House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 May 1990

Column 77

(2) Any amount received by the Commission under subsection (1) above shall be credited by them to a fund established by them under this section, to be known as the Television Education Fund. (3) The fund shall be under the management of a committee appointed by the Commission for the purposes of this section and section 31 and shall be applied by the Committee in the making of grants to finance the making of educational programmes intended for schools, for continuing education for adults and for connected purposes. (4) When making any grant out of the fund pursuant to subsection (3) the Committee may impose such conditions as they think fit. (5) The persons appointed to be members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine ; but the Commission shall, when making any such appointments ensure that a majority of the members are persons with a knowledge of children's and adult education. (6) The terms of the appointment of the members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine ; and in the case of any members of the Committee who are neither members or employees of the Commission, the Commission may :

(a) pay to them such remuneration and allowances, and

(b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of them such sums by way of allowances, pensions or gratuities, as the Commission may determine.

(7) Any expenses incurred by the Commission either under subsection 6 or for salaries of Commission employees whose services have been furnished to the Committee, shall be defrayed out of the fund. (8) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year to which subsection (1) applies, the Committee shall prepare a general report of their proceedings for that year and transmit it to the Commission.

(9) Any sums required by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

(10) In this section "the Commission" means the Independent Television Commission.'.-- [Mr. Maclennan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this we may take Government amendment No. 655.

Mr. Maclennan : There was a valuable debate in Committee, when all sides agreed on the importance of educational programmes. The new clause is designed to strengthen the provisions that have already been made to ensure that education forms an important part of the programming of the Channel 3 companies.

Educational programmes act not only as a stimulus for children, but as an important teaching aid for teachers. It is a medium that children can understand and appreciate. Most schools now have television, even if they are short of books or staff. A poll has shown that 12 per cent. of primary school teachers and 8.5 per cent. of secondary school teachers consider television central to education.

The Government have already acknowledged the importance of educational programmes by their amendments, which are a welcome strengthening of the Bill. However, we must recognise that educational programmes are costly to make, because they have a limited appeal to advertisers. I think that it would be appropriate to establish a fund to provide additional support for the programme makers, to ensure that provision for them is

Column 78

not skimped. That could be done along the lines already provided for in the Bill, such as for the promotion of Gaelic.

My new clause follows the structure of the provisions for Gaelic in some detail. Its purpose is to prime the pump for the production of educational programmes. As with Gaelic, the money would be expected to be in addition to the money made available by the companies. The new clause is, I think, self-explanatory, and I hope that it will commend itself to the Minister.

Mr. Mellor : I commend Government amendment No. 655, which is attached to new clause 8. It is the Government's response to the concern that "outreach" materials should be made available to schools by the television channels providing schools programmes. The amendment would have that effect, and I commend it to the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for the manner in which he put the case for his new clause, and for the brevity of his remarks. He knows that I attach importance to both aspects of education on television : first, schools programming, which clause 31 specifically requires, and, secondly, continuing educational programmes that are an established part of the television scene. They will, in particular, be part of the remit of BBC2 and Channel 4, but will continue to have a place on Channel 3, because the ITC, in the strong guidance that it will give to franchise applicants, will be able to say that it expects to see reflected the broad range of programmes presently available on the ITV system. I was heartened by the fact that the ITC has specifically said that, as we have added religious and children's programmes to the specific requirements of Channel 3, it sees no need for additional programme types to be specified.

7 pm

I am also sure that the ITC will want to consult with others outside to make sure that the programmes broadcast are as helpful and relevant as possible and take account of up-to-date policies and techniques. My disagreement with new clause 8 is that the structure of the arrangements should be a matter for the ITC and the licensees, not one that we should particularise in the Bill.

