House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 May 1990

Column 233

concentrations of media ownership, especially of cross-media ownership. It is logically indefensible for the Government to maintain that cross-media control is generally wrong, but that it is all right if a particular technical method of broadcasting is used. Any problems that may arise from the concentration of power over the outlets of information will not arise because of the technical mechanism by which the signal arrives in the home.

It is irrational and arbitrary to base a decision on whether the ownership of the service should be regulated solely on the frequency or power of the broadcasting equipment that is being used. By analogy, if there were a proposal to regulate the printing processes that are used by different newspapers, it would be seen as preposterous. It would be ridiculous if we had one mechanism for those using hot metal and another for those who use modern technology.

It is not sensible to draw a distinction between foreign satellite users and the DBS operator on the grounds that BSB enjoys a monopoly of the United Kingdom direct broadcast by satellite services. All the broadcasters --terrestrial stations, cable and satellites--whether domestic or non- domestic, will be competing with one another, and none will enjoy a monopoly. That is one of the benefits that the greater variety of that technology and the legislation will now provide to the British people.

The question is best looked at from the point of view of the viewer. As he sits watching television, he does not see any technical distinction between the different satellite services, or even between satellite and terrestrial services. The amendments address a serious loophole in the safeguards against excessive cross-media control. The Government have recognised the need for restrictions, but have failed to apply them equally to domestic satellite and terrestrial broadcasters and to those using foreign satellites. The amendments will give integrity to the cross-media ownership safeguards and ensure that the Bill preserves the public interest. They will provide for control only when needed, once profitability and significant market penetration have been achieved, thereby ensuring that investment can be maintained in this important and developing industry.

The Bill will mark a crossroads or a turning point for safeguards against cross-media control, but if we fail to maintain the standards that have acted effectively across all media interests until now, the principle of the safeguards will be discredited.

I urge the Minister of State to give serious further consideration to the principle underlying my amendments. Even if he is unhappy about the precise trigger point of3 million homes which I have suggested, I hope that he will look again at the principle of establishing a trigger point at which the controls over cross-media ownership will be made to apply to satellite services.

Mr. Hattersley : The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) began one of his interventions, as one would expect from a man of such conspicuous honour, with an announcement about his employment by Sky Television. He then referred to my employment by The Times . The matter is absolutely trivial and I would not raise it except for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has done so. I have not accepted work for any Murdoch paper since

Column 234

Wapping, and I do not propose to do so. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks because that is not his way. I simply correct his error and am pleased that he gave me the opportunity to clarify the matter.

Although the Opposition amendment appears earlier on the list than the one moved by the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), I was happy to give precedence to him because I suspected from his amendments--a suspicion which was confirmed by his speech--that the Opposition would be happy to support him if he wished to press his amendment to a vote. We will withdraw amendment No. 110 to give him that support, for the simple reason that the principles embodied in his amendment are the same as those embodied in ours. The basic difference between his amendment and ours is that we want some instant protection written into the Bill, and he is proposing that protection should arise at what I gladly concede is the important moment-- when a satellite station not now covered by the Bill achieves a number of viewers that makes it comparable with a Channel 3, Channel 4 or a Channel 5 broadcasting system.

Although we will vote on amendment No. 110 if there is no vote on amendments Nos. 8 and 9, we will gladly withdraw our amendment in favour of his, because it seems to us that the hon. Gentleman made two essential and undeniable points : first, the concentration of ownership is bad for democracy in this country, as democracy requires a pluralistic media system almost as much as it requires a pluralistic political system ; secondly, concentration of ownership is bad for every section of the economy.

The hon. Member for Slough was interrupted by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) who asked, I suppose rhetorically, whether he believed in the free-market system. The hon. Member for Colne Valley nods. If he is opposing amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 110, he is saying that the best way to preserve the free-market system is to encourage concentration. The hon. Gentleman may believe that, but Adam Smith did not : Adam Smith believed that Governments had to act to prevent concentration, which is what the amendments aim to do. Therefore, I offer the merits of our amendment No. 110, but repeat that I will gladly withdraw it if amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are pressed to the vote.

As with other amendments that have already been moved, the intention of amendment No. 110 is to limit concentration of media ownership. It aims to avoid increasing concentration--an aim that, if the White Paper is to be believed, is shared by the Government. Paragraph 6.48 of the White Paper was precise on that when it said : "the Government is determined that ownership in the independent sector should be, and remain, widely spread."

My only reservation about that statement is the implication that ownership of the media is widely spread now. It is not ; indeed, it is so concentrated already that I look forward to the day when a Monopolies and Mergers Commission general reference examines not simply the misuse of concentration--one company promoting a sister company, or a different company within the same ownership--but the principle of media concentration, and gives the Government of the day advice on how that concentration can be ended.

In other countries, when concentration of ownership is regarded as being against the public interest, it results in Government action to split up-- "disperse" is the phrase

Column 235

used in America--the companies that form the conglomerate. I have no doubt that that is right and necessary for the media industry in Britain. No doubt a future Labour Government would want to make such a monopolies reference.

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington) : I have been following the right hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and on an a priori basis I sympathise with it. However, can he enlighten the House further by giving some figures relating to the extent of present concentration and cross- ownership? One of his arguments is that the problem is already fairly severe.

Mr. Hattersley : I proposed to give the basic figure later, but I will give it now, and repeat it later. We all know that Mr. Rupert Murdoch owns 35 per cent. of Sunday newspaper circulation and approaching 35 per cent. of daily newspaper circulation. That is unhealthy--

Mr. Riddick : What about television?

Mr. Hattersley : I shall deal with that, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.

We also know that Mr. Murdoch owns a satellite station, and that he hopes that that station will have millions rather than hundreds of thousands of viewers. Hon. Members must decide whether that degree of concentration--for which the hon. Member for Slough is preparing with his trigger mechanism, which will be "ticked in" when the viewing population of Sky Television reaches a certain figure--is such a danger that it wants to support an immediate proposal to limit that concentration.

The Bill is right to provide that no proprietor of a local or national newspaper shall have more than a 20 per cent. share in the ownership of a Channel 3 or Channel 5 company. If we have a complaint about that, it is that it is not sufficiently rigorous in trying to separate the ownership of newspapers and television. The only intention in our amendment--and, I think, in the amendment of the hon. Member for Slough--is to try to apply that same principle to all types of television broadcasting.

The words that we seek to include in page 146 would apply that principle to all types of satellite broadcasting. It would technically apply to BSB, as it would apply to Sky Television. I want the Minister to tell the House where BSB stands on those matters, and how far it is governed by the present regulations.

If the right hon. Member for Chingford is interested in what advice I have had from BSB, I can tell him that I received a good deal of advice before the Bill's Second Reading. I also had some advice from Sky Television to correct my supposed errors. It is almost impossible to avoid advice from the young gentleman who represents Sky Television on such matters. I have talked to both interests, in both directions. These things are best discussed without suggestions of motives, or the suggestion that anyone who takes advice from anyone who knows about the industry is failing to fulfil his obligations as a Member of Parliament.

As I understand it, the reservations about limitations on ownership of newspapers and television do not, as the Bill stands, apply to BSB. However, BSB has told me, as it has told other hon. Members, that it believes that secondary legislation will apply limitations. That was

Column 236

made clear by the Minister in Committee. However, Sky Television will not have any such limitations imposed on it. Ownership of 35 per cent. of British newspapers--both Sundays and weekdays- -will not in any way prohibit or inhibit outright ownership of Sky Television. In Committee, the Minister gave four reasons why he thought that Sky Television should not be caught by that provision. He said that non-domestic satellite broadcasters would remove their uplinks to the continent, and so lose jobs in Britain. He said that Astra services could not be regulated efficiently and effectively by the Independent Television Companies Association Ltd. He said that regulations should not be used to stunt the growth of an infant company. He said that he disapproved of vendettas against Mr. Rupert Murdoch.

In an earlier debate, we discussed his second point--about whether regulation is possible. I agree with the hon. Member for Slough that if we are saying it is wrong, illegal, improper and undesirable to hold simultaneously ownership of, or a controlling interest in, two institutions, the regulation can be applied at either end of the equation by saying that companies can continue to broadcast if the European convention on transfrontier broadcasting requires it, but that that requires a person to divest himself of interest in and control of British newspapers that are his personal possessions. That is said in the United States of America and in most countries with an active, efficient and effective monopolies policy, and there is no reason why it should not apply in Britain.

I must make it clear to the Minister that we have no wish to see jobs go, and no belief that they would go if the Sky organisation were required to choose between one industry and the other. The Minister was quoted in The Guardian as saying that he did not want to pull the plug on a company that was already up and running and had cost vast amounts of money. I do not believe that the plug--in his elegant phrase--would be pulled. The operation would continue, but adjustments would be made in terms of ownership. That is what happens in other countries that apply an effective monopolies policy, and there is no reason why it should not happen here.

Too often Mr. Rupert Murdoch has come to the Government and said, "Unless you do exactly what I tell you, I shall pull out and leave the company in the wilderness and throw the men on the unemployment scrap heap." He said that about buying The Times and The Sunday Times and about buying Today. On both occasions, the Government said, "Okay, if you hold the pistol at our head, we shall do what you tell us and succumb to your threats." The threats were not real then and they are not real now.

Mr. Mellor : I am sorry if my phraseology does not pass muster with a litterateur of the sophistication of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will come to the point underlined, however infelicitously expressed. As I understand it, hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested in Sky Television, which at the moment is one of those rare businesses that spend money but do not make any. Is the basis of his proposition that there will be a queue of investors ready to pick this up, as of now, if the House were minded to insist on divestment? The right hon. Gentleman is fully entitled to say that he thinks it wrong for Rupert Murdoch to own Sky Television, but not wilfully to mislead us about the consequences of making that change.

Column 237

6.30 pm

Mr. Hattersley : The experience of other countries--Australia in particular--demonstrates two things. First, a large number of investors are ready to put money into television potential rather than immediate television returns. Secondly, television companies are like football clubs in that they hold an awe for a certain sort of person--one who, for reasons such as, dare I say it, wishing to ingratiate himself with the Prime Minister and the Government, is prepared to lose money on television so as to be a television tycoon. The idea that if we tell Mr. Murdoch that he cannot do both with the present degree of ownership Sky Television will disappear from the screens is a fantasy. The Minister should do better than that in defending his proposals.

Mr. Tebbit : The hon. Gentleman may be right, but if he is I am puzzled to know why the sponsors of BSB have had such difficulty in raising money to launch their company. There does not seem to be a queue of investors ready and able to put in money on the scale that is required and to lose money for three, four or even five years on this scale.

Mr. Hattersley : My information is that they have not had anything like the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. That is probably as accurate as what he said about me and The Times and The Sunday Times. On the other hand, I believe that BSB will prosper in spite of the restrictions placed on it, as Sky Television will prosper eventually under the Murdoch ownership or any other ownership. The idea that it would collapse without this one man owning and controlling it is a fantasy.

The Minister also suggested that our concern about this is related to, using his word, a "vendetta" against Mr. Rupert Murdoch. Let me make my position clear. I am sceptical about all newspaper proprietors. I do not like the idea of a newspaper and its policies being owned and controlled by one man, and even less do I like the idea of several newspapers and their policies being owned and controlled by one man. My concern is for concentration in general to be reduced and, wherever possible, to be avoided. Mr. Murdoch becomes the example around which I base that argument, for two reasons : first, he gets a clear advantage under the Bill ; second, the extent of his newspaper holdings.

In answer to an intervention I gave only the bare bones of the extent of Mr. Murdoch's ownership. He owns two Sunday newspapers whose circulation is about 35 per cent. of all copies sold. He owns three daily newspapers whose circulation is about 35 per cent. of all copies sold. He owns seven magazines, 20 per cent. of Pearson plc, which publishes the Financial Times, and 50 per cent. of The Economist. He has now acquired the Collins Publishing Group, with its publishing and printing interests. He is the issue because he owns so much.

Mr. Gale : Let us put that in context. There are 22 national newspapers, published by 11 companies, and more than 1,000 national daily, weekly and regional newspapers of which Mr. Murdoch owns none. Some of them are investing in BSB.

Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) : Who pays you?

Mr. Gale : I have no vested interest in this whatsoever.

Column 238

Is the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) criticising the proprietor of newspapers who sells newspapers? Is he criticising success?

Mr. Hattersley : I am not criticising the proprietor of a newspaper. It may be that any of us, given the chance, would acquire those newspapers and use them to promote a position. I am criticising the system and a Government who allow the concentration to fall into the hands of one individual. The hon. Gentleman suggests that Mr. Murdoch's position is not a dominant one. That is in defiance of all the regulations and legislation that, on other occasions, the hon. Member will support.

According to the criterion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Mr. Murdoch was in such a dominant position that he should not have acquired The Times and The Sunday Times or Today without investigation. Therefore, even before he acquired those national newspapers, he was in a dominant position as defined by the legislation governing monopolies and mergers. No moral blame attaches to Mr. Murdoch. The system that the Government have allowed to continue and intensify permits him to control a vast number of newspapers. The idea that he should be allowed to move into television is dangerous in itself but also inevitable when the provisions in the Bill allow him to do so in a way not allowed to other institutions, companies and organisations.

The Minister signified agreement when I said that, while the Bill does not specify regulations over BSB, the position of that company will be qualified and changed. We are talking about Sky Television. We have to ask anybody who disagrees with amendments Nos. 110, 8 and 9 how they can justify a system that says, as the law does, that as we are worried about concentration, particularly as it applies to Channels 1 and 3, and other national terrestrial channels, there shall be a limit on cross-ownership involving such channels, but not on cross-ownership of satellite channels and newspapers, even if--Mr. Murdoch would say when--the satellite channels have a viewing figure as great as, or equivalent to, those for BBC1 or ITV.

What is the principle in saying that it is wrong for this or that newspaper to have an interest in independent television when independent television has a viewing figure of 20 million, but it is right for Mr. Murdoch to have an interest in his satellite channel even if it achieves a viewing figure just as great as that for independent television? It is impossible to make a distinction between the two. The two things are logically incompatible. If we prevent cross-ownership in one case, logic requires us to prevent cross-ownership in the other and that is all that we are asking for. We are asking that every television company shall be restricted in its relationships with newspapers, as is the case with independent television companies and Channels 1 and 3.

I hope and believe that the proposals made both by me and the hon. Member for Slough will commend themselves not only to the House but to Mr. Rupert Murdoch. One of his great achievements and contributions to life in Britain is his invention of new words. In "Sky Update" he says :

"One of the advantages of the Bill is a level playing field. The Bill will create a more neutral field of competition by eliminating certain preferences and privileges that previously offered advantages to certain broadcasters not available to the others."

Column 239

The Bill offers to certain broadcasters advantages that are not available to the others in that it has no prohibition on cross-ownership between satellite channels and newspapers. Amendments Nos. 110, 8 and 9 provide the level playing field for which Mr. Rupert Murdoch calls. If any or all three are carried, we shall get not a reduction in services or employment, nor a vendetta against one man or one company, but a system under which, in a democracy, a concentration of newspaper ownership and television ownership is seen as fundamentally bad. We are standing out against such concentration in this temporary way until we can have a proper investigation into cross-ownership and multi-media ownership and a real distribution of power and influence.

Mr. Tebbit : I shall be brief because, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we want to make progress. I hope that he will excuse me for saying that I am disinclined to take too much of a lecture from him on the evils of the concentration of media ownership when I recollect that he is a member of a party which opposed the introduction of independent television to break the BBC monopoly. Indeed, the Labour party opposed the introduction of independent radio to break the BBC's monopoly.

Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington) : That was 20 years ago.

Mr. Tebbit : If the hon. Gentleman, who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, is saying that the Labour party has learnt something over the past 20 years, that is a good thing, but I suspect that it has not learnt very much. It seems that it has not learnt that one of the consequences of publishing a successful newspaper is that that journal acquires readers. That, however, is one of the things which is understood by Mr. Robert Maxwell. After all, the circulation of the Daily Mirror is close to that of The Sun . It is understood also by the proprietors of The Independent , which was launched in the teeth of competition from dominant owners. It now has a circulation about the same as that of The Times . We should be talking about access to the market and consumer choice rather than the concentration of ownership.

It has already been said that there is vast consumer choice on the news stands. I know that it is irritating that so many consumers happen to choose newspapers published by Mr. Murdoch, but that is one of the penalties of success. So long as there is open access, however, the problem does not seem as serious as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook pretends.

The same is true of television. If there were still only three channels, the consideration would be different--that would be so if there were only four channels--but we now have 17 channels and there are more to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) put the issue neatly when he asked the House to consider the matter from the viewer's point of view. If viewers happen to enjoy watching a television station owned by an ogre who happens to own a newspaper, that is the viewers' choice. If there are many other television stations whose programmes they could watch if they wished, is it an absolute evil that they watch those shown by the station owned by the newspaper proprietor? Is it anti-democratic to give people

Column 240

a choice and allow them to use the channels that they wish, regardless of who owns them, provided that there is adequate choice? It seems that we have never had more choice in terms of our daily press, magazines and television than we have today. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) wears an expression of distaste. He should remember just how long ago it had been since a new newspaper such as The Independent was launched. He should remember, too, that The Independent was launched by a group--not by a great press baron--which has carved out a successful newspaper in remarkable style. We are now considering the possibility of newcomers entering television in a similar way.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook chided me for suggesting that BSB had had difficulty in raising the money to launch its satellite. All right, I accept that he is correct and that it is not difficult to raise the money to start a new satellite television station. I will take his word for that, withdraw what I said and accept his argument. Let us assume that there will be many satellites in the sky. According to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it will not be difficult to find people to finance satellite television stations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said, all that we have to do is to consider these matters from the viewer's point of view. Those who are responsible for television stations must show programmes which viewers like. I do not accept that there is a problem as great as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook suggests. I know that it is unworthy of me, but I suspect that any problem might have something to do with the same events which caused the right hon. Gentleman to cease to write for Mr. Murdoch and The Times.

6.45 pm

Mr. Austin Mitchell : I declare an interest as someone who is involved in programmes twice a week for Sky Television, as the humble assistant to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I clean up the blood afterwards in the studio. I represent freedom, truth and justice. I am still not sure what the right hon. Gentleman represents. That ends the commercial break.

I am not here to defend Mr. Murdoch. He owns so many national newspapers that he does not need me to do that job. I am not here to defend Sky either. It does not need my defence because it has been an extremely successful set of channels. It is filling a need and adding variety to viewing. It is providing what I find to be a most attractive public service, a good news service. If this short debate allows me to say nothing else, I am at least able to say that. Unfortunately, I do not think that the debate will achieve much else.

I question the motives of amendments Nos. 110 and 8. It is clear that on the Opposition Benches there is an overwhelming dislike of Rupert Murdoch. That dislike is so strong that it is irrational and distorts judgment. The Australian and New Zealand Labour parties have seen the virtues of working with someone who owns powerful communication media so that they can put over their case. Here in the United Kingdom, however, the Labour party's irrationality has distorted its judgment.

Secondly, there is the Labour party's dislike of the events which took place at Wapping. In my view, that dislike is justified. Those events were monstrous, but they related to the newspaper medium. If we are still carrying

Column 241

on the argument over Wapping, it is incumbent on us all not to co-operate with or write for The Times, The Sun or other Murdoch newspapers. Instead, we should continue the struggle. It would be incumbent upon us all also to bring forward proposals that the Labour party can implement when it forms the next Government. I shall be interested to hear what proposals we have to right the wrongs of Wapping. If we do not have any, hitting out is irrelevant, and in a way that is damaging to the Labour party's case. We are talking about a powerful medium of communication and we need to put over our case on all the channels that are available to us. That is essential. As I have said, our motive is an irrational dislike, while amendment No. 8 deals with commercial rivalry. It has been admitted that amendment No. 8 springs from BSB. It is surely incumbent upon us to legislate neither for simple vindictiveness nor for commercial rivalry.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I agree with my hon. Friend that Sky News is very good. I have been willing to appear on it, when I have been asked, because it is a platform. It is surely important that we should seek out platforms. My hon. Friend does his own side a grave injustice, however, when he suggests that the Labour party's approach is part of a Murdoch vendetta. I do not like the man, and I have no reason to like him, but we are talking about cross-media ownership and concentration of power. If my hon. Friend misses that point, he should sit down and not bother to continue.

Mr. Mitchell : I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I remind him that I am standing on my side of the Chamber, that the Labour party is my party, and that I am advancing my case. I shall take up the substance of my hon. Friend's argument when I have advanced a little further in my speech.

Do not mistake the side on whose behalf I am speaking. I am speaking on the side of the Labour party and in support of communicating my party's ideals, policies and ambitions to the wider electorate. I suggest that the Labour party's irrational dislike--this applies to both amendments--distorts judgment. If the aim is to restrict monopolistic ownership and overlapping cross-ownership, irrational dislike is not the right approach. That is not the sensible way to approach these issues. We are lashing out without having made any rational calculation of how to achieve our objectives. That is about as sensible as using an incinerator to improve standards on The Sun.

Sky Television is here. We are not legislating for something that is to come, like Channel 5. Sky is a fait accompli, and a successful one. I hope that those of my colleagues who are involved in programmes for BSB will be successful and will not face some of the consequences that have had to be borne by those who have been involved with Sky Television. I hope that they will work for a channel that is a success story. Sky Television is interesting and it is successful, and the Labour party should not be opposed to pluralism. Viewers want it. It increases choice and diversity, and it is good in itself.

What we should be doing, and what our opposition to this Bill attempts to do, is to defend the basis of viewing--the duopoly that has provided such high quality throughout the years. That should be our aim--not to outlaw pluralism, which is what my party is seeking to do.

Column 242

The service is there ; it is on Astra. Rupert Murdoch saw an opportunity, as an entrepreneur would, and took it. I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) : if there is so much money around, why did no one else do that? Why was it left to Murdoch? Where were all the British entrepreneurs rushing forward wanting to spend £2 million to £3 million a week in losses?

An entrepreneur like Murdoch does not need the permission of the Labour party to set up his station. Indeed, he does not really need the permission of the Government, other than that it is on cable. The station has given an undertaking to abide by the same rules of impartiality and standards as the terrestrial channels. I am as inclined to trust that as to trust the impartiality of a news service provided by the Daily Mail on BSB. The station is there and it is no use sulking about it. Initially, I dreaded it. I thought that it would debase standards. It has not done so, partly because standards on the terrestrial channels are so high. It has not been the disaster that I thought it would be ; on the contrary, it has been very successful. It will have to continue to be if it is to pay off its enormous debt and sustain employment. It will need a period of profit to be viable.

With Sky facing that decision, what should we do through this legislation? Should we be vindictive, as the amendments are? Should we say, "Let us get at Murdoch"? Should we sulk and try to get our own back for the wrongs of Wapping--kick it or close it? Or should we try to deal with it in a way that will sustain a business that adds variety to people's viewing, that provides jobs, and that provides diversity and competition in news services? That is what it should be about.

The amendments would effectively close the station. The Opposition's amendment No. 110 says that he must divest now, which effectively means its collapse. No one will rush forward to sustain losses of £2 million a week. Amendment No. 8 is a time bomb--divest at some future stage, to be determined by BSB the commercial competitor. That is what is so monstrous about that amendment. There is no point in getting at Rupert Murdoch by endangering 1,000 jobs and four or five new channels. It would be daft to do that. The station will eventually be successful. As the principle of the Labour party's policy review is, "For heaven's sake, don't frighten anybody", why are we rushing in with such draconian penalties for one medium, one channel, one television system and one person? It does not make sense to do that. We are just saying, "Boo."

There is a case for stopping cross-ownership. That is a basic principle of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North West (Mr. Banks) should not accuse me of selling out. I want to achieve the case in a sensible, coherent way, not by simple vindictiveness. That was our approach to Channel 3, the ITV companies, and it is sensible to sustain that approach. We cannot achieve that by the suicide method, by immediate destruction. We must allow the ITC, at its discretion, at a time when it will not be disruptive to employment, at a time when it will sustain the variety for viewers, to take that decision. If we were serious about the legislation, if we were serious about its objectives, we would do it in that way and not through the two amendments, which are silly gestures that will achieve nothing. We must first take a decision on "whether" and then decide the how and the when. If we do not do it that way, we are not being serious.

Column 243

We would be indulging in gesture politics-- schoolground politics--"Yaboo, sucks to Murdoch, we are going to get you." Frankly, that is a game I do not want to play.

Mr. Aitken : The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made a courageous speech. It certainly illustrated the difficulties in which he sometimes finds himself within his party. His at least was a speech which looked forward. He understands what television in the 1990s is all about. The speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) showed that he understood only what the newspapers of the 1920s were all about. His was a curiously old-fashioned speech, although it contained all the contemporary characters. It was full of Murdoch-bashing. I had a touch of sympathy with some of the right hon. Gentleman's comments because I, too, have been a Murdoch-basher. The House may recall that, almost alone on the Conservative Benches, I opposed Mr. Murdoch's takeover of the Sunday Times and The Times when some of those who appear to be supporting the amendments today--which will restrict ownership of television stations--were curiously silent. The defects in the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the way in which it applied to the concentration of newspapers which then existed were far more relevant to what was happening then than the amendments are to what is happening today.

As I listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) on amendment No. 8, I recalled John Betjeman's famous line :

"Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough."

That is what should happen to my hon. Friend's amendment, which attacks an imaginary monopoly that does not and is not likely to exist. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook harked back to yesteryear--an era when dominant newspaper proprietors issued edicts to their editors such as "Praise this man" or "Attack that political party" and their edicts were carried out. That does not happen in the modern, pluralistic world of television. It hardly exists even in newspapers, although they still retain some vestiges of that old-fashioned control because editors can spike stories, print leaders and write whatever headlines they like. There is a great myth about proprietorial control in television.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook attacked Mr. Murdoch largely on his newspaper interests. Mr. Murdoch has been given a bum rap by Opposition Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. Mr. Murdoch--whose unqualified admirer I am not--is a media mogul whose virtues outweigh his imaginary vices as a media monster. He has done a great deal of good for the British newspaper industry by creating a new climate of opportunity. He has been a brave investor, investing more than £500 million in the print industry. He has liberated the entire national newspaper industry from the fetters imposed on it by the print unions and the quicksands of soft management. Other newspapers do not like admitting it, but it was only because Mr. Murdoch blazed the trail in changing the labour structure and labour costs of the newspaper industry that it was possible for newspapers such as The Independent to be born and for a whole range of newspapers to become profitable and viable once again. There is now a whole new range of printing practices, including colour printing. On the whole, the good that Mr. Murdoch has done for the

Column 244

newspaper industry is much greater than the harm that he has done with the bad standards that he has allowed to creep into his tabloid newspapers.

On the newspaper argument alone, the contention that Mr. Murdoch is a dangerous animal with too much power concentrated in his hands is obsolete. The argument of obsolescence becomes much greater with regard to what is happening in television. We are now entering an era of evolution almost equivalent to the printing revolution in the time of John Caxton several centuries ago. A completely new scene is emerging. One has only to stop for a moment to realise that by the time the Bill becomes law there will be 41 television channels available in this country, of which Mr. Murdoch will own four.

Mr. Hattersley : I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, as one always says on these occasions, but will he take it a step further? If he believes that concentration of ownership no longer matters-- partly because newspaper owners no longer give instructions to editors and partly, as I suppose that he may say in a moment, because technology in newspapers and television means that new industries develop and new companies come into the market--does he believe in any restriction at all? Does the 20 per cent. rule embodied in the Bill have any validity for independent television channels--for instance, for Channel 3? Does it make any sense? The hon. Gentleman's stance is logical only if he says that he wants no restrictions at all. Will he explain why he seems to support restrictions in general, but not restrictions on Mr. Murdoch? 7 pm

Mr. Aitken : The age of the regulator in television is passing. In a few years' time the Bill will look old fashioned. The restriction to 20 per cent. ownership--although it placates the political community, which needs to reassure the public--will seem unnecessary and foolish in a few years' time.

Just as there has been an expansion of diversity and plurality in newwspapers, so there is a greater expansion of diversity in the world of television. If Mr. Murdoch owns only four of the 41 channels which will exist by the end of the year, that cannot be said to be a dangerous concentration. He has taken on four channels with tremendous financial risk. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby who said that to attack Mr. Murdoch for what he has done is to attack the essence of pluralism and diversity.

There is a myth about proprietorial control in television. I have some experience of television and I do not believe that the proprietor of a television station will be able to sit in his castle, counting his doubloons, with his fingertips on the levers of power and get results. In reality, a modern television station is a honeycomb of power cells that one cannot control. When I was briefly a chief executive with power over a television station in this country I found that it was absolutely impossible to control the 500 journalists, every one of whom was a prima donna, or the five famous presenters who were more trouble than the 500 journalists, or the whole regiment of temperamental graphic artists and producers. Even the unions--usually a bastion of conservatism in television stations--for the technical staff and journalists, were wild gazelles out of control. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who I see is in

Column 245

her place, was shop steward of the journalists' union at TV-am. She was scarcely susceptible to control, and nor were old uncle Rowland rat and all--none of them could be controlled.

If Mr. Murdoch is better at controlling my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) or the hon. Member for Great Grimsby than I was at controlling the gale re at TV-am, he may be a better man than I. The idea that such old-fashioned, 19th-century political control exists is a virtual myth and an impossibility. Yet Mr. Murdoch's enemies believe that it will still exist in television companies in future. That is all nonsense.

The only argument made by the deputy Leader of the Opposition with which I have some sympathy was in relation to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That safeguard still exists. It can always be called into play by any Government against any commercial organisation in this country. I do not think that Mr. Murdoch, or any other television mogul, has anything to fear from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because of the expanding diversity of television in this country.

On the ground that Mr. Murdoch has four channels out of 41, the argument about political control looks like nonsense. Therefore, the amendment is misplaced and, despite some reservations that we all feel about Mr. Murdoch, it is wrong and I hope that we shall vote it down.

Mr. Tony Banks : The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) took us back to TV-am and he said that things have moved on since then. They have not moved on. He referred to one of his former employees with whom he had had some difficulties. Clearly the situation remains the same--the bosses are over there on the Conservative Benches and the workers are over here.

I say to the hon. Member for Thanet, South and to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that this is not an argument about Rupert Murdoch. I have no brief for Rupert Murdoch. As I said in an intervention, Sky News is very good and I wish it well. In many ways, it is a professional set-up staffed by some ex-BBC employees whom I knew previously and who are first-rate workers. They make a good product.

The debate is about the concentration of media power. That is what this part of the Bill is all about and that is what the amendments try to prevent. Obviously there will be some arguments about when we do it, but clearly there is a feeling that yet again there will be concentrations of power in an area where there is potential for abuse. We know that broadcasting, and television broadcasting in particular, is the most powerful communications medium in the country. Hon. Members must express concern and interest about how the ownership of such a powerful medium is used.

In our society, whoever controls the channels of communication has real power. One does not need power from guns, bullets and tanks in our society. In many ways real power comes from the control of the channels of communication. We must be wary that there is no great concentration of ownership in the channels of communication because there is always the potential for power abuse.

From experiences overseas we know what happens if there is a coup. The first thing that they rush to get hold

Column 246

of is the radio and television station. They know that the person who controls the channels of communication has real power. Market forces cannot be allowed free rein in such a sensitive area. In theory, it may be very well to suggest that we are all able to print newspapers and open television or radio stations, but in reality we know that that freedom does not exist on an equal basis and so it is nonsense to suggest it.

There is far too much concentration of ownership in the media in this country already. I no more like Mr. Robert Maxwell's approach to the media than I like Mr. Rupert Murdoch's. I do not want to see millionaire moguls strutting around with so much of the power in our society concentrated in their hands.

I shall quote from statistics which appeared in some Labour research earlier this year which makes it quite clear that : "seven national newspaper owners have widespread media interests Rupert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell, Tiny' Rowland, Lord Stevens, Viscount Rothermere, Viscount Blakenham and the Scott Trust which owns The Guardian."

The report particularly highlights the position of Mr. Rupert Murdoch and Mr. Robert Maxwell.

I do not come with a brief from British Satellite Broadcasting, although I have done some work for it. I am an occasional presenter of an excellent programme produced by BSB called, "Left, Right and Centre".

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : We know now.

Mr. Banks : I shall bear that stricture in mind. I wish that the programme was seen by more than half a dozen people, but I am sure that the quality arguments will eventually emerge. However, we are not treating BSB and Sky Television in an even-handed fashion. News International UK's newspaper and other publishing interests and its control of Sky Television are in direct conflict with the standards of cross-media ownership applied, in the public interest, to other media groups, including the equally fledgling British Satellite Broadcasting.

The Government have defended what we consider to be an inconsistent approach by arguing that the public interest inherent in Sky Television's role in opening up broadcasting outweighs the public interest in preventing over-concentrations of influence. That is nonsense. The Bill, which has been even handed in other respects, has been drafted in such a way as to exclude Sky Television and Rupert Murdoch from regulations that apply to other stations, including BSB. It is not the case that the Labour party wants to take some revenge on Rupert Murdoch for what happened at Wapping. We have no reason to love the man, but we are far more concerned about the concentration of the media in his hands and in the hands of people such as Robert Maxwell.

Therefore, it is necessary for the Government to be aware that such concentrations are unhealthy in our society. Even if they do not like the amendmens, they must be prepared to introduce provisions that ensure that there is no development of concentration that would undermine the democracy for which we all stand.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : Those of us who served on the Committee considering the Bill have witnessed an interesting metamorphosis within the Labour party. At first, whenever Sky Television was mentioned,

Next Section

Home Page