Media (Diversity) (Hansard, 11 January 1995)

§ Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the ownership of the media. My Bill will reverse the growing trend towards monopoly ownership of most of what we see on our television screens and read in our newspapers. The purpose of the Bill is to protect our culture and democracy from the barbarism of the unregulated market. I hope that it will appeal to democrats of all political persuasions. I am glad to say that it has attracted support from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Although our television has always been carefully regulated, it has long been the situation that many of our national and regional newspapers are controlled by unscrupulous megalomaniacs. Now, the same people are taking control of our television. Rupert Murdoch, who owns five national newspapers, also has what is effectively a controlling interest in satellite television, which, we are told, will he in one home in two by the end of the century. Michael Green, of Carlton, has acquired Central Television, and with it a 36 per cent. stake in Independent Television News and a similar stake in Independent Radio News. Granada Television, headed by a ruthless profiteer, Mr. Gerry Robinson, has acquired London Weekend Television and with it a 36 per cent. stake in ITN, all in defiance of section 32 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which says that no shareholding in ITN may exceed 20 per cent., precisely with a view to preserving its independence.

Every day, the frontiers that regulate the independence and quality of our television are pushed back a little further. The Government are under enormous pressure to remove what restrictions remain and to let the market rip. And not only the Government. Seeing the possibility of a Labour victory at the next election, a massive bout of free-lunching has been unleashed by the vested interests concerned, and its purpose is to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends charged with responsibility in these matters that big is beautiful, that the triumph of the market is inevitable and that it will not diminish the quality of the product. One of the purposes of the Bill is to stiffen the resolve of my hon. Friends.

The rise of Messrs. Murdoch, Green, Robinson and others has already led to a marked decline in standards. Documentaries such as "This Week" have disappeared. "World in Action", one of the last refuges for inquiring journalism, has been under heavy pressure. Even ITN's "News at Ten" is not safe as the new masters press for its removal to a more obscure slot, to make way for an unending diet of bland American movies. Already there has been an obvious decline in quality at ITN, a reluctance to invest in foreign reporting, and an increasing tendency to conduct long and pointless live interviews between an anchorman in Grays Inn road and a correspondent rarely more than two or three miles away. The other day on ITN there was a lengthy item on Kermit the frog.

There is talk of new technology bringing in 20, 30 or 40 channels. It is said that we will have more choice, but in fact we will have less. We are headed down the American road—40 channels with nothing worth watching on any of them and our culture colonised by American junk television. Our domestic television 154 production capacity will be wiped out, just as our film industry has been. Indeed, it is already happening. 'The industry is being remorselessly casualised. Since the Broadcasting Act, the number of full-time jobs in commercial television has halved. Who will provide the training for future generations of television film makers when the present generation is gone? Or are the new masters just intending to poach from the BBC?

What I fear most is not political bias, but the steady growth of junk journalism—the trivialisation and demeaning of everything that is important in our lives, and its consequent effect on our culture, a flat refusal to address what is going on in the world in favour of an endless diet of crime, game shows and soap operas, and the unadulterated hate that is already a feature of our most loathsome tabloid newspapers. In the long run, there is a danger—I put it no higher—that, with an increasing concentration of ownership and progressive abandonment of standards, television will become fertile ground for demagogues, offering simple solutions to complex problems. One has only to look at the rise of the religious right in America, or to Italy—governed until recently by a man who owns three major television stations—for a clue as to where the future may lie.

My Bill has three principal purposes. First, it seeks to enforce diversity of newspaper and television ownership in the belief that healthy competition rather than monopoly is the best way to ensure the survival of our democracy.

Secondly, the Bill seeks to provide for a minimum level of quality in the firm belief that that is the best way to protect our television from the rise of junk culture.

Thirdly, the Bill seeks to create a level playing field between commercial and satellite television. At the moment satellite television is exempt from many of the regulations that apply to terrestrial television.

I shall list some of the specific measures contained in the Bill. First, there is a requirement that no national newspaper proprietor shall be permitted to own more than one daily or one Sunday newspaper. Surplus assets must be placed on the market within 12 months of the Bill being enacted.

Secondly, no one who is not a citizen of the European Community shall in future be permitted to own more than 20 per cent. of any company owning British national or regional newspapers or British terrestrial or satellite television. That provision is based on similar regulations that already apply in the United States.

Thirdly, no company which has a controlling interest in a British national newspaper shall be permitted to own a stake of more than 20 per cent. in a British television company, terrestrial or satellite.

Fourthly, no company that has a controlling interest in either terrestrial or satellite television broadcasting to the United Kingdom shall be permitted to own more than 20 per cent. of a British national newspaper.

Fifthly, a given percentage of the output of any television company, satellite or terrestrial, broadcasting to the United Kingdom, shall be produced within the EC. That will extend to satellite television a provision which is already enforced on terrestrial stations.

155 Sixthly, no company shall be permitted to own more than 20 per cent. of ITN, IRN or any other national broadcast news service and any surplus should be disposed of within 12 months of the Act coming into force.

Seventhly, no company with a controlling interest in any local television or radio station or in any local newspaper shall be permitted to own more than 20 per cent. of any other media outlet covering the same catchment area.

Eighthly, no company shall be allowed to own more than 20 per cent. of the encryption system for satellite television and any surplus shall be placed on the market within 12 months. Hon. Members will be aware that at present Mr. Murdoch has a monopoly of the encryption system which prevents anyone else gaining access to the satellite market.

Ninthly, substantial regional commercial television production facilities must be maintained in at least the six largest population centres outside London.

Tenthly, a training levy will be imposed on any television company employing more than 100 people which does not spend a given percentage of its income on training.

Those measures should appeal to civilised people of all political persuasions. They are, as I have said, designed to protect our democracy and culture from the barbarism of the unregulated market. In many respects they merely enshrine or build upon regulations that already exist. Overall they will have the effect of introducing competition into areas where fair competition is being progressively stifled or eliminated.

We should not be afraid of regulation. Our broadcasting system has been carefully regulated throughout its existence and, as a result, it is widely admired around the world. I am anxious that it should remain so and that is the purpose of the Bill. I commend it to the House.

§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)

There we have it. Behind the Colgate ring-of-confidence smile of the Leader of the Opposition we have the authentic voice of socialism on his Back Benches. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) uses the words "barbarism of the market" and "ruthless profiteer", but nowhere in the Bill does he acknowledge the existence of new technologies and the way in which the market operates in the United Kingdom and the world in general.

I oppose the Bill on two grounds. First, as I say, it does not acknowledge changes in technology and, secondly, the unilateral changes that the hon. Gentleman would like to see in the United Kingdom would put us at a great disadvantage compared with the rest of Europe and the world.

156 I quote two authoritative people. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), Chairman of the Select Committee on National Heritage on which I have the honour to serve, said: Of course there are dangers in monopolistic cross-media ownership, but at the same time in my view without cross-media ownership there is no commercial viability in the new environment. The right hon. Gentleman is right and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is wrong.

Here is another quotation: Traditional distinctions between printed press and broadcasting channels will be difficult to sustain when all forms of media use the same cable to deliver their output electronically. In those circumstances it may no longer be sensible to maintain restrictions on cross-media ownership in their present form. That is an argument for less legislation, not more. Did it come from the Conservative party manifesto? No. Was it written by a Conservative Member? No. It came from a document called "Winning for Britain" published in June last year by the Labour party. Funnily enough, the Labour party got it right and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South got it wrong.

I believe in firm governance tempered by economic freedom and political and economic reality. If the Bill were ever to become law it would open the door for the Berlusconis and the Bertelsmans of this world. When the hon. Gentleman so traditionally attacks Rupert Murdoch he should remember that although News International, a United Kingdom-based company, has interests in The Sun, The Times and 50 per cent. of BSkyB, the Guardian Media Group owns The Guardian, The Observer, 36 local weeklies, 15 per cent. of GMTV and 20 per cent. of Trans World Communications.

I could tell the hon. Gentleman similar facts about Pearson, the Daily Mail and General Trust, and Reed Elsevier. However, I would rather have all those groups operating successfully than allow Berlusconi and Bertelsman to dominate the media in the United Kingdom, the rest of Europe and the rest of the world. For those reasons, I oppose the motion.