I see no reason for thinking that good quality programmes cannot be funded in the way that they presently are. The danger of agreeing to an education fund is that we might then find an unanswerable case for a television drama fund or a television children's programmes fund. If I really believed that we would not have educational programmes without making some changes in the fianancial arrangements, I could well imagine wanting to think about an education fund, but because I have no evidence that would suggest that there was likely to be any difficulty in handing the baton on from one group of licencees to the other with, if anything, a rather firmer statutory framework than we propose, the case for the fund has not been made out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central) : This brief debate has replicated one in Committee. Once again, the Minister has been enormously sympathetic to the good points made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) but has missed the essential thrust by confusing education with schooling.

Column 79

Government amendment No. 655 and the way in which the Minister answered the hon. Gentleman's case show that he believes that this is a matter of whether schools programmes can be properly balanced and resourced. In doing so, the Minister misunderstands the new clause and our arguments in Committee.

The Opposition believe that education is more than just schools programmes. There is also continuing and further education. When Lord Reith identified education, along with information and entertainment, as one of the three main purposes of broadcasting, he was not just referring to its contribution to school education ; he was talking about the way in which broadcasting can widen all our minds throughout our lives. That is the responsibility that broadcasters should bear in mind, and the Government should be helping them to do so in the Bill.

Amendment No. 655 is fine as far as it goes and I am glad that it mentions the use of materials and resources, but I hope that the Minister will understand that more is needed in that respect. Education officers employed by the ITV companies do far more than just provide programmes and publish back-up material. They work with local education authorities and put on conferences. They have a menu of work and initiatives and liaise with education authorities. Their work is invaluable and backs up and informs the materials and programmes referred to in the amendment. I hope that the Minister understands that.

As we said in Committee, every ITV company has an education officer and many big ones employ two, but after the next round of franchises I fear that there will be an enormous reduction. I shall be amazed if all ITV companies have that range of senior, well-paid officials. I hope that they will have them, and I would encourage them to have them, but I fear that they will not.

We are not just talking about schools. Broadcasting can contribute to the quality of life in the 1990s and help us to close the gap that many people perceive is already widening between ourselves, West Germany and France in the quality of our education, not just in schools and colleges but throughout our population, if we are to become an intelligent and educated democracy in the 1990s in a way that we are not now. We cannot leave that to schools and colleges. Broadcasting has a central role to play in improving education and the attitude towards education in our society. The fund is an interesting and imaginative idea, and the Minister's response is not fully in tune with the proposal or the challenge of education. He is still confusing that with the narrow but important area of school education.

There is time for the Government to reconsider the matter and I hope that they will take up the debate in another place. When the Bill comes back to this place, I hope that the Government will have accepted the fairly non- contentious--in party-political terms--case that we are making. The education responsibilities that broadcasters must have placed upon them go far beyond the school room. That is the burden that they should be carrying in the 1990s. That is a positive remit for education and for broadcasting in the 1990s. I hope that the Government will think again and will accept the proposal at a later stage.

Mr. Maclennan : I thank the Minister for his reply, and I am glad to welcome his amendment, but I regret that he

Column 80

has not seen fit to commend my new clause. He is unduly sanguine in believing that the quality of educational programmes can be assured by the regulatory requirement that education shall figure in the programme mix advanced by the would-be franchise holders. I have no doubt that the ITC will look for educational components in the programmes, but the Minister has failed to recognise--it was implicit in earlier debates--that operating in the new, more competitive market means that programme makers and companies will have to look much more carefully, and will look much more carefully, at programmes which do not attract audiences in which advertisers are interested.

This is not just a matter of carrying forward good standards of educational broadcasting. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is right in saying that we are talking not just about schools but about further education throughout life. It is a bit over-optimistic to assume such good standards in the new world of broadcasting into which we are moving unless specific assistance of a non-commercial kind is made available.

I acknowledge that there is some danger in setting up funds for this and that aspect, but education is probably the area where there would be the most complete agreement on the importance of maintaining standards.

