HC Deb 09 July 1984 vol 63 cc832-3
Mr. Austin Mitchell

I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 37, line 36, after 'programmes', insert `by companies which participate in the "programme provider" for DBS'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 135, in page 37, line 41, at end insert 'where the IBA is satisfied that a programme contractor has

  1. (a) complied in all material respects with its previous contract and
  2. (b) made a substantial investment in the programme provider referred to in section 43 above.'.

Mr. Mitchell

The intention of my amendment is to make explicit what I assume the Government are doing by clause 46. If clause 46 is to remove the obligation on the IBA to readvertise its contracts for the regional programming companies in the way that it has done in the past to provide for competitive bids, and then a reshuffling of the cards after an adjudication by the IBA, this should be made explicit, in the sense that it should not refer only to those companies which participate in the direct broadcasting by satellite, or DBS, because that seems to be what the Government want. To lure companies into DBS, they are offering the prospect of automatic renewal of the contract. If that is what the Government are doing, let us make it explicit by making it apply only to companies which participate in DBS. For companies which do not participate in DBS, surely the safeguard of the periodic reshuffling of the pack should remain in force then as it has in previous periods. It is a means of bringing new talent and new ideas into the industry, and allowing regional groups to form and reform to provide competitors for existing companies. Those needs are as strong as ever and should be maintained unless there is a need to encourage companies into DBS and to provide foil a situation in which the main trunk of the company participating in DBS cannot be chopped down by the IBA in the way in which it chopped down ATV, Southern Television and other companies in the past.

Mr. Hurd

We rightly spent some time in Standing Committee on the provision for some minimum relaxation of the normal arrangements for franchise renewal. I explained to the Committee why we felt it necessary to make the move. It was in view of the case made by the ITV companies that, as a result of the franchise system, they could lose their reason for existence overnight, and that might seriously damage their ability to service capital for DBS. I can see the logic of what the hon. Member proposes but it is not what we have in mind.

In fairness, I think it would be difficult to confine the minimum concession to some ITV companies and to deny it to others. The other point is that it would constitute an inducement to participate in DBS because of the possible franchise gain. That has not and has never been our idea. My right hon. and learned Friend has been particularly insistent that we do not want to try to persuade any companies to participate in DBS except on their own assessment of the prospects for the joint venture. We do not wish to tempt them in that way. Therefore, after a certain amount of thought, we have decided that, having agreed to make this minimum relaxation, it should apply to all ITV companies, whether or not they participate in the joint venture.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

I find the Minister's reply unsatisfactory because it is so vague. The prospect is being held out to companies that if they participate in DBS they will have automatic renewal. Indeed, it was avowed in the Committee, when it was argued that it would be dangerous for the main trunk of the company, from which it drew its financial viability, to be removed, thus threatening its ability to raise loans and all the financial paraphernalia necessary to participate in direct broadcasting by satellite.

The periodic renewals of contracts and the reshuffling of the cards has had a revivifying effect on ITV. Indeed, one dates ITV by periods beginning in 1967, with contract renewal, and again in 1980, which mark the incursion of new talent and new ideas. It is desirable that that framework should continue.

By making it vague in this fashion, the Minister seems to be giving the idea carte blanche not to go ahead. I feel that the Minister's reply is not satisfactory, but it is late and I have a strong desire not to refuse sausage and chips. It seems that Mitchell's amendment may hang that this juryman might dine.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to