Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
40-59)
RT HON
BEN BRADSHAW
MP AND MR
JONATHAN STEPHENS
20 OCTOBER 2009
Q40 Mr Watson: I do not think there
is enough empirical evidence to prove that the decisions you take
on suspension will generate more income for the industry, will
do anything to stop the proliferation of illicit file sharing,
nor will it remunerate artists in the way that the internet possibly
could with new business models. What you should be considering
is statutory licensing for on-line music rather than spending
the resources of a department on trying to once again chase piracy
as the industry has tried to do from time immemorial from opposing
the invention of the phonograph to the audio tapes of killing
music in the `80s to the invention of CD ROMs and DVD rewritables.
The film industry even opposed the VHS video recorder. Do they
not have form on trying to ignore new technology and should it
not be our job to get them in a room, sort their licensing arrangements
out so that new entrepreneurs can enter the market and get the
music industry onto an even keel?
Mr Bradshaw: I am grateful for
the advice but I do not think it is an either/or. I think we both
need to pursue the solutions or the partial solutions you have
just described with a legal framework that protects some of the
more gregarious assaults on rights holders value.
Q41 Chairman: Can I approach it from
a slightly different angle? Could you just run through the procedure
again? The right holders will notify the Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) of the persistent file sharers, or at least the Internet
Protocol (IP) addresses. The ISPs will then notify the owners
of those IP addresses and send them the notice to desist. It will
then require a court order for the rights owners to discover the
identity. Once they have obtained that information then they will
have to apply for a further court order before they can take technical
measures against them.
Mr Bradshaw: The Permanent Secretary
may have more detail on this than I do, but my understanding of
the current proposal is that if there is a decision to go to technical
measures then there will have to be a court order in order to
initiate that process.
Q42 Chairman: This will be the second
court order.
Mr Bradshaw: No, this is the first
court order and this is only at the end of a process which we
think in the large majority of cases—the evidence suggests
this from other parts of the world—the warning letters alone
are going to be enough, particularly for the sort of cases that
are often quoted (teenagers at home on their parents' internet).
What we are talking about here are serious and often commercial
illegal file sharers. However, if the court order is given to
proceed to technical measures, that will then be able to be appealed
against by the person against whom the measures are being taken.[2]
Q43 Chairman: The revelation of the names
of addresses behind the IP addresses—which is information
currently in the possession of the ISPs but not the rights holders—will
be given by the ISPs with or without a court order?
Mr Bradshaw: I imagine that will
become public as part of a legal process.
Mr Stephens: I do not know the
direct answer to that. We can write and this will be one of the
issues covered in the bill when published.
Mr Bradshaw: I think we have just
closed the consultation but we have to have been through a long
period of consultation. Even the possibility of suspension was
a suggestion for consultation with a hard and fast policy which
would be laid down when we publish the bill and it will be open
to debate in the House.
Q44 Chairman: I think our brief exchange
this morning has suggested that this may be a matter of some controversy
when it reaches the floor of the House of Commons. You do not
have long. Is this going to be right up the front of the new session?
Mr Bradshaw: I do not know when
the bill will be introduced; that will be a matter for the business
managers. I am aware there are strong views on all sides, but
what I would say is that—you may get a better feel of this
from discussions you have—I also detect quite strong cross
party support for meaningful measures on this and of course the
stronger that cross party support is, the more likely it is that
we will get the bill quickly and we will get it in a form which
everyone is happy with.
Q45 Chairman: Can I just move onto
one other aspect of Digital Britain? You have announced very ambitious
plans to deliver digital radio upgrade programmes by 2015 and
have most of the national stations move off analogue to digital
by then. That will require extensive investment and digital transmission
network. What estimate do you have of what it is going to cost
to do that?
Mr Bradshaw: The current estimate
that we are working on is about £10 million a year to build
out the DAB multiplexes. Is that the figure you were interested
in?
Q46 Chairman: The one I had is rather
more than that. Where is that money going to come from?
Mr Bradshaw: It will come from
a mixture of sources. We expect the BBC to play a significant
role in this; commercial radio; public funds as well.
Q47 Chairman: I think with the current
state of commercial radio their ability to invest any more is
almost zero. Do you foresee, therefore, further government investment,
maybe from the licence fee?
Mr Bradshaw: That is one of the
things we are not currently intending to spend a share of the
licence fee on, but if there is an even bigger under spend in
the digital switchover programme than we are currently expecting,
who knows?
Q48 Chairman: The digital switchover
programme appears to be earmarked for quite a large number of
purposes.
Mr Bradshaw: There is quite a
significant under spend.
Q49 Chairman: You are confident that
it can be delivered. What are you going to say to all the people
who have not bought a new car in the last two years?
Mr Bradshaw: We are working with
the motor manufacturers both to ensure that future new cars do,
but also to ensure that there is some sort of gadget that you
will be able to use in your existing car to make sure that you
can pick up digital radio. One of the things we have said quite
clearly is that we will not go ahead with this unless by 2013
certain conditions are reached, i.e. we have more than 50% digital
radio ownership and that reception on all of our main roads is
not going to be a problem. So we have put conditions down but
at the same time we felt it was important to provide market certainty
that we specified an end date by which time this should happen.
Chairman: I am going to move onto another
aspect of the use for licence fees. Paul Farrelly?
Q50 Paul Farrelly: One of the areas
where the licence fee may possibly be top sliced is to help deliver
a two megabyte broadband service. Can you tell us where those
discussions stand at the moment?
Mr Bradshaw: I do not think the
question was quite right. What we have said is that we would use
some of the current under spend from the digital switchover which
is not from the licence fee; it was agreed separate to and on
top of the licence fee settlement at the last licence fee negotiation,
the 3.5% figure. Yes, we have said that that would help fund the
roll-out of universal broadband by 2012 to two megabytes. We have
said that we will fund the roll-out of universal next generation
broadband by 2017 using this very small levy on fixed phone lines.
So the proposal is not to use a share of the television licence
fee after 2012 to help deliver broadband; the proposal is to use
a small proportion of the licence fee, again money that is not
currently available to the BBC, to help save regional news and
news in the nations of the UK as well.
Q51 Paul Farrelly: Your consultation
on independently funded news consortia on ways to do that closed
a month ago. When do you anticipate producing a summary of the
results of that?
Mr Bradshaw: Very soon. I want
to move very rapidly towards going out for tender on the independent
regional news consortia so that we can announce a preferred bidder
early in the spring next year.
Q52 Paul Farrelly: In terms of the
balance of views on that consultation, if you drew a line down
the middle of a piece of paper and you put the BBC in the "no"
camp who might join the BBC on the "no" side?
Mr Bradshaw: I have not studied
the ballot exactly but the vast majority of the other interested
organisations, including obviously regional news journalists,
ITV and local newspaper groups have a very strong interest in
forming part of these consortia are strongly in support. Certainly
the public, when we questioned them or when they are questioned
on our behalf, expressed very strong support for the importance
of regional news. It was their most important piece of public
service broadcasting; they did not want the BBC to have a monopoly
and they thought it was a perfectly reasonable idea to use a small
fraction of the licence fee not currently available to the BBC
to help secure its future.
Q53 Paul Farrelly: Media commentators—there
are many of them—can thank you and Sir Michael Lyons for
fattening their pockets in terms of their freelance earnings in
terms of the public discussions you have had recently. Were the
BBC also suggesting that it would be best to give the licence
fee money back—at least that is what Sir Michael seems to
suggest—rather than help fund a more vibrant regional news?
How would you describe that approach? Scorched earth, or would
that be too harsh?
Mr Bradshaw: First of all it is
not the BBC's licence fee to give back and the 3.5%, as I have
explained, is not the BBC's to spend now on programmes; that has
been set aside for digital switchover. That comment puzzled me.
If the BBC wants to offer a reduced licence fee that is up to
the BBC. The BBC has made a perfectly valid and constructive alternative
suggestion in its response to the consultation suggesting that
an alternative funding mechanism might be from the spectrum tax.
We think that poses one or two challenges but we will be examining
that. We have not made our minds up. The priority for us is to
save plurality in the regional news and news in the nation. That
is what the public wants. We want there to be a funding system
that is sustainable, reliable and transparent. We have come up
with a suggestion—indeed I think the Select Committee itself
came up with a similar suggestion in your last report on this
subject—but we are open to other alternatives. I think it
is very important that we separate this whole issue of the size
of a licence fee from the idea of using a part of the licence
fee. If a decision is taken post 2012 to use a part of the licence
fee to fund regional news on the third channel, that does not
in any way impact on the size of the licence fee that goes to
the BBC. That will be a matter for debate in the normal way as
part of the licence fee renewal process under a labour government.
Under an alternative government things may look rather different
as my shadow said in an interview yesterday.
Q54 Paul Farrelly: I am glad you
mention that because there are some colleagues in different parties
who are all in favour of a vibrant regional news provision which
could be funded by so-called top slicing, particularly from that
element of the digital switchover that remains, but at the same
time they would like to hand the money back to the licence fee
payers. Is that a case of not being quite clear in what they want
and having their cake and eating it?
Mr Bradshaw: All the political
parties say they want to save regional news. I would say that
it is only the government that up to now has come up with a credible
way of actually funding that. I could say the same about broadband
roll-out. I think all the political parties pay lip service to
universal broadband and of course universal broadband is particularly
important for many of our rural areas and yet it is only the government
so far that has come forward with a practicable and realistic
means of funding it. I will leave that for others to judge.
Q55 Paul Farrelly: There has been
an announcement of a number of privatisations in the last couple
of weeks. Has the Department been approached for its views on
the potential sell-off of either BBC Worldwide or Channel 4?
Mr Bradshaw: No, although I am
sure you will have spotted that in Digital Britain we suggested
to the BBC Trust that it might want to examine whether or not
to look at putting BBC Worldwide or bits of BBC Worldwide on a
more independent or arms' length footing. Again those will be
matters for the BBC to pursue.
Q56 Paul Farrelly: In respect of
Channel 4, the Department has not been asked for its views about
that by the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Office or the Treasury.
Mr Bradshaw: No. We made it very
clear in Digital Britain, again in contrast to the official opposition,
that we think that Channel 4 should remain a public service broadcaster;
we think it is important that we have plurality in our public
service broadcasting sector. We favoured very much a kind of joint
venture between Channel 4 and BBC Worldwide and that is something
they are still actively pursuing. The latest information on that
is quite encouraging.
Q57 Philip Davies: Can I commend
you on your approach to the BBC and top slicing; it is something
that this Committee has been arguing for for years probably now.
There was a piece in the Daily Mail over the summer recess
and I just wondered if you could confirm whether or not it was
true. I will quote it to you—I do not want to be accused
of paraphrasing—it says Ben Bradshaw's "unprecedented
criticism of the BBC and his enthusiasm for `top slicing' a chunk
of the licence revenue to help fund ITV seems to have backfired
on the Culture Secretary. So much so that Bradshaw has been told
by Gordon Brown to desist from further outbursts". A source
is quoted as saying, "Ben has received a rap on the knuckles
for what is seen as an own goal". Is there any truth in that
piece?
Mr Bradshaw: The usual accuracy
of the Daily Mail. I think if there had been any truth
in it you would not have heard me saying very much more about
it after that. You may have noticed that in my Royal Television
Society's (RTS) speech, not only did I say more but I said it
even more clearly.
Q58 Philip Davies: The Prime Minister's
position maybe so weak that you just ignored his rap over the
knuckles. Just because you carried on saying it does not necessarily
mean that you did not receive the rap on the knuckles, it just
means that you have ignored the rap on the knuckles.
Mr Bradshaw: I can assure you
I did not receive a rap on the knuckles. On the contrary, Number
10 are fully behind the policy announcements that we have made.
I worked very closely with Number 10 on my RTS speech. I think
there is a genuine concern in Number 10 and I have this too, but
at the moment it is almost impossible for anyone to say anything
about the BBC without it being reported in a critical way. If
we actually go back to my RTS speech and read it in full you will
see that it is by and large a very robust defence of the BBC and
of the public service broadcasting ethos. My one criticism of
the BBC governance was the only thing that made the news headlines
rather than my 80% support of what they are doing now. Also, I
have to say, I was taking on robustly some of the arguments that
were made by James Murdoch in his Edinburgh speech where I went
through them one by one saying how strongly I disagreed with them.
Of course none of that was reported. There is a concern. I have
it and I think Number 10 share it, that we seem to be in an atmosphere
at the moment that it is kind of open season on the BBC. I thought
Philip Stevens wrote a very good piece in today's FT. I
think it is unfortunate because the BBC has great strength; I
want the BBC to remain at the centre of our public service broadcasting,
but like all organisations, in order to survive it needs to change
and the BBC itself is recognising that. Certainly, as long as
there is a labour government in the future, we want to see a strong
BBC, we want to see a public service broadcasting sector which
is strong, but in order for it to re-legitimise itself every few
years it is important that we have these discussions out in the
open and that is what I have been trying to do.
Q59 Philip Davies: Can I just make
one point about the trial of the independent regional news consortium?
I know that no decisions have been made as to where the trial
will take place, but can I urge that it is not in Yorkshire. I
have no idea what the criteria is going to be about this, but
in Yorkshire we have a very strong brand in regional news called
Calendar which is incredibly popular. Perhaps you might
indicate to me what your view is as to what the nature of the
criteria should be for the trial. Surely where there is already
an existing strong brand that should not be put at risk by a trial.
Would you not agree that what a trial should be doing is to try
and improve some of perhaps the weaker brands to try to bring
them up to some of the stronger ones?
Mr Bradshaw: I think there is
a lot of sense in that. It is refreshing to be lobbied by an honourable
member not to have one of the pilots in his or her region. Most
of the lobbying has been to have them, but I think that is very
sensible. We have an open mind and there are some regions where
that brand is stronger and some where it is weaker, and needs
help and intervention more quickly I would suggest.
Paul Farrelly: We would be very happy
to have one in Staffordshire.
2 Note by witness: Supplementary written evidence
from the Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and
Sport, published as Ev 20. Back
| 
