§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
§ 10 pm
§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)Television, in all its forms, is one of the United Kingdom's greatest assets, one of its life forces. Its creativity and artistry are evident, and its employment implications are evident and important to this country. However, television can never stand still. It must face the new challenges of the future.
I am afraid to say that, during the past 16 years or so, the Government have missed the opportunity to build upon our great tradition and ensure the future of television, by missing out a whole new layer of accessible programmes, skills and jobs—that new bottom layer of the television pyramid, local television.
There are immense opportunities for productive and profitable partnerships between local newspapers, radio groups, regional television groups, councils and local multimedia companies, but the Conservatives have lamely abdicated their responsibility during the past few years.
At no time have the Government created any incentives for innovation in that area. The Broadcasting Act 1990 removed any real requirements for cable companies to provide local services. Television under the Conservatives has been about the size of wallets, crafty deals, small fish lording it in a tiny and evaporating pond—limited takers, not risk takers. Nowhere is that more evident than in local television.
This is a great missed opportunity. Local television, by connecting citizens to one another, could regenerate a sense of community and shared identity. If combined with the new information communications technologies, it could enable a more responsive, interactive political system to develop at local level. It could create opportunities for new media companies operating at a local level, with the resulting benefits in terms of employment and training. It would help to broaden the involvement of citizens in their television, and challenge the dominance of London-based broadcasting elites.
Those are the opportunities. Cable television gives the chance to provide television to a smaller community of 2,000 people. I believe that there will be significant growth in cable subscribers, partly because local television will offer a unique selling point. Sadly, few cable companies currently provide any local content, despite the fact that the majority of their licences, signed before the Broadcasting Act, contained a commitment to provide local services.
It would be wrong to say that only cable can provide local television. For example, what happened to the visionary plans for channel 5 to have local opt-outs, as one of the original bidders intended? I am afraid that that was sacrificed at the altar of commercial television.
What about the potential of digital terrestrial to provide more local content? We are promised many dozens of channels, yet again there is a gaping hole in the Government's proposals to provide local services, rather than more of the same. In Bruce Springsteen's words, "two hundred channels and nothing to watch."
If the Government became involved and took action, the alternative could be a burst of creative variety in local programming. The need for such variety will not be 595 satisfied by the satellite television companies' introducing many dozens of channels—possibly more than 100. They do not wish to enter that market, and we shall have to look elsewhere for local provision.
I believe that cable companies should consider providing three types of local service—commercially run local television, which can chase a large audience with entertaining local programmes and news; public service-style television, seeking to fulfil a community remit and to address minority concerns; and "local access" television, produced by local people in conjunction with professionals. One channel could combine all three services, or could emphasise one or two.
Some channels have already been developed that claim local status. Channel 1, London's 24-hour news service, is an example, and Live TV plans opt-outs in cities such as Birmingham. A spine of centrally produced programming facilitates the development of local planning around it.
Cable has finally begun to recognise its own self-interest. It needs viewers as well as infrastructure. It already has a head start on British Telecommunications; it must make good use of that head start to ensure that it remains a competitor when BT is allowed into the entertainment market by the next Labour Government.
The, Minister may well argue that local television is not commercially viable. Part of the reason for that is the fact that the Government have already distorted the television market. There is a wide demand for locally produced programmes: opinion polls show that large majorities would prefer more localised television services, and both Live TV and Channel 1 have illustrated that the production costs of local television can be significantly reduced. That will ensure that local television does not run at a loss. Viewing will also grow rapidly as people come to value and exploit this new source of information and entertainment. Income from local advertising, as yet an untapped revenue source, will make local television profitable. If viewing is high enough, national advertising may also be secured.
Much as I value the high quality of television provided by BBC Midlands and Central Independent Television, how much better it would be if they complemented their services by developing Greater Nottingham Television, Derby City Television and Leicester Television. The opportunities are there, and the BBC and ITV companies can create a wider audience for local television by working in partnership. Perhaps for once they could work together to promote that aspect of television's development.
What about the role of the regulator, the Independent Television Commission? It has made some laudable efforts to get the cable companies moving, but its hands have been tied by an adequate governmental framework. It has only the "nuclear deterrent" of removing cable companies' franchises if they do not meet the commitment in their licences to provide local services.
It is possible that the ITC could impose a graduated set of penalties to enforce those commitments, and it should have the power to bar a franchisee from reapplying for a licence if it fails to honour them. The Broadcasting Act 1990 could be amended to ensure that the responsibility 596 to provide local television services is statutory. In addition, the ITC might have the power to allow an independent producer of local television to use the network if a franchise holder was slow to provide such services. Those measures might help the cable franchise to become viable, particularly when the monopoly ends and BT enters the entertainment market.
Like many other countries, Canada has had the nerve and vision to introduce a regulatory framework requiring cable companies to provide a local television service. Local television has blossomed as we hope it may blossom here. The results have been highly successful, and cable companies have recognised it as an opportunity to boost consumer loyalty and play a genuine community role. Local television can revel in Britain's cultural, economic, social and ethnic diversity, bringing a bright plurality of voices to the screen.
What about the potential for using local television to enhance democracy? Again, there is no current vision from the Government as to how to harness that power of decentralised television. Labour's plans to create regional chambers and to liberate local government will complement and support the growth of democratic initiatives using television. Perhaps regional chambers may be the body to license local television, as is the case with the Lander in Germany.
Other exciting possibilities exist. The BBC, Channel 4 and ITV could potentially provide content for local television. It may be necessary for them to consider their future by refocusing existing resources to provide this new service. If that were linked with a responsibility for developing community access, a radical development and redevelopment could take place of the public service role of the BBC and Channel 4.
British Telecom, once it begins to provide broadcast entertainment, could play an important role in encouraging such television. Government are desperately needed to encourage thinking in these sectors. The Government have abdicated that responsibility. We need a Government who will intervene and ensure that this sector is developed. Of course, there is an alternative. It is, I am afraid, to stare unblinkingly into the headlights of the British Sky Broadcasting satellite. I hope that people in British television do not believe that that is an appropriate alternative.
We must think about creating opportunities for community access. What is the best method to achieve that? Many colleges and universities already have media centres with a range of production equipment. Could those be developed as community broadcast centres? Cable companies, BT and broadcasters should now begin to think about how they could develop local community television co-ordinators with responsibility for encouraging participation in television by local people.
When I talk about local media, I think also about the new communication technology's potential to transform local democracy and accountability. Under the current system of representative democracy, individuals still have to lobby their political representatives using traditional methods such as writing a letter, signing a petition, contacting their representatives' office, arranging an appointment or attending their surgery. At best, that is often self-selecting and a one-way flow. Local television, allied to the information super-highway, can make politics a more widespread and two-way activity. 597 The new information and communication technologies afford the possibility of understanding and interacting directly with national, regional and local representatives and Parliaments. Just a couple of months ago, the Labour party conference had an experiment with a virtual electronic conference that was open to people throughout the world. Debates took place not only in the virtual conference hall, but in the virtual conference bar, which seemed equally popular. Debates took place between eminent people in the Labour party, passers-by, delegates and people in the United States of America, Japan and elsewhere in the world.
That could be repeated, not only in this place in a virtual Parliament, so that I could question—at his leisure, of course—the Minister or his staff more than once every three weeks and at any time of the day, but perhaps in councils, with virtual council meetings, where, at certain times of the month or week, councillors would be available to discuss and interact with one or many individual constituents, pressure groups or lobby groups.
Allied to local television, the role of such technology will help educate all of us in our politics, rather than being used as a way of finding an electronic snapshot of prejudice, a sort of electronic plebiscite, which is a danger of that technology. Every Member of Parliament could engage in this with their own home page on the World Wide Web, so that they could interact with their constituents at given times of the week.
Local television can help to regenerate a sense of community and a shared identity, while allowing everyone a voice. Those are just some of the possibilities that local television and multimedia provide to enhance democracy and reactivate civic culture. It is a possibility that is being denied to people by the Government's sloth in recent years.
I urge the Minister to take the opportunity offered in the forthcoming broadcasting Bill to explore some of the possibilities that exist. He may not feel that it is appropriate to include those matters in the Bill, but I hope that he agrees that it would be appropriate to have sensible and extensive debates in Committee on the matters I have raised.
After almost 60 years of television, we are still allowing a relatively small elite to control the entirety of broadcasting to and for all 58 million of us. It is time to broaden the involvement of citizens in their television, to counter the erosion of diversity that has undoubtedly taken place in our television in a search for mass audiences, and to begin a democratic process of retuning our rich broadcasting culture to the needs of the individual local television viewer.
§ The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat)I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has been moved from his job as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on broadcasting and media matters. We had some extremely interesting debates in Committee, and his speech tonight showed that he is no less fertile in ideas than he was then. I hope that some of the ideas he mentioned can be considered in the broadcasting Bill that will be before us shortly.
598 I can promise the hon. Gentleman that if his stimulating ideas are raised in amendments to the Bill—which I am sure they will, because I know that the hon. Gentleman has influence with his hon. Friends, and no doubt with some of my hon. Friends who read his speech—we will debate them seriously. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman will not be present to debate them with us.
Because of the relative nearness of the debates on the Bill, I will have to be more constrained and circumscribed in my reply. I will not be able to pick up an idea, throw it around and discuss it in the rather carefree way that we used to do in Committee. As I have said, I hope that we will have a chance to return to these issues seriously.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are introducing a Bill shortly on the developments in broadcasting. I should like to emphasise that the Government are committed to encouraging the development of technology and the expansion of the broadcast media, which in turn will increase consumer choice.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 was introduced precisely to encourage the expansion of the media, and to ensure that the high standards and quality that we have come to expect from our broadcasters in the United Kingdom were maintained as the market expanded. That Act, like the Bill to be published shortly, ensures that those with the expertise and market knowledge can develop their products in the most efficient way while ensuring that the consumer receives the quality of product that the consumer deserves and wants. Our commitment to regional and local programming is part of our wider commitment to maintain the standards of British broadcasting while expanding the choice of services for the viewer.
The future of local television is assured, and it is a sector that will grow with the continued expansion of cable and the arrival of digital broadcasting. Currently, the BBC and channel 3 companies have strong regional commitments. The BBC's commitment to producer choice is helping to move production away from a south-east dominance, and the regional nature of the channel 3 licences guarantees quality local television.
In 1994, the last year for which published figures are available, the Channel 3 licensees exceeded the Independent Television Commission licence requirements, and showed an average total of 180.53 hours of regional programming a week. The ITC is extremely vigilant in enforcing licence conditions, and will ensure that the level and quality of regional programming are maintained.
The swiftness with which the ITC responded in 1992 to concerns about Tyne-Tees's regional commitment, when it merged with Yorkshire, demonstrated that any changes in ownership do not affect the quality of local television. Local television has nothing to fear but much to gain from our policy on cross-media ownership.
The provision of local television services via cable is expanding quickly. From a slow start, the pace has quickened, and cable is now available to more than 5.5 million homes, with more than 20 per cent. of homes passed by cable choosing to subscribe. I understand that, in Nottingham, more than 25 per cent. of homes passed by cable have chosen to subscribe.
Although there are no obligations on cable operators to provide local services such as community channels, most companies that sought cable franchises under the 1990 599 Act committed themselves to developing some sort of local services. I understand that Diamond Cable in Nottingham provides a local text information service. The ITC has so far issued 95 licensable programme service licences to cable operators for local programming. That is very encouraging.
The expansion of cable and the arrival of digital transmission will take local television into a new era. Whereas the five main channels can never hope to provide much more than a regional service for local programmes, cable—and, more importantly, digital—will be able to provide truly local programmes, and, in due course, truly local services alongside its programming.
I share the hon. Gentleman's belief, which we have often discussed in Committee, in the social and economic worth of local television. I firmly believe that the Government's proposal for the introduction of digital terrestrial television will bring about increased opportunities, not only for local but for regional and minority interest television. Indeed, the introduction of digital terrestrial television will bring about many new opportunities for British manufacturing and the broadcasting industry as a whole.
The increased number of channels available will, in itself, provide increased opportunities for local and regional broadcasting. There will be at least 18 to 20 new television channels covering most of the United Kingdom. However, because digital technology offers broadcasters the potential to split channels, at times there may be double that number or even more. Multiplex operators will be looking for new programming of all types to fill their frequencies.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government's proposals, set out in the digital terrestrial broadcasting policy document, clearly stated that the ITC would judge applications on the variety of programme services that prospective multiplex providers intend to transmit. Multiplex providers, in putting together their proposals, will need to look to prospective broadcasters for different types of programme services appealing to a wide range of viewers' interests. I would expect the ITC to take full account of proposals for local, regional, community and special interest channels and programming as an important element in providing viewers with the appropriate level of variety.
The technological advantages of the digital medium will make it easier for broadcasters to split their frequency allocations into regional and local areas and to schedule programming with interwoven layers of national, regional and local broadcasting.
There will be a variety of patterns of programme provision, which will in turn give rise to new relationships between programme makers and broadcasters, and flexibility in contracting agreements, giving opportunities for smaller local broadcasters of programme makers to gain a foothold. Furthermore, I am assured that equipment associated with digital technology is less cumbersome and lends itself easily to programme making and transmission away from the large metropolitan studios. That represents an important advance for makers of local television programmes.
Against that background, the Government will be publishing their broadcasting Bill shortly. I should emphasise that their proposals for digital broadcasting, which will of course take account of points raised in 600 responses to consultation, will be enabling rather than prescriptive. As I have said, the Government give a very high priority to ensuring that the variety of services available to viewers of digital television is attractive and encourages viewers to invest in digital receivers.
The Government's other key priority in the early stages of digital terrestrial television must be to create a framework that will encourage the industry to invest in the infrastructure necessary to maximise coverage of new digital services as quickly as possible, and encourage the production and marketing of receivers at an affordable price. That is why applicants' proposals for investment in those areas, along with the variety of programming that they intend to offer, are the criteria on which the allocations of licences will be determined.
Given that digital terrestrial television, while undoubtedly a marvellous opportunity, is also a high-risk venture, it would not be reasonable in the circumstances to place other burdens and restrictions on multiplex providers and broadcasters.
Specifically, it would not be reasonable to place on licensees a levy intended to finance subsidies for local television, as some, I am sure with the best of motives, have suggested. To do so could deter investment in digital terrestrial television. That in turn might permanently reduce or remove the scope for new services, whether national, regional or local. As I hope I have made clear, the Government's proposals are aimed precisely at maximising the scope for such new services, whether they are provided by existing or new broadcasters.
I should like to say something about media ownership.
§ Mr. AllenBefore the Minister moves on, is he prepared to go to see one or two examples of local television that already exist—there are a number around the country—before the broadcasting Bill goes into Committee? I am sure that, if he has not already seen such examples, he would find it very interesting and helpful. Will he make a particular point of going to see the BT experiment in and around Ipswich with about 5,000 homes, where, along with many other services, BT is piping into those homes a local community access channel?
§ Mr. SproatYes, I will. I think that that is an extremely interesting idea. The only caveat that would I add—it is a very practical one—is that, before I get embedded in the broadcasting Bill, I am trying to sort out various aspects of arts, public libraries, museums, galleries and heaven knows what else. But I would very much like to try to do just what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government set out in May their proposals on media ownership. We asked the industry and the wider community to comment on what we said. We have received many responses, including several from companies in the smaller ITV regions, and they have all been taken into account in framing the Bill. Many stressed the importance of regional programming and production. Indeed, regionality is seen as the particular strength of the ITV network. Our media-ownership proposals included measures to preserve diversity at local levels by setting thresholds for local cross-media ownership.
I should add that requirements relating to regional programming and production are enshrined in the licence conditions of channel 3 companies. We have no intention 601 of removing those requirements. As I said earlier, all the ITV companies, including those where consolidation has taken place, exceeded their regional programming and regional production requirements.
I shall finish with a little present for the hon. Gentleman, which I hope will be in order. I remind the House, in case the hon. Gentleman did not already know, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage today announced an additional digital radio frequency—a multiplex—that will be assigned to local services.
The House will remember that in August the Government published proposals and invited views from the radio industry about digital terrestrial broadcasting.
§ Mr. SproatI have only one minute. 602 The proposals were aimed at ensuring that listeners are offered more choice of quality radio services. The Government received more than 100 responses, and have given each of them very careful consideration in the preparation of the forthcoming broadcasting Bill. In particular, we invited views on whether spare frequency should be used for national or local radio stations.
I am therefore very pleased to confirm that additional digital frequencies will be assigned to independent local radio services in areas where the need is greatest. That is especially important for urban areas such as Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff, London of course, and, who knows, perhaps Nottingham.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.