---

Local Digital Television Programme Services Order 2012

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the two statutory instruments. The theory behind local TV is laudable; people are interested in what is happening in their local community and should be encouraged to become more knowledgeable and play a part as active citizens, including holding their local representatives to account. If local TV can successfully go some way to achieving those objectives, then it should be supported and welcomed. However, decisions like these are not made in isolation: we also have to look at the wider context—particularly as in this case, where there is public money involved through the proposed subsidy from the BBC. In particular, I would like to explore further whether the demand for this service really exists. Would the service stand any real likelihood of long-term success once the subsidy is removed? Would a local TV service have a negative impact on existing local media outlets? Are there any adverse media ownership and plurality issues? What guarantees of quality would really exist when the scheme is up and running? First, I would like some further evidence that there is sufficient demand for local TV to make it viable. The Minister said—and it is recorded in the impact assessment—that the Ofcom research identified that 80 per cent of people rate local news as important. I do not doubt that to be the case. However, does this not need to be measured against the evidence of consumer behaviours where local TV has been on offer in the past? The previous experiments with local TV in the UK have all failed, in part because they could not sustain the viewing figures. At the same time, local newspapers around the country are closing or being produced less often. Surely if there really was sufficient demand, this would not be the case. Given that the Government have supposedly championed evidence-based policy, I am surprised that the department has not carried out more specific research into demand for this model of local TV. The Minister referred to extensive research. I should like more information about that. For example, what proportion of the local population do we know would seek out one or two hours of local TV programmes on a channel on which the overwhelming level of content was unconnected to the local area? Is there a preferred time for local programmes and can these slots be guaranteed when they will be competing with more commercial productions in primetime? If we do not know the answers to these questions, would it not have been safer to pilot the initiative in one or two cities rather than roll out the scheme nationally to 20 providers and then a further 24 conurbations with the associated costs? What research exists and what reassurance can the Minister give us that the scheme is viable? Secondly, I should like to pursue the issue of the longer-term sustainability of these programmes. As we know, the BBC is providing £40 million over four years, including £25 million start-up costs. As I understand it, this money will be used to set up the infrastructure of the multiplex system, the licensing system and local production start-up costs. Meanwhile, the report from Nicholas Shott identified that, in the longer term, local TV would probably be delivered by internet protocol TV—the Minister made reference to this—and this is a widely held industry view. This begs the question of why we are investing so many of our scarce resources in a local TV system which will be overtaken by changes in digital technology almost before it has had time to become established. Would we not have been better off working with the sector to embrace these changes and be prepared for a new digital age rather than setting up what appears to be a convoluted bidding system, which will then have to go through an awkward transition into the eventual internet protocol scheme? Incidentally, the Shott report also places great emphasis on the viability of local TV depending on high listing in electronic programme guides—again, the Minister made reference to this. I know that we are not debating this today, but I am not sure that that would be easy to achieve, as the listing system is highly competitive and there are other worthy candidates for front-page listing. I am not sure that we can guarantee that local TV stations would be given a listing on the first page of EPGs. Thirdly, I should like to explore further the impact of the proposals on existing local media outlets. The reason that many local newspapers are struggling is that advertising revenues are down, as people switch to the internet to access details of local shops and services. I understand the argument that some businesses might be more attracted to advertise on, let us say, Brighton local TV than on Meridian TV, as the catchment area is more aligned to the smaller Brighton area, but we are talking about the same consumers who no longer read the Brighton Argus or look for adverts in it. I am not sure that it would make commercial sense. How will existing media outlets, including local newspapers and commercial radio, avoid fighting over a declining pool of advertising revenue, putting them all at greater commercial risk? This brings me on to ownership and plurality. In a number of debates in your Lordships' House, there has been a cross-party consensus that plurality in media ownership is the bedrock of a healthy democracy. On the face of it, local TV could add to that diversity, which would be welcome, but is there not a danger that it could have the opposite effect? The relaxation of the cross-media rules, combined with more intense local competition for market share, could result in one organisation or one person controlling all the local commercial media outlets—newspapers, radio and TV. The Shott report seemed to suggest that this would be welcome, as there could be pooling of news gathering and advertising resources. Is that a potential or desirable outcome? Perhaps the Minister can clarify what controls will be in place to guarantee local plurality. That brings me to my next point, which is about quality and standards. The proposals make great play of the role of local TV in strengthening local democracy and holding local representatives to account. Of course we are keen to encourage appropriate measures that inform and inspire people to play a greater part in their local communities, but if there is a threat of a monopoly control of local news and current affairs, can we really be assured that the rules of impartiality will be applied fairly across the board? Can the Minister clarify how the total 24-hour output of the new channels will be regulated? On the one hand, there are the factual news programmes, and I understand that the rules of impartiality will apply to them. Then there is the other local coverage of, say, one or two hours a day, which Ofcom foresees as stimulating cultural identity and local democracy. That could cover sensitive issues. How will it be regulated and the channels held to account? As I understand it, the remaining output of the channel may cover, say, 22 hours a day—in other words, the vast bulk of the output—which is not envisaged necessarily to be local in nature. Apart from a ban on pornography, are there any other restrictions on what can be shown? How can we be assured that there will be any commitment to quality programmes in the main programme outputs of the day, which, after all, we are effectively subsidising? Finally, I have a specific question about the decision to include London in the first tranche of sites. Is it intended that the London licence will be coterminous with the existing London regional news output? Is the idea that they will go head to head? Although the London local TV slot will, I am sure, be one of the most commercially desirable, I struggle to see how it can play a part in the objective to help struggling local community development when it is covering such a wide area. Perhaps the Minister can explain the thinking behind that. In conclusion, I do not object in principle to the concept of local TV. As I said at the outset, any initiative which seeks to build on local democracy should be welcomed. Depending on the answers that the Minister can give today, I remain concerned that the proposals have not been properly researched, that it will not be commercially viable in the longer term, that it could have a negative impact on other local media outlets and that the government subsidy could have been better spent. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say on those issues.