| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
6.41 pm
Contents 65; Not-Contents 143.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]
Arran, E.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Bridgeman, V.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Cathcart, E.
Colwyn, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
De Mauley, L.
Denham, L.
D'Souza, B.
Elton, L.
Ferrers, E.
Fookes, B.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodlad, L.
Greenway, L.
Hamilton of Epsom, L.
Henley, L.
Higgins, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Inglewood, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Laing of Dunphail, L.
Laird, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Marland, L.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mawson, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Montrose, D.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Noakes, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
Onslow, E.
Patel, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Shrewsbury, E.
Skelmersdale, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Trumpington, B.
Wakeham, L.
Walpole, L.
Acton, L.
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Addington, L.
Ahmed, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Bach, L.
Barker, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]
Berkeley, L.
Best, L.
Bhatia, L.
3 Feb 2010 : Column 246
Blackstone, B.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Borrie, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bragg, L.
Brett, L.
Brookman, L.
Burnett, L.
Campbell of Surbiton, B.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Chidgey, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cotter, L.
Crawley, B.
Crisp, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Ford, B.
Gale, B.
Garden of Frognal, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Giddens, L.
Golding, B.
Goodhart, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grantchester, L.
Greaves, L.
Greengross, B.
Grenfell, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harries of Pentregarth, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollick, L.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Joffe, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Judd, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
McNally, L.
Manchester, Bp.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Martin of Springburn, L.
Maxton, L.
Meacher, B.
Methuen, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Mitchell, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan, L.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Murphy, B.
Newby, L.
Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Northover, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
O'Loan, B.
Parekh, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Prosser, B.
Puttnam, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Richard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Sewel, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Skidelsky, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stern, B.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tope, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Wakefield, Bp.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Warner, L.
Warnock, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
6.51 pm
Amendments 233 and 233ZA not moved.
3 Feb 2010 : Column 247
Clause 26 : Report by OFCOM on public teletext service
233ZB: Clause 26, page 30, line 6, at end insert ", and
(c) an assessment of the impact that ending the public teletext service would have on the provision of subtitles"
Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, this amendment would ensure that Ofcom reports on the provision of a public teletext service, including a report on the availability of subtitles. It is a probing amendment to seek assurances on the issue.
The Royal National Institute for Deaf People told us that around 1 million people use subtitles frequently and 5 million people use them whenever possible. Subtitles are therefore a key tool to help to ensure that millions of people who would not otherwise be able to do so are able to enjoy television programmes. Before digital television arrived, access to subtitles was through teletext page 888. I appreciate that when the digital switchover is completed in 2012, users will be able to access subtitles through their digital services. However, until that process has happened, it would be very reassuring if the Minister could tell the Committee that any move to stop the teletext service will not mean the absence of subtitles. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, under their digital replacement licences, commercial public service broadcasting licensees-Channels 3, 4 and 5-not the public teletext service licensee, are required to ensure that the provisions of the Ofcom broadcasting code on subtitling, signing and audio description are met. The code requires commercial public service broadcasters to provide and promote relevant access services for the understanding and enjoyment of persons of sensory impairment. The provision of subtitling is therefore a matter separate from the provision of the public teletext service.
I accept that, because subtitles are provided on the same platform as teletext on analogue, the public may assume that the existence of analogue subtitles relies on the continuing provision of teletext. Although this is certainly not the case, I assure the noble Lord that Ofcom has been working with public service broadcasters to ensure that viewers have a seamless transition to using analogue subtitles, even where the teletext service is not provided. This will ensure that public service broadcasters continue to fulfil their regulatory obligations. I trust that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howard of Rising: I thank the Minister for his reassurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
3 Feb 2010 : Column 248
Clause 28 : Appointed providers of regional or local news
Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, this amendment would remove Ofcom's ability to pay the appointed person for the provision of regional and local news. This amendment goes to the heart of the opposition from these Benches to this clause. We do not believe that public subsidy should be used to prop up the current system of regional news. It grew up in the analogue age of broadcasting, and it seems to us on these Benches that when going into the digital age, it is a mistake to seek to maintain what is there, simply because it is there. There may be better, and possibly more radical, solutions. We should be looking at regulatory changes to enable improved models of regional and local news to grow up. In the internet era, people get their news from a wide variety of sources, so it seems strange to make the public pay to keep a half-hour slot on one particular channel.
There are a number of questions about this particular section of Clause 28, which allows the Government to pay independently financed news consortia, the so-called IFNCs. Is it still the Government's intention to use licence fee money to pay these consortia? I appreciate that the Bill makes no mention of the licence fee, but in the Digital Britain report, and in subsequent statements from Ministers, it seems to be the case that it will be the source of funding. If this is so, can the Minister confirm whether this clause allows the Government to top-slice the licence fee at some point in the future without any further parliamentary scrutiny? Alternatively, if there is some other source of funding in mind, it would be helpful if the Minister could highlight where the funding will come from.
One further aspect relating to the funding of these consortia makes little sense. If they are to be funded by the licence fee or from general taxation, then surely they are not "independently financed" but completely dependent on the Government. We do not believe that using public subsidy in this way will create a long-term, financially sustainable model. I beg to move.
7 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord maintains that public funding is not needed to support a plurality of sources of local and regional news, and that purely commercial models can thrive. I do not know where the evidence is for that, but that is not the view of the Government or of many other well informed people in this country on the future of local and regional news.
I heard the noble Lord indicate that we might be inhibiting radical new news concepts. I have an awful feeling that by radical we mean a British version of Fox, or something like it, which would be under no obligation to be impartial and which would not attempt to provide news on the basis that we have expected from our broadcast media in the past. Of course we want the providers of local and regional news to attract commercial revenues and to maintain a plurality
3 Feb 2010 : Column 249
The noble Lord pressed me, as I might well have anticipated that he would, on how we intend to pay for these consortia. He is all too well aware that the Government indicated some time ago that we thought that there might be an option for various sources, but we have taken no decision on this and have indicated that we have not. We are aware that some public funding will be needed, and perhaps part of the licence fee could fulfil this role, but we know that there are objections on many sides. There are those who want no support at all for local and regional news but who somehow think that the market will provide it, against all the evidence, and there are those who are anxious that this might be an onslaught on the BBC and its licence fee. The Government have not reached a definitive position on where the money is to come from at this stage, but we are prepared to canvass options. We are, however, certain of the principle, which is where we disagree with the noble Lord and why I hope he will recognise that the Government cannot accept this amendment.
Lord Howard of Rising: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I cannot believe that the Government have no idea. He said that there are a number of options for funding. Perhaps he can tell us what they are.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord knows that we have canvassed on the issue and that it looks as though we will be able to effect the digital switchover with fewer resources than we used from the licence fee for this provision. That looks to be a distinctly possible and appropriate resource that has no implications of top-slicing the BBC. After all, the whole concept of the switchover funds is additional to and separate from the licence fee. I know that they are part of the settlement for the BBC, but the BBC has a specific purpose that it will fulfil at a predictable cost, and we are gratified that it looks as though the resources that we had in mind for that may not be used entirely for the digital switchover.
As I said, we have not reached a conclusion on long-term funding. We carried out a consultation on the matter, and it was fairly clear that regional and local news services were considered to be necessary. The noble Lord mentioned his radical proposals. If the major drive behind the Opposition's amendment is the belief in a commercial market for local and regional news, to say nothing of national news eventually, and a belief in the commercial strategies that are pursued in the United States, all I can say is that the Government-and, we believe, the British public-are very concerned that the independence of news broadcasters should be maintained, and public resources have a role to play in that.
Lord Howard of Rising: I thank the Minister. I must say that he loves to chase that fox. I do not think that we will agree on this subject, and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
3 Feb 2010 : Column 250
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, in moving Amendment 233ZE, I shall also speak to Amendments 233ZF, 233B and 233C, which touch on very similar issues.
Amendments 233ZE and 233ZF, which are in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, seek to provide that Ofcom prevents a person who is disqualified under the stated paragraph in the 1990 Act from being appointed under Clause 28. That is absolutely right.
Our Amendment 233B raises an important point about the impact that public subsidy could have on the quality and independence of our regional and local journalism. If these consortia are dependent on public subsidy, is it too sceptical to suggest that the most important people for them to please will be in the organisation that provides them with their subsidy? There is surely a real concern that there is a risk-whether it is perceived or real is, to some extent, immaterial-that their focus will be diluted from unbiased journalism into pursuing subsidy. Instead of concentrating on providing impartial news, there is at least a danger that the consortia will become too focused on doing what the provider of their livelihood wants or what the consortia think the provider wants. Nothing needs to be said, but there is always pressure not to bite the hand that feeds you. Surely it is vital that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the best traditions of our press-namely, its freedom to report entirely independently on public figures and public bodies-will be preserved, before any public subsidy is given.
Amendment 233C is a probing amendment to ask the Minister whether the Government have taken advice on whether there are any state aid issues with the provision of public funds to regional news organisations. I remind your Lordships that the Government ran into problems when they tried to pay Channel 4's digital switchover infrastructure costs using the licence fee. If the EU managed to prevent this £14 million transfer of funding, surely it would show a similar interest in any spending of state money, which could total around £130 million a year, on regional news. Have the Government resolved such problems with the EU? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are clear that IFNCs are about securing a plurality of independent local news sources, and plurality of independent journalism is necessary to ensure, for example, that local authorities are held to account. Allowing local authorities, therefore, to join IFNCs would automatically defeat this objective. It is against that background that I am entirely happy to agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and accept that the disqualifications that he suggests are appropriate. I will therefore be accepting Amendment 233ZF, which the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, spoke to on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
3 Feb 2010 : Column 251
Amendment 233ZE is therefore unnecessary. By accepting the drafting under Amendment 233ZF, Ofcom would automatically be obliged to apply those disqualifications when making an appointment under Section 287A(1). As for Amendment 233B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, I hope that as we have got the improvement and clarity provided by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which I am accepting, it will reassure him that IFNCs will not adversely impact on the independence of journalism, and therefore that the amendment is no longer necessary.
As for the European Union, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, is not involved in gold plating here. I would be greatly concerned that he is trying to enshrine with Amendment 233 something which is already in UK and EU law and is already met as far as IFNCs are concerned. This amendment is otiose. That is putting it at its kindest, and as I am always kind to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. My noble friend Lord Lucas will be overjoyed. As regards Amendment 233B, I accept what the Minister has said, and as regards Amendment 233C, I say to him; touché. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
233ZF: Clause 28, page 31, line 15, at end insert-
"(1A) OFCOM must do all that they can to secure that a person does not become or remain a person appointed under this section if the person is a disqualified person under paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act in relation to a Broadcasting Act licence"
Amendment 233A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
Amendments 233B and 233C not moved.
233CA: Clause 28, page 31, line 20, at end insert-
"( ) Prior to appointing a person to provide relevant media content under subsection (1) or to including the conditions in subsection (2) of this section OFCOM must consult the provider of the Channel 3 service for the area for which a person would be appointed and ensure that the provider of the Channel 3 service in that area-
(a) agrees that it cannot continue to provide a regional or local news service which meets its licence obligations in that area, and
(b) accepts the terms on which a person would be appointed to provide the regional or local news service."
3 Feb 2010 : Column 252
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the introduction of new arrangements for independent news in the nations and regions proceeds in a spirit of partnership and agreement between the Government, the regulator, and Channel 3 licensees. That has been the way in which the policy has been developed so far, and the way in which the arrangements for the independently financed news consortia pilots, due to start in April, are proceeding. The programmes that emerge from these independent news consortia will be shown on the Channel 3 network. Should funding become available to support their full rollout across England, Scotland and Wales, we would hope that the process for establishing these services continues to involve the agreement and support of the relevant ITV Channel 3 licensees.
I have always understood that that was the purpose, and intent, of the Government's policy-not to force IFNCs on ITV and STV, but to make them available on the basis that there was no longer sufficient value in the Channel 3 licensees to support the existing nations and regions news services. As currently drafted, however, Clause 28 does not fully capture that intent. It would instead entitle Ofcom to select an appointed independent news provider and to impose that provider on an existing Channel 3 licensee. This is despite the fact that the licensed broadcaster would continue to carry all the statutory obligations and the necessary compliance risk for the continuing provision of the service, including legal and technical risks.
There is also the matter of editorial control. Channel 3 has to protect its brand and to keep its audience. When ITV commissions a programme from an independent production company, it is an ITV executive who has the final say in what is broadcast. This must be so with the news programmes that it carries as well. It is therefore only right that decisions on the approach and implementation of the IFNC schemes should continue to involve broadcasters and proceed only on an agreed basis. My amendment is designed to encourage the continuation of such a collaborative approach. I hope that, in responding to what I have said, the Government will undertake to give further consideration to the current drafting of Clause 28 and look to revise it to take account of the points that I have raised. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |