Broadcasting Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 2 February 1987)

§ Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I should like to thank your Lordships for your interest in this Bill. The measure itself is modest. It is promoted by an imminent period of change in British broadcasting motivated by far-reaching technological developments. The implications of those developments were considered in the report of the Peacock Committee, which examined the future financing of the BBC. As your Lordships will know, the committee made a number of recommendations which go to the very heart of the existing framework for broadcasting in this country and how that framework might develop in the light of technological change.

The Bill has two purposes. First, it extends the maximum duration of a DBS contract from 12 to 15 years. This will provide a contractor with a reasonable period in which to recover the high initial investment. Secondly, by in effect extending the period for existing ITV contracts by three years, the Bill seeks to leave open the options for such changes as may be considered necessary in the light of proper consideration of some of the major issues arising from the Peacock Report. Your Lordships are familiar with these issues; they include competitive tendering, the separate selling of Channel 4 advertising and the possible introduction of subscription services.

In the course of your Lordships' consideration of this part of the Bill, some concern has been expressed about the nature and extent of change and the risk that it may have a detrimental effect on the standards of broadcasting in this country. It is precisely because of the importance we attach to maintaining these standards that the Government have brought forward this part of the Bill. What it provides is a breathing 13 space in which to take sensible decisions about the future, and to put in hand any necessary preparatory arrangements.

As to what changes might be considered, I have said that, before making up their mind, the Government want to take proper account of the views of all interested parties on the possibilities canvassed in the Peacock Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, suggested on a previous occasion that one approach might be for the Government to publish a Green Paper on television. We shall certainly keep that possibility in mind. If, in the event, changes in the existing arrangements are deemed to be necessary, new legislation will be required. Your Lordships will therefore be able to consider any revised arrangements at that time.

The Bill as a whole does not make any substantive changes in the existing contracts arrangements, nor does it commit us to changes in the future. What it does is to provide an opportunity for change, if it should be considered necessary. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Birk

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. Nevertheless, in the light of the issues arising in this Bill I am not yet convinced that the extension of the franchises was necessary. I am also extremely disappointed that the whole question of a Green Paper on television, which the noble Lord received with enthusiasm at Committee stage, has not been accepted. It seems to me a simple, modest and sensible idea.

Once again the Minister has stated that the Government wish to take proper account of the views of all interested parties. It seems that it is quite impossible to do that on the basis of a very large report such as that of the Peacock Committee. I do not believe that any of us are convinced that there is any reason for delay. As we know, a Green Paper on radio has been agreed by the Government and is about to appear. It seems to me that to take the same step as regards television would be a step in the right direction.

I am disappointed that the Minister has not been able to agree to that today. However, perhaps when the Bill goes to another place that will be one of the results of the consideration it receives there.