§ Mr. Austin MitchellI beg to move amendment No. 268, in page 3, line 31, at end insert
'which shall not be given until the licence has been publicly advertised and the Commission has assessed the existing provision against alternative bidders'.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 267, in clause 38, page 32, line 14, at end insert
'which shall only be given after the licence has been re-advertised, other bids invited and the Authority has compared alternative proposals to the existing provision and is satisfied that it is superior.'.
§ Mr. MitchellMy amendments are an attempt to stop the process of takeovers that has changed the shape of radio and television. The rash of takeovers in television—it has been worse in radio—was not allowed until 1990. Now Yorkshire Television has taken over Tyne Tees Television; Carlton has taken over Central; and Granada has taken over London Weekend Television.
The rash of takeovers in radio started earlier, and now, across the country, local stations have been taken over and amalgamated into big radio chains such as GWR and EMAP. In many cases, the chains are centrally run, with centrally determined playlists and promotion patterns, while local figures have been moved around. All stations provide much the same type of service, although in different areas, with jukeboxes placed across the country—born free, but everywhere in chains.
These developments have gone too far. My amendments are an attempt to stop further progress, although I realise that it is a belated attempt, because the takeover process has gone so far. Certainly the idea behind television—and, earlier, behind radio—was that there should be a federal system of locally based companies serving and putting roots down into the region, reflecting the region's life in its network programmes—whether Yorkshire life, northern life, or Lancashire life in "Coronation Street"—and providing centres of excellence in each area, which is important for diversity in this country There are centres of excellence in television in Leeds, Newcastle and so on, which would not otherwise exist, because there is a tendency, in such occupations, for talent to gravitate to London. All that is now being undermined; indeed, the undermining process has gone a long way. We have witnessed the rundown of Central Television in Birmingham and the way in which many companies have effectively become shell companies.
6.30 pm
The argument that bigger-scale companies are needed to compete in the world market is fallacious—those companies are not competing in the world market, but if they do, it must be on the excellence of their production from locally based talent, reflecting local life in the region. Scale just brings an ability to shed staff and increase profits, which is what has been happening. I do not want that process to go any further.
My amendments would require both the Radio Authority and the ITC, when a change of control is threatened—when somebody is trying to get control 792 through the back door by taking over a company to which the Radio Authority or the ITC has given a licence to serve the area—to throw the whole matter back into the melting pot and allow other applicants to come forward to take up the challenge.
It is not necessarily true that an outsider taking over an existing company can provide a better service than someone else starting anew. Therefore, the licences should be re-advertised to stop the threat of takeovers. I want the Government to pay more attention to that, rather than creating an environment in which everyone is waiting at the starting tape ready to take over companies as soon as the Bill becomes law.
§ Mr. SproatThese amendments would, in effect, lead to new competitions for the licences whenever any change in control was proposed. The present arrangements allow the regulators to look carefully at any proposed transfer, so that they can satisfy themselves that there is no transgression of the rules on media ownership, and that the person to whom the licence is to be transferred is not disqualified and is a fit and proper person. This is as it should be. The licence remains in place, and if the new controller does not comply with its conditions, the regulator has the usual enforcement procedures at his disposal.
With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellThe Minister's explanation is not adequate. I want new competition to be allowed. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.