| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
7.45 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends who have spoken to these two amendments. I agree that Amendment 234 raises a very important issue. If I am slightly dismissive about Amendment 235, I hope my noble friends will appreciate that it is because I want to devote a little more time to Amendment 234 and to indicate the Government's broad sympathy with exactly the case that my noble friends have identified.
On Amendment 235-if I can be a little dismissive of the amendment-we do not think that it would be appropriate to increase the maximum penalty incurred for breaching the specific rule as opposed to other rules set out in the broadcasting code. We think the current system works well in ensuring that viewers enjoy trustworthy, high-quality news. We want to preserve a system that we think is effective. I hope my noble
3 Feb 2010 : Column 260
The Government regard the rules on due impartiality and accuracy applying to TV and radio services as very important. The rules are well established especially when applied to broadcasting with access to mass audiences. I am not going to be able to match the eloquence of my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Bragg in their articulation of the value this has brought to our society and to the quality of our democracy.
It is interesting how we all spend a great deal of time berating the weaknesses that are identified from time to time in our democratic practices. Reform is ever in the air and I would be the last to want to countenance against that. From time to time it is necessary to step back and recognise those things that we do well that are important in sustaining our democratic traditions. I do not have the slightest doubt that the rules with regard to broadcasting that derive from the origins of the BBC, but now obtain across the field of broadcasting and the media landscape, are of the greatest significance to the society in which we live.
It is clear that the media landscape is changing significantly and audiences now get their news from a much wider mix of sources, including digital television. Some have argued that because of this multiplicity the due impartiality rule is not needed. We do not agree. The rule of due impartiality for TV and radio services is still critically important. There is space for opinionated news. I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Bragg said about the nature of Fox News-a little bit of news among a great deal of opinionated commentary.
We all recognise that newspapers spend an awful lot of their time on comment. Because, by definition, newspapers are slower to enter the public's consciousness than other forms of projection of the news, they increasingly spend rather more of their time on comment than news. There have always been newspapers which have been pretty opinionated in their stance on matters. The due impartiality rule on TV and radio must continue. It must continue to guarantee that viewers enjoy unbiased, informative news.
All our surveys and Ofcom's surveys with regard to broadcasting indicate how strongly the British public support the concept of unbiased, informative but impartial news. That concept of impartiality, which both my noble friends have emphasised in their contributions, is of the greatest significance. If television news is considered to be the most trusted of news sources by audiences, there is little doubt that it is thanks to the impartiality rule, which is why the Government are eager that that should continue. Weakening the rule would affect the level of trust that people have in news and would ultimately affect people's engagement and interest in this news. That is clearly not good for audiences or broadcasters and, most of all, it is not good for our democracy. Therefore, it is not in the public interest of a democratic nation. If we look to sustain the due impartiality requirements for news supported by public funds, I hope that that will not only indicate how much I agree with my noble friends but reassure those on Benches opposite about the due
3 Feb 2010 : Column 261
The Government agree with the principle set out in Amendment 234. We think that it is of the greatest importance. I ask my noble friends to withdraw it on the basis that the Government will consider it further and return to the issue at the next stage.
Lord Puttnam: I am grateful to the Minister. I found the last two groupings very interesting. I had great sympathy with the earlier amendment about returning the news system proposed by the Government into private hands. Anything that concretes a system into the public domain is not that healthy, and when we return to the matter at Report I should like to talk at more length about it. There is a middle way and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, is on to something.
Amendment 235 is crude, but the truth is that £250,000 when the Act was passed is £210,000 today. The Government should have a view on what direction they want to be seen to be travelling in. In effect, the maximum fine is less today than it was at the time of the original Bill. However, I am certainly happy not to press that amendment. In withdrawing Amendment 234, I make one point. I am the son of a journalist and was brought up in an environment in which all newspapers clearly differentiated between opinion and news. The Daily Telegraph in particular used to have it on the masthead. That has become a great rarity today. Most front pages of most newspapers contain opinion, not news; you have to seek the news, having got past the headlines which are essentially opinion. That is the status quo-we are not going to change that. But to allow our broadcast news to slip into that type of norm and for that to become a condition into which broadcast news is allowed to drift would be catastrophic for us as a democracy. Again, we will return to that on Report, and I hope that the whole House will be prepared to endorse the broad thrust of where we are trying to go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
234A: Clause 28, page 32, line 11, at end insert ", and
( ) conditions requiring that the money only be spent on providing regional news that will be broadcast via the Channel 3 licencee"
Lord Howard of Rising: This amendment seeks clarity over what exactly the Government want this funding to be used for. In simple terms, I can understand, even if I do not agree with, the argument that this money will be used to provide a regional news broadcast on ITV. Where I am uncertain is how the Government believe that this will help the regional newspaper sector, as has been suggested. If the money is to be used to produce a half-hour bulletin of regional news, how does that help the printed media? They do not currently make such broadcasts, so the money will not go to cover their existing costs. If there is some possibility that newspapers involved in these IFNCs might be allowed to use the money to cross-subsidise their current operations and output, the Government need
3 Feb 2010 : Column 262
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, one dimension that we are concerned about is the disappearance of news provision in localities and the regions. A cardinal point behind the Government's proposals on the IFNCs and funding is to ensure that gaps that appear and cause distress because of the disappearance of local news are filled. In some cases, as the noble Lord will be all too well aware, the issue is not the plurality of newspapers but whether there is one there at all. If there is one, it tends to be the only outlet. We are concerned to see newspapers supported to a degree, when it can be guaranteed that news provision meets the standards that we expect with regard to broadcasting provision.
Restricting the funding as the noble Lord suggests would be to restrict it to television news only. Of course, it is widely recognised-and this is why the Bill is called the Digital Economy Bill-that the future of digital Britain is very much online. The purpose of the clause is to provide for a convergence of news provision across as many platforms as necessary, and not just television. Restricting funding to Channel 3 News is at odds with the principle behind this clause and confines the news to the old analogue world, when the whole concept behind the Bill is to make provision for the world that is rapidly developing before us. If we limited IFNC funding or provision to broadcast television, we would be propping up an old model and not recognising the change towards a digital future and a digital economy. That is the main thrust behind the Bill and why the Bill rejoices in its title. We are concerned to ensure that we take account of the increased use which undoubtedly our fellow citizens will make of the new technology, in addition to analogue television, and provide the standards of news coverage which obtained for eight decades or so under old television presentation. The BBC was the sole provider for five or six decades, with independent television playing its part subsequently. We are now moving into a digital Britain, and we have to provide for that.
Lord Howard of Rising: I thank the Minister, but I wonder whether we are talking slightly at cross purposes here. I was not saying that funds should be restricted but asking how newspapers would be helped to survive by subsidising regional news television programmes. I believe that it has been suggested that this will be of assistance to local newspapers.
My second point is that if there was some subsidy for newspapers, how would one choose which to give it to if more than one newspaper was involved in the same area? Where I live, for example, we have two local newspapers-that is not an impossible case. Can the Minister answer my question?
8 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: As I have indicated, the trouble with the amendment is that it restricts it to television. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn for
3 Feb 2010 : Column 263
As far as newspapers are concerned, the funding would be provided to consortia for local and regional news, which might well include regional newspapers. The consortia would replace existing TV and online news. However, this is not about subsidising newspapers. It is about securing plurality of news syndication so that the values and principles obtaining to television broadcast news are sustained in local and regional news. Against the present background, we see their outlets, support and finances greatly reduced, if not almost collapsed, and it is quite clear that some support is necessary.
I am not going to get into a debate about whether one newspaper is going to be subsidised against another-that would be an absurd proposition to put forward in terms of how these resources are distributed. There would be significant consortia undertaking to provide news services of a regional and local category, and they would have to meet the criteria which underpin the legislation.
Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, I am disappointed that yet again the Minister has slipped away from me, but I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, Clause 28 allows Ofcom to appoint, and pay, someone to provide "relevant media content". Subsection (10)(c) defines "relevant media content" as,
- "services provided by means of the internet where there is a person who exercises editorial control".
Does this therefore mean that a newspaper which is appointed under this section will be able to spend money on its own website? If this is the case, surely its rivals will have a pretty good argument that they are being driven out of business by a subsidised competitor; indeed, as I commented when speaking to the last amendment, it is a question of who gets the subsidy. Rather than save regional news, this clause could, at a stroke, ensure the only survivors are those propped up by the state.
There is a fundamental flaw with the concept behind this clause. I know the Minister is keen on plurality; perhaps he could give some thought and consideration to that. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the great danger is that I may repeat the arguments I have just deployed with no hope of any greater satisfaction as far as the noble Lord is concerned.
I am not prepared to accept an amendment which restricts the appointment to the provision of television content, for exactly the same reason I gave with the previous amendment: the model which the noble Lord
3 Feb 2010 : Column 264
I say to the noble Lord that these services are of course likely to be concentrated in areas where they deliver public value-and therefore are wanted-or where there is market failure. I know the noble Lord treats this with equanimity, but the Government do not. In his perspective on this Bill, the noble Lord seems to be oblivious to the fact that the market is not a guarantor of local and regional news provision. This provision, as we are watching, is in steady decline; we know the reasons for this. My noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Bragg, who have now departed the Chamber, spoke on news issues regarding earlier amendments. They eloquently articulated the fact that the values regarding news provision ought to be universally obtained; both expressed the extent to which we have a collapse of the market in crucial areas of this news provision.
As a sufficient analyst of the contemporary scene, the noble Lord will know very well that there are market failures. If he says he can treat them with equanimity, I say the Government do not think we should. The public expectation of local and regional news of a high standard is legitimate. There is market failure in these provisions: that is why we have this concept of independent news consortia in the Bill, predicated on the assumption that they are there because we have identified a need. I defy the noble Lord to indicate from the Dispatch Box that he cannot see any weakness in the market.
Lord Howard of Rising: I thank the Minister. There is no equanimity about market failure from this side of the House. The purpose of these amendments has been to try and prise out from the Government some of the detail of how the Bill will work in practice. The only impression I have is that the detail has simply not been thought through. I hope that, having raised these amendments, I may have sparked the Government into thinking about how things will work in practice, and trying to avoid some of the potential pitfalls. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed.
Clause 30 : Digital switchover
235A: Clause 30, page 33, line 13, at beginning insert "After consultation with companies providing satellite navigation services,"
3 Feb 2010 : Column 265
Lord Maxton: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. I feel almost guilty in raising such a mundane matter after the high-flown principles we have had so far. I also wish to make it clear that, given the specific nature of this amendment in relation to satellite navigation systems, I have no financial interest to declare. The matter was raised with me in the Tea Room at the other end of the Corridor. I thought that it was of interest and tabled an amendment accordingly. It is a probing amendment designed to ask the Government to look at an area of radio broadcasting that appears to have been completely omitted from the Bill.
ITIS, the major company in this area, has two concerns. It provides local and national traffic reports to a variety of outlets including satellite navigation systems. Traffic reports to satellite navigation devices go through the same FM bandwidth used by Classic FM at present via an arrangement with Global Radio, the owner of Classic FM. ITIS is obviously concerned that any changes in the switchover of radio from FM to digital-this part of the Bill is called "Digital switchover"-would make its services inoperable.
Digital technology for satellite devices is being developed, but many existing cars and cars for the immediate future-particularly those in the upper price ranges such as BMWs, Jaguars and Rolls-Royces, which have a longer lifespan than others-have satellite navigation devices built-in to the car. I just use a plug-in whenever I need it, and obviously I could buy a new one, but if you buy a car with a satellite navigation system built in, you cannot do that.
Each of these devices has its own radio transmitter which transmits on an FM bandwidth voice traffic reports to the driver as he is driving. It will say, "There is a major traffic jam ahead. If you turn left, left, left and right you will avoid it and that will be to your benefit". Obviously, that will cease to work if the FM signal is switched off in the future. The company is therefore concerned that the Government should give some assurance that they have at least looked at the matter and considered whether these services can be continued.
The company is also concerned-although this is a matter for Ofcom rather than the Government-that its AS1 licence has to be retendered for next year. There is only one licence of this nature at present. The doubt about its continuation is causing concern not only with the company but with car manufacturers and satellite navigation companies. It is essentially a matter for Ofcom, but there is a concern that there is no provision in the Bill to give a power to Ofcom to renew the licence without retendering. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising this issue. The amendment refers to the impact that the digital radio switchover may have on satellite navigation systems that receive traffic information, such as early warnings of accidents or details of congestion, via the analogue radio networks. As the digital radio switchover proposes to move all national radio stations to digital-only, the future of the infrastructure, which these traffic services rely on for carriage, is uncertain.
3 Feb 2010 : Column 266
That does not necessarily mean that these services cannot continue on FM. The Government accept that there is a case for allowing the additional service licences, under which these traffic services are licensed, to continue on analogue after the switchover; not least because it would provide continuity of service for motorists. In fact, Clause 30 already provides for consultation with bodies such as satellite navigation providers. Clause 30 requires the Secretary of State to take account of any report submitted by Ofcom and the BBC under Section 67 of the Broadcasting Act 1996. In addition, on requiring such a report, the Secretary of State is obliged to consult any other persons as he thinks fit. That could include providers of traffic and travel information, the motor industry and, with that, providers of satellite navigation services. For those reasons, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary and hope that, in the light of those assurances, my noble friend will feel capable of withdrawing it.
Lord Maxton: My Lords, I said at the beginning that this was a probing amendment. My noble friend has given a response that the industry will at least welcome. As a result, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
8.15 pm
Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendment 237. The amendments are designed to ensure that attention is paid to the local and community radio sectors and the many millions of analogue radio listeners-to which I should add the providers of satellite systems about which the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, spoke. They should all be listened to before any decision is taken about switchover. We on these Benches have not hidden the fact that we remain unconvinced that the Government's plans to switchover in 2015 are realistic. We do not believe that audiences will be ready by then. The audience must remain at the forefront of all our considerations when we debate these parts of the Bill.
As drafted, the Secretary of State will have to pay heed only to Ofcom and the BBC. Despite the BBC's dominance in the radio industry, there is a strong argument that it would be helpful for community and local radio stations to be consulted. Indeed, the whole commercial radio sector should be included. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the Secretary of State consult the other parts of the industry that will be affected.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |