Broadcasting (Amendment) (Hansard, 21 July 1993)

§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 so as to require the transmission of a major evening news bulletin at ten o'clock; to make provision for centres of excellence of television production in the regions; to enforce strict compliance by franchisees with the terms of their franchise applications; to provide safeguards to support a United Kingdom-based television industry comparable to the safeguards protecting national television industries in other European countries; and for connected purposes. My Bill would amend the appalling Broadcasting Act 1990. I should declare an interest as a member of the Broadcasting, Entertainment and Cinematograph Technicians Union and a member of the National Union of Journalists, and also as someone who worked for a while for Central Independent Television, although I emphasise that I have no financial interest in the matter.

I am deeply concerned about what is happening to broadcasting. Much of what is wrong with it is attributable to the workings of the Broadcasting Act. Broadcasting, for those of us who care about it, is at the crossroads of either becoming American-style, advertising-led broadcasting or having a chance to remain as it is—a public broadcasting service that is properly and democratically regulated and that, up till now, has been admired throughout the world. Like so many other institutions in Britain, however, I fear that it is under threat from the Government's legislation.

Broadcasting is not like any other industry, because it is central to our way of life and certainly central to our recreational activity. On average, we spend 25 hours a week watching television. Televisions are in 98 per cent. of households. Massive audiences watch British television —20 million people regularly watch Coronation Street, and at peak viewing time on Christmas Day, as many as 30 million people watch television. It is something worth caring about and doing well, but, sadly, if present trends continue it will not be done well for much longer.

Television is vital for the dissemination of news and information. Public opinion shows that far more people trust broadcasters, and especially television, in the transmission of news and current affairs than trust any other medium. In a recent poll, 72 per cent. of people said that they trusted television, while only 11 per cent. trusted newspapers. I am surprised that it is as high as 11 per cent. for newspapers, but the message is crystal clear: broadcasting is essential for the transmission of news and current affairs.

We are currently facing a massive increase in the number of channels. Most of us are used to one, two, three or perhaps four channels, but by the turn of the century there could easily be as many as 130. It is no use having dozens of channels if they are transmitting tripe, which is the case in many other countries where there is a totally unregulated system.

Despite all the importance of broadcasting and the increase in the number of channels, morale among the people who make programmes is at an all-time low. The comments of Mark Tully, in his lecture in the past week, were representative of many people who work in the industry.

Not all the ills of broadcasting are directly attributable to the Broadcasting Act 1990, but many are. I shall point 366 out some of the damage that has been done to the broadcasting industry that is directly attributable to the Act.

First, there has been tremendous pressure on the budgets of programme makers. That is partly due to the absurd lottery of the Act, which means that Yorkshire Television, for example, pays £38 million a year, whereas other television companies such as Central Television—I am delighted to say that it beat the system—and Scottish Television pay £2,000 a year. Why should the viewer have to suffer and the amount of money available for programme budgets be decreased on the basis of that silly system of allocating franchises, which has been described as poker?

There has also been tremendous pressure on budgets because of the predictable and unfair competition from cable and satellite television. It makes no sense at all that there are good and strict requirements on home-based production, which apply to the BBC and to ITV, but not on satellite and cable. The figures for the home-based production programme content of television programme hours are quite horrifying.

In 1985, 56 per cent. of transmitted television programme hours were produced in the United Kingdom. Because of the proliferation of channels, that had fallen to 19 per cent. by 1992, and it is estimated that the figure will be 13 per cent. by the year 2000. That is not surprising: it is much cheaper to bring in material from, say, the United States market, where drama can be produced for about £30,000 an hour, whereas home-produced drama, which has to make all its profits in the United Kingdom, can cost as much as £400,000 an hour or more.

It is therefore no wonder that the unregulated sections of the television industry buy in programmes from abroad. It is no wonder either that our balance of payments—it does not always seem to worry everyone in this House—in television programme production, which was in surplus to the tune of £24 million in 1985, was in deficit to the tune of £100 million by 1991—and the deficit is worsening.

I cannot see why the Independent Television Commission does not have the same powers over programme content and quality in cable television as it has over the independent television sector. When "News at Ten" was threatened with being moved to another time, pressure was rightly brought to bear to stop that happening, and the ITC intervened. But cable and satellite can do what they like with programmes. They can take them off the air or close down channels, because they are not subject to regulation or control.

Another predictable result of the Act was a drift of programming southwards, and a weakening of television in the regions. That should be a matter for concern to all who value local production facilities. The closure of studios and the drift to independents inevitably mean a drift to the south.

Another issue that will assume dramatic importance next year is the threat of the takeover of British television companies by foreign companies—which will inevitably happen if we do not apply the same rules to our industry as other countries do to theirs. Most Governments have the sense to give their national television industries some protection and do not want them owned or controlled from abroad purely for profit.

The final sickness in the system to which I shall refer was shown up in the ITC's quarterly report, published last 367 week. It says that the commercial pressures on programme makers to reduce their budgets have forced them to cut corners in a way that I never thought would happen in British broadcasting. Products are being displayed in programmes in prominent positions as a form of advertising. That is the thin end of the wedge; it deeply damages our system and the integrity of broadcasting.

People ask what I would do. I believe in a good old-fashioned dose of democratic regulation and control of the industry. That idea has been out of fashion—at least it was in the 1980s, when the prevailing madness was that everything could be governed by so-called free market forces. They simply do not deliver. With the progressive release of these market forces in broadcasting, the advertisers and the accountants have taken control. People no longer ask how good a programme is; they ask how much money it will make. Programme makers and viewers have lost out.

I am proud to say that what is required is a look back to find out what made our system the best in the world. The answer is: democratic regulation and control, to ensure standards, to provide the money properly to pay for jobs in the industry, to see that people are properly employed, and to make certain that there is none of the endless short-termism and lack of training that characterise industries not subject to democratic control.

Those who care about broadcasting—that includes almost all of us, as we spend 25 hours a week watching television—may agree with me that it is too important and too precious to be left to the whims of advertisers and accountants. It is time that we instituted democratic control, through this House, and made the system once again one to be proud of.