UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be
published as HC 316-viii
House of COMMONS
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE
PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA CONTENT
Thursday 14 June 2007
MR SHAUN WOODWARD MP and MR JON ZEFF
Evidence heard in Public Questions 658 -
691
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
|
1.
|
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in
public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the
internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made
available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
|
|
2.
|
Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should
make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to
correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of
these proceedings.
|
|
3.
|
Members who
receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to
witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
|
|
4.
|
Prospective
witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral
evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
|
Oral Evidence
Taken before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee
on Thursday 14 June 2007
Members present
Mr John Whittingdale, in the Chair
Janet Anderson
Philip Davies
Paul Farrelly
Alan Keen
Rosemary McKenna
Mr Adrian Sanders
Helen Southworth
________________
Memorandum submitted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Shaun Woodward MP, Minister for
Creative Industries and Tourism, and Mr
Jon Zeff, Director of Broadcasting Policy, Department for Culture, Media
and Sport, gave evidence.
Q658 Chairman: Good morning. This is the final session of the Committee's inquiry into the
public service media content and we have giving evidence this morning the
Minister for Creative Industries and Tourism, Shaun Woodward, and the Director
of Broadcasting Policy at the DCMS, Jon Zeff.
Minister, we currently invest directly over £3 billion into public
service broadcasting through the BBC and, on top of that, the commercial
broadcasters get indirect support through access to spectrum, et cetera. Do you believe that that is a good
investment and that we are getting value for money from the money that is going
in and how do you measure the extent of the benefit?
Mr Woodward: First of all, good morning to the
Committee. Broadly, I have to give you
a pretty much unequivocal yes to the fact that I think we are getting very good
value for money from the broadcasting system, and I think the best way to
measure that really is to look at the state and the health of our broadcasting
industry here in the UK with other parts of Europe, looking at Canada, for
example, and looking at the United States.
We have a vibrant broadcasting industry, we have a new broadcasting
industry which is around 1% GBA of the economy, we employ 110,000 people, we
have about 300 channels, we are on track for digital switchover, we have
increasing outputs, although I think outputs are not the only way you want to
measure the strength of public service broadcasting in the country, and we have
been through a negotiation for the BBC licence fee and the new Charter which, I
think, leaves the public service broadcasting apparatus in this country in a
healthy place for the next ten years.
Now, that does not mean to say, whether inside the BBC or ITV, Channel 4
or Channel 5, that there are not significant pressures and challenges, but I
believe that, with the background of the Communications Act, Ofcom and the
apparatus that we have put in place to deal with those challenges, we are best
placed to deal with them and we are better placed than any other broadcasting
system anywhere else to deal with them.
However, that does not mean to say that we are not going to encounter
periods of difficulty, but I believe that that period of transition as we fully
engage in the digital revolution and what that means for media and new media
leaves the entire broadcasting sphere in good shape and the public sector
dimensions of that in very good shape indeed, robust and ready to meet those
challenges.
Q659 Chairman: You said specifically then that one of the
indicators of good health was the outputs of public service broadcasting. There has been some debate in the course of
our inquiry between those who argue that actually that is the appropriate way
to examine the extent of public service programming by the outputs, and there
are now a large number of channels that provide at least some public service
content, but others have said that actually we should not just focus on that,
but we still need to look at inputs, Ofcom specifically. What is your view?
Mr Woodward: I think you need to look at both. I think if you go back to the kind of
culture of box-ticking, you do not actually get a good picture and you
certainly do not get a picture which looks at whether or not you are in a
robust position to survive the vicissitudes of the market and the changes that
are taking place globally. If you look
at any of the various measures, if you look at the health of the BBC and what
the BBC is able to produce, the way it is commissioning new programming, the
vibrancy of the commercial sector, the growth of independent programme-making,
I think all of those indicators are useful and they provide part of a picture,
but the picture also needs to look at the institutions as well and I think
those institutions are in good shape.
Q660 Chairman: Your Department commissioned a report from
Robin Foster into regulation which suggested that, whilst there still needed to
be government intervention, it could become more targeted and less extensive
than in the past. Do you share that
view and where do you see the Government being able to gradually withdraw as we
move to digital switchover?
Mr Woodward: I would question the use of the word
"withdraw". I think what the Government
has to do is create an enabling climate.
The Foster report, I think, is a vital contribution, amongst many, to
mapping out the kind of future that is ahead, and I say "the kind of" because,
as I often say about this area as indeed other areas of the creative
industries, the digital revolution is something that obviously we have no
experience of, we are living through it and, just as it was with broadband and
Internet services impossible to have predicted ten years ago where we are today
both in speed and in range of services, I think it is impossible to know with
any certainty what the climate will be like in ten years' time, which you can do
only with forecasts based on experience and comparisons elsewhere. I think what Foster does is to, rightly, set
out four possible climates in which we will find ourselves and then put the
challenges down that will have to be dealt with within those four challenges,
so I think Foster is a useful contribution, but I think it has to be placed
alongside the work that is being done, for example, by Ofcom, one example in
case, of the future funding of Channel 4.
We have to look at how we are going to maintain the plurality of public
service broadcasting as well as quality and standards in public service
broadcasting in a climate when we have moved from four terrestrial channels
barely 15/20 years ago to one now of digital services in a multi-platform
age. As I say, I think Foster is a useful
contribution and we are very grateful for the work he has done, but there is a
lot more work to be done and in the end there is no science here. What there are are useful contributions to
helping us map the future and enabling the Government to make the right
decisions about the kind of framework within which the broadcasting industry
and other media industries can operate, so I do not see this as a withdrawal by
the Government at all as we go to digital switchover, I see it as appropriate
engagement to create an enabling climate in which we can maintain the plurality
of public service broadcasting and the higher standards in public service
broadcasting.
Chairman: Obviously we would like to explore some of
those challenges in more detail.
Q661 Alan Keen: Do you not think your first answer was a
little bit optimistic about the future prospects of the public service
broadcasting done by the BBC? Some
people would disagree with you. Should
we not take the shackles off them really and let them press ahead in the best
way they can for their own commercial prospects and not worry about the public
service broadcasting content?
Mr Woodward: For the BBC or across the range?
Q662 Alan Keen: No, the commercial broadcasters.
Mr Woodward: I think again what the Communications Act
envisaged was that increasing competition, a multi-channel digital environment,
would inevitably produce pressures for the commercial sector which would mean
that they would face increasing challenges from declining advertising revenue
due to there being more channels, as an example, and, therefore, Ofcom was set
up partly to enable that to be a managed transition, but it was not set up with
a view to saying, "At the end of the day, we're going to abandon all public
service broadcasting commitments". The
public do have a very strong sense of what they get from commercial channels,
for example, of ITV extremely high expectations, indeed I believe ITV meets
those, for drama. I do not see that
being abandoned, but what I do see Ofcom doing is engaging in making judgments
about the changing environment and also looking at the changing demands of
consumers because the consumer is not a frozen individual in all of this, the
consumer has changing needs, changing demands and of course one of the biggest
changes that we have to deal with is the growth of, and the transition to,
on-demand services. Again, the
broadcasting environment that all of us knew 15 years ago was one of linear,
scheduled, transmitted services from a very small number of programme-makers
and today that is a very different world.
Most consumers get their programmes, and will in the future increasingly
do so, in an on-demand way and we have to live with that world, cope with that
world and produce a regulatory environment for that world. When you have 300 channels and consumers
then will have considerably greater choice, we have to be careful that we are
not producing judgments from a static position in which we imagine the consumer
has not moved on in the last 15 years; the consumer has and that consumer
includes of course the oldest people and the youngest too.
Q663 Alan Keen: I can recall over the years on this Committee
having what I regarded even then as futile discussions with regulators about
having to have two news programmes on ITV between six o'clock and 11.30 or
something. They seemed to be futile and
they turned out to be so because we had already got 24-hour news programmes
when we were having these discussions.
I believe, and do you not agree, that ITV, for instance, would still
have news programmes because they are popular with the public and help draw
people in who will then follow on with the schedule and watch the entertainment
programmes after, so should we not take those restrictions away? They are struggling, these channels are
struggling commercially.
Mr Woodward: I do not think we should suddenly move from
one climate to another. I think
transitions have to be managed and they have to be managed based on taking
accurate analyses of prevailing and existing markets. Undoubtedly, at the time when I worked at the BBC and was working
as the editor of That's Life!,
Michael Grade, my then boss, was building a schedule around the fact that that
was how people watched television, that they tended to choose a channel for the
evening and the trick was to keep that viewer with that channel for the
evening. That is not how people, as you
rightly observe, watch television today.
Having said that, I do not think that that justifies abandoning
requiring the commercial sector to meet public service obligations and I think
we have to understand those public service obligations as wider than just the
kind of programming used for whatever it might be, but also, for example, in
wanting to ensure there is sufficient competition to ensure that those
standards are maintained. Therefore, it
does matter that we hold the commercial sector to their commitments, for
example, to independent commissioning of programmes so that we have a healthy,
independent programme-making sector, and I am pleased to say that the
commercial sector meets those. I know
that people have issues, for example, about regional news in relation to ITV
and have concerns about that and regional programme-making, but I think there
are many measures by which we have to look at this, but I would not want to see
us in any shape or form making any dramatic moves to suddenly redefine public
service broadcasting obligations whether in the commercial sector or the BBC.
Q664 Alan Keen: In the old days when we sat down at six
o'clock and watched a schedule of programmes, there was a stronger argument in
those days for forcing ITV, for instance, to have some current affairs
programmes and news programmes to make sure that the public watched them. Now, and you made the point yourself, people
do not want schedules of programmes, they pick and choose, so what is the point
in saying to ITV, "You must show so many of these"? People are not going to watch them if they do not want to watch
current affairs programmes.
Mr Woodward: Because you want to ensure that people still
have choice. If, for example, they were
not watching some of these strands at all, there would be a case perhaps for
looking at some of the strands, which is why I think the arguments around
children's television broadcasting are not so interesting because we sometimes
tend to come at that by imagining that all children are as we were when we were
children in terms of how they might spend their leisure time. The growth of new media services, for
example, or the Internet broadband services that all of us know with our
children and grandchildren and the way they use them and indeed the way that we
as adults do means that, in judging how children actually have access to
content, we have to look at the fact that it now comes from a number of
platforms, not just one or two terrestrial television stations, not even some
20 or 30 of the television stations that are there of the 300 and not even from
those that are on-demand, but the way that they engage with the Internet and
the way in which they engage in computer games, for example. We have to take a much wider spectrum to
understand a particular audience and what audiences may want to watch before, I
think, you can achieve an evaluation of saying, "We should abandon any sense of
what we expect from the commercial sector".
I think one of the most important things has been to have held the
commercial sector to a set of objectives and I do not see the Government in the
short or medium term abandoning those or indeed wanting to see Ofcom abandoning
those, but Ofcom will have to make judgments as the market changes, but I think
it requires an evaluation both of the consumer in that market as well as the
broadcaster in that market.
Alan Keen: I think that is right. You are saying that it is not changing
dramatically straightaway because some people do still watch in the
old-fashioned way, and I accept that.
Q665 Janet Anderson: Minister, the Ofcom-commissioned report into
Channel 4's finances predicted that the broadcaster will soon face financial
difficulties. Do you accept that there
is a need to find further funding for Channel 4?
Mr Woodward: Well, the Ofcom report which will be
published this morning, I think, is going to add to a picture about Channel 4
specifically and public service broadcasting more generally in terms of the
remit that we want Channel 4 to play in all of that. Undoubtedly, Channel 4's financial position has changed in the
last few years and, as you know, there is a period of the next three years in
which they will continue to make an operating profit. The concern is that by 2010 that may not
longer be the case and, therefore, there are two issues at stake really. One is the long-term position of Channel 4
in relation to public service broadcasting, and we said in the course of the
Charter Review that we in government would look at the funding of Channel 4 in
relation to public service broadcasting objectives in the course of the next
licence fee period and we will do so and, if we need to do it an earlier stage,
we would be prepared to. What I think the
Ofcom report will highlight is the fact that we may need to consider, and I say
"may need" because I think there are many possible solutions to this, some kind
of minor transitory help during this period to Channel 4, mindful of the fact
that they may be reaching a position in which they no longer have operating
surpluses by 2010. Again, there is no
urgency in the sense of this week or next month to deal with this, but there is
a need to do this very carefully, there is a need to do it in the context of
wider public service broadcasting obligations which we want to see maintained
and it is important, for example, to get some take on the changes that Michael
Grade may be making to ITV, and new commissioning there will take a year or two
to see to fruition. You have to look at
Channel 4 in the way that Channel 4 competes for advertising revenue which,
therefore, accounts for their operating losses or profits in the context of
what might happen to a resurging ITV.
If ITV produce programmes that there is greater demand for, if they have
more aggressive scheduling, and Michael Grade is the primus inter pares of aggressive scheduling, and I say that having
worked for him, he is a genius at the game, that will present problems for
Channel 4. That will then create
undoubtedly more pressure on them to provide programmes that produce bigger
audiences, and some of the public service remits, although exceptions to that
might be, for example, major sporting events, would undoubtedly mean that they
would make, and have to make, more difficult choices about the route between
entertainment and public service obligations, so I am just mindful of the fact
that this is a complex picture, and the Channel 4 report today by Ofcom will
contribute to our understanding of it.
I do not anticipate the Government reaching any hasty conclusions about
it, but undoubtedly it would be irresponsible for all of us, by which I mean
all of the institutions engaged in monitoring public service broadcasting, if
we were not mindful of the fact that there seems to be a consensus now that
Channel 4 by 2010 is going to be in a different financial position from the one
it was in two or three years ago.
Q666 Janet Anderson: But what about its remit? Do you accept that there are concerns, given
the controversy over Celebrity Big
Brother and so on? Lord Puttnam,
the Deputy Chairman of Channel 4, called for a review of the broadcaster's
remit, stating that its remit "clearly isn't fit for purpose in today's
multi-channel world". Would you agree
with that?
Mr Woodward: I think it is a little harsh. I think that undoubtedly it needs revision
and the Board of Channel 4 is mindful of the fact that, notwithstanding the
specific programme rows that have taken place recently, there is a need to
examine its commitment to public service broadcasting, although I think one
should be cautious about reading that as some kind of dramatic revision that is
about to take place. Undoubtedly, if you look at a programme like Big Brother, there was a sense that, if
you see one of Channel 4's public service broadcasting obligations as being
cutting edge and innovative, when Channel 4 created Big Brother, the irony is that some people would have argued that
that was precisely one of its public service broadcasting obligations, that it
should produce cutting-edge television in a highly innovative way that would
engage new audiences with high standards, and I think that is exactly what it
did. Today, we have become rather
accustomed to its face, rather take it for granted and we have passed it now
into the category of entertainment rather than public service obligations and
there would be those who would make the case, and in a private capacity I would
probably join them in some of this analysis, that actually you can no longer count
Big Brother or Celebrity
Big Brother as an obvious example of innovative, high-standard obligations,
although I am not suggesting it is low-standard, by the way, just in case the
press are listening to that. Now,
having said that, put alongside that, for example, the contribution that
Channel 4 made to Channel Four films and, for example, The Last King of Scotland.
This was a film which had an impact around the globe last year, was recognised
and won Oscars and was an incredibly high standard of film-making which set
standards. Channel 4 was critical
though, so what I am really saying here is that, because we have had a lot of
newspaper headlines about Celebrity Big
Brother and headlines around the programme about Diana, there are questions
being raised around Channel 4 and its public service remit and whether it is
fulfilling that, but, if you look at the quality of Channel 4 News, Dispatches,
Jamie's School Dinners and, as I say,
the Channel 4 example of their commitment to film-making and the highest
standards in films like The Last King of
Scotland, it is a very unfair judgment to suggest that in any shape or form
Channel 4 has abandoned its public service obligations. I think it is meeting them, I think it is
meeting them in different ways, I think it remains challenging and, arguably
for some, too challenging. That was the
sense of the Diana programme: was actually the material contained in it too
challenging; should it have been shown; was it in the public interest; was it
not? I think, as it turned out, and I
have not seen the programme, I have not had time to see the programme yet
because I do not think it was for ministers to intervene in that judgment about
editorial content, but, if people and the public felt unhappy about it, there
are channels there and Ofcom is the channel.
Significantly, the Big Brother
with Shilpa Shetty generated all the complaints at an all-time high, 44,000
complaints to Ofcom, but there were very, very few about the Diana programme,
although you might have been forgiven for thinking with the pre-publicity that
it would be a programme which would generate complaints in the order of those
of the Shilpa Shetty incident. I think what
I am really saying here is a bit like buses, beware of three coming along at
the same time and adding that up to picture of saying that the bus timetable is
in chaos. I do not think Channel 4 is
in chaos and I think Channel 4 is fulfilling its public service obligations. I think Andy Duncan deserves strong support,
although rightly the Secretary of State commented on Shilpa Shetty as an
example of a lapse in editorial judgment and I commend Channel 4 for the
arrangements they have now put in place to deal with that in terms of editorial
referral and so forth, but I think Channel 4 is in a good state of health in
terms of its public service obligations, but it is not in such a good state of
health by the time we get to 2010 in terms of its advertising revenues and its
sources of funding. There is an issue
there and it is the issue that has to be addressed if we want Channel 4 to
continue to play a place in public service broadcasting obligations along the
lines of its original remit. Therefore,
I do not think I entirely share David's judgment which, I think, is a little
harsh, but, as is often the case with David, I think he is pointing to an issue
which does need consideration and will continue to need consideration in the
immediate years to come.
Q667 Janet Anderson: I think we would accept what you say,
certainly about what they do in the realms of film-making and The Last King of Scotland was a splendid
achievement and we should be very proud of it, but, nevertheless, would you not
accept, Minister, that there are public
concerns about the kinds of subsidies that Channel 4 receives and do you not
think that increasingly they are themselves making the case for privatising
Channel 4, and what are your views about that?
Mr Woodward: I seem to remember, having been in
broadcasting in the 1980s, when I was inside the BBC constantly hearing arguments
about how Channel 4 had gone too far, how it was not actually rightly
fulfilling its public service obligations.
I think that is part of the problem of being at the cutting edge. I think for some the Diana programme will
have very much been too much for them.
It was an invasion into an area of privacy and I think there were very
understandable concerns about whether or not it was fair to her two sons to
revisit some of that.
Q668 Janet Anderson: Including by the two sons themselves, who
seem to have been ignored.
Mr Woodward: Well, again I would just urge a little bit of
caution on that because I believe they did not see the programme before
transmission. I have no reason, and
perhaps other members of the Committee do, to make any informed comment or judgment
on what they may have thought about the programme, if indeed they have even
seen the programme. What we do know is
that advisers to the Palace took a view on it very understandably and I could
imagine any of us in a similar situation, represented by relatives or advisers
seeing the programme, would probably prefer the programme not to be shown. There are many instances of those of us in
public life who would prefer all sorts of things not to find their way into the
public arena, and the difficulty there is the treading of the boards between
Diana, the private person, Diana, the mother and Diana, the Princess of Wales,
and somebody who had been a very, very public figure and who certainly made use
of being a public figure. Therefore, I
think it was legitimate for Channel 4 to want to look at the area and I think
it was legitimate for them to consider a vast range of material, but ultimately
the editorial judgment was theirs. I
think the best way that we, as ministers, can make judgments about this is to
look at the public's reaction to it as opposed perhaps to the anticipated
reaction as predicted in the media. As
I say, I think what the Shilpa Shetty incident reveals is that, when the public
are angry about a situation, they do not hold back. There were 44,000 complaints, unprecedented, and very indicative
of the anger felt by the public. That
just is not what happened with this programme, despite the fact that the
advance publicity on it was pretty extraordinary, so I just urge a bit of
caution on that.
Q669 Janet Anderson: But what about privatisation? You said yourself that their funding
position will be difficult by 2010, so do you not think the case for
privatisation gets stronger by the day?
Mr Woodward: I would not reach that judgment. Again I would just caution here that I can
remember arguments about privatising Channel 4 existing from the mid-1980s
onward and in fact they probably actually existed before it even went on air,
so I do not actually see that the call for privatisation is a new song. It is an old record, it has been played
many, many times, it may have a new platform on which it is being played at the
moment and there may be different reasons for making the argument at the
moment, but I think there are very, very strong arguments for Channel 4
remaining in the place that it is in and not being privatised. Undoubtedly, as we have always said about
Parliament, one Parliament cannot hold a future Parliament to a record and my
judgment at the moment is that Channel 4 is in the right place doing the right
thing and undoubtedly considerations about its funding in 2010 will give rise
to a new appetite for looking at very innovative ways of Channel 4 being
funded, but I do not necessarily see that even those who are making the argument
for privatisation have necessarily fully thought through the consequences to
public service broadcasting obligations if that were to follow, and I do think
there are considerable advantages to Channel 4 remaining in its present state
of ownership for the foreseeable future.
Q670 Janet Anderson: Do you think the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would agree with you?
Mr Woodward: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite
rightly, will have his own views on these matters, but I dare say he has been
considering it because I dare say Treasury officials have been offering their
advice on this for every month of all of the last ten years and I dare say his
departmental move from one part of Whitehall to another will not dampen the
enthusiasm with which those who advocate privatisation will continue to make
that. That being said, I think the
Chancellor is a very wise man and will make the right decision.
Q671 Philip Davies: We have heard lots of evidence that, if
current trends continue, the BBC is likely to be the only supplier of
UK-originated children's programming.
Do you accept that and, given your earlier answer to Alan Keen, do you
think it matters?
Mr Woodward: I think again that context is very relevant
here, and we have got to be careful as to how we approach this argument. There are those, and I pay tribute to PACT
as the lead voice in this, who are very concerned about the current volume of
indigenous children's programme-making in the UK and they make a judgment on
this which is perfectly understandable, but I think the context is important
and I immediately would say to the Committee that I think the work that Ofcom
are about to engage in in their review of children's programming is extremely
vital, we are doing it at the right time and I think it will help us reach a
view on this. I think the context is
important because again, if we run our minds back to when we were children,
there was very little choice.
Children's programming only happened in a couple of hours in the
afternoon on a couple of channels and there was schools programming during the
morning on one or two terrestrial channels.
If you look at the range of output that is actually being provided for
children's programming today, it is actually quite extraordinary. The BBC, for example, and I was looking at
these figures this morning, in 1998 was making 477 hours of commissioned,
first-run programmes for children.
Today, it is making 1,276. That
is an increase of three times in eight years.
An example that is often cited is, "Yes, but look, for example, at what
Canada is doing", and I looked up the Canadian figures because I was mindful
that this might be raised this morning, and in Canada eight years ago they were
making 817 hours of original programmes and today that has fallen to 708, so
the BBC is making three times the amount and Canada has gone down by 15%. If you look at it, for example, in relation
to the commercial sector, and I know there are concerns about ITV in relation
to this, notwithstanding the market pressures ITV is facing because of a fall
in advertising revenue, ITV has been the biggest investor in the UK of
children's programme-making in the commercial sector, around £22 to £25 million
a year. It has announced that it is
cutting its children's programmes from eight to five hours a week and, yes, I
regret that, but children's viewing patterns are changing too. Children are watching many more programmes
on demand, they are not only watching them on television. Their needs are being met by Internet
broadband services, they are being met by children's computer games and again I
just register here that, despite the sensationalism of one or two games that
certainly give me concern that children have access to, I think games like The Sims, for example, are highly
educative and of great value to kids and have to be seen alongside traditional
children's programme-making as well. I
know that there is a concern registered by some that the amount of
non-indigenous children's programme-making and, therefore, the amount of
bought-in programme-making should be of concern and I know that there is an
anecdote that floats around which says that, if you ask children today what
number you dial for the emergency services, they say 911, but that has no
qualitative analysis beyond it being an interesting anecdote and it certainly
has no quantitative basis for backing it up.
My children would certainly know that 911 is not a number and I doubt
they even know what 911 means, but there are concerns about foreign programme
buy-ins. The truth is that I think
children and young people have to be a loud voice in this and I think we have
to be careful of saying that they should only watch a certain kind of
programme. The fact of the matter is
that the children's market today is a very diverse, dynamic market with
different tastes, and I think that is rather good. The fact that we have the BBC with two children's channels, I
think that is rather good. The fact
that it is not all being done by a handful of programme-makers, I think, is
also rather good. Again, in terms of
the work that is offered for people in the children's production sector, 15/20
years ago relatively few jobs, but today, because it is spread across these
multi-platforms, many jobs and, finally, I would just say to you that it is not
by chance that Steven Spielberg is currently working on a video games
project. The movement between these
platforms is increasingly dynamic and the skills required of somebody who might
have made one kind of genre 15 years ago can now be applied across the board in
film, television and video games, so I am less worried about the impact on
those who are producing and I certainly think that those who are consuming have
a wider range of material, but there is an argument to be had about whether or
not we need to see more indigenous programme-making, but I think this has to be
cautioned by examining the demands of the consumer and understanding that
children are not simply passive consumers of material.
Q672 Philip Davies: I am interested in your replies and you have
said that you regret that ITV want to reduce their children's programming, but
one of the things that is driving this is this ban that Ofcom have introduced
on the advertising of so-called 'junk' food, which strikes me as another
triumph for the nanny state. Given what
you have actually said about children spending all this time on video games,
new media and all the rest of it, what on earth is the point in having a
restriction on advertising these so-called 'junk' food products if what you are
saying is true, that children are not watching TV anymore, but they are all
playing computer games and are on the Internet? What is the point of this restriction on advertising?
Mr Woodward: There are two things to say, first of all,
and one is just to echo the fact that I do not take quite such a disparaging
view as I think you may be suggesting about video games. I think they play a very important,
educative role and certainly I have seen it with my children. That does not mean to say that parents do
not have a role in this. You, as a
parent, control how much time your children spend playing computer games and,
if you do not, you should. That does
not mean to say that I think we should live in a nanny state either, but that
is partly about being a parent here, and I say that because I think you are
quite wrong to reach the conclusion you have done about banning the advertising
of junk food and I say that because I think you are not fully recognising the
scale of the problem that we in the UK particularly face, although not
exclusively, with childhood obesity. I
think the Government's multi-pronged approach to dealing with this, which
includes a proportional and proportionate reaction to children's television
advertising, is absolutely right. I
think it would be highly irresponsible of the Government to have ignored
scientific evidence about the way that children in this country have a dramatic
and serious problem with obesity. The
response by the Government, carefully tempered by a number of scientific
reports and analyses of the market, I think, presented an overwhelming case for
the measures that we took last year. I
think it was quite right to do so, but, equally, it had to be proportionate
which is why the ban was not extended further than it was, although we continue
to keep that under review. I think to
reach a conclusion that, because we took obesity seriously, we have somehow
entered into some mindless nanny state is foolish and I think it runs the risk
of not understanding, and taking seriously enough, the problem of childhood
obesity in this country which can only be tackled by a range of measures, of
which this is one, and it is only one in a number. I think not to have tackled it in this way, given the evidence,
would have been highly irresponsible.
Q673 Philip Davies: Well, I used to work in marketing and I am
quite happy to say publicly now that I do not believe that this ban will make any
difference whatsoever to childhood obesity, and the reason why there is
childhood obesity is probably because they are playing so many computer games
and they are not doing enough exercise.
I am quite happy to make my prediction as to what effect this ban will
have on childhood obesity, none, so perhaps you could share with us what your
prediction is of what reduction in childhood obesity we can expect to see as a
result of this ban on junk food advertising because, as yet, nobody else has
been able to come up with any idea of whether we can measure this as a success
or not. What can we expect?
Mr Woodward: May I say, I am surprised that, as somebody
who has a background in marketing, you are not taking account of the fact that
the whole purpose of television advertising is to sell people products and, if
you actually load children's programmes with adverts persuading them that actually
crisps and chocolate and all sorts of other sweets are kind of somehow
desirable, which is of course the point of the advertising, the point of the
advertising, I presume, is not actually to say, "Don't buy a packet of crisps",
or "Don't buy chocolate", the point is to persuade the kids, implicitly or
explicitly, to ask for them and it also adds to the picture in which their
parents are then subjected to their children asking for them. I think, frankly, it is not rocket science
to conclude from this that the hope is that, if you actually remove the
advertising of high-salt, high-fat foods from children's programmes, actually
you may encourage kids to adopt a healthier lifestyle and not ask for some of
those things. As I said to you, there is
no simple, crude parallel to be drawn here.
This is part of a multi-pronged approach that has to be kept
proportionate, but I would say to you that I think in this instance the
Government has taken the right decision in doing this. Of course we are going to have to wait and
see what the outcome is, but I do not believe that we can afford to sit around
in the hope that childhood obesity will cure itself. I do again say to you beware of condemning computer games as
something which leads to childhood obesity and leads to children not
exercising. I think that computer games
have a vital role to play not only in the home, but in the classroom. I think they can have the capacity to teach
children skills they would not otherwise have and I think they can be a highly
useful, educative tool, but, and here is the critical point, that is not the
same as saying that you should, as a parent, allow your children to spend
endless hours only playing computer games.
This is all about being proportionate and it is about balance, and
encouraging your children to take exercise and encouraging your children to eat
healthily is an extremely important part of the equation. Parents who simply abandon a child to an
endless diet of video games, on which there are no restrictions, for as many
hours as they want for every day of every week of every year, I think, are not
properly fulfilling their obligations as parents.
Q674 Philip Davies: The purpose of marketing is to try and get
people to buy your product, so, when Cadbury's are advertising on Coronation Street, perhaps you could
tell us how many people switch off the TV set, jump up and leap off to the
nearest newsagent to buy a bar of Dairy Milk, and I suspect the answer is none.
Mr Woodward: I suspect Cadbury's might be able to give you
a better answer than I can.
Q675 Philip Davies: The purpose is that the next time somebody
goes to buy a bar of chocolate, they might buy Dairy Milk as opposed to Galaxy,
and that is the whole purpose of marketing.
When Asda advertise, it is not to make people get up and go to the
supermarket there and then, but it is the next time they go to the supermarket,
they may choose to go to Asda, so that is why this ban will make no difference
at all. We have now got the perversity
where Asda are not allowed to advertise their milk during children's
programming, but oven chips are allowed to be advertised. Is this what you consider as being a
sensible way of dealing with childhood obesity?
Mr Woodward: I wish there were a simple solution to this
because I cannot imagine that everybody in this Committee would disagree with
the judgment that we need to deal with childhood obesity. What we have got to do is try and find a way
of creating a climate in which we can improve on the situation in the UK and
here I suspect it is a disagreement in judgment between myself and
yourself. We think in government that
this is a useful contribution to tackling childhood obesity. Nobody in government is under any illusion
that this alone is going to be the measure that is going to defeat this real
problem that we have got. We believe it
will play a contribution. I think that,
from what you are saying and your questions and what I infer from them, you
disagree with that. We have to disagree
on it. In government we had to make a
decision and the decision we have made is to accept Ofcom's proportionate
response to this issue which, after all, did include an analysis by Ofcom that
they thought that it would make a difference and it would lead to a reduction,
but the fact of the matter is that we will have to wait and see, but I believe
it was the right decision to make.
Q676 Philip Davies: Well, I am concerned about what happens in
the future and in a year's time or two years' time when Ofcom do a review into
this and, if, say, my prediction is right and there has been no difference in
childhood obesity, the health fascists and the zealots are going to say, "Well,
we told you all along that this did not go far enough, this particular ban, so
what we need to do is ban advertising junk foods altogether". We know exactly where this is going to go,
so can you give a commitment that the Government will resist those health
fascists because whatever is done will never go far enough and whatever proposal
there is will never go far enough to satisfy them and that actually you bear in
mind the potential consequences to commercial broadcasters if that were to
happen?
Mr Woodward: I have to say, I do not think that we help
the debate by derisory references to people who genuinely are mindful of the
problem of childhood obesity, and I regret the fact that you want to describe
these people as "health fascists". I
think these are people who genuinely care about the health of these
children. You may disagree with the
conclusions they reach, but I think to describe them in such an ignoble way
debases the issue and does not actually lead to anything constructive in this
debate, so the proposition that you put to me two or three years out from now,
I think, has to be measured by my respect for all of those engaged in this
debate, whatever side of the equation they sit on, and I think simply deriding
them and caricaturing them to describe them as "fascists" just does not help
this debate one inch. It is a complicated
debate, it requires sensitivity, it requires caution, it requires
proportionality and I think exaggeration and caricature really are best put to
one side in this argument.
Q677 Philip Davies: So if these people ask for further
restrictions when no reduction happens, will you resist it or will you agree to
it?
Mr Woodward: If people make arguments based on evidence
and if the arguments are not based on dogma, prejudice and foolish caricaturing
of the debate, of course it will be looked at sensibly. Nobody in government should not look at all
of the evidence; of course you should, but you should do it calmly, you should
do it rationally and you should leave your prejudices outside the door before
you make that judgment.
Chairman: Sticking to the same issue, but perhaps from
a slightly different perspective, Helen Southworth.
Q678 Helen Southworth: Can I ask you if you could focus on perhaps
the role of public service broadcasting to ratchet up standards. I think quite a significant number of people
are concerned about the quality of content for children's television and the
role that public service broadcasting has in setting standards and in giving
something to aim for rather than allowing the market just to give a cheap as
possible hourly rate for the provision.
I particularly wanted to ask you about the role that public service
broadcasting, not just the BBC, but the whole public service broadcasting
sector, has to play in developing the kind of children's television that
supports the kind of family life that you were indicating before. We have been talking about children sitting
alone and watching television or children sitting alone and playing computer
games or with other children, but I would really like to focus on the quality
of content and then the opportunity for a family to sit down together, watch a
programme together and talk about it.
My son is 28, but we still, whenever we can, sit down and watch Doctor Who together and he consoles me
when the weeping angels appear and I am scared; he is really good about
it. Family life is actually about
building up those relationships and television has got a really big role to
play in that amongst adults, but also between generations. Can you talk to us about how public service
broadcasting is going to be able to do that in the future where the BBC looks
like it is going to be the only generator of original content.
Mr Woodward: Well, I do not think it necessarily follows
that the BBC is going to be the only generator of original content. I think original content is going to be
generated by a number of organisations in broadcasting, but I also think that
original content is going to be generated on other platforms and that children
are going to want to consume that as much as they are any others. If I think about, for example, the way that
my children engage in sites like Bebo and YouTube and those things, I think we
are going to see the growth of user-generated content that goes with it and,
whether we like it or not, that is a part of the way that our children are
going to grow up. Now, that is a
separate argument from how people inside houses sit down and watch television
together and, you might even want to adduce with that, eat meals together and I
think you would be forgiven for saying that one thing that would be a really
good idea is if families, in their many diverse shapes and forms that they come
in today, and there is no judgment on that, I think that is a good thing,
actually spent a bit a more time talking together rather than consuming
together.
Q679 Helen Southworth: Yes, but that is not what we are talking
about today.
Mr Woodward: Television programmes or games can make them
talk together, and I think learning to communicate more together in whatever
shape or form that family comes in, and it is sometimes families that are
blood-related and sometimes it is families that you make, I think that is to be
welcomed, but I do not see television being the only solution to this. I think television has a role to play in
this ----
Q680 Helen Southworth: It has a role, so can we focus on that role.
Mr Woodward: It is quite hard to be prescriptive, is it
not, about telling a programme-maker what kind of programmes they should
make? I think there is a danger, and I
say this again to myself as this sad, old, 48-year-old parent, that it is quite
hard for me to predict the kinds of programmes that my children are going to
want to watch. What tends to happen is
that they tend to draw my attention to what they like watching. Part of the problem that organisations in
broadcasting have is that you do reach an age whereby it is quite difficult to
actually be producing content for young people because you are actually no
longer in touch with quite a lot of them and that is because of the diverse way
in which this content is being made. I
think one of the difficult things for us is to get our heads round producing
some sense of public service broadcasting obligations in this on-demand age of
increasingly user-generated content.
One of the problems, and I think it refers to the children's television
programming issue more generally in ITV, we recently organised a seminar at
BAFTA when we tried to bring together the major players in this and Michael
Grade made a very important observation, I think, about ITV in relation to
children's programming. He said that
you also have to look at the opportunity costs because, "If we schedule on ITV
at five, six or seven o'clock children's programming, actually in this
multi-channel, multi-platform age in which much is viewed on demand, it will
get a very small audience. It might be
a very high-quality programme, but we will then suffer a very significant,
disproportionate impact on our advertising revenue", so I think there are ways
to look at this which may not be saying that you want to see ITV go up from
five hours or six hours up to ten hours, say, but recognising that there are
other digital platforms out there, including ITV2, 3 and others, where you
might like to see these programmes being made and scheduled. I think that is what we need and that is why
the Ofcom review is so important in relation to this area and certainly Ofcom
will take note of your questions to me in this Committee and I think it is
something that they might want to address.
I am not sceptical, I am just slightly cautious about how you could actually
describe what I think is behind your question in a way that actually could be
meaningful and measurable about the public service obligation for the future
because you have been tending to lapse into actually prescribing the kind of
programming you want made and I think, quite rightly, ministers should not get
into programme-making, unless of course they want to abandon their careers and
go back into television.
Q681 Helen Southworth: But can you say anything about having a
target audience which is children and adults together?
Mr Woodward: Again, we are moving into programme-making
and the specific kinds of programmes that might be made. There are things, there are films, for
example, that families like watching together.
If you think about a film like The
Pursuit of Happiness with Will Smith recently, a great film, families watch
that together. I have to say, I find it
quite difficult watching endless episodes of The OC with my two children, it is a bit repetitive, but for my
kids, they love it, and The Teletubbies.
There is a limit to how much I want to watch of this stuff, but it appeals to a
certain audience. One of the things
that a multi-channel age gives is the opportunity to serve different kinds of
markets and different kinds of interests and recognising that television at the
moment basically divides children's programming into three groups of children,
the pre-school, the five- to 12-year-olds and the 12- to 16-year-olds and they
have got different tastes and different demands. I think parents should sit down with their kids and watch some of
the stuff that their kids watch, not least because they ought to know what
their kids are watching, just as they should with computer games know what they
are playing, just as they should with sites that their kids call up, but I am
just nervous of saying that I think there is a way of ending up with
prescribing into guidelines the kind of programming that you might want the
programme-makers to make in relation to some kind of programme that everybody might
sit down and want to watch together, not because it is not a noble and laudable
aim, but I just do not know how you do it.
It just reminds me of my time in television when I was the editor of That's Life! and we had 18 million
viewers a week and the BBC came along and said, "Look, we need to do audience
research on your programme". Esther
said, "Well, why?" and they said, "Well, we need to see if we can make it
better", and she said, "Of course that would be a good idea, but what are we
going to do with the research at the end of it?" and they said, "Well, it may
lead to us changing the programme". We
went away and we did it and the truth is that the audience came back with all
sorts of views about what the programme should be like but it would have been
utterly untransmittable. I say that not
in a sense of undermining what the public were telling us. A very useful anecdote was given to me
recently by the Comptroller of BBC Wales about Dr Who, a programme that I love and try and persuade my children to
watch and, of the four, two watch it and two think I am completely demented for
wanting to watch it. BBC asked their
audience five years ago did they want Dr
Who brought back. 80 per cent of
the BBC's audience said "No", they had a memory of what Dr Who was like and they did not want it trampled on. BBC Wales decided to commission it. A happy concatenation of people in Wales,
Russell T Davies and others produced a format which today sells in 45
countries, contributes more than £50 million a year to BBC network and is one
of the BBC's top ten programmes. I am not saying that audiences and their views
should be ignored, of course I am not; I am saying though that the public can
only know what they know. The useful
lesson I draw from that is that you can get the public to have a view about the
programme that has been made but the public are not programme makers and
getting them to prescribe the programme they would like made to achieve what
you would like a programme for all the family to be able to see, would be quite
hard. They rightly leave it to
programme makers, I think politicians should be even more cautious.
Q682 Helen Southworth: Is that not the whole point, though, that
visionary programme making and huge quality of creativity of programme making has
to be available for children and we need to make sure the BBC is not going to
be the sole generator of that and that it also gives us a huge business
opportunity when we get that quality content to sell it around the world? We need to make sure that our industry is
positioning itself in that place.
Mr Woodward: Let us take a programme like the X Factor, that is a programme which we
all watch, the youngest 10 year old through to this sad 48 year old. We watch it as family viewing and we talk
about it. We vote on it; we disagree on
it. I think that mirrors many families up and down this country. I am not sure that as politicians we could
have come up with that as a public service obligation. We probably could have come up with
something which would have been watched by an audience of three, but whether or
not it would have been watched by an audience of eight million and produced a
format which is sold around the world, and which does provide good family
entertainment and has given rise to all kinds of other formats, whether it is
Andrew Lloyd-Webber's programme to find Joseph or whatever, that is good family
viewing.
Q683 Helen Southworth: I do not think it was proposing that we as
politicians should be doing this. What
we are asking you is, should not programme makers other than just the BBC,
programme commissioners other than just the BBC, be doing this?
Mr Woodward: They are doing it. These kinds of formats can find big audiences and that is one of
the things they want, to improve their advertising review. I do not think it is
a choice between us being in a position where it is not happening to finding a
situation in which it can happen, the question is could we in some way find a
way of formatting that into a set of obligations, and I am just not sure we
would be very good at it. I do not
entirely share a view which fails to recognise that it is not already
happening, I think it is already happening.
Q684 Paul Farrelly: We have been talking about children's
programming and I just wanted to use that to ask a question on setting and
enforcement of public service obligations.
First, can I say I welcome seeing more of the health campaigners like
Jamie Oliver highlighting what goes into a Turkey Twizzler and anything which
stops the incessant pestering by my children for new super-improved Honey Nut
Loops or Frosties is to be welcomed because it is quite evident when you go
abroad to France, Italy, Spain and Germany there is not enough focus here on
healthy eating because there they have a great emphasis on local produce, here
we have great national advertising campaigns for processed foods that the
Government believes to be relevant. It
clearly has costs and Michael Grade has already made clear to the Committee
that he does not see a future for children's programming on ITV, in pretty
short order actually, but nevertheless there is a public service obligation on
them. At the same time, Michael may be
coming to the Government and Ofcom to try and have the advertising regime
restrictions relaxed. People are also
concerned about the level of regional programming, regional news, which we have
not discussed, on ITV. The question is
really when Michael Grade comes to have the advertising restrictions and that
regime relaxed in this new media world, will the Government adopt a quid pro
quo approach in terms of stiffening or insisting that children's programming or
regional news programming remains a public service obligation rather than
treating each issue in isolation?
Mr Woodward: I am not going to pass the buck on this but I
am going to say that the reason we have got Ofcom there is to reach these
judgments. One of the institutions that I have found in the course of my work
in the last 14 months in this job that has respect around the world is Ofcom. We have to be mindful of the fact, and this
partly picks up the point that Philip was making earlier, you cannot just
produce an endless set of obligations and somehow think that people can
continue to make the programmes you want.
We have to find a balance here. Undoubtedly, the impact of banning junk
food advertising on children's programmes has had a significant effect on
revenue. We have to be mindful,
therefore, I know Ofcom are mindful when they are making their judgments, that
there is no magic here. If you take £30/40/50 million out of revenue, it has to
be found from somewhere else, there will be things you cannot make. Therefore, when Michael Grade makes his case
and makes his arguments, Ofcom have got to balance that against a requirement
that we made from ITV last year, but I do not see it necessarily, and I do not
think you are suggesting this either, as quite so black and white. That is why Ofcom reaching a balanced
judgment over a period of time based on consultation, with no precipitate
haste, is absolutely essential. There
is a case when ITV talk about wanting to reduce the number of hours of
children's indigenous programme making on ITV against the problems they face
about revenue and programme sharers but equally ITV have the advantage of
having ITV 2, 3 and other places where material can be screened. Therefore the point that Michael Grade makes
about opportunity costs in relation to ITV 1 is a valid one but I do not see
that necessarily it stands as a broad principle, and exhaustively so, across the
full spectrum of the ITV offer. There
may be ways that we will want to encourage broadcasters to think creatively
about this rather than in black and white terms but, again, the vital
organisation we have in this is Ofcom.
I am not suggesting the Committee has ever thought otherwise but I think
that Ofcom has been an extraordinary success in the Communications Act reaching
balanced sensible views based on very careful consultation and keeping
responses proportionate and timely.
Q685 Paul Farrelly: You are not entirely ruling out the
Government taking, in certain instances, potentially, a different view? Everyone is concerned about public sector
obligations get set up and then they get chipped away.
Mr Woodward: Of course Government could but if you create
an institution like Ofcom, and charge it with this responsibility and give it
the independence it has from Government, you should be pretty cautious in
Government of saying "We are only happy with the referee so long as the referee
produces the result we like". The
referee may sometimes come in with results we do not like, I do not think it
follows because you have got the wrong result you should disagree with the
referee and the rules. That is why I am
so impressed by Ofcom and you can really see it in relation to the way they
have tackled an issue like Channel 4.
The issues are being considered a long time before it is a crisis and
that is how I think they should approach the children's programming review. There is not a crisis in children's programming
in this country, it is the reverse. The
figures I offer the Committee in comparing ourselves with Canada instance
that. However, there are problems along
the route, just as there are with ITV regional news, regional programming, but
it is no longer about ITV only having a single station to offer the
public. As we get into digital
switchover and we see all of the public having access to huge numbers of
channels, as we see broadband going into more and more people's homes and more
and more possibility, I think we have to look at the fact that the content is
going to come from so many different sources that we have to have some careful
evaluation across the piece to measure alongside just, say, ITV's
obligations. That is why, again, Ofcom
is the best institution we have got to do that. I have no reason to think so far when you say, "If they reached a
different judgment from what the Government felt would we disagree", the fact
of the matter is it has not happened and I do not anticipate it happening. I have
every confidence that Ofcom will guide us to the right place.
Q686 Chairman: You have been extremely complimentary about
Ofcom and do not anticipate disagreeing with them. Can I ask you, therefore, how you regard their present proposal
of the Public Service Publisher to provide new media concept?
Mr Woodward: First of all, it is an example of how Ofcom
think ahead. I am complimentary about them but I have no reason not to be. We have plenty of reasons in politics to be
unhappy with institutions and things but I have to say I have no reason to
be. It is not praise given for the sake
of it, it is as I find it. I think
their concept of the PSP is an interesting one. Again, as we move into this
multi-platform digital age with 300 channels and on-demand services and the new
media, the idea of there being a Public Service Publisher which is a distinct
entity from what we currently perceive as the Public Service Broadcaster is a
useful contribution to the debate. Their
original stabs at what it might cost, how it might be funded, have already
evolved. As to what form the Public
Service Publisher should take I think now is a matter of discussion. This
Committee will have views about what form it might take in the long term. What
we can be certain about is that the concept of Public Service Publishing is
bound to play an important place in the future but what we can be less certain
about is what form it should take and how it should be financed. I do think it goes hand-in-hand with an
overall concept of wanting to look into the medium to long term, by which I
mean five to ten years from now, about what Public Service Broadcasting and
Public Service Publishing should be. It
is a good thing to put it on the table now. It is a useful thing for all
organisations to have a view about and I do not think, for example, there is
any natural conclusion which ends up with the BBC believing that it should be
the Public Service Publisher. I think that is one of the issues of Public
Service Broadcasting and Publishing that is out there for the future and there
should be a lively and healthy debate about both the form it should take and
the funding it should have over the next few years.
Q687 Chairman: We would agree with that. On the other hand, you have said you do not
see the real debate taking place about the future of Public Service
Broadcasting until about the time of digital switchover. Some people are arguing that is leaving it
rather too late and we need to start it earlier than that, we need to start it
now. Would you envisage bringing
forward the Government's intention to examine these issues?
Mr Woodward: Certainly I could envisage we would bring it
forward. What I was referring to was
the original timetable that had been set out was one which had envisaged that
this review would take place towards the end of the current licence fee
settlement. I do not think that is
likely to hold, mainly because of the speed of transformation that is taking
place in media, new media, linear, non-linear services. Therefore, Ofcom's review of Public Service
Broadcasting and Public Service Publishing, I think our intended review, could
well be brought forward but I cannot reach any conclusions about that because
it is a fast moving target. Had we
found that Channel 4 had faced financial difficulties earlier than 2010 that
would have precipitated almost a certain case for bringing forward that review
of the wider issues of Public Service Broadcasting. My instinct is that it will come earlier but I cannot tell you
for certain and that will be a decision made by the Secretary of State.
Q688 Chairman: When the review does take place, will the
option of providing public funding to other broadcasters, outside the BBC, be
one of the options on the table?
Mr Woodward: All the options have to be on the table but,
equally, they have to be done in the context of recognising how we have a BBC
which has continued through an extraordinary period of change and
transformation to remain the institution that it is with the respect that has
not only by the domestic consumer but by those abroad. As you know, whilst we got the licence fee
settlement a bit like Goldilocks "absolutely just right", the fact of the
matter is that I cannot think of any other tax that the public pay which from
the research that we have had showed they would have been prepared to pay more.
In striking the balance for the right amount of money for the licence fee
payer, getting value for money and what the BBC wanted to make, and therefore
striking it as we did, we struck the right balance. In saying that all the
options would be on the table, I add the very important caveat that we also
begin with a very strong admiration and commitment to the quality and standards
and institution of the BBC. It would be
misleading if people thought that a review of Public Service Broadcasting and
the options for the future, whilst looking at all the options, did not start
with a very, very strong sense of what works and therefore it does not
necessarily follow in all the options that you would abandon what works in
favour of some extraordinary experiment and see what happens.
Chairman: Minister, I know you have got to get away
shortly but, very briefly, Paul Farrelly.
Q689 Paul Farrelly: I just want to touch very briefly on the
issue of the Digital Dividend Review and the approach being taken by Ofcom in
line with Government policy on the auction spectrum. You will know there is a big, well-funded campaign, HD for All, which is seeking to persuade
us that high definition television service should have a claim on that spectrum
release. Do you think their arguments stack up?
Mr Woodward: I think they are strong arguments. One of the things that Ofcom has to be
mindful of, and I have no reason to think that it will not be mindful of this,
is that just because somebody is mounting a very strong lobby therefore it
follows that is the way to go. What the
high definition television lobby is being is extremely effective at making its
case. The allocation of spectrum is
extremely important for a whole range of services and the obvious one that
springs to my mind is mobile television.
At the moment, mobile television is a service in its infancy but if, for
example, when you look at the preparations that are being made in China in
relation to the Games for next year, China envisages its consumer market
accessing those Games through mobile television. Again, if you look at the television industry in the United
States and look at what they are doing to prepare not just an adapted form of
programme making for mobile television but a whole new strand of programme
making for mobile television, I think there is a need to anticipate the
consumer demand for mobile television and therefore the spectrum it is going to
need. It happens that mobile television as a lobby is not as organised as high
definition. There are other
applications for spectrum which need to be placed into the equation. For example, radio mikes, we have to look at
the fact that at the moment the spectrum auction that would inevitably take
place as a result of switchover is going to raise this as a rather crucial
issue. West End theatre could be very
adversely affected if there were a mechanism put together which would enable
them to take part in bidding for spectrum in which they were up against the weight
of the telecommunications industry.
This is a very complex process.
Again I am mindful of the fact that Ofcom are very open to the lobby
that comes from high definition television but they have shown me every sign
that they appreciate it is a well organised lobby and does not have an
exclusive right to its voice being the only one that is heard. That does not mean to say that high
definition television does not have an important place to play in the future of
allocation of spectrum but I suspect it will be one of a number of players and
not the exclusive player.
Q690 Paul Farrelly: You have already said quite clearly that you
do not anticipate disagreements with Ofcom because Ofcom's record has been good
so far. You have mentioned radio mikes,
that is one potential exception to the principle of the highest bidder takes
the spectrum. Do you see other
exceptions?
Mr Woodward: Yes, for example radio community television
but, again, a bit of caution here.
Three months ago I was being persuaded that the solution to the issue of
radio mikes, community television, community radio was interleave spectrum. In
the last three months Microsoft have come along and suddenly started showing
huge interest in interleave spectrum because they can see it as a way of enabling
domestic hubs in wireless set-ups to be developed. Now the other thing we have to add into this mixture, therefore,
is not just new applications for the spectrum but also the advances in
compression technology, and therefore what might currently be needed, we may
only need a fraction of it in as little as two years' time, let alone at the
end of the switchover period. Again,
part of the difficulty here is we are trying once again to see round corners
and you cannot. Therefore, that is why
I think, with some caution, I listen to the high definition lobby, not because
it is not important, not because we will not need to make some allocation,
almost certainly we will need to see allocation for it, but I do think we need
to recognise that many of the applications there, and you asked me what I can
envisage and I give you some examples, some of them we do not even know
yet. That is the nature of the digital
revolution and that is the nature of Britain's role in the digital revolution
which happens from the work we are doing on the creative industries to reveal
that we are better at this than any other European country. We will have the best shot at knowing what
is coming compared with anybody else but certainly I cannot sit here and tell
you today that here is the list of what those applications might be because, as
I say, some of them do not even exist yet.
Q691 Chairman: Minister, I am conscious you are due in the
Chamber shortly.
Mr Woodward: For the Digital Switchover Bill.
Chairman: We could go on for much longer but I think we
should probably finish there. Thank you
very much.
