APPENDIX 29
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Public Voice
SUMMARY
Public Voice is a voluntary sector network established
to support, defend and protect public service broadcasting in
all its forms, now, and in the future. It represents the interests
of voluntary and community organisations, the causes they serve
and their constituents. Public Voice campaigns to ensure that
communications reform is led by public interest objectives, such
as plurality of voice, impartiality and objectivity in news, diversity
and quality of content, right across the market. The Public Voice
steering committee is made up of a number of agencies who have
particular expertise in the voluntary and media sectors (Broadcasting
Support Services, Campaign for Quality Television, Community Media
Association, the Media Trust, Third World and Environment Broadcasting
Project [3WE], and the Voice of the Listener and Viewer), and
we also have a wide and active membership of voluntary and community
groups. Current supporters and members include: NCVO, The Kings
Fund, World Wildlife Fund, RSPB, NIACE, CAFOD, Age Concern England,
Childline, the Dyslexia Institute, RNIB, RNID, Oxfam, CSV Media
and the British Deaf Association.
OUR MAIN
CONCERNS
In this submission we concentrate on four main
areas where Public Voice has a unique perspective and particular
expertise. These are:
— Safeguarding citizens and consumers
— Access to high quality diverse services
— Defining and protecting public service
broadcasting
— Development and promotion of digital
broadcasting
1. Safeguarding citizens and consumers
Any communications reform must recognise the
role that broadcasting plays in our democratic society and acknowledge
that broadcasters have a responsibility to meet the interests
of their audiences as citizens and as consumers. Citizenship in
the global information society is an active and participatory
process enabled by the provision of information. We believe OFCOM
should be given specific responsibility for promoting the interests
of both citizens and consumers.
We are calling for the establishment of an independent
citizenship panel to complement the work of the consumer panel
proposed by the White Paper. We recommend that this panel, which
must be properly staffed and resourced, would have responsibility
for:
— Monitoring the performance of the
public service broadcasters against their Tier 3 requirements
and statements of promise; researching the perceptions of the
public and civic groups on this performance; reporting to and
advising OFCOM; making recommendations for new regulatory approaches;
and acting as a consultative body to OFCOM in its reporting on
public service broadcasting issues to the Secretary of State;
— Assessing new proposals which impact
on the delivery of public interest objectives in broadcasting
and advising OFCOM on their implications for citizenship;
— Commissioning research on how citizens
can most benefit from the convergence of other information services
around public service broadcast content and making formal recommendations
on this;
— Further defining the services essential
to citizenship and periodically surveying the supply of such services
via the world wide web in order to identify areas of essential
information which are not covered or inadequately covered, unserved
or inadequately served interest groups and to identify questions
for public policy arising from these.
2. Access to high quality diverse services
Today only a handful of individuals have real
power to decide what appears on mainstream television and even
senior "commissioning" executives have to get the approval
of their controller for almost any commission. Controllers' decisions
often appear to be mainly dictated by the search for ratings rather
than a desire for range and quality. This is one of the most significant
threats to PSB. One answer might be to give the new regulator
clear instructions to further the plurality of access to output.
This might be done by adding to OFCOM's central regulatory objectives
the job of "monitoring, maintaining and increasing"
the number of independent commissioning points across the full
range in all five terrestrial channels. The Government could also
give OFCOM more scope to pursue this objective through the policy
of maintaining diversity and plurality outlined in section four
of the White Paper.
It is essential that the draft bill spells out
a determination to secure plurality of access as well as plurality
of output. Without the first there will not be the second. It
may even be necessary for OFCOM to be given the power to insist
on new independent commissioning arrangements in line with free
and fair competition within channels where they believe there
is a problem.
We also have particular concerns about the impact
that the potential merger between Granada and Carlton could have
in this area. We do not believe that such a merger should be allowed
without careful consideration of all the assurances and the establishment
of safeguards to ensure that plurality of voice is maintained
and that explicit steps are taken to ensure the continuance of
relevant regional and local programming for audiences in each
and every area.
3. Defining and protecting public service
broadcasting
We are campaigning for the forthcoming legislation
to contain a clear definition of public service broadcasting and
for clear, measurable and published requirements on each broadcaster
for all Tier 2 and Tier 3 content provision. In addition we believe
there must be clear and enforceable programming investment quotas
to ensure that sufficient money is available to make high quality
programmes. Such quotas would, we believe, be a valuable long
term investment since they would ensure that UK broadcasting retains
its leading position in the world market and a ready foreign market
for UK productions.
A mixed schedule and universal access to programmes
are at the heart of public service broadcasting. Public Voice
believes both are in danger under the current proposals. Monitoring
by organisations in membership of Public Voice shows that since
the last Broadcasting Act in 1990 there has been:
— an emphasis on popular "consumer"
issues at the expense of broader and more complex subjects;
— a reduction in the total output of
factual programmes on developing countries by the four on-going
terrestrial channels of almost 50 per cent;
— less innovation in drama and an over
concentration on domestic and international repeats.
With UK broadcasters under increasing pressure
to achieve high ratings this trend is bound to continue unless
there are specific requirements for the provision of a wide range
of quality programming.
4. Development and promotion of digital broadcasting
Digital programming offers many new exciting
and innovative opportunities for programme making as well as significant
technological advances which can benefit both radio and television
audiences. We welcome such initiatives as long as sufficient safeguards
and resources for analogue services are retained during the transitional
period so that viewers and listeners are not disadvantaged by
"digital drift", (the moving of high quality educative
and informative programming from analogue to digital channels).
One of the real barriers to take-up is the cost
of digital radio and television equipment. We have urged the Government
to reconsider this issue, and, if it is still unwilling to commit
public funds to subsidies, to outline the ways in which it intends
to put pressure on the market to reduce costs. We hope these points
will be addressed in the draft communications bill.
In the move to digital services it is important
to:
— offer special services (easy to use
and competitively priced) to meet the needs of those with disabilities;
— ensure that those who cannot afford
or access digital services are not disadvantaged by an early switchover;
— offer clear and objective information
to the public on both the costs and benefits of digital services;
— special treatment to be given to
local and community broadcasters to enable them to have access
to either commercial delivery platforms or spectrum.
The thorough cost benefit analysis of digital
services proposed in the draft digital action plan is welcome
but it must include a clear acknowledgement of the cultural and
social value of public service broadcasting and the recognition
of the importance of continuing to make sure services remain readily
and widely available.
We have asked the Government to publicly confirm
that the digital terrestrial platform will be retained after switchover
is complete and that innovative and imaginative thinking on the
future of the platform will be undertaken. We have also asked
the Government to confirm that a range of high quality digital
services will be available through a variety of routes so that
the UK public continues to have choice about how they access free
to air digital programmes.
INTRODUCTION
Public Voice is a voluntary sector network established
to support, defend and protect public service broadcasting in
all its forms, now, and in the future. It represents the interests
of voluntary and community organisations, the causes they serve
and their constituents. Public Voice campaigns to ensure that
communications reform is led by public interest objectives, such
as plurality of voice, impartiality and objectivity in news, diversity
and quality of content, right across the market.
The Public Voice steering committee is made
up of a number of agencies who have particular expertise in the
voluntary and media sectors (Broadcasting Support Services, Campaign
for Quality Television, Community Media Association, the Media
Trust, Third World and Environment Broadcasting Project [3WE],
and the Voice of the Listener and Viewer), and we also have a
wide and active membership of voluntary and community groups.
Current supporters and members include: NCVO, The Kings Fund,
World Wildlife Fund, RSPB, NIACE, CAFOD, Age Concern England,
Childline, the Dyslexia Institute, RNIB, RNID, Oxfam, CSV Media
and the British Deaf Association.
Public Voice has commented in detail on a number
of policy proposals and consultation documents over the past year
including: the Government's White Paper on Communications Reform,
Professor Cave's Radio Management Spectrum Review, the BBC's proposals
for new digital services; ITC consultations on restrictive service
licences and on cross promotion; the Government's draft digital
action plan; and the Towers Perrin scoping report on OFCOM. We
will shortly be submitting our response to the consultation document
on media ownership. We also submitted written evidence to the
Select Committee's earlier inquiry into the Government's proposals
for communications reform.
In this submission we shall concentrate on four
main areas which we believe are of particular interest to the
citizens and consumers of this country and where we believe Public
Voice has a unique perspective and expertise. These are:
— Safeguarding citizens and consumers
— Access to high quality diverse services
— Defining and protecting public service
broadcasting
— Development and promotion of digital
broadcasting
In its White Paper on Communications Reform
published in December 2000 the Government made a number of welcome
commitments including the following statements that Public Voice
welcomed in its own response to the White Paper. We believe that
these commitments are still as relevant today and that these principles
should underpin communications reform.
— ensuring that the interests of citizens
and consumers are paramount;
— universal access to public service
content through a diversity of media;
— the recognition of public service
broadcasting, including news and current affairs and original
production, educational programmes, children's programmes, religious
programmes and coverage of arts, science and international issues;
— the explicit retention of key public
service channels as mixed schedule networks;
— strengthening regional and community
media;
— ensuring that cultural diversity
is recognised and reflected in programming.
— universal access to a choice of diverse
services of the highest quality
In the Communications White Paper the main responsibility
for regulating public service programming is placed with the broadcasters
themselves, in order to allow them flexibility to compete in an
open market. Public Voice believes this is an unrealistic and
over-simplistic view. A reduction in regulation will put more
pressure on public service broadcasters to popularise their programming
in order to boost ratings, thus squeezing PSB programmes as well
as other support materials and related activities. We believe
that appropriate protection of PSB and specific requirements for
each public service broadcaster would be in the interests of both
broadcasters and audiences whilst still allowing broadcasters
sufficient freedom to produce programmes to suit their own target
audiences.
We know that since the last Broadcasting Act
in 1990 there has been a significant decrease in the overall factual
output on international issues on main terrestrial channels, less
innovation in drama, and more repeat programming. A relaxation
in regulation would allow this trend to continue and would limit
the public service broadcasters' ability to fulfil their remit
by informing, educating and involving the public. We know that
television in particular is the single most important source of
information for the majority of the UK public. The voluntary and
community organisations we represent rely on public service broadcasting
to help them raise awareness of key issues and to inform, motivate
and involve the public. Any further reduction in the regulation
of PSB programming would have a detrimental effect on these agencies
and on the interests and communities they serve.
1. Safeguarding citizens and consumers
In its White Paper last year, the Government
stated that communications reform was intended to benefit both
citizens and consumers and this commitment was warmly welcomed
by Public Voice. We were disappointed, however, that the White
Paper did not contain more detail on these issues—in particular
in relation to citizenship issues—and that the main proposals
in relation to consumer interests appeared to concentrate on matters
of taste and decency, or the range and quality of service delivery,
and that issues of content were not really addressed.
The Government must recognise the need to promote
the interests of citizens of the UK as citizens of the "global
information society" and develop a suitably broad definition
and scope of citizenship. It should ensure that UK citizens are
enabled to receive the information they need to play a full part
in society. In the light of recent world events the need to enable
people to develop as well informed citizens is perhaps more crucial
than ever before. Citizenship requires the provision of high quality
content by the public service broadcasters. Therefore the availability
of high quality, informative and educational factual content through
public service broadcasting is central to citizens' interests,
and has for this reason been recognised by government to be "as
important, if not more important than ever before". Citizenship
in the global information society is an active and participatory
process enabled by the provision of information. It cannot be
confined to a passive state of wishing not to be offended and
to be reassured that free speech is protected.
Any communications reform must recognise the
role that broadcasting plays in our democratic society and acknowledge
that broadcasters have a responsibility to meet the interests
of their audiences as citizens and as consumers. This important
point, which we believe is central to communications reform, was
recently addressed during the report stage of the OFCOM bill in
the House of Lords when Lord Corbett introduced an amendment calling
for OFCOM to be given a specific responsibility to promote the
interests of both citizens and consumers. In responding to this
point for the Government, Lord McIntosh said that the Government
was in total sympathy with this view and that this could be considered
during the debate on the draft communications bill early next
year. This is a point we will be pursuing again with the Government
and we hope that the Select Committee will give due attention
to this matter during your own deliberations.
In our response to the White Paper we welcomed
the proposal for the establishment of a consumer panel to advise
OFCOM but called for this panel to be supplemented by an independent
citizenship panel that could consider a wider range of issues.
We also called, along with colleagues from consumer organisations
such as the NCC, for the role of the consumer panel to be widened
so that it could consider issues other than service delivery.
We also asked for the consumer panel to be properly resourced
so that it had sufficient funds and personnel to carry out an
appropriate range of research.
Since producing our response to the White Paper
we have talked to a number of Government advisers and officials,
to current regulators and to other organisations in the voluntary
sector and have developed more detailed proposals about how the
interests of citizens and consumers might be addressed. Our latest
proposals are outlined below:
We suggested in our response to the Towers Perrin
report that the citizenship panel previously outlined by Public
Voice could have four main functions:
Positive content requirements—monitoring
the performance of the public service broadcasters against their
Tier 3 requirements and statements of promise, and researching
the perceptions of the public and civic groups with regard to
this performance; reporting to and advising OFCOM on these; making
recommendations for new regulatory approaches; and acting as a
consultative body to OFCOM in its reporting on public service
broadcasting issues to the Secretary of State.
New service proposals—assessing new proposals
which impact on the delivery of public interest objectives in
broadcasting and advising OFCOM on their implications for citizenship.
Convergence and public service broadcasting—commissioning
research and leading discussion of how citizens can most benefit
from the convergence of other information services around public
service broadcast content; and making formal recommendations on
this periodically to OFCOM and the government.
Market failure in internet services "essential
to citizenship"—further defining the services essential
to citizenship and periodically surveying the supply of such services
via the www, with a view to identifying:
— areas of essential information which
are not covered or inadequately covered
— unserved or inadequately served interest
groups
— and questions for public policy arising
from these
The principal aim of function IV would be to
advise and make recommendations to OFCOM on ways in which public
service requirements in broadcasting could be used to correct
these market failures, for example:
— by adding new Tier 3 requirements
in future years;
— by bringing untouched areas of content
to the attention of public service broadcasters as they prepare
annual statements of promise;
— by requiring broadcasters to create
specific multi-platform approaches that correct market failure
on the Web;
— by suggesting ways in which public
service broadcasters' use of the www could mesh with other public
sector and civil society provision to create a "national
backbone" of Web-based information essential to citizenship.
2. Access to high quality diverse services
The White Paper pledges to retain the public
service broadcasters' independent production obligations, to ensure
that PSB continues to meet the needs of different communities
and cultural interests, and to maintain the plurality of expression.
All these are very worthy and laudable statements but they have
no real meaning unless backed up by firm regulation and adequate
resources.
The White Paper says nothing about the effective
collapse of independent commissioning in British television. 20
years ago many hundreds of different individuals, both employees
of the main broadcasters and independents, had real power to influence
what appeared and how it was presented on the screen. This led
to a rich plurality and a much greater diversity and breadth of
achievement than is seen today, despite an expansion of airtime.
Today only a handful of individuals have real power to decide
what appears on mainstream television and even senior "commissioning"
executives have to get the approval of their controller for almost
any commission. Controllers' decisions often appear to be mainly
dictated by the search for ratings rather than a desire for range
and quality. This is one of the most significant threats to PSB.
One answer might be to give the new regulator clear instructions
to further the plurality of access to output. This might be done
by adding to OFCOM's central regulatory objectives the job of
"monitoring, maintaining and increasing" the number
of independent commissioning points across the full range in all
five terrestrial channels. The Government could also give OFCOM
more scope to pursue this objective through the policy of maintaining
diversity and plurality outlined in section four of the White
Paper.
Public service broadcasters will not promote
plurality of expression if the independent sector is limited to
fulfilling the commissioning demands of a tiny number of channel
controllers. It is essential that the draft bill spells out a
determination to secure plurality of access as well as plurality
of output. Without the first there will not be the second. It
may even be necessary for OFCOM to be given the power to insist
on new independent commissioning arrangements in line with free
and fair competition within channels where they believe there
is a problem.
We also have particular concerns about the impact
that the potential merger between Granada and Carlton could have
in this area. We do not believe that such a merger should be allowed
without careful consideration of all the assurances and the establishment
of safeguards to ensure that plurality of voice is maintained
and that explicit steps are taken to ensure the continuance of
relevant regional and local programming for audiences in each
and every area.
3. Defining and protecting public service
broadcasting
We have very specific concerns, as outlined
in our response to the White Paper, about the proposed regulation
of public service broadcasting and with the future of the mainstream
free-to-air television channels which carry public service obligations.
The most important categories of programming
here are news and current affairs (Tier 2), and all the programme
types which fall into the proposed Tier 3. We believe the proposal
to allow broadcasters to regulate their own performance with regard
to Tier 3 positive content requirements will greatly weaken this
key area of provision. We support the 3WE proposals on Tier 3
regulation which are attached to this submission in Appendix B.
We will continue to campaign for the forthcoming
legislation to contain a clear definition of public service broadcasting
(the Public Voice definition is attached here as Appendix A) and
also for clear, measurable and published requirements on broadcasters
for all Tier 2 and Tier 3 content provision. In addition we believe
there must be clear and enforceable programming investment quotas
to ensure that sufficient money is available to make high quality
programmes. Such quotas would, we believe, be a valuable long
term investment since they would ensure that UK broadcasting retains
its leading position in the world market and a ready foreign market
for UK productions.
A mixed schedule and universal access to programmes
are at the heart of public service broadcasting. Public Voice
believes both are in danger under the current proposals. Monitoring
by organisations in membership of Public Voice shows some worrying
developments since the last Broadcasting Act in 1990:
A refocusing of current affairs programming
to emphasise popular "consumer" issues at the expense
of broader and more complex subjects. A reduction in the total
output of factual programmes on developing countries by the four
on-going terrestrial channels of almost 50 per cent.
Less innovation in drama and an over concentration
on domestic and international repeats.
In 1994 the main slot for "serious documentaries"
on the ITV network (10.30pm on a Tuesday evening) transmitted
34 hours of documentary programming. By 1997 this had dropped
to 18 hours.
Subject matter has narrowed with an increase
in the number of films about royalty or celebrities and there
has also been a significant increase in the commissioning of popular
programmes such as "Neighbours from Hell".
Budgets for serious documentary programming
have steadily been reduced yet ITV companies have taken an increased
profit margin (20 per cent off the top of the budget) for each
film they produce.
Despite criticism by its regulator, the ITC,
the ITV network has failed to increase its documentary output.
The ITC in turn has failed to exercise its punitive powers effectively—demonstrating
the need for an empowered and proactive regulator under the new
legislation.
On ITV documentaries now must vie for airtime
(and budget) on a purely commercial basis: they must deliver high
audiences or face extinction. The result will be a steady increase
in ITV's output of the new breed of "confessional" or
"popular" documentaries—and a reduction in the
sort of "serious documentaries" which the ITC has identified
as "the best ITV tradition".
4. Development and promotion of digital broadcasting
We recognise that digital programming offers
many new exciting and innovative opportunities for programme making
as well as significant technological advances which can benefit
both radio and television audiences. The Government is right to
encourage the development of digital services, and to encourage
innovation and investment in such services by broadcasters and
we welcome such initiatives as long as sufficient safeguards and
resources for analogue services are retained during the transitional
period.
We have serious concerns about "digital
drift", (the moving of high quality educative and informative
programming from analogue to digital channels), in order to enable
the mainstream terrestrial channels to maintain a high share of
viewing figures by screening programmes which attract large audiences
whilst those programmes which attract smaller audiences are being
consigned to the digital channels. Educational programming is
already being particularly affected in this way.
We were encouraged that the Secretary of State
for Culture, Media and Sport has for the first time made "online
and interactive" services an explicit part of the service
offerings expected from the BBC in her decision to approve the
BBC's new digital television services. This is the first time
that public service broadcasters' use of their advantages (licence
fee, public ownership, access to spectrum etc) to diversify into
online and multi-platform approaches to communication has been
subject to any kind of legislation or regulatory scrutiny, and
it heralds a welcome recognition of the significance of convergence.
The point of a converged regulator, as the government
stated in the White Paper, is that it can "see across...converging
industries". It should also "see across converging services"—where
those are provided by a single industry such as a public service
broadcaster.
One of the real barriers to take-up is the cost
of digital radio and television equipment. In 2000 the Government
said it was unwilling to consider subsidising the costs of such
equipment. We have urged the Government to reconsider this position,
and, if it is still unwilling to commit public funds to subsidies,
to outline the ways in which it intends to put pressure on the
market to reduce costs. We hope these points will be addressed
in the draft communications bill.
Without some significant improvements in this
area it seems extremely unlikely that the Government can meet
the target of switchover by 2010. We are also seeking assurance
from Government that individuals, particularly those on limited
budgets, will not be forced into early switchover as no one should
be deprived of minimum services. Unless the Government extends
its goal for DTT beyond the suggested 72 per cent reach, and takes
steps to ensure the costs of accessing DTT are reduced, the goal
of having 95 per cent of consumers with access to the main PSB
channels free to air by 2010 seems unlikely to be realised.
We welcome the recognition in the Government's
draft digital action plan of the importance of ensuring the development
and maintenance of special services to meet the needs of those
with disabilities. We hope that due attention will be paid to
developing easy to use and competitively priced equipment which
will be readily accessible to all.
We welcomed the proposals in the draft digital
action plan for public information campaigns to explain the issues
around digital switchover and are extremely pleased that the DCMS
has invited Public Voice to join the marketing group that it is
establishing to look at such issues.
The Government's commitment to defining and
agreeing a target for digital terrestrial public services after
switchover is very welcome and we hope that this is an area where
there will be very wide consultation with public interest and
consumer groups. We have also asked the Government to publicly
confirm that the digital terrestrial platform will be retained
and that it will offer free at the point of delivery access to
a good range of high quality programming.
We have also asked for special treatment to
be given to local and community broadcasters to enable them to
have access to either commercial delivery platforms or spectrum
and hope that the Government will recognise the importance of
supporting the development of such services.
The thorough cost benefit analysis of digital
services proposed in the draft digital action plan is very welcome
but we are seeking assurance that this will include a clear acknowledgement
of the cultural and social value of public service broadcasting
and the recognition of the importance of continuing to make sure
services are readily and widely available. It would be unacceptable
to end up with a system in which analysis is undertaken on a purely
economic basis and in which the costs of making public service
programming is so prohibitive that broadcasters reduce their PSB
output to a minimum.
The Government's commitment in its draft action
plan to commissioning research into viewers' needs and expectations
is extremely welcome. We have stressed the importance of independent
third party research that clearly sets out the costs, as well
as the benefits, of digital radio and television. We hope that
when this research is commissioned in the first half of 2002 consumer
groups and others representing the public interest will have the
opportunity to comment on its range and content. We also hope
that the Government will take this opportunity to ensure that
there is a continuing commitment to provide services which inform,
educate and involve citizens so that in the digital era broadcasting
continues to play a vital part in our democratic process.
| 
