House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 May 1990

Column 263

region. That would allow Channel 3 to play a constructive role in Welsh national life and would make broadcasting more responsive to the needs of English-speaking Welsh people while taking its place within a bilingual nation.

In the case of the national region of Wales, a suitable range of programmes should include current affairs, documentaries, drama, adult education, sport, social action, light entertainment, and religious, arts and school programmes. Programmes from each category should be scheduled regularly at main viewing times. At least 75 per cent. of the programmes should be made within the Welsh region. That broad range of programmes is currently being produced in Wales and the legislation must allow for at least such a range. Viewers in Wales deserve to see their local concerns dealt with and their experiences reflected in the television medium. A requirement for a range of regional programmes to be shown within the main viewing hours would encourage the Channel 3 contractor to produce programmes of quality. Without such a requirement, regional programmes could be ghetto-ised to the least accessible viewing times. Unless 75 per cent. of local programming is made within Wales, I believe that there will be a significant drop in employment and in the quality of the television industry in Wales.

To sustain such a capability, a full regional production and managerial presence should be mandatory in each Channel 3 region, and particularly in national regions such as Wales. I fear that that issue has been overlooked in the Bill. It is vital that the managerial staff demonstrate a commitment to and a knowledge of Wales and of Welsh culture and issues. There are fears that, without protection, English or European owners of Channel 3 Wales would not appreciate or develop the channel's role as a monolingual service within a bilingual society.

In the event of a company applying for a Channel 3 franchise as a publisher -contractor, it is imperative that such an applicant should demonstrate that that method of contracting will not diminish the quality of the service provided. If a contractor has an integrated programme and production set-up, the monitoring of the output at every stage--from concept through production to transmission--is relatively easy, but the method of operation of a

publisher-contractor requires careful scrutiny. The company should demonstrate adequate commissioning and quality control systems, as well as a commitment to commissioning the majority of its output in Wales.

8.15 pm

I am also concerned that without a requirement for training within the ITV sector in Wales there will be an inadequate, ad hoc system, all the more damaging if the industry becomes either wholly or predominantly based on freelance workers, however excellent many of the productions in which they have been involved.

Channel 3 franchise holders are to operate a full network arrangement, but there should also be a transitional network arrangement during the bidding process. Such a networking arrangement would enable companies to have access to a range of quality programming far in excess of the programmes which it could acquire alone. Inevitably, the companies with a smaller local output--of which the Welsh contractor will be one--would be the most seriously affected by the absence of such an arrangement.

Nationwide showing of local material aids communication within Britain. Without such an arrangement, the

Column 264

concerns of regions such as Wales would be further isolated. The network commissioning body should be required to take a considerably greater number of programmes from regional companies than at present, if the regional companies wish to offer them. It is important for quality programmes made in Wales to be seen in the rest of Britain. I believe also that the initial contractor will require a period of stability in which to establish itself and to deliver the promised programme service. The ITC must be empowered to scrutinise all companies taking over licence holders. Otherwise, the quality threshold and other guidelines will be invalidated. In other words, there should be a moratorium of a minimum of three years on takeovers in the period immediately after the franchises are awarded. As well as accepting the framework that I have outlined for Channel 3 Wales, I urge the Minister to ensure that the Home Office will continue to offer S4C a safety net, should advertising revenue drop to such an extent that the 3.2 per cent. share of the net advertising revenue is insufficient for S4C to continue its current programming. As I am sure the Minister knows, S4C fulfils a unique cultural and national remit. Since its inception, a large and thriving independent television sector has developed in Wales, providing S4C with approximately 380 hours of viewing per year-- soon to increase to more than 500 hours. Its existence is affected directly by S4C's funding. To strengthen its position, I press the Minister to ensure that cable operators are required to carry public service channels and S4C on all distribution systems in Wales. Without that requirement, viewers in some areas would be deprived of their only Welsh language channel.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). It was a portmanteau of a speech, covering the gamut of issues raised in Committee and on Report. I want to argue the case which we started making in Committee. The development of S4C has produced successful and flourishing Welsh language programmes, but it is important that there are opportunities for what we describe, in inverted commas, as Anglo-Welsh writers and productions. That is the most important lesson that we have learned from S4C. Talent exists and can be developed not only in Welsh but also in Anglo -Welsh.

I should like to explain what we mean when we talk about the Anglo-Welsh language. In our different ways, we speak it ourselves. It contains the sounds, the rhythms, the tones, the experiences and the history not only of the Welsh-speaking communities in our Principality but of the Anglo-Welsh- speaking community. They are different.

Dylan Thomas is one of our most underrated poets. He wrote Anglo-Welsh poetry and combined Welsh and English in the sounds and rhythms. I shall quote to the House a typical example of his poetry :

"It was my thirtieth year to heaven

Woke to my hearing from harbour and neighbour wood

And the mussel pooled and the heron priested shore

The morning beckon.

And I rose

In the rainy autumn

And walked abroad in a shower of all my days

And I saw in the turning so clearly a child's

Forgotten mornings when he walked with his mother

Through the parables of sunlight and the legends of the green chapels. "

That could not have been written by an Englishman but only by an Anglo- Welshman.

Column 265

We are continuing in this debate the case that we started to make in Committee. We want to see in the broadcasting system which, hopefully, the Bill will create a combination of arrangements and opportunities that will allow the expression of poets, writers and social commentators. That will produce a distinctive experience that is different from that produced solely by English or Welsh speakers. It will be an Anglo-Welsh culture of its own, but part and parcel of the total culture of our society.

We are worried that, in the process of organising the broadcasting arrangements, this major dimension will not be effectively catered for. There are a number of ways in which we can cater for it, and the Government amendments provide the opportunity to do so. It can be done through the new broadcasting opportunities. It may be done by cable television, but we know how limited that will be in the Principality. In yesterday's debate, the Minister responded to the possibility of the variations that could occur on Channel 5. We might be able to take that opportunity.

We have to rest our case on the broadcasting facilities in the next decade. That will be done through BBC Wales and the commercial station HTV or its successor. That combination of existing broadcasting facilities should create a stream of Anglo-Welsh writing, broadcasting and productions in the character of Wales. That is what S4C has done. One of the most potent ways in which we can do that is by getting a greater share of the network arrangements for HTV or its successor company for the Principality plus the west.

I do not believe in breaking up the Wales Television South-West combination, because it makes up a successful, large company. It has dual management, and dual control of the whole show will produce a major shift in the balance of networking and will create extra opportunities for a Welsh national Wales and the south-west commercial company that will produce programmes and give opportunities to many talented people in the Principality. That channel would speak not only to us but would enable us to reach a greater audience. It is a two-way flow that could be improved by a major shift in the networking arrangements.

It is extremely important to send a message from the House to HTV, BBC Wales and any other company that, in the new decade of the 1990s, we expect them to develop and promote the enormous talent that exists in the communities that we represent. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd whose passionate speech I welcome and support.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : I am powerfully reminded, when listening to my two colleagues, the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), of arguments that go back over 30 years in Wales. The arguments for a fourth channel in Wales, especially in the early 1970s, were for a channel that would be additional to the others throughout the United Kingdom. That campaign went on for a decade in Wales and it was overtaken by a campaign in the rest of the United Kingdom for a very different sort of fourth channel.

Unfortunately, when the channel was given to Wales the deprivation argument continued, because that fourth channel gave Wales a great advantage--for the

Column 266

non-Welsh-speaking Welshman--a channel that did not have Welsh language programmes. That meant that such people were not deprived of English programmes that were available elsewhere.

The fourth channel also gave rise to a flowering of the Welsh language. Bringing the fourth channel in nationally gave rise to a new deprivation argument, because Wales is missing in the scheduling of other channels on the United Kingdom Channel 4. That argument was rehearsed in Committee and yesterday in the House. The need in Wales is for one channel more than exists throughout the United Kingdom. I warmed to the speeches of those who have the cadences of the Welsh language in their voices. I do not have those cadences. They come from an area of Wales where the Welsh language was recently very much alive, and the stamp and shadow of the language is in their speech. There is an energy and distinctiveness in the valley culture and Welsh culture.

I do not like the expression "Anglo-Welsh" because it is difficult to know what it means. There is certainly not an Anglo-Welsh language. Some Welshmen speak English with a great deal of clarity and force, and English is spoken rather better in the valleys of south Wales than it is spoken elsewhere.

The Welsh language is a great treasure. By any standard of European minority languages it should have died out at least 200 years ago, but we have seen the continuing miracle of its survival. People in Wales see our proceedings on television, see the strange spectacle of the programme being introduced in Welsh and hear Welsh language discussions. However, every word spoken in the House is in English, even though many hon. Members speak Welsh. If I spoke Welsh now and said, Os 'rydw i'n troi at y Gymraeg, bydd y Llefarydd yn ddweud 'dwdw i'n ddim mewn drefn y ty ; os 'rwyn parhau i siarad yn y Gymraeg, bydd y Llefarydd yn fy nhorri allan o'r ty , and continued to speak in Welsh, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order, because in the House the Welsh language has the same status as riotous behaviour.

This is the only Parliament that Wales has, and it is a shame that only one of the two beautiful languages spoken in Wales is allowed to be heard here. Perhaps the day will come when we shall see an end to that. In some Parliaments, a dozen languages are spoken, and I am sure that on some occasions we could manage to deal with two. I support what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Pontypridd. There is a vibrant and lively life in English and Welsh in Wales ; both need wider audiences and the opportunity of full expression on radio and television. Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 239, in page 11, line 30, at end insert or the whole of Scotland'.-- [Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 15

Applications for Channel 3 licences

Amendments made : No. 118, in page 11, line 38, at end insert-- (ii) if the service is to include the provision of such programmes as are mentioned in section 14(2A), the different parts of that area, or (as the case may be) the different communities living within it, for which such programmes are to be provided,'.

Column 267

No. 240, in page 11, line 45, after licence', insert

and specifying the closing date for such applications'. Amendment No. 49, in page 12, leave out lines 4 and 5. [Mr. Mellor.]

8.30 pm

Mr. Mellor : I beg to move amendment No. 653, in page 12, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert--

(2) The Commission shall, when publishing a notice under subsection (1), publish with the notice general guidance to applicants for the licence in question which contains examples of the kinds of programme whose inclusion in the service proposed by any such applicant under subsection (3)(b) would be likely to result in a finding by the Commission that the service would comply with the requirements specified in section 16(2) or (3) (as the case may be).'.

The amendment replaces subsection (2), and makes points of clarification. We want to make it clear that the illustrative guidelines are a key part of the information that the ITC will give to prospective applicants, and that they should contain examples of the type of programme they would expect to see. However, that falls short of a specification of what should be in the applications, as obviously we are not giving the ITC the scheduling powers of the IBA. I expect the IBA to make clear a point that I regularly endorse : that when weighing up an application it would expect to see the range of programming now on Channel 3, and that any applicant that fell short of producing that range could not be guaranteed to surmount the quality threshold. However, there is a line to be drawn between giving clear illustrations of the type of application that is likely to succeed, and requiring certain programme types. It is important to maintain that distinction--hence the redraft in the amendment.

Mr. Darling : I welcome the amendment, not because it meets what the Opposition were asking for in Committee but because it is beginning to move towards meeting it. The Government recognise that it will be necessary to specify the range of programmes that an applicant for a licence will be expected to provide. The Minister knows our position. We have felt all along that quality is the most important consideration and that price-- although an important consideration--comes second.

The Opposition would have preferred applicants to be required to provide a range of programmes to cater for all tastes and interests. It is welcome that there has been some movement, especially on religious broadcasting and children's programmes. However, we wanted to see that further specification inserted into the Bill. I understand that the Government cannot do that as it would undermine the basic philosophy outlined in the White Paper and on Second Reading, but the amendment goes some way to meeting the objections that were raised by Opposition Members in Committee. At least now the ITC can set out from the start the type of programmes, and the range of programmes, that it wants. Applicants will therefore be in no doubt about what they are expected to do.

However, if the ITC sets out that range and an applicant still submits an application that does not meet the suggested guidelines--and none of the applicants do--does that mean that the suggestions made by the ITC fall by the wayside, or would it be entitled to say to all the applicants that none of them has met those indicative guidelines, and therefore it will re- advertise and invite people to re-tender for the franchise? If the latter is the case I would be happy, but I would be concerned if the former

Column 268

was the case and applicants were entitled to take notice of the guidelines but were not required to do anything about it.

Mr. Mellor : That is a pertinent point. The ITC is entitled to a view about the quality that it is looking for as a minimum before it would be prepared for any applicant to receive a franchise. If it took the view that all the applicants were found wanting, it would be entitled to reject them all. The grounds on which it could do so are a matter for the ITC, but one of the grounds might be that a sufficient width of programming had not been produced. That would relate not so much to the illustrative guidelines, but to the statutory basis for them, which is not just the amendment, but the requirement for programmes that cater for a wide range of tastes and interests, which has been in the Bill from the outset. If it felt that, tested against the sensible model in its mind, nobody had reached a level where it could confidently say that the matter had been fully and properly addressed, it would be entitled to reject everyone. I hope that that will not arise, but that is the implication of a quality fence : one does not lower the fence so that someone can hop over it.

Mr. Darling : I am sure that what the Minister has said will be welcomed. It means that the Government have moved in a way that is welcome to the Opposition and many outside the House who are following these proceedings. I regard the amendment as significant. That is one reason why I felt that it should not go by on the nod. I am grateful to the Minister for tabling it.

The Opposition have made it clear how we would have proceeded, but that does not detract from the fact that the amendment will be welcomed. I hope that having raised the fence, the ITC will also write in provisions that correspond to the general guidance when framing the licence terms. At the end of the day, the test will be what the ITC does should a franchise holder fail to live up to expectations. I hope that the ITC, when it draws up the licences, will bear that in mind.

Mr. Maclennan : I welcome the amendment as it reflects accurately what I said in Committee. It is of considerable significance, which is why it is appropriate to be debated on its own. It bears considerable weight, for although it will not enable the ITC to issue specifications it can give a considerable steer. The Minister has said that it will go considerably beyond dealing with matters of programme content.

The Minister said in last night's debate that guidelines might be a way of eliciting from applicant companies their attitude to such matters as training and networking, and whether or not they intended to invest heavily in programme production within a region. This broadly drafted amendment is one of the most significant Government amendments, and should be welcomed.

The Minister was right to make specifications in respect of religious broadcasting, children's broadcasting, and educational broadcasting. However, there are clear limits to the specifying of particular types of programme that are required of Channel 3 companies, including some specifications that necessarily appear to exclude others. Through the medium of those guidelines, we can hope that the ITC will ensure that quality considerations are very much in the minds of those applying for franchises. That will allow the diversity that we hope the new Channel 3 will offer.

Column 269

Amendment agreed to .

Amendments made : No. 51, in page 12, line 18, leave out and the deposit'.

No. 52, in line 19, leave out and (ii)'.

No. 244, in line 22, at end insert--

(ba) the applicant's proposals for training or retraining persons employed or to be employed by him in order to help fit them for employment in, or in connection with, the making of programmes to be included in his proposed service ;

(bb) if the application is for a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service, a statement by the applicant as to whether, and (if so) to what extent, he proposes that any offices, studios or staff to be used or employed by him in connection with his proposed service should be located within the area for which that service would be provided ;'.

No. 245, leave out lines 29 to 34.

No. 246, in line 35, after such', insert other'.

No. 247, in line 36, leave out

in accordance with the provisions of this Part'.

No. 248, in page 12, line 40, leave out subsection (3)(b), (d) or (e)' and insert

any of paragraphs (b) to (bb), (d) and (e) of subsection (3)'. [Mr. Mellor).

Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams) : I beg to move amendment No. 485, in page 12, line 43, at end insert--

(5A) Where a person tenders an application for a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service at a time when

(i) the same person is an applicant for another such licence and has accordingly paid a deposit which is held by the Commission under this section, or

(ii) the same person tenders an application for another such licence,

the Commission shall reject each such application and shall return to him anything he tendered to accompany it under subsection (3)(a)-(e) ; and the notice published under subsection (9) shall, in relation to each such tender, state that the Commission received a tender of application by that person and under this subsection declined to accept it.

(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5B), the following persons shall be treated as the same person as another person, namely : (a) a person who controls that other person,

(b) a person who is an associate of that other person or of a person falling within paragraph (a) ; and

(5C) In subsection (5B) "associate" and "control" have the same meaning as in Schedule 2.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 486, in page 13, line 23, at end insert

save in the case of an application which the Commission has rejected under subsection (5A)'.

Mr. Steen : The amendments concern multiple bidding and the ownership of more than one franchise. This is an issue of principle, as I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate. It is that one television company should not be able to own or control more than one franchise.

I immediately declare an interest in Television South West, my local station--the only television company to have stated publicly not only that it believes that one television company should be enough, but that it will not bid for more than one franchise. It believes, as the Government believe, that there is a need to preserve

Column 270

regionalism and genuine regional channels which reflect the life of the area. TSW believes that those who work in a television channel and those who are involved in this powerful medium should be living and working in, and committed to, the area. I am glad to say that that has been the policy of TSW. All its producers and directors live and work in the region. It would like to see the Government committed to that principle. It believes that the Government, far from under-valuing it, should emphasise that commitment. The principal reason why TSW is so passionately against multiple ownership is its belief that that would dilute the regional commitment.

One regional station should be enough for anyone. This is a powerful medium, but it is more important than that. One could imagine what would happen if a rural regional station were taken over by a metropolitan station. There would be economies of scale. The metropolitan station might want to centralise such things as bookkeeping and the administration, but it could have a much more devastating effect. The first thing that would probably go would be the local flavour and local emphasis.

I have never been a particularly keen gardener, but I enjoy the nice little gardening programme broadcast in my region, in which Terry Underhill takes viewers round some of the finest gardens in the south-west. I am sure that all my hon. Friends would be delighted to see this programme. It is full of the kind of local flavour that one would want and it is about local soils and regional winds--factors about which the people in metropolitan regions will not have a clue. People living in the west country would immediately identify with such programmes. If a large metropolitan station took over my regional company, programmes such as that gardening programme would go immediately and we should end up with an urban gardening programme or one that took viewers around the country but did not concentrate on the delightful gardens with which everyone in the south-west immediately identifies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and I are both worried about how far the Government are compromising their position by allowing more than one television company. The walrus and the carpenter were upset about the oysters and cried desperately for them while eating them. One wonders whether the commitment to regional television is not rather similar. The query over the Government's commitment to regionalism can be emphasised by an analogy with the Government's policy on schools. They want more parents to be involved with and running schools and they want to give schools greater local autonomy--decentralisation rather than centralisation--but if two franchises can go to one company, one could end up with more centralisation than decentralisation. When the IBA originally granted licences, it compelled all television companies to float a single class of shares. After 10 years, TSW can boast that 30 per cent. of its shares are held by people who live or work locally.

The amendment is aimed at making television companies more like Members of Parliament. All of us have constituency interests in which we passionately believe, for which we passionately fight, and which we want to protect. If each television company has only one franchise, it will fight passionately for its region. As soon as the company extends to two large regions, that passionate commitment to each region will disappear.

Column 271

8.45 pm

The Government have gone to some lengths to curtail media power and ownership--that is interventionism of a kind--but I should like the Government to say something today about curbing too much power going to one company. One company could control two franchises that covered 20 million or 25 million people--about a third of the population--if it had both the London franchise and a rural franchise. Furthermore, any company or individual in the Common Market can buy into our companies, although we cannot buy into Greek, Spanish or German companies. Foreign companies could thus buy huge stakes in our television companies and control the programmes seen by a third of the population.

The amendment is also aimed at teasing out of the Government some reduction of the power of media companies to control more than one franchise. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, when he has heard speeches in support of the amendment, will realise that this is an important matter which has perhaps slipped through the discussions in Committee. I am glad of an opportunity to air it on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Maclennan : The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is wrong on only one point. The matter did not slip through in Committee. It was debated at great length and I moved amendments similar to the amendments before us now, which I support for broadly the same reasons as the hon. Gentleman.

Among television companies, there is some division of opinion about the virtues of this approach. There is no doubt that some of them are potential predators and would like to acquire small companies. They have used what they call the "penny farthing" argument about this--that in the more competitive world of television in which we are moving some small regions may find it more difficult to sustain themselves. I would rather amend the law subsequently if that proved to be the case than make the kind of provision that the Bill does, which will allow the takeover of regional broadcasting companies by other, perhaps metropolitan, companies which by definition cannot establish their headquarters in a smaller and more vulnerable region. They will find it easier to centralise and make economies of scale in production by concentrating their activities in one region. The possibility of one region being taken over by another undermines the genuine regional commitment in the Bill. This is clearly not an oversight by the Government, because the arguments were strongly canvassed before. It is agreeable to have the support of the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he has drummed up the troops tonight so that we can give his proposals massive support. We were rather more lonely in Committee.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) mentioned the walrus and the carpenter. I think that it is a slightly fishier story than that. It is rather like Jonah and the whale. I do not want the whale to swallow Jonah and then find that we have to amend the law when the whale refuses to spit him out.

We have Television South West--I can demonstrate equal partisanship to that of other western area Members--but an even smaller station is Border Television, and we all know what valuable programmes Border Television presents. I am fearful that, if Thames Television, a station

Column 272

in the midlands or one in Italy makes successful bids for our small stations, the local flavour that we all love will evaporate. It is difficult to foresee how a fishing programme could be presented if the company that had a major stake in the station, or owned it, was based in Saudi Arabia.

The same applies to gardening, sailing and even the inter-pub competitive games, which I suspect hinge mostly on beer consumption. Local political programmes are close to the heart of every right hon. and hon. Member. The distinctive local flavour that they offer gives us considerably more air time that we would otherwise have. Now that cross-subsidies are to continue --that surely must have been at the back of the proposed new arrangements-- is there any real reason to offer the ownership of more than one television station? I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to ponder again.

Mr. Darling : The arguments that have been advanced this evening were rehearsed in Committee. I do not intend to add to them, save to say that the Opposition support the amendments of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). The Minister has not answered satisfactorily the question about when the Independent Television Commission finds that one person is bidding for two franchises. At some stage, it will surely have to decide which bid will be favoured. I can understand that an applicant might end up winning both franchises, and that would seem to undermine the regional and almost federal structure that we are trying to establish. I say that as someone who lives in an area served by one of the smaller companies, although quite a large one. I know that people who live in the area would be disappointed and upset if they discovered that it was owned by a powerful conglomerate, for example.

As the hon. Member for South Hams said, when he referred to a gardening programme, the dilution of the regional element would be apparent if there were a communal metropolitan garden somewhere in London SW1 and different backdrops were used to make it appear that the garden was in Cornwall at one moment and in the highlands and islands of Scotland in another.

The arguments have been well made, and they do not need to be laboured. I do not expect that the Government will accept the amendment, and if it is not pressed to a Division, the issue will not be resolved tonight. I hope, however, that those in another place will give it some attention. If not, I fear that we shall find the concentration of ownership that we discussed earlier this evening creeping insidiously throughout the ITV system. If that happens, we shall end up with another national station, or perhaps one owned by two main players, rather than a regional or federal structure. That would be undesirable for broadcasting.

Mr. Mellor : The final remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) do not coincide with our vision. Indeed, the Bill specifically precludes what he fears. We are committed to the regional basis of the ITV system. I hope, believe and expect that the Independent Television Commission will, as George Russell has suggested, advertise for applicants to take up franchises as based on the present map. I hope and believe that that will be the shape of the system.

It has been my pleasure throughout the consideration of the Bill to make it clear that my convictions in favour

Column 273

of the regional base are more than rhetorical. Indeed, we have substantially strengthened the regional requirements during the Bill's progress through the House. Those who considered the Bill in Committee know that only too well. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have contributed to that progress.

We play by the rules. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) that no non-European company can own an ITV franchise. I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue when she suggested otherwise. My hon. Friend was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill.

Next Section

Home Page