Examination of Witnesses
(Questions 20 - 39)
THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER 1998
MR LESLIE
HILL, MR
RICHARD EYRE
AND MS
KATE STROSS
20. The BBC operates by the BARB statistics
so Sir Christopher Bland did not seem so delighted by some BARB
statistics I quoted out of his own annual report on Tuesday. I
thought it was only politicians who were selective about statistics—but
here we are, we have got the BARB statistics. At 2159, if you
look at the different quarter, between 22 million and 23.5 million
people are watching television. From 23 hours onwards, looking
at the different quarters, it is 12,200,000 to 11.75 million.
There is a huge turn-off. Those are the habits of the nation—not
just of ITV viewers, of the nation. What I am wanting you to explain
is why people who are turning you off at ten, which is a very
peak viewing hour across all channels, are somehow going to be
saying, "Whoops, ITV are investing 50 million pounds in new
programmes, we must stay up for the 11 o'clock news and abandon
the habit of going to bed between 10 and 11".
(Mr Eyre) You are absolutely right in your use of
the word "speculative". It is, indeed, and all we can
do is look at what people are currently doing, research what their
attitudes are, and marry those together and make a commercial
judgment. As the Chairman has made clear, we do not think that
by putting the news at 11 we will get more viewers than we do
at 10. It is a package of 6.30 and 11 versus 5.40 and 10 and we
do believe, over time, we can get a greater breadth of people
watching the news. I think 11 o'clock will be appealing to a different
kind of viewer, clearly, than the 5.40 and we are looking to attract
a younger, more metropolitan, more upmarket viewer to that programme;
currently not well served, I suggest, by programmes on terrestrial
television.
21. It seems to me broadcasters, both yourselves
and the BBC, are getting very hooked on what Mr Churchill called
the effluction of time. Sir John Birt told us on Tuesday that
although, at peak, only 120,000 people are watching BBC News 24,
over a period of time people are going to change their habits
and start watching it in vast numbers. Now you are telling me
that although, at present, there is a substantial fall in watching
news at what we, in the north, call tea-time both on your channel
and on BBC1, and although there is a huge number of people more
than at any other period in the day going to bed at 11 o'clock,
you are going somehow or other, for a 6.30 news bulletin, to reverse
the trend of falling audiences for tea-time news bulletins and
you, with the 11 o'clock bulletin, are going to reverse the trend
of the nation to go to bed.
(Mr Eyre) That is our ambition, yes, and we do believe
that, when ITN goes head-to-head with the BBC—as they did
after the football on Tuesday night—and beats the BBC news,
we have a better track record and news gathering organisation
at our side to drive ourselves into that early evening sector
where there still remains a very large number of news viewers.
Let's not use the decline of BBC news per se to give evidence
that this is not a good time to be showing people the news. It
is, and attitudinally people say they like to come home from work
and watch the news. For the vast majority of people in this country—and
I accept not for members of this House or professional people
in London—6.30 is a very good time to do that.
22. I do not want to labour this too much (though
I may return to labouring it before we are done) but you say you
have a better track record than others yet this track record is
resulting in what you complain of as a 27 per cent turn-off by
people. So your track record—which is so good, and I admire
ITN and News at Ten, I think ITN is terrific—remarkable
though it is and on which you are seeking to build results in
this 27 per cent turn-off that you say troubles you and also results
in a fall in your teatime news bulletin which ends half an hour
before you intend to begin your news bulletin. The fall in your
teatime bulletin is a million and three quarters in the last quarter,
down from 1992. It is an interesting track record.
(Mr Eyre) The performance of television programmes
in terms of audience is a factor of the quality of the programme
and its scheduling. I think we have been very clear on this; we
have no problems with the quality of the programmes supplied to
us by ITN at 10 o'clock but the scheduling is wrong. It is that
that makes 27 per cent of the 9.30 audience go and do something
else and that is what we are trying to correct.
23. So the scheduling will be right at 11 o'clock
when 9 million people have gone to bed since 10 o'clock?
(Mr Eyre) We believe, taken as a package, it will
be better than now, yes.
Mr Fraser
24. Do you think, at ITV, that scheduling should
have nothing to do with politicians and Government and it should
be decided by the viewers, or do we have a right to discuss these
issues with you?
(Mr Hill) I think you certainly have a right to discuss
these issues with us but it is very clear in the procedures laid
down that the ITC, through the licensing arrangements, must be
the ultimate decider of this kind of issue. There has been some
misunderstanding about the process. It has been suggested, for
example, that we are not abiding by our licence commitments. I
would just like to read to you what the ITC has said about this
particular subject because I think it is important. "The
licence may be varied by the ITC with the consent of the licensee
in respect of . . . the conditions reflecting proposals made by
the licensees which are referred to in paragraph 19. Licence conditions
designed to secure compliance with programme proposals may need
to be adjusted in the light of any changes in the tastes and interests
of viewers. Proposals by a licensee for a change would have to
be justified by him in these terms." So this is the relationship
on this issue that we have with the ITC so it is for the ITC to
determine whether we are enabled to do this within the legislation
and within the licence contracts or not. That, I think, is the
position. I see no problem in discussing it here but it is not
really a matter for Government.
25. I will come back to that point, if I may,
in a moment. Mr Eyre, you briefed the Prime Minister on the proposed
changes. That is correct?
(Mr Eyre) Not personally but No 10 was made aware
of it.
26. Well, he was briefed on it. Are you privy
to tell us what his comments were at that time?
(Mr Eyre) The Prime Minister wrote to me. The only
direct correspondence I have had with him has been not at that
time. He wrote me a three paragraph letter in which the first
paragraph clarified that the views expressed in the press, with
some fanfare, were his personal views but that he acknowledged
this was a decision for the ITC. He clarified that the issue for
him was one of marginalisation of news, both on public service
television but in the media as a whole, and that he would regard
that as being a retrograde step—if that was our intention.
In his final paragraph he said, "But then this is a job for
the ITC and not for politicians".
27. And after that briefing there was some very
bad press on that issue.
(Mr Eyre) Yes.
28. Who do you think was responsible for leaking
the content of any communication with the Prime Minister?
(Mr Eyre) I have no idea.
29. No idea whatsoever?
(Mr Eyre) One may have a series of suspicions but
I do not think it is particularly appropriate in this House for
a person like myself to be making those.
30. Have any Minister's press officers chosen
to make their views known to you?
(Mr Eyre) Not personally, no.
31. To anybody else at that table?
(Mr Hill) Not that I am aware of, no.
32. We understand Alastair Campbell hates the
idea of a move, yet the Prime Minister has found the time to make
a statement on the issue. Does that not concern you?
(Mr Eyre) I understand that is the case as well but
it is not really for me to criticise Alastair Campbell or No 10
in the way they have chosen to behave on this issue.
33. I am not asking for criticism; I am asking
for comment.
(Mr Eyre) I understand that what you say is correct
and I think Alastair Campbell does have a strong view about this.
34. And Alastair Campbell has not expressed
that opinion to any of you?
(Mr Eyre) Not directly, no.
(Mr Hill) No.
35. But to people you know who have passed it
on to you?
(Mr Eyre) Yes.
36. So he has interfered with the process?
(Mr Eyre) I do not think it is interference for politicians
to have a point of view. At the end of the day this is for the
ITC to decide.
37. With all respect, politicians and Alastair
Campbell are quite different. He is not a politician so you can
address it back to Alastair Campbell. He is not a politician.
You have indicated he has made his opinions known to you and your
organisation. Can you please tell me more about that?
(Mr Eyre) I am aware of his views—not via any
formal process of consultation but, rather, via a series of intermediaries
so I am not entirely sure it is a particularly high quality information.
I do not think anybody is denying it.
38. Given what you have said and given my questions
to you, do you feel the independence of ITC is being jeopardised
by Government interference?
(Mr Eyre) If the ITC were to be cowed by the very
strong views that have been expressed and then managed in the
press in quite an aggressive way then one would have to conclude
that that would be a flaw in the process. This ultimately does
rest, however, with the ITC which has a good track record of independence
about listening to all points of view—be they those of humble
viewers or politicians or media managers—and then coming
to an independent decision, based on the legislation in front
of it which actually says "Is this in the public interest?
Will this better satisfy the taste and interest of viewers?"
That is its mandate.
39. Did you write a letter to anybody around
this table, after the briefing to the Prime Minister and others,
expressing an opinion that you were fed up with Government spins
and Government intervention?
(Mr Eyre) No, I did not—not to anyone around
this table.
|
