Voice of the Listener and Viewer (VLV) represents the citizen and consumer interest
in broadcasting and works for quality and diversity in British broadcasting.

I am very glad to be here - though to be asked to address the Future of Broadcasting is quite a challenge.  To be following David Elstein perhaps an even bigger one.  But David is at least consistent.  I met him for the first time at the Edinburgh Television Festival in 1985. 

Mrs Thatcher had just appointed  Professor Peacock to lead an enquiry into the future funding of the BBC. Contrary to her expectations, Peacock and his colleagues proved a grave disappointment for, in an act of what still looks like pure heroism, they defied her desire to abolish the licence-fee and force the BBC to depend upon advertising revenue for its funding. David - who was not a member of the committee - came out with an alternative, the then revolutionary idea that the BBC should be funded by subscription.   The debate continues. 

But it does so in an utterly different world.  In 1985 the aspiration was multi-channel delivery by satellite and cable. Digital was unknown.  Now, more than 40% of UK households have access to digital  -  the highest take-up of digital in the European Union. The future is digital and its multi channel.

Digital satellite is obviously a success, with 6.5 million subscribers.  Cable is at last getting its act together.  Despite what David said the take-up for Free view is very encouraging.  
Last week’s results show that Freeview is appealing to those who hae so far been most resistant to multi channel pay services - the over 50’s.  That’s very good news.  

VLV supports all three digital platforms and recognises that they are all necessary and complementary to each other.  But Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) still has advantages over the others and we believe it is essential to the public good that it should succeed.  

The Digital Stakeholders Group which the DCMS and DTI set up 2 years ago brings together all the interested parties, sometimes in an uneasy alliance, because of conflicting interests.   But the Group has made progress and the Digital Television Group, a British industry alliance has also done much good work.  But if real progress is now to be made the government must contribute more than simple rhetoric.  If it wants to achieve a smooth switch-over by 2010, the Government cannot expect the industry and consumer groups to make all the running or foot the whole bill 

Yesterday, therefore, VLV welcomed the announcement by the new Minister that the DCMS is setting up an Expert Group to advise Ministers on consumer issues relating to analogue switch-off.  Lord McIntosh spoke very positively.  He acknowledged earlier faults and made it clear that the new Expert Group would be different in many respects from the earlier Viewers’ Panel, and that it will be influential.  

The Group will have two main tasks:

a) to help review the criteria for switch-over - not to water them down, but to refine and clarify them; and 

b) to produce a report which will be included in the consultation the Government intends to launch in 2004.  He assured us that the Group would be given resource to enable it to do its work, including funding for some research and he gave a commitment that the Group would be consulted before any major decisions on switch over are taken.  The Group will include representatives from the Consumers’ Association, the National Consumer Council, VLV, RNID and RNIB. And I understand it will be independent with an independent chairman. VLV will be glad to work on the Group and in other ways to ensure a successful transition to switch off. 

We are glad that Lord McIntosh confirmed that the Government has not changed the three criteria for switch-off set by Chris Smith in 1999: Availability, Accessibility and Affordability, or changing its policy from criteria based to a date objective.    

I am not going to pick up on David’s detailed critique of digital terrestrial at such short notice, although I do not agree with many of his points.  Where I do agree with him is that there is no benefit in switch-off by itself.  I do see benefits for the nation in exploiting digital technology, but it will need Government to take a practical lead if we are all to benefit from the technical lead which, I understand, the UK has in DTT, or certainly had a couple of years ago.

Now, I have been asked to comment today on four specific aspects of the future from the viewer’s perspective - the citizen and consumer’s perspective. 

Heightening the awareness of developments in British broadcasting is the first. 

A major difference between today and twenty years ago when VLV was born, is that there was no recognition then that viewers might want, or should be given much information, or  any right to make a positive input into broadcasting decisions.  And I think VLV can claim much of the credit for putting the citizen and consumer voice in broadcasting on the map.  

Public consultation on key issues is now taken for granted, whether it is about the future of the BBC or a standards code for OFCOM.  But was virtually unknown either in the UK or at European level before VLV began its operations. In 1985, at the time of the Peacock Inquiry, no one bothered to ask whether the audience was aware of developments in British broadcasting.   

Yet it is crucially important that the public is aware and broadly supportive of, the rapid changes in broadcast regulation and in technology if they are to succeed..
Because unless the public does understand, for instance,  the benefits and reasons for changing from analogue to digital technology, any hopes the Government may have of achieving an easy switch-over by 2010 will be dashed.

And the public is NOT aware.   I speak at many events.  Some are industry occasions like this, where you can expect most people to be well-briefed.  But I also speak at many other kinds of meeting, large and small, around the country: Rotary and Probus Clubs, Women’s Institutes and Townswomen’s Guilds, Sixth Forms conferences and so on. And at those meetings, while a few know something about digital but scarcely anyone has heard of the Communications Bill or the Government’s plans for the future of broadcasting.  

When I tell them, and explain some of the proposals in the Bill, for example those to change the rules on media ownership, they are appalled that such far-reaching, irrevocable changes could be  planned - and in some cases are already being implemented - without their being aware of it.   When they do find out - after the event, when it is too late - the backlash will be horrendous and could, I believe, even bring down the government.  

Ministers claim that there has been an extensive process of consultation over the past two or three years.  But consultation as it is frequently practised, is not necessarily synonymous with disseminating information. .In reality political debate rarely impinges on the everyday lives of ordinary people - witness the turnout for recent elections.  The voluntary sector generally picks up the tab and bears much of the burden of informing citizens about current developments, but it is always hampered by a lack of resources and can never balance the assiduous lobbying by the well-paid and well-resourced consultants so prevalent today.

This information gap which most politicians just do not recognise is most clearly shown by the public’s lack of understanding of the Communications Bill.  Yet nothing is more critical to the survival of our culture and democratic society in Britain. 

It is funny how Government priorities work.  Again, think back to the 80’s, to ‘Sid’ and the £26 million Mrs Thatcher’s Government spent in making sure that Sid knew how to buy shares in newly privatised British Gas.  And the difference between that and  broadcasting proposals that could change the face of British radio and television forever.  

The Thatcher government and this Government use press releases to get the message out.  And leave it to the Stationery Office to publish essential consultation documents at commercial rates.  For the benefit of those of you who have not had to buy your own copies, the draft Communications Bill last year cost over £75 and the latest of four updates of the Communications Bill, costs £33.50, a striking example of democratic accessibility.. 

The public simply does know about the Bill or how different the face of British broadcasting will be if it is passed in its present form.   The distinction between broadcasting here and in the United States will largely disappear, except in regard to ownership. 

The Americans are fiercely protective of their theirs but this Act will permit any non-European interests  to acquire British media companies, including ITV and Channel 5.  The main target is the North American multi-national corporations who are rooted in a totally different tradition, who have little respect for the idea of a public interest in broadcasting and who frequently and  openly ridicule the principles of public service in broadcasting as we know it in Britain.  It is a change which will at one stroke threaten the integrity of a broadcasting culture that has been developed over nearly three-quarters of a century and although by no means perfect, is still widely admired here and overseas.

The proposal to allow any newspaper owner to buy Channel 5 will bring a further concentration of cross-media ownership, and so dangerously reduce the sources of information and outlets for free expression, with serious implications for the future of British democracy. 

Isn’t it ironic that fifty years after breaking of the BBC’s monopoly in order to increase freedom of expression, among other things, the present Government should appear hell-bent on restricting it?

This Bill marks the end of a regulatory system which has put the public interest and the values of public service broadcasting above of the interests of the market: precisely the opposite of the priorities set in the United States.  In these islands we have done things differently: not necessarily better - but a different system developed for a  different society.  If you now change that ethos by introducing foreign owners, -  Who can say with any confidence what the future will hold?  Or what will happen to our cultural and democratic heritage?

Some people are always resistant to change. But most will accept it if the reasons are properly explained, and if evidence is produced to support the expected benefits, either for themselves or for the nation as whole.   Yet, despite many requests, Ministers have not provided any evidence of benefits they assert will flow from importing American money and business expertise.  Is it as elusive as the weapons of mass destruction?  Why, astonishingly, have they not even attempted to gain reciprocal access for British companies to the United States market in return.  

Second point : What do viewers and listeners want from broad casting ?
They want choice, - true choice of a variety of programmes and services at times they can watch and enjoy them.   They want quality, reliability and the ability to trust the broadcasters, to know, if they are watching a news bulletin or a serious documentary, that it has been produced with authority and integrity.  That the reporting is impartial, not coloured by the proprietors’ political views. Factors we have largely enjoyed, and taken for granted, in Britain until now. But which could now be at risk if reports of US media behaviour during the Iraq war is true.

Viewers want to feel that programmes have been designed for them -  made with their  interests at heart, that they are not being treated as mere consumers  whose value lies only in their spending power. I make no apology that this brings us back to the principles of public service broadcasting.  And public service broadcasting is not just about the BBC.  Important though the BBC is, I am concentrating today on commercially funded radio and television because that is what is covered mainly by the Bill.  PSB is about delivering programmes to listeners and viewers, not about delivering listeners and viewers to advertisers and sponsors.  

Which is why it is wrong to talk about the market in broadcasting.  It is we you and I as individuals - who are the commodities being traded, it is our eyes and ears which are being leased by the broadcasters to the advertisers for the duration of the advertisements. Advertisers say they want quality programmes to carry the audience from one set of commercials to the next, they also want viewers with deep pockets and easy spending habits, which automatically discounts many older people, many women, and anyone on a low income..

Viewers also want reliable technology which they can use with ease, safe in the knowledge that their personal information is secure and will not be sold to others or used to target them with unwanted commercial offers.  They want an easy to use epg that will help them navigate in the digital world. If they wish to limit their children’s viewing that they can keep them in one trusted walled garden.  On the other hand if they themselves wish to surf around at other times there must be an exit to give them the freedom to do so.  

The third point is the  need for investment to increase  content and choice.
 Investment is crucial to high quality in broadcasting but investment that comes from a different broadcasting tradition will have very different effects.  Investment in the absence of effective regulation, is not directly linked to the provision of more choice, but to the creation of profits for the company’s shareholders which may be very different Competition in broadcasting often leads to the scheduling of almost identical programme against each other.  It led to less innovation and risk taking as everyone tries to maximise audience size.  

In Britain with wise regulation in the public interest,  we have been fortunate: British broadcasters have invested more heavily in original content than those in probably any other country. Under current licence requirements, our terrestrial broadcasters are required to invest heavily in a wide variety of original, indigenous, programmes, including regional programmes. They also support a thriving independent sector. 

But the market has been skewed in recent years by the growth in satellite and cable channels now targeting UK audiences and ITV particularly has suffered. The non terrestrial channels are not obliged to invest in original UK production and ignore quotas set by the European Directive. I believe it is high time that they were made to do so. 

They are mostly now well-established, and most have parent companies well able to bear added costs. Some of their most aggressive targeting is directed at children, and it is homes with children that have the highest multi-channel penetration.   Which has huge implications for the future of British cultural identity.  

Did any of you see the report from West Sussex firemen last year who were so dismayed when they asked a class of children what number they should dial in an emergency and more than half replied 911.  They had learnt the American number because they spent so much time watching soaps and cartoons on satellite channels.  Just think of the implications  -  what else they are learning - and not learning - that you and I take for granted and which is part of their birthright as future citizens of this country.  .

Finally: How will regulatory change affect the consumer?  

Under present British regulation, as I have said, our terrestrial commercial broadcasters are governed by many  positive public service obligations in regard to the quality, range and origin of the programmes they broadcast.  Their primary duty and intention is to tailor them for British audiences.  Which means using a British not a mid Atlantic voice over, British actors, music, language, values and locations.  Some of these may be unknown or unintelligible to audiences overseas but British audiences enjoy them, they reinforce and maintain our cultural identity, and they benefit the British audio visual industry, jobs and economy.  But it is often impossible to measure their value in terms of exports or library shelf-life.

Some of our most valued programmes, especially those for children, are the most ephemeral ones - news and magazine programmes, contemporary drama, in the vernacular even with regional accents, topical documentaries, and live programmes with no export potential at all.  They all cost money to produce but do not necessarily have the potential to recoup any of that money from sales on the international market. 

These are the kinds of programmes which public service broadcasting led by the BBC, but by no means only the BBC, produces; and which regulation now ensures that we get.  They are also the kinds of programmes which will be most at risk under lighter regulation and under foreign owners who will be looking for programmes that will be equally acceptable to global audiences, which have shelf life, will contribute to library stock, are not culturally specific, easy to dub into other languages, and so on.   

The BBC is central to the quality of British broadcasting but good regulation of commercially funded broadcasting is the other bedrock on which the quality, integrity and diversity of British broadcasting has been built.  And on which it will depend in future.  

Whether it is the programmes themselves, or the way in which viewers and listeners are treated, the ethos of the regulators and the rules they set will be crucial to the continuance of trust in the relationship between the broadcasters and the public.  
 
Broadcasting regulation is much more than simply protecting the vulnerable consumer or child from harmful content and practices.  It is about governing an industry which has the power to influence our cultural life, our democracy and our social mores.  It is far too important to be left to the mercy of the so-called market, to competition, or to owners who neither live in this country nor care about its quality of life.  

If that is the future the government insists on introducing then we and our broadcasting services will be the poorer for it, in every possible way.  And this government will go down in history as the one that destroyed a system and an industry which is widely recognised as one of Britain’s best.

End

For further information, contact: Linda Forbes or Jocelyn Hay. 
Tel: (00)1474-352835; Fax:  (00)1474-351112.

Sorry, we do not have the resources to handle individual programme complaints. If you have a complaint about a programme please click here