HL Deb 17 October 1988 vol 500 cc933-5

2.47 p.m.

Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to their Answer of 12th June 1986 (HL Deb.. col. 383), whether they are in a position to make a further statement about the anticompetitive practices of the BBC and ITV concerning advance publication of programme details.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, the Government are considering the recent report of the Home Affairs Select Committee in which they recommended that any newspaper or magazine should be able to list all television and radio programmes regardless of copyright considerations. The Government will announce their conclusions in due course when they give their formal reply to the Committee's report.

Baroness Burton of Coventry

My Lords, some two and a half years ago I formed the impression that the Government would have helped in this matter had they been able to do so. Does the Minister recall that the decision of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was reached only on the casting vote of the chairman and that the general public, including many Members of this House, believe that the practices of the BBC and ITV in this matter were indeed anti-competitive?

Can he tell the House whether the European Commission has asked the Government to comment on the findings of the European Court of Justice dealing with Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome which covers the enforcement of such practices?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, in answer to the first question of the noble Baroness, of course the Monopolies and Mergers Commission did consider that the BBC and ITV were engaging in anticompetitive practice but that they did not operate against the public interest. We are entering into an era of increasing competition. It is appropriate, with the prospect of wider consumer choice, to examine the existing arrangements for programme listings to see whether there is scope for their relaxation. That we shall do. With regard to the last part of the noble Baroness's question, I cannot give the information which she requires but I shall find out and let her know.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, is it not the case that during the passage of the copyright legislation through the House of Commons Clause 142 was inserted at Third Reading, and it deals with this very point? It extends the power of the Secretary of State o impose a compulsory licence on the BBC and ITV if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission says that that is appropriate in the particular case. If that is so and the matter will come to this Chamber on Commons amendments, why have the Government apparently changed their mind? There is a difference between what they are doing in one case in the legislation and their reaction to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I do not believe that the Government have changed their mind. They have not yet reacted to the Home Affairs Select Committee report. We are considering what has been suggested and we shall reply in due course. The noble Baroness is quite right. The current Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill has a provision which amends Schedule 8 to the Fair Trading Act to give Ministers the power to modify the provisions of copyright licences and to provide for copyright licences of right, following an adverse report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The provision is subject to the qualification that the Minister must be satisfied that such an order would not breach our international obligations. It is premature as yet to include that because it has not yet been passed through Parliament, but it is one of the considerations which we shall have in mind.

Lord Annan

My Lords, does the noble Earl recollect that 11 years ago the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting considered that these were restrictive practices? Despite the benefit which the BBC and the ITV companies gained, nevertheless it was against the public interest and they were somewhat dismayed when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission came to a somewhat different view.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I dare say that may be so, but the noble Lord will also recall, I am sure, that in 1982 the programme listings were protected by copyright law as literary works of art. This is something which is being considered at the moment. I can only ask the noble Lord with his customary courtesy to be a little patient because we are, as he will know only too well, entering a whole wide field of possible alteration in broadcasting. This will be one of the many things to be considered.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, will the noble Earl remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, referred to the casting vote of the chairman of the MMC in arriving at a decision? Am I not right in thinking that the MMC arrives at a decision as a body and that there is no question of casting votes one way or another?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I deliberately did not answer the point to which the noble Lord refers because my understanding is that a report is a report, irrespective of how many people have voted for it or not voted for it. My information is that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission considered that there was anti-competitive practice but that it was not against the public interest.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, can the noble Earl the Leader of the House explain the relevance of the international obligations to which he refers to the matters raised by the noble Baroness?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I should be delighted for my noble friend the Leader of the House to answer that question, but I fancy that the noble Lord really meant it to come to me. There are obviously international obligations and we shall have to take into account the domestic copyright law and our international obligations on copyright. Copyright between one country and another is not necessarily the same; indeed it is not the same, and that is one of the matters that will have to be considered.

Baroness Burton of Coventry

My Lords, I welcomed the Minister's reply, but do I take it from that that in the forthcoming White Paper there is the possibility that the copyright of both the BBC and ITV may be freed so that we might eventually have one publication which will include all programmes, both radio and television? I was not quite clear about what he said in answer to my question about the European Commission. Did he say that he did not know or that he would find out and write to me? Lastly, concerning the interruption of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and his correction, may I ask the noble Earl. whether or not one uses the term "casting", if it is correct that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission divided equally on this question and that the chairman's vote was either the casting or the deciding vote?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, with regard to the last of the three questions asked by the noble Baroness, I will not enter into a discourse with her as to whether it was a casting or a deciding vote. The important point is that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission made its report. In relation to the question she raised on the European Community, I said that I would look into that and write to her about it. With regard to the first of her questions, the noble Baroness is forever ingenious. She asks whether she is right in believing that the White Paper might contain something about this aspect. All I can suggest to her is that with the greatest of respect she waits and sees.