| Previous Section | Home Page |
Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar) : Is the Leader of the House aware that a large number of parents, children and teachers from Tower Hamlets came to Parliament today to protest about the lack of hundreds of school places? Will he call an early debate to consider the position of education authorities which fail to carry out their duty to provide sufficient school places under section 8 of the Education Act 1944 and to consider Lord Justice Woolf's recent decision that that duty is not absolute, and the implications of that for children throughout the country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The duty has been defined in that way since 1944. Of course, it is subject to the rulings of the court from time to time. I shall bring the hon. Lady's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend give serious consideration to the possibility of a debate on Rover's takeover by British Aerospace? That would give the Opposition the opportunity to tell the House why they have had such a sudden change of mind on that issue. Is not it true that, in 1986, the Opposition bitterly criticised the Government when they tried to sell Rover to the highest bidder--Ford or General Motors? Are not they now complaining because we have not sold Rover to the highest bidder? Perhaps we have underestimated the extent to which the Opposition have converted to free market forces.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I do not think that we should be too optimistic about the Opposition's conversion to any set of consistent policies. They appear to be dominated by opportunism from beginning to end.
Mr. Tom Pendry (Stalybridge and Hyde) : Will the Leader of the House, as the custodian of our interests, help the whole House by investigating the problem of answers--or non-answers--from Ministers? Talking to other hon. Members has shown me that it is a common problem. We are receiving non-answers to our questions, and the standard of reply is declining. Will the Leader of the House consider that problem, for the sake of us all?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I do not detect any general feeling that there has been any significant variation in the
Column 407
standard of answers for many years. This Government certainly endeavour to provide the best possible information, consistent with the remainder of their duties.Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : Can we have a debate next week that would allow us to consider the Labour party's record when it was in control of the London borough of Ealing? We could then examine the revelations in today's Daily Mail and other newspapers, and I could express the concerns of my constituents. Some 14 of the 17 new councillors elected were Conservative gains across the borough of Ealing. We want to know why the Leader of the Opposition has consistently said that the Labour- controlled Ealing council gave value for money and was a good council, when it appears to have been guilty of serious maladministration. The people of Ealing wholeheartedly rejected the council's Labour members.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I congratulate my hon. Friend on yet again having drawn attention to the misdeeds of the Labour party in the borough of Ealing. I am glad to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on being a beneficiary of the efficient electoral decision by the people of Ealing.
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : May I reinforce the plea of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for a debate on Health Service provision in Leicestershire and the deterioration in the services that Leicestershire people receive? It is an all-party matter. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are enraged about their treatment, and not least about the cavalier way in which we were received by the Secretary of State for Health, who refused to reconsider the matter and who clearly had a closed mind. As the editorial in the Leicester Mercury said last week, the Government should take action. All parties are demanding that they do so.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am not very well impressed by the style and manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to support the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). I have already told the House that there has been a significant increase in the total resources available to that health authority. I shall bring the point, in its more precise form, to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider arranging a debate on the spread of satanism and devil worship in the United Kingdom and the involvement of children? [Interruption.] I well remember the reaction in the House 10 years ago, when I warned of the spread of child abuse. I was greeted with disbelief, but we now know differently. Two years ago, I warned of the spread of devil worship, satanism and black witchcraft-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Dickens : We now know that that is true because of the NSPCC report. Such a debate would help me to identify others in this House who are willing to stand up to those people. In all honesty, I think that the House of Commons is weak on this subject.
Column 408
Mr. Skinner : There is the first suspect--Mr. Speaker, who wears a wig and is all in black.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : In view of my hon. Friend's self-proclamation of his powers of prophecy in respect of these matters, it would not be wise of me to dismiss altogether the warnings that he utters about devilish- sounding things in the form of satanism, devil worship and black witchcraft, but I cannot promise an immediate debate on the matter.
Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : I assure the Leader of the House that these days the only people who crucify one are those on the Labour party's NEC, and I speak from personal experience. More important at this stage, may I voice my support for the demand that we have a special debate to discuss the middle east hostages question? Such a debate would be important for the House, for the families of those concerned and as a matter of principle. Or is the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the British Government still committed to a pro-Israeli policy, remembering that that country is responsible for a lot of the trouble in the area and for much of the terrorism?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am not sure that I should accept with alacrity advice from the hon. Gentleman about the hostages question. I assure him-- the House must surely be in no doubt about this--that we are all continuously, seriously and desperately concerned about our hostages. Certainly the Government are.
