|
 |
| |
COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS
OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
of the
EVIDENCE OF:
Mr Geraint Talfan Davies
held at
The Civic Centre, Merthyr County Borough
Council
on
FRIDAY 26th JUNE 2003
|
| |
|
In Attendance
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
Lord Richard
Eira Davies
Tom Jones
Dr Laura McAllister
Peter Price
Ted Rowlands
Vivienne Sugar
Huw Vaughan Thomas
Paul Valerio
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
|
|
Proceedings
|
|
Lord Richard
|
|
Thank you very much for coming. Can I
ask you to do two things. One is formally to introduce
yourself for the sake of the transcript; secondly, if
you'd open up the subject, as you see it, for 5 or 10
minutes, then we'll pursue the sort of issues that we
think might be helpful.
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
Many thanks. I believe you've had a copy
of the report of the working group prepared for the
Assembly on broadcasting. I apologise that there isn't
a wider paper than that, but, in response, as soon as
the date was fixed, I vanished on holiday.
|
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
|
Could you speak up? The acoustics are
bad.
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
Yes, certainly. I think in some ways
the whole question of the media and broadcasting is
an interesting case study of linkages or non-linkages
between Wales and the UK, and perhaps it would be useful
to just give a little background to the report that
you've actually received. Broadcasting, we all understand
of course, is not a devolved function and I would guess
that it will remain that way. There is the Communications
Bill before Parliament, but that doesn't change the
situation and my guess is that that Communications Bill
is going to be in force for some considerable time.
This may seem anomalous that broadcasting isn't devolved
after all, most revolutionaries capture the radio
station first but our report does state some
very powerful reasons for the status quo right at the
opening of the report itself and I think those factors
are not going to go away. There are some technological
factors there which are very powerful. There is the
issue of the single licence fee across the UK, and,
of course, there is considerable shifting around of
money between different parts of the UK, I think, within
that licence fee.
|
|
Perhaps it is worth saying that although
broadcasting is not a devolved function, I think it
might be wrong to think that regulation simply resides
in one place. Regulation in this sphere, is spread between
international agencies, European directives, UK legislation
and, as we will see with Ofcom, with considerable decentralised
structures that are now being put in place and replicate,
in some instances, and develop in other instances, the
existing dispensation. It's worth saying, I think, that
certainly the media, if we can take the media side of
things separate from the Telecom side for a minute
I know a little more about broadcasting in the media
than I do about Telecoms but, the media in the
UK, as we all know, are highly centralised. The BBC,
I think, has two core skills: one is making programmes,
the second is lobbying. It has a very powerful central
policy-making capacity and I think it was fairly evident
in the nineties, under John Birt whatever other
criticisms are made of John, I think he was particularly
strong at mid to long-term strategic work.
|
|
ITV, in contrast, I think, is much weaker
in this regard, the strategic regard. Even given the
considerable consolidation of ownership over the last
decade or so, ITV has been unable to deliver the same
sort of central policy drive as a single organisation
like the BBC. I suppose, although it's going back a
little, I think the unwieldiness of a federation pre-1990
was actually what led it to being effectively taken
to the cleaners in the franchise auction in 1990. Paradoxically,
much has been made in the past of ITV's federal structure,
but I think in some ways, certainly in terms of its
network programming, it always was much more centralised
than that facade of federalism might have suggested.
|
|
Channel 4 is highly centralised in terms
of both form and function. It has no opt-out programming
as the BBC and ITV has; it has no decentralised advisory
Committees or anything of that kind. Then, S4C stands
out, I suppose, as an additional independent broadcasting
authority, the only non-UK-wide broadcasting authority
that we actually have in this country. On radio, on
the commercial side, we've also seen very considerable
consolidation in recent years. Radio works through the
commercial radio companies, regulated by the Radio Authority,
of which I'm a member, but the commercial radio companies
work through the Commercial Radio Companies' Association.
Again, the difficulty sometimes of producing a clear
policy line in an organisation that encompasses very
large commercial groups and some very small stations
can lead to some dysfunction, although clearly the CRCA
lobbied successfully for more liberalisation in the
Communications Bill.
|
|
There is no radio station in Wales that
is not linked to some other station outside in small
or large groups, or to a newspaper group. I'm not berating
it; I'm simply stating that as a fact not because
I think it's inherently bad. Those are the facts on
the ground. I suppose if we turn to the issue ofwhere
does this leave the broadcasting community in Wales
in terms of any kind of capacity for influencing policy,
again you can track it through different parts of broadcasting.
In terms of policy input, I think S4C clearly has a
major advantage. It's independent. It can lobby Parliament
or DCMS freely and in a quite unconstrained way. Its
DCMS funding give it a standing relationship with the
Department; after all, it's the Department charged with
overall media policy. I'm sure, Ted, you can attest
to S4C's almost permanent presence in Parliament during
the passage of various broadcasting bills. I'm not saying
the BBC is absent, but the BBC is represented centrally.
|
|
In terms of the BBC, the situation for
broadcasters in Wales is rather different. BBC Waless
senior staff can make representations to Government
really only via the centre, and while this may be perfectly
understandable in terms of organisational discipline,
it does have a number of screening effects. First, the
centre can block any representations that are not to
its liking; second, it controls timing; and, third,
of course, it will always have bigger fish to fry, so
that even where the centre might be very sympathetic
to an issue that, let's say, Wales, Scotland or Northern
Ireland might wish to raise, it might not want to expend
any part of its bank of credit with Government if it's
out to win on bigger issues, and I can imagine that
those kind of balances might obtain in other UK organisations
that have a specific and significant presence in Wales.
|
|
In ITV the consolidation of ownership,
I think, has removed almost all capacity for independent
action on the policy front from HTV Wales, - it's a
Wales and West franchise within a much wider ownership
of course - and there is no requirement even at the
moment for there to be a managing director of HTV Wales;
indeed, there is one managing director for HTV at the
moment and he is based in Bristol. I think that this
lack of policy capacity was evident in discussions last
year which the ICT held in developing a charter for
the regions which led to a reduction in the number of
hours of regional programming across the ITV system,
and I'm happy to say more about that later if you wish.
Then again, in commercial radio the policy input capacity
or even the inclination to make any input is simply
not there not simply because of ownership consolidation,
but largely because of the tiny scale of operation of
many of the stations.
|
|
So, in large part with the exception
of S4C and, possibly, Radio Ceredigion in a strict
sense Welsh broadcasting is composed of branch plants,
albeit the BBC branch carries some significant clout.
So, the capacity of the industry in Wales to affect
policy is, shall we say, highly asymmetric and heavily
weighted to public service broadcasters. It's very significant,
if you try and hold a conference on broadcasting in
Wales, that one rarely sees any representation from
commercial radio. I think, in terms of that industry,
if you look at the capacity of Government, - certainly
before the creation of the Assembly I'm not sure
that the Welsh Office had much purchase at all on broadcasting
issues other than in the creation and development of
S4C, which was seen, I think, more as a matter of language
policy, a devolved matter, than as a broadcasting policy,
which was a non-devolved matter. I do think that the
Assembly's track record has been somewhat better. Certainly
the impression I get from talking to people in London
is that the Assembly has been much more active in trying
to engage with broadcasting issues than has the Scottish
Parliament or the administration in Northern Ireland,
and that may be because broadcasting is perceived as
more of a political issue in Wales partly because of
the language dimension and there is also the dramatic
history of development over the decades.
|
|
The Assembly, despite this non-devolution
of broadcasting, sought to generate and submit its views
on Government White Papers, and, I suppose, although
it's not devolved, as we said in the report, politicians
are always interested broadcasting touches the
lives of their constituents; it's a means of communication
with the electorate; new technologies are seen as key
to competitiveness; media industries are seen now as
important components of the economy; and I suppose,
too, because competition issues may play out in a different
way in Wales than they might play out in some of the
big metropolises in England. That said, although there
has been, I think, quite a bit of engagement, I suppose
it would be true to say that the pressure of other business
Ministerial and official stretch has sometimes
meant the interventions are not always timely, they
don't always hit just the right moment, and very often,
I suppose, in the progress of policy making, particularly
the preparation of legislation, timeliness is quite
important.
|
|
If you take the case of the report we
prepared for the Assembly, I think it was well-timed
in terms of Ofcom's own preparations the shadow
Ofcom Board had been set up; it was starting to create
its own structures and I believe that the report
has been helpful to Ofcom in that regard. On the other
hand, you might have said that it might have been more
useful perhaps if it had been done somewhat earlier,
say, in time for the pre-legislative scrutiny process.
Certainly the contents of the report have been referred
to in some of the discussions in the House of Lords
and I understand there is an amendment before the House
of Lords this afternoon or this evening in the name
of Baroness Findlay seeking to put the concepts of committees
or councils in the three nations onto the face of the
bill, and it's not quite clear how the Government is
going to respond to that.
|
|
Certainly we believed the notion of putting
such a committee on the face of the bill rather than
allowing it to be at the discretion of Ofcom was necessary
because we didn't think the arrangements of the regulator
in Wales should be any less robust than those for some
of the people that they are regulating. S4C, of course,
has its own statutory base; Broadcasting Councils, in
the case of the BBC, are written into the Royal Charter.
So, we felt that there was no reason why an Ofcom Council,
if you like, for Wales, should not actually be written
onto the face of the bill. Clearly for any such body
that's set up it will be fairly crucial, as we've said
in the report, for it to have a proper relationship
with the Assembly. I do think the arrangements will
do quite a lot to raise the level of debate about media
and communications in Wales to a new level and ought
to provide in the public domain much more detailed and
objective analysis of circumstances here, promote an
engagement by Wales in the wider debate, and, I think,
for me certainly, the issue of the broadening and elevation
of the debate about media communications matters. This
requirement, if you like, to engage with a higher level
of policy, I think that's an issue that really lies,
for me, at the heart of devolution and the task of your
own Commission, and I think that's one of the reasons
why I personally believe that the current position of
the Assembly in general is not the right way to start
the process, if process it is. So, I think I'll just
say that by way of introduction, if I may, and leave
it to you to ask questions.
|
|
Lord Richard
|
|
Thank you very much indeed. Can I ask
you a general question? What changes in the position
of the Assembly would you like to see in order to produce
the broadcasting benefits that you've been talking about?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
Short of the devolution of powers, clearly
there has got to be, I think, a structured relationship
with Ofcom and Ofcom is going to exist. The two
options that we actually looked at when we considered
the matter was whether you simply have an office of
Ofcom in Cardiff and those officers relate to the Assembly,
or whether you need a wider body alongside it. Certainly
our feeling was that you will have a better basis for
the sharing of information and the promotion, I think,
of debate on these issues if you have an advisory body
in Wales that, if you like, is also within the Ofcom
tent. I think it would be quite difficult for Ofcom
as a regulator to simply be sharing its information
it would not share information in the same way
with, say, the Culture Committee of the Assembly as
it would, say, with its own advisory body in Wales.
|
|
So, I think there is a way here of actually
broadening the debate. I think, too, that although,
if you like, the intermediate range of bodies are not
popular in devolved circumstances, I think it will have
a benefit because I think it will be able to engage
a degree of expertise within its group that you cannot
guarantee simply through the operation of a body of
elected members; elected members do something rather
different. There are two things that we said should
be on the face of bill: one was the creation of a council;
two, that it should be much clearer that there was consultation
between Ofcom and the Assembly in appointments to Content
Board and Consumer Panel as well as to any advisory
body. That was not actually clear on the face of the
bill. We tried to outline in the report, as you see,
some areas where there might be thought to be a mismatch
between what was said in some of the original policy
statements by the Government and what was in the bill
itself.
|
|
Ted Rowlands
|
|
I read with interest the Ofcom Wales
Communication Council concept and it's clear that there
was quite a bit of debate, as you say, a majority; it
wasn't as unanimous as the rest of the report, was it?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
There was one dissenting voice.
|
|
Ted Rowlands
|
|
Out of four.
|
|
Lord Richard
|
|
Majority.
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
We were five.
|
|
Ted Rowlands
|
|
But would the doubts about such a council
be, and I raise them, that again you're creating yet
another buffer between the organisation that will have
the power and the National Assembly that at least would
have to have some degree of oversight or some kind of
accountability? Aren't we just full of buffers between
democracy and operators in many other fields? You are
not going to get it in the Communications Bill, but
would it have been better to go for making Ofcom have
a statutory duty to consult the National Assembly? A
straight-forward relationship.
