§ Mr. GorstI beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 35, line 23, leave out 'six' and insert 'nine'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 151, in page 46, line 34, leave out 'All the' and insert 'Three' and amendment No. 154, in page 47, line 6, leave out paragraph 3.
§ Mr. GorstThis is an important issue. The purpose of this group of amendments is to leaven the composition of the Satellite Broadcasting Board so that, instead of an equality of BBC and IBA members, there are also three independent members, one of whom would be the chairman. I shall not repeat the arguments that I used in Committee to advance this proposition. I referred to the possibility of any conflict or disagreements, even among reasonable men, which would not be solved by equality of membership. Sometimes, even reasonable men can be uncompromising and intractable.
There are other arguments. First, why is there no spokesman on the new board for the new force? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will argue that the IBA representatives will fill that description, but the new force that is appointed — on the final say-so of the Home Secretary—may not be the first, second, third or fourth choice of the IBA, which will recommend them to the Home Secretary, but will come from some other group. That force will not feel that it is well represented on the SBB by the IBA representatives. That is the first reason why I think that the elements involved should include an independent section.
Equally, there is another argument, to which I referred in passing in Committee. I shall spell it out in slightly more detail now. Clause 42(3) says that it is the duty of the IBA to supply services. I asked in Committee why that had to be a duty rather then a permissive power. No answer was given and it is important to understand what the consequences of that obligation may be.
What will happen will have an effect on members of the IBA who may be appointed to the SBB. They will have a contract to supply services to the SBB, but under schedule 1 to the 1981 Act, they are precluded from taking part in IBA proceedings if they have a declarable interest in a contract, which means that having got a contract with the SBB, they will be excluded from taking part in any IBA discussions about that contract.
How, therefore, can those people be full members of the IBA and of the SBB? In short, how can they fulfil two conflicting statutory duties? They will have to be part time, at least in one of their statutory duties. There will be a gap, presumably in the SBB, on some occasions and the need for independent members may arise when matters relating to the supply of services are discussed.
But it does not stop there. The status of the staff of the IBA will be changed; to whom will their first allegiance lie if they are seconded to work for the SBB? Would the board have first call on their loyalty if it were in conflict with the IBA on, say, a matter of policy, or would it be vice versa?
My right hon. Friend the Minister must consider how to resolve such matters. The answer may be not to make it mandatory on the IBA to supply services but to leave it to informal agreements, in which case the problem of contracts and the difficulties to which I have referred will not arise.
Nevertheless, such problems and the possibility of disputes and disagreements require a set-up analogous to that of the Manpower Service Commission, ACAS or the Health and Safety Executive, which have two main sides 827 involved and two or three independent members who form the balance. The need for an independent element on the SBB is unanswerable and I hope that my right hon. Friend, who said in Committee that he would look again at this matter, but whose glance at it has not borne fruit in the shape of an amendment, will have something reassuring to say.
§ Mr. HurdAs my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said, I promised to look at this matter further and I have done so, but we are not persuaded that the change that he suggests is necessary.
It is common ground that we need a separate broadasting authority for the joint project, because its programmes will be neither the BBC's nor the IBA's, but there will be a need for a regulatory authority and we have suggested the formation of the SBB, with a limited life and function.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and his main argument for introducing a third element into the SBB is that there is likely to be friction and difficulty between the BBC and the IBA unless there are, in the terms of his amendment, three people, acting as umpires.
To some extent, that is to misunderstand the regulatory function of the board. Many of the functions that my hon. Friend mentioned in Committee will not be performed by the board but will be the responsibility of the joint venture company. It is on the joint venture company that the independent participants, whom we have keenly insisted should have a place, will need to be and want to be represented. Such matters as raising capital, funding debts, allocation of peak-time programming between the participants and others that affect responsibility for the success or failure of the venture, including the conduct of negotiations with trade unions, are not matters for the SBB but for the joint venture company on which there will be a different form of representation.
The board's responsibility will be to supervise the standards of the programmes provided by the consortium. It will need to harmonise the regulatory practices of the BBC and the IBA and build on their experience. I see no reason, in those circumstances, why the board should be deadlocked. It can determine its own rules of procedure and give the chairman a casting vote. An independent chairman might increase the risk of the BBC and the IBA people on the board representing their sectional interests instead of working together. The will to work together is clear.
My hon. Friend raised a point that has caused us some difficulty as to the nature of the obligation to provide services. I draw his attention to the fact that the request must be reasonable and that the services must be supplied on commercial terms. I do not think that there will be a problem about conflicting duties, which my hon. Friend foresaw, for members of the IBA. The duty in the Broadcasting Act 1981 is concerned with IBA members who have a personal interest in a contract that is being discussed. The IBA members of the SBB will not have such a personal interest as they will be acting for a board that has been set up under statute to regulate the joint project. I am advised, therefore, that that problem will not arise.
The Chairman of the BBC and of the IBA are keen to co-operate.
§ Mr. GorstWhy is it not possible to rely on section 3(3) of the 1981 Act which says that 828
the powers of the Authority shall extend to the carrying on of such businesses and the doing of such things as arise out of the other activities of the Authority"?That would give all that is required of the IBA without the need for that part of clause 42 to which exception is taken.
§ Mr. HurdSurely it is sensible to pick that up in the Bill. In the light of the explanation that I have given, I do not think that the mischief that my hon. Friend fears could arise. We gave some thought to this point and decided that it was sensible to use the present form rather than a permissive one, which might not have the necessary strength.
Bearing in mind the limited and purely regulatory nature of the board, it is sensible to organise it in this way and to rely on the pooling of experience between the two existing regulatory agencies.
§ Mr. GorstIn view of my right hon. Friend's reasonableness, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, although I am not satisfied with the reply.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.