|
Column Number: 611
Standing Committee E
Tuesday 21 January 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]
Clause 257
Public service remits of licensed providers
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 303, in
clause 257, page 225, line 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) The public service remit for every Channel 3 service is the provision of a range of high quality and diverse programming which, in particular, makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to reflect the tastes and interests of different communities and cultural traditions within nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
(2A) The public service remit for Channel 5 is the provision of a range of high quality and diverse programming.'.—[Mr. Lansley.]
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment No. 467, in
clause 257, page 225, line 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) The public service remit for every Channel 3 service is the provision of a broad range of high quality and diverse programming, including factual and entertainment programmes, in a manner which—
(a) satisfies the tastes and interests of the part of the United Kingdom for which that service is licensed, and
(b) reflects the regional diversity of the United Kingdom.'.
Amendment No. 347, in
Amendment No. 393, in
Amendment No. 528, in
clause 257, page 225, line 46, at end insert—
'(2A) In fulfilling the public service remit under subsection (2), every Channel 3 service shall have regard to the need for Channel 3 services (taken together as a network) to provide distinct regional programming, including regional programme production.'.
Nick Harvey (North Devon): When we broke, we were discussing the remit for Channel 3, which is very limited in scope compared with the Government's aspirations for the channel in their White Paper. What Channel 3 is and what it does is of critical importance to the future of all public service television. The Government and others have observed many times that we have what is fashionably called a broadcasting ecology, in which developments by one broadcaster affect the behaviour of others. For the time being at least, Channel 3 remains the second biggest UK television channel. It is the principal competitor to
Column Number: 612
BBC 1, and an advertising competitor to Channels 4 and Five.
It could be argued that the Broadcasting Act 1990 significantly lightened the regulatory grip on Channel 3, and has resulted in what many of us would see as several adverse developments. There has been a retreat from social action programming, the removal of serious factual programming from the evening schedules and a general reduction in the quality of ITV's news and current affairs programmes. During that period, ITV has moved towards being a predominantly, or solely, commercial centralised channel, rather than a strongly public service oriented network of regional production companies, which had been its tradition and history.
The effect of those developments has been felt across the board. As a result of what has happened to ITV, the BBC has retreated from some of the things that it did before that time. Last year, Patricia Hodgson of the Independent Television Commission said:
''The ITC has just published the conclusions of a four year analysis of peak-time schedules on the main British networks. It shows: diversity across all UK terrestrial channels taken as a whole has narrowed; programmes of minority appeal—notably arts and current affairs—are being pushed out of prime time; whilst the share of peak-time occupied by entertainment programmes has increased.''
That is damaging to the overall ecology of public service broadcasting. If we look forward to a situation where an American owner might own a single ITV company, it will be important that such an owner understands what is expected of them from the outset.
It is odd to me that the clause couches the remits for Channels 3 and Five in exactly the same terms. It is absolutely remarkable that anyone should view those two services as being of like nature, or of equal scale and ambition. If Channel 3 is going to operate in the future on so minimal a remit, the prospects for holding the BBC, or Channel 4 for that matter, to its public service mission would be very much reduced. The Government should be held to their commitment in the White Paper:
''ITV companies will continue as the main commercial providers of public service broadcasting, before and after digital switchover''.
That is fundamentally different to the role of Channel Five and it requires a much stronger remit.
The Joint Committee, encouraged by the ITC and ITV, recommended a mildly strengthened Channel 3 remit. The amendments are rightly intended to add somewhat to that remit. The requirement to reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom and the programme making that goes on in the regions and nations indicates that a significant part of the regional programming quota should be used to reflect regional diversity.
Although we must be wary of being too prescriptive and having a Channel 3 remit that runs to great length, I say again that if a new American owner takes over Channel 3, it should understand what it is taking over from the word go and from the first line of the remit. That should apply not only to individual regional licences, but to the network as a whole.
Column Number: 613
We have continually heard the argument that regional programming does not simply mean programming for the regions, but can, and should, mean programming for the network that is of a regional character. People can point to ''Coronation Street'', or other programmes that are made by regional companies for the network, as being part of ITV's strength. The programmes drawn from regional production bases are valuable to the network as a whole. That is why amendment No. 528 addresses the ITV network and does not simply dwell on the issue of regional licences. I look forward to hearing the Government's stance on the points that my colleagues have made.
Clearly, the remit is not the only part of the weaponry with which the regulator will hold ITV and, in particular, any new American owner of ITV, to account. There are other opportunities provided by clauses to which we will come presently. However, the remit is very important. It is the overall mission statement and the raison d'être for the station. If Channel 3 is going to be as important in the future as it has been in the past, the remit for ITV needs to be a lot stronger and a lot more comprehensive than these few throwaway lines that relegate it to the significance of Channel Five. Surely it is of far greater importance to our broadcasting ecology than that.
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford): We should express our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who has attempted to set out a definition of the public service remit for Channel 3. The result is probably about as good as one can get in a few words. I share the surprise, which was expressed on both sides of the Committee, that, under the Bill, public service remits for Channels 3 and Five appear to be the same. I remember the debates that took place when Channel Five was set up and I do not recall that it was intended that it should have the same public service remit as Channel 3. It was a new fledgling channel and its public service obligations were not as strong as those on Channel 3; that was correct. The Bill should reflect the fact that there are expectations on Channel 3 that go beyond those on Channel Five.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Would my hon. Friend agree that, in those debates, it was not just a question of a possible different emphasis in the public service remits of Channels 3 and Five, but of a fundamental difference, given that Channel Five is a national network without regional variation, whereas the whole strength of Channel 3 is its regional variation and ITV licence structure?
Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Some of us attended the reception given by ITV and ITN last night. It was encouraging that ITV saw its regional commitment not as an obligation that had to be met, but as a real strength and advantage. It not only welcomed its obligations to serve the regions, it saw those obligations as fundamental to the whole role of Channel 3. All of us welcomed that acknowledgement.
Column Number: 614
I want to touch on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in considering the earlier group of amendments. He mentioned the difficulties under which Channel 3 operates. When Channel 3 was originally launched, with very strong public service obligations, it was a completely different world. We were operating with a limited spectrum and only two, and then three, television channels were available. The fact that it was thought necessary for Channel 3 to be subjected to strong public service obligations was an acknowledgement of that, and I think that we would all agree with it. Since then, we have moved steadily further toward a multichannel world, which is putting great pressure on ITV. Recently published viewing figures for Christmas week showed that ITV's share had fallen below that of the multichannels for the first time. That is a significant development that is indicative of the pressure that ITV is under and the increased competition that it will inevitably face because many more channels are available and there is much greater choice for the viewer.
On top of that, it has been reported that ITV's share of the advertising market from end-of-year deals is down. The advertising market is not exactly robust at present and if ITV takes a smaller share, which is not surprising because so many more channels want to carry advertisements, it will be put in a difficult position. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was right to say that if ITV's public service obligation is strengthened, there is a real danger that it will be subjected to a squeeze with decreasing revenues due to such factors as a smaller share of advertising market but at the same time it will have to spend more on meeting its public service obligations.
|
