PROVISION OF PROGRAMMES (Hansard, 9 July 1984)

§ Mr. Gorst
I beg to move amendment No 117. in page 35, line 39 leave out 'the Secretary of State after consultation with'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No 118, in page 35, line 40 leave out `Secretary of State' and insert 'Satellite Broadcasting Board'.

§ Mr. Gorst
Amendment No 117 removes the Home Secretary from direct involvement in the choice of approval of people involved in satellite programme provision. I believe that amendment No 118 is an equally acceptable alternative. I mean no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Minister or to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary by saying that it is better to leave politicians of whatever political persuasion out of contact with the selection of programme contractors.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
I find myself in such strong agreement with the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that I have deserted the workers' co-operative that is running the Opposition Front Bench and returned to the Back Benches to express the strength of that agreement.
The case for amendment No. 118, is exactly the same as that for amendment No. 117. It seems unreasonable that the Secretary of State should take part in a decision on who should participate in the programming company for direct broadcasting by satellite. First, unlike the IBA, he does not have the staff or the expertise to carry on the necessary research into the intentions, backing and prospectuses of the competing groups that want to take part in the programme company. Secondly, such detailed research would be done much better by the IBA.
Thirdly, it would be wrong for the Minister to decide what is, in effect, a question of political patronage, because one of two things can happen. The expenses may 829 be huge, and profits small. I am told that there is a break-even point of two million viewers. The financial risks of participation in the project are considerable. If the financial risks do not pay off the Home Secretary will be, in a sense, in debt to those who have been persuaded to take part in the programme company in much the same way as the Home Office found itself in debt to those who had been persuaded to bid for the 11 contracts in the cable franchises, who have had to be compensated, as we have seen this evening.
If DBS is not successful, the Home Secretary will find himself in debt to those who participate in it. If it is successful, he will be accused of handing out rich pickings to his friends. Either situation is undesirable. It would be much better for the matter to be in the hands of the Satellite Broadcasting Board established by clause 42. That would be a much more straightforward procedure.

§ Mr. Hurd
These amendments would take from my right hon. and learned Friend the responsibility for approving the programme provider, and give that responsibility to an independent body. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) choose slightly different independent bodies.
Involving the IBA in this field presents a difficulty. In due course the IBA will provide its own DBS services, under clause 37 et sequens. When the IBA has those DBS powers—quite different from those of the joint project —it will be entirely independent in its selection of programme contractors just as it is in the award of the terrestrial franchises. Those services will compete with the joint project. It would be odd and unfair to ask the authority to decide the composition of the programme provider for the joint project, which will in due course be competing with the IBA's own services.
The joint venture is to be divided equally between the BBC and the private sector, each taking 50 per cent. The IBA and the BBC would both be placed in an awkward position if the IBA was given the final say on the nature and extent of the BBC's participation.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby backs the other horse—the SBB. The answer lies in the importance that my right hon. and learned Friend attaches to allowing companies other than the established broadcasters to participate. We have insisted from the beginning that there should be the very important third element. The joint project should not consist simply of the BBC and such ITV companies as wish to take part. Rather than leave the final decision on participation either to the IBA or to the SBB —which we have just agreed should be composed of members of the IBA and the BBC—we prefer to leave the final decision with my right hon. and learned Friend.
Before taking that decision, my right hon. and learned Friend will receive considerable help from the IBA on at least one of the hon. matters which the Member for Great Grimsby has raised. We are not setting up machinery in the Home Office to deal with these issues for we shall rely on the help and experience of the IBA while reserving to my right hon. and learned Friend the final decision. I referred in Committee to the expressions of serious interest that the IBA had received—it was then the latest news —and the way in which it was scrutinising them, and I shall not repeat myself now for the situation remains the same. We are going ahead with the procedure that we have 830 set out and we consider it to be a good method. Accordingly, we think it reasonable to ask the House to approve it. We think that it fits the circumstances rather better than the two options that have been presented.

§ Mr. Gorst
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I believe that the House will regret giving these powers to the Secretary of State of the day, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Hurd
I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 36, line 9, leave out from second 'that' to end of line 12 and insert—
'(a) no person who is a disqualified person, and no body corporate over which a disqualified person has control, becomes or continues as the programme provider (whether alone or in partnership); and

(b) no body corporate in which a disqualified person participates becomes or continues as the sole programme provider.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 120, in page 36, line 11, after 'participate', insert 'directly or indirectly' and Government amendments Nos. 122 and 125.

§ Mr. Hurd
The amendments are designed to ensure that the power to disqualify a person as a programme provider does not operate more stringently in relation to one form of programme providing organisation than another.

§ Mr. Gorst
I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 37, line 5, at end insert `but does not include any aspect relating to the nature and characteristics of the programming that has been or may be broadcast by that corporate body.'. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the Home Secretary of the day from engineering the dismissal of a programme provider whose programmes he found not to be of his taste, politics or standards. The possibility of an amendment to exclude programming as a consideration was discussed in Committee and my right hon. Friend said that he would consider again the necessity to introduce such an amendment. There seemed to be some doubt whether programming even arose as a purpose within the definition in the appropriate clause.
Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Home Secretary of the day would not expect to be able to get rid of one of the members of a consortium, or whatever the new force will turn out to be, whose programming is taken exception to for political or any other reasons?

§ Mr. Hurd
As I understand it, my hon. Friend is trying to protect my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary from having to make awkward decisions. He is trying also to prevent any successor from taking tyrannical and arbitrary decisions. He is right to have those two objectives. I hope that I can give him the assurance that he is seeking.
The relevant phrase is nature and charcteristics of, that body", which is to be found in the clause. That is concerned with matters other than programme content. The clause gives my right hon. and learned Friend the power to withdraw his approval of the programme provider if there is any change affecting participants in, or the nature and characteristics of, that body". 831 I am advised that that could not be construed as giving the Home Secretary power or any say, even indirectly, over programmes. Schedule 4 makes it clear that it is the function of the board and the board alone to have a say over programming.
The phrase nature and characteristics of, that body describes the corporate activities and not the quality of its programmes. It describes the owners of the company, the nature of its business and the type of matters that are authorised in the articles of association, which set out the aims and objectives of the company. It is reasonable that that power should exist over that aspect of the programme provider, but I accept that it should not apply to the content of the programmes.

§ Mr. Gorst
This is the last amendment that I have tabled and at last I am able to say that I am completely satisfied with my right hon. Friend's reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.