Examination of Witnesses (Questions 103
- 119)
TUESDAY 8 JUNE 2004
FIVE
Chairman: Good morning and welcome. We
are very grateful to you for coming here today, and we will start
with Mr Fabricant.
Q103 Michael Fabricant: The bad news
was when I first saw Channel 5 I stopped watching but now I have
become quite a fan; it seems to be changing its format. Do you
see yourself now as a public service broadcaster?
Ms Lighting: I have only been
with Channel 5 for 12 months—
Q104 Michael Fabricant: That explains
it!
Ms Lighting: No, no, no, I would
not like to say that. I think Five has always seen itself as a
public service broadcaster. What we clearly have been doing recently
is, I think, improving the quality across the schedule and the
diversity of the programmes we are offering. So I am delighted
to see that you can see the difference.
Q105 Michael Fabricant: The difference
is noticeable. What is driving it? Is it to try and go—I
was going to say "more upmarket" for certain types of
programmes but I think that probably would be the wrong assessment
to make (and maybe rather a snobby assessment). What is driving
it? Is it trying to get different audience profiles or is it because
Ofcom are encouraging you to do it? Is it because of a sense of
responsibility that you are doing it?
Ms Lighting: There would be a
number of reasons why we are changing, and I think one of the
first things to remember is we are simply growing up as a company.
We are the youngest, by a long way, of all of the terrestrial
broadcasters. Five launched as the only terrestrial to launch
into what was already a multi-channel environment and a very competitive
one at that. In its early days I think Five was (and it was called
the cross-channel five at that time) really having to push and
work very hard to be noticed in what was already a very crowded
market. We are now becoming more established; I think we are maturing
and I think we have seen ourselves that it makes a great deal
of sense, both commercially and in terms of the reputation of
the channel, to put more emphasis on the diversity and the quality
of the schedule. We, frankly, have better resources to be able
to do that. Last year was the first year that Five made a profit,
albeit a modest one but nonetheless a profit, after the start-up
phase, which obviously took a lot of investment on the part of
our shareholders, in terms of the re-tuning and the normal start-up
costs of a channel.
Q106 Michael Fabricant: One of the
problems which you did not mention that Channel 5 (in those days)
faced when it first started broadcasting—and still exists—is
that you do not have universal analogue coverage, particularly
in parts of the South coast which can interfere with French transmissions.
Incidentally, the French interfere enough with British transmissions
so I do not know why we are so reticent, but that is beside the
point. There are whole areas of the country where you cannot pick
up Channel 5 on analogue and we learn frequently that in the Rhondda
you cannot pick up Channel 5 or anything else on Freeview. Is
that not holding you back, or is now availability on satellite
turning Channel 5's fortunes for the better?
Ms Lighting: There is no question
that digital is very good news for Five. We probably welcome digital
technology and digital roll-out in a way that no other terrestrial
broadcaster would. We have, in fact, made some improvements in
our—as we would like to call it these days—"old,
analogue system" but the focus, clearly, is the future and
it is what digital technology will bring to us in terms of our
coverage.
Q107 Michael Fabricant: One of the
suggestions you have made in relation to the BBC is that the licence
fee should be top-sliced, and that a part of the funding should
be available to Five for public service—no?
Ms Lighting: Absolutely not.
Q108 Michael Fabricant: I have been
told the wrong thing altogether.
Ms Lighting: We would actually
take quite the opposite view. We do not believe that top-slicing
is something to be recommended. We think that the BBC's current
form of funding is the right one for the BBC and that, actually,
top-slicing could be very difficult in any event to manage and
to create a sort of Arts Council of the Air, if you like. So,
no, it is not something that we would welcome or something that
we are trying to bring about for Five.
Q109 Michael Fabricant: I am very
pleased to hear that because those are the sorts of arguments
I was about to make.
Ms Lighting: I think we are in
violent agreement.
Michael Fabricant: That is very good.
In fact, it is such a love-in, Chairman, I think I will give up
on that high note.
Q110 Rosemary McKenna: Can I continue
with the theme I asked the other witnesses, on the issue of whether
there ought to be a ratings system for television programmes,
or whether it is something that ought to be discussed in view
of the concerns that are expressed by many parents with very young
children, and older children, about the fact that everyone understands
the watershed is nine o'clock but we have all the access to television
and to computers, etc. Would you think that is worth discussing?
Ms Lighting: I think this is a
big issue and a difficult one, actually. I think the suggestion
that this should be open to a wider debate is a very good one.
What we actually do at Five is we have introduced some form of
ratings system already in addition to the watershed. We have for
our movies a rating that tells the viewers what they can expect
to watch, and it is something that we have, particularly at Five,
found our own audience actually welcomes. But we have done that
specifically around our movie output and not around our general
programming. I think more generally it may be more difficult to
ensure that it is absolutely consistent, and I would slightly
worry about the level of bureaucracy and administration across
an entire schedule.
Q111 Rosemary McKenna: To achieve
that kind of consistency. I do not think anyone wants to go down
the road of censorship but I do think people are genuinely looking
for more information and more advice about content. Obviously,
Ofcom are the people to look at that. Would you agree with that?
Ms Lighting: I think Ofcom would
be a very good place to start that debate.
Q112 Rosemary McKenna: I think the
concern is that Ofcom are involved after the event, when parents
and people make complaints about certain things, and that they
should be more proactive.
Ms Lighting: I did think it was
rather interesting to hear about Channel 4's experience of when
they introduced ratings and actually it had a rather negative
effect, which is why I am rather loath to jump to too many conclusions
about this without suggesting that actually we do a really in-depth
research and review of it.
Q113 Chris Bryant: Can I return to
the issue of Freesat? Part of the accepted world view for the
last few years has been that there is a free-to-air offer which
everybody is entitled to, and Channel 5 has been part of that
although it has not been physically possible for people in many
parts of the country to get Channel 5. Of course that is now possible
in some parts of the country, but only if you pay money to Sky;
you have to take out a package and the basic package is £17.50
and the next package up £19.50 and so on. Do you believe
that Channel 5 would always want to be part of any guaranteed
free package?
Ms Lighting: We do see ourselves
as a PSB who we hope and believe, in the digital environment,
should be available universally, which is why we have welcomed
the introduction of Freeview. I think it is an extraordinary platform
to have seen just what has happened in the short time it has been
around; it has grown to about 3.5 million homes—about the
same size as cable which has taken considerably longer to establish
itself. I think the introduction of a free satellite offering
would be a very positive step, both for viewers and for the speed
at which people would be able to take up digital rather than waiting
for a full roll-out, but also I think there is enormous economic
benefit in covering part of the country through satellite.
Q114 Chris Bryant: Were you a bit
depressed by the way the BBC went it alone, by going on to Astra
2D and therefore circumventing the need.
Ms Lighting: In terms of going
it alone, in terms—
Q115 Chris Bryant: They have created
a Freesat BBC, have they not, because you can go and buy a Sky
box and use it and you can get the BBC, but you cannot get ITV,
Channel 4 and Five.
Ms Lighting: That is true, with
the exception of Solus cards, which are available through Sky.
Q116 Chris Bryant: You cannot get
a new one.
Ms Robertson: We were rather depressed
by the unilateral action which immediately meant that the Solus
card system, which the BBC had funded to start with, was stopped
and so there was a problem for people, particularly in constituencies
like your own, who had been receiving us through that means. That
is why, together with Channel 4 and ITV, we for a period of time
funded a scheme whereby people could, for a very cheap price,
buy a Solus card to last the next three years, so that they could
continue to receive our services on the satellite. Actually it
is interesting it had quite a small take-up—much smaller
than we had thought it would—but people did have that opportunity.
We e-mailed everybody—
Chris Bryant: There was enormous confusion
about it, I think, and that was one of the issues I had more letters
about—certainly more letters about it than I did about the
Iraq war—from my constituents. I am just intrigued because,
of course, that Solus offer is for three years; one of those years
has now gone and there is only two more years of that, and you
cannot go out and do it from scratch now.
Chairman: I do not want to interfere
with your line of questioning but this is an inquiry into BBC
Charter Review. We are always delighted to see our friends from
Five and we are very interested in Five but this is not an inquiry
into communications in general.
Chris Bryant: Chairman, I think that
is unfair because the question is specifically about the BBC and
the BBC's relationship with the other broadcasters, so that they
produce the Freesat option, which then enables people to see the
BBC.
Chairman: I said I was not being critical
of you, Chris. If I am critical of you, you will know it. Please
go on.
Chris Bryant: I do not think there is
any need, Chairman. I have finished.
Q117 Derek Wyatt: Good morning. Can
you just tell me what your budgets are for production currently?
Ms Lighting: Our programme budget
is currently £170 million a year.
Q118 Derek Wyatt: As I understand
it, BBC3's is £100 million and they get less than 2,000 viewers
per hour most of the time and 10,000-15,000 sometimes, and if
we are lucky they get 100,000 which gets to .1, which is very
good. So I am interested that you are not for top-slicing because
we did not ask for BBC3 or 4; there was no negotiation with the
people who pay their licence fee. I would like to see a UK film
channel and I would like to see the BBC pay for that. If they
do not want to do a PSB channel that we might like I would like
to see a sports channel for the BBC. If the BBC does not want
to do it why should there not be a fund made available for people
to bid to say, "If they don't want to do it we would like
to do it and we would like it to be paid for by the licence fee"?
Ms Lighting: I think that when
we have looked at the concept of top-slicing the view that we
have taken so far is that most people have been talking about
it in terms almost of an annual amount of money that perhaps would
come from the BBC and would be invested directly into programmes
that would then go into the various terrestrial broadcaster schedules.
Our view, at the moment, is that the BBC is funded in the right
way. By taking money from the BBC I do not think that will enhance
in any way the offering we already have. I think the PSB requirements
upon the other broadcasters are acceptable to all of us. What
we would ask for, from Five's point of view, is actually just
a little more flexibility in the way that we are asked to provide
our PSB. By that, what I mean is more flexibility to choose the
areas that we feel it is right for us to do. I will give you an
example. Our arts programming, which is something that we have
become fairly well-known for recently, and our science programme
that we have just launched in January, were not actually a requirement
per se by us but something that we were able to do, and
we put into our peak-time schedule. We would rather move to an
environment where we actually have more flexibility to work within
our schedule and to look for opportunities to provide programmes
that other broadcasters are not necessarily, and actually to be
scheduling in a complementary way. Simply putting additional money
into Five, with restrictions that may come with that, is not seen
as particularly beneficial to us.
Q119 Derek Wyatt: You heard Sir Christopher
Bland say that on digital radio (I am going to find out how much
they spent) they now admit that it was a mistake. We never asked
them to do that. By the way, we could not even hear it. So what
is public sector about that? For instance, my community radio
stations—I have three with one-month trial dates—will
never survive and never work in any other way unless there is
a trust fund for them to work. I would say that that is a BBC
duty; that they ought to have done community radio. They think
it is rather down there, and they do not want it to affect their
own radio programmes, but if we cannot get a community radio fund
and we cannot top-slice the licence fund, how will community radio
and community television develop in the UK?
Ms Lighting: I am less familiar
with radio, I must admit, than I am with television, but I would
point to the BBC's investment in BBC3 and 4. We were just talking
a moment ago about the success of Freeview as a platform, and
I am under no illusion that actually those new channels have been
part of the driving force of that digital roll-out. So I think
the BBC are actually playing a very important role across the
whole of PSB and driving digital take-up.
| 
