Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660-679)
MR SHAUN
WOODWARD MP AND
MR JON
ZEFF
14 JUNE 2007
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 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-£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 subjugated 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, educational 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 their motives 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 Dr 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—
|
