HC Deb 08 May 1990 vol 172 cc115-22

'( ) (1) When allocating licences for the provision of national radio services, the Commission shall ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability, technical and professional competence and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes they intend to make or broadcast;

(2) Before awarding licences the Commission shall publish the names of all applicants who satisfy the conditions specified in (1) above, along with details of their applications and details of the arrangements for a specified period of public consultation, which shall include the manner in which public comment is invited.

(3) The Commission shall provide all the applicants referred to in (2) above with a digest of the views submitted during the consultation period, and invite applicants to modify their applications where appropriate prior to a final decision on the awarding of licences.

(4) The primary consideratons when awarding licences shall be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes, and the extent to which the applicant has shown himself willing to respond to public comment on his original application.'.—[Mr. Corbett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Corbett

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

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 20—Award of Channel 3 licences— '( ) (1) When allocating licences for the provision of regional television services, the Commission shall ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability, technical and professional competence and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes they intend to make or broadcast. (2) Before awarding licences the Commission shall publish the names of all applicants who satisfy the conditions specified in (1) above, together with details of their applications and details of the arrangements for a specified period of public consultation which shall include the manner in which public comment is invited. (3) The Commission shall provide all the applicants referred to in (2) above with a digest of the views submitted during the consultation period, and invite applicants to modify their aplications where appropriate prior to a final decision on the awarding of licences. (4) The primary consideration when awarding licences shall be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes appropriate to the area to be served, and the extent to which the applicant has shown himself willing to respond to public comment on his original application.'. Government amendments Nos. 250 to 252.

Amendment No. 55, in clause 15, page 13, line 23, at end insert— '(c) arrangements for public consultation specifying the manner and the time period in which public comment on the shortlisted applicants' proposals may be submitted to the Commission'. Government amendments Nos. 115, 134, 158, 433 to 435, 438, 453, 453A, 454 to 457, 459 to 462.

Amendment No. 104, in clause 97, page 76, line 18, at end insert— 'and provide in such manner as they consider appropriate, opportunities for public comment upon the applications submitted.'. Government amendments Nos. 463, 467 to 469.

Amendment No. 105, in clause 98, page 77, line 4, at end add— '(d) the extent to which the applicant has demonstrated support from persons living in the area or locality to be served; or (e) the extent to which members of shareholders of an applicant body are persons living in the area or locality to be served.'. Government amendment No. 193.

Mr. Corbett

The new clauses provide a new and more open way of awarding the Channel 3 television and new national radio licences. They would give viewers and listeners a direct say in the consideration of applications by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority and would exactly meet the ambition of the Government, as expressed in their White Paper published in 1988. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Will hon. Members beyond the Bar kindly leave the Chamber or come in and join us?

9.45 pm
Mr. Corbett

In their White Paper the Government said in paragraph 1.2: The Government places the viewer and listener at the centre of broadcasting policy. In the same paragraph they went on to argue that in the Government's proposed changes the single biggest advantage will be to give the viewer and listener a greater and a greater say. We did not hear much from the Government during the earlier stages of the Bill about how the viewer and listener would have that greater say. The new clauses offer a blueprint for achieving that Government objective, which we wholly share.

Our process for awarding Channel 3 television and national radio licences would sweep away the complicated and subjective so-called quality test and the "exceptional circumstances" arrangement. Instead, the new clauses would put into place a clear two-part test which those wanting a licence must pass. First, applicants would have to demonstrate commercial viability, technical competence, and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes that they intend to make or broadcast. That rightly puts the emphasis on what viewers and listeners can watch and listen to. Secondly, after applications have been accepted by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, listeners and viewers and their organisations will be invited to comment on what is proposed over a fixed period. Applicants will then be sent a digest of the views of listeners and viewers and asked to consider and respond to them. Where applicants wish, their programme proposals can be amended to take those views into account.

The primary consideration of the ITC and Radio Authority will be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes and the extent to which applicants have responded to public comment. In the past, we have all been critical about the opaque manner in which ITV licences were awarded. We need, and the Government say that they want, more openness. The new clauses offer one way of achieving that.

The new clauses are important because, as we discussed earlier, the ITC will probably award the next round of licences and no more. As the Minister made clear, he expects that in future takeovers will be the only route to a change of management and that the ITC will have powers to approve any such takeover. However, by and large, only the cash, rather than the nature of the service, will change by means of a takeover.

The House must get this matter right. I accept that it is a wholly new concept and one which we have developed only with the help of the Public Service Broadcasting Campaign since the Committee stage of the Bill. But there is nothing wrong with that. The Bill is of such critical importance to what viewers and listeners will be able to see and hear in the years ahead that we must consider all the alternatives, both in this House and in another place.

The new clauses score on their openness and the role that they give to what the Government call consumers and we more properly call viewers and listeners. The Minister is halfway towards that. He has welcomed the interest that produced Jazz FM and has given a heavy hint that he would like an all-classical radio station, certainly in the capital. We want to start that process a stage earlier, with the viewers and listeners in on the ground floor as the licences are being awarded, rather than simply being given a chance to respond when a radio or television station comes on the air.

I shall not complain if the Minister does not feel able to say yea or nay tonight. If he wants to think about the matter for possible amendment later, that would be progress. I believe that the scheme that we have proposed for the award of the new Channel 3 licences and three national radio stations has greater merit. I hope that it will win support in the House.

Mr. Mellor

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) speaks with great sincerity on such matters, and I understand why he says what he does. I was grateful for his recognition that a criticism of the existing system is that it has been so opaque. Over the years, we have shown a genuine commitment to openness. We have already committed ourselves to, and are in the process of honouring, that commitment by writing into the Bill a number of arrangements to ensure good and proper publicity for many of the processes, so that the public can play a proper part. I recognise that a number of the amendments are couched in that spirit.

I am attracted by amendment No. 55, and while the phrase "public consultation" might have a ring about it that suggests taking things further than we would necessarily envisage, I am broadly attracted to it. 1f the hon. Member were to withdraw that amendment, I would undertake to provide another that would go most, if not all, of the way he wants to go, and we would introduce that amendment into the other place. I wish to do more than pay lip service to public consultation.

We do not agree with paragraph (e) of amendment No. 105, but we are attracted to paragraph (d); Government amendment No. 469, in the same group, effectively covers the same territory as that paragraph. There is by no means no meeting of minds.

I have a problem with new clause 18, which intends to relate to the Radio Authority but, in error, calls it the Commission. The Commission will not give any radio franchises. That is done only by the Radio Authority. We may come on to that in more detail later.

With regard to new clause 20, it is important that public opinion should be sought at various stages, but it would not be sensible to allow the applicant to modify his application in the light of public comment. That could distort and retard the award process in a way that I know the hon. Gentleman does not intend. I cannot help feeling that we want to see applicants stand or fall by their original intention and plan, and the trouble with cosmetic modifications to curry favour with the ITC that might follow from such a process is that it might further delay an already complex and lengthy process. If I am able to meet the hon. Gentleman on most, if not all, of amendment No. 55, he may feel that he has got sufficient out of the discussion to merit leaving matters where they are at present.

There is a raft of Government amendments in the group. Because of time, I will not go through them in detail. Suffice it to say that each and every one of them relates to an undertaking that I gave in Committee, or is a technical drafting amendment as a result of our repeated washing and brushing up of different parts of the Bill. Unless any hon. Member has problems about the amendments, I commend them generally; they all relate to the exhaustive discussions in Committee.

In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Erdington will withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Tony Banks

New clause 18(1) says: When allocating licences for the provision of national radio services, the Commission shall ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability, technical and professional competence and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes they intend to make or broadcast". That seems to be the equivalent of the tests to be applied by the ITC for television franchises. We want those tests extended to cover radio. If I remember correctly, we found the Government position in Committee inconsistent; whereas they were prepared to accept various quality threshold arguments and other regulations in respect of television franchises, they were not prepared with so much alacrity to see them extended into radio. I hope that we will insist on new clauses 18 and 20 as a way of getting a certain symmetry in the Government's attitude towards sound broadcasting and television broadcasting.

One reason why we want to insist on standards for commercial viability and competence is that there is much money to be made out of broadcasting. That is true in radio as it is in television. Perhaps it is not so spectacularly evident, but many businesses are moving into radio, and there is much movement in radio broadcasting.

Crown FM, an offshoot from the old LBC, now Canadian-owned, produces programmes largely on a talk-back basis. I understand that it is on the point of sacking 30 to 40 members of staff on the ground of lack of commercial viability, while at the same time, according to a newspaper report, it is about to employ Mr. Andrew Neil —he who had some knowledge of one of our parliamentary research assistants. I understand that he is to receive a salary of £160,000, while being allowed to maintain his editorial job in the Murdoch empire. I find that a strange way for a radio company to operate—to get rid of staff on the ground that it cannot afford to keep them and to take on one presenter on a moonlighting remuneration which is enough to make the eyes water even of some avaricious Conservative Members.

If we were to have new clause 18, I hope that it would provide a way to prevent that. When a franchise was being applied for, searching questions could be asked and assurances sought. If those assurances were subsequently reneged upon, something could be done to claim back the franchise.

On new clause 20, we noticed again and again in Committee that the one group of people to whose views no consideration was given was perhaps the most important group—viewers and listeners. There is no way of consulting them. Although hon. Members on all sides did their best to represent what they believed to be the interests of listeners and viewers, precious little in the Bill allows the various authorities and the responsible Government Department to consult the people who are, in the final analysis, the customers. We felt that that was a major omission from the Bill and on several occasions suggested machinery whereby the clients—the customers, listeners or viewers, however we describe them: the people who receive the final product—could be consulted. They remain outside the scope of the Bill and will have to suffer what is given to them.

The broadcasters had their fourpenny-worth and did very well by it. Hon. Members were able to put forward their views and the Minister made substantial amendments to the Bill which made it much better. The viewers and listeners were not consulted and the Minister was not prepared to include in the Bill any machinery to allow them to be consulted. New clause 20 at least allows——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That, at this day's sitting, the Broadcasting Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Banks

That is why I support new clauses 18 and 20.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

I shall be brief. The Opposition new clause is well intentioned and few of us would dissent from the defined objective outlined by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who said that he wished to end the opaque method by which television licences have been distributed in the past. I think we all agree that that opaque method could do with some improvement.

The Opposition would be wise to accept the olive branch extended by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and to concentrate on amendment No. 55 rather than on the new clauses, which are rather flawed because they consist largely of pious hopes and assertions rather than reality. In the margin of my notes I have written the word "How" beside some of the statements that I have heard. For example, it is said that the Commission must ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability. I have written the word "How" beside that because I am sure that the old IBA thought that it had done a good job at the last round of franchises by asking whether television licence applicants were commercially viable. One cannot always foresee the dramas that may emerge in television companies.

Mr. Corbett

I know that the hon. Gentleman's last remark was said with some feeling. Under the Government's proposals, the ITC will have to make a judgment about what we shall describe as the soundness of the money. The ITC will not be mesmerised by a pile of money but will want to know who stands behind it and how secure it is. There is not much of a gap between that and the commerical viability for which we argue.

Mr. Aitken

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. My argument is that the Government's proposals are more on the ball than those of the Opposition. Their proposals are a rather complicated piece of machinery and remind me of the pop song that was around a few years ago. It was called "I've got a brand new combine harvester". The Opposition have designed this great new piece of machinery and in a wizard way it will solve all the problems. However, these problems cannot be solved other than by some of the past opaque methods which do not always work any more than the Commission's ideas will always work.

The two new clauses are too complicated. There is an exception with which I shall deal later.

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that consultation is the key. The old IBA was not that bad at public consultation. The sight of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in the Chamber reminds me of an extraordinary three-ring circus in which he and I took part. We were to be joint managing directors of a putative Yorkshire television company under the chairmanship of at that time the recently retired Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, now Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. That odd trio rocketed around the north Yorkshire countryside listening to a whole series of views about the inadequacies, on the whole, of the then Yorkshire Television and suggested ways in which its output might be improved by the challenging consortium. Those public consultation audiences did quite a good job, not just in suggesting ideas to the trio who were not at the end of the day called to the party to sing, but to Yorkshire Television itself.

The only wrong note that the Minister struck, in my view, was his suggestion that applicants should never be able to amend the terms of a prospectus as a result of public consultation. I hope that, when he redrafts amendment No. 55, he will give bidding consortia an opportunity to amend their proposals in the light of what has been said at public hearings. After all, we in the House of Commons frequently amend legislation in the light of views expressed both inside and outside the House; it seems very odd not to extend the same opportunity to television companies bidding for new licences. Most people are prepared to change their views as a result—at least partly—of listening to the views of others.

I feel that the new clause, in the form in which it has been proposed, is a little too cumbersome. Amendment No. 55 contains the kernel of the issue, and I hope that the Minister will at least allow bidding consortia to amend their proposals in the light of consultations when he produces the redrafted version that he has offered as an olive branch.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

I did not intend to speak until the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) removed the last shred of my socialist credibility. I should like, however, to add to what he said, which was entirely correct: what we spearheaded was the employers' bid for the contract, which was an example of worker participation.

Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 are all about the value of consultation. The strength of the independent television companies lies in their regional roots: they have brought centres of television excellence to such places as Manchester and Leeds. They have built up teams of high-quality production staff to stimulate, excite and fertilise the regions—and the regions want a say in who provides their television services.

The consultation that we propose involves the important guarantee of feedback to which the companies must respond. The companies will be genuine representatives of the region: they will have regional capital, and regional staff with a commitment to regional programming. A surprising strength of feeling emerges from consultation, and when I participated in the process with the hon. Member for Thanet, South I found it most stimulating. The system does not usually allow such insights into the views of a range of organised groups and individuals about regional needs.

Unless provision is made in the Bill, I see no way of giving the companies the feedback that will be necessary if the regions are to have a say in who provides the programmes. After all, the companies will be their companies; why should they not have their say? It is an important principle: listen to the people and trust their judgment.

Mr. Corbett

We had better finish while we are ahead. I am grateful to the Minister for his warm embrace of amendment No. 55, and to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) for his sensible comments. He has given the Minister some good advice. I agree with his suggestion that the Minister should redraft the amend-ment to allow those who wish to respond to the comments arising from a bid to do so, and—if they see any need—to change the details. That is a helpful suggestion.

I assure the Minister that by public consultation we do not mean over some great area or a regional referendum. A number of individuals—viewers and listeners—and their organisations have not only legitimate interests in the matter but things to say which broadcasters should welcome. They will not agree with them 100 per cent.—nobody would expect that—but at the very least their views should be treated with respect.

It might be helpful if I say that I shall withdraw amendment No. 55 and express my gratitude to the Minister. We shall not press the other amendments.

I apologise for the drafting error in new clause 18. We meant to refer to the Radio Authority, not to the ITC, but that is what it says and that makes it faulty. I take responsibility for that and so we are left with new clause 20.

I do not want to flog new clause 20 because time is getting on. The Minister has accepted the spirit and purpose of amendment No. 55, but that relates to consultation on the basis of bids which will go through the system which the Government propose. What we are proposing is an entirely different system of awarding the new Channel 3 licences which, right from the start, gives viewers over a specified period the right to make comments and lays a duty upon the applicants to demonstrate that they have listened to and considered and, where they chose, responded to what has been said to them in those consultations.

That is a new way of doing it and I acknowledge some of the points, made again by the hon. Member for Thanet, South. In either the Government's way of doing this or in the way in which we propose in the new clause, there will be some areas of highly selective judgment. At the end of the day that must be so. There is no foolproof system.

Both sides of the House share an ambition that the process of the allocation of the new Channel 3 licences should be more open and should be seen to be more open. There is no argument about that. In a sense, inevitably we are arguing about the means to achieve that.

Having said that, to demonstrate our commitment co fulfilling the Government's ambition to placing the viewer and listener at the centre of broadcasting policy, we shall seek to press new clause 20.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 18.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to