| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131(2) (Liaison Committee),
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Wells.]
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North):
Television, in all its forms, is one of the United Kingdom's greatest assets, one of its life forces. Its creativity and artistry are evident, and its employment implications are evident and important to this country. However, television can never stand still. It must face the new challenges of the future.
I am afraid to say that, during the past 16 years or so, the Government have missed the opportunity to build upon our great tradition and ensure the future of television, by missing out a whole new layer of accessible programmes, skills and jobs--that new bottom layer of the television pyramid, local television.
There are immense opportunities for productive and profitable partnerships between local newspapers, radio groups, regional television groups, councils and local multimedia companies, but the Conservatives have lamely abdicated their responsibility during the past few years.
At no time have the Government created any incentives for innovation in that area. The Broadcasting Act 1990 removed any real requirements for cable companies to provide local services. Television under the Conservatives has been about the size of wallets, crafty deals, small fish lording it in a tiny and evaporating pond--limited takers, not risk takers. Nowhere is that more evident than in local television.
This is a great missed opportunity. Local television, by connecting citizens to one another, could regenerate a sense of community and shared identity. If combined with the new information communications technologies, it could enable a more responsive, interactive political system to develop at local level. It could create opportunities for new media companies operating at a local level, with the resulting benefits in terms of employment and training. It would help to broaden the involvement of citizens in their television, and challenge the dominance of London-based broadcasting elites.
Those are the opportunities. Cable television gives the chance to provide television to a smaller community of 2,000 people. I believe that there will be significant growth in cable subscribers, partly because local television will offer a unique selling point. Sadly, few cable companies currently provide any local content, despite the fact that the majority of their licences, signed before the Broadcasting Act, contained a commitment to provide local services.
It would be wrong to say that only cable can provide local television. For example, what happened to the visionary plans for channel 5 to have local opt-outs, as one of the original bidders intended? I am afraid that that was sacrificed at the altar of commercial television.
What about the potential of digital terrestrial to provide more local content? We are promised many dozens of channels, yet again there is a gaping hole in the Government's proposals to provide local services rather than more of the same. In Bruce Springsteen's words,
"two hundred channels and nothing to watch."
If the Government became involved and took action, the alternative could be a burst of creative variety in local programming. The need for such variety will not be
satisfied by the satellite television companies' introducing many dozens of channels--possibly more than 100. They do not wish to enter that market, and we shall have to look elsewhere for local provision.
I believe that cable companies should consider providing three types of local service--commercially run local television, which can chase a large audience with entertaining local programmes and news; public service-style television, seeking to fulfil a community remit and to address minority concerns; and "local access" television, produced by local people in conjunction with professionals. One channel could combine all three services, or could emphasise one or two.
Some channels have already been developed that claim local status. Channel 1, London's 24-hour news service, is an example, and Live TV plans opt-outs in cities such as Birmingham. A spine of centrally produced programming facilitates the development of local planning around it.
Cable has finally begun to recognise its own self-interest. It needs viewers as well as infrastructure. It already has a head start on British Telecommunications; it must make good use of that head start to ensure that it remains a competitor when BT is allowed into the entertainment market by the next Labour Government.
The Minister may well argue that local television is not commercially viable. Part of the reason for that is the fact that the Government have already distorted the television market. There is a wide demand for locally produced programmes: opinion polls show that large majorities would prefer more localised television services, and both Live TV and Channel 1 have illustrated that the production costs of local television can be significantly reduced. That will ensure that local television does not run at a loss. Viewing will also grow rapidly as people come to value and exploit this new source of information and entertainment. Income from local advertising, as yet an untapped revenue source, will make local television profitable. If viewing is high enough, national advertising may also be secured.
Much as I value the high quality of television provided by BBC Midlands and Central Independent Television, how much better it would be if they complemented their services by developing Greater Nottingham Television, Derby City Television and Leicester Television. The opportunities are there, and the BBC and ITV companies can create a wider audience for local television by working in partnership. Perhaps for once they could work together to promote that aspect of television's development.
What about the role of the regulator, the Independent Television Commission? It has made some laudable efforts to get the cable companies moving, but its hands have been tied by an adequate governmental framework. It has only the "nuclear deterrent" of removing cable companies' franchises if they do not meet the commitment in their licences to provide local services.
It is possible that the ITC could impose a graduated set of penalties to enforce those commitments, and it should have the power to bar a franchisee from reapplying for a licence if it fails to honour them. The Broadcasting Act 1990 could be amended to ensure that the responsibility
to provide local television services is statutory. In addition, the ITC might have the power to allow an independent producer of local television to use the network if a franchise holder was slow to provide such services. Those measures might help the cable franchise to become viable, particularly when the monopoly ends and BT enters the entertainment market.
Like many other countries, Canada has had the nerve and vision to introduce a regulatory framework requiring cable companies to provide a local television service. Local television has blossomed as we hope it may blossom here. The results have been highly successful, and cable companies have recognised it as an opportunity to boost consumer loyalty and play a genuine community role. Local television can revel in Britain's cultural, economic, social and ethnic diversity, bringing a bright plurality of voices to the screen.
What about the potential for using local television to enhance democracy? Again, there is no current vision from the Government as to how to harness that power of decentralised television. Labour's plans to create regional chambers and to liberate local government will complement and support the growth of democratic initiatives using television. Perhaps regional chambers may be the body to license local television, as is the case with the Lander in Germany.
Other exciting possibilities exist. The BBC, Channel 4 and ITV could potentially provide content for local television. It may be necessary for them to consider their future by refocusing existing resources to provide this new service. If that were linked with a responsibility for developing community access, a radical development and redevelopment could take place of the public service role of the BBC and Channel 4.
British Telecom, once it begins to provide broadcast entertainment, could play an important role in encouraging such television. Government are desperately needed to encourage thinking in these sectors. The Government have abdicated that responsibility. We need a Government who will intervene and ensure that this sector is developed. Of course, there is an alternative. It is, I am afraid, to stare unblinkingly into the headlights of the British Sky Broadcasting satellite. I hope that people in British television do not believe that that is an appropriate alternative.
We must think about creating opportunities for community access. What is the best method to achieve that? Many colleges and universities already have media centres with a range of production equipment. Could those be developed as community broadcast centres? Cable companies, BT and broadcasters should now begin to think about how they could develop local community television co-ordinators with responsibility for encouraging participation in television by local people.
When I talk about local media, I think also about the new communication technology's potential to transform local democracy and accountability. Under the current system of representative democracy, individuals still have to lobby their political representatives using traditional methods such as writing a letter, signing a petition, contacting their representatives' office, arranging an appointment or attending their surgery. At best, that is often self-selecting and a one-way flow. Local television, allied to the information super-highway, can make politics a more widespread and two-way activity.
The new information and communication technologies afford the possibility of understanding and interacting directly with national, regional and local representatives and Parliaments. Just a couple of months ago, the Labour party conference had an experiment with a virtual electronic conference that was open to people throughout the world. Debates took place not only in the virtual conference hall, but in the virtual conference bar, which seemed equally popular. Debates took place between eminent people in the Labour party, passers-by, delegates and people in the United States of America, Japan and elsewhere in the world.
That could be repeated, not only in this place in a virtual Parliament, so that I could question--at his leisure, of course--the Minister or his staff more than once every three weeks and at any time of the day, but perhaps in councils, with virtual council meetings, where, at certain times of the month or week, councillors would be available to discuss and interact with one or many individual constituents, pressure groups or lobby groups.
Allied to local television, the role of such technology will help educate all of us in our politics, rather than being used as a way of finding an electronic snapshot of prejudice, a sort of electronic plebiscite, which is a danger of that technology. Every Member of Parliament could engage in this with their own home page on the World Wide Web, so that they could interact with their constituents at given times of the week.
Local television can help to regenerate a sense of community and a shared identity, while allowing everyone a voice. Those are just some of the possibilities that local television and multimedia provide to enhance democracy and reactivate civic culture. It is a possibility that is being denied to people by the Government's sloth in recent years.
That this House agrees with the Report [5th December] of the Liaison Committee.--[Mr. Wells.]
Local Television
10 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |