House of Lords
Thursday, 5th December 1996.
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers--Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.
Viscount Wimborne--Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Television Sponsorship: ITC Draft Code
Viscount Astor asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What progress has been made in the review of Independent Television Commission programme sponsorship and what interim decisions have been taken on the future of masthead programming on television.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the Independent Television Commission's consultation on its draft of a revised code of programme sponsorship ended on 15th November. The consultation document proposes to allow masthead programming on cable, satellite and new digital services while retaining a ban on the public service channels. I understand that the commission hopes to introduce a final revised code early in the new year.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply but can he explain why the ITC has proposed that programme sponsorship should be encouraged on satellite and cable channels but banned on ITV Channel 4 and Channel 5? Is that not illogical and unfair competition, especially when programmers and publishers are increasingly coming together to make programmes?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I hasten to add that this is a draft document which relates to a code to be drawn up by the Independent Television Commission. I believe that the distinction that has been drawn by the ITC is based on the fact that the public service channels have certain positive programming requirements that are absent on the other licensed channels.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will help the House because the distinction is not clear at first sight. Is the Minister saying that the distinction arises because this activity is slightly disreputable and is not appropriate on public service broadcasting but is perfectly all right on satellite?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the point is not that this activity is inherently disreputable--far from it--but that the standards that are expected of, and the tone that is expected to be conveyed by, the public service channels
are different from those on the other licensed channels by virtue of the positive programming requirements that are placed upon them.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that programming sponsorship tends to condition programmes? Can he assure the House that there is sufficient understanding of this problem and that care will be taken to ensure that programmes do not become totally conditioned by sponsorship?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has said, this is potentially an extremely difficult area. I emphasise that sponsorship of the kind that is being discussed must not involve the sponsor exercising any editorial or programming control over the programme in question. In addition, it cannot advertise that sponsor's products or promote them in any way.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord. Obviously, it is my fault. Is the Minister saying that this applies only to satellite, cable and digital services? If so, can one take it that when digital replaces analogue on terrestrial services there will be a relaxation of the restriction?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for seeking clarification in case what I have said is not clear. Currently, masthead programming is not permitted. The ITC's draft code, which is out for consultation, proposes that it should be permitted on the services that I have mentioned. When digital terrestrial services come into operation, simulcasts, that is, simultaneous identical transmissions of existing analogue public service broadcasters, will be at the core of such services. Those programmes will be public service broadcasts. It is open to those who broadcast the programmes to broadcast additional material which will require licensing by the ITC. That additional material, even if transmitted and broadcast by an existing public service broadcaster, may be sponsored by the masthead technique provided it does not fall into the category of the programmes that are being simulcast.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his very clear reply which I am sure all noble Lords have understood perfectly. Will my noble friend express to the ITC the view that there must not be a situation in which satellite and cable broadcasters suddenly find themselves with a distinct advantage over terrestrial ITV broadcasters in this country?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in response to my noble friend I think I can do no better than explain that I advised the ITC that this Question would be put and that that body might find it helpful to hear what your Lordships said.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is not the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, apposite? Is this not yet another step in the influencing of programming by commercial interests? One already has the skilled art of
product placement not only on commercial television but on BBC television and in films, and the separation between commercial interests and programming is very important to the quality of television.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. I should like to emphasise that product placement is not permitted under the sponsorship rules. The point the noble Lord makes is one that is widely recognised and in this country owes its origin to the European television without frontiers directive which specifically points out the essential requirement that editorial and programming control is separated from the sponsor.
Council Flat Owners: Financial Assistance
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What plans they have to provide financial assistance to people who purchased the council houses or flats in which they lived and who now find themselves in financial difficulties as a result.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government intend shortly to issue directions to social landlords which will enable them--and in certain cases require them--to reduce charges in some cases to those who are in particular difficulties with high service charges.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that I am talking about people who in good faith bought the council properties in which they were living? Is he further aware that the numbers are growing so much that we are talking in terms of thousands of elderly people who, in the main, purchased flats and are living in them. In some places a block of flats has been bought in that manner. The owners now find themselves faced with bills of between £10,000 and £15,000 for remedial treatment and repairs, and there is no possibility of selling those flats. They are trapped in them. Could not the Government think up some scheme to provide some financial help for the owners of those properties? If they do not, those properties may well be lost to this country's housing stock.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord did not find my Answer as helpful as I thought he would think it was. Some people who have bought council houses, or flats in particular, find considerable difficulty with high service charges. I agree with him that there are certain people who are old and who find themselves in trouble. The local authorities can buy back those houses or flats, particularly if people are old and may become homeless. It may be cost-effective for them to do so. There is also an exchange sale scheme under which the Government give local authorities
concessions to encourage them to buy back houses or flats at the original right-to-buy price, provided that they offer the people another property.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the generous discounts given to former council tenants who bought their own houses or flats mean that comparatively few of them are suffering from negative equity? Does he further agree that it would be wrong to single out one class of owner-occupier on whom to use taxpayers' money? Finally, does he agree that the Government's policy of selling council houses has been extremely successful in view of the fact that nearly 70 per cent. of the population are owner-occupiers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing your Lordships' attention to that matter. He is right that few people are caught by this. Of some 200,000 flat owners--those who have purchased their council flats--only 2 per cent. could not sell because the purchaser could not obtain a mortgage. We produce a booklet on the right to buy. That booklet warns tenants of the costs of buying, service charge costs and the possible difficulty in selling the flats. We warn that expert independent advice should be taken, and tenants should think carefully before they buy. With regard to my noble friend's remarks about people being house owners, he is again of course right. In fact, 2.1 million council tenants have bought their properties since 1979 and become house owners. That is a creditable figure.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page