Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 3 February 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].


Digital Economy Bill [HL]

The Government hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, will withdraw his amendment when he has probed further on this issue, although I think we have covered these issues under previous amendments. In the Digital Britain White Paper, we made it clear that C4C’s current public service remit, limited as it is to the Channel 4 television service, is now too television-centric for the role that C4C should play in Britain’s digital media. We consider it has a role to play subject to the obligations which it enjoys as regards its television production. The Government believe that C4C has a vital role to play in offering public service competition to the BBC. I want to emphasise that fact, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam re-emphasised that Channel 4 does not receive public money and so it is in a proper position to compete with the BBC, which receives the licence fee. As the wider content market evolves, with changing technology and audience expectations, C4C needs to exploit new media to maximise its public service contribution. My noble friend Lord Puttnam gave an illustration of that. If C4C does not offer content to viewers in the formats and on the platforms that best suit them, their ability to contribute to the overall public service offering will inevitably diminish and the organisation itself will be increasingly marginalised. C4C has the right to expect the opportunity to participate in the new digital age. It has been suggested that encouraging C4C to engage in new media operations will inhibit the development of commercial alternatives. Surely, those are displaced. First, C4C will be in the marketplace like the other competitors and will have to compete on an equal footing with them, with the fully commercial alternatives. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam emphasised in the debate on the previous amendment, C4C does not have its own in-house production, so in new media, as in television, its business model relies on partnership with independent producers. So we have a model of participation in the market which is fair and square. The amendment would not prevent C4C providing online or other new media content under its existing powers. However, it would affect C4C’s new media activities by exempting it from the public service focus provided by the clause as drafted. That would diminish the public value of C4C’s new media initiatives. I am quite sure that the public would regard it as such. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that no advantages are being given to C4C. It does not receive public funds; it is in the marketplace like others; but it would be governed by its remit. That ought to commend it to all parts of the House and I hope it commends it to the noble Lord, Lord Howard.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c240-1 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children BBC Broadcasting Computer networks Broadcasting programmes Commercial broadcasting Channel Four Television Communication Digital technology Hearing impairment Finance Fees and charges EU law Film Equipment Internet Journalism Motor vehicles Public appointments Older people Recycling Political impartiality Public service broadcasting Ofcom Radio frequencies Radio Local broadcasting Visual impairment Registration Road traffic Waste disposal Television channels Satellite broadcasting Teletext Channel Three Digital switchover help scheme Global navigation satellite systems Television licences
Legislation
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk