|
THE PUBLIC MATTERS
Observations and Reservations about the
2002 Draft Communications Bill – submitted to the Joint Committee of both
Houses of Parliament set up to scrutinise the Draft Communications Bill
which was presented to Parliament by the Secretaries of State for Culture,
Media and Sport, and For Trade and Industry, on 7th May.
Responses should be sent to communicationsbill.gov.uk
by 2nd August 2002, or to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport, 2-4 Cockspur Street, London SW1Y.
The Draft Bill may be viewed and downloaded
from the government website: www.communicationsbill.gov.uk
VLV was invited to give oral evidence to
the Committee's hearing which took place at 10.45am on Thursday, 27 June.
Professor Vincent Porter spoke tor VLV.
The Public Matters
1. The Draft Communications Bill
provides the UK's regulatory framework for the emerging information society.
Crucially, it establishes the rights of the nation's citizens to access
information and ideas, construed in their widest sense. It will shape
their awareness of, and their ability to participate in, the democratic
process; it will inform them and enable them to understand the significant
changes that are taking place in British society; and it will afford them
access to, and the ability to take pleasure in, both the nation's cultural
heritage and its contemporary expressions of art and emotion. Given
the democratic, social and cultural importance of public service broadcasting,
as the Amsterdam Protocol to the Treaty of Rome describes it, VLV 's comments
and observations are largely confined to the Draft Bill's regulatory framework
for public service broadcasting, but also refer to the proposed Content
Board.
1.1 VLV is disturbed that the Draft
Bill uses several terms to describe members of the public. We, the British
people, are variously described as 'customers' (ss. 3(7) and 257), 'persons'
(ss. 3(2)(d), 16 and 97(4)), citizens of the European Union (s. 4(5)) and
'members of the public' (ss. 12(1)(a) and (b) and 109(9)). Moreover, OFCOM's
duties appear to take no account of the democratic, social and cultural
interests of UK citizens. VLV therefore suggests that s. 3(1)(a) of the
Draft Bill should read: to further the democratic, social and cultural
interests of UK citizens and the persons who are customers for the services
and facilities in relation to which OFCOM has functions;
Programmes Matter
2. Programmes matter ... to everyone.
This is why people watch television and listen to the radio. Programmes
afford freedom of expression to every citizen by providing them with access
to information and ideas.
2.1 As the 1994 Ministerial Resolution
of the Council of Europe on Public Service Broadcasting (to which the UK
is a signatory) observes, public service broadcasters provide, 'through
their programming, a reference- point for all members of the public and
a factor for social cohesion and integration of all individuals, groups
and communities.'
2.2 Moreover, because of the democratic,
social and cultural contributions that public service broadcasting makes
to civic life, the Treaty of Rome allows public service broadcasters to
benefit from state aid. As the Commission of the European Communities
observed last year in the Official Journal of the European Communities,
broadcasting represents 'for a not inconsiderable proportion of the population,
the main source of information. It thus enriches public debate and ultimately
ensures that all citizens participate to a fair degree in public life.'
[Communication from the Commission on the Application of State Aid Rules
to Public Service Broadcasting, C 320, 15 November 2001, 5-11, para. 8.]
2.3 Today, public service broadcasting
not only informs, educates and entertains Britain's citizens, it also establishes
connections with them. Although a good programme may fulfil all four functions
simultaneously, it is nevertheless valuable to classify public service
programmes according to their civic functions, as they are spelt out in
the Council of Europe's Ministerial Resolution on Public Service Broadcasting.
(a) The Democratic Role of Public Service
Broadcasting
2(a).1 The Ministerial Resolution
on Public Service Broadcasting requires public service broadcasters to:
broadcast impartial and independent news, information and comment.
2(a).2 VLV therefore welcomes the
Government's intention to regulate the provision of news programmes and
current affairs programmes by public service broadcasters (Draft Bill,
s.191). VLV is concerned to note, however, that the Bill does not
propose to require news and current affairs programmes to be independent
of Government. VLV believes that independence is especially important
to ensure, first, that listeners and viewers continue to consider television
news particularly trustworthy and, secondly, that news programmes and current
affairs programmes together provide a platform for informed debate, allowing
viewers to make informed decisions as citizens. VLV considers that
a requirement for independence of Government in the provision of these
programmes should be included in the Bill.
2(a).3 The Ministerial Resolution on Public
Service Broadcasting also requires public service broadcasters to:
provide a forum for public discussion in which as broad a spectrum as possible
of views and opinions can be expressed.'
The Government's proposals take no account
of this specific mission for public service broadcasters. To some
degree, the regulatory arrangements would be improved if public service
broadcasting news and current affairs programmes were required to be independent
of Government, as proposed above. But, even so, UK viewers are not
guaranteed access to the broadest possible spectrum of information and
ideas. VLV submits that the Communications Bill should specifically
require public service broadcasters to include this responsibility as part
of the diversity to which they are to be committed in their national and
regional programmes.
(b) The Social Role of Public Service Broadcasting
2(b).1 The Ministerial Resolution
on Public Service Broadcasting requires public broadcasters to 'reject
any cultural, sexual, religious or racial discrimination and any form of
social segregation.' It also requires them to: 'develop and structure programme
schedules and services of interest to a wide public while being attentive
to the needs of minority groups.'
2(b).2 VLV considers that these requirements
are potentially covered by ss. 181(3)(a)and (b) and s.181(5)(f) of the
Draft Communications Bill. On the other hand, the text of the Draft
Bill is very slippery in its definition of a public service broadcaster.
S.181((3) outlines general requirements for public service television broadcasting,
which only have to be 'taken together', presumably across several services
which include the BBC. The UK will therefore move from a public broadcasting
system which offers viewers a choice of several public service broadcasting
channels to one that only offers viewers a single public broadcasting system.
This reduction to a single system of public service broadcasting presumably
implies a reduction in the overall volume of public service broadcasting
programmes. For instance, the new formulation would appear to imply
that the needs of the religious could be reduced to a single religious
programme broadcast on Sundays. Furthermore, OFCOM is only required
to 'have regard to the desirability of' fulfilling the eight detailed requirements
outlined in s. 181 (5), each of which again have to be 'taken together'
across all the public service broadcasters. This seems to imply that
OFCOM will have virtually no power to require a commercially-financed public
service broadcaster to broadcast a genre of programme which is being broadcast
elsewhere, for instance by the BBC.
2(b).3 Although VLV recognises that
this single public broadcasting system could theoretically be better and
richer than the sum of those services offered by the public service channels
which are currently available, we submit that, given the drive for increased
competition between broadcasters for the lucrative middle ground, this
approach is likely to narrow, rather than broaden, the overall range and
diversity of programmes available to viewers. Indeed, unbridled competition
for advertising revenues is the enemy of programme innovation and diversity.
Disturbingly, the new formulation of public service broadcasting implicitly
appears to recognise that an increase in channel choice may well lead to
a reduction in programme choice.
2(b).4 VLV is also concerned that
the Secretary of State retains powers under s. 188 of the Draft Bill to
modify the public service remit for any licensed public service channel,
the public teletext service, or indeed for any of the provisions specified
under subsections (3), (4) and (5) of s. 181. The consultation arrangements
for any such proposed change, as spelt out in s.188, are restricted to
a very narrow group of people, consisting of OFCOM, the Secretary of State,
such public service broadcasters as OFCOM or the Secretary of State considers
likely to be affected (or if relevant, the public teletext provider) and
finally both Houses of Parliament. Thus, paradoxically, it is proposed
that any change in the provision of a public service may be agreed, without
consulting either the public or any organisations representing the public's
interest in broadcasting.
2(b).5 The new approach to public
service broadcasting enshrined in the Draft Bill also significantly weakens
the manner in which the UK fulfils its current obligations to the Council
of Europe, and to the European Union Although the Council of Europe's
Ministerial Resolution on Public Service Broadcasting only requires each
signatory state to provide a single radio and a single television public
broadcasting channel, there is no provision in the Resolution for the public
service broadcasters' mission to be fulfilled by several organisations
(taken together) across a series of channels. It would appear unavoidable,
if an effective public service broadcasting operation is to be sustained,
that OFCOM will be drawn into issues of scheduling on all the services
involved.
2(b).6 Furthermore, although the
European Commission has agreed, since the Amsterdam summit, that the precise
definition of public service broadcasting is a subsidiarity issue which
can be defined by a Member State within very broadly defined parameters,
nevertheless, the Commission does require that if a public service broadcaster
is to benefit from state aid, in whatever form that aid is granted, such
aid 'must not affect trading conditions and competition in the [European]
Community to an extent which would be contrary to the common interest,
while the realisation of the remit of that public service shall be taken
into account.'
2(b).7. VLV therefore considers that
there are two further difficulties with the Government's proposed approach.
The first is that nowhere, in the draft legislation, is there a requirement
for any single public service broadcaster, not even the BBC, to fulfil
the undertaking given by the UK to the Council of Europe. The second
arises from the proposal to allow both OFCOM and the Secretary of State
almost total flexibility to redefine the programming obligations of each
public service broadcaster a number of times. This proposal is at
odds with the UK's obligations under the Treaty of Rome not to award state
aid to a public service broadcaster in a way which distorts trading conditions
in a manner contrary to the common interest.
2(b).8 VLV submits that the following
would be a better approach to regulate programme content. The Government
should set down a minimum number of duties which have to be undertaken
and fulfilled by every broadcaster designated as a public service broadcaster
and may be said to benefit from any form of state aid. These would
include all of the aims specified in the Ministerial Resolution of the
Council of Europe. The responsibility to fulfil all these duties would
also justify any state aid received by an individual public service broadcaster,
whatever its form. In addition, individual public service broadcasters
could agree with OFCOM to make further regular annual commitments against
a set of additional public service targets, which (if taken together) would
improve their annual performance and thus extend the range and diversity
and improve the quality of programmes available to listeners and viewers.
Amendments to ss.180-198 of the Draft Bill would be necessary.
2(b).9 The Ministerial Resolution
on Public Service Broadcasting requires public service broadcasters to
'reflect the different philosophical ideas and religious beliefs in society,
with the aim of strengthening mutual understanding and tolerance and promoting
community relations in pluriethnic and multicultural societies.'
VLV is concerned that the emphasis in
the Ministerial Resolution on strengthening mutual understanding and tolerance
and promoting community relations, is not really caught by the formulation
in ss. 181(5) (e) and (g) of the Draft Communications Bill, which merely
talk about 'dealing with' and 'reflecting the lives and concerns of' different
sections of society. In VLV's opinion, an appropriate amendment should
be made to this effect.
The Cultural Role of Public Service
Broadcasting
2(c).1 The Ministerial Resolution
on Public Service Broadcasting requires public service broadcasters 'to
contribute actively through their programming to a greater appreciation
and dissemination of the diversity of national and European cultural heritage.'
VLV is concerned that s. 181(5)(b) of
the Draft Communications Bill refers only to 'cultural activity in the
United Kingdom' and omits any reference to the cultural heritage of either
the UK or other areas of Europe. VLV therefore suggests that an appropriate
amendment should be made to it.
2(c).2 The Ministerial Resolution
on Public Service Broadcasting also requires public service broadcasters
to 'ensure that the programmes offered contain a significant proportion
of original productions, especially feature films, drama and other creative
works, and to have regard to the need to use independent producers and
co-operate with the cinema sector.'
VLV notes that the formulation in s. 181(5)(b),
that 'cultural activity in the United Kingdom ... [is] reflected, supported
and stimulated by the representation in those services (taken together)
of drama, comedy and music and by the treatment of other visual and performing
arts', makes no reference to the requirement in the Council of Europe resolution
that 'the programmes contain a significant proportion of original productions.'
The obligations to reflect, support and stimulate cultural activity could
be interpreted by the proposed OFCOM Content Board merely to refer to documentary
programmes about drama, comedy or musical activity in the UK, or to the
potential publicity value of a well-timed broadcast about a private sector
activity.
2(c).3 Although the formulation in
s. 190 of the Draft Communications Bill requiring the proposed OFCOM Content
Board to require every licensed public service channel to broadcast an
appropriate proportion of original productions, it avoids any specific
reference to the genres to be represented. While the absence of specificity
may allow the Content Board almost total flexibility in taking its decisions,
its absence will not reassure audiences in the UK about the future under
OFCOM of original feature films, drama productions, children's programmes
or other creative works. Moreover, it signifies both a failure to
observe the letter of the undertakings that the UK gave to the Council
of Europe and a potential lack of regard for the continuing ability of
the creative community in Britain to contribute to the cultural fabric
of viewers' everyday lives. VLV suggests that amendments are needed
to ss.181(5)(b) and 190 to impose on public service broadcasters the full
weight of the Ministerial Resolution.
Channels Matter
3. Channels Matter ... because they offer
listeners and viewers a choice of broadcasting services. Although
free market competition can increase viewer choice, it can also reduce
diversity, especially in broadcasting where there is a strong inherent
tendency to monopoly. For this reason, ever since the mid-1950s,
viewers have enjoyed regulated competition between public service broadcasters.
The main aspects of regulation concerned the range and diversity of programmes
transmitted by the broadcasters (discussed above) and the lack of competition
for sources of finance.
3.1 In general, the BBC continues
to enjoy a guaranteed source of finance for its programmes and, like VLV
itself, most viewers and listeners will be pleased by the Culture Secretary's
indication that this is likely to be prolonged well into the new century.
A MORI poll, conducted in 199 for the Davies Report on The Future Funding
of the BBC, found that over 70 per cent of licence payers were satisfied
or better with the BBC; and that over two thirds of GCSE students used
the BBC website. (Davies Report, Chairman's foreword, pp. 18-19)
3.2 The financial future for commercially-
funded public service broadcasters is less rosy. The nation's advertising
expenditure is currently in decline and the competition for revenues from
advertising and programme sponsorship, combined with increases in shareholder
dividends, has narrowed programme choice for viewers and listeners.
In 1999, viewers considered that in only three out of fourteen programme
genres - soap operas, daytime chat shows and game shows - were the commercially-funded
public service broadcasters outperforming the BBC. (Davies Report, ibid.)
3. If listeners and viewers are to
continue to benefit from regulated competition in the field of public service
broadcasting, OFCOM will need to ensure that commercially-financed public
service broadcasters invest an increased proportion of their revenues in
a number of specific programme genres. Regrettably, the Government's
proposes to allow the commercially-funded public service broadcasters to
move towards self-regulation and co-regulation despite the low regard in
which many viewers (although presumably not the advertisers) hold their
programmes. VLV would like to see OFCOM exercising strengthened powers
to require commercially- funded public service broadcasters to invest in
a wide range of programme genres including indigenous children's programmes.
3.4 As noted above, VLV also considers
that every public service broadcaster as defined in s.181(10) of the Draft
Communications Bill, should be required to meet a minimum set of programming
standards, which would also entitle the broadcaster to benefit from any
state aid, as authorised under the Treaty of Rome as amended at Amsterdam.
Delivery Matters
4. Delivery matters to the public,
because the basic rationale for public service broadcasting is to enable
listeners and viewers to receive information and ideas, as provided for
by the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK's Human Rights Act.
Access of this kind is a fundamental necessity if democracy and active
citizenship are to survive in the information society.
4.1 Although it is the 'public service
broadcasters' which schedule, purchase and produce the programmes to inform,
educate and entertain the public, in fact the programmes are transmitted
to viewers by separate companies, described in s. 22 of the Draft Bill
as 'providers of electronic communications networks and services'.
It is these private companies that provide the communications infrastructure
on which broadcasters distribute their programmes to the public. Thus a
valid television licence only entitles the viewer to receive the signals
delivered by a provider of an electronic communications service on behalf
of authorised public service broadcasters. Not only does an individual
licence payer have no legal right to receive a television signal, but the
line of legal responsibility for the delivery of a broadcast signal has
now been divided between two, or on some occasions three, separate companies.
4.2 It is also essential for listeners
and viewers to receive public service programmes at a place which is convenient
for them. Holders of a current television licence resident in the
UK are licensed to install and use a television set: in the premises in
which they are resident; or in a vehicle, boat or caravan in which they
are touring from place to place, provided that they are not using television
at the same time in the premises for which they are licensed, or in any
other caravan. In addition, people may also watch television in premises
in which they are working or visiting, for which others already have a
valid licence. VLV considers that in future, listeners and viewers
should have the right to receive public service broadcasts in their own
homes and in any vehicle, boat or caravan in which they are touring.
They should also continue to be able watch television in premises on which
they are working or visiting for which others already have a valid licence.
4.3 VLV also notes that:
(i) ss. 151(3)(a) and 153(3)(a) of the
Draft Bill provide for the current licences to Channels 3, 4 and 5 to be
replaced with licences which envisage their services being broadcast in
digital form; (ii) s.151(3)(b) of the Draft Bill provides that the services
for Channel 3 and 5 shall appear to OFCOM to be services which are equivalent
in all material respects to the existing analogue services; while s.153(3)(b)
provides that the whole or part of the Channel 4 service will continue
to be provided in analogue form, until it is available in digital form.
Arrangements for BBC services appear to
fall outside the provisions of the Draft Bill.
4.4 As ss.22 and 50-53 of the Draft
Communications Bill establish regulations for electronic communication
networks and the obligations to be secured by universal service conditions.
There are however, two fundamental problems with the manner in which the
issues related to the delivery of broadcast signals have been formulated
in the Draft Bill. They are:
(i) There is no recognition in ss. 151
and 153 that the electro-magnetic characteristics of digital broadcasts
are markedly different - and in some respects (notably signal break- up)
inferior - to those of analogue broadcasts; and
(ii) The terms in which ss. 50-53 of the
Draft Bill are phrased provide no clear definition of what is meant by
the term 'universal service' in relation to broadcasting, although s. 52(8)
does allow OFCOM to impose 'performance targets' on designated universal
service providers.
4.5 VLV is concerned, however, that
there is no guarantee that listeners and viewers will continue to be able
to receive public service broadcasts free at the point of use via their
television aerial. VLV shares the opinion of the DCMS Viewers Panel
that in future, a valid television licence should guarantee access to free-to-air
digital television services on all equipment. [Digital Decisions: Viewer
Choice and Digital Television (Department of Culture, Media and Sport,
December 2001), para. 5.2.1]
4.6 VLV notes that s. 3.3 of the
Government's White Paper, A new future for communications (CM5010), promised
that the Government remained committed to ensuring that public service
television channels would be available to everyone, as now, free at the
point of consumption, both before and after the switchover to digital television.
According to s. 3.3.1 of the White Paper, this commitment would be delivered
via the BBC's Charter and Agreement, by maintaining similar requirements
on Channel 4 and continuing to give the regulator [i.e. OFCOM] powers to
impose transmission obligations on ITV and Channel 5. The second
part of this undertaking appears to have disappeared from the Draft Communications
Bill.
4.7 VLV also notes in this respect that
art. 32 of the Universal Service Directive of the European Parliament and
the European Council (Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002) allows Member
States to make additional services, apart from the basic telecommunications
services as defined in chapter II of the Universal Service Directive, universally
available in its own territory. In order to allow OFCOM to require
a public service broadcaster to provide a universal service to viewers,
VLV therefore considers that s. 51(2) of the Draft Bill should be amended
to read: "Subject to subsection (3), those regulations shall not authorise
the designation of a person, other than a communications provider or a
public service broadcaster as defined in s. 181(10) (below).
4.8 In order to ensure that sufficient
radio frequency spectrum is made available to public service broadcasters
to enable them to broadcast universal television multiplex services by
terrestrial transmission, VLV suggests that s. 113(2) of the Draft Bill
should be amended to read: 'It shall be the duty of OFCOM in the carrying
out of those functions to pay due regard to the important democratic, social
and cultural functions of public service broadcasters when exercising their
powers for this purpose, before conferring an entitlement falling within
subsection (3) on every provider of a qualifying service.'
4.9 Finally, article 34(1) of the
EU's Universal Service Directive requires Member States to ensure that
transparent, simple and inexpensive out-of-court procedures are available
for dealing with unresolved disputes relating to consumers or other end-
users, in regard to issues covered by the Directive. The Directive also
requires Member States to adopt measures to ensure that such procedures
enable disputes to be settled fairly and promptly and may, where warranted,
adopt a system of reimbursement and compensation. VLV therefore suggests
that clause 39(2)(a) of the Draft Bill should be amended to read: "the
handling of complaints made to public
communication providers by any of their domestic or small business customers,
or to public service broadcasters [as defined in s. 181(10)] by holders
of a valid television licence {as defined in ss.240 and 241]."
Access Matters
5. Access matters ... because the advent
of digital broadcasting will allow providers of electronic communication
services to transmit enhanced broadcasting and other services to listeners
and viewers. In order to access them and to find out what programmes
are available, a viewer will need to use an electronic programme guide
(EPG). The EPG will therefore become the electronic gateway that
will regulate a viewer's access to the new channels. For the ordinary
viewer however, it is the public service broadcasting channels which should
be (to use the description of the Council of Europe's Ministerial Resolution)
'the
reference point for all members of the
public'.
5.1 VLV notes that article 6 of the
Access Directive of the European Parliament and the European Council (Directive
2002/19/EC of 7 March 2002) requires Member States to ensure that a detailed
set of conditions - which are spelt out in Annex 1 of the Directive - shall
apply in relation to conditional access to digital television and radio
services broadcast to viewers and listeners in the Community; and that
article 5(1)(b) of the Directive allows those conditions to be extended
to application program interfaces (APIs) and electronic programme guides
(EPGs).
5.2 VLV also notes that article 24
of the Universal Service Directive of the European Parliament and the European
Council (Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002) require Member States to
ensure interoperability of the consumer digital television equipment referred
to in Annex VI of the directive.
VLV therefore welcomes s. 4(8)(a) of the
Draft Bill which imposes a duty on OFCOM to facilitate service interoperability
and s. 209 of the Draft Bill which gives OFCOM powers to insist that electronic
programme guides give such degree of prominence as it considers appropriate
to the programmes and services of all public service broadcasters.
5.3 The advent of digital broadcasting
also permits the development of two-way interactive services. Indeed, public
service broadcasters are some of the leading organisations in the development
of these new services. The Council of Europe's Ministerial Resolution
requires Member States to allow their public service broadcasters access
to new technologies; and the Commission of the European Communities has
specifically recognised that Member States may use state aids to allow
their public service broadcasters to establish interactive web- sites.
5.4 Although nearly all interactive
services are currently delivered by wire, rather than over the air, the
balance could change in the future. Whatever the medium, the technology
that is used to encrypt and decrypt digital signals will be crucial in
determining how ordinary viewers may access the electronic pathways of
the new information society.
5.5 VLV notes that 'in order to promote
the free flow of information, media pluralism and cultural diversity',
article 18 (1) of the Framework Directive of the European Parliament and
the European Council (Directive 2002/21/EC of 7 March 2002) require Member
States to encourage:
(a) providers of digital interactive
television services for distribution to the public in the Community on
digital interactive television platforms regardless of the transmission
mode to use an open API (application program interface); and
(b) providers of all enhanced digital television
equipment deployed for the reception of digital interactive television
services on interactive digital television platforms to comply with an
open API in accordance with the minimum requirements of the relevant standards
or specifications.
5.6 VLV is concerned that the Draft
Communications Bill has not transposed this requirement into UK law.
Moreover, VLV notes that, after 25 July 2004, the European Commission is
empowered to take action to make these requirements compulsory in order
to ensure interoperability and freedom of choice for users. VLV therefore
submits that the Draft Bill should be amended to give OFCOM powers to encourage
- or better to insist - that providers of digital interactive television
services, and of enhanced digital television equipment deployed for the
reception of digital interactive television, use an open API.
The Content Board
6. VLV understands why, as a division within
OFCOM, it is proposed that
the Content Board should be confined to
an advisory role, but it is concerned that the central power of OFCOM should
be vested in so few hands. With its deep concern for the quality
and range of broadcasting in Britain, especially public service broadcasting,
VLV can take scant comfort from the belief that the small size of the OFCOM
board owes something to the model of the Federal Communications Commission.
The Commission, for reasons to do with the business culture of the United
States and the First Amendment, has had little to do with content issues
and has done even less to promote public service broadcasting. It
has created a climate in which litigiousness has flourished and in which
the first resort of those who do not get their own way is often to resort
to law. It may be noteworthy that a high proportion of the Commission
are lawyers. Nor, in the United States, does the concept of the Public
Interest as it is understood in the United Kingdom, generate much sympathy.
It was, after all, a Chairman of the FCC who declared the public interest
to be nothing more than that which interests the public. The British
tradition has been very different and VLV submits that the protection of
its best aspects should be a first charge on OFCOM.
6.1. VLV. is also disturbed by the changed
approach which OFCOM will apply to public service broadcasting, construing
it as a service to be fulfilled across several licensed public service
channels. While understanding why the Government wishes to equalise
the regulatory burden between the BBC and the other licensed public service
providers, VLV questions whether a truly equitable situation can be reached
when the BBC's objectives differ so fundamentally from those of its commercially-funded
competitors.
6.2. The spirit of the times puts great
faith in measurement: hence the concentration in the Draft Bill on annual
policy statements, self-monitoring, and triennial reviews. But traditionally
the regulators' role, whether the Board of Governors in their protection
of the public interest, or the ITA and its successors has been to create
a climate in which creativity, invention and imagination can thrive.
VLV considers it essential that the lay members of the Content Board, with
a particular duty to the public, should be actively encouraged to maintain
that tradition. VLV is concerned that there is no form of appeal, or for
some public expression of differences, against the decisions of the OFCOM
in programme-matters.
6.3. VLV hopes that OFCOM, in its handling
of complaints about programmes, continues the practice of consulting lay
opinion in reaching its conclusions.
Conclusion
7. There are aspects of the Bill which
VLV welcome, particularly it emphasis on media literacy, but it submits
that the Draft Communication Bill is flawed in a number of key respects.
We believe that the suggestions we have made above for changes will substantially
improve it, thus enabling the new organisation to serve properly the interests
of the British people.
7th June 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voice of the Listener & Viewer (VLV)
is an independent, non-profit-making association which represents the citizen
and consumer interests in broadcasting. VLV is free from political,
commercial or sectarian affiliations and funded by its members. VLV
is concerned with the issues, funding, in particular with the principles
of public service in broadcasting. VLV does not handle complaints.
For full details of VLV contact:
Voice Of The Listener & Viewer
101 King's Drive, Gravesend
Kent
DA12 5BQ
Telephone: 01474 352835.
Fax: 01474 351112.
E-mail: vlv@btinternet.com
Sorry, we do not have the resources to handle individual programme complaints.
If you have a complaint about a programme please click here
|
