§ Amendments made: No. 47, in page 7, line 1 leave out 'Service'.
§
No. 48, in page 7, line 11 leave out from 'broadcast' to 'respectively' in line 12 and insert
'on ITV and the Fourth Channel'.
§
No. 49, in page 7, line 16 leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.
§ No. 51, in page 7, line 17 leave out 'in' and insert 'on'.—[Mr. Brittan.]
§ Mr. WhiteheadI beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 7, line 18, at end insert
'including the criteria by which the Fourth Channel Company determine that any programme is innovative in form, content or origin, the amount of financial support by purchase or otherwise provided by the Fourth Channel Company on such programmes, and the proportion of such support in the foregoing year, such proportion to be not less than 10 per cent. of the revenue of the Fourth Channel Company.'.I shall pursue the discussions that we had in Committee on 24 April. My proposal is modest and I hope that it will attract the attention and sympathy of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson), who suggested in Committee that he might be marginally sympathetic to the notion of obliging the authority to make a percentage "guestimate", as it is obliged to provide innovative programmes of a distinctive type.We have already been reminded of the Minister's statement in Committee. He said:
The authority and its subsidiary will have to work out carefully how they will discharge 407 a serious statutory obligation, imposed by Parliament with bipartisan support. The Government are entirely serious about the matter; we shall impose a statutory obligation on the authority and its subsidiary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 24 April 1980; c. 659.]12.15 amWhen we look at the fine sentiments beginning in clause 3 and continuing in later clauses, we find that that obligation is largely realised in the report that the authority must make, which is discussed in clause 7. I therefore suggest that we should include a number of additional elements in that report. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and I therefore suggest that the end of clause 7 should be inserted:
including the criteria by which the Fourth Channel Company determine that any programme is innovative in form, content or origin, the amount of financial support by purchase or otherwise provided by the Fourth Channel Company on such programmes, and the proportion of such support in the foregoing year, such proportion to be not less than 10 per cent. of the revenue of the Fourth Channel Company.That can be done already. The authority could have already said that it was prepared to give such an undertaking. Since the authority would begin with subscription income in its first year in excess of £70 million, a 10 per cent. minimum for the innovative programmes would be about £7 million. For some innovative programmes, programme costs are about £30,000 per hour. It is therefore clear that £7 million is not a vast sum by comparison.The Minister said that we were imposing a serious statutory obligation on the authority. In a letter to the Independent Film-makers' Association, the private secretary to Lord Belstead said:
there is nothing to prevent them"—that is, the IBA—adopting the kind of approach which you propose and we shall be interested in the outcome of any future discussions you may have with the IBA.Such discussions have gone on between the independent film makers and the authority. Those discussions guide the hon. Member for Isle of Ely and myself in bringing forward this amendment and pressing it to the vote if we do not have a sympathetic response from the Government.408 We all welcome the indication that there is a "serious statutory obligation", but in the time that has elapsed since 24 April we have not heard a single word from the authority about how it intends to identify these concepts of innovation and experiment in form and content. We have heard nothing about the way in which it will earmark funds for that purpose. We have heard a great deal from the leading figures in the companies and the ITCA about how poor they are and how difficult it will be for them to contribute to the funding of the fourth channel. The remarks in the prospectus of Granada Television were quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) earlier in the debate.
In Committee in April I quoted Mr. Bill Brown's remarks about the lean years that he believed the companies would face with regard to profitability. There is now a rumour that Mr. Bill Brown has been appointed as one of the ITCA figures on the fourth channel board, along with two other managing directors from the companies and Mrs. Joy Whitby, a programme maker and personal friend of mine, whom I hold in high regard. However, she is a senior executive with Yorkshire Television, and hardly a representative of the independents. When the representatives of the independents are chosen for the board of the fourth channel company, how will they carry clout and make their case against the representative of the companies if they vote as a block?
There is one way—by being able to point not only to undertakings given in Standing Committee but to the phraseology of the statute. They should be able to say that there is an obligation that the fourth channel company must spend a minimum amount of money each year in pursuit of programmes of innovation and experiment.
The Independent Film-makers Association has circulated hon. Members with the view that the foundation was the necessary guarantee. That may have been a slightly cumbrous suggestion. It did not find favour with the Government in Committee. The whole notion has an echo of science fiction about it—Isaac Asimov for managing director, perhaps. We have kept away, for the purposes of the amendment, from anything so cumbrous as the 409 notion of a foundation. We have indicated, instead, that we would be happy with the setting of a minimum figure for expenditure on programmes of innovation and experiment during the early years of the fourth channel.
We know that the fourth channel board will be chaired by our former colleague, Edmund Dell, who will also continue to be chairman of a notable merchant bank. I understand that he is not giving up that position in order to go to the fourth channel company. I have a great deal of time for Edmund Dell. I esteem him as an individual. I think, however, that he would be the first to admit—and has, indeed, admitted, in an interview in Campaign magazine, recently—that he knows little about television, watches ITN's "News at Ten", and that is about all, and, therefore, goes into an area that he knows not much about and is surprised to have been selected for.
If that is the position, we cannot see that a part-time chairman will be in a position to insist—I hope that he will—upon due need being given to the programmes of innovation with which we are concerned in the amendment. The only way in which we can honour the wise and direct words of the Minister in Committee regarding the statutory obligation is to make sure that the statute, in this instance, deals in terms of percentages. We suggest a modest percentage to the House.
§ Mr. BrittanI share the hon. Gentleman's concern that there should be innovation. That is reflected in the Bill. A requirement is imposed upon the IBA to encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of the programmes. I also think, as I indicated in an analogous argument on another subject, that it is right that one of the ways in which that obligation should be monitored is by means of a requirement in the report relating to that obligation. One finds a requirement in clause 7 (2) that the report of the authority should contain an account of the way in which it has discharged its duty
as regards the encouragement of innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes for broadcasting in the Fourth Channel Service.I agree with that. The form of the legislation shows the Government's commitment in that direction. I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I do not think 410 that one should go further by requiring the IBA to set out criteria by which it determines that any programme is innovative in form, content or origin. Those criteria would be abstract in the extreme and would shed little light on the operation and work of the fourth channel company in deciding what programmes should be provided that come within this category. A much clearer indication would be given if the report contained a description of what has been done, as is prescribed by clause 7.As to whether there should be a fixed money percentage to go on innovative programmes, one of the problems is that that presupposes that it is possible to state in a form sufficiently precise for it to be appropriate to appear in a statute whether a programme is innovative. That is a subjective judgment and it would be inappropriate for percentages to be applied to it. When seeking to apply a percentage it is difficult enough to decide whether a programme is of an educational character. To say whether a legal requirement that a programme percentage should be innovative has been complied with would be giving a precise meaning to words that they must have if they are to have any legal effect, but which I do not think that they bear.
§ Mr. WhiteheadDoes the Minister accept that when called upon to explain how it makes refunds to radio companies for programmes of merit the IBA has no difficulty in defining merit?
§ Mr. BrittanIt is one thing to explain how it does that, which is analogous to what it will do in the report, but another to have a fixed percentage to enable one to say that there has been a breach of the law by the IBA because it has not spent the 10 per cent. In order to test whether that was so, one would have to test which programmes were innovation. We must have precision in legislation. If it is impossible or undesirable, one ought to think again about imposing such quotas.
§ Mr. FreudThis is a simple amendment. I support the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in the most simplistic terms. It has been announced that there will be more than 2,000 hours of channel 4 transmission. It is agreed that the amount available will 411 be about £70 million and it is understood that we are budgeting on about £30,000 per programme hour.
All that the amendment seeks to do is to use the language of the Minister in the Bill. He seeks in clause 3 to encourage:
innovation and experiments in the form and content of programmes".We are trying, putting it simplistically, to enable the Minister to put the money where his mouth is. Instead of saying that we will encourage innovation and experiment, we should say that we shall give a certain minimum proportion of the available budget in order to achieve what is set out in clause 3(1)(c).I believe that 10 per cent. is a reasonable sum. I do not see why the Minister should be allowed to bask in the reflected
§ glory of his innovative clause and say "I can do this for no money at all". I admit that clause 7 allows him to make a retrospective admission that innovative experiments cost so much.
§ We should like the Minister to admit that, having had a good idea about programme content, he will allow a sufficiency of money to be used in order to achieve it. I will support the hon. Member for Derby, North in taking the amendment to a Division, because with the experimental and innovative nature of the appointments to the board of channel 4 there should at least be some realistic substance to giving innovation to the programme content.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 130.
413| Division No. 369] | AYES | [12.29 am |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Penhaligon, David | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| Cryer, Bob | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | |
| English, Michael | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Homewood, William | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) | Mr. Clement Freud and |
| Howells, Geraint | Whitehead, Phillip | Mr. D. E. Thomas. |
| NOES | ||
| Alexander, Richard | Grist, Ian | Needham, Richard |
| Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East) | Gummer, John Selwyn | Nelson, Anthony |
| Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Newton, Tony |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Hawkins, Paul | Normanton, Tom |
| Bendall, Vivian | Hawksley, Warren | Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham |
| Best, Keith | Heddle, John | Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire) |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Heffer, Eric S. | Parris, Matthew |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hicks, Robert | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Blackburn, John | Hill, James | Percival, Sir Ian |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham) | Pollock, Alexander |
| Bright, Graham | Hooson, Tom | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Brinton, Tim | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Brittan, Leon | Kitson, Sir Timothy | Raison, Timothy |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe) | Knox, David | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Lawson, Nigel | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Le Marchant, Spencer | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
| Cadbury, Jocelyn | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) |
| Channon, Paul | Lyell, Nicholas | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Clark, Sir William (Croydon South) | MacKay, John (Argyll) | Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills) |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Madel, David | Sims, Roger |
| Cope, John | Major, John | Speller, Tony |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Marlow, Tony | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Stainton, Keith |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Mates, Michael | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Dover, Denshore | Mather, Carol | Stevens, Martin |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Maude, Rt Hon Angus | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Dunn, Robert (Dartford) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Taylor, Teddy (Southend East) |
| Durant, Tony | Mellor, David | Tebbit, Norman |
| Dykes, Hugh | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke) | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch) | Thompson, Donald |
| Eyre, Reginald | Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) |
| Faith, Mrs Sheila | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Moate, Roger | Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath) |
| Fraser, Peter (South Angus) | Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth) | Waddington, David |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes) | Wakeham, John |
| Goodhew, Victor | Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester) | Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Mudd, David | Waller, Gary |
| Gow, Ian | Murphy, Christopher | Ward, John |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Neale, Gerrard | Warren, Kenneth |
| Watson, John | Whitney, Raymond | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage) | Wickendon, Keith | Mr. John MacGregor and |
| Wheeler, John | Wolfson, Mark | Mr. Peter Brooke. |
| Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§
Amendments made: No. 53, in page 7, line 23, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.
§
No. 54, in page 7, line 25, leave out from 'broadcast' to 'respectively' in line 26 and insert
'on ITV and the Fourth Channel'.
§
No. 55, in page 7, line 29, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.
§
No. 56, in page 7, line 32, leave out from 'advertisements' to 'respectively' in line 33 and insert
'on ITV and the Fourth Channel'.—[Mr. Brittan.]
§ Mr. BrittanI beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 7, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
§ Mr. BrittanThese are drafting amendments, designed to tidy up the Bill by introducing a single provision, rather than more than one, relating to the Secretary of State's power to give directions about the content of the annual report of the IBA.
§ Mr. RathboneI realise that this is simply a drafting amendment, but it touches on the requirement for the authority to report on, among other things, the advertising content of the fourth channel. My eye is caught by the requirements in clause 7(2) and (3) where there is, perhaps, a semantic difference in wording in calling for a general account in relation to advertising. In clause 7(2)(b) there is a call for "an account"; in (c) for "a description" and in subsection 2(d) for "a description". I hope that the use of the word "general" is not an outlet for not being precise enough in any account that is given in the annual report.
It is crucial that the authority should be charged to report on the advertising content of the fourth channel. As my 414 hon. and learned Friend knows, there is now a need to reassure ourselves that there is no collusion between advertising on ITV I and the fourth channel. There is also the need to ensure that the time-selling on the fourth channel and on ITV I is competitively priced and not prone to the monopoly system that has occasionally been in practice with ITV I.
I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend can reassure me that clause 7(3) covers the eventuality of the possible influence of advertisers on programming. It is not explicit within the clause and it is, obviously, a power of the Secretary of State to make an explicit requirement for reporting within the provision. It is all the more important because there is a complete lack of separation between the responsibilities for programme production and responsibilities for advertising sales. I think that it would help the House if my hon. and learned Friend could reassure me on those two points.
§ Mr. WhiteheadI have one query about the necessity for leaving out clause 7(3). For those who are wide enough awake to have read it, it provides that the power of the Secretary of State under the main Act to give directions as to the information to be included in the report shall be in no way altered or diminished.
It seems to me, in view of what we have already said in the debate, that that might well be a power that was sometimes needed. It might be needed precisely because we have had discussions on the question whether the encouragement of innovation and experiment—to take the subject matter of the last two amendments, for a start—could be a matter that would concern the Secretary of State, or some future Secretary of State, in relation to the performance of the authority and the contents of its report in subsequent years. If that is so, I cannot quite see why subsection (3) is otiose, as suggested by the amendment.
§ Mr. BrittanThe position is that I am able to give the assurances that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) sought.
§ Amendment agreed to.