Satellite Television (Hansard, 23 June 1988)

§ 1. Mr. Grocott
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what machinery he proposes to ensure that programmes provided by satellite will be of a comparable standard to those provided currently by the British Broadcasting Corporation and independent television.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton)
The service that British Satellite Broadcasting Limited plans to launch next year will be an IBA service, and will be regulated in accordance with the 1984 Act. Satellite services relayed via cable fall to be regulated by the Cable Authority. We are considering extending the authority"s remit to all non-DBS services uplinked from the United Kingdom, whether or not relayed via cable. As to services uplinked from other countries, we are pressing for effective agreements that will cover those uplinked from Europe.

§ Mr. Grocott
Is the Minister aware that the Home Secretary"s speech last night will be greeted with dismay by everyone who believes that British public sector broadcasting is a model that is aspired to throughout the world? Can he explain the logic of a policy which, on the one hand, consistently criticises and interferes with BBC and ITV television and, on the other hand, proposes to give freedom in satellite television to the likes of Mr. Murdoch? Is it not an appalling prospect if the standards of the British press are to be the model for British broadcasting?

§ Mr. Renton
The speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last night was excellent and I am not saying that just because he is sitting beside me. My right hon. Friend explored some of the avenues that could be opened during the 1990s as we move into a different and changing ecology in the broadcasting world. It was in that context that my right hon. Friend explored the possibility —no more than the possibility —that the IBA system and the ITV companies might be relieved of some of their public service broadcasting obligations as more satellite channels are launched in the sky. We welcome the coming of the satellite channels, because they will provide more competition and more choice for the consumer. It is a matter of pride that the first satellite will be run by a British consortium.

§ Mr. McCrindle
Reverting to the original question, is there not an argument in a free society that if consumers choose to pay for a particular service, the level of control that is necessary over that service is not necessarily the same as that which applies to the four channels that are universally available?

§ Mr. Renton
Yes, my hon. Friend has a good point. If people pay for a service, they are making a definite choice at the start that it is a service that they wish to receive. Therefore, the need to have quite as tight regulation over that service is probably diminished. Subscription, which is 1255 what my hon. Friend was talking about, establishes a direct link between the consumer and the broadcasting authority.

§ Mr. Fisher
Will the Minister explain how it came about that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Young, held a press conference to announce that Channel 4 and BBC 2 would be allocated space on the DBS satellite? Is the Home Secretary still in charge of Government broadcasting policy? If he is, will he reassure the House that terrestrial broadcasting of BBC 2 and Channel 4 will not cease until everyone has access to satellite broadcasting?

§ Mr. Renton
The hon. Gentleman believes too much of what he reads in the papers. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry held a joint meeting, at which I was also present, with the chairmen of the BBC, IBA and British Satellite Broadcasting on the exploratory proposition that they should consider the possibility of BBC 2 and Channel 4 going on to satellite and at the same time continuing to be broadcast terrestrially while the market for dishes is built up in this country.
The Department of Trade and Industry has a role to play in spectrum management and in frequency allocation, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that all is sweetness and light between the Home Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, both up in the sky and down here on earth.

§ Mr. Harris
The House will be assured by my hon. Friend"s reply, but what would be the advantage to the viewer of BBC 2 and Channel 4 going to satellite in the relatively short term, given that many people will be unable to afford a dish?

§ Mr. Renton
That is a fair point. If BBC 2 and Channel 4 were to end up being broadcast on satellite only, that would free a good deal of frequency, which would be available for further terrestrial transmissions either nationally or regionally. If such transmission took place regionally, without universal coverage, there would be a great many more local television broadcasts.

§ Mr. Hattersley
How is it that the Home Secretary chooses to make controversial speeches on this subject outside this House, but chooses not to answer questions on it this afternoon? [Interruption.] As the Minister of State has been told how to reply to that question, will he give us a straightforward answer to the fundamental question that arises from the Coningsby club speech of last night? Are the Government considering abolishing the licence fee, or not?

§ Mr. Renton
If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Order Paper he would have seen that the question I am answering is limited, as it refers to programmes provided by satellite only. My right hon. Friend made it clear in his speech last night—an excellent and wide-ranging one—that he was putting forward the prospect that, at the end of the day, the BBC licence fee was "not immortal"—any more than the right hon. Gentleman is immortal as deputy leader of the Labour party. As there are more satellite channels, one of the possibilities that should be considered is whether the BBC should continue to be financed by licence fee only.