the Government ; perhaps he regards one year as a prudent period for which to ask now--the hon. Member for Tayside, North is nearer the reality, which is that the matter will not be settled satisfactorily after only one year.

The selection process which will begin when the bids are invited is complex. It involves difficult valuations by the regulatory authority, and the bidding companies will be put to enormous expenditure of time, effort and money for the preparation of their bids. To have all of that set at naught by a predatory takeover within a year of being awarded the franchise would seem to make nonsense not only of the regulatory process but of the prospects of achieving an orderly approach to regional television and of sustaining quality beyond the initial bid.

Not only is Grampian Television interested in this matter--Grampian has played a notable part in seeking to amend the Bill--but all companies in the 15 regions have an interest in achieving initial stabiity, and I hope that that will be recognised in the Government's response to the new clause. It is imperative that a period longer than a year is acknowledged. I proposed two years, but it is reasonable for Conservative Members to wish to extend the effectiveness of regulation beyond two years, and I shall be happy to support them.

Mr. George Walden (Buckingham) : The new clause goes wider than my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) believes. Although I sympathise with his regional concerns, his proposal deals also with the general issue of quality.

When I last spoke on these issues, the Minister of State accused me of being rather free in my use of adjectives. I have a few more adjectives to use tonight. He has done a superlative job with some unpromising material. By that I refer not to his colleagues in the Government but to the original White Paper with which he was lumbered. I do not know how that came about. Perhaps he had a Pauline conversion in the Committee Room, induced by the heat of the television lights. He may have had some internal illumination. Or he may all the time have been a secret, closet Reithian.

The most important thing is that the Bill is much better now than it was originally. I was glad to note that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister encouraged the setting up of a classical music radio station which is an example of interventionism, elitism, is ideologically indefensible and is, of course, absolutely right. I take that as an example of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister's flexibility and realism. By making the changes that he has made, he has set a Bill which was originally standing on its head on its feet. He has done that with enormous cleverness and without losing his balance. That makes it all the more regrettable that on this important point the Government should give the appearance of holding out.

Let us consider the practical circumstances of someone who has just won a franchise on the basis of a guaranteed

Column 98

level of quality. The next task would be to elaborate a programme schedule to set up the service. If on the day after the company won the franchise it received a telephone call saying that there was to be a bid for the franchise that has just been won, its attention would immediately be transferred from the task in hand to fighting off that bid. What is more, in the commercial world as it is, I expect that that company would cast a quick eye over its programme schedules to see where it might cut corners on quality, thereby pleasing the shareholders, in order to ensure its position in the coming takeover battle. That is one reason why I say that takeover bids always end up having implications for quality.

On the two grounds that the company would have its attention diverted from the task of setting up a quality service by a predatory takeover bid and that it might be tempted to dilute its quality to appeal to a bigger mass audience, I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to allow a moratorium of, not one year--perhaps three years is too long--but at least two years. We are in new territory and we must do everything possible to give sufficient time for new companies that win franchises to prove themselves. The ITC will also be in new territory. With all due deference to Mr. George Russell, it will take it more than a year to establish with any confidence whether a newly franchised company is living up to the quality mark. Only after that length of time could the ITC judge whether the predatory takeover company was in a position to continue the established level of broadcasting of the franchised holder.

For all the reasons that I have given, I believe that we need a two-year moratorium on takeovers. I read carefully the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to the forum organised by the Campaign for Quality Television. I noted that in defence of his decision not to go for a moratorium he talked about the need to get rid of mustiness, to introduce a little competition and, to use his phrase, to stir the pot a little. There is a difference between stirring the pot a little and holding out a pot of jam in front of a wasp's nest. That is one of the dangers that will confront new franchise holders and yet another reason for imposing a moratorium. I commend my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for his praise of the Campaign for Quality Television, about which he said some kind words at the forum to which I referred. It is not often in the House that we have reason to commend pressure groups. Often their tactics are more and more questionable and arouse more revulsion than attention. In this case, as my hon. and learned Friend graciously said in his speech, the Campaign for Quality Television has been a quality campaign. My hon. and learned Friend has listened carefully to its arguments and accepted some of them. He is to be congratulated on that. On this matter, too, he should take the views of that pressure group seriously.

Yet again, I come back to the question of quality in a broader framework. We are in new territory. We need time for the new arrangements to settle down. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister said tonight that Channel 3 will be a notch down. I notice that a few months ago he was talking about it being a few notches down from public service broadcasting. Evidently there is some uncertainty about how many notches down the new arrangements will be. Since the beginning, the Government have been wrong, but are less wrong now, in failing to recognise the

Column 99

implications of their proposals for Channel 3 for the BBC. We do not know whether Channel 3 is to be one notch down or a few notches down. How many will depend to some extent on the future of the franchise companies. That in turn will depend on whether they have time to stabilise. That in turn will depend on how quickly takeover bids come in.

All the matters that I have raised tie up. What was the point of the Committee laboriously and commendably establishing a delicate structure of checks and balances if with one telephone call and a pile of money someone could come in from the side and knock down the whole house of cards? That could happen.

I appeal to the Government to take a broad and cautious view. They should consider the matter in the round. I finish with one thought. However well the Government and the Minister do their jobs and however well the Committee has done its job, we are in new territory and there is a grave danger of a dilution of standards, whatever we do. We all know the reasons for that. I doubt whether the Minister of State goes along with some of the brassy talk about a new era in television. He is too intelligent a man to believe all that. Therefore, he must keep an eye all the time on every means of shoring up standards. That is why I agree with the new spirit of the Bill. I hope that the Government will also have a moratorium on their more adventurous plans for the BBC. We need a moratorium for the BBC too. If the Government start talking about doing away with the licence system or changing the regime at the BBC in other fancy ways, they could set off that drift downwards of which we are already in danger because of the implications of modern technology. The Government should view the new clause in that broader way and take into account the implications for quality, remembering that quality has a great deal to do with stability, whether it is a moratorium on takeovers or the stability of the BBC.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (Kincardine and Deeside) : I strongly support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). We are dealing with something which is fundamental and which, if it goes wrong, will affect quality. In all my speeches in earlier debates on the White Paper I said that this is a matter of quality and that quality must be sustained and shored up at all stages. The new clause is fundamental in the sense that if a company that had won a franchise could be taken over by another company the whole process of granting that franchise would be negatived. All the standards that had been set could be put at naught. That is why this is such a fundamental matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) rightly said, it is one that has particular regional implications because smaller companies are more likely to be subject to predators. Therefore, it is not just stability and maintenance of quality that matters, but the continuity of regional elements after the franchise has been granted.

8.30 pm

Whether the moratorium is one year or three years is a matter for debate. I would favour nearer three years because one year does not give time, after a new licence has been won, to achieve stability and continuity and,

Next Section

Home Page