§ 'Main section 20 (information as to sound programme contracts and applications for such contracts) shall with the necessary modifications apply in relation to contracts for the provision of television programmes and applications for such contracts as it applies in relation to contracts for the provision of local sound broadcasts and applications for such contracts.'.—[Mr. Brittan.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. BrittanI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we may take the following: Amendment No. 88, in clause 23, page 19, line 44, insert
'in particular by causing to be published all tenders for contracts, whether by new applicants or existing contractors, and by providing facilities for the public to examine all such applications and re-applications.'Government amendment No. 93.
Mr. BritainThe new clause fulfils the undertaking that I gave in Committee during discussion of the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham West (Mr. English). I undertook then to produce an amendment on Report that would broadly extend to television the requirements as to the provision of information that applied to radio under section 20 of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973. The new clause applies section 20 of that Act, with the necessary modifications, to the contracts between the IBA and its television programme contractors. That means that the IBA will be required to supply to any person on request, subject to any fee that it may reasonably require, a copy of any contract it has made for the provision of television broadcasts, a statement of the total number of applications received, and a copy of such parts of a successful contractor's application as relate to the character of the television programmes he proposes to provide. However, the authority will not be required to provide information about the sort of programme that the successful applicant intends to provide until after the authority has started to transmit the programmes—in other words, not until the contract has come into operation.
There has been growing public interest in the nature and content of contracts entered into by the IBA and its programme contractors, and in the extent to which the performance of contractors has matched up to them. Provision for information to be available about local radio contracts was introduced in the Sound Broadcasting Act 1972. It had not previously been thought necessary to make such provision for television contractors, but it seems reasonable and fair that the same provisions should now be extended to television contracts.
Government amendment No. 93 is consequential on the new clause, which requires the IBA to make information available about contracts and contract applications. It is right that the requirement should come into force as soon as possible, so that it can apply to the contracts that are to be awarded at the end of this year which will run from 1 January 1982.
270 I cannot commend amendment No. 88, put forward by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). That amendment would require the IBA, before entering into a programme contract, to publish all the applications for that contract and to provide facilities for the public to examine those applications. It would not be right to place a statutory requirement on the IBA to make available detailed information, including information of a commercially sensitive nature, relating to all applications for contracts.
I commend the new clause and the consequential amendment.
§ Mr. WhiteheadWhen the Minister saw my amendment No. 88 on the Amendment Paper, he should have asked "Why not?" not "Why?". At present the authority goes at least as far as, and probably slightly further than it is required to do under the terms of the new clause. I declare a non-financial interest as an unpaid consultant to one of the groups which would like to be the breakfast-time contractor for the commercial service. The views of the group which I advise should be published in full. Every interested citizen in any part of the country should have the opportunity to see who are involved, what their proposals are, and how they intend to carry them out.
The authority has published a precis of 44 applications for the 15 franchise areas and the eight breakfast-time franchises. I understand from the authority' that it is possible to go to its headquarters in Brompton Road and see the full applications. If that is so, there cannot be anything confidential that must be withheld from the public gaze. I see no reason why the authority cannot make available to citizens who are not within easy walking or riding distance of Brompton Road the information contained therein.
As we move towards the next stage of franchise applications we should consider how best to encourage the authority to do even more to ensure that the public examination and scrutiny of the would-be franchise holders is as exhaustive as possible. We lived through the 1967 franchise applications. We recollect some of the grandiose proposals aired at that time. We know what happened when the 271 proposals were translated into contracts. It is not enough to publish the contract that the authority makes with the successful applicant after the deal has been done. We want to know the terms of the deal.
I recall the axing of almost the entire programme staff at London Weekend Television within 12 months of the contract being signed and the franchise being granted. When the new programme controller, the late Cyril Bennett, was asked how he justified such an action, he said "The first duty of a television company is to survive." Unkind people were wont to remark that he should have said "The first duty of Cyril Bennett is to survive" since he had done so when all around him were slain.
This time round we must know precisely what the applicant companies propose. Some are sending glossy brochures to hon. Members. Some will ensure that at the regional public meetings all their pretensions are laid out for inspection. If I were challenging a well-heeled and well-established existing contractor I should put all my wares on display. We want to know more than that. We want to know what the existing companies proposed last time, what they propose this time and how that compares with the new challengers. We can do that only by a provision such as that in amendment No. 88. It is not sufficient to have a judicious selection from the various franchise applications. In the new spirit of these days the authority is willing to publish more. It will take one step further towards open broadcasting if we encourage it by accepting the amendment.
§ Mr. Charles R. Morris (Manchester, Openshaw)I support my hon. Friend's comments on amendment No. 88. I was encouraged when the Minister said that there is a growing public interest in the manner in which contracts for sound broadcasting and television are made. My task is made easier. I seek an assurance that the applications under consideration by the Independent Broadcasting Authority for extensions of existing franchises and new contracts have not been reduced to a charade by hitherto undisclosed undertakings by the IBA to existing independent television companies in relation to the fourth channel.
272 5.15 pm
Hon. Members might ask what I have in mind. Granada Television Company's submission in its contract application for the North-West of England, referring to Channel 4, states:
if the new service is to be scheduled in such a way as to damage ITV 1, then Granada will want to throw its full resources into maintaining the quality, appeal and revenue of the main ITV 1 service. We have no desire to go broke in an attempt to prove that the two channels need not be complimentary. However that may be, we rely on the good sense of the planners and those in charge of the fourth channel to recognise the inevitability of a system in which the two services must support and not inhibit each other. We already have undertakings that the health of the service as a whole will rate above the demands made by the fourth channel, should they be excessive.That is an example of the IBA giving undertakings. I am not singling out Granada. I understand that such under-takings were given to all the major independent television companies when the negotiations proceeded in the autumn of 1979 on the £70 million which the independent television companies will provide to establish the new fourth channel.A number of important points are raised. The IBA has given undertakings of which the House and the country are not aware. What is meant by the word "excessive?" Does it mean "successful?" Does it mean that, if the new fourth channel competes more than satisfactorily with the main ITV channel, certain action will be taken? Does it mean that, if the new fourth channel is successful, the £70 million contribution will be increased or decreased? The House and the public are entitled to know.
As the Minister recognises, there is a growing demand by the public that they should know the factors which influence the award of contracts. When competing for the extension of existing franchises the major independent companies are in a tremendously advantageous position. It seems that the IBA has assumed that the major companies will continue in existence, irrespective of the applications which are before it. It will be difficult for the Minister to reply if he has not got a copy of Granada's submissions. However, bearing in mind those difficulties, I should be grateful if he would write to me before the Bill goes to the other place. If any 273 of us are not satisfied, we can then brief our colleagues in the other place.
§ Sir Paul BryanI have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman's views. However, I do not understand what he is worried about. We have had a series of debates and we have decided that the fourth channel will be paid for by the first channel. It follows that the first channel must be profitable if the fourth channel is to exist. That is what the phrase means; no more and no less.
§ Mr. MorrisThat is a reasonable point. I do not wish to single out Granada. All major television companies were given the same undertakings. That fact emerged from the negotiations about the £70 million contribution that independent companies would provide for the new fourth channel. However, if undertakings have been given, we are entitled to know what they are.
§ Mr. FreudI wholeheartedly support amendment No. 88, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). There is a growing demand for knowledge about what is going on. Amendment No. 88 is extremely relevant. I hope that the Minister will accept it and remember according to local authority legislation, a district council must publish details of planning applications. By the same token, it is only right that people should know what companies have promised to do if they get a franchise. I have always believed that parliamentarians should be bound by the Fair Trading Act. A person standing for election can promise anything. Once he has been elected, he need deliver nothing. Thank goodness, a Member of Parliament has inbuilt enemies who will remind him of election promises and statements, and point out what the hon. Member said and how little he has done.
It is right that a local company which applies for a franchise should give the maximum amount of information. I hope that the Minister will agree that amendment No. 88 is right. Perhaps he will explain how he will ensure that the publication that the amendment demands is effected. Will it be published in the form of a Diet of Worms, nailed to the nearest television studio; or will it be published in the form of an advertisement in the local newspaper? The public have a right 274 to know. This is a good opportunity for the Minister to show that he approves.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)I am never sure what a declaration of interest involves. I have no direct financial interest in any company that is involved with the applications. My only financial interest is one that is shared by many hon. Members. From time to time I appear on Grampian television in order to give the people of my area my deep political thoughts. I am paid reasonably well. However, one's idea of "reasonably" depends on one's finances. The next day I often feel that I should have got more.
I did not serve on the Committee, but I rise to speak because we are in great danger of causing the same type of unhappiness as resulted from the last round of applications for local radio stations. There was a great deal of unhappiness in my area about the way in which that allocation was handled. I accept that everything was done in the spirit of the Act. However, public meetings did not leave people feeling that there had been any open discussion about the awarding of contracts. Every applicant that wishes to participate in this brave new venture should publish, or have published, the details of the application, whether or not it is for breakfast-time television. I may add that the concept of breakfast-time television fills me with horror.
There should be proper public examination of all applications. Is it good enough to have a series of public meetings at which the wares are displayed and at which the personnel are open to public scrutiny and questioning? I accept that that is essential, but perhaps we should take a further step, involving legal examination of the contracts. Those of us who are involved in politics know that it is easy not to answer a difficult question at a public meeting. Indeed, Ministers are adept at not answering questions in this House. Such action is probably common. If I was directly involved in a company that was trying to get a franchise, I would dodge any difficult questions and put the best gloss on my wares.
Perhaps we could have several smaller public inquiries at which those interested could attend and at which counsel could be employed in order to press the companies to commit themselves and to put 275 on record their answers to difficult questions.
At present, once a contract has been awarded that is the end of it. There is no public pronouncement of why company "A" was chosen instead of company "B". The public are not told that company "A" was chosen because of its programmes, its number of staff and its training facilities. It is not told that the company was chosen because it was more financially sound, and so on. If companies do not match up to the glossy material that they have produced, they cannot be pinned down. The public do not know the grounds upon which the contract was given.
Immense amounts of money and immense profits are involved. Television is probably the most influential of all media. The information that it disseminates and the quality its programmes affects all our lives in many ways. In a democratic society we must ensure that companies are not just paying lip service to the terms of the contract. We must ensure that they mean what they say. Public participation is becoming a hackneyed phrase. If one speaks to people, one finds a thirst for knowledge. They wish to know how they are governed and how decisions are taken. We are told that we are moving into a system of open government. However, I have not seen many signs of that. If we are moving into an era of public participation and scrutiny of companies before they win contracts, and more importantly after they have done so, Amendment No. 88 should be accepted. However, I am not sure that it goes far enough.
§ Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth)I must put it on the record that I have no financial interest at the moment in any company which is competing for the franchise, although I sometimes wish that I had.
I wish to support amendment No. 88. I believe that it is crucially important that the basically anti-democratic structure of the communication medium of broadcasting should be broken down. The last people who are consulted about the one-way communication, which is the nature of the medium, are members of the audience. Of course there are struc 276 tures of consultation, such as ringing up the television station, writing letters, taking part in one of those innumerable "phone-ins", or asking for a record to be played, but all the communication from the audience is geared to the message that is going out. Therefore, the charge stands that the medium is basically anti-democratic. A small elite of people talk to the population at large. The only opportunity for democratic control of that medium occurs when the major public asset of broadcasting time is doled out to various corporate interests, with the exceptional occasional franchise that is given to community groups. As we have seen in the case of Cardiff Broadcasting, far too often the power of capital dictates to those community groups as the station develops.
It is essential to have full public debates on tenders for contracts so as to enable the potential audience to have some kind of voice in the decision on the material that will be transmitted on this one-way system for five years, or whatever the period of the franchise may be. The obvious way of discussing this issue would be for the cases put forward by the various applicants to be screened or broadcast. The Minister laughs, but this is basic to the whole medium. The obvious thing is not to publish the material in great tomes just to be hidden away, with a synopsis being made available to the public, but for the cases on behalf of the various applicants to be screened or broadcast, thus giving a full opportunity for there to be a direct public response to the message. Of course, we have not yet got to that level of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. It is still a one-way system. But at least the publication of tenders for contracts and full discussion in public of what is being proposed, as suggested in amendment No. 88, would bring us part of the way to democratisation of the medium. I do not see how the Government can object to this.
§ Dr. Shirley Summerskill (Halifax)We welcome the Government's new clause because it is essential that there should be as much public disclosure as possible of information about television programmes, contracts and applications for such contracts. It can only increase public and parliamentary confidence in the structure of broadcasting, and in 277 directly improve the standard of it. Disclosure is also important because as a result of these contracts the Treasury benefits handsomely through the levy and corporation tax. I hope that this admirable open attitude of the IBA will continue and be extended.
It is evident from the debate this afternoon that there are limitations on the Government's proposals which are causing some concern. I am extremely worried about the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris). He said that he believes that there have been some secret undertakings. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on the several points that my right hon. Friend made. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is concerned about contracts already in existence. There seems to be a general feeling from the speeches that we have heard today that existing contracts, as well as new contracts, should have been covered by the new clause.
We know that a series of public meetings will be held in the autumn for opinion to be expressed on the programme proposals being made by all the applicants for the new franchise. I hope that these meetings will be very well advertised in local newspapers and that there is enough preliminary information placed in libraries and town halls about the matters under discussion. Our constituents may want to know how the contractors propose to explain to them the changing economic and industrial scene in which so many jobs are being lost and factories closed, and how the voice of public opinion on these issues can be expressed. There can be a full public discussion only if all the IBA contracts—both existing and future—are published, made fully available throughout the country and discussed. This would appear to be the general complaint of my hon. Friends this afternoon.
Television has acquired the status of our most important and influential news and communications system. There is every reason for the IBA to be as open and informative as possible about what it is doing on behalf of the general public and broadcasting. The Government have made a good start by producing the clause, but perhaps they will consider 278 carefully the points that have been made today with a view to extending the provisions.
§ Mr. BrittanAs I have said in Committee, the Government accept and recognise that there is an increasing degree of interest in the process whereby television and radio programme contractors are appointed. For that reason, we put forward the new clause and the associated amendment.
Some of the matters that have been raised in the debate go well beyond the question of the applications for contracts. I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not deal with those, although I take note of the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) dealt specifically with the question of tenders for contracts and suggested that there should be a statutory obligation for more information to be provided than is laid down in the new clause. I make it quite clear that the Government are not opposed to the provision of more information. The question is as to the extent to which the provision of such information should be made a statutory obligation. That is a very different matter.
The IBA in many respects has indicated that it proposes to go further than the statutory implications that we are seeking to impose. That is something we very much welcome. The IBA has indicated its intention to make available for the public hearings that it will be holding the relevant sections of the contract applications. Therefore, it will ensure that the applicants' proposals for the sort of programme policy that they will follow will be made available to the public. That is absolutely right and proper. What will not be made available to the public and what will not be published is the financial and other confidential information, which is of an entirely different character from that which will be considered at the public meetings. The public meetings essentially will be concerned with the consideration of the kind of programmes that the companies which seek the franchise will offer to the public in the area—that is, the public interest in the matter—rather than the details relating to the financial decisions of the particular applicants for the franchise.
If one accepts that that is so, it is much better that the information relating 279 to the kind of programmes offered by those seeking the franchise should be made available on the IBA's own motion than that there should be a statutory obligation. From its policy the IBA has made it clear that that information will be made available. It is relevant information and should be made available. I welcome that, but I do not believe that it is necessary further to buttress it by a statutory obligation. If a statutory obligation was imposed, it would be extremely difficult to differentiate in a statute on a general basis between the type of information that the companies should be obliged to disclose with regard to programmes and the type of information that the IBA will need to scrutinise but which is of a different character and may involve considerations relating to competitive factors, and so on.
§ Mr. WhiteheadWe are becoming increasingly alarmed by the Minister's definition of the word "relevant". If, for example, a submission contained glossy programme ideas but also contained, for the authority's information, the fact that the financial backing was to come from a dubious ring of secondary banks, in what sense is the latter information not relevant and the former relevant?
§ Mr. BrittanI did not say that such information was not relevant. I said that I did not believe that it was relevant from the point of view of a public meeting. That is altogether different. The viewing public may be concerned to express their opinions about the type of programme on offer for a particular area, and the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) mentioned scrutinising how a company is proposing to deal with industrial matters of moment. Those matters can properly be raised at a public meeting. However, examination of financial viability involves consideration of factors which, until the matter has been determined by the IBA, companies are entitled to have treated as confidential on the basis that they are commercially sensitive.
§ Dr. SummerskillDoes the Minister agree that it is also of great public interest that the Treasury benefits handsomely through the levy and corporation tax as a result of those contracts? If the public at a meeting show that they are interested 280 and want more information, surely they should be able to obtain it.
§ Mr. BrittanIf the hon. Lady is suggesting that individuals or companies applying should be commercially viable. I agree that that is certainly in the public interest. However, I do not believe that the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Derby, North would solve any problems. The amendment would require only that contract applications be made public. If that was to happen, all that would result would be that relevant commercially sensitive information would not be included in the initial contract application. No useful purpose could be served by that.
If Opposition Members are arguing in favour of switching to a completely different procedure of public hearings, with legal representation, which I believe the hon. Member for Derby, North had in mind, that is a different argument altogether. That would be a completely different system. I do not believe that such a different system could be introduced simply on the basis of one amendment. I would therefore not commend it to the House.
§ Mr. Robert HughesIt is important to know the financial backers of the different companies. I shall give an example that may or may not arise again. The South African Government set up a department of information with funds running to millions of pounds through which they sought to purchase major newspapers in the United States. A lot of money was also devoted to buying magazines in this country with world-wide circulation. Had the names of the backers been published, we should have at least known where the backing was coming from. Many organisations may wish to subvert our democratic processes and put money into organisations in order to gain access to the media.
§ Mr. BrittanI appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. I am not saying that such matters are irrelevant or should not be considered. The IBA will be considering them. The only question is whether it is information which in every possible respect should be made public. For example, it is not at all uncommon for people making such applications not to wish their identity to be known. The 281 reason is simple. They may be employed at that time by a competitor. The hon. Gentleman's proposals would lead to the present system and arrangements being put into a straitjacket and the changes being prevented from taking place. However, if one believes that people who are in the system and working for existing companies should be able, on a confidential basis, to put themselves forward as alternative contractors, one has to respect their wish for confidentiality.
There is a price to be paid for everything being brought into the open. The price to be paid here, while retaining the present system, would be two-fold. First, full details would not be included in the application, which would serve no useful purpose and cause complications in the later stages of the IBA's consideration of the application. Secondly, it would discourage those who are working in television but who do not wish it to be known that they are seeking to obtain the franchise from putting their names forward. I do not believe that either of those consequences would be in the public interest.
§ Mr. FreudIf I have followed the Minister correctly, he appears to have no objection to the application for a licence being published but feels that there must be reservations about the capital infrastructure of the company making an application. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman should realise that information by leak is just as accurate as information that is published. It happens only to be less desirable and more expensive.
However, even if we forget about the capitalisation or the identity of those involved, will the hon. Gentleman agree to the publication in some form, to save people from having to go to Brompton Road to look at it, of the application for a television or radio franchise? If a person goes to the IBA and says that he would like to do this, that or the other, and is given a franchise, the consumers of the consequent output have a right to know what was promised.
§ Mr. BrittanThe position of those who get the franchise is adequately covered by the new clause. The hon. Member for Derby, North is seeking information about people who have applied for the franchise and who may not necessarily 282 get it. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely, (Mr. Freud) appears to believe that he will be confining the hon. Gentleman's amendment if he relates it solely to the application. That is what the amendment seeks to do. The problem is that an application may contain information of a commercial or personnel character which those seeking to be considered can legitimately ask to be treated as confidential. There is nothing unusual in that. Matters of a general nature affecting the quality of service to be provided to the public should be made public, but financial details of a sort that require scrutiny, but not in public, should not be disclosed.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesWe are getting into difficult waters and my aim is to see whether we can resolve the problem. Surely there is no reason why applications should not be made more freely available throughout the country. I do not think that the IBA would object to that. We are not asking for that to be done in larger numbers, but someone could work out an arrangement by which the applications could be freely available to those who wish to consult them. We can take it as read that they would be available at the public meetings that we shall discuss under clause 23.
As to what should be taken out, I can see that it is right that, if there are those working for other companies who have got themselves involved in an applicant company—and that has happened—we should protect them. No doubt if their interests were made public it would cause them trouble in the companies from which they receive money at present.
I recall that when the contracts were published and the applicants had their pictures in the newspapers we discovered that there was a wide variety of people. One was General Tuzo, whom the Home Secretary and I know and for whom we have high respect. I do not think that anyone wants to know the size of the general's Army pension.
§ Mr. ReesIt is in Whitaker's. That is fine. If a company had on its board someone who was bringing money from Canada or other parts of the world, we ought to know the major aspects of that 283 arrangement, without going into personal details. In these days of managers and so on, the personal money of individuals is not what matters.
We could play games and vote on the amendment and be defeated, but I should like to get something out of the debate. May we have an assurance that t he IBA will ensure that the contracts are available? Can we be told, perhaps in another place, what aspects will not be published? We want to ensure that the major aspects are available for the public to see in all parts of the country.
If we would have those assurances, honour would be met. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is after. I saw little in his amendment at first, but the more that the matter is debated the more I see that he is making an important point.
§ Mr. BrittanI know that the IBA will have followed closely what has been said and that it is anxious as anyone to ensure that all the information that can properly be made available is made available. However, the amendment would not achieve what is sought, because there is no obligation on anyone to put in the tender application the information that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) understandably seeks.
I am sure that the IBA will have taken heed of the debate. On behalf of the Government, I say that I have no objection to such information being made available, but I do not believe that the statutory route is the best way of achieving it.
§ Mr. Charles R. MorrisI appreciate the Minister's difficulty in responding to the serious point that I made on amendment No. 88, but will he assure me that he will respond in correspondence within the next few days?
§ Mr. BrittanI shall be happy to look into the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that they do not arise in this debate, but I shall look into the matter that he raised.
§ Mr. WhiteheadI do not wish to delay the House. I listened to the Minister's reply with mounting alarm. It seemed to me, not merely that he was suggesting 284 the withholding of certain details of applications, but that he was adducing a new principle, that applications were in a different category from completed contracts. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that the whole point about public examination is that meetings and public discussions of the applications should take place when the authority may still be influenced in its consideration of contracts.
The Minister said that financial details were sensitive and should not come within the process of disclosure. But that is where much of the public concern has arisen in the past. Companies have put themselves forward, particularly in radio, with predominant backing that is not from the locality, but from Canada or another transatlantic source or from the Rupert Murdoch group. It must be right for such details to be published and to be available when the application is made.
The Minister said that he hopes that the authority will take note of the debate. I hope so too, and I hope that in its new, more open, spirit of publication the IBA will make such information available in time for the public meetings so that there can be the most open possible public scrutiny of all applications.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.