| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Cable Television Companies
7. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he next plans to meet cable television operators to discuss their future expansion plans. [7503]
Mr. Fisher: My right hon. Friend has already met the Cable Communications Association and had a wide- ranging discussion on broadcasting policy issues.
Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the cable companies on their multi-hundred million pound investment in cabling up Britain? I include in that ComTel, which is cabling up Lichfield. Does the Minister think that cable companies--which provide not only television but telephony services--would have made that investment if they had thought that British Telecom would be able to compete with them, given that BT already has a network in the UK? When will the Government be in a position to say whether BT will be competing with the cable companies, which currently have great doubts about continuing their investment?
Mr. Fisher: I agree that the cable companies have done well. They have invested £7 billion so far and are on their way to a projected investment of £12 billion. They have installed more than 2 million telephone lines, which has sharpened competition with BT. The Government are committed to lifting the broadcasting restrictions on BT and to treating BT and the cable companies on a fair and equitable basis. There are many issues to be considered, and I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a firm date on which any such decision will be made.
Mr. Maxton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the customers are more important than the cable companies and that we should ensure that customers get the maximum benefits of cable television as quickly as
possible? Does he understand, therefore, that his failure to give BT a much earlier right to broadcast has disappointed some of his hon. Friends?
Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend will know that these things are under discussion with BT. As he says, the television and telephony services to the public are crucial. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) should take up with the cable companies why they are not making greater penetration into television and broadcasting, as fewer than a quarter of the houses they pass are taking up the opportunity of television services. We want high-quality television services and more opportunity for telephony services in the interests of the consumer.
Media Ownership
8. Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the regulations governing media ownership. [7504]
Mr. Chris Smith: We have no proposals to revise media ownership restrictions at present, but the subject will be considered as we develop revised proposals for regulating the converging broadcasting and communications industries.
Mr. Gale: It was a genuine question, and I am saddened that the Secretary of State was unable to give a firm assurance. In the light of the Independent Television Commission's award of digital transmission systems to British Digital Broadcasting--and the opportunities that that creates for British Sky Broadcasting to provide and decode programmes--and in the light of the Mirror Group's territorial ambitions in television, particularly in Scotland, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time to look seriously in the public interest at cross-media ownership to ensure that the public are guaranteed fair and reasonable access to news and information? Will he conduct a review?
Mr. Smith: First, I always expect genuine questions from the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, I agree that it is the public and their interests that must come first. That is why the key principles in any such discussion must be plurality of voice, diversity of ownership and quality of content. Any regulatory regime must ensure that those principles are maintained.
Mr. Maude: When the Secretary of State considers the issues of media ownership, will he give some thought to the arrangements for appointments to the part of the media that the Government own--Channel 4? Will he say something about reports in the newspapers that the ITC has been ordered not to renew the contract of the current chairman of Channel 4, Sir Michael Bishop, on the basis that he is a Conservative supporter, despite the fact that both the previous chairmen, who were appointed by Conservative Governments, were prominent Labour supporters? Will the Secretary of State confirm that his action, apparently saying that Sir Michael would be reappointed over his dead body, is all of a piece with the Minister for Sport's intemperate remarks about Lord MacLaurin becoming chairman of the Sports Council?
Will the Secretary of State grow up a bit and understand that these are serious people who give a lot of their time for the public service in good faith and do not expect to be abused in this way by new Labour?
Mr. Smith:
I pay warm tribute to the work of Sir Michael Bishop as chairman of Channel 4, particularly his work in fighting off the depredations of the previous Government, who threatened to privatise it. In that respect, I recall that the right hon. Gentleman, in a previous incarnation, was busy doing commercial work proposing precisely the same thing. I should say, however, that the ITC, which is responsible for recommending the appointment to the chairmanship of Channel 4, subject to ratification by the Secretary of State, will proceed to public advertisements for the position in the normal way, as is appropriate under the Nolan procedures.
Ms Abbott:
When the Secretary of State looks at cross-media ownership, will he bear in mind the fact that many of us on the Government Benches are also concerned about the issue? Media lobbyists can always give persuasive reasons why their privileged position should continue, but there is no evidence--certainly looking back over the past 20 years--that cross-media monopoly has increased diversity or increased the service to the public.
Mr. Smith:
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The point that she makes is important. What we need to do, in relation to regulation of the media industries, is ensure that plurality and diversity are protected while, of course, the needs of the media industries and their aspirations to make their way in a global communications world are considered. Striking the right balance is important, but in all this the needs of the viewer and listener must come first.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Does the Secretary of State agree that regulation in the media industry could be improved? If so, would he cut the number of regulatory bodies? Is he planning to replace Oftel--the Office of Telecommunications--with an "Ofcom" regulatory body? Would he consider merging the Monopolies and Mergers Commission with the Office of Fair Trading, for media purposes?
Mr. Smith:
Matters relating to the OFT and the MMC are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. However, in a world in which broadcasting and telecommunications increasingly converge, it makes sense to look seriously at the regulatory regime. That is precisely what we are doing with our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. We will come forward with considered proposals in due course.
9. Ms Dari Taylor:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to reform the national lottery. [7505]
Mr. Tom Clarke:
My right hon. Friend will make a statement later this afternoon on the Government's proposals for reforming the lottery.
Ms Taylor:
I hope that I will hear this afternoon that local applications are given equivalent consideration to
Secondly, there is a commercial venture, proposed by Teesside development corporation, for a tele-ski development which nobody wants. Indeed, no local wants it. The question is clear: are people who put forward commercial ventures--quangos, non-representative of local communities--to be given precedence over local people?
Mr. Clarke:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to the attention of the House concerns that many hon. Members on both sides of the House share. She will know that those decisions are taken--if the proposals are submitted individually--by a body that is independent of the Government. I assure her that the Government believe in the people's lottery and, therefore, we are concerned about obtaining a genuine public response. My hon. Friend and the House will not be disappointed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes his statement in, I hope, a few moments.
Mr. Brooke:
What is the Minister's current definition of additionality?
Mr. Clarke:
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is planning to contest the Glasgow, Govan constituency, or is he asking a question relevant to a Department that he once headed? Well though I understand his worries about additionality, I do not recall that he did much about it when he was in government. If the right hon. Gentleman manages to catch your eye when my right hon. Friend makes his statement, Madam Speaker, I am sure that he will not be disappointed.
Mr. Maclennan:
Does the Minister not recognise that less than a quarter of the money raised by the lottery for good causes has been distributed to those causes and that, in some cases, additionality has been helped by the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, whose position under the present Government's policies appears to be as parlous as it was under their predecessors? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 27 per cent. pools betting duty, as opposed to the 12 per cent. duty on the lottery funds, will drive the Foundation for Sport and the Arts into the ground and that it has done more good in its lifetime than any of the national lottery causes have for the arts?
Mr. Clarke:
The last question is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |