Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140 - 149)

THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER 1998

MR MARK WOOD, MR STEWART PURVIS, AND MR RICHARD TAIT

  140. Have they ever come to you and suggested one of the channels they might show would in fact be a 24-hour news service provided by you?
  (Mr Purvis) The background to that is that in the application by SDN, which was a consortium based around S4C, the Welsh language channel, there was a proposal by ITN for what is described as an information channel. That is the most advanced form of both having a video window and having an interactive text on the screen. Discussions are still continuing with SDN and with other possible platforms for that service. I personally have a great passion for that service, I think basically it allows you to both watch traditional television and get the benefits of an Internet-style service. It has been quite slow to persuade some people of its commercial value, but I think I would point to the fact that our partner in this venture, Teletext, already makes a substantial healthy profit by providing information services via your television screen. I think, frankly, we will achieve this service. There will be people who understand the commercial benefits and the public information service benefits of having a fully interactive service. In truth with an existing new channel like News 24 or Sky News or even the Euro News we operate, we decide in which order we put the news, and one of the big steps forward which the Internet offers (and I think digital television should offer) is the ability to actually select the items in the order you want and not necessarily the order we give them. That is why I am a great believer that this information channel should come about.

  141. Presumably it is also offering the background information as well?
  (Mr Purvis) Absolutely. We have all sorts of extra services which come on the back of that; the ability to eventually select video. I would mention the people who have not been mentioned here at all today, particularly in the light of the Chairman's remark about Mr Murdoch, and that is the cable companies. We are talking to NTL, we are talking to Cable & Wireless, we are involved in very advanced ideas with them, which for commercial confidentiality we cannot reveal, but I think Mr Murdoch will get an interesting surprise when he sees what cable operators like those are providing in information services.

  142. Are we not really coming to the point which Mr Keen was referring to, which basically is, as with anything else on television, whether people watch the news should be a matter for them and it should not be something which is shoved down their throats every so often, and therefore there ought to be several 24 hour news services for people to watch if they want to and then there are entertainment channels which are designed for entertainment?
  (Mr Purvis) All I would say against that is the concept of information-rich and information-poor, which has not been mentioned here today and I thought was an issue close to some people in the Labour Party; the idea that some of these services we are talking about are only available to those who can afford to pay for them and that public television, both the BBC and regulated commercial television, has a role in providing the public with information.

  143. That is a bit of a myth, because if you look at the figures, which our Chairman has been quoting at some length, the drop in the ITV viewing figures is almost exactly comparable to the growth in the satellite and cable figures, whereas the BBC have not dropped anything like as dramatically as that. They are almost exactly analogous. That would suggest in fact it is ITV that are losing their market to cable and satellite, and I think probably we could say that the ITV market is marginally down-market from the BBC, and it would appear that that market is going down.
  (Mr Purvis) Nobody would dispute that ITV and other broadcasters have lost audience to cable and satellite. The point I am making is that people are paying for the cable and satellite services, and I would have thought there was a public interest in continuing a free-to-air service by the BBC and by commercial regulated television alongside a paid-for commercial service.

  144. A large part of digital terrestrial, once it comes on stream, will be free-to-air except for buying the actual box, which will come down in price very dramatically very quickly. Then the BBC 24 hours new service will be available to anybody who has that box and will be free-to-air.
  (Mr Purvis) All I am saying is that we can argue or discuss the likely take-up of the box and the price of the box, but that situation does not exist today, it is not in reality likely. Why, in a sense, are politicians so slow to decide the turn-off for analogue? Because they are not sure about the take-up of these services. Therefore, I would argue, certainly until at very least the analogue turn-off, these free-to-air services are a vital part of the public debate on information policy.
  (Mr Tait) The research which has been done by us amongst others shows that the public still very much trusts terrestrial television news, both the BBC's and ITN's, in moments such as the Gulf War, at the time of general elections. The research that NOP did in the 1997 election and I think Gallup did in the 1992 election showed that television news was much more trusted than newspapers, whether tabloid or broadsheet. So at this stage of the development of British broadcasting we have an important public role, and we take it very seriously.

  145. I read through the report we did on this five years ago and I am aware of the dramatic changes which have taken place in those five years. If you forecast five years forward, the same changes if not more will take place.
  (Mr Wood) There are very great changes but they do not always change all habits very quickly. I think we have seen the same thing with newspapers, there were big predictions a few years ago that the advanced on-line services would make newspapers redundant. It has not happened, if anything it has bolstered newspaper circulation in some instances. I think the same thing will happen. The news bulletins, which are familiar and comfortable, are the television equivalent. People will go to the brands and the presenters and the content which they trust and which they are familiar with and that will last a very long time, I think, even if they have alternative sources of supply. I think that is why it will still be an attractive part of an evening schedule for a long time.

  Mr Maxton: I do not believe it, but there we are.

Chairman

  146. One final question to each of you. I have read your letter, Mr Wood, in which you say in the last paragraph, "ITV's own future development is closely intertwined with ITV's success. We understand ITV's reasons for the changes." I would like to ask each of you if your own personal preference would be to keep News at Ten or not?
  (Mr Purvis) I have enormous emotional ties to News at Ten because I started working in television news 25 years ago on News at Ten, I have been involved in it directly and indirectly through all that period, I used to write scripts for Reggie Bosanquet, and there are all sorts of those landmarks in one's career. But one has to say that that is a personal view and one has to look at this professionally and I have to ask myself in particular three questions. First of all, does the new schedule threaten the quality of what we do? I do not believe it does. Secondly, does the schedule meet the licence requirements? It is really not for us to judge, it is for the ITC to judge, and I think ITV have a very strong case. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is it going to allow us to continue to compete vigorously with the BBC, which is really what we are about, to be blunt? I think what has been under-played here this morning is the importance of a half-hour in the early evening whereas at the moment we are only doing 15 minutes at 20 to 6, which always was an odd length at an odd time. So I believe we will be more competitive with the BBC in the early evening. In reality, we are going to be less competitive in the late evening, but taken on balance I think it is a neutral position. So weighing all that up, we decided it was not right for us to try and stand in the way of ITV on their new schedule.

  147. That is not the question I asked you.
  (Mr Purvis) I gave you my personal view, which is that we will be sad to see it go, but we have to be professional as well.

  148. And you, Mr Wood?
  (Mr Wood) I am very attached to it as well and it is a great success, but, on balance, I am convinced by the arguments for change. I think it is in the commercial interests of ITN to work with ITV to make that change and, therefore, yes, I support the proposals for change.

  149. Mr Tait?
  (Mr Tait) Well, I share my colleagues' and my staff's enormous attachment to News at Ten and to what it stood for in ITN as a very important programme on the most watched network in British television, so personally I regret its passing, but professionally I am convinced that we have the resources and the talent in ITN to produce high-quality news programmes for ITV for whatever schedules they and the regulator determine and my focus and the focus of the teams who are working on looking at different schedules will be to make sure that those programmes work as effectively as they must if the ITC should decide to allow this schedule change to go through.

  Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 5 November 1998