---

Mr. Peter Lloyd : We began the debate earlier than we expected, so we have taken considerably more time to debate considerably more points than we might have expected to do. As a result, I have covered six or seven sides in closely written hieroglyphics which, if I tackled each one fully, would require a long speech. The House will be glad to hear that I can never read my own handwriting at this time in the evening, so I shall be brief and will refer only to the points that were directed at me which I can remember. My handwriting was rather better at the beginning of the debate when a number of points were put to me by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).

The hon. Gentleman asked what happens if there is no bid in one region. I am not as pessimistic as he is, but if that should happen the ITC would have to advertise again. As it would have allowed the region to continue only on the basis that it was a viable one, it would be a clear signal that here was an opportunity for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to buy, if not for a penny, for a lower sum than he might have thought it would have cost him if he had made his bid in the first place.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is monstrous. The Minister is now changing what he said originally. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and I have begun to formulate our bid. Is the Minister saying that if the terms of the Act were fulfilled by a sole contender company putting in a bid of one penny that bid would be rejected?

Mr. Lloyd : If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) had listened to his hon. Friend the Member for

---

Column 1177

Erdington, let alone to me, he would have realised that his hon. Friend was talking about a region where there was no bid at all. What would happen then? I see that the hon. Member for Erdington is nodding in agreement. What I am saying now is on all fours with what I said before. If no second bid is made, if the hon. Member for Great Grimsby realises that he cannot manage something as complex as putting in a bid that would satisfy the quality threshold, the ITC would have to look to neighbouring licensees to run a temporary service until a satisfactory licensee could be found for the region. The hon. Member for Erdington was worried about production facilities in the regions not being used. There is bound to be less use of production facilities of contractors and licensees because of the 25 per cent. rule, which means that 25 per cent. of output must be provided by independents. Of course, the 80 per cent. for specific contracted regional broadcasting will have to be made in the appropriate region, but the price that one pays for having independents is that they be independent enough to choose where they can best make their programmes.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby deviated into sense when he talked about the real pressures on an organisation such as Sky, and the lack of realism shown by his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. However, he shared their inpracticality when he said that there should be a rule about where independents should produce programmes. The whole point about independents is that they are independent people who will produce programmes that they believe are wanted, and they need to produce them as competitively as possible. It must be up to them to decide where they should do so. I am less pessimistic than the hon. Gentleman about the possibility of their not doing so in the regions.

Contrariwise, the hon. Member for Erdington was worried that the broadcasters would force independents to use facilities in the way that the broadcasters wanted them to. However, the order that we have just published on the definition of an independent--no doubt we shall debate it soon-- makes it clear that such pressure must not be applied. If it were, that would be a matter for the regulatory authorities. Independents must be seen to be independent as well as actually being independent.

Mr. Tebbit : If an independent must be seen to be independent, is it reasonable of the BBC to specify to independents which might contract with it who should present a programme, and to reserve the right to approve of the choice of editor, or even to appoint the editor? Is it right that the BBC should reserve the right to approve the panellists on a programme, or that it should insist that the existing music and graphics of a programme be used, and so on? That does not leave a lot of independence, does it?

Mr. Lloyd : My right hon. Friend is extending an argument in particular directions that he was advancing generally in his speech. He has raised exactly the sort of matter that we shall consider when we debate the order that defines independents. As the evening grows late, even though we started to debate the order fairly early, I shall leave the matter until we debate the independents order, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me.

The hon. Member for Erdington wondered what would happen if broadcasters made arrangements together to sell

---

Column 1178

advertising. It was part of his generalised worry about concentration of power. That would become a matter of interest to the Office of Fair Trading. The OFT has a role to ensure that real competition exists, and that extends to advertising. When the hon. Gentleman says that he is worried about concentration of ownership of the press and of television licensees, I remind him that the rules provide categorically and clearly, as does the Act, I believe--having sat through the consideration of the Bill that became the Broadcasting Act 1990, he will probably know this better than most--that no British press proprietor may own more than 20 per cent. of the shareholding of any television company. If there is any suggestion that the 20 per cent. may be a controlling interest because of the make-up of the company, the percentage holding will have to be reduced. There is no question of a concentration of power in that respect.

The hon. Member for Erdington wondered whether we would have to accept somebody's word. It is not a matter of accepting anyone's word, and that is why we are debating the order. The order stems from the Act and the rules are before us. The hon. Gentleman said that he felt that BSkyB had a monopoly of satellite broadcasting. It does not have a total monopoly because other satellite channels are available. When there is only one player in the field, that player is the monopoly. A succession of opportunities are available on Astra 1 and 2 and, it is mooted, Astra 3, for other players to move on to the field. That means that there is no monopoly in any accepted sense of that word. It is easy for competition to materialise if there is a willingness to invest resources. If that is done, the competition will find an audience.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : What would happen if there were a shareholder with a 20 per cent. holding, it was decided that there should be a rights issue and the other parties could not afford to take advantage of that issue? The holdings of the other parties would be diluted and the 20 per cent. holding would be worth more. What would the Government do in such circumstances?

Mr. Lloyd : They would not do anything. The Independent Television Commission would ensure that the 20 per cent. which had risen to whatever level was reduced at least to the previous level of 20 per cent.

Mr. Dickens : Would it buy?

Mr. Lloyd : How it reduced the holding--by giving it away, selling it or whatever--would be a matter for the commission to decide. The major requirement is that the holding should be reduced, and that it would be.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Erdington accepted my handwriting is still quite good quality--that it was sensible for the ITC to enable BSB viewers to continue to receive broadcasts. The arrangements are temporary and the commission has some imaginative proposals for securing more programming on the Marco Polo satellite. The success of what it intends to do will depend upon individuals willingly coming forward. I hope that they will. There is no monopoly in any reasonable sense of the word because we cannot separate satellites from the rest of broadcasting that is available. Satellite broadcasting represents an extremely small proportion of broadcasting as a whole.

---

Column 1179

The hon. Member for Erdington thought that the Government should refer the BSB-Sky merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If the hon. Gentleman reflects upon the matter, he will recall that it was considered by the OFT, which found no basis whatever for a reference to the MMC. That is hardly surprising, as the combined satellite broadcasts account for far less than 10 per cent. of all broadcasting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) expressed similar concerns about the decreasing use of production facilities in the provinces. I hope that he accepts that the points that I made earlier apply very much to what he said. He is being too pessimistic. We must accept that the independents, as well as the licensees, should make those programmes where they think that they can best make them.

My hon. Friend said that there was an insufficient number of radio frequencies. The Radio Authority intends to advertise 30 new franchises a year. That would be quite demanding of the skills and experience available in the industry. I doubt whether it would be practical or sensible to go very much further, but that is a matter for the authority. It is important, and will be in the coming years, that more frequencies are released. I have that very much in mind in my discussions with the BBC and my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, who have responsibility for the distribution of wavelengths.

My hon. Friend was right to say that Sky has extended, at great cost, the choice available to viewers and that further advances such as digital, which is on the horizon, will not be made if those willing to take that sort of risk did not have the freedom to do so. Many of the Labour party's suggestions for further restrictions would make such advances impossible. I noted what my hon. Friend said about the televising of proceedings in the House. That is a matter not for me but for the House.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and I have had a sufficient number of exchanges about BSB dishes for me now to pass over that point. He asked about the levy, but it would not be proper for me to comment on that at any length. I hope that Mr. Speaker will prove a light- handed regulator and will allow me to say that there is great concern in the television industry about the weight of the levy bearing down upon it at a time when advertising revenue has been reduced. I keep that matter in mind in discussions with Government colleagues. We have not yet reached a conclusion, but I hope that we will do so soon. The levy does not directly affect the new licences and the bidding for them. By the time that the new licences are on the air in 1993, the levy will be a thing of the past.

I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman was pleased with the changes in the continuity rules, even if he would have preferred us to go further. I do not accept his fear that radio will be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Advertising on radio has been maintained at a rather better level than on television. He referred to the rule in the Act that no one should own more than 20 stations. I draw his attention to the rule that does not alow anyone to own stations that would give them more than 15 per cent. of the totality of points, which are calculated according to the reach of the stations that are operational, and which, as new stations come along, will tend to increase.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) spoke, as usual, knowledgeably and wisely. I am glad to have his support for our arrangements under

---

Column 1180

the order. I confirm that the provision in the Act for exceptional circumstances is there to be used. The Independent Television Commission knows that, and will use it as it judges appropriate. It is not for Ministers to say when it should do so. However, I confirm that it is well aware that it has that power and a duty to use it whenever it considers it necessary.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby was excited and entertaining, and I enjoyed listening to him. Some of his remarks related to the order. All hon. Members, especially Opposition Members who expect to remain in opposition, have the failing of wanting everything both ways--or even three or four ways. The independents have been given the opportunity to make programmes and have been given a space in the BBC and ITV to make up to at least 25 per cent. of those companies' programmes. Inevitably, they will choose where and how to make the programmes. If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby feels that the Labour party should be more sensitive to the realities of the world of Sky Television, I suggest that he should be more sensitive to independent production.

Mr. Austin Mitchell : That was not the point that I was making. I asked what happens to the existing centres of production run by existing companies.

Mr. Lloyd : Some will be sold and others will be used. Any superfluous assets will be dealt with by the owners in the best possible way. It is not for the Government to lay down prescriptions. Even if I had an idea about how they could best be used, I am sure that the companies would feel that they knew better, and I would not argue with them about that.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that the rules were extremely complicated. They are quite complicated and he should read them carefully. He would need to read them several times but, if he did so, he would find that they were quite clear. They would assure him that there was not the concentration of power in radio or television that Opposition Members fear. I have no such fears, not because I am in favour of concentration--I am emphatically against it--but because the rules will guard effectively against it. I therefore commend them to the House.

Question put :--

The House divided : Ayes 163, Noes 102.

Division No.127] [10.27 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Ashby, David

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Bellingham, Henry

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Benyon, W.

Bevan, David Gilroy

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Bottomley, Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Bowis, John

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Buck, Sir Antony

Budgen, Nicholas

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butterfill, John

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Carrington, Matthew

Carttiss, Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Chapman, Sydney

Chope, Christopher

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Colvin, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Cormack, Patrick

Couchman, James

Cran, James

---

Column 1181

Curry, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Dickens, Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Durant, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Emery, Sir Peter

Evennett, David

Fallon, Michael

Favell, Tony

Fishburn, John Dudley

Franks, Cecil

Freeman, Roger

French, Douglas

Gale, Roger

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Goodlad, Alastair

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Hague, William

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Harris, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Hawkins, Christopher

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Hayward, Robert

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

---