HC Deb 24 June 1980 vol 987 cc259-68

'(1) The contracts between the Authority and the various programme contractors shall contain such provisions as the Authority think necessary or expedient to ensure that each programme contractor makes adequate provision for the training of persons employed by him in the preparation or making of programmes.

(2) The general report of the Authority's proceedings during any financial year prepared by them in pursuance of main section 31(3) shall include a description of the provision made by the various programme contractors for the training of persons employed by them in the preparation or making of programmes.'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.37 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office, (Mr. Leon Brittan)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw)

With this we shall take Government amendment No. 94.

Mr. Brittan

New clause 1 is a Government amendment, following my undertaking in Committee during the discussion on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and the proposed new clause 1 then tabled by the official Opposition.

In Committee a number of hon. Members expressed concern about the level of provision for training in broadcasting skills within the independent sector of broadcasting. It was suggested that the independent companies were not doing enough in setting up their own training facilities and that all too often staff who had been trained by the BBC would be poached by them. It would be helpful to the House if I gave some indication, even though I shall be reiterating points made in Committee, of what the Independent Broadcasting Authority is doing already to train broadcasters.

In the current round of ITV franchise renewals the authority is asking all applicants for contracts to include in their applications a statement of their training plans. Moreover, it is making it clear in the contract particulars which it has issued that the new contracts will include provisions to ensure that there are proper arrangements for staff training in the independent television system and that proper amounts of money and staff resources are available for that purpose. I also understand that the existing companies are introducing revised arrangements for the co-ordination of training throughout the system. That is being done through the Independent Television Companies Association—ITCA.

The IBA is paying particular attention to training for independent local radio. It has been doing so for some considerable time. Every year the IBA receives from those companies whose profits are high enough to attract secondary rental, proposals for schemes the expenses of which can be offset in whole or in part against the secondary rentals which would otherwise have been paid.

The IBA encourages the companies concerned to include in the schemes plans for training. Companies which have been involved include LBC, Capital Radio, BRMB in Birmingham, Piccadilly in Manchester and Radio City in Merseyside. The schemes are mainly intended for on-station training, although Radio City has sent staff to a school of journalism in Cardiff. Whereas local training is the general rule, the IBA's involvement, through approval of the schemes for purposes of secondary rental, helps to ensure consistent standards.

This year, the IBA has set aside money from its secondary rental income to be used to help finance training schemes which those companies not paying secondary rental are being encouraged to introduce. In addition, companies have established training schemes on their own initiative which are paid for as part of their normal expenditure. Hon. Members may be aware of the initiative taken by Capital Radio in establishing a broadcasting school funded, with the agreement of the IBA, out of secondary rental payments to provide training primarily, although not exclusively, for Independent London Radio.

Despite the evidence that the authority is taking seriously its responsibilities to provide training, the Government accept that it would, at the same time, be advantageous to impose a statutory requirement. The new clause will require the IBA, in drawing up the new contracts for the ITV franchises, to include such provision as is necessary to ensure that the contractors make adequate provision for the training of those employed in the preparation or making of programmes. Contracts for ILR companies will have to be similarly amended.

The new franchise period of ITV contractors runs from 1 January 1982 and we propose that the provision will apply from that date both to ITV and to ILR. Having imposed such a statutory provision, there is much to be said for adding a requirement that the IBA should report on compliance with the provision. That is why subsection (2) of the new clause places a duty on the IBA to include in its annual report a description of the provision made by the contractors for such training. Such an obligation focuses attention on the area concerned, and provides a stimulant to new development. That will enable the IBA to monitor more effectively the overall picture of the training provision made by different contractors.

I turn briefly to amendment No. 94. It is a small, consequential amendment which arises from the differing contractual arrangements relating to ITV and ILR contractors. The former will be operating on the basis of new contracts from 1 January 1982, and we intend to bring the new clause into effect so that the contracts will contain provision for training from that date. ILR contracts run from a variety of dates, and will not be subject to wholesale renewal in the same way. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that such contracts shall be deemed to have been modified to take account of the obligation to provide training, in compliance with the new clause, as soon as that clause is brought into force. That is a straightforward consequence of the introduction of a statutory obligation on contractors to provide training. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the House.

4.45 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South)

We are grateful to the Government for intro ducing the clause. It is one of the few arguments in which we succeeded in Committee. I looked at the report of our discussions, and saw that we had in mind more formal training arrangements on the grounds that the BBC runs an excellent training programme, and that there was a strong feeling that the independent companies poached staff from the BBC.

During the past 20 years most of industry has moved away from the idea of training as sitting next to Fred and Nellie—or in terms of independent broadcasting, Nigel and Fiona—to the realisation that something more detailed is required. I understand from the Minister's speech that a provision will be included in the contracts to ensure that, at the end of the day, we shall be able to assess whether what has been done adds up to what we had in mind. Some of his remarks seemed to be mere matters of principle. I was glad to note the undertaking by the ITCA about co-ordination, although I would have preferred that to have been done by the IBA. I was also glad to note what had been done by some of the local broadcasting companies, especially LBC.

The new clause is an important step forward, although it does not go the whole way to meet our requirements. However, I thank the Government for introducing the new clause.

Sir Paul Bryan (Howden)

I welcome the new clause. Quite frankly, I do not think that it will have any great practical effect, but it will bring comfort to those who labour under the delusion that all training in broadcasting is carried out by the BBC. I hope that at the end of my five minutes I shall have dispelled that illusion.

Judged by results, training in British broadcasting must be good. Whether or not we all agree that British broadcasting is the best in the world, it is certainly among the best. It compares well in technology and artistic merit with the product of any other organisation in the world. Our programmes, whatever their other faults may be, do not show evidence of a shortage of technical skills. It is not an industry on which we have had a Monty Finniston report deploring the shortage of skills, and citing a long history of deficient training.

It is noteworthy that in Committee, al though we discussed a long series of difficulties that might arise before the establishment of the fourth channel, no one cited a shortage of talent. On the contrary, time and time again hon. Members said that the new fourth channel would be an outlet for existing talents already trained and available. That is fairly remarkable. To put the size of the operation into perspective, the BBC broadcasts for 9,600 hours per year on its two channels. The ITV, although it has only one channel, broadcasts for no fewer than 8,300 hours per year. This large amount is due to its exceptional production of regional and local programmes. The fourth channel will require between 2,000 and 3,000 hours, which is a heavy burden to put on an industry the size of which I have described. However, it is clear that that will be taken in the industry's stride. We shall not require any crash training programmes. The industry is ready to take on the new assignment. We could ask whether the new people will be trained by the BBC. It is true that, in the early days of ITV some 25 years ago, the independent companies depended on the BBC for their talent. That was inevitable. The BBC had the monopoly and was the only source of skills. The monopoly was broken, and it was marvellous for the ITV companies to have somewhere from which they could draw their skills. It was also marvellous for the employees in the television industry because, for the first time, they had more than one employer to whom they could be beholden. Before long there were 15 companies offering jobs and training.

I see that the contract application of the company in which I have declared an interest on a number of occasions, namely, Granada, cites in the chapter on training some 20 alumni of Granada who have achieved positions of distinction throughout the industry. We have the BBC drama producer, Jonathan Powell, the head of series and serials in the BBC, the controller of drama LWT, the controller of features and current affairs LWT, the controller of light entertainment Thames, the head of documentaries Thames, the head of drama Yorkshire and the director of programmes Southern. In the freelance world we have Jeremy Isaacs, one-time con troller of Thames, and so on. A vast number of top people in television started with Granada. I do not doubt that other companies could cite the same kind of experience.

We do not say "How disastrous. We have trained all these people and lost their talent to somebody else." We are pleased that this has happened. It is a healthy movement and a two-way traffic as well. Of 80 producers and directors functioning in Granada now, we trained 64, but we have 16 from other companies, including the BBC. This is a healthy movement and I hope that it will go on.

Let us get the figures in proportion to see whether there has been a flood of talent from the BBC to the ITV companies. The BBC employs about 17,000 people in television, whereas ITV employs about 14,000 people.

The 1980 BBC handbook points out that the Corporation has 964 people earning £10,000 or more. I give these figures to illustrate the size of the employee force about which we are talking. In 1979, in. the salary bracket £6,000 to £10,000 a year, ITV gained 26 people from and lost six to the BBC. In the £10,000 to £15,000 a year bracket, ITV gained from the BBC five people and lost one. In the £15,000 upwards bracket, ITV gained four people from the BBC and lost none. These figures are very small in relation to the size of the work force. There is no flood of trained staff going from the BBC to the ITV companies. It is a very small trickle. Those facts show the story as it is, not as people imagine it to be.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever may be said about the more glamorous positions in television and the reversal of roles there over the last 15 years, the area now causing concern is the movement—and it is more than a trickle—of people at technical levels—videotape editors and so on—where the BBC cannot compete on salary levels?

Sir P. Bryan

I am not greatly moved by that. The same handbook states: Another telling point is that in 1979 the BBC both lost and recruited approximately 1,800 full-time monthly staff"— that is, secretarial and clerical grades apart. Thus the actual turnover is very big compared with what goes or is lost to the ITV companies.

I hope that the clause will not cause the IBA to lay down in too minute detail the form that the training should take. Trainees in this industry do not greatly savour the lecture room approach. They are critical of courses which do not offer direct access to television and film facilities. Therefore, we do not want anything too formal. I should have liked the ITV companies and the BBC jointly to organise and finance an organisation for the training of, say, engineers. That would be a great advance. I understand that this approach has been made to the BBC but it has been turned down. My receipe is to leave the system much as it is now. However, I welcome the clause.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

I share the views initially expressed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) in welcoming the new clause.

I take arms against the statement by the hon. Member for Howden about the IBA not setting out in great detail the kind of training that will be required. On the contrary, I hope that it sets out in very great detail the mininmum training required.

The Government were persuaded to bring in the new clause by the strength of the arguments of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and other hon. Members in Committee that this represented yet another instance in which the ITV companies did better than the BBC.

Those who are uncommitted commercially to the setting up of fourth channel feel passionately that the BBC must be allowed to compete honourably and equitably against the new channel. If 2,000 hours of television are to be provided annually by a fourth channel which will have the independent companies bringing forward programmes for transmission, it will be that much harder for the BBC to compete. The BBC looks to the House—to no one else—for added finance and it is bound by cash limits, which are the order of the day under this Government. Therefore, it is incredibly difficult for the BBC to compete with the ITV companies which practise the economy of the market place.

I accept that Granada has done a great deal in training. Capital Radio is an enlightened station and has an enlightened school, but it has enough money to finance them. I was delighted to hear of the appointment of the chairman of Capital Radio to be the No. 2 man for the fourth channel. I hope that much will be learnt from his expertise.

The main concern of many hon. Members was the desire to give the BBC a chance of competing fairly. I listened carefully to the figures given by the hon. Member for Howden, but I share the distrust of the hon. Member for Derby, North about their accuracy. We all know that the cameraman, the floor manager and the videotape recording staff receive significantly more money from ITV companies than the BBC is able to offer. We must ensure that the new companies are forced by statute to assume the same responsibilities as are currently vested in the BBC. It is for that reason that I welcome the new clause. I sincerely hope that it will spell out most carefully the responsibility of the new company.

Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South)

I did not have the privilege of listening to the debates in Committee, but I have read the proceedings.

I should like to put two questions to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. First, will he clarify the situation for independent radio contractors whose contracts will not come up for renewal until some time after the contracts for channel 1 ITV and presumably channel 4?

Mr. Freud

What has that to do with it? Does it cover radio?

Mr. Merlyn Rees

Yes, it does.

Mr. Morris

It does cover radio.

5 pm

Secondly, I am concerned about the phrase "or making of programmes". I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) that one of the problems in the existing ITCA companies relates to the production of commercials. The average cost of a commercial is about £50,000 for a 30-second commercial. Those who work in the business—I declare an interest at a director of an advertising agency—know that part of the cost is due to heavy manning levels that are dictated by the combination of actions between management and unions in the industry.

Because of the provisions in the statute for education and preparation, the independent producers will have foisted upon them the existing manning levels in terms of cameramen, lighting men, clapperboardmen and so on. Those with experience of the industry know only too well that there is heavy overmanning in the production of commercials, and, I am led to believe, in the production of programmes. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will encourage the IBA to say what progress is being made in terms of training to ensure that those overmanning levels are eliminated in the interests of future training of people in the industry.

Mr. Whitehead

I very much welcome the new clause. At an early stage in our proceedings it has met the desire that was voiced on both sides of the Committee. It is now only necessary to put on record our hope that the IBA will take it up in the spirit in which it has been introduced, and not pay too close heed to the siren song of the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) who suggested that we should not look too closely at the levels of training and manning. We understand that, and we understand why some of the television companies feel—as some of their alumni have gone back to, or for the first time have moved towards, the BBC—that perhaps they have done their bit for British broadcasting as a whole. The free transfer of a Russell Harty, a Jimmy Hill or the inestimable Jeremy Isaacs does not necessarily compensate for the slow erosion of skilled technical talent at levels at which the BBC cannot compete.

If the present salary differentials—between 30 and 80 per cent.—are maintained, and if the BBC sticks to the level of settlements that it is proposing in the current pay round, skilled talent will continue to leave the corporation and move over to the other side. If that happens, the least we can do is to make it incumbent on the companies, which are all individually wealthy, to ensure that they are accountable to the authority for training programmes. Clause 1 makes that provision, and, as such, it should be welcomed.

Mr. Brittan

The Government are glad that the new clause has been so well received, and I shall say no more about it, because it speaks for itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) raised two questions. The first related to existing radio contractors whose contracts do not expire on the same date. That point is covered by amendment No. 94, which ensures that such contracts will have been deemed to have been modified so as to take account of the obligation to provide training which is provided in the new clause as soon as that new clause is brought into effect.

On the second point raised by my hon. Friend, I have considerable sympathy with what he said about manning levels, but I cannot claim that that can be dealt with on the basis of a training obligation. I fear that manning levels are caused, not by inadequate training, but by industrial relations factors that cannot be met simply by educative processes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Forward to