HC Deb 09 May 1990 vol 172 cc285-91
Mr. John Greenway

I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 13, line 37, at end insert— '(bb) that, having regard to the information supplied by him under section 15(3)(d)(ii), he would be able to comply with subsection 2(c) below.'.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 706, in page 14, line 15, at end insert— '(ddd) that a sufficient proportion of the programmes so included are made in the area for which the service is provided;'. No. 38, in clause 17, in page 15, line 9, at end insert— 'and in considering whether there are such circumstances they shall take into account the information about use of regional facilities provided under section 15(3)(d)(ii) and the regional programming requirements under section 16(2)(c)'.

Mr. Greenway

Amendment No. 41 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who regrets that he cannot be here. I speak also to amendment No. 706 in my name.

I wish to draw the attention of the House again to the amendment to clause 15, which was carried in Committee, and also to amendment No. 244, which the House considered last evening and which in many ways overtook amendments Nos. 41 and 706. I stress again the importance which many of us from the regions place on the regional structure of Channel 3 and on ensuring that there are proper facilities in the regions. The further a region is from London, the more important that is.

I promised my hon. Friend that I would speak briefly to his amendment but I will not press it. I am sure the House will agree that the amendments already made go a long way to satisfying the purpose and objective of my hon. Friend and myself.

Mr. Maclennan

I support the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). That will not surprise him because I moved similar amendments in Committee. He is entirely right in seeking to promote investment in the regions. I regret that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is not here, because there has been considerable interest in the thinking behind his amendment, especially in the north of Scotland.

Mr. John Greenway

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.45 pm
Mr. Mellor

I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 13, line 49, leave out 'any'.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 200, in page 14, line 1, after 'news', insert 'and current affairs'.

Government amendments Nos. 113 and 114.

No. 693, in page 14, line 21, at end insert— '(g) that in each week not less than two hours at programmes are devoted to philosophical matters which cover Christianity and other religions of the world, agnosticism and humanism and that any such programmes are broadcast at intervals throughout the period for which the service is provided'.

No. 39, in page 14, line 29, after '(2)(f)', insert— '(a) in relation to a national Channel 3 service,'.

No. 40, in page 14, line 31, after 'and', insert— '(b) in relation to a regional Channel 3 service, "qualifying programmes" and "independent productions" may mean, in each case, programmes of such description, as the Secretary of State may by order specify, save that he shall not include regional news and current affairs programmes as qualifying programmes; and'.

Government amendments Nos. 116 and 378.

Mr. Mellor

This is a fairly central group of amendments, because they make significant changes to clause 16. Amendment No. 114 honours our pledge to place a statutory requirement on Channel 3 licensees to provide religious and children's programmes. Amendment No. 113 enables sub-regional services to be part of the requirements for regional Channel 3 licensees. That is another example of our commitment to the regions, which include areas where a sub-regional arrangement already exists and works well.

Amendment No. 115 requires the ITC to take account of representations made by members of the public about prospective applicants, and amendment No. 116 relates to orders made by the Secretary of State for setting a minimum level of independent production and for defining independent production. As I have said, the amendments are significant, but they all flow from discussions in Committee.

Mr. Maclennan

Amendment No. 40 stands in the name of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, who is not here to move it. I moved a similar amendment in Committee. Amendment No. 40 relates to the requirement that Channel 3 broadcasters shall use 25 per cent. independent production, and seeks to exclude regional news from that calculation. From what the Minister said in Committee, I anticipated that that was the case and that the amendment is quite unnecessary. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us on that, because I suspect that there is some uncertainty in the mind of Grampian Television. Will he confirm that amendment No. 40 is not strictly necessary?

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

I should like to speak about Gaelic television, which has become a surprisingly prominent issue during the whole of our deliberations on the Bill. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here because I wish to pay him a rare tribute for obtaining from the Treasury £8 million for Gaelic television in Scotland. By any standard, that was an excellent achievement and I unreservedly welcome it.

Everyone has a vested interest in ensuring that that money is well spent, but it is by no means certain that it will be. I should like to offer some thoughts on how it could best be used to ensure what everyone wants to ensure—that it does the maximum amount of good for the Gaelic language and those who speak it. I fear that the money will create not a service of the type that everyone involved with Gaelic wants to see, but a sprinkling of programmes scattered about the schedules and adding up to no great effect or impact. I suspect that that will happen unless a strategy is devised to concentrate Gaelic programming within a regular time scale on a single channel so that people know where and when they can expect programmes. We must concentrate on quality as well as quantity.

The sum of £8 million is enormous compared with the amount that Gaelic television has at present. It is also enough in Scottish broadcasting terms to attract the interest of many people whose commitment to the Gaelic language and Gaelic television has in the past been modest to say the least. In some cases it has been zero. We want safeguards against the possibility that the money will be seized by people who see opportunities in it, but not necessarily opportunities to provide the best possible Gaelic service—which is what the Secretary of State for Scotland had in mind when the money was obtained from the Treasury.

I believe that the only way to use the money effectively is to create in Scotland a mini-S4C system. In other words, there should be a regular time at which Scottish people know that they can turn on their television sets and see a Gaelic programme. I am not talking about anything on the scale of S4C in terms of hours or output; I am talking about perhaps one hour per day, which is so much more than at present that it will certainly be enough to satisfy the demand. It would be infinitely better to have an hour a day at a time when people know that they will find a quality Gaelic programme than simply scattering programmes of dubious merit at all hours of the day or night.

In the present circumstances, the Channel 3 companies will protest their willingness to feature Gaelic programming at peak viewing hours. That commitment is unrealistic and would not survive many months after the franchises had been awarded. That is especially true in the Scottish Television area, where there is a Gaelic audience of at most 1 or 2 per cent. of the total. It is not commercially sustainable to suggest that Gaelic television would be given that degree of prominence.

I understand the reasons why companies say now that stations will be given to Gaelic, because there is the attraction of receiving a substantial share of the £8 million that has suddenly appeared. I am sure that the recent commitment of STV to Gaelic can be satisfied within the framework that I suggest. However, it is not realistic to expect it to continue to broadcast such material to a minority audience at peak viewing time, or anything approaching it.

I fear that if it is left to the market place Gaelic television will once again be consigned to all hours in the early morning and the dead of night and the £8 million will not achieve its intended effect. The alternative is to take one hour a day—I suggest on either BBC2 or Channel 4 —and to concentrate the Gaelic programming within that time, perhaps at six or seven o'clock in the evening when it would seem sensible to group the programmes together. There are at present very small audiences in Scotland for either of those channels at those times.

If, say, one news bulletin and one quality programme per night is produced from that large budget, that will be the beginning of an acceptable Gaelic television service. That approach would probably also be the most acceptable to the vast majority of people in Scotland who are not Gaelic speakers. Their interests must be taken into account as well. It is quite reasonable to think that the 90 per cent. who cannot understand the Gaelic programmes would find a constant sprinkling of them an intrusion. It is far better for them to be grouped together in the one place. That is the way to achieve maximum value for the Government's money. It is essential, too, that that £8 million should help to finance a centre of production based at Inverness—or somewhere within the Gaelic-speaking areas—to produce Gaelic programmes independently. That would help to create jobs which could go to young Gaelic speakers.

As I know that the subject is of minority interest to many hon. Members, I will summarise. The Government have done well to provide £8 million for this minority language. It is in the interests of everybody that that money should be spent well rather than foolishly and that the maximum effect be achieved from it. Without going into more detail of this esoteric argument, I suggest that a concentration of programmes in a mini-S4C format is the sensible way to do this, rather than scattering programmes around the schedules like confetti where they will be unable to compete or retain a place in the television market.

Mr. Darling

The amendment and the debate show how much cross-party co-operation and consensus there has been. At the risk of ruining his career, I thank the Minister for tabling these welcome amendments, which are in line with the feeling expressed on both sides of the Committee when we discussed clause 16. They greatly strengthen the commitment to regional television that most if not all of us want. In particular, I am glad that applicants for franchises will have to say that they will make programmes of particular interest to people living in the area for which the service is provided.

Having spent much of the Committee banging the regional drum, let me enter a caveat. While I hope that companies will pay regard to the regions they serve, engage local talents and make programmes that appeal to the different parts of the area, that does not mean that I want parochial regional television services. It is to the great credit of Granada, a regional company, that it made "The Jewel in the Crown", which had nothing to do with the north of England and very little to do with the United Kingdom as a whole, as it was set and filmed in India. Granada showed up the BBC, which had always given the impression that it was the only organisation that could make quality drama.

I hope that the Channel 3 company will compete with the BBC, Channel 4, and Channel 5 if that comes about, in producing good high-quality television programmes that are both regionally based and outward looking. I should hate to think that anybody looking at these proceedings would feel that we were concerned that people living in Manchester knew only about Manchester, while those living in Aberdeen knew only about Aberdeen. That would be insular indeed.

I am also glad that the Minister has added a requirement that news programmes must be of high quality. There was a risk that, without such a requirement, companies might be tempted to use agency news for their news programme. Although that would provide an adequate service, it would give no attention to events in the local area, and there would be no in-depth studies of such news.

I thank the Minister for amendment No. 114, which adds the requirement that schedules must include religious and children's programmes. The Opposition would have liked the amendment to go much further. One of the Bill's weaknesses is that the quality threshold is not strong enough. We want to ensure that there is a wide range of programmes, including those on current affairs, holidays, art and drama. However, no matter how long a list, one runs the risk of leaving something out and it could be assumed that it should be included. There is a difficulty, because some people might think that, because religious programmes and programmes intended for children are included in the Bill, not so much importance should be attached to other programmes.

Anyone who followed the proceedings in the Committee and who looks at the Bill as amended will realise that the quality threshold has been considerably strengthened. That is to the credit of the Committee and the House. We have done in this Bill what we have singularly failed to do in other Bills because of the party divide. I think that it makes for a better Bill altogether.

There remain fundamental differences, however, between the Conservative and Labour parties on how franchises should be allocated in the first place, as we said in the previous debate. There is no doubt that clause 16 could be improved, because things can always be improved, but I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister has accepted the many suggestions which have been made. The result of our deliberations is that the quality threshold is substantially higher than it was when the Bill was first introduced to this place. We still hold out hopes that further improvements will be made in another place. It would be wrong, however, not to give the Minister credit where credit is due and not to pay him tribute. That applies also to everyone else who was involved in the consideration of the Bill.

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 amendment be made.

Mr. Mellor

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for his most charming tribute. I share his pleasure that clause 16 has been improved as a result of our deliberations. It will set a quality threshold that it will not be easy to surmount unless one is an extremely effective applicant.

Mr. Corbett

A strong horse.

Mr. Mellor

Yes, indeed—not some poor old nag.

I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) in succeeding in advancing arguments that relate to clause 169 while the House was discussing clause 16. I suppose that that will save some time later in our proceedings. I enjoyed his remarks and I shall consider them carefully when we formulate proposals for the Gaelic fund. I am grateful for his recognition that the Government have taken a major step forward.

I can reassure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that it is our intention to exclude news and news-related programmes, whether regional or national, from the requirement. That intention will be enshrined in secondary legislation in due course. In other words, amendment No. 40 is not necessary. I confirm that we shall be dealing with the contents of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 113, in page 14, line 8, leave out from 'included' to end of line 13 and insert—

  1. '(i) to a suitable range of regional programmes, that is to say, programmes (including news programmes) which are of particular interest to persons living within the area for which the service is provided, and
  2. (ii) if the service is to include the provision of such programmes as are mentioned in section 14(2A), to a suitable range of programmes for each of the different parts of that area or (as the case may be) for each of the different communities living within it, being in each case a range of programmes (including news programmes) which are of particular interest

No. 114, in line 13, at end insert— `(cb) that a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes included in the service to religious programmes and programmes intended for children;'.

No. 115, in line 26, after `(4)', insert `In deciding whether an applicant's proposed service would comply with the requirements specified in subsection (2) or (3) (as the case may be), the Commission shall take into account any representations made to them as to the nature of the service which should be provided under the licence applied for; and'.

No. 116, in line 39, leave out from 'and' to 'House' in line 40 and insert 'no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Forward to