| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin): The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) ought to be central to any Bill about broadcasting. The issue of quality should not have been debated so late in the proceedings on the Bill. I know that it was considered in Committee, but it should have been central to the original legislation, as it should have been central to the Broadcasting Act 1990, which caused such damage to the whole of British broadcasting.
Too many people--even people who work in broadcasting--see quality of programming as secondary to the delivery system. I do not mind whether programmes come by digital methods or, provided everyone has access to them, by cable, satellite or terrestrial means. What matters is the quality of the programme that comes by this miraculous medium. I worked in the industry for a while, but I did not understand how it worked. I was concerned about the quality of the picture that came out at the end. Quality should be central to our consideration and legislation.
The idea that profoundly divides the Conservatives and the Opposition is that quality programming can somehow happen by accident, or, as I suppose they would say, as a result of market forces. All the experience of the media in Britain is that that simply is not true. If I were to caricature the difference between the broadcast medium and the print medium--the newspapers--I would say that the broadcast medium has been subject to broad democratic control and regulation whereas the print medium has not. If I asked any neutral observer anywhere in the world whether British broadcasting or British newspapers had the highest reputation and the highest quality and which was to be admired and emulated, the answer would be broadcasting, not the print. There is a lesson there for us all to learn.
Any cursory reading of the history of the industry shows perfectly well that, if we want quality programming, we must find means of ensuring that it exists, as the new clause seeks to do in a modest way. I could think of several amendments to it. I shall describe briefly for the Government's benefit, if they will listen, even at this late stage, how quality programming can be achieved.
For a start, we need to provide for television skills in the industry. The multitude of skills that go towards making a television programme do not come out of thin air. They are created as a result of people working in the industry and being properly trained.
Where is the training coming from now? What is happening to all the people who now work for small production companies who previously worked for the BBC or ITV and received their training there? I do not knock the small production companies, but they are living off the skills of the past; off the skills of people who
received their training in the BBC and ITV. What does the Bill say about training in relation to quality programming? Nothing.
My hon. Friend's new clause implies, but does not spell out specifically, that centres of excellence are needed. He wants to include a requirement for British broadcasting. I strongly support that, but I would add to it. I know that he agrees with me. Such requirements would mean that regional centres of excellence would have to be established. It would not mean that everything would be made in central London.
I want regional centres of excellence, not only because I want employment in the regions, but because we lose the richness of the possibility of producing good-quality television programmes if we require most of the programme makers and producers to live and work in London.
I am not talking about regional programming in the patronising way that we so often hear from the Government Benches. Ministers say, "Oh well, they do their regional show at 6.30 and the regional news." I strongly support regional programming and news, but I want to see network programmes made in the regions by people in the regions with regional skills. That also contributes to quality programming.
Mr. Maxton:
Does my hon. Friend agree that regional and national production by the BBC and the ITV companies is important not only in terms of broadcasting but in terms of the continuation of art and culture in the regions? Regional broadcasting centres provide stable employment for a large number of people who work in the theatre and other areas at the same time.
Mr. Grocott:
I agree with my hon. Friend. So many of these industries are related to each other. People move from one to the other. If a television production centre is moved from a region, a great part of its--I do not want to sound too pompous--cultural and artistic capacity is also removed. We all know what has happened to regional centres of production. One of the staggering things about the Government's attitude to the Bill is that they seem to have learnt none of the lessons of the previous failed legislation. Any Government spokesman ought to start by apologising for the 1990 Act.
I can only speak about what has happened in Birmingham. At Central Television there were four thriving studios before all the machinations surrounding the 1990 Act. There was a range of programming--not only regional news. There were programmes for the network and everything else. That has all been diminished. Skilled people have left.
I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. If we are to get broadcasting back on the right track, we need to acknowledge that there must be a framework within which broadcasters operate which requires excellence and high standards. We need to stop bowing, as we constantly have under the Conservative Government, to the needs of advertisers and company mergers, and start listening a little more to the viewers and programme makers.
Some people may think that this is a trivial point, but I am afraid that I do not. One small example of the decline that has taken place as a result of the previous legislation is the ridiculous business of sponsorship of television programmes. Does it really add anything to the weather forecast that it is sponsored by PowerGen, "Bringing you electricity whatever the weather"? Does that improve the quality of the forecast? Does it add to the sum total of human understanding of the weather? Of course it does not.
That is an important example of the way in which the miraculous medium of television is not being used in the interests of quality programmes to enrich our lives, but is being subverted by the needs of accountants and advertisers. My hon. Friend's new clause goes some way to redressing the balance, and I strongly support it.
Mr. Rowlands:
I wish to address my remarks to new clause 35, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) touched on. I make no apology for raising Welsh issues again, because one of the purposes of the Report stage of a Bill is to report to the House what changes the Committee has made to the Bill.
In the context of Welsh broadcasting, the Bill is radically different from that which entered Committee. It will transform the role of S4C in the digital age. Let me draw to the attention of the whole House exactly what those changes are.
First, there will be a major new role for S4C on multiplex 3. It will have a much larger role than was envisaged on Second Reading. Secondly, S4C will be freed to go into satellite, cable and radio in both the Welsh language and English. Thirdly, it will be expected to exploit its commercial potential on its new multiplex, with a new financial arrangement of a commercial character. Fourthly, it will have new opportunities to expand its language service, as Channel 4 in the digital age will be removed from the S4C programmes and become a service all of its own.
Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda):
My hon. Friend has touched on the financial arrangements and restructuring of S4C, but has he looked at the accountability of S4C, which receives a huge public subvention for programmes but is accountable to no one?
Mr. Rowlands:
I should declare an interest when referring to S4C, because my wife is a member of the S4C authority, so I am accountable, if no one else is.
I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that the commercial and funding arrangements governing the new functions of S4C will be kept separate from its existing functions. No public funds from S4C can be used for its commercial developments.
Sir Wyn Roberts (Conwy):
Is not the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Rhondda that the S4C authority has to lay an annual report before the House?
Mr. Rowlands:
Yes, it does, and that gives us an opportunity to debate it. The most recent one, in common with previous reports, continues to inform our debates.
I should like to draw specific attention to the other dimension to broadcasting in Wales--broadcasting in the English language. In some respects, other aspects of the Bill will have a disadvantageous effect upon the English language services and broadcasts in Wales. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said, we should be deeply concerned about the centralised role of the BBC.
The figures are quite astonishing--BBC Wales broadcasts in the English language contribute just 19 hours to the BBC network. That even contrasts poorly with the output in Scotland, which contributes 90 hours. Even more astonishing, the factual and documentary programmes provided by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales constitute just 1 per cent. of the total output. A major change of heart is needed by the BBC in relation to the two nations and the English regions.
I should like to draw the House's attention to the other means of English broadcasting in Wales--our commercial station, HTV. It will be greatly affected by the alterations in the Bill. The combined BBC and HTV investment in programmes in the English language adds up to only £25 million a year. That contrasts with the £63 million that is rightly dedicated to Welsh language programmes of S4C.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |