§ 5. Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)What recent representations she has received regarding the clauses in the Communications Bill on the ownership of Channel Five; and if she will make a statement. [101458]
§ The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells)We received a number of representations on this subject from television and media companies and from members of the public. By removing ownership rules for Channel Five, we hope that new investment will allow it to grow and to provide more competition in terrestrial broadcasting.
§ Mr. MullinWhat is to stop Mr. Murdoch's News Corporation buying up Channel Five and using it, through vigorous cross-promotion in his other assets, as a Trojan horse to overtake ITV as the main commercial channel? If my hon. Friend is unwilling to reinstate the cross-ownership rules, will he at least consider putting the quality standards thresholds that will be expected of Channel Five on the face of the Communications Bill, regardless of who the new owner happens to be?
§ Dr. HowellsNo. We have spent a great deal of time debating the creature that is to become Ofcom—it will be a powerful regulator. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that there is an anomaly in doing what we are doing with Channel Five, given that, at the moment, Vivendi, Bertelsmann, Berlusconi or any such company may own it. They are all enormous corporations with big interests in American groups, and so on. It is a very outdated idea that, somehow, the arrangements that are in place will prevent Channel Five from remaining a vibrant and good company. I am absolutely convinced that it will grow, whoever owns it, if the regulatory environment is a good one, and we have created the best that we can possibly create.
§ Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)Has not Channel Five been underfunded for too long and if News Corporation were to acquire it, would it not provide good funding, as it has already done for Sky One and the Sky sports channels, to provide good programming? The Minister mentioned a number of European media companies that could take over Channel Five, but could not a number of European media porn channels take it over? Rupert Murdoch is far preferable to that.
§ Dr. HowellsI am not a paid-up member of the News International glee club, but I will say this to the hon. Gentleman: a lot of parody has been going on over the influence of various groups relating to the ownership of 9 television channels and, indeed, of newspapers. There are sufficient controls in the proposed Ofcom, which we are in the business of creating right now, to ensure that abuses such as those the hon. Gentleman mentioned will not take place.
§ Mr. John Grogan (Selby)Given that the Secretary of State told the Westminster Media Forum that it would be open to Ofcom to ratchet up the public service obligations on Channel Five, are there not advantages for regulatory certainty in introducing a ratchet principle to the Bill, so that any purchaser of Channel Five would know clearly that, if its audience grew, there would be greater obligations to produce programmes, original productions and regional productions?
§ Dr. HowellsI rarely disagree with my hon. Friend about anything, but that is a curious question. He is saying that there ought to be so many ratcheting mechanisms acting on Channel Five that nobody would want to buy it and nobody would want to grow it. That is not what Channel Five wants, and it is not what I want. I want Channel Five to flourish and become a real competitor to ITV and every other company broadcasting in this country. I also want it to become a quality broadcaster, which it is starting to do. If it is to achieve that, it will have to find investment from somewhere. Perhaps we ought to discard some of these conspiracy theory scenarios that we are so fond of spouting in this place and understand that broadcasters need investment, just as other companies do.