| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. John Cunningham: First, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on the new clause and his speech in introducing it. I enjoyed the sight of his name alongside that of our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and mine on the amendment paper--long may it continue.
New clause 4 encapsulates all the important arguments that took place in the Committee in this House and in another place and on Second Reading. Consistently, we have heard from Ministers that the provisions of schedule 7 to the Bill would allow a carry-over of the powers and duties of the Independent Television Commission from the 1990 Act. Those duties under section 2 require the Commission to discharge its functions
The reality is that the body that will have to implement this part of the Act--the ITC--remains unconvinced that the amendments in the name of the Secretary of State today are sufficient to give it the clarity and certainty that it requires. The ITC believes that any exercise of those powers to decide between digital programme service providers could, as the proposals stand, leave the ITC open to legal challenge, which would obviously be highly unsatisfactory.
The reality is also that quality of programming and quality controls in television exercise people in all parties and also exercise the public a great deal. Although the amendments about the V-chip are grouped separately, there is a link between what we are discussing, the new clause and the subsequent amendments--how the statutory bodies of government and we as legislators protect people from gratuitous violence and other unsatisfactory and unacceptable productions on television.
New clause 4 seems to be the right way to proceed--by allowing an explicit reference to the power to consider quality when judging programme services. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has been able to be quite clear about that in the new clause. The Government have deliberately chosen not to select that as a criterion and have obfuscated the issue, as the Minister's letter makes clear.
The new clause also gives the regulators powers to consider issues relating to original material and United Kingdom-based productions, which are particularly important to our audio-visual industries. It also extends to radio, an area that the Government have completely ignored. That alone renders their amendments unsatisfactory.
I urge the House to support new clause 4.
Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw):
I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin): we see eye to eye on many issues. However, if he had used the word "channels" rather than the phrase
Anyone who has BSkyB, or watches it regularly, will know that its channels conform to everything in the new clause. TNT, for instance, shows old films predominantly--six or seven a day. Most are English, feature Jack Hawkins commanding a submarine and have been on television 15 times before, but they nevertheless fall within the criteria laid down in the new clause. Bravo shows films dating back to the 1950s; UK Gold features non-stop repeats of British programmes--yard after yard of "EastEnders" and "The Bill". Recently, it has shown all the Morecambe and Wise programmes, "The Two Ronnies", "Poldark", "Elizabeth R", "I, Claudius" and "Minder".
The whole nation enjoyed that marvellous television in the 1970s, and I very much enjoyed watching it for the second time. Often, when I leave the House at midnight--not feeling very tired--and there is nothing else on television, I watch a 1977 repeat of "Match of the Day". That is wonderful football. It is possible to watch recordings of historic sporting events, all of them British and original. All that stuff of which we are so proud is on satellite television--on BSkyB, for instance. The Discovery channel shows wonderful documentaries. Whether they feature jackboots marching into Poland, Adolf Hitler or the history of the Ford motor car, they are far better than anything that is produced now.
BSkyB would accept the new clause. The old British stuff that is shown on perhaps 10 of its channels far outweighs the new American stuff. I ask my hon. Friend to think carefully. His intentions in regard to quality and standards are admirable, but he must be more specific.
Mr. Dafis:
I support the new clause, because I believe that we need guarantees on quality. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out, when
I take it that, in referring to "high quality" and
I am glad to note that new clause 35 deals with the same issue in a Welsh context. It also asks for a mechanism to allow consideration of Welsh broadcasting in its entirety, which we certainly need. Wales has three programme providers, which are in competition with each other but collaborating and co-operating at the same time. It is that second aspect that needs to be strengthened. Like others, I would like a proper, comprehensive study of the Welsh broadcasting scene to be conducted, examining ways in which it can be developed in the round.
The new clause refers to
Let me say a little about the reorganisation of the BBC that is currently proposed, and the effect that it may have in Wales. One member of the BBC's board of governors was responsible for regional broadcasting; now, one member of the new BBC broadcasting unit will be responsible for regional and educational broadcasting and a number of other important services. There is a danger that the whole regional dimension will suffer, and Wales will certainly be included in that decline.
The new clause refers to
"in the manner which they consider is best calculated to ensure the provision of such services which (taken as a whole) are of high quality and offer a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests."
At the end of the Committee stage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South made clear, the ITC was still not convinced that it had been given the necessary powers. The Minister said:
"the lawyers still cannot make up their minds about the exact wording."--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 June 1996; c. 765.]
He promised to write to all members of the Committee setting out the exact situation. That he has done. In the past few days, he has begun to catch up on his correspondence. We have had a series of letters from him about matters contained in the Bill. I shall quote the letter from the Minister of State, who said:
"I am sorry that in expounding this case I inadvertently misled the Committee on the relatively technical question of the application of Section 2 of the 1990 Act".
It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman inadvertently misled the Committee and, of course, we accept his apology. That is not the problem and it is not surprising because he was trying to reconcile two almost exactly opposite points of view. On the one hand, in the letter, he was saying,
"It remains the Government's view that quality should not be a distinct criterion in the award of multiplex licences."
That is the Minister's and the Government's view. However, he then went on to say:
"There are, however, two particular respects in which, in our view, the ITC will be able to take account of quality considerations".
The Government say that they do not want quality to be a specific consideration, but they want nevertheless to take into account quality issues. That is contradictory and the Government had every opportunity to make their mind up on the matter and to clarify the situation.
6.30 pm
"programmes included in any service",
the wording would have been much more specific, and it might not have been so easy for the authorities to wriggle out of it. With all respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), that is far too easy under the current drafting.
"taking the relevant service as a whole",
the new clause encompasses such considerations. I could not regard a service as being of high quality unless it dealt, seriously and educationally, with the major issues of our time. Surely the issue of environmental sustainability and third world development is the big issue of our time. It is deeply depressing to see serious coverage of such matters diminishing. It is with that thought in mind that I shall vote for the new clause.
"programmes included in any service intended for reception in Wales".
I take it that that makes it possible for us to discuss the BBC, which is a crucial element in co-operation on the Welsh scene. The BBC should recognise its responsibility, especially in regard to the amount of central funding that it provides for Wales. Between 1992 and 1996, its income from licences increased by about 14.7 per cent. I believe that funds for the BBC in Wales have increased at a much lower rate--by about a third of that amount. That is not good enough. Funds for the BBC in Wales are crucial. The BBC supplies 10 hours a week for S4C, and I understand that it regards that as fulfilling its responsibility for Wales; but it is not satisfactory.
"the cultural and linguistic heritage of Wales".
I know that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will speak about the English language heritage of Wales in that context, and--if I may anticipate him--I agree entirely with what he will say. One of the big deficiencies in Welsh television provision is that that English-speaking culture, and the vitality of the English dialects that are spoken in Wales, are not reflected.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |