Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2420
- 2439)
WEDNESDAY 2 APRIL 2008
Mr John Hutton MP and Andy Burnham MP
Q2420 Lord Maxton:
Are they applied?
Andy Burnham: You will see from the figures
that although the majority do not, a significantly higher number
of people think that television is impartial than any other media
and that is a healthy thing in my view.
Q2421 Chairman:
There is not much point in Ofcom continuing this consultation,
is there? You have made your view clear; you might as well scrap
it.
Andy Burnham: The Ofcom advice to the department
was on news across its broadest sense.
Q2422 Chairman:
Yes, it is all a bit of a waste of time now. You have made your
position absolutely clear and probably quite a lot of this Committee
will agree with you.
Andy Burnham: As I say, I am not convinced.
They need to convince me with new evidence about how young people
need a particularly aggressive form of opinionated presentation.
Chairman: Very well, I will not go on
about it. Lady Eccles?
Q2423 Baroness Eccles of Moulton:
With regards the news and the public service obligation the resourcing
of support that public service news gets is changing as digital
switchover approaches. Under the relevant act Ed Richards told
us that they had a power to resource Channel 3 news but under
the existing circumstances it was not necessary for them to have
the equivalent locus when it came to the resourcing of Channel
4, Channel 5 and regional news. We know from their recent publication
that Channel 4 particularly is quite concerned about the resourcing
of these as digital switchover approaches and afterwards. The
question is whether it is going to be necessary or whether you
would consider applying the same requirements to Channels 4 and
5 that Ofcom presently has for Channel 3 under the act?
Andy Burnham: That is a very important question
and one to which I am applying my mind considerably at the moment.
I think it is important to say that the requirements of ITV, Channels
4 and 5 are reasonably high bar in terms of high quality, impartial
news. There is a reasonably high test. There is obviously an implicit
public subsidy given to broadcasters pre-switchover in terms of
access to the country and, as we get closer to switchover I would
welcome perhaps a debate within Parliament about what is the most
valuable thing that the public wants to see in return for that.
Responding to Lady McIntosh's question before, there is always
a presumption that there is no value left in analogue licences,
but there is. What is the thing that we, as representatives of
the public, wish to preserve most for that public value that remains
in the system? My mind takes me to two things: the news but also
regionally produced content, British made content that then supports
the development of our creative industries and supports the strength
of British broadcasting around the world. I think these are questions
that will become very relevant and very immediate in the next
few years or even sooner. There needs to be a consideration about
how we resource what is valuable to us. Whether it would be logical
to apply a higher test to Channel 4 and Channel 5, I think that
might be difficult.
Q2424 Lord Grocott:
Just picking up on the importance of regional coverage that there
is after switchover, we all know that life has not been simple
so far as ITV in particular is concerned with the numbers of channels
that are available and all the rest of it. ITV regional coverage
has always been absolutely fundamental to the structure of ITV
and to the service that it provides. There has already been some
reduction taking place. Would we want a system whereby the only
regional news coverage was provided by the BBC due to commercial
pressures and others that would weaken ITV's regional coverage?
I take from all you said previously that you would agree with
that, the question is how that could be preserved and protected.
Andy Burnham: I hope it can because I think
we do greatly value regional news and a choice of regional news
providers. I do not accept the more apocalyptic view that regional
news is doomed, it is over; I do not accept that for one minute.
There are a number of ways in which we may be able to sustain
a regional news service into the future and we should apply our
minds to that because it is important to the public. I come back
to this point at all times, these are the things I am wrestling
with. How do we preserve what is important to the public knowing
what we know about the economics of the industry and the way it
is going? To be absolutely clear on this point, I do not accept
for a second that the tide is washing over us and we just have
to let regional news go; I do not buy that for one minute at all.
Ofcom will address these issues directly in the second stage of
its public service broadcasting review due later this year and
I hope at that stage they will have a wider discussion about preserving
what we all agree is an important part of our cultural life and
our democratic life.
Q2425 Lord Grocott:
Also what the public wants. You have made your points very, very
well indeed that the public are not as mesmerised by all the new
technology and are changing their patterns dramatically and immediately
because of that.
Andy Burnham: I have three young children and
I think the divide between me and my children is bigger than the
divide that has ever come before between parents and children
around media, newspapers and broadcasting. I grew up in predominantly
the same world as my parents did, which was with a small number
of highly popular and nationally significant channels and I think
the cut-off comes with the generation growing up today. Those
who are under 15 today will grow up in a very different media
world. We are all analogue people trying to understand it and
they are all digital.
Q2426 Lord Maxton:
As someone who sets up their sons' computers for them whenever
they get a new one, I take it I am slightly ahead of my generation.
You are absolutely right, but what worries me a little bit about
the whole convergence argument is that we have not yet got convergence
but we are very close to it. That comes back to the regional point
in that at the moment you have a computer box and you have a television
set and very largely they are separate. However, the next step
is going to be the ability to control your computer box and your
internet access from your control for your television and watch
it on your television. Then news does not become regional, it
becomes local. It could become very local. I could set up my own
little website which gives local news about the actual street
I live in and the people living in it, film them, interview them
and they can watch it on their television set. Is that going to
transform in a way that Lord Grocott does not recognise?
Andy Burnham: Probably, yes. Let me give you
my experience of working on the Communications Act, the White
Paper first time round. There is a real danger in this debate,
in my view, of taking future scenarios and considering them to
be present fact; often they are not. There is a real danger in
making big assumptions about behaviour and what is going to be
happening until it has actually happened. I think in this area
more than any we are as well to have a broad framework that guarantees
what is important for all of us in our democracy, but do not leap
to conclusions. I can conceive of a world where the regulated
television world will say, "Here's the programme, if you
want to see the really uncut version go online now" and you
might be able to get that through the same device, and that raises
real questions for regulators and others. Just to come back to
the question of preserving what is important, I was again surprised
in the Conservative document this week about the top-slicing of
the licence fee, saying that this was the only way we can essentially
preserve public service content in a new world. I do not believe
it is. I have an open mind on that question. I think there are
other potential ways in which we can preserve what Lord Grocott
considers important into the future.
Q2427 Bishop of Manchester:
Mr Burnham, can I take you up on a point that James Purnell made
at the Oxford Media Convention on 17 January 2008. I am sure you
are very familiar with it. He said this, "Do we think it's
sustainable for every penny of the licence fee to go to a single
organisation in an industry which now has very many providers
rather than just a handful?" He explored further the top-slicing
that you were slightly dismissive about a moment ago and went
on to say, "This is issue will need to be addressed and resolved".
I wonder if you are so diametrically opposed to what he says as
you appeared to be in your brief comment a moment ago.
Andy Burnham: James was absolutely right to
raise the question. I think it was day two in the job when I was
asked the question whether I agreed with James and I said I had
an open mind about it and it was an option that should be considered
as we approach the future, but that is an entirely proper position
to have. James did not have a closed mind about it, he raised
the question. It is slightly surprising to read this week that
we have now adopted a Conservative policy because we began this
debate and, as I say, I have an open mind about it. However, I
do not leap to it at all as the only way through which we might
preserve what is valuable going into the future.
Q2428 Bishop of Manchester:
Are there other ways that you have in mind which would help financially
over the funding through some other means of taxing or whatever?
Andy Burnham: There are a range of potential
solutions you could look at. Some of them may not be popular,
let us be clear about that. There are other things that could
be done to encourage people to have public service content in
exchange for freedoms, perhaps. Although this is very early days
I must say, there are other solutions whereby, if regional news
is important to us all, rather than the BBC handing over a part
of its current income or that being "top-sliced", could
it make that infrastructure available for others to use to make
a programme from to fulfil a regional news wish? In that way you
would be reducing the cost of providing that service but you could
preserve the plurality because different journalists are doing
it. These are very days, I have to say. Theses are not issues
I have discussed in detail with Ofcom. I have begun a very early
discussion with the BBC but I do not leap to the top-slicing issue
as the only show in town. I think there are other creative ways
where we might preserve what Lord Grocott rightly says is important.
Q2429 Bishop of Manchester:
Let me take up a bit further the point on regional news that Lord
Grocott was making. I felt in the response that you made to him
you were actually quite tentative. On at least two occasions you
merely said you "hoped"; I am in the business of hope
so I do not want to go against that! However, if you look at the
situation already, ITV has a pretty gloomy prospect over regional
news. It seems to me that we are already in a situation where
something needs to be done pretty quickly. You will have seen
a headline in The Guardian this week which said, "Is
it already too late for Burnham to save regional TV?" Is
it too late over regional news?
Andy Burnham: Certainly not. We have two varieties
of regional news being broadcast into people's homes every night
to every citizen of this country. It cannot be too late.
Q2430 Bishop of Manchester:
Are you confident that once digitalisation has taken place this
stand will still be maintained?
Andy Burnham: My judgment is that it is important
to people—it is important to citizens, going back to the
earlier discussion—and I want to preserve it. I want to
provide it as well into the future because I still think it is
something that the public want to see. Another thing I am wrestling
with is in the new media age what is important is a sense of identify
in local roots because people can find a lot of content that is
very global in its feel and placeless, free-floating and does
not actually belong to a place. People want that; they want trusted
sources of information about their own locality. I think we should
consider a range of options as to how we might deliver that into
the future. I posit the idea that the BBC could provide a kind
of infrastructure on the back of which others could use to bring
down the cost of providing an alternative regional news service
as another idea in the mix, but it is nothing more than that at
the moment. I am just trying to take you through some of the though
processes that are in my mind.
Q2431 Lord Maxton:
At the moment, of course, part of the licence fee is specifically
ring fenced to help those who have difficulty with digital switchover.
The National Audit Office is saying that that money will not all
be used because the take up is fast already without it. What happens
to that if there is money left? Is that going to be used for top-slicing
off to somebody else or is it going to be given back to the BBC
for them to use as they wish?
Andy Burnham: We are back to future scenarios
becoming present fact. It is possible, but—here is the former
Treasury man speaking now—a sound contingency would be very
wise I think as we approach the full switchover process. I would
be cautious about making early assumptions based on the experience
in Copeland and saying that therefore that will mean we will have
so much left over. However, the point is a fair one in that if
there is money left over I would expect it to be right and proper
for me or my successor to have a discussion with the BBC Trust
at that point to consider what would be the best use of that income,
if indeed there is any such income.
Q2432 Lord Maxton:
There are some of us who believe that if you are going to top-slice
it should not go to other broadcasters, it should go to ensuring
that everybody has access to broadband in the same way as they
have access to electricity or telephones.
Andy Burnham: That is a legitimate point to
make. I think there would need to be a debate at that time about
if there were to be any significant sum left over what would derive
maximum social benefit and public value?
Q2433 Chairman:
Who does the money belong to? Does it belong to the BBC or does
it belong to the Treasury?
Andy Burnham: When the licence fee period was
agreed obviously certain objectives were agreed with the BBC about
what that licence fee agreement should fund, for instance the
move to Salford was one of those things, helping the BBC itself
prepare for switchover, but also the funding of the switchover
help scheme was a part of that licence fee agreement. I would
advise that it would a discussion for the secretary of state and
the chair of the BBC Trust and the trustees at that point.
Q2434 Chairman:
Surely someone knows who the money belongs to.
Andy Burnham: The money is given to the BBC
for the purposes set out in the agreement and if, in delivering
those purposes, a surplus remains I think it is right and proper
for there to be a discussion between the Government and the BBC
about what is the best use of the funding that remains rather
than it being consumed or immediately absorbed back into the BBC
or immediately given to fund some other objective. This is public
money and it is right and proper to me that there should be a
debate about what is the best use of that money.
Q2435 Lord Inglewood:
When considering ownership of broadcasters in this country reciprocal
rights were not sought as a matter of principle because it was
felt that it was beneficial to have outside investment coming
in. At the same time it was said that we should try to achieve
reciprocity for our investors elsewhere in the world. Has any
progress been made to achieve that? I think Australia and America
keep British investment out, do they not?
Andy Burnham: You correctly summarised the policy
position.
Q2436 Lord Inglewood:
Have we had any joy in getting access to some of these other market
places?
Andy Burnham: There is not an example that immediately
comes to my mind of a market that changed its rules in response
to our request, if that is what you are asking. If there is I
will happily write to the Committee.
Q2437 Chairman:
Why did you change the policy in the first place? You started
the policy saying you did not think there was any case for with
doing away with a reciprocal arrangement. In other words an American
company can take over ITV but there is no way that a British company
can go and take over an American television company. Why did you
change that policy? You were special adviser at the time so you
had an insight into it.
Andy Burnham: I am afraid I had long since left.
I was not there when the bill was going through Parliament so
I was not privy to the internal discussions as to why that particular
decision was taken. I am sure John Hutton would back me up on
this in saying that generally the Government has taken an open
approach to markets. We feel that we should be open to the benefits
that overseas owners of media have brought and can bring to the
way in which our own system operates but, to answer the point,
we should continue to press for the same ability for our own media
interests.
Q2438 Chairman:
There is not the slightest chance that the Americans are going
to give way on this.
Andy Burnham: I have not had those discussions
since I have been in this post; I have not met my counterpart,
I am not sure whether John has. It remains our policy and we will
continue to press for it, but an open media industry is a good
and healthy thing.
Q2439 Lord Corbett of Castle Vale:
Can you say that the Government is unequivocally committed to
keeping Channel 4 as a publicly owned body?
Andy Burnham: These are not only decisions for
me. I think Channel 4 has been a huge success. I do not know whether
the Committee has heard from Channel 4 or seen its recent vision
document which I think is a very valuable piece of work. Interestingly
it responds to many of the concerns the Committee has been raising
around a stronger regional flavour.
| 
