| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 433
Question accordingly agreed to.Committee report Progress ; to sit again.
Committee tomorrow.
Column 434
Broadcasting
11.48 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke) : I beg to move,
That the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
The order is made under powers in schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. The purpose of the draft order is to give effect to the changes in the regulations governing the ownership of the regional ITV companies that I announced on 24 November. I made it clear then that the proposed changes were subject to parliamentary approval. The draft order amends the present order restricting the holding of licences, which was made in May 1991, in two ways. First, article 2(1) amends article 3 of the 1991 order. Its effect is to remove the distinction between licences for the nine areas with the largest advertising revenue and those for the other six areas. Article 3 of the 1991 order prevents anyone from holding two licences in the nine large areas. The draft order would remove that restriction, except that no one could hold both London licences. The overall limit on holding no more than two licences remains. The other change is technical. Article 2(2) removes from the 1991 order provisions which have now expired and the references to them.
Before I explain the reasons that led me to propose these changes, I should like to reply to criticisms by some Opposition Members that I did not come to the House and make a statement about these proposals. As the House will know, I issued a press notice at 8.30 on the morning of 24 November as the stock market opened, sending a copy at the same time to the Independent Television Commission and the ITV companies. I wrote to a number of right hon. and hon. Members with an interest in broadcasting issues, and I gave a written reply to a parliamentary question later in the day.
As I explained in those letters, these arrangements were made to avoid a period of intense speculation on the stock exchange, which was the likely result if it had become known that an announcement would be made later in the day. This arrangement is usual for Government announcements that are market sensitive. In reaching decisions on the best way of making the announcement, I was influenced by the knowledge that the draft order was subject to debate both here and in another place.
As many hon. Members will be aware, considerable changes are taking place in broadcasting, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. The most obvious change is the increase in the number of channels and services available. In the United Kingdom, we have had an increasing number of cable and satellite channels, as well as new radio services. Even more services are likely in a few years wiith the introduction of digital transmission technology. The technologies of broadcasting, telecommunications and computers are already beginning to converge, and this process can be expected to continue at an accelerating pace.
Similarly, although it is likely that some traditional broadcasting services will remain, many other services of entertainment, information and education will become available. In the foreseeable future, people will be able to pick and choose from a wide range of sources of news, information and entertainment, including films, videos,
Column 435
music, and computer games. Some services will be interactive. People will be able to pay for individual items, as well as whole services. The choice and variety available to the public will be greater than we have ever seen.Another significant change is the way in which broadcasting is becoming an international activity. A global market for broadcasting is opening up. The United Kingdom should be well placed to take advantage of these opportunities. Broadcasting has been one of the success stories in the United Kingdom in the past 50 years. The high quality of the programmes in our broadcasting services is widely recognised, both here and abroad. ITV companies have, for many years, sold programmes successfully to foreign broadcasting organisations. But the new markets will go well beyond the export of individual programmes, into the provision of whole channels, and a range of services.
The Government want to ensure that United Kingdom broadcasters can build on the success achieved so far and take advantage of the new opportunities that are opening up. We have been holding meetings with senior broadcasting executives to discuss these issues with them. We shall want to consider how these markets are likely to develop and to make sure that there are no unnecessary obstacles that prevent the United Kingdom broadcasters from taking up these opportunities. In saying that, we have to recognise that broadcasters in other countries will be looking for opportunities in the United Kingdom.
Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Does that mean that someone from the Irish Republic could buy, say, Ulster Television? Enough republican propaganda pours through at the moment--we do not want an overdose of it.
Mr. Brooke : As the hon. Gentleman knows, I always welcome his interventions. The answer to his question is yes, and it would be the case even without the order.
Broadcasting is entering a period of rapid development that is likely to create a revolution in the way we distribute and receive information and education and entertainment services. We are, however, only at the early stages of those changes. It is difficult to foresee the precise nature of the changes or the speed at which they take place.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and some other Opposition Members understand that major changes are taking place and agree that in the coming months we should look again at the present restrictions on cross-media ownership, as we intend to do.
We are in a period of transition and we need to consider how best to advance. Some people, including the hon. Lady, believe that the best way forward is to stand still. She advocates extending the so-called moratorium. That is the provision in the Broadcasting Act 1990 due to expire at the end of this year. The provision does not prevent takeovers from occurring, but requires the Independent Television Commission to approve them before they take place. I considered that option carefully, not least because some ITV companies advocated it, but concluded that extending that regulatory requirement was not the best approach to expanding markets. It is, in any case, an illusion to think that we can achieve a continuing breathing space for ITV by legislative means when the rest of the broadcasting world is developing so rapidly.
Several hon. Members rose--
Column 436
Mr. Brooke : I shall give way, but, as the whole House is aware, we are anxious to make progress.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but the whole House is also anxious to have information from the Government. The Minister said that he has had discussions with various senior television company directors. What discussions did he have and what representations did he receive from his own regulator, the ITC, on the matter?
Mr. Brooke : I shall gladly respond to the hon. Gentleman. He is correct in saying that the House would always want to have the information.
We have had a number of discussions with the ITC. There may have been a degree of misunderstanding in the press in recent days in so far as there was a debate between the ITC and ourselves about my announcement or the particular timing of the ITC receiving it, but we have had discussions in the past about the changes we might make. As the House will know, the ITV companies had different views about the best way forward. I called a meeting at which all the companies were represented by their chairmen or chief executives so that I could hear their views. I wanted to make sure that all the companies, large and small, had an opportunity to explain their position to me directly. I also consulted the Independent Television Commission, as I said in my answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : I am grateful to the Minister. He had discussions with the ITC. What conclusions did the ITC reach and what did it say to him?
Mr. Brooke : The hon. Gentleman knows that, even when the Broadcasting Act was going through the House and in the immediate aftermath of it, the ITC believed that the moratorium should last longer than had been built into the Act. Of course I would acknowledge that, but it was a subject that we discussed with the ITC. A number of other interested organisations, including the advertising industry, discussed their views with me or with officials in my Department. I found all those discussions helpful, not least because they gave me an insight into the way in which television is developing.
In reaching a decision, I tried to look beyond the immediate issue to the medium term. I have two clear objectives. First, I want to ensure that the British public keep the television services that they value and that the diversity of choice that they have is maintained and extended.
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : As a veteran of the Broadcasting Bill and as someone who also went to most meetings in the consultation period on the HTV licence area, I recall that all the other competitors said that they wanted not only to have regional television but for it to be regionally owned. As a result, HTV was driven to pay a large premium to acquire the franchise. Now the right hon. Gentleman is changing all the rules. He is saying that the ownership argument is irrelevant. That is unfair. The basis on which we argued that case drove HTV to pay a higher price than Central Television and others. Now the right hon. Gentleman is changing the rules. Surely he ought to think about it again in the light of the evidence.
Mr. Brooke : I am grateful for that point, and for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's experience. However, it is possible to ensure that the regional commitment is met in
Column 437
the provision of regional television through the exercise of the licence, administered and monitored by the ITC. In that respect, ownership is a different matter.ITV services are watched by well over 90 per cent. of the population each week. My answer to those who have criticised the proposed changes as being too limited and rather timid is that the millions of people who take pleasure from ITV programmes would not thank us if we moved suddenly from a position of close regulation to one of complete deregulation of ownership, and in so doing undermined the foundations of the present services. I have to take account of the services to the public as well as the opportunities for investment.
My other main objective is to sustain the production base for broadcast programmes in the United Kingdom. That is the key to high quality services here and to the potential increase in exports. As the number of channels increases here and throughout the world, the production of programmes and programme rights will become an increasingly valuable asset.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : Will the Secretary of State confirm that BSkyB is exempt from the requirement on commercial television to broadcast a percentage of domestically made products? If that is still the case, how can it be justified?
Mr. Brooke : It is not exempt--it is subject to the European Commission directive. As recently as October, I submitted statistics to the Commission in Brussels showing the European content--European in the context of this country meaning mainly British--of all the channels for which we have responsibility as regulators.
Some 73 per cent. of the programmes broadcast by ITV are made in Europe, most of them within the UK. A large proportion of the programming is original material, made for ITV's audiences. Those programmes reflect the UK's traditions and culture, and that of its regions. We want that to continue.
We also want to sustain the production base throughout the UK, as well as in London and the south-east. The ITC's licence conditions require that 80 per cent. of regional programming is produced in the area. The ITV companies have told me that they regard the regional nature of the ITV system as of crucial importance. They know that it is valued by their audiences, so it will be in the interest of the companies to maintain regional programming and production.
Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brooke : Yes, I will, but at this hour the House wishes me not to slow down.
Mr. Snape : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Under the licence held by Central Television, not 80 per cent. but 95 per cent. of the programmes have to be made in the regions. What assurances can he give those of us concerned about the future that such a restriction will continue to apply now that Central has been handed over, lock, stock and barrel, to Carlton?
Mr. Brooke : The ITC will continue to monitor the conduct of the licence, which was issued to Central, and it will continue to be Central that ITV is monitoring.
Column 438
Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool) : The House would like the opportunity to question the Secretary of State, rather than listen to him gabble through his brief. Those of us who might be persuaded that there is a case for relaxing the ownership rule and allowing mergers to take place, which would lead to the strengthening of the ownership of ITV companies, would be more persuaded of the case if, by the same token, the powers of the regulatory body were also strengthened so that there was a balance between the two. The strengthening of ownership but also an increase of power to the regulator--would that not be a more balanced and sensible approach?
Mr. Brooke : I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the discussions that I have had with the ITC have included whether it is confident that it would be able to monitor the conduct of the licences if there were a change of ownerships, and it has declared itself satisfied and confident.
I should not have proposed these changes if I thought that they would put at risk the regional programming and regional production which are such valued features of the ITV system. The Broadcasting Act 1990 places requirements on ITV licence holders about regional programming and production. They are reinforced by the conditions of the ITC's licences, which include the promises about programmes made by the companies when they applied for licences. I know that the ITC takes its licence conditions very seriously. Each year it will assess how far the ITV companies have complied with the licence conditions. If any licence holders fail to comply with their licence conditions, the commission is obliged by law to include information about the failures in its annual report, which is presented to Parliament. However, the ITV companies have to operate effectively in the changing world of broadcasting. Partnerships are already being formed throughout the world to take advantage of the new opportunities. Major media organisations are combining groups of linked enterprises, bringing together programme production, music recordings, publishing interests and broadcasting outlets, including terrestrial broadcasting as well as cable and satellite. In other words, they are linking the material to be distributed and the means of distribution.
In this world of giant conglomerates, with turnovers of billions of pounds, most of the ITV companies are comparatively small. We think that they should be able to take a more active role in forming new partnerships in the global market than would have been possible under the present regulations.
As they explained to me, the ITV companies themselves agree that it is unlikely that it will be possible for the ITV system to continue for much longer with 15 regional companies plus the national breakfast-time company. They believed that a measure of consolidation was desirable, and they told me of the various ways in which companies were already co-operating. However, they had different views about the degree of consolidation that should take place and the speed at which it should happen. Therefore, although there were different opinions about the best way of reaching the objective and the speed of travel, there was agreement about the general direction in which the television industry needed to go.
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North) : What opinion did the right hon. Gentleman receive from
Column 439
HTV? Did not HTV believe that it should remain independent, centred on Wales and largely owned by Welsh Wales so that it would be able to continue to deliver a thoroughly Welsh service with a strong emphasis on the Welsh language? What view did HTV express to him?Mr. Brooke : I am slightly diffident about giving the detailed opinions of each company as the conversations were confidential. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows what the general thrust of HTV's view was, and I would not suggest that it was a million miles from what he said.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : Is the Secretary of State not aware that for many years indeed, since the creation of the film industry--television and film productions have been made by powerful companies, usually in the United States or with money originating in the United States? There has never been a lack of programme making outside the United Kingdom. Companies in the United Kingdom were protected by the understandable desire of Parliament to keep a British involvement in British cultural material. Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposed rules will radically change that position and that it will not be possible to continue regional production as it was in the past ?
Mr. Brooke : I know from previous exchanges with the hon. Lady that this is a subject in which she takes a keen interest, not least with regard to film production. The manner in which Governments of different colours have dealt with the film industry in the past 25 years does not encourage one to think that we do not need to pay close attention to preventing broadcasting from going the same way. Having reflected carefully on the views expressed to me, I concluded that it would be right to propose changes that would allow two larger companies to join together, except in London. That is the purpose of the order. I do not think that it would be sensible at this stage to go further without a thorough examination of the likely effect of greater deregulation in the ownership of media enterprises. There are, as we know, disadvantages in such concentrations. They can be anti-competitive and prevent newcomers from gaining access to the market ; they can restrict choice for audiences and advertisers, nationally or locally. At worst, they can restrict freedom of speech and expression. Broadcasting is more than an economic activity.
Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North) : Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be no further changes in the position of commercial television until the BBC's charter has been dealt with--either renewed or subjected to another Government proposal?
Mr. Brooke : I do not want to give that precise assurance. We shall want to examine the cross-media ownership factors in the way that I described earlier--a method, incidentally, to which Opposition Front Benchers urge us to return. The speed at which change is occurring means that we cannot freeze time at particular moments to enable things to "catch up". I recognise, of course, that the debate on the BBC charter renewal is going on at the same time. We shall need to take account of all those factors in reviewing arrangements for crossreserve the ITV system as it existed in the 1980s, or even in the 1970s, are more likely to hasten its decline than to promote its healthy survival. That is why the Government decided not to extend the so-called moratorium. That has achieved what it was intended to achieve--a short period of stability during the transition from the old ITV system to the system introduced in January this year. Let me say in passing that, on the basis of the figures for the first nine months, the amount of regional programming that has been produced under the new arrangements is substantially up on the previous year.
Mr. Michael Bates (Langbaurgh) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the merger of the Yorkshire and Tyne Tees franchises and companies has brought significant benefits to my constituents by providing a new local news service? The service, which has cost £1.5 million, is broadcast from Belasis technology park in Stockton. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that if another company bids for Yorkshire it will not be able to dump the Tyne Tees franchise to comply with the two-franchise limit?
Mr. Brooke : I am delighted to hear about the new local news service. Any bidder for Yorkshire-Tyne Tees would be confronted with the fact that Yorkshire already has a second station.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) : What is the answer then?
Mr. Brooke : The bidder could not effect a change unless it had divested itself.
It makes no sense to try to protect the ITV companies indefinitely from the disciplines of the market, nor should it be necessary.
Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central) : The Secretary of State is right in saying that if a third party bids for Yorkshire and Tyne Tees, under the existing arrangements the bid will not proceed. Will he give an assurance, however, that he will examine possible ways in which Tyne Tees could be hived off from Yorkshire, and that any hiving-off process will not simply enable one company to gain control of three companies by the back door? We want a real separation, rather than a false separation that could damage the interests of either company.
Mr. Brooke : Having not been wholly solicitous to those who intervened earlier, I thank the hon. Gentleman profoundly. His intervention enables me to correct an answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who intervened from a sedentary position. Of course divestment would not be required if the bid came from an organisation not currently holding a television station licence. It is for the ITC to do all that it can to ensure that licensees comply with the ownership rules. It would monitor the process described by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).
The need for adjustments to the ownership regulations was always foreseen, which is why we made provision for the main provisions to be extended and altered by order, subject to the approval of Parliament, rather than by primary legislation. I do not rule out further changes in the
Column 441
future, but the change that we are debating today is a first step in the direction in which the Government believe that we need to go. I commend the order to the House.12.14 am
Ms Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar) : The Secretary of State has glibly presented a gross simplification of a complex issue. There is general agreement about its complexity and that the Secretary of State has failed to grasp it completely. One of the many City analysts who commented on the matter stated that the Government's action was "only the latest and silliest turn in this textbook example of how not to regulate an industry."
At this wee hour of the morning, it would be unnecessarily cruel to go further, but that accusation of silliness is a compliment compared with many other comments. The most flattering was "a botched job". We appreciate the Secretary of State's apology to the House this evening for the two-week gap between announcing his proposals to the market and giving Parliament its democratic right to debate and to vote on them. We understand the legislation's market-sensitive nature, but it would have helped if the Secretary of State had understood that it is contempt of Parliament to delay a debate to such an extent that two takeover bids are already launched.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : Does the hon. Lady not agree with the concept of a television company in my constituency joining another to continue producing splendid drama such as "Brideshead Revisited", investigative documentaries such as "World in Action" and blockbusters such as "Coronation Street"? At the same time, they could compete with the growth of satellite channels such as TNT and CNN from Murdoch and Turner, cable and the telecommunications industry--which will soon provide viewers with videos on demand at the touch of a button. Is it not right that companies such as Granada should be able to join with others for growth and to produce the programmes that we want to see?
Ms Mowlam : We called for a continuing moratorium, to allow a review of the kind that is necessary, given the complexity of the market that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Of course there is satellite and cable, and it is illogical and unfair that Murdoch can own 100 per cent. of a non-domestic satellite service when other newspapers can own only 20 per cent. of an ITV company. We do not want the half-cock proposals that are before the House this evening. We asked one year ago for a review and for rational and sensible proposals.
the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course we want genuine regional productions and programmes of the quality of "Brideshead Revisited"--but the Secretary of State body-swerved and ducked the question of the ITC having the power not just to regulate and monitostandards but to enforce them. We want quality television, and it worries us that the ITC's ability to regulate and monitor may be losas television companies grow, become more powerful and centralise. The ITC has done a good job in many areas, but can it continue to doso? Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire) : Is the hon. Lady aware that the ITC has the power to impose a
Column 442
fine for a first offence of 3 per cent. of qualifying annual revenue each month, and of 5 per cent. for subsequent offences? Is that not enough of a sanction?Ms Mowlam : There is not enough sanction in the sense that the ITC rightly has those powers post facto. As a result of what the Secretary of State has introduced we will experience some takeovers. Potentially two large whales could develop and a number of small companies--minnows at best --will desperately try to survive in a competitive market--they will compete over advertising and industrial muscle.
What concerns Labour Members and, I think, Tory Members is that as that power is centralised, regional companies may not be able to continue to make the quality productions that we want. That is what is important.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) : The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) says that companies such as Granada need to merge to continue to produce programmes of the quality of "World in Action" and "Brideshead Revisited" His argument is back to front. Under the previous regionally-based regulated system, programmes of that quality were produced. The problem is that with the post Broadcasting Act system, the possibility of producing such quality programmes recedes further into the distance.
Ms Mowlam : I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Her final point should be emphasised. Part of the difficulty that we face this evening is that the problems in the industry have resulted from the Broadcasting Act 1990 and its flaws. Labour Members pointed out those flaws day in and day out. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) did a courageous job and provided a lot of valuable policy information. She sought to show how damaging the 1990 Act was to so many regional television companies when she said that it has seriously imperilled some of the world's leading producers of television programmes.
We need only look at the mess, the farce and the tragedy that that Act created. Central Television pays the Treasury £2,000 a year. Now that there is a takeover bid for Central Television, it is worth £750 million plus. That tells us that the Broadcasting Act is ludicrous.
Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex) : Does the hon. Lady recognise that the chairman of the Independent Television Commission, Sir George Russell, said that there has been much more stability in the independent television industry following the 1990 Act than there was following other franchise changes, for example, the change 10 years ago ? [Laughter.] It is all very well for Labour Members to laugh. It is the judgment of the chairman of the Independent Television Commission.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said that the Labour party had been campaigning for the moratorium to continue. That is not my impression. Is it not correct to say that the hon. Lady is widely known in the television industry for saying that the moratorium should not be continued and that takeovers must be allowed, otherwise from January onwards Bertlesmann or Berlusconi could bid for Central Television? She realised that, under such circumstances, it would be impossible for a British bid for Central Television not to be accepted. Surely, what has
Column 443
happened is that, when faced with two takeovers and the change in share prices, the Labour party typically panics and changes its view, which has been sensible until now.Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Several hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye in this short debate. If we have interventions of that length, not many hon. Members will be able to do so.
Ms Mowlam : I shall answer the points made by the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). First, the ITC has clearly said that it would like a continuation of the moratorium.
Mr. Renton indicated dissent.
Ms Mowlam : The right hon. Gentleman can shake his head. I quote from paragraph 39 on page 457 of the ITC's submission to the Select Committee on National Heritage :
"The Government's intention on extending the moratorium beyond the end of this year is not yet clear. The ITC continues to favour an extension and from the same standpoint has considered whether that would be a benefit in changing the rules."
So the position of the ITC is clear.
The Independent Television Commission has argued, as many have, that stability in the market is necessary. However, the announcement in the past two weeks has created a degree of instability in the market for some of the bigger companies as well as some of the smaller ones.
Let me now answer the second point that the right hon. Gentleman made. The Opposition have supported a moratorium and want to continue a moratorium to review cross-ownership. The honest difference between myself and my predecessor, if he wants it on record, is that she wanted it for three years and I favoured 18 months--I have said at least 12 months--because the changes that are taking place in the market, partly as a result of the instability that the Secretary of State has created by the half-hearted move that is now being made, are making the problem worse.
The difficulty that will confront us from 1 January, partly as a result of what the Secretary of State has done, is that any company in Europe will be able to come and take 100 per cent. of a British television company. One cannot do that in France because one would be prevented from doing so ; a foreign company can take only 25 per cent. of a French television company. One cannot do it in Germany because one would be prevented from doing so ; a foreign company can take only 50 per cent. One cannot do it in Spain because one would be prevented from doing so ; a foreign company can take only 25 per cent. I could go on. That is the difficulty.
As a result of the short-termism of the institutional fund managers of this country and the short-termism of the British Government, we are leaving our small regional television companies totally exposed to European companies which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are built into consortia with cross- media ownership, which is difficult to break into. That is what we mean by a moratorium. We want that moratorium to continue because the Government have exposed our regional companies in an outrageous way.
Mr. Rowlands : May I just draw to my hon. Friend's attention a simple fact? As she pointed out, Central paid a meaningless sum of money ; HTV paid a large sum of money for one reason only--that other competitors were
Column 444
not only showing that they were competing for a regional station, they were actually arguing the case on ownership grounds and now the Government are changing the rules. In our view, we are left with the HTV company saddled with a huge bill because of the Broadcasting Act and the consequence is that a company such as HTV cannot produce programmes because it has to spend the money paying fees.Ms. Mowlam : That is exactly the problem that the Opposition have emphasised. Smaller companies are being put in a position in which it is impossible for them to produce the quality programmes that we would like. I challenge the hon. Members opposite who represent regions throughout the country that have that type of regional television that they want to be protected and preserved. If those hon. Members walk into the Lobbies with the Government tonight they will be calling into question the future of those regional television stations.
So that the hon. Gentleman realises that it is not just Labour hon. Members who agree with me, let me quote from a letter from one of the Conservative Peers in the other place, Lord Buxton. He said in a letter on 7 December :
"what is being done by the Broadcasting Amendment Order, is a tentative half-measure which produces the worst of all worlds, it will totally unbalance the system, and could lead before long to the eroding of the regional structure."
That is the type of worry that other hon. Members share. Let me return to the final point that the hon. Gentleman made. He says that some of the smaller television companies believe that as a result of this change they will be so exposed after 1 January--exactly the point that my hon. Friend made in relation to HTV--that the Minister has to do something. Otherwise British broadcasting will not be British any more. The same will happen as it did to our film industry and to our insurance industry in the 1980s--it will be destroyed. The Secretary of State can end up by saying that it is important in terms of democratic values and as part of British industry, but what he is doing is potentially destroying both. That is what the Opposition find so disconcerting.
It is not that we were not saying what we have said clearly ; let me just reinforce the argument and give other hon. Members a chance to speak. The Opposition have set out the criteria clearly and we believe that they should be reinforced. We want, above all, for regional television to be retained. By that I mean regional production, quality regional production, with a local management team. Some of the Opposition contributions earlier were about companies being regionally owned. As a result of the Broadcasting Act 1990, most of the companies are no longer regionally owned unless one considers Schroders or Barclays De Zoet, Mercury Asset Management or Warburgs as being regionally owned. That is the problem that confronts us as a result of the Act. Now we want an Act that defends that regional production strongly and continues the regional identity that is there and that independent home-grown broadcasting industry. That is why we have argued for a moratorium. We believe that if that were done, the continuation of the present irrational situation would make things worse for the other options--cable, satellite and the other choices for people in this country.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of my interest in the matter. [ Hon.
Column 445
Members-- : "What is it?] I chair the all- party media group of which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is vice-chairman, and in which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is also involved. Does the hon. Lady believe that the order will give the regional television companies more strength to resist overseas predators? I share her view that we want British broadcasting to remain British, so if she can say that the order will not have that effect, I shall have more sympathy with her argument.Ms Mowlam : I do think that the order will have that effect for the smaller television companies. There is no doubt that they will be deeply exposed after 1 January, and their future will be in question. That is a serious problem. My honest answer is that, although if the Carlton-Central deal goes ahead the company will be bigger, we still have no broadcasting company big enough to be one of the top 20 in Europe in terms of commercial revenue. As we go into Europe we have a problem with British broadcasting as a growth industry. But there is no doubt that it will help those companies. There is no doubt that that help will not be offered to them. Our problem is that technology is moving at great speed, but our legislation is that of five years ago. We need a vision of where British broadcasting
| Next Section
| Home Page |