To answer the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, I get the impression that he is complaining about the continued application in his party of red witchcraft. That must be a matter for him and his party to sort out.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : Did the Leader of the House hear the endorsement that the Prime Minister gave to the Secretary of State for Scotland? Did it remind him of what she said about other Cabinet Ministers just before she sacked them? In view of that, will the deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) will be dealing with Scottish business in the House as Secretary of State next week and for the remainder of this Parliament?
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : Yes, next week and next year and the year after that.
Mr. Foulkes : The alternative being suggested--who is not the gabbler on the Government Front Bench below the Gangway--by certain Scottish Tory Members is causing alarm throughout Scotland.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I can reply even more confidently. I am confident that my right hon. and learned Friend will be continuing to serve the people of Scotland and of the United Kingdom in a ministerial capacity for many years to come, well beyond 1992.
Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley) : I, too, was disappointed at the reply that the Leader of the House gave to the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) about National Health Service funding. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many health authorities are suffering from underfunding? Many early-day motions are
Column 409
pointing that out, including one applying to Sheffield, which refers to underfunding for mental health. It would benefit Members in all parts of the House to be given time to express our fears and worries about the whole business of underfunding in the NHS.Sir Geoffrey Howe : The total resources available to the NHS throughout the country as a whole during Conservative control have grown by more than 40 per cent. in real terms. If Opposition Members wish to debate the matter more specifically, they can raise it on one of their own days.
Column 410
Imperial Tobacco Factory, Bristol
4.18 pm
Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The shock announcement at noon today of the closure of the Imperial Tobacco factory in Brisol, South with the loss of 696 jobs."
The announcement, which is the direct trading of jobs for land speculation in Bristol, stunned the work force and Bristol. The matter is important because Bristol, South is an area of long-term high unemployment. The work force are isolated because of poor, inefficient public transport. When the factory was built in 1970, the then W.D. and H.O. Wills promised us that, with the revolutionary design of its factory, it could convert production from tobacco to confectionery in a week.
Hanson plc, which owns Imperial Tobacco, is a vast and wealthy corporation and could have afforded alternative production. W.D. and H.O. Wills, Imperial and Hanson have historic links with Bristol and have made their fortunes on the back of the Bristol work force. The closure has been announced as a result of the closures in the run-up to 1992. The Bristol work force will be unemployed, not because it lacks skills but because the company is too greedy to diversify.
I ask for an emergency debate because this important matter has implications for Bristol and for our manufacturing base. The Hanson corporation which advertises its international success, has brought unemployment to Bristol. For Bristol, 1992 means unemployment, and that is a matter which we should discuss.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The announcement at noon today of the closure of the Imperial Tobacco factory at Bristol with the loss of 696 jobs."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Lady has to say about the matter, but, as she knows, the decision that I have to take is whether to give her application precedence over the business set down for today or Monday. I regret that in this case the matter that she has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit her application to the House.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Mr. Speaker : With permission, I shall put together the three questions on the motions relating to European Community documents. Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 4699/90 and 4779/90, relating to health conditions for the production and marketing of live bivalve molluscs and of fishery products, and 4783/90, relating to animal health conditions for the marketing of aquaculture animals and products be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 4796/90, relating to animal health requirements for marketing certain animals and products of animal origin be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
Column 411
That European Community Documents Nos. 4799/90 and 5598/90, relating to health rules for the production and marketing of milk and milk products be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.-- [Mr. Patnick.]Column 412
Orders of the Day
Broadcasting Bill
Order for Third Reading read.
4.17 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We now reach a major milestone in the Bill's progress. After its consideration on Report during the past two days, with more than 17 hours of debate on the Floor of the House without any guillotine, we arrive at Third Reading.
I begin by expressing my appreciation to those who served on the Standing Committee which had 38 sittings and considered every line of the Bill which now runs to well in excess of 170 clauses and 12 schedules. I hope that I speak for all those who participated in Committee and on Report when I say that I hope that no one will feel that that was time misspent.
I have had the privilege of taking part in the Committee and Report stages of a number of major Bills, not least, in the previous Session, the Children Bill. I have always believed that Parliament has a role to play in the consideration of every Bill, which is not an optional extra in the process of government or some kind of tedious and necessary excursion to fill in time between the Government conceiving an idea and carrying it through, but a vital part of the process of ensuring that legislation has a fair chance of being coherent and convincing in its detail and hopefully fairly broadly acceptable in its principle.
I said at the outset of Parliament's consideration of the Bill that I did not believe that a measure had ever been brought before the House that could not be improved in Committee. I would genuinely like to thank all those who took part in Committee ; and the fact that we ended up yesterday and the day before with more than 700 amendments and new clauses--more than 500 of them Government
amendments--reflecting our discussions in Committee, is a sign not of the weakness of the process but of its strength.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends who participated in the Committee for the loyal support that they extended to me, and the tremendous effort that they put in. They each made their contributions : this was certainly not a Bill in which one was backed up by a group of silent hon. Members--far from it. I would not have wished it to be so. My colleagues rightly spoke out. I was grateful to them for giving me the benefit of their advice and assistance, and for their help in our meetings associated with, but held outside, the Committee on some of the vexed issues.
As a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) constantly reminded us of the amount of work that Parliament--through that distinguished Select Committee--had already put into the Bill. He spoke in an exceptionally well-informed way, which reflected his commitment to the measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) comes to the House after a career in broadcasting. He too showed a remarkable grasp of the issues, and a willingness to put forward his view--never in an overweening way, and never seeking to use his experience
Column 413
to crush those of us who had not had the opportunity of working within the industry. He was always a tower of strength.My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is another hon. Member who comes to the House having worked on the technical side of the broadcasting industry. I thank him for the benefit of his experience, and for his work in highlighting, along with other hon. Members--notably the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)--the problems of the deaf. If every Minister were as well served by such loyal and devoted colleagues as I was in Committee, we would all have reason to be pleased.
I want to make it clear, however, that it would have been impossible for the Committee to do its work without a full-hearted willingness to participate on the part of Opposition Members. I hope that I assisted that process by making it clear that I was not in the business of rejecting people's opinions just because they sat on a different side of the Committee. To the best of my abilities, I said, I would endeavour to weigh the arguments, and, if I was persuaded of the need for change, I would either make that change immediately--if I had discretion to do so--or advocate change to my colleagues. I have served on a number of Committees with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). He knows that I have the greatest admiration and respect for him as a parliamentarian who never allows narrow partisanship to come in the way of sensible debate and good progress. It is a sign not of weakness but of strength that Opposition Members are prepared to debate the measure seriously, rather than try to make partisan capital out of it. I have always felt that the weakness of the parliamentary system is never more exposed than when Committee stages are simply used as a mechanism for delay, unaligned with any serious attempt to join issue on the merits of the case.
All three Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen won the admiration of all Conservative Members for the manner in which they put their points.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : What about my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)?
Mr. Mellor : I am coming to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). There was not one Committee member who did not play a full part in the debate. On Report I said--and I am happy to repeat it--that the hon. Member for Bradford, South has strong opinions, and obviously would not expect me to agree with all or even most of them. I said on Second Reading, however, that I respected his skill as a parliamentarian, especially on technical matters. I respected too the experience he had gleaned from his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. On Second Reading I gave him a commitment that I would study the Bill closely to see whether the arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny were adequate. I concluded in a number of instances that they were not and I have made changes. That was thanks to the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
I understand that the Opposition and minority parties would not have introduced the Bill that we introduced. I do not seek to make party capital out of thanking them for the efforts they have made. That having been said and having been understood between us, a full-hearted attempt
Column 414
was made to join issue and to recognise that, whether people like it or not, the legislation is likely to be around for a considerable time. If it can be improved, it should be. If it can have a broader consensus behind it, that is good, because broadcasting is fundamental to a free society and should never become a narrow partisan matter.Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South) : It has been made one.
Mr. Mellor : I do not believe that it has ; certainly I do not see it as being partisan in the position in which we are today. I was able to accept a substantial number of the points raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I was only too willing to profit from his experience as a Minister and a lawyer. I hope he feels that he has made a substantial contribution to the Bill.
It was a happy chance for all of us that the passage of the Bill coincided with the televising of Parliament and with what I believe has been an altogether beneficial renewed interest by the media, and then by the public, in the workings of Parliament. It was all to the good that the parliamentary Committee that was most the subject of media attention during recent months was the Committee on this Bill. No one who participated in Committee need feel ashamed of Parliament being displayed through the Committee to those interested in watching. One could face one's constituents and say that what we had done was a necessary part of the proceedings and was not a waste of time. Our debates in Committee were not like those which we have from time to time which can bring Parliament into disrepute because we seem to be more like members of a school debating society than of a forum discussing serious legislation. I am glad to have had a part to play in it all. I want to express my warm admiration for all who helped in the process.
It may be worth pointing out the practical effects of the parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. I shall enumerate briefly some of the points which arose in Committee and which the House endorsed on Report.
There has been a thickening of the quality threshold for Channels 3 and 5 by the addition of the requirements for children's and religious programming and for high quality regional news, and of the power for the ITC to publish an illustrative specification of the elements of programming which it would expect to see in a diverse programme service. The quality threshold was always a serious and substantial concept. It has become even more substantial as a result of the changes which we have made.
As a key part of that, I point to the enhancement of the regional content of Channel 3 services, including the introduction statutorily of the concept of dual regions, with the distinct regional programming which the statute now requires, the power for the ITC to require applicants to specify what regional resources and facilities they plan to use, and the requirement that Scotland should not be a single franchise area. These, and more, show that all of us, whatever reservations we may have from time to time about the way the system performs, strongly endorse, and believe that our constituents warmly support, the idea of a regionally-based Channel 3. That regional base has never been more firmly enshrined in statute than it is now, as a result of our work.
Perhaps more important for many people, the amendments to the exceptional circumstances provision
Column 415
now make clear beyond peradventure--to use that tedious legal phrase--that exceptionally high quality can displace the highest money bid. I hope that the overt striking of a fair balance between quality and price has been one of the major achievements of the Committee. We have recognised also the importance of training, through an amendment that allows the ITC to require applicants for Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences to state what training provision they intend to make to sustain their programming plans.I turn to describe briefly some of the changes made in respect of radio. I had the opportunity of telling the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland yesterday that, although I believe that most public attention has been focused on television, it is a significant Bill for radio--and radio is a most significant part of this country's media scene.
I am particularly glad that we have made changes to the remits of the three new national commercial radio stations, to ensure a genuine enhancement of listener choice. Obviously, we cannot guarantee that merely what we do here will guarantee three effective commercial national radio stations--that will depend on the ingenuity of the franchise applicants, and on their willingness and ability to create a loyal listenership. However, we are well on the way to achieving that objective, and we have built the right framework.
Constituents coming to my advice centre ask me, as I imagine they ask other right hon. and hon. Members, "What is the point in our saying anything about broadcasting, because they"--meaning some far-distant power structure --"will determine the issue." I make no bones about it--I did not appreciate at the outset how much popular support there is for the public teletext service. That is because I myself am not a regular user of it. I admit to being deeply impressed by the range of topics carried on teletext, and, interestingly--and I do not say this to knock the BBC, of which I am a firm supporter--by how much wider is the choice on Oracle than on Ceefax. That is an interesting reflection of how good the commecial sector can be when it really gets going. The flood of letters and representations from all sectors of the community is a sign of the importance attached to an Oracle-type service. It is an indication of the strength of our parliamentary system, not of its weakness, that such expressions of public will are not then rejected but bring a changed decision. That is what living in a sophisticated democracy is all about. It is the duty of Members of Parliament, as well as a pleasure and a privilege, to make clear to Ministers through forums such as the Committee the strength of public feeling. A number of right hon. and hon. Members did so in that forum, as well as in their private correspondence. It is the pleasure, if not the duty, of Ministers then to reconsider--and if they come to see things in a different light, not to be afraid to make changes. That was certainly true in relation to various other issues. I was glad to hack out some of the police powers that had been put in the Bill. That was done not with any malicious intent but as part of the inevitable scissors-and-paste work that goes into a consolidation measure, when one has to take out of an old statute pre-existing powers and fit them into a new Bill. Quite obviously, the original police powers
Column 416
struck many people as excessive. Fair enough. That point was effectively made--and was, I hope, effectively answered by action. I have already referred to the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West. I should mention also my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), in relation to television subtitling services for the deaf. They were the subject of a highly effective campaign by the Deaf Broadcasting Association which had the support of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and which gave the House an opportunity to consider the merits of the case and to set a far more challenging framework for progress by broadcasting authorities in that regard than otherwise would have been possible. I could go on but I shall not.Parliament has had a useful and worthwhile opportunity for scrutiny which has led to significant changes in the Bill. Other work still remains to be done and is carried over into the other place. We still need to put the finishing touches to the new arrangements for religious broadcasting, and I feel particularly grateful for the sensible way that colleagues have approached the subject. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has been helpful.
At a time when there is an unprecedented expansion in broadcasting opportunities, nobody wants to preclude decent, sensible, mainstream religious organisations from playing a part, but we do not want to open a door through which cults will come which are ever eager and have plenty of resources--
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Satanism and devil worship.
Mr. Mellor : I shall resist adding to the debate on Satan worshippers, much as it would intrigue me to do so.
There are also problems with unscrupulous television evangelists in the United States who we do not want to see here. Certainly people such as Billy Graham are responsible, but others have besmirched the principles of religion. One must consider the exploitive power of the media when coupled to unscrupulous messages. We are striking a balance which will permit the former, responsible people while keeping out the latter.
There are many other sorts of activity--for example, cable and subscription piracy--where there is a lot more work to be done in the other place.
I do not want to outstay my welcome, but I shall add a few more words. First, the Bill reflects a tremendous amount of public consultation which took place long before it came into being--for example, the Green Paper on radio and the White Paper on the Government's proposals.
Mr. Buchan : And thanks to the Peacock report?
Mr. Mellor : And the Peacock report, as the hon. Gentleman points out. Even if the principal recommendations of a report are not accepted, it is significant because of the extent to which it focuses attention on the issue. When there are a set of robust conclusions the report forces either an agreement or a requirement to establish a separate set of opinions, if one wishes to take issue with it. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the Foreign Secretary, under whom I served as the Minister responsible for
Column 417
broadcasting prior to the last election, and to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary who did so much to prepare the Bill. Whether one likes every part of the Bill, there has never been a Bill which has been so carefully considered and prepared after such extensive public consultation.In no sense is the Bill a gratuitous addition to the body of statute. It would have been remiss of the Government not to recognise that new opportunities are provided by the remorseless onward march of technology for the enhancement of viewers' and listeners' choice. The Government would have been criminally negligent if they had failed to take advantage of that. If viewers and listeners' choice is to be enhanced, it has to be done within a statutory framework, which has had the endorsement of the House. The consequences for our community will be considerable and beneficial.
In due course the Bill will rank as one of the major reforms of broadcasting in the past 50 years. Every decade or so history shows us that there are times at which a significant step forward is possible. In the 1950s we were able to create the ITV system. In the early 1970s it was the regional commercial network, and in the 1980s, Channel 4. Because people plainly respect much of what is broadcast and because there is an inevitable fear of change--the easiest response to change is to resent and regret it and to think that it is bound to make things worse--each major change was accompanied by voices saying that broadcasting would be seriously damaged. While it is always important to weigh arguments on their merits and not to hesitate to deal with them if they appear to have substance, I have taken comfort in the fact that most of the Cassandra voices were wrong about the previous changes.
In 10 years many people will look back on the Bill and say that it was a good thing that Parliament seized the opportunity at this time. The benefits that flow from the Bill will be considerable and I shall briefly enumerate them : a tremendous expansion in radio, with hundreds of new local and community stations made possible, as well as three new national stations ; in mainstream television, a far more open and publicly- understandable process for the granting of Channel 3 franchises with the quality of British broadcasting preserved by the selection process ; a new Channel 5 which I expect to become a significant and welcome addition to the range of television programmes.
The satellite revolution is upon us. There are two bold ventures involving a number of British channels on the Astra satellite as well as British Satellite Broadcasting operating on a high-powered satellite. I do not know whether those brave ventures will win an audience and it is not a matter for the Government to determine that issue in one way or another or to have a view about it. It is always good to be offered an enlargement of choice. It is a tribute to the entrepreneurial vigour of the British economy that people are willing to invest substantial sums of money to produce a range of programme services that are not about pap or the lowest common denominator of programming but are about, for example, Britain's first 24- hour news channel on Sky, or a whole range of new and welcome programming decisions on BSB, which will greatly enhance viewing for people such as myself who are interested in the arts. One of the good and most notable things about BSB is its commitment to arts programmes and to new production and the amount of money that it has put into them.
Column 418
Obviously, satellite poses us a dilemma as well as an opportunity. Satellite television can be exploited by cynical people to peddle filth, and none of us wants that in an era when filth is not merely the odd bold blue film such as people may have misty-eyed recollections of seeing at rugger club parties long ago. The level of filth today can be damagingly exploitive, and the link with crime, in particular crime against women, cannot be denied. That is why we must welcome the Council of Europe's convention--I recommend the Patronage Secretary for his role in that--which allows us to deal with the peddling of unacceptable programmes across national frontiers and, in a quicker time-scale than any of us dreamt possible, gives us the ability to deal with such matters.We have set a framework for satellite broadcasting within which it will be possible for it to develop. So the face a British broadcasting will be altered by the Bill, but to the benefit of the public. It is patronising and wrong to suggest that the public have all the choice that they need at the moment. They have not. Experience shows that when the public are offered enhanced choice they seize it. For example, the new audience figures for some of the new radio stations in London--Jazz FM, for example- -are a sign of how much people want extra choice.
The Broadcasting Bill offers tremendous opportunities for the broadcasters. It offers an unprecedented expansion in British broadcasting so that people are not obliged merely to shuttle between the BBC and independent television, but have access to a host of independent production companies and satellite companies whose interests are advanced by the Bill. Instead of a complacent duopoly, we will have a free-wheeling, innovative and broad -based broadcasting industry that will serve the interests not merely of the United Kingdom but of a wider world community.
Members on both sides of the House will agree that if we believe in the quality of British broadcasting, it should not be a well kept secret confined to these shores. We should recognise the opportunities for good British programme making around the world. My vision of British broadcasting is not merely that it satisfies a domestic audience with an ever greater range of good quality programmes, but that we are an effective base for Europe and for worldwide programmes. If the new ventures are successful, there will be an inexorable rising tide of demand for new programmes and I believe that we in Britain are exceptionally well placed to meet that demand. That is why I am proud of the Bill and proud that it will receive its Third Reading today.
4.50 pm
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington) : I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about the role of the Opposition and other parties in Committee and throughout the proceedings on the Bill. I also thank his officials for their assistance with the more complicated and technical parts of a Bill which started life quite large and has put on considerable weight since. I should also like to thank my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench and the other members of the Committee.
There is only one question to ask about the Bill : will the television and radio services that it delivers be better, worse or simply different? The Bill is all about viewers and listeners, and their interests should be of primary concern. Certainly radio and televison will be different because of
Column 419
the great expansion that new technology makes possible. We welcome that new technology and the extra choice and variety that it could have been used to provide.We believe that the Bill fails, however, largely because it abandons much of the sensible basis upon which our television and radio system in the BBC and commercial sectors has been built and developed. The cornerstone of that system has been the commitment to public service broadcasting, the "must carry" rule which has guided broadcasters about the essential core of what must be on offer to viewers and listeners.
The Minister said that the new Channel 3 will be "a notch below public service broadcasting". That nice Mr. George Russell, the IBA chairman and midwife to the Channel 3 system, has said that it will be about 80 per cent. of what is now seen and heard. So it is admitted that it will be different, and worse, in the sense that real choices will be made not by those who watch and listen, but by those who can afford the cash to buy the right to broadcast.
Yes, there will be more choice, with more channels and stations from which to choose, but experience in West Germany, France and Italy teaches us that the likely result will be more choice from a less varied menu. The Minister's "notch below public service broadcasting" will almost certainly mean fewer current affairs programmes and documentaries, fewer costume and other dramas and less educational and social action broadcasting--in other words, a general fall in fact-based programmes and an increase in entertainment-based ones.
The Government claim that the Bill is about widening choice. The White Paper bravely stated :
"The Government places the viewers and listeners at the centre of broadcasting policy."
But the Bill abandons viewers and listeners to the outcome of what it terms the broadcasting market.
IBA research tells us that about 50 out of every 100 viewers want fewer variety shows, 44 out of every 100 want fewer chat shows, and an impressive 55 out of every 100 viewers want more educational programmes, plays and drama. The demand for more health and education programmes comes from about 48 out of every 100 viewers, and 36 out of every 100 want to know more about science and technology. Lest that be thought an elitist plea, there is little or no difference between what those with more money watch compared with those with less money. The removal of the public service broadcasting provisions which have guaranteed such factual programming will leave those demands unmet because such programmes are among the most expensive to make, so the Bill fails on the test of a wider choice of a more diverse range of quality programming.
The Bill is not all bad news. There has been a double victory for those forced to listen with their eyes due to deafness and hearing impairment. We welcome plans to ensure that, within five years of the start of the new Channel 3, half its programming will have to be subtitled. We also welcome the Government's change of mind about the need to preserve space for a commercial teletext service. Almost one person in every 100 has a hearing impairment and about 300,000 people are deaf. We are due only small thanks for the extra subtitling because those of us who can hear should have listened and responded earlier.
| Next Section
| Home Page |