| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : That was a speech that I never expected to hear in this place and I am sure that at one stage the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) never thought that he would make such a speech. I would have bet my pension on the hon. Gentleman remaining one of the last opponents of the televising of Parliament in his normal exotic fashion--not in terms of dress, but in terms of his views because he is one of the last remaining genuine political cave-dwellers in this country. Nevertheless, I heard him say that he had changed his mind. I had thought that it would be a truly Pauline conversion, but in the end,
Column 355
however, it was only half a miracle. The water was not turned into good red-blooded wine, only into cocoa. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying what he did because, like several other hon. Members who opposed the televising of Parliament, he has now realised that it has been the great success story that many of us said that it would be. It has been a success for television itself, but, far more importantly, it has been a success for this place. Although the hon. Gentleman portrays it very differently from me, I know that he cares about this place just as much as I do. As hon. Members of all parties have said, televising has had a double effect. It has greatly extended the public's knowledge and awareness of our proceedings and it has greatly extended our activities in reaching a wider public, which is something that we are here to do. There is not much point in our discussing, quietly behind our hands and in anonymity, events that we then maintain are important to the country as a whole. If we take what we say at face value and believe that what we are doing is important to the country as a whole, the whole country must be able to hear and to watch what we are doing and what we decide in the public's name.Contrary to all the fears that were expressed initially by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge and others about the effect of televising on the reputation of Parliament, the House of Commons has been enhanced rather than reduced in the eyes of the electorate and our reputation now stands higher than it was before televising began. There have not been the rows and the scenes of hooliganism that the Jonahs were foretelling. No one has done a runner with the Mace since televising began--although it happened twice before. No one has attempted to pull off Mr. Speaker's wig in an attempt to get a bit of cheap publicity. There have been no streakers and we have had very little crowd violence. Indeed, behaviour in this place has improved since televising began. That is not because hon. Members are conscious of the cameras, but because behaviour in this place is fairly good in comparison with legislatures around the world. As I have said, the Jonahs have been confounded and we have a great success story on our hands.
Having said all that, however, the televising leaves a great deal to be desired. It is still the broadcast journalists who decide what parts of our proceedings will be broadcast--what they consider interesting, sexy or educative. We should not allow
journalists--broadcast or otherwise, although broadcast journalists tend to be better than newspaper journalists--to act as a filter between what we do in this place and what the electorate outside is allowed to receive.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred to a debate on Scottish fishing. The people of Newham, whom I represent, are not necessarily very interested in that, but I know that many of my constituents are interested in and greatly affected by the late night orders on social security, housing and transport. But the broadcast journalists do not regard those subjects as interesting. By that, they mean that those subjects are not interesting to the broadcast journalists themselves. We should not allow that state of affairs to continue.
The report's proposals are inadequate. I cannot accept the idea that only 250,000 people will be permitted to see
Column 356
the parliamentary broadcasts and that that is somehow a major advance and that, perhaps, by the end of the decade 4.5 million people will be allowed to view. Those are optimistic figures. Let us face it, Sky and BSB came up with a lot of figures about the number of people that would be watching their channels by the end of each year and usually vastly under-performed against expectations. We have seen what happened to BSB--it could not maintain its audience--and we now know that Sky is experiencing problems. That is why we cannot rely on the figures that we have been quoted or expect to see them fulfilled.I believe that all hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge--my constant references to him must impress upon him the fact that I have still not got over his speech--are now prepared to accept, as the hon. Gentleman did, that parliamentary democracy has been enhanced. The hon. Gentleman, however, did not seem very interested in extending knowledge and awareness of democracy much beyond the House. Whether he likes it or not, more and more people are now more and more interested in and aware of what we are doing. That must be good for us and for parliamentary democracy. If we agree that the televising of Parliament has been a success for parliamentary democracy, why cannot we go further? I listened to what the Leader of the House said about the provision of a dedicated channel being a matter not of technology but of cash. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) then said that it was not a matter of cash--although he was interested in the cash aspect--but a matter of technology. I also listened to the hon. Member for Thanet, North, who knows far more about these technical matters than either myself or most hon. Members, and wanted to push him on why it is not possible to have a terrestrial channel. What would be the cost of re-engineering? The frequencies are allocated by the Home Office and, constitutionally, the Home Office and the Home Secretary are answerable to the House. As we can vote on such matters, can we not vote in the money and ensure that the technology is available?
Mr. Gale : The short answer is, practically, no. A terrestrial channel is not available--or rather, although nothing is impossible, it would be difficult to provide. If one is prepared to take entertainment away from a large number of people, it would be possible to make a channel available, but the only practical way in which we can have a dedicated channel is by direct broadcast by satellite and by cable.
Mr. Banks : I would like more information from the hon. Gentleman. We cannot deal with the matter in this debate but perhaps we could discuss it outside. He did not rule out the possibility of an extra channel. Would it be possible to re-engineer so that we need not deprive people of their entertainment on Channel 3 or a potential Channel 5? Is there no way in which one could squeeze in another terrestrial channel? If the hon. Gentleman says that it is technically impossible, I will accept that. However, if he says that it could be done at a price, we come back to the argument of what is the price and the value of democracy. It is a Wildean approach to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Often one feels that that is the attitude of the Government. If it is a matter of cost, we
Column 357
must be prepared to meet that cost. The value of democracy is infinite in those terms. If we desire the ends, we must will the means.Mr. Peter Bottomley : I do not believe that the House would want to say that infinite costs could be borne. I hesitate to refer to the Richard Dunn question, which also came up in Committee. Some broadcasters would have preferred the Committee, and by extension the House, to ask for proposals for the widest possible Mace-to-Mace coverage. That point does not seem to have been fully grasped. We have tended to deal with the cost element and say that there is no extra cost other than that of the control room--I exaggerate slightly. Instead, we should have asked what proposals commercial companies, the BBC or some new person could make at a reasonable cost.
Mr. Banks : Again, this is not the way to exchange information on the subject. I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak. My feeling is that we should be prepared to bear whatever cost is necessary. We are talking about something that is perhaps beyond cost. We are talking about the value of democracy to us in Britain. If we have said that televising the House has enhanced democracy and reinforced the democratic process, we must take the logic further and take what we have done until now to some logical conclusion. Of course, we want Mace-to-Mace or gavel-to -gavel broadcasting. We want to allow the people of Britain to turn on and tune in to the subjects in which they are interested. They should not be restricted to the subjects which the broadcasting journalists say that the people should receive because the journalists have decided that those are the interesting subjects on today's menu. To me that means that we have gone so far, but there is an awful lot further to go. I hope that the Committee will continue to keep the matter in mind and that at some point it will come to the conclusion that the money should be spent. No one can disregard other people's money. We are talking about not our money but that of the taxpayers. I hope that the Committee will say that the value of democracy is such that the House is prepared to will the means to meet the end of furthering democracy in Britain.
6.22 pm
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : I must confess that I, too, am one of the Members who changed their mind on this issue. However, my conversion was much earlier and more absolute and complete than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). When I came to the House eight years ago and had my first opportunity to vote on the basic issue of televising, I voted against. I was taken to task mightily by my erstwhile colleagues in the parliamentary Press Gallery for having done so. It was not as a result of their criticism that when we came to the second vote in my parliamentary lifetime I voted for televising. I did so because I was absolutely convinced that the time was right to make the change. As many hon. Members have said, events since then have proved that we took the right decision in 1989. The attendance in the House for this debate is proof that we took the right decision.
The controversy has gone completely out of the main issue. We are now arguing about the details for the future. That has aroused considerable differences of opinion among the hon. Members attending this debate, as it did
Column 358
among those of us who served on the Select Committee on Broadcasting. But those differences of opinion are pretty small beer compared with the main issue and the controversy which raged at the time of the two votes about which I have spoken. We all remember that the Chamber was absolutely packed. People on both sides of the argument felt passionately that the parliamentary world would either come to an end or be transformed once the cameras arrived. As we all know, as is so often the case, the truth was somewhere between those two extremes. Life has gone on.The tributes paid earlier, especially by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), to the broadcasters were right and proper. It was the way in which the broadcasters handled the televising of the House that made a success of it. The tributes paid to the Supervisor of Broadcasting were also appropriate. He has played a quiet, silent part behind the scenes which, again, has contributed mightily to the success of not only the experiment--which was the difficult part--but the permanent televising of the House.
I wish to deal with the items of controversy tonight. I am unashamedly in favour of keeping the status quo. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) went somewhat over the top. As he did in Committee, he said that the report was a shambles and the arrangements were a shambles. He said that the present arrangements would not stand the test of time. With great respect, the arrangements have stood the test of time since they were introduced. The experiment began in November 1989. The remarkable thing is that, both as a member of the Committee and in my previous incarnation as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the previous Leader of the House, I have heard no complaints about how the system has worked. Therefore, I am wary about overturning the system and introducing different arrangements.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) that he opposed the first report of the Committee. He will correct me if I am wrong. He drew up a minority report. So he was not quite right when he gave the impression in his speech tonight that the Committee had performed splendidly until now but had suddenly gone wrong and off the tracks. He will be honest enough to admit that he has been a consistent critic of the way in which the Committee has gone about its work. In saying that, I am praising my hon. Friend : he has been consistent. He has held firmly to his sincerely held view, which is that the House of Commons should go into the commercial world and exploit the opportunity to televise the House. He believes that we should do deals with various people and obtain a return on the right to televise the House. He believes that that will open the way to greater television. That is one view.
As I said in Committee on several occasions, my view, which is counter to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North, is that if there is any body of people less able to run a commercial activity it is this House of Commons.
Mr. Tony Banks : What about Hansard?
Mr. Harris : That is a false analogy. People have given the impression that Hansard is freely available to everyone.
Column 359
It is freely available, provided that one lives near an HMSO shop or is prepared to pay the postage and that one is prepared to pay for a copy of Hansard.Mr. Tony Banks : The hon. Gentleman would not run anything commercially then?
Mr. Harris : I shall come to that in a moment. I have in my hand a copy of the daily edition of Hansard . The price is £6. I confess that I was not aware of the price of Hansard . Members of Parliament go to the Vote Office and get it at no charge, and probably send copies to constituents who ask for them. [ Hon. Members-- "Oh!"] If someone has a particular interest, it is only right that he should get a copy. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats do this on a greater scale than Conservatives do. However, I shall put that issue aside. The Leader of the House will correct me if I am wrong when I say that, even at a price of £6 per copy, Hansard is not run at a profit, or even at break-even level. Indeed, it is run with a thumping great subsidy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North has argued with absolute consistency that televising the House represents a great commercial asset that we should exploit by making it readily available, through satellites, to more people. That is my hon. Friend's basic approach. My point is simply that we are not equipped to do that.
Mr. Gale : I know that my hon. Friend has no desire to misrepresent my views. I have said consistently that there are two ways forward. One of them is by unit of the House and subsidy. That would be a perfectly honourable course which some people would prefer. My preferred option is that we should not seek to run the system ourselves--which is what my hon. Friend suggests I have been saying--but should offer the franchise to somebody else who does want to run it.
Mr. Harris : That is what my hon. Friend has always said, but he wants us to enter into various commercial deals. He goes further by saying that, to start, we might have to do pump-priming. The system that we have has worked very well. So far as the costs of the House are concerned, we have limited liability.
Let me address the arguments of both the hon. Member for The Wrekin and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North. It is absolutely certain that the cost of running a service as a unit of the House would be far greater than the cost of the present system. All those manning the television cameras, directing and doing everything else would be employees and would have to be paid throughout the year.
Mr. Grocott : Will the hon. Gentleman please develop his comparison with Hansard, and will he try to be consistent? It takes about £2.5 million of public money every year to produce Hansard. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that an electronic Hansard should not be funded publicly, even though it would cost far less? What is the fundamental difference between the two? If there should be commercial exploitation of the electronic Hansard , why does the hon. Gentleman think that there should not be commercial exploitation of the written Hansard ? I assume that that is what he means.
Column 360
Mr. Harris : Why get involved with subsidies if subsidies are not needed? The hon. Gentleman would like us to use under subsidy a satellite system which, apparently, is available to United Artists. That would not be necessary if United Artists were to go ahead and provided exactly the same service. I am against providing subsidies if they are not needed, and I believe that in this case a subsidy is unnecessary. Similarly, the present system is much cheaper than a House unit would be. Why should a system that has worked perfectly satisfactorily be disturbed? I believe that it will continue to work perfectly satisfactorily.
On the question of a dedicated channel, there has been misrepresentation, not only of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in his opening remarks but also of the Committee's report. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North engaged in some rubbishing. He implied that we were going down the United Artists route--as if the matter were set in concrete. Let me remind my hon. Friend of what the report says :
"By the same token, we believe that the United Artists scheme, whilst deserving support, should not be regarded as the last word nor as excluding or pre-empting any other proposals for a dedicated channel which may come forward in the future."
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made the same point at the beginning of this debate.
This House has taken very wise decisions about the televising of its proceedings. We are going forward in a perfectly sensible way, which need not alarm people, as it has worked very satisfactorily in the past. I thoroughly endorse the proposals of the Committee, and I hope that the proposed amendment to the motion will be rejected. 6.35 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : I want to begin by paying a particular tribute to the people who helped the Select Committee in its work. The Supervisor of Broadcasting, Mr. John Grist, brought his lifelong broadcasting and television experience to our aid, and gave us most skilful and sensitive advice throughout our deliberations, which lasted three years. I pay tribute also to the people who direct the programmes, as well as those who are in charge of the technical facilities. In addition, our thanks are due to the various Clerks of the House for their work in the preparation of this and other reports. They listened to our sometimes slightly rambling views and, in the end, distilled them into what looked like extremely wise words. Thus, we have a very readable report.
From the beginning of the discussion about the televising of the proceedings of this House, my view has been one of some scepticism. I have always felt that the proceedings of the House could be transmitted meaningfully to the outside world only by way of a dedicated channel. I am one of those who were slightly bothered and cautious--in some ways, alarmed --about the way in which, in the early days, some reports might come out. I did not take the sensational view that only the most ludicrous and frothy parts of the proceedings would be broadcast, but I did believe that the public would not often see the true depth of discussion, either in the Chamber or in Standing and Select Committees.
Over a period, the broadcasters have done an excellent job. As a London Member, I have one criticism, which may well be shared by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). There is not sufficient coverage,
Column 361
in London regional programmes, of work relating to the metropolis. The local coverage in other regions is rather better. Of course, in London, television is very much about national events.We should still aim single-mindedly at an "electronic Hansard" --that is the expression that has been used, and it sums up the idea of dedicated coverage, gavel to gavel, for the benefit of the British public, whatever region they live in. People would not then have to travel to London to see what we are doing or queue to join the rather select few who get into the Strangers' Gallery. Our ultimate aim should be coverage that would enable sombody sitting at home to follow his own special interests. Whether they be crofters in the north of Scotland, workers in industrial centres, fishermen living on the coast, schoolchildren or people employed in the financial centres, everyone should be able to watch the proceedings of the House on television.
We should have a dedicated channel, and the nub of our debate is how to go about it. The obvious suggestion may seem that we should choose a terrestrial channel, because at present that is how most of the population receive television. But, technically, terrestrial broadcasting is not the method that is ultimately likely to reach the most people. In some remote areas of Scotland and Wales, and in parts of the south-west, television signals have to be re-broadcast for the benefit of people in the most inaccessible places. Ultimately, the best method of transmission will be by satellite.
The Committee has decided that a halfway stage--several of my hon. Friends have pointed out that this is only a halfway stage--would be to invite a cable transmission company to broadcast the signal. We certainly invite further investigation of how we can best broadcast to the widest spread of people, and I hope that the House, the Select Committee, and indeed the Government, will continue to be prepared to consider a public subsidy for a satellite signal.
I do not suggest that we go to enormous expense which was unacceptable to the Treasury and the taxpayer. The cost of acquiring a satellite dish is still, I gather from newspaper advertisements, about £200. Although people can rent a facility if they wish, we cannot yet justify a claim that very many people wish to receive a satellite signal. Within two or three years, however, satellite broadcasting will have reached such a stage that the House, the Government and the Treasury should consider paying for a signal to be transmitted by satellite.
I intend to support the report, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take on board what I have said. I believe that I am in tune with the views of many of my hon. Friends and of many members of the public.
I do not think that we need a unit of the House to carry out the work. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that the present arrangements are satisfactory. We have the expertise of the permanent members of staff--the Supervisor of Broadcasting and those who advise him. I am not convinced that we are equipped to recruit other people such as camera men and technicians. In all honesty, the sort of work that they have to do is not the most inspiring form of work imaginable for a television camera man, and the sort of staff that we now get through a contract with an outside company would not be attracted by it. The
Column 362
present quality of work is very high, and I hope that, by continuing the present method of contracting, we can ensure that that is maintained.Finally, we have to decide on the control room. That is the "parish pump" item in the report, on which several hon. Members have already commented. I wish to put on record my view that the area above Central Lobby is the most obvious place for the control room. We must remember that we are shortly to enter a joint arrangement with the other place. It is logical that the control room for transmitting the signal from both Houses of Parliament should be in the building, and where could be more logical than at the central point between the two Chambers? Technicians there would easily be able to keep in touch with us, and there would be secure interview rooms available for Members of both Houses. There is no doubt where the control room should be.
6.47 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : I shall make an abbreviated speech as I often appear to nowadays, and shall cut out some of the tributes that I planned to pay. However, I still pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, to the members of the Select Committee on Broadcasting &c. and to those who serve that Committee. Its report is one of the better reports in terms of canvassing the issues, but I am sorry to have to say that I disagree with it in one respect. For financial reasons, we seem to have gone for a short-term decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) serves with distinction as chairman of the Conservative media committee. The fourth appendix to the report of that committee spells out the options more clearly. It says, rightly, that the present experiment should be continued, and that people should be asked to come forward with proposals, which could include public subsidy, on how the continuous televising of Parliament can be made available to many more people much earlier.
It is not satisfactory to say that, for the sake of £3 million, Parliament should be broadcast on cable rather than by satellite. The report is right to point out the problems involved in using the squarial system--everyone knows that that is not likely to be available for very long.
I shall ask a technical question which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may not wish to answer immediately. The Select Committee's recommendations refer to United Artists "or any other" group willing to send out the continuous signal. Does that "or" also mean "and"? Might there be exclusivity for United Artists if it pursues its proposal? So long as it is an "and" issue, that will remove one of those problems. There remains only the issue of whether the House could say to an outside broadcaster, "If we were willing to put more money in, how much faster could you make the system available, at least during the next few years?".
My final point will not be the most serious one that I have ever made in Parliament : why do not we set up a Dr. David Reid society? He was the mechanical-electrical engineer who produced the ventilator system that did not work and was sacked in 1852. I presume that he reported to a Select Committee, which shows that Select Committees can make mistakes. Whatever decision the House makes this evening, we should be prepared to see whether we are holding back from getting the full benefit from the work of the Committee that produced the report.
Column 363
Now that it has been discovered that there are 25 rooms above Mr. Speaker's house, perhaps we can use those instead of destroying that wide, open space that I look forward to seeing soon.6.50 pm
Mr. MacGregor : In the short time available, I shall touch on some of the points that have been raised in the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), I was at first opposed to televising Parliament, for three reasons. I believed--
Mr. Tony Banks : Another miracle.
Mr. MacGregor : As a former conjurer, I know about miracles, but this was not one. I believed that the House of Commons was a place of work and that there was a danger of distorting its image and making it seem as though it was a place of entertainment. I thought that it would encourage Members to play to the galleries. Above all, I was concerned, as were many other hon. Members and as has been expressed in the debate, that much of the real work of the House, which takes place in Standing and Select Committees, would be neglected if only the Chamber were televised, thus distorting the view of the House's proceedings. However, I came round to voting for the televising of our proceedings in the debate when it was decided to do so. That was partly because I thought that it would improve democratic communication--I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) that it has done so--and partly because I thought that it might go some way towards stopping some of the rowdy behaviour in the House.
Having observed the public's reaction to the televising of Parliament, I believe that it has been a healthy and worth while change. I am always impressed, when I go around my constituency and others, by how often people say that they have listened to debates and taken on board matters that they would not otherwise have thought about.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, however, that there is still a danger in choosing to televise the sensational moments in the House, which are untypical of this place, and to highlight them in news bulletins. We still face that problem. I have discovered that I also face a personal problem with the televising of Parliament because, sitting where I do, sometimes for a long time, without contributing to the debate and sometimes having been up for most of the night, I am tempted to yawn and, as sod's law applies, that is often the very moment when I appear on the screen. I have also realised that some viewers are good lip-readers. In the past, members of the Government talked about confidential matters that we had been unable to discuss outside the Chamber. So if I appear to be yawning, I am simply covering my mouth so that lip-readers cannot see what I am saying.
I agree that the televising of Parliament is worth while. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester said that he was satisfied with the parliamentary control over broadcasting. The fact that nobody has criticised that aspect in the debate shows that the House is now satisfied with the mechanisms of control.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)--I am sorry that I missed his speech, but I was
Column 364
taking part in a television broadcast-- talked about the importance of regional coverage, particularly in Northern Ireland and Wales. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)--Mr. Kennedy : Skye with an "e".
Mr. MacGregor : Yes, as a Scot, I understand that.
It is an important part of broadcasting our proceedings and partly answers the argument about a dedicated channel and the concern of some hon. Members to have our proceedings broadcast throughout the country, including in rural areas. I find that the attention given to regional matters on regional television is quite extensive and very important. Those of us who come from rural and regional areas believe that that aspect is important.
Mr. MacGregor : Scotland is not the only place that the House should consider ; the argument applies also to the regions of England.
It is noticeable that everyone who has spoken about the control room has argued that it should be in the House above Central Lobby. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), I believe that, although there is more technical work to be done, his worry about the impact on that area is exaggerated. We would not wish to go ahead unless we were satisfied that the space could be used without a detrimental effect. Everyone who has spoken on the subject feels that the control room is an important part of the arrangement because it does not concern the other broadcasters--the normal broadcasters and channels--but the House's own broadcasting operation.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye also mentioned security. I very much agree with him about such matters as I am often in the vulnerable position of being interviewed on the green outside. For the first time today, I have been to 4 Millbank to participate in a broadcast and was impressed by the space and lavishness there. The hon. Gentleman suggested that, for security reasons, we could use the space above Central Lobby for interviews with other broadcasters. Perhaps in due course we can implement some of those suggestions as it will be advantageous in terms of access and security. However, we cannot discuss that today as the debate concerns only the operation for broadcasting Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has a much greater technical knowledge than I could possibly have about dedicated channels and I listened with interest to his remarks. The House accepted his technical expertise when he said that if we were to do anything other than broadcast by satellite or cable, we would have to remove a broader channel, which would include entertainment. I doubt whether the House would be happy with that. However much we want greater democratic communication and more people able to watch a dedicated channel, we must recognise that parliamentary proceedings will always be a minority interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who made an excellent speech, said that if we are to have a dedicated channel we are not excluding other arrangements but talking about progress. We are moving towards a dedicated channel and, if that can be achieved with United Artists, I hope that it will move well beyond an audience of 260,000. My hon. Friend the Member for
Column 365
St. Ives quoted paragraph 122 of the Select Committee's report. Paragraph 124 is important to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. It says : "We therefore propose to monitor closely the progress and performance of the United Artists scheme. In particular, we intend to keep under review the position regarding the potential number of viewers with access to a dedicated channel, especially in the context of the availability of additional channels on the Astra 1C satellite in two or three years' time."When that is added to the recommendation that we made in paragraph 122, it shows that we are embarking on the dedicated channel approach but are not excluding other proposals in due course, as technical possibilities arise or for other reasons.
Finally, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) referred to the arrangements as a totally unnecessary and complicated managerial structure- -a botched compromise. Frankly, it is not. Several of my hon. Friends have already said that it has worked extremely well during its operation. It is not a complicated structure to understand--it involves all those connected with parliamentary broadcasting.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin referred to financial control and I believe that our arrangement is an important aid to that. When it comes to sharing costs, the broadcasters want to know that the way in which we have structured our part of the operation ensures good control over costs. It is important to have a cost-effective scheme. The arrangement to go out to tender ensures that we have such a competitive scheme, which is the best way to exercise control over costs. There is no problem about the overall audit and financial control.
The hon. Gentleman has displayed his instincts on other matters as well as broadcasting with his desire to set up a public sector organisation, totally funded by the taxpayer. Our approach of going out to tender ensures a competitive element in the service, a more flexible system and the most cost-effective way in which to achieve that service. It also limits the cost to the taxpayer by obtaining contributions from the broadcasters. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and others that that is the sensible way in which to proceed.
I was struck--
It being Seven o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker-- proceeded pursuant to Order [29 April] to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion.
Question put, That the amendment be made :
The House divided : Ayes 70, Noes 155.
Division No. 134] [7 pm
AYES
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barron, Kevin
Beggs, Roy
Bellotti, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Canavan, Dennis
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Cohen, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dobson, Frank
Doran, Frank
Duffy, A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Eadie, Alexander
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Fatchett, Derek
Fearn, Ronald
Fisher, Mark
Flannery, Martin
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Foster, Derek
Foulkes, George
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Golding, Mrs Llin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Hain, Peter
Hardy, Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet
| Next Section
| Home Page |