HC Deb 08 May 1990 vol 172 cc137-43

`( 1) The Commission shall establish a fund to be known as the Broadcasting Training Fund.

(2) The fund shall be under the management of a committee appointed by the Commission for the purposes of this section and shall be applied by the Committee in the making of grants to finance the training of persons engaged in the preparation or making of television programmes and for connected purposes.

(3) When making any grant out of the fund pursuant to subsection (3) the Committee may impose such conditions as they think fit.

(4) The persons appointed to be members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine, but the Commission shall, when making any such appointments, ensure that a majority of the members are persons with a knowledge of training in broadcasting including representatives of the broadcasting unions.

(5) The terms of the appointment of the members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine; and in the case of any members of the Committee who are neither members or employees of the Commission, the Commission may:

  1. (a) pay to them such remuneration and allowances, and
  2. (b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of them such sums by way of allowances, pensions or gratuities, as the Commission may determine.

(6) Any expenses incurred by the Commission either under subsection (6) or for salaries of Commission employees whose services have been furnished to the Committee, shall be defrayed out of the fund.

(7) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year, the Committee shall prepare a general report of their proceedings for that year and transmit it to the Commisssion.

(8) In this section "the Commission" means the Independent Television Commission and "qualifying programmes" means programmes of such description as the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purpose.'.—[Mr. Darling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Darling

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 244 to 248.

Amendment No. 59, in clause 16, page 14, line 13, at end insert— (cc) that the applicant can demonstrate a proper commitment to the training and retraining of persons employed in the preparation or making of programmes.'. Government amendments Nos. 432 and 436.

Mr. Darling

The purpose of the new clause is to establish a training fund, the functions of which are set out in the new clause. In essence, it is to advance the training of people engaged in the making of television programmes. In the Committee debate on these matters there was widespread acceptance of the fact that, unless there was training and a renewal of talent within the industry, the industry would die.

It has been said many times that the great strength of the British film and television industry is the training of actors and technical people. That training has brought it to the respected position that it enjoys today. We are anxious to establish a broadcasting training fund to ensure that such high-quality training continues. I do not think that the point requires to be laboured because it was canvassed at great length in Committee. Suffice it to say that the establishment of a training fund would greatly assist, especially as there is a risk under the new regime that some companies will be tempted to cut corners, one of which may be training. That is because training is expensive, much time and effort is invested in it and it takes some time for the end product to emerge.

The Government amendments that we are considering with the new clause recognise the importance of training. Those amendments are welcome. There will now be a requirement, as no doubt the Minister will tell us, that applicants will have to demonstrate a proper commitment to training and retraining. I trust that when drawing up the licence requirements, the ITC will give prominence to this proposal. Our amendment No. 59 proposes, perhaps more specifically, what is intended in Government amendment No. 244. That Government amendment contains a rather odd provision that does not sit easily with the matter of training. However, it is welcome even though it does not go as far as I would like. The provision invites the applicant to say to what extent he proposes to situate any office, studio or staff within the area for which the proposed service is to be provided.

There was much debate in Committee about an applicant's commitment to the region that he or she proposed to serve. It seems to us that there must be such a commitment if regional television is to mean anything. We were anxious about what might happen if someone based in London or perhaps abroad were simply to put a brass plate on a door in a region and claim to he of that region. If regional television is to thrive and if there is to be a proper commitment not just to training but to the production of programmes that do not necessarily reflect the region but are clearly made outside the main centres of film making and broadcasting, it is necessary for the franchise holder to be firmly rooted in the region that he proposes to serve. We were all concerned about the dominance of London in the context of film making and broadcasting.

I know that some regions have a greater identity than others and the nations of Wales and Scotland have clear and self-evident identities. One can imagine the anger that would be aroused if, for example, the Scottish television service was wholly owned, operated and controlled not just from another part of the United Kingdom but from abroad. The same feeling exists in the north-west of England. Even in East Anglia, which is not that far from London, there is a strong regional identity. People want to be assured that the programmes produced will use local talent. The programmes do not have to be about the area but must give strong emphasis to the area that the applicant seeks to serve. I am not saying that it is necessary to have been born and brought up in an area, and to have lived nowhere else, to achieve that; it is, however, necessary to have some knowledge of the area, and some affinity with it. We explored the issue in a number of debates in Committee, but to little effect.

Nevertheless, the Government seem to have recognised the strength of our argument—to a limited extent—and the ITC is, at least, entitled to know applicants' proposals. I hope that it will take into account the strong feeling that the regions deserve a finn commitment. Staff should be encouraged to live and work in the regions concerned, for instance. After all, the Bill is about regional broadcasting services combining to provide another national network.

I warmly welcome the Government's proposals, and also their additional provisions for training.

Mr. Mellor

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling): I took the suggestions made in Committee very seriously, as I hope that amendment No. 244 shows. Applicants for Channel 3 licences will be required to set out their proposals for training or retraining programme production staff, and to demonstrate the extent to which offices, studios and staff will be located in the area that the service will cover. I think that that deals adequately with the issues of training and regional identity. The provision will also help the ITC to determine whether applicants have crossed the quality threshold: for example, an applicant claiming to set up a regional programme production centre would clearly lose credibility if he had no arrangements for training or retraining, and only a hazy idea of where his centre would be based.

The training requirement covers not only the specific training initiatives that applicants intend for their own staff, but the policy that they adopt in Commissioning programmes from other production centres, or from independent producers. The ITC will, of course, be able to use the information that they receive to assist them in determining whether an applicant can produce the programmes that are necessary to cross the quality threshold. I hope that that will achieve the necessary balance between a lighter-touch regulatory system and the clear indication to broadcasters that they will need trained staff if they are to produce the programmes that are required of them.

I am not persuaded of the need for a broadcasting training fund—financed, presumably, by some kind of levy on ITC licensees. I believe that the programme-making companies must take the lead on training. If they need an industry-wide training body, there is nothing to prevent them from setting one up, but I would need a good deal of persuading before I would agree to impose such a structure on them. I do not think that training will suffer; if the companies are required to state their training arrangements categorically, their appreciation of the significance of training will, I think, be sharpened. The fact that my proposal is not coupled with a fund for the purpose will not, I trust, lead anyone to believe that the Government have denied companies the means to achieve the highly desirable end of a well-trained work force, which has already benefited British broadcasting.

I hope that the House will see amendment No. 244 as a considerable step forward, and that the Opposition will not think it necessary to press the new clause.

11.15 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell

The Minister has come some way —courtesy of the Committee, in the sense that that is an educational process bringing the Minister towards the Opposition's point of view which, on most matters, has been correct—but he has not come far enough.

Amendment No. 244 is welcome, because it places an obligation on the regional ITV or Channel 3 companies to make a specific commitment to training. For too long, the regional ITV companies have been parasitic for training on the BBC. The industry has come to depend heavily on the BBC which has devoted considerable, well-organised efforts to training. The problem is that just to impose that requirement on ITV, which has muddled rather than organised its way through training, is not enough.

First, we now have a number of newcomers, the independents in particular, who are not in a position to provide training on their own because they do not have the size of one of the ITV or Channel 3 companies or the financial means to do so. As I understand it, the independent producers support a provision for industrywide training as outlined in the new clause, but they do not have the resources to do it themselves. The other newcomers, the satellite companies, which will eventually be on the same scale, should also be required to participate in a training effort which needs to be organised industrywide.

Secondly, because of the tight financial constraints that the Government are imposing on the BBC—the process of slow strangulation by an RPI-geared licence fee—the BBC will be making less of a contribution to training on which the rest of the industry has depended.

This is the time to make a provision for an industrywide training council to be financed by levy and joint, industrywide training schemes to be developed with the companies. The industry is developing rapidly. When I go back to a television studio after a mere decade away, I do not understand what is going on. We need continuous training and retraining and upgrading of skills for the industry to keep up. We are talking about a highly competitive area, and unless we maintain our skills, Britain will be left badly behind. The only way to do that is to have an industrywide council such as we have specified.

Training is a crucial area for which the market, on which the Government rely so much, does not provide. We have seen that in industry outside television. The market provides for quick speculative efforts for the get-rich-quick mentality, not for the long-term laying down of skills and training. This is the moment to provide for that by establishing such a council. The Minister's words are welcome, but they are not enough. We need a positive commitment to a training council.

Mr. John Greenway

I shall not detain the House, but I want to place on record my appreciation that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has brought forward the amendment, particularly the second part of it which refers to "offices, studios or staff" which a would-be licensee proposes to establish within the region to which the licence is to be granted. My hon. and learned Friend will recall that he kindly accepted a similar amendment, incorporated in the Bill, which in the allocation process will require the ITC to ask would-be licensees what facilities they propose to establish in the region for their licence.

It is important that, as we are still looking at a regional structure for ITV—its great strength—there should, in appropriate cases, be a proper opportunity for those facilities to be maintained. There will be regions where that is more important. I wanted to make the point that the amendment is very important, and that I greatly welcome the point that my hon. and learned Friend made.

Mr. Tony Banks

I can see the attraction of amendment No. 244, but I prefer new clause 25. My reservations in respect of amendment No. 244 relate to what will happen if the holder of a new franchise does not subsequently honour training undertakings made in the original round of applications. I suspect that that will constitute one of those minor omissions that will not result in a major penalty.

When it comes to local government, the Government say that it is right that everyone should contribute. One could almost understand that if contributions were based on some equity, but they are not in the case of the poll tax. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) need not worry —I do not intend to draw the House into a debate on the subject of the poll tax. I am merely trying to demonstrate that the argument used by the Government in respect of one issue is not applied in another.

We have seen with the abolition of training boards that an employer who chooses not to train but to poach instead lives off the backs of enlightened and progressive employers who are prepared to invest in training. The employer who does not do that can afford to up the wages he pays, because he has made savings elsewhere, and take trained staff away from other companies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned that the BBC has provided the greatest poaching ground for skilled and trained staff among ITV companies, and among many others in the broadcasting industry in this country and abroad. He referred also to satellite television companies.

The impression that I gain on my rare visits to Sky Television—about which my hon. Friend knows a great deal more than I do—is that it has a high percentage of Antipodeans on its staff, and that Sky has brought a large number of Australians and New Zealanders into this country. It could be that Sky Television is not prepared to train staff, and instead chooses to attract them from elsewhere. It could also be that Britain is running out of skilled broadcasters and technicians. There are certainly a large number of skill bottlenecks throughout British manufacturing industry, and another could exist in broadcasting.

The Minister's assurances and the provisions of amendment No. 244 do not go far enough. It is a matter of trying to maintain standards, and of trying to ensure that the burden of training is shared equitably across the whole industry. It is not right that certain companies should be able to live off the backs of those that provide training. A training fund would benefit the whole industry and guarantee that everyone made some contribution to that aspect—which I thought would be very much in line with current Government thinking.

Mr. Cryer

Can the Minister clarify Government amendment No. 244? It does not make clear whether the applicant's proposals for training or retraining should cover solely the applicant's operations or also those of the independents that it intends to use.

The Bill makes provision for the use of independent production companies, and I suppose that the applicant would refer to making use of their output. The amendment does not make it clear that an independent company would have to provide training.

Mr. Mellor

I had to think about that issue carefully. It is difficult to place a formal requirement on the independents within the mechanisms provided because there is no direct relationship between them and the ITC. That is why the Bill does not purport to do that, although I am glad to say that during the consultations with the Independent Producers Association and others, they showed willingness to recognise that they had a role in training, and I hope that that will be followed up. But the ITC would have no direct relationship with them of the kind that would allow me to do for them what amendment 244 does for the franchise holders, who will have a direct relationship with the ITC and will have committed themselves to obligations which can be enforced. I hope that that is helpful.

Mr. Cryer

That is helpful because it clarifies the position, and it is as I thought. The amendment reflects discussions which took place in Committee, but I and my hon. Fiends do not think that it goes far enough. What the Minister has just said justifies that criticism because, while it is agreeable to have an understanding—and I am sure that the Minister is well-intentioned—the difficulty is that we have to legislate for people who are not well-intentioned and who give assurances to the Minister when he seeks them but in subsequent years allow them to slide away and ignore them.

That is why I thought that this would have been a helpful clause for the Minister to incorporate in the Bill, for two reasons. First, the independents will be involved and, as the Minister rightly says, the ITC will have no direct relationship with them and cannot provide any guarantee of training. Secondly, the industry uses freelances a great deal, and if there is no solid core of training more freelances will be used. More and more freelances tend to be used when companies cut costs in the sort of competitive situation envisaged in the Bill and the source of trained and expert technicians who are so valuable to the industry will then dry up. That is of great concern.

I recall that when the National Film School was established at Beaconsfield the ITV companies ignored it for years, although it provided film and video training in the hope that ITV companies would use the facilities. They did, but it took a long time.

In the circumstances I previously described, where ITV companies are undoubtedly building up funds, perhaps training will take a back seat in the company's order of priorities.

A levy helps small companies. Good firms in all industries complain bitterly when they provide decent training facilities and a recently-established company without adequate training facilities, or the get-rich-quick cowboys, who do not want to establish facilities, poach employees from the good companies and act like parasites. New clause 25 would obviate that by ensuring that every company made a contribution according to turnover, which would ensure a supply of good quality technicians. That is important.

The Minister has made one tepid step in the right direction, but it will be unsatisfactory, and it will mean that over a period of years the number of skilled technicians in the industry will diminish. The second part of amendment No. 244 states that the offices, studios or staff to be used or employed by him in connection with his proposed service should be located within the area for which that service would be provided". I share the view of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that regional productions are important. They reflect regional values and attitudes and we still have not, thank God, developed universal Surbitonese in language styles, attitudes and way of living. We still have recognisably different regions, and, rather than deriding it, we should cherish this important fact. By locating studios, personnel, and offices in the regions—for example, Yorkshire Television has an important presence in its region—the companies emphasise the value of regional television productions. Many of these have sufficient merit to go on to be networked. The merit, such as it is, of the famous, long-running saga of "Coronation Street" is based on the fact that it is a reflection of the idiosyncratic northern life rather than the life of Tunbridge Wells or Lewisham. It started out as a risk many years ago, and has become successful, and that was helped by the fact that the production facilities were based in the region. I am pleased that that has been recognised by the Minister.

11.30 pm
Mr. Darling

The emphasis on training has been well put by my hon. Friends, and is accepted by the Minister. We welcome his amendments, which have gone some way to meeting the criticisms and suggestions made in Committee.

The point that we are making in new clause 25 is that we have some doubts about whether the industry will train the people that it needs. That is true of all industries, which have not trained as they should, with the result that we do not have people with sufficient skills in the right place at the right time, which has allowed competitor countries to get the better of our industries. We do not want that to happen in broadcasting or the film industry, and that is why we thought that a broadcasting training fund might go some way to meeting the gap.

I would not want to set up such a fund. I hope that the industry would do it for itself. However, my fear is that the very regime that the Government have created will lead to the industry cutting corners, one of which may be training. The requirement that 25 per cent. of the production should come from the independents is another factor, because many of them do not have the facilities, scope, intention or wish to embark on elaborate training schemes. They rely on the bigger companies to do that for them. One cannot base the future of the industry on a fervent wish.

We tabled the new clause in an attempt to get some regulation. I recognise that the forces of the Government are such that, were we to press the new clause to a Division, it might be defeated. As it would be better if it were to survive to fight another day in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to