I acknowledge that the debate is not new, but it is a pity that the Minister has not felt able, on reconsideration, to accept the new clause in principle. I hope that he is right that the mere regulatory requirement for educational programmes will achieve what he hopes to achieve, but I must express considerable doubt that it will. I was not proposing necessarily large sums of money. The fund would have entirely open-ended. A number of different sources could have contributed to it. I think that such a fund would have commended itself to those who care about education. I have heard what the Minister said and I can say no more.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 12

Channel 5 remit

As regards the programmes (other than advertisements) broadcast on Channel 5 it shall be the duty of the Commission to ensure-- (

(a) that for part of the broadcasting time, the service offers regional programmes for such number of regions the ITC may specify and that a substantial number of such programmes are made within the region for which they are provided.

(b) that for part of its broadcasting time the service offers educational or training programmes

and generally that Channel 5 has a distinctive character of its own.'.-- [Mr. Corbett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 382 and amendment No. 487, in clause 26, page 24, line 35, after licence', insert or licences'.

Mr. Corbett : One of the most remarkable features of the Bill is how little it says about Channel 5. It contains just 15 lines on that subject. Never mind that the new channel faces great uncertainty given the present state of advertising and that forecast immediately ahead. Never

Column 81

mind that the Government have refused to give the IBA authority to begin making transmission arrangements for the new channel. With one breath the Government say that they want Channel 5, but beyond that there is silence--save their acknowledgment that the new channel will cover only seven out of 10 homes and that much of London and the south-east, which is the wealthiest market for advertising, will not be able to receive it.

There is a little teaser in the shape of Government amendment No. 382, with which the Government seek to give the Independent Television Commission the authority to grant a part-time licence "between such times of the day or on such days of the week (or both) as they may determine."

That is a fairly feeble way of moving sideways into a great expansion of public broadcasting.

All that the Bill says about Channel 5 is that it shall "make the most effective use of the frequencies on which it is to be provided."

Not a word is said about programming, and I do not doubt that ere long I will be told, "That is all right because the people running Channel 5 will provide programmes that attract audiences, otherwise they will go out of business." That in a nutshell is the Government's argument about the application of so-called market forces to broadcasting.

It is reasonable to assume that one of Channel 5's roles will be to fill the gaps between BBC1 and BBC2 and between Channel 3 and Channel 4. All four channels were intended to complement each other and not compete head on, and it was certainly agreed in Committee that Channel 4 has been an outstanding success and has brought much innovation to television. That does not mean that all of us like every programme that Channel 4 presents. None the less, that channel has honoured the remit that it was given.

If Channel 5 is intended to fill the gaps between the existing BBC and ITV services, it is likely that it will end up trying to mimic satellite channels and go for thematic programming, with great wadges of sport, news, and the rest of it. That will not help the development of satellite broadcasting, which has generally been welcomed in all parts of the House, as well as by an increasing number of viewers.

New clause 12 aims at giving Channel 5 a specific role and allowing it to provide programming that is not offered by Channel 3, or at least not in sufficient volume. It deliberately places the emphasis on programmes made in and for a region. That would give the new channel a stronger regional flavour than Channel 3 is ever likely to achieve or would want to achieve. It would also establish an important place for educational or training programmes, or both, on the television viewing menu.

There is a strong demand for such programmes, as the IBA's 1989 survey of attitudes to television revealed. The survey showed that two out of three people would like more nature and wildlife programmes. Broadly speaking, I regard them as being educational. I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member would argue that educational programmes must be all chalk and talk and conform to the old, narrow view of them. An educational programme can be any that stretches the imagination and opens our eyes and ears to things that are new to us.

Forty-eight out of 100 people in the IBA survey wanted to see more programmes dealing with health and medical topics, while 75 out of every 100 wanted the same or a

Column 82

greater amount of current affairs programming. There appears to be a healthy body of demand for programmes of a factual nature as opposed to those that are purely entertaining--though I do not mean for a moment to deride TV light entertainment. The new clause merely tries to ensure that Channel 5 will have a distinctive flavour and a special role, and to provide ways of achieving that.

7.15 pm

Channel 5 offers real scope for innovation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is no longer in her place, because I know that my following remarks would be of particular appeal to her. Why not a specific obligation on whoever obtains the Channel 5 licence to broadcast more programmes by and for women to challenge head-on the still too-male preserve of much of today's television? There have been improvements, but there is still far too much stereotyping. I made mention of programmes for and by women, but not exclusively so. Such a provision could give a better welcome for women writers, producers and directors in working in, and contributing to, our television system.

What about a better platform for our ethnic communities? Existing ethnic broadcasting is patchy, and there is not enough of it. There could be a proper place for ethnic scheduling in Channel 5, not only to meet the needs of ethnic communities but to enable them to communicate with the rest of us so that we may better understand their concerns and aspirations. One of the complications of the controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie's book is that most of us have little or no understanding of why it caused so much offence to Muslims in our communities. Television nowhere near properly reflects our multi-cultural society, and I suspect that under the present arrangements it is unable to do so.

The foregoing suggestions are by no means exclusive but serve to outline the shape of the new Channel 5 in more detail than is provided by the 15 lines in the Bill. Its future cannot be left simply to the highest bidder and to the ITC. Our television system has developed on the basis of sensible regulation, and has been built almost brick by brick to expand the range of viewing available and offer more real choice. New clause 12 is part of that continuing process.

My suggestions certainly reflect the last line of new clause 12, which states that the commission has a duty to ensure

"that Channel 5 has a distinctive character of its own." Left to market forces, Channel 5 runs the risk of being shapeless or of pandering to known tastes, the better to maximise audience figures for the benefit of advertisers. If Channel 5 is to work in the way that the Government say they want, it must offer programmes that are not currently available elsewhere. I hope that hon. Members will go along with the spirit of the new clause.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South) : I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend inject some argument into the debate on issues about which the Broadcasting Bill should be concerned. It was about time. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) in his place. In the last debate on broadcasting he said that, whatever else happened because of the Bill, television would get worse. Everything that has been said throughout the passage of the Bill has borne that out.

The Bill gives us an opportunity. My God, the invention of broadcasting was an immense opportunity to

Column 83

enlighten the world. We can broadcast to the whole of humanity. But the Government want to create programmes which will be left to the moneymakers. We will not have useful information or programmes that the broadcasters themselves might demand to see--we will have programes that maximise the audience.

It is not given unto man to say only what people want to hear. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred to the book by Salman Rushdie and the fact that it gives offence. There is little that is creative in the world that fails to give offence. If it does not give offence it does not move people. The same can be said of the path envisaged for Channel 5.

Mr. Corbett : The point that I was trying to make about "The Satanic Verses" is that people who are not part of an ethnic community find it difficult to understand the offence that members of those communities feel about the book. I was not pointing out merely that it had caused offence.

Mr. Buchan : I take my hon. Friends valuable point. I was not being critical. We do not sufficiently understand the nature of the offence felt by members of ethnic communities about the book. I have had discussions with such communities and I know of the depth of feeling. However, I have often felt major offence and I believe that the reply to a book which gives offence is another book. For example, consider the incident that took place in the west Highlands when the Free Kirk Moderator attacked the Catholic church two years ago, calling it the whore of Babylon and a scarlet woman, and accusing people who attacked the South African regime as attacking it merely because members of that regime are Calvanists, who take the prayer book to a cabinet meeting. A poet gave a reply : Ian Crichton-Smith, who printed one of the best verse polemics that I have ever heard. Nobody said that people should be silent.

We should use broadcasting. I should like to hear Muslims giving their views on Channel 5. I should like to see the issue properly argued and statements made about it. That is what Channel 5 could do. A proliferation of repetitive and competitive channels for the majority of people will not advance viewing for the majority. With the proliferation of channels we have an opportunity to broadcast minority programmes. Remember that when we talk about minorities in broadcasting we are referring to millions of people. A minority programme may have between 2 million and 4 million viewers. That is a massive audience. It is more than Shakespeare got for his plays in two centuries of performances on the stage. It is a marvellous weapon.

Proliferation to five channels means that there is no anxiety that what Conservative Members crudely call popular will not be televised. There will be no choice if people do not have a variety of channels. My favourite examples are wildlife programmes. No one would have predicted that wildlife programmes such as those of Sir David Attenborough would have become so popular.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington was too kind to the Government. He said that there are 15 lines describing the new channel in the Bill, but he is wrong ; there are only two. The only instructions given in the Bill are that it should.

Column 84

"make the most effective use of the frequencies on which it is to be provided."

But the most effective use for a commercial channel is that which will make the most profit. That is the only instruction.

In Australia, there are 10 channels and little competition in the type of programmes broadcast, with one interesting exception--an ethnic channel which broadcasts films in Italian, German, the languages of the Indian sub- continent and the aborigine language. In other words, the channel is used to make programmes which appeal to a large variety of people and which enhance their cultures and civilisations. That is a positive force.

The new clause does not mention educational programmes. What involvement will there be with the Open university? If there is none, why not? Is there any reason why such requirements should not be laid down? There is nothing about the extent of documentary coverage. There is nothing about educational programmes. Conservative Members seem to resent those programmes, and yet they are among the most popular.

To create a new channel with no remit other than to make profit, is intolerable. It is time that we recognised the importance of broadcasting. It is an extension of man's ability to communicate with man--and with woman --and there is no reason why such a channel should not devote more time to that. When we construct a new channel there must be more provisions. Otherwise, we might as well make candy floss and flog it on Blackpool pier.

Mr. Austin Mitchell : We have heard no arguments about how we can achieve more diversity and pluralism in our television channels. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has just said. Diversity must be the aim. If we leave the position of this free -standing channel undefined, it will inevitably be driven to broadcast programmes which are the lowest common denominator to attract mass audiences and to survive.

The new channel will be financially vulnerable. Indeed, it has all the makings of a financial disaster, given the scale of competition. We must define clearly the scope of the new channel rather let it be driven willy- nilly by market forces to duplicate the rubbish on other channels.

Each new terrestrial channel which has been created has been complementary to another major channel--for example, BBC2 was complementary to BBC 1, and Channel 4 to ITV. When Channel 4 was created I argued that the Annan recommendation, which was that it should be a free-standing publishing channel, should be rejected in favour of making it complementary to ITV. With complementary channels the viewer has a genuine choice.

In the new clause we are dealing with a free-standing channel in an intensely competitive market. The audiences are already fragmented. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said : the future lies with people getting their main television viewing from terrestrial channels and turning to cable and satellite television for specialised interests such as film, sport, politics, news--there are news addicts as well as sport addicts--or light entertainment. It is difficult to see how a free-standing channel will fit into that situation.

The Government want to let the market decide but in the media the market does not operate effectively because

Column 85

in an unregulated situation the market tends towards competition and towards driving down the level of programmes to the lowest common denominator.

The new channel will have to compete for advertising and it will have to attract advertising revenue. Horses, if fed on the same type of hay, will produce the same manure. To survive, the new channel will be driven down market.

There is a law of competition which is exemplified by the British popular press compared with the American popular press. The latter is insulated from intense competition by local monopolies and is of a higher quality than ours, which is appalling. In many respects it is the worst in the world. Compare television in Britain, which is the least worst in the world because it is regulated and does not suffer from intense competition, with American television, where one has 40 choices to view the same rubbish on different channels.

It is an achievement that we have insulated television by regulation, and by modifying competition and weakening its intensity we have managed to maintain standards. If we now thrust a fifth free-standing channel into an industry where competition is becoming more intense and without a clearly defined brief, we shall condemn it to becoming nothing more than a provider of the lowest common denominator attempting to grab the mass audience. Therefore, we need to define its brief clearly before it starts.

What attracts me about the new clause is that it requires the fifth channel to be of a distinctive character from the other four terrestrial channels. Only by such a process of definition can we ensure the provision not of more rubbish on more channels but of something unique and distinctive so that we advance pluralism and variety rather than produce more opportunities to see lowest common denominator programmes.

7.30 pm

Mr. Rowlands : I wish to make a different point about the fifth channel. I made it in Committee and I repeat it now. It is all very well for my hon. Friends to say what they would like to see on Channel 5, but people in many parts of the nation will not be able to see Channel 5. The so-called fifth national channel will be physically constrained by transmitters and and by its terrestrial nature and character. Fewer than 40 per cent. of the Principality will be able to receive the signal, so it seems academic to be debating what should be shown on it.

The Minister and others will say that there will be 70 per cent. national coverage, but because of its character and nature--and a decision has been made about the fifth channel--it is not capable of expansion except by further cabling or using satellites for the rest of the nation. It does not have the same capacity that BBC1, BBC2 and ITV have to achieve the national coverage to which we are accustomed--90 per cent. or more.

Therefore, we have every right to say not only that we have grave doubts about what might appear on the fifth national channel and about whether it will become a truly national channel. If it will not--and perhaps I am a lone voice in saying this--a totally different strategy should have been adopted. The alternative to creating a fifth national terrestrial channel which will probably be nothing more than a downbeat version of the other commercial channels reaching out to fewer parts of the United Kingdom is to use the opportunity of a fifth channel to

Column 86

create genuine regional television. Around cities one could have introduced a different diversity from that proposed by my hon. Friends. Rather than using it for a so-called major new national channel, the opportunity should have been used to produce regional and local television, thereby creating diversity. I do not necessarily give the new clause my whole-hearted support. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) talks about a Channel 5 remit without talking about how far that remit will reach. Everyone has suggested that the channel will be in some difficulty, technically and commercially. There should be a complete rethink about how we use the last available terrestrial resource to produce a different pattern of five-channel television from what has been suggested by the Government and by some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I understand that Channel 5 will reach only about 65 to 70 per cent. of the population ; people in his region and parts of Scotland will not be able to see it. That problem needs to be addressed because a new transmission system would be required to enable Channel 5 to penetrate all parts of the country, as I believe it should. As I understand the Bill, certain of our fears are met by the fact that Channel 5 will have a quality threshold.

Mr. Mellor : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a point which is easily missed. Channel 5 will have exactly the quality threshold and exceptional circumstances arrangements that will apply to Channel 3.

Mr. Banks : In fairness to the Minister, I thought that I should make that point, but one problem that we raised in Committee and no doubt will return to is that if a franchise application based on high quality is awarded the franchise by the ITC, we want to ensure that if there is any retreat from the standards that gained the franchise in the first place the ITC will be able to claw it back. That needs to be spelt out because our genuine fears would clearly be met by such a guarantee.

It is true that more does not necessarily imply difference, as we have seen in American and Australian television and other television in the world. The amendment is particularly commendable in that it tries to ensure that Channel 5 has a distinctive character. It is difficult to know precisely what role it would shape for itself, given the variety that already exists. However, Channel 4 has undoubtedly created a distinctive role in broadcasting and the amendment is seeking a similar role for Channel 5. I feel reasonably satisfied that, provided that the quality threshold argument is met in full and there is sufficient ability for the ITC to take back the franchise in the event of a franchise holder reneging on assurances given, our fears will be put into context.

Mr. Mellor : The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has been most helpful because he has touched on a vital point. All the arrangements that apply to Channel 3 apply to Channel 5, not least those which I am most proud of and committed to--the opportunity for much more rigorous enforcement of programme promises than is possible under the existing system.

Column 87

Channel 5 should be welcomed as an opportunity--not problem-free by any means--to bring relatively straightforwardly to 70 per cent. of the nation an additional terrestrial channel. Of course, 100 per cent. coverage can be obtained only by finding alternative means of transmission. Large tranches of the country cannot be covered as that would interfere with continental signals. That applies not only to Wales. I recognise that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has been entirely consistent in making that point and I am genuinely sorry that nature does not permit me to meet it.

From a commercial point of view, it is worth pointing out that quite large chunks of southern England will not be covered. Although I believe that Channel 5 will be viable, its commercial base will require some careful thought by those that put in for the franchise. We have BBC1 and BBC2 with their specific remits and we have Channel 4 with its remit to cater for minority tastes even more firmly entrenched in statute as a result of the Bill than it was before ; we have Channel 3 a notch down from public service broadcasting with a wide remit as a mass audience channel. That is not the same as a mass entertainment channel. The word almost slipped from my lips, but the House knows that I have added commitments that will ensure that Channel 3 is a great deal more than that. By that definition, Channel 5 will be a notch down from public service broadcasting, but the quality threshold will have to be met. I hope that there will be a genuine and imaginative response by the applicants for Channel 5 which will make use of the potential of an extra terrestrial channel in a new way.

Mr. Austin Mitchell rose

Mr. Mellor : The hon. Gentleman is terribly active tonight. I do not know whether he is on illegal stimulants.

Mr. Mitchell : I am active because I am concerned that the Minister has made so few concessions to sense and rationality on the Bill. The promises and predictions held out on the quality threshold will not apply in the face of financial disaster. We already have the experience of London Weekend Television and TV-am, both of which were allowed to dilute their applications. Yet they were not faced with the dire financial position that Channel 5 is likely to face.

Mr. Mellor : The hon. Gentleman betrays his absence--alas--from the Committee. I do not criticise his absence, which may have helped us to get the job done. He is wrong to think that there was little change in Committee. He would know that if he had sat in Committee instead of making a lot of money on Sky Television--which is one of the worst indictments of Sky Television. If he had heard the discussions in Committee, he would know that one source of pride in the Bill for more than just Conservative Members is the fact that as a result of what we have done in Committee we have given the Independent Television Commission far more powers than the Independent Broadcasting Authority ever had to hold people to account for their programme promises. I attach importance to that. The IBA was given a remit which included a nuclear deterrent--the right to take away a

Column 88

franchise, yet it did not have sufficient day -to-day powers, such as the power to fine. However, I was making a somewhat different point.

Mr. Maclennan : The Minister has said that many of the provisions for granting franchises for Channel 3 will apply to Channel 5, including the quality threshold. Is it intended that the published illustrative guidelines should also apply to Channel 5? That would also affect its remit.

Mr. Mellor : That is more a matter for the ITC ; it is not prescribed. We must be aware that, in the end, it is the broadcasters who will give Channel 5 a character, subject to a framework that will be properly administered by the ITC.

As I go round the country meeting different broadcasting interests, I am enormously encouraged by the interest in Channel 5, especially from one or two imaginative groups who see the opportunity of a Channel 5 franchise to broaden their ability to expand the choice on British television. I am satisfied that, if broadcasters do not take that approach, the channel will not thrive. It will not be easy to make Channel 5 successful and it will not happen by just wishing it to be so.

We want to ensure that the ITC has the greatest flexibility in maximising the potential of Channel 5. It is not a statutory requirement, but it is likely that it will advertise the Channel 5 franchise--or franchises--after it has dealt with the Channel 3 franchises to ensure that some who might have preferred a Channel 3 franchise can apply for Channel 5 if they wish. Government amendment No. 382 is important. It would permit the ITC to advertise for more than one Channel 5 franchise, if it thought that right, and to divide up the time if it thought that the channel would be better if there was more than one contractor.

A range of innovative thinking is not blocked out. I have always envisaged Channel 5 as a national channel, but that does not preclude it having local opt-outs. During my discussions with the chairman of the IBA this morning, the idea was mentioned that 50 different towns and cities could participate in Channel 5 and could have local opt-outs. Channel 5 would thus be on a local rather than a regional basis, which is an important idea. It is not precluded by the statutory framework and could be the basis of a serious submission which, on quality grounds, could carry all before it and could be the beneficiary of the arrangement on exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Rowlands : I have listened with increasing interest to the Minister. I proposed an alternative structure by which, rather than pursuing a national channel which could not reach the whole nation, we should consider a regional or city structure and create a different and imaginative fifth terrestrial channel. To what extent does the Minister support that idea?

7.45 pm

Next Section

Home Page