| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
7.15pm
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I should like to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, has said and add another point. From the point of view of the viewer, there should be a seamless series of programmes, so that even things like house style should be reflected in the news programme, as well as the rest of the ITV or STV programming for that night. Therefore, the greater the degree of co-operation between the two, the better.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not going to look at the clause again in the exact way the noble Baroness has enjoined me to do because we think that the clause is satisfactory as it stands. However, at the same time I accept entirely the noble Baroness's anxieties. She has identified that reassurances are necessary
3 Feb 2010 : Column 253
It would be unreasonable for Ofcom to require a replacement news provider to deliver the regional news on Channel 3 without first consulting the relevant licence holder and receiving representations from that licence holder beforehand. We confidently expect that to be done against the obvious expectations of Ofcom and what the clause says. The Government recognise this. We have already provided for such a duty requiring Ofcom to consult Channel 3 licence holders, as set out in new Section 287A(8). The new subsection properly connects the public service licensing regime, under Section 287 of the Communications Act 2003, where Ofcom must consult license holders and receive representations before making any changes, with the powers set out in this new clause. We are linked, therefore, to that Communications Act obligation. This represents a consistent and robust approach to Ofcom consulting each Channel 3 service on the imposition of the new conditions. I am entirely accepting of the thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment, but saying that in fact we have not really accepted that argument. We have addressed our minds to that argument and that is what is reflected in the clause. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness can confidently withdraw that amendment.
Amendment 233CB also raises an important issue-the impact on plurality and the choice of news provision in the appointed areas. What the amendment would do, however, is to require Ofcom to make an assessment or an evaluation of an appointment in advance of that appointment actually being made. As the Committee will readily appreciate, Ofcom effectively assesses the UK news and media marketplace, and we do not expect that obligation to change in any way. We would expect a determination of impact to follow the selection process.
I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Ofcom cannot carry out those duties without evaluating the result of the selection process. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that her amendments have identified two important issues, which the Government consider that they have addressed adequately and appropriately. I hope that she is able to withdraw her amendment with confidence.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. However, we do not think that consultation is enough. We would like ITV's agreement to be required. I hope that the Government will go away and think on that. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
233D: Clause 28, page 31, line 26, at end insert-
"( ) must specify the conditions relating to the form, character and quality of the relevant media content,"
3 Feb 2010 : Column 254
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, I shall be brief in moving this amendment. It is tabled to tighten up this clause so that the quality of the programmes which emerge from the appointed independently-financed news consortia is a requirement and not, as the Bill now stands, an add-on. These programmes will appear on ITV as part of its schedule and their success or failure will impact on the channel in the form of revenue through advertising and its reputation as a brand. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, Amendment 233G in this group is also a probing amendment to see exactly what the Government mean by the "form" and "character" of media content. It is understandable that they want to ensure that the content made by the appointed person is of a certain quality. However, it is worrying that they would like to shape the character and form of the content. Subsection (2) of new Section 287A to be inserted in the Communications Act 2003 under Clause 28 states that anyone who is "appointed under this section" takes on the regulatory regime of the Channel 3 service. I assume that this means that it would have to produce impartial news content. If so, that is to be welcomed.
However, if there is any ambiguity around this, allowing the regulator to set the character and form of any news that the appointed person produces sounds rather Orwellian. Are we to be treated to Ofcom's version of events? Will the character of such news be slanted to look favourably on regulators, governments or anything else that the appointed person cares to think about? It is worrying that these news consortia may not in practice be independent and that the power Ofcom has to control the character of their output could result in slanting or distorting news. I am sure, as is the position today, that Ofcom would not abuse its position, but it would be quite wrong to leave open the possibility for the future.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Let me begin with the positive response. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the news output provided under this clause is delivered in ways that reflect high journalistic and editorial quality. We are at one with the noble Baroness on that, together with the right level of innovation, reach and impact for audiences. We all recognise why news needs to meet these criteria. We share the intention behind the amendment and we see some merit in it, although I cannot accept it at this moment. The noble Baroness asked whether the Government would consider the amendment. I undertake to do that and to come back after consideration. We see merits in the case that the noble Baroness has put forward and we share the objectives entirely.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, is not going to elicit from me quite such a positive response. We think that it is necessary for Ofcom to have the right flexibility to require the news providers to meet audience needs across the spectrum of news gathering and news provision. That is different from the spectre which the noble Lord raised, which was something sounding like "Ofcom news"-if ever I heard of something out of George Orwell, that would be it. But that is not our intention. We merely seek that Ofcom has the right flexibility to
3 Feb 2010 : Column 255
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: I thank the noble Lord for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, Amendments 233E and 233H are designed to test how far the Government see Ofcom getting involved in the running of the IFNCs. Subsection (5)(c) of new Section 287A to be inserted in the Communications Act 2003 under Clause 28 states that Ofcom may lay down conditions requiring IFNCs to make their news content available to "any other person". Subsection (6)(c) allows Ofcom to ensure that IFNCs help to promote other people's content. At first sight, these subsections would appear to allow Ofcom an extraordinary level of regulatory control over the running of these organisations. Ofcom is able to tell the IFNCs who to give their content to and tell them what media or other content they must promote. These organisations will not exactly be independent if they have their activities regulated to such an extent.
Finally, if the IFNCs are required to give their content away, how will they become commercially viable? Their only asset is the content that they make. If they cannot sell it, they will be for ever dependent on public subsidy, or is that the intention? These two subsections appear to confirm that the Government want to see these news consortia run from the centre with no way of weaning themselves away from taxpayers' support. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the Committee that that is not the case. I beg to move.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, it is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility that Ofcom might decide that, for example, local radio services were similarly semi-destitute and requiring a degree of public help with news. To that extent, it might not be inappropriate for the IFNC to offer its news service, or its audio version, to local radio stations.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for that contribution from my noble friend Lord Gordon. I found an element of contradiction in the contribution put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. He suggested that the news consortia should have freedom for access to other resources. No one is saying anything about that. We are merely indicating that where we are able to identify that local and regional news could not be obtained through the marketplace, here is a structure to enable that to occur.
I do not understand how, therefore, he can suggest that Amendment 233E should be commended to the Committee. It would prevent innovation. It is not good for news providers or audiences if there is no scope for development. We are merely recognising the importance of news provision online and the possible
3 Feb 2010 : Column 256
On Amendment 233H, the funding used to sustain plurality in local and regional news should also have the wider benefit of helping high-quality independent journalism to thrive and keep citizens informed. That is why the subsection talks about supporting and promoting the provision of news. Let us make no bones about it: this is also about training and the development of skills. When local and regional news sources flourished rather more than they do now and were not under quite the threat and limitations of the present time, our most talented reporters, investigators and presenters cut their teeth on them. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, will know only too well from his own perspective that a large number of the Lobby correspondents at the other end-we all have reservations about Lobby correspondents on occasion and I cannot pretend that I agree with every one of their contributions and interpretations-came up through local and regional newspapers and news provisions to reach the dizzy heights of being a Lobby correspondent here. All news is demanding in terms of accuracy and objectivity, but by definition political news and commenting on political events make demands all of their own when it comes to objectivity and standards.
We have no doubt that there will be a need to nurture journalistic activity and to develop multimedia skills in circumstances where the market is not going to sustain the level of training and development that has obtained in the past. We also know the reasons and the enormous problems in that regard. So while I hear what the noble Lord says about his anxieties, I always share in his optimism about what can be achieved if there is a will and a structure that engages enterprise, skill and talent. That is what we are trying to do here and I am afraid that his amendment would limit it. I hope that he will consider withdrawing it.
7.30 pm
Lord Howard of Rising: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his discourse on the progress of journalists, although not having been at the other end, as he was, I cannot say that I have the same first-hand experience. It is fine to nurture these things, but markets change and just as the journalists to whom the noble Lord refers grew up in an unsubsidised world, so it may be that as markets evolve, it will happen again. I think that the noble Lord should give proper consideration to allowing these bodies to leave the public purse and stand on their own feet if the conditions-
Lord Maxton: I am interested to hear the noble Lord talk about the public purse because we are getting this in Scotland through the Scottish Executive. There is a hidden public subsidy to almost all local news services through local, regional and national-in
3 Feb 2010 : Column 257
Lord Howard of Rising: I thank the noble Lord for his interesting remarks, and I agree that that is a form of hidden subsidy. But once things become dependent on the public purse, whether directly or indirectly, they rarely change. I think that the Minister should give some consideration within the Bill to allowing to them to go back to being privately financed, in due course and if the occasion arises. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments 233F to 233H not moved.
234: Clause 28, page 32, line 6, at end insert-
"( ) conditions requiring the appointed person to comply with the due impartiality provisions of section 319(2) of the Communications Act 2003."
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, in proposing these possibly imperfect amendments, it may appear that my noble friend Lord Bragg and I are tilting at windmills somewhat, but to torture the metaphor, there is genuine concern that a breeze is beginning to blow that could turn into a gale. The breeze I refer to is the lazy belief that increased plurality in the provision of news and current affairs allows us the luxury of reducing our unconditional commitment to impartiality. This would, in my judgment, be a very unfortunate trade-off. In proposing the amendment I offer in support two pieces of evidence, although I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bragg will be a lot more eloquent than I.
Martin Kettle, writing in the Guardian on 18 December, finished his article by saying:
"I believe the modern media now has a collective oppositional self-interest not just to particular parties or class interests, as in the past, but to the very idea of government and politics itself".
James Murdoch, whom I have a great deal of respect for, particularly on his environmental views, had this to say in the MacTaggart lecture delivered on 28 August 2009. Mr Murdoch is a very influential and powerful man, so I shall quote him at some length because I want to do him justice:
"We must have a plurality of voices and they must be independent. Yet we have a system in which state-sponsored media-the BBC in particular grow ever more dominant ... Above all, we must have genuine independence in news media. Genuine independence is a rare thing. No amount of governance in the form of committees, regulators, trusts or advisory bodies is truly sufficient as a guarantor of independence. In fact, they curb speech.
On the contrary, independence is characterised by the absence of the apparatus of supervision and dependency.
3 Feb 2010 : Column 258
Independence of faction, industrial or political.
Independence of subsidy, gift and patronage"-
is what he feels is essential. He continues:
"Independence is sustained by true accountability-the accountability owed to customers ... And people value honest, fearless, and above all independent news coverage that challenges the consensus.
There is an inescapable conclusion that we must reach if we are to have a better society".
"The only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit".
It would be impossible to sit on these Benches and agree with Mr Murdoch. The purpose of this amendment is to try to ensure that not just these Benches, but the entire Chamber is clear about its unconditional, long-term commitment to the impartiality of news and current affairs in our broadcast media. I beg to move.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Puttnam. I have not spoken in this debate so far for several reasons, so I hope I will be excused if I speak for slightly longer than my noble friend. We are in a dangerous spot. One man's impartiality is another man's oppression. One woman's notion of plurality is another woman's idea of unlicensed, unpalatable excess. It is not easy, but we have to face up to it.
A sense of impartiality, and one clearly recognised to be such, in major news bulletins is essential for the functioning of a democracy. A democracy is difficult enough in a number of ways, these days, as people's demands increase in number and volume; as the state increases its reach and responsibility and as private companies understandably drive harder for profit and control and markets in the new precarious multi-choice media world. We have to address it and we have to get it right. Especially here, in your Lordships' House which, over recent years, has increasingly been called on to defend the basic rights of men and women in this country.
On the one hand we have an asserted fear that the size and historical clout of the BBC tends to make it an overdominant statist voice, threatening a monopoly for its viewpoint. I do not see or hear that on the BBC news bulletins. Its independence is often tested but it still remains intact. It seems to me largely still to strive towards an admirable impartiality and, on a British empirical common-sense reckoning, it still provides a fine example, well followed by other news bulletins in this country-those on Channel 4, ITV and Sky-although, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam pointed out, there have been siren voices.
This can be seen more starkly across the Atlantic. The United States is worth looking at briefly because of the history of American influence on our media culture. I refer to the discussion now under way in the States on Fox News, which your Lordships will know about. A recent opinion poll suggested that it was the most trusted news operation in the country. After that poll, Mike Hoyt, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, explored the issue. He said that "fair and balanced" may be the network's motto, but in many respects it is anything but. He said:
"Fox News is not really a news network it's a commentary network. Its news output is a small island in a vast sea of very conservative commentary".
3 Feb 2010 : Column 259
Dean Denham, president of Public Policy Policing, the North Carolina-based survey firm that carried out the poll, said the Fox strategy had been brilliant commercially, but its implications were troubling. He said:
"That people see the network as trustworthy is worrying in terms of the future of reasoned debate in America. A lie screamed loudly will trump a truth spoken quietly".
Nearer home, qualms about the biased approach of the network have reached the Murdoch family. Earlier this year the PR executive Matthew Freud, who is married to Rupert Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth, told the New York Timesthat he was,
- "ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes's horrendous and sustained disregard of journalistic standards".
I think those voices are worth listening to. At a time of potential world dislocation and even world destruction on an unprecedented scale an impartial agenda is surely crucial.
Plurality can produce much-needed variety, but also through ferocious competition it can breed beasts as big as any that the state can produce. The only way is to look at the question constantly and carefully, to question impartiality on these news bulletins and see that it is observed. John Milton was right. He was right in the 17th century and he is right today. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Liberty, which relies on unpolluted information, is the underpinning of democracy. Democracy, as your Lordships know very well, is rather rare and it is a fragile state. It depends on and allows for clashing views. It encourages dissent. It glories in opposition, which perpetually slows it down, but always in the end holds it up. At the centre of democracy is a well-informed electorate. At the core of that is the idea of impartiality. We know what that is, especially when it is not there.
This may need regulation-a word more often held in contempt nowadays. However, regulation has brought this country some of the finest radio and television we have, which holds its own with that in any other country in the world. I urge all sides of the Committee, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Puttnam and myself, to endorse the broad thrust of these amendments and ensure that the notion of impartiality is embedded in the Bill.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |