PROVISION OF PROGRAMMES (OTHER THAN ADVERTISEMENTS) FOR THE FOURTH CHANNEL SERVICE. (Hansard, 24 June 1980)

§ Mr. D. E. Thomas
I beg to move amendment No. 99, in page 4, line 46, leave out 'a substantial proportion' and insert 'all'.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the output of the fourth channel consists entirely of programmes that are produced by persons who are of neither of the descriptions that feature in clause 4(3)(b): namely a TV programme contractor and a body corporate under the control of a TV programme contractor. Before the Minister responds and says that by proposing the amendment I am destroying the effect of the proposals debated some hours earlier, I wish to make it clear that my proposal refers to the fourth channel service as a whole, and especially to the position in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
I am introducing the amendment because of the inadequate response either from the Government in Committee or from the IBA about the make-up of the production output for the fourth channel service. There was an initial statement from the IBA which told us that the possible pattern at the start of the service would be that between 15 per cent. and 35 per cent. of the output of the fourth channel would come from independent 400 producers. That statement was overtaken by the closer participation between the IBA, its proposed subsidiary board and the present independent contractors. I am trying to elicit from the Government their present position, having considered what was said in Committee about the role to be played in the fourth channel service by programme sources that are not currently involved in the production of programmes.
When the successor to Asa Briggs writes the history of broadcasting in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s, the debate will be seen as a missed opportunity by the previous Labour Adminstration, because of their public expenditure policies, to create a diversified media system on television throughout Britain. The issue about diversification that we have debated is part of that question—the way in which we are failing to provide a media system that is directed towards the production of messages not arising from current sources.
The Government decided to go for ITV 2 service and to give the present contractors a greater role in the administration of the channel and in producing programme material for it. Then the basic cultural contradiction between the economic base of commercial television in advertising and promoting the values of cultural capitalism and the need to make the service comprehensive and meet the demands of a variety of viewers came into being. Such a contradiction is to be found throughout cultural policy when commercial viability challenges creativity.

§ Mr. Brinton
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's argument for separating the present contractors from anyone else providing material for channel 4, but many creative people are working with the present contractors and wish to expand their services. From where would the material come in the early stages of the operation if they were not supplied by the present contractors?

§ Mr. Thomas
I appreciate the argument about existing facilities. The existing centres of production could be utilised by creative persons working for the present contractors. They could use production facilities for their own work which is not necessarily related to work commissioned by the contractors. That would help to give people employed by 401 the present contractors or by the BBC more creative opportunities for developing alternative programmes.
The organisational constraints of making the fourth channel an organisation in which the present contracting companies play a major role will consign us to the same type of output, in terms of image, as we have now. The BBC reacted to the provision of commercial television by providing a similar type of service.
There is a swinging pendulum about which company is to be the major contributor on channel 4. Initially, in 1971, the then Conservative Government issued a report stating that the companies would divest themselves of a significant proportion of air time and that programme responsibility would be placed with independent bodies. The Annan report swung further towards independent producers with the OBA concept.
The independents increasingly are being squeezed out under the pressure of the ITCA lobby. The Government must make their present position clear on the balance to be established on channel 4. The IBA chairman stated last year that the big companies had to be part of the channel because only they could provide the steady flow of programmes needed.
12 midnight
Many people who have been concerned about the development of alternative forms of programme-making, and alternative types of images are now concerned that we shall see on channel 4 a steady flow of the type of material that has originated in the programme companies over the years. Channel 4 should be a different type of channel, with a different approach to scheduling and programme making. It should be a channel committed to diversity and innovation. It should be seen as an alternative channel, not as complementary to or a continuation of the type of programming of the BBC and the commercial companies.
There is a basic contradiction. The programme makers, and particularly the independent producers, want to be as free as possible to put forward their programme projects and to develop their skills and their messages. At the same time, they will be responsible to the subsidiary board of the IBA, which will include major interests from the com 402 mercial contractors. I am concerned about the way in which the present commercial contractor in Wales—Harlech Television—has been deliberately trying to undermine the position of the independent producers and has been trying to squeeze them out and positively discriminate against the people whom it used to hire on a freelance basis, because it is worried that they will set themselves up as independent producers and compete with it. I am sure that that is repeated in other contract areas.
If the channel is dominated by commercial interests, the opportunity for experimentation will be substantially reduced. If the channel has to operate in the shadow of the present franchise holders, that shadow will dominate the programming and will restrict the way in which the independent producers can operate.
If we are to have a more diversified programme system and changes in experimentation and production methods, and if we are to develop a more open relationship with the audience in channel 4, it will be extremely difficult if it is dominated by the modes of thinking and production that are practised in the current system.
One of the most hopeful developments in the media in the United Kingdom generally in recent years has been the growth of community media. Much of the work that is carried out by community media projects is not up to broadcast standard, but with some investment, those community programme makers could provide material that would be of adequate standard for broadcasting. Will that sort of development be initiated if the channel is dominated by the commercial producers? I think not, because the bias will be in favour of commercial and corporate production, rather than the sort of community production that allows access to the audience directly, as opposed to the limited access in the traditional television system, with studios concentrated in centres away from the audience.
It is for those reasons that I have moved the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that it is a Utopian amendment which seeks to provide a system on the fourth channel that is entirely diversified and separate from the companies.
403 I would like a specific response to the debate that we had in Committee on 24 April, on clause 3(1)(c). The Minister said then that the obligation for innovation and experimentation was a serious statutory obligation imposed by Parliament with bipartisan support."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 24 April 1980; c. 659.] Is he satisfied that in the present position that the IBA is taking in the relationship between contractors and the channel, that obligation is being carried out? Is the obligation for innovation and experiment in form and content one that the Department has a clear definition and understanding of? What discussions has the Department had with the IBA about the ways in which the concepts enshrined in the Bill can be implemented?
Finally, what is the Minister's position now on the proposal put forward by the Independent Film-makers' Association for the foundation to act as a base for this kind of innovation? In Committee the question was raised whether it would be possible to place a percentage of the channel's budget in a foundation of this kind, which would then be available for making developments in the service, particularly in the style of programme. Changes in video technology and the communications media happen so rapidly that we do not want to ossify ourselves in a fourth channel that will be a predictable reproduction of the kind of media messages currently available, when in five or 10 years' time we shall see a massive expansion of video discs, increasing use of VTR, and the Euro-satellite. In that context it is very important that the fourth channel is, from the start, a distinctive, diversified service, directed towards alternative and different sources of production and, therefore, the creation of alternative images, for the viewers.

Mr. Britton
The best assurance that I can give the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) that the Government do not wish the present structure to be ossified, as he put it, and do not wish to continue with the sort of arrangements that we have now, is very simple. If the Government were content with the ITV companies running the show in the same old way on the fourth channel, nothing could have been simpler than to have given the fourth channel to the ITV companies. The 404 very fact that in this Bill we have set up a whole structure, doing something quite different, shows clearly that that is not our intention and that we do not want the fourth channel to be dominated by the ITV companies or their subsidiaries. We do not intend that that should happen, and the Bill is designed to avoid it.
One of the principal safeguards is the provision that a substantial proportion of the programmes should be broadcast from sources other than the ITV contractors or bodies controlled by them. For reasons that I indicated at length in Committee, we think that that proportion is not something that should be included in legislaion. One of the reasons for that is that we think it would be a great mistake to prescribe and fix a percentage of that kind.
The amendment would effectively debar ITV contractors from providing programmes for the fourth channel. However much one may want others to provide programmes, and even if it were desirable to set up a foundation, I still believe that it would be unrealistic to say from the outset that existing contractors should not contribute any programmes. It is unrealistic to think that one could provide the programmes without any contribution from the existing contractors. I therefore advise the House not to accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Freud
Does not the Minister feel that two conditionals are too much? A substantial proportion is no proportion, and cannot be quantified. It should be. We would accept that a substantial proportion must be, or that 15 per cent. should be. Is he not getting his own way too much? Is this not against the sentiments of the Bill?

§ Mr. Brittan
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. The Bill says that it will be the authority's duty to ensure that a suitable proportion of the programmes are of an educational nature. It states that a substantial proportion should come from sources other than ITV contractors, or bodies controlled by them. The hon. Gentleman is making a semantic Point, rather than a real point. The obligation is there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)
If it is for the convenience of the House, the following amendments 405 will be moved formally: amendments Nos. 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41 to 43, 45 to 49 and 51.

§ Mr. Freud
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 50 stands in the names of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and myself. It comes before amendment No. 51. I should resent it deeply if it were included in the last group.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is only minimally incorrect. If he looks one line further he will see that amendment No. 50 is in its correct place, after amendment No. 51. It goes by the Bill, and not by the numbers of the amendments.