DUTY OF RADIO AUTHORITY TO SET CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION OF DIVERSITY (Hansard, 2 July 1996)

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 240, in clause 87, page 78, line 27, leave out `eight' and insert 'five'.
No. 238, in clause 88, page 81, line 11, leave out 'eight' and insert 'five'.

§ Mr. Mitchell
The new clause and the amendments are an attempt to promote, support and encourage diversity 763 and pluralism in radio, to maximise the variety of radio stations. I think that those are also the aims of the Radio Authority. It is the logical future of radio because it is a medium in which there can no longer be monolithic radio stations serving a wide variety of tastes.
Stations should cater for sectionalised tastes so that each can recruit its own audience on the back of music that is designed to appeal to that audience. That audience, which may have been recruited by classical music, talk, chart music or by golden oldies for people like me, will then be provided with the kind of news, information and advertisements that are relevant to it and will appeal to it. Identity is built up through the music.
I sometimes think that new Labour is a Classic FM party. That is our kind of station. It has beautiful themes in short bursts and it is civilised, clean, well presented and eminently desirable. The technique is simple and straightforward and it emerged in American radio and is now being pursued in this country. It is logical to encourage diversity so that as many audiences as possible can be catered for by as many stations as possible. The question posed by the amendments is whether the Radio Authority is going about the provision of diversity in the right way. I question the effectiveness of its decision-making processes.
The best example of the Radio Authority's inability to take good decisions is LBC. The name was abolished and the station was given to somebody else, who made a total mess of it. After going through changes of ownership and format, it has reverted to its original title but with different programming and it has lost a massive audience in the process. An odd decision led to that and another odd decision was made in relation to Jazz FM in the north-west.
The Radio Authority's decisions based on its remit to provide diversity are in question. I mention that in the light of my own experience of an application—this is where I declare an interest—for a regional radio contract in Yorkshire. That is what gave rise to the new clause. We started by trying to decide the sort of audience to which we wanted to appeal. In a sense we wanted to appeal to new Yorkshire—to people between 25 and 45. We were advised, and our research and the experience of other stations told us, that we could reach that audience by presenting it with a diet of adult contemporary music. On the basis of that, we could also reach that audience with programmes on art, news and information about Yorkshire.
Yorkshire has its own proud identity and we made our application on that basis. It was not an appeal to teeny-boppers or to the kids who listen to chart music, nor to geriatrics like me who listen to Capital Gold or easy listening stations. However, the Radio Authority had other ideas. It decided that the Yorkshire station should provide hip-hop dance music for kids. It said that Yorkshire had 3 million adults and that it would give the radio station to the kids. The station went to an outside organisation. The decision was an insult to Yorkshire.
Regional radio stations are rather different from those in big conurbations where dance music might be appropriate for a teenage audience. The problem relates to the way in which the decision was reached. We were told that the authority would deliberate on the applications on a Thursday and announce the result that afternoon. However, two days before that press steers said that the 764 authority was likely to decide on a dance music station. That means that the programming that the authority desired was made known, presumably by steers from Radio Authority staff, before the authority decided which station was to provide that sort of music.
If the Radio Authority thought that it should fill in the map on the basis of jazz for Lancashire, adult contemporary music for the west midlands, talk and contemporary music for Newcastle and dance music for Yorkshire, it would have been better to say so in advance. Those steers to the press must have come from the authority. They certainly did not come from the bidders, most of whom had bid for other sorts of music and were unlikely to release press statements stating that the station would be broadcasting material different from what they intended to provide. If the steer came from the authority, it must have known in advance the music format that it wanted in Yorkshire.
The new clause would make the Radio Authority declare its views in advance of applications, because if it does not do so two problems will arise. The first relates to the Radio Authority staff and whether they communicate the authority's views to the industry. Members of the staff have friends and they play golf. They are bound, as they should be, to maintain contacts, to mix with people and to play leading roles. The imputation will be that if they know that the authority is thinking along the lines of dance music for Yorkshire and adult contemporary music for the west midlands, it will be mentioned in conversation with people who submit applications for radio stations. I want to free the authority's staff from the imputation that information is being leaked in advance.
Secondly, I want to avoid the waste of time that is implicit in a process in which many people make applications at considerable expense. There were 13 applications for the Yorkshire contract, all of which involved expensive research, interviews, preparation, consultation and advice. It was an expensive business and it was a waste of time for applications which did not accord with the music format that the authority thought appropriate for Yorkshire. One applicant said to me, "We have put in five applications and none of them has been successful. We do not intend to put in any more. We are fed up with the whole business." If the authority thought that Yorkshire was right for hip-hop dance music, it should have said so in advance.
The new clause would make the process transparent by requiring the authority to say in advance that a new station in, for example, region A or town B should transmit dance music or be an easy listening station. It should state the format that it wants in the overall plan. That information should be contestable, so that interested parties can say, "No, we think that an appropriate format for this region is something different." The authority would be required to justify its decision and, in the light of the arguments and representations received, it could ask for applications for a specific kind of music.
People would know where they stand and those who did not want to apply need not bother. I would certainly not have applied for a dance music station because I would be wasting my time on it and such music is not appropriate to a regional station. Everything would be clear. Amendments Nos. 240 and 238 are designed simply to prevent renewal, because the radio industry is born free but everywhere it is in chains. Takeovers by big chains are 765 increasing and radio stations are losing their local identity. They have national promotion patterns, with disc jockeys who have no roots in the region being moved in and out and playing lists being decided outside the region. That is stultifying radio. Let us have more opportunities for people to apply by shortening the renewal period
The new clause and the two amendments provide, therefore, for more diversity and greater frequency of change in radio. I commend them to the House.

§ Mr. Sproat
Section 105 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 lays down four criteria that the Radio Authority must take into account in determining to whom a local licence should be awarded. They are: the ability of the applicant to maintain the service throughout the period of the licence; the extent to which the proposed service would cater for the tastes and interests of people in the area receiving the broadcast; the extent to which any proposed service would broaden the range of services available in the area; and the extent to which the application is supported by people living in the receiving area.
In addition to those general criteria, new clause 40 would require the authority to publish more detailed criteria. I am not convinced that such detailed criteria would act in the public interest. They would risk fettering the authority's discretion and lead to blander and more formulaic applications. More generally, as a point of principle, politicians should not instruct the authority how to go about its business in fulfilling the task that it has clearly been set by Parliament.
On amendments Nos. 240, 238 and 239, clause 87 provides for national radio licence holders—Classic FM, Talk Radio and Virgin—to have their licences renewed for a further eight years if they take up their guaranteed slots on digital radio. That provides those broadcasters with greater security to undertake the considerable investment needed to launch their digital services. Similarly, clause 88 allows a local radio station to renew its analogue licence if it has committed itself to digital broadcasting. Again, the renewal period is eight years, the length of the analogue licence.
We believe that the prospect of renewal will be an important factor in decisions to invest in digital radio. I therefore cannot accept the amendments and I hope that, with my explanation, the hon. Gentleman will not press them.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.