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
It will have a duty, but there will be
a job of work to be done at the Wales end that I'm not
sure it would be appropriate for an Assembly to be doing.
If you look at where we list the functions of a Communications
Council the handling of complaints on content
and consumer issues there is a whole range of
things there that the Assembly just isn't going to have
time for to begin with, so there is a question of resource,
which is quite crucial. Secondly, I think, certainly
in my experience of the Radio Authority's reviewing
of complaints about content, I don't think it would
be appropriate for elected politicians to be involved
in that process because I think there is an arms
length issue there.
|
|
I think it's more that one of the needs
for a Council is (a) around those issues, but (b) I
think there is a strong case for not allowing the officers
in, say, a Cardiff office simply to handle everything
of this kind at an officer level. I think that the sort
of structure that is there will be a way of promoting
debate and will be a way of guaranteeing that arms
length principle, which is more important in the
broadcasting and media area than in any other field.
I know there is a great discussion going on about arms
length arrangements with regard to all kinds of
bodies, and it is an issue because it certainly struck
me in recent months that even with the Arts Council
you start to consider the arms length
issue; the nature of that issue differs from body to
body. One of the problems is there isn't a set of principles
that governs the relationship between the elected body
and the appointed body.
|
|
Ted Rowlands
|
|
Would you say that the argument you'd
apply now is the case, the reason why we've had virtually
no representation, an £84 million grant lodged
in a central Whitehall department entirely devoted to
the cultural development of the Welsh language. Weshould
have more, not devolved in any sense is that
the same case that you'd apply?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
I think it is anomalous, but I think
that the British system of government seems to be capable
of living with an awful lot of anomalies. I think one
of the difficulties is that, for me, there is a need
for some kind of symmetry. The notion of devolving one
broadcaster and having the Assembly having S4C
being the Assembly's broadcaster and all the
others accountable somewhere else doesn't seem to me
to be as sensible an arrangement as the current one
even with its anomaly.
|
|
Ted Rowlands
|
|
Because you said in your statement it
was the one non-UK national broadcaster totally devoted
to one particular aspect which is entirely discrete
(okay, other than SDN stuff), but totally discrete to
Wales, but lodged in a sort of bit of a Whitehall department.
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
I think there are clearly some big issues
that are going to come up in the next 10 or 15 years
in relation to the shape of broadcasting in Wales and
I think it's going to be quite tricky if one broadcaster
is in one camp and all the other broadcasters are somewhere
else.
|
|
Lord Richard
|
|
I don't quite follow this. Surely the
anomaly is there at the moment?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
Yes.
|
|
Lord Richard
|
|
You're transferring the anomaly down
and making it a bit more Welsh than it is at present.
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
I find it difficult to put on my past
hat with the BBC. I think that if you were to devolve
S4C entirely there would be a relationship between one
broadcaster and the Assembly that would be qualitatively
different from the relationship with other broadcasters.
The other thing with this issue, a worry that's been
for me, is that there has been a tendency certainly
a tendency for people outside Wales to think
that the only issue in Welsh broadcasting is the language.
I think there are a lot of issues in Welsh broadcasting
and I'm not sure that I would want the Assembly's concentration
on broadcasting to be predominantly simply one on the
language.
|
|
Vivienne Sugar
|
|
Could you tell us more about what those
other issues are?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
I think that certainly one of the big
issues has been the deployment of resources between
the languages; that is one issue. I think the other
issue has been certainly those included in some of the
tier 2, tier 3 requirements in the Communications Bill.
The quantity of regional broadcasting, the scale of
input from Welsh broadcasters to new networks, transmission
issues. There is one issue at the moment that I took
a view on when I was at the BBC and I haven't changed
my mind on it even though I'm a member of the Radio
Authority. In the extension of digital radio broadcasting,
for example, the BBC does not have its own digital radio
multiplex in Wales, or in Scotland, or Northern Ireland
for that matter. It has to share a multiplex with the
Radio Authority. In fact, it's the Radio Authority's
multiplex on which the BBC is given guaranteed space.
|
|
The problem is that the roll-out of Radio
Authority multiplexes is governed entirely by the ability
to find a commercial taker, somebody who is going to
pay and put that in place. So, the roll-out of digital
radio in Wales is governed by commercial considerations
and we know that in commercial terms the extension of
digital radio is not going to go much past the coastal
strip. Under this situation, under this dispensation,
that means even the public service radio stations
BBC Radio Wales and BBC Radio Cymru can't be
rolled out because they can only be carried on the back
of this commercial multiplex. You have an anomaly whereby
the BBC, for example, has rolled out its UK services
Radios 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and new digital services
and those are obtainable in Wales before you
get the extension of Radio Wales and Radio Cymru on
digital service. It's those sort of issues. There is
a raft of issues like that around. We tried to provide
within the report, if you like, a check list of the
sort of things that Wales, Ofcom, the Assembly is going
to have to look at over the next decade.
|
|
Ted Rowlands
|
|
Any purchase on any of these issues unless
it's got some kind of funding, unless you try to write
it on to the face of the bill, that doesn't seem a likely
prospect. I'm not sure-----
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
No, I don't think--.
|
|
Ted Rowlands
|
|
So, you go for memorandums of understanding,
but the real purchase is usually funding on money.
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
I think there are two other considerations,
I suppose, if you devolve S4C: whether that money then
comes within the Barnett formula or not at the
moment I think it's outside and I think one of the things
one always has to be careful of in the devolution argument
I'm very much in favour of autonomy, but not
autonomous and poor, so I think we need to look at the
precise way that money is handled and dealt with so
as not to be disadvantaged by that shift.
|
|
Lord Richard
|
|
As I understand the position, you're
not in favour of broadcasting being devolved to the
Assembly, but you are in favour of leaving broadly the
structures as they are, but there are a lot of issues
which could and should be ironed out and the Assembly
has a role to play in it.
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
No, I think what I would say is that
the arrangements proposed under the Communications Bill
and Ofcom are actually a very significant step forward
on the current arrangements because if you go through
the various regulators, at the moment you have your
S4C Authority; you have a BBC Broadcasting Council that
has advisory status there in the Charter; the ITC is
essentially an officer organisation although it has
some viewer panels, but they're not essentially dealing
with policy; you have OFTEL that has four people advising;
and the Radiocommunications Agency has nothing at all,
beyond its staff.
|
|
I have to say, in relation to technical
areas, that I think it is worth mentioning that one
of the reasons why we've run into troublesome times
in Wales is that we've had a history of the best part
of a century of the extension of broadcasting being
governed in the first instance by engineering considerations
that purport to be blind to the social and cultural
geography of the country. Then you spend half a century
trying to massage this technical system with great difficulty
back into some correspondence with who we are and where
we are. Back in the middle of the century, you had the
Wales and West issue; you've still got considerable
difficulties with cross-border transmissions, certainly
in North-east Wales. All those sort of things. You now
even recently have had the proposal, I think, to auction
telecommunications licenses where North Wales is attached
to a large swathe of northern England, against the advice
of the Wales Advisory Committee on Telecommunications.
|
|
Lord Richard
|
|
Can I come back to page 21? In subparagraph
(b) you say: "For these reasons it is our view that
strong and effective links must be developed with Ofcom
and the National Assembly both with its subject
committees and the Welsh Assembly Government
to ensure:" and you set out three issues: "That
the regulatory framework provides the right conditions
for the effective delivery of Assembly policies across
all its functions. That the Assembly is fully aware
of regulatory issues and developments as they affect
its functions, with the timeliness that allows a proper
input to policy formulation as well as delivery. That
Ofcom has proper regard to the interests of the people
of Wales, as represented democratically by the National
Assembly." Can I talk about mechanisms, the statement
of aims, what the Assembly should do, et cetera? How
do you think they should do that?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
I think the set up of the Committee was
that there will be Ofcom certainly is going to
have to report to the Assembly, will have to lay a report
before the Assembly on its actions in Wales. I assume
Ofcom officers or the Chair of the Advisory Committee
would actually appear before the Culture Committee.
I think there is a better mechanism under what's proposed
in the Communications Bill. There is a better mechanism
for drawing input in from the Assembly in the policy-making
stages than there is now with half a dozen separate
regulatory bodies all operating in different ways. There's
going to be something more converged and coherent and
focused, I think, about it in the relationship between
Ofcom and the Assembly, and that will happen at Ministerial
level and at committee level, I think.
|
|
A second thing I would say and, I suppose,
coming from a media background, I would stress the importance
of information. One of the difficulties is, I think,
that a lot of the regulators currently will take a UK
view largely because they do not have the sort of granularity
of information about what is happening at each local
level, and I know that from some of the statements that
have been made, particularly by Ian Hargreaves who ran
the Centre of Journalism at Cardiff University and is
now on the Ofcom main board. I think one of Ofcom's
big things will be to start researching how these media
policies work out at the local level. I'll move away
from broadcasting for a minute. If you look at matters
of press ownership, the situation in Wales will be quite
different, say, from the situation in a place like Birmingham
or London. There are issues of near monopoly. I think
that over the next 10 years you'll also get cross-media
ownership issues that will arise in a way that haven't
before.
|
|
Lord Richard
|
|
There is nothing so special about the
position of Wales as to demand that there is centre
of the Communications Bill for Wales. By and large,
Wales can piggy-back on the existing legislation. What
I'm interested in is what effect it's going to have
on the Assembly and the Assembly's powers.
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
Even within the existing powers I think
you're going to see a significant improvement in the
way let me give an example. The ITC a year or
more ago set about creating what was called, very grandly,
"A Charter for the Nations and Regions." This was largely
in response to a desperate plea from ITV companies to
reduce their regional programming requirement because
of the downturn in advertising. The ITC carried out
a series of citizens' juries where about sixteen people
were brought to Cardiff for two days; a case was set
out for them, witnesses were called (I appeared as a
witness in this thing) and various options were put
to a citizens' jury. The citizens' jury in Wales, as
it happens, was absolutely unanimous that there should
not be a single minute's reduction in the quantity of
regional programming. What they wanted to see was the
quantity of programming maintained and they wanted to
see better investment, wanted to see better quality
and so on. You might say they were asking for too much.
What eventuated was that the ITC decided on a two-hour
reduction in regional programming across the whole of
the UK.
|
|
That debate never really surfaced publicly
at all. I think it was dealt with within the ITC and
it was dressed up as some sort of charter, but basically
it was to help out the ITV companies because they were
facing an advertising downturn. I must say I disagreed
with the decision, not that I had any involvement in
it, but what seemed to me to be wrong was that a permanent
reduction was being brought about for what might be
temporary financial reasons and there were other options
available. I don't think that under the new dispensation
with Ofcom, particularly if there was a Wales Communication
Council around, that that issue could have played out
in that particular way. I think it would have been a
more open issue; it would have been before a Wales Communication
Council; a Wales Communication Council, I'm sure, would
have stated a view; that would certainly have been debated
by the Culture Committee probably more on the
Culture Committee than in plenary session, and the whole
issue would have played out in a different way. So,
that, I think, is, if you like, one illustration of
a way in which you would have a much-improved situation.
|
|
Paul Valerio
|
|
Could I come in and take a bird's eye
view where we're going here and looking very much forward
to what this Commission might recommend in its report.
Among other things, the Communications Bill is likely
to be wrapped up this summer, one assumes, and therefore
that would have already passed by the time we're preparing
our recommendations. There are sort of three headings
that might be relevant here and I'd like to just prompt
your thoughts whether there is anything on any of them
where they could lead to recommendations from this Commission.
The first heading is broadly looking at the powers of
the Assembly as compared with Whitehall, Westminster,
in relation to broadcasting.
|
|
We seem to have arrived at a point of
saying there is nothing that we would actually be seeking
to devolve in that area. I'll move through the three.
Maybe if you could confirm that. The second is to see
whether there are ways that the relationship between
those two centres of power can be made to work more
effectivelyThere may be something that you would crystallize
as an issue that you think, in the context of something
post-Communication Bill, post-Communications Act, that
we would at that point be right to be including in the
report of this Commission. The third issue is one that
we haven't really taken up so far and it's this. If
you want a healthy Welsh democracy, it requires Welsh
media that inform the people of Wales what is going
on, and that is a crucial element to effective working
of democracy.
|
|
Is there anything that could lead to
a recommendation because it has some sort of regulatory
impact we ought to be thinking of? And, as an addendum
to my last point, we were faced with a situation only
a few weeks ago where the new digital television channels
might have ended up with the loss of the privileged
position of BBC1, BBC Wales on 1, and BBC Wales 2 on
2, and HTV on 3, and people would have had to search
for them somewhere in the ether. Has that situation
been dealt with long-term or is there anything arising
out of that specifically that ought to be dealt with
under this general heading of the health of democracy
and the coverage of Welsh-based stations reaching the
people of Wales?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
I wouldn't have anything to put forward
in terms of the devolution of broadcasting powers. The
only issue on the table is the S4C issue, whether that
should come over or not, and you can argue the toss
about that and we need to look at the broadcasters in
the round and the financial issue. On the second issue
of the relationship between Wales and the centre, I
think that is essentially what this report is about.
There are ways in which I think it's a pity myself that
the Government didn't accept the proposal, not that
it was in this report, but the previous proposal that
there should be Welsh representation on the board of
Ofcom. I thought it was a rather weak response to say
that the main reason for not putting Scotland, Wales,
Ireland on the main board of Ofcom was that they wanted
to maintain the advantages of a small tight board. That
seems to me to be not a very robust argument, particularly
because when they came to appoint the board they immediately
increased the board by one to put a person onto it.
|
|
Paul Valerio
|
|
That's part of the Communications Bill.
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
The Communications Bill isn't even there
yet, so I'm not sure now is the time to look beyond
that. As things work through, I think there will be
an issue as to how far Ofcom can make particular provision
for circumstances in different parts of the country.
There are some areas where the practice is already established.
You can require ITV companies to make more regional
programming in one place than another. Under the tier
2 and tier 3, you can require different broadcasters
to take a different percentage of programmes from beyond
the South-east so that different provisions can be made.
We haven't seen yet to what extent they might allow
that within the competition area. If you were to take
ownership provisions in newspapers, you might have one
set of numbers or circulation limits, and so on, on
a UK-basis, which would mean nothing would be affected
in Wales, but you might need to take a separate view.
Let me give an example. I think when Trinity Papers
bought The Mirror, it became Trinity Mirror;
an issue arose in Northern Ireland and they had to sell
the Belfast Telegraph, I think, to get it through
the Competition Commission, and my understanding is,
if you look at Trinity ownership in Wales at the moment,
probably its dominance in Wales is no less than its
dominance was in Northern Ireland Western
Mail, Daily Post (both morning newspapers),
South Wales Echo, Wales on Sunday, Celtic
Newspaper Group, and so on. So, the other way the competition
issue will work out we've yet to see quite how
it will work out is what approach is taken ,
say, in the extension of telecommunications where there
can be a conflict between the need to generate competition
and the need, let's say in rural areas, to achieve universal
supply of services. That is really an issue in Wales.
I know it's an issue that has certainly been exercising
BT. If somebody wants to extend into a rural area, they're
not likely to be a big commercial gain, so you need
to know whether you've got a free run there or not.
So, the whole issue of monopoly and competition plays
out differently in a rural area than it would, say,
in Birmingham or London.
|
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
|
Can I raise a point about the effectiveness
or otherwise of the National Assembly Committees on
broadcasting and the media. We were told a while ago
that the Communications Bill had been subject to pre-legislative
joint procedures, but the Committee and its Chairman
elected to make no representations at all during this
process, which I found rather striking. What are your
impressions of their efficacy or otherwise?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
The Committee may not have done. My understanding
is the Wales Assembly Government
|
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
|
They did, but did it to the Department.
They didn't do it to the
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
Pre-legislative scrutiny.
|
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
|
I mean, usually lobbyists try once and,
if they don't get what they want, they go, so to speak,
up one to Brussels, or whatever it is, and it seemed
rather odd. Are they effective?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
I think this comes back to the issue
of how stretched people are.
|
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
|
They're so stretched that they couldn't
put in an appearance before the Joint Committee?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
Yes, it would have been better had there
been an approach, but I think that it would be right
to say the broadcasting is not central to their remit
because it's an oversight of responsibility rather than
a specific devolved power, as you say. I think they've
tended to leave it to the Executive. I'm not sure that
situation would change currently. If the Cultural Committee
or if committees to the Assembly are going to meet on
a less regular basis, it's going to be more difficult
perhaps to do that, but that's why in some sense I think
the debate a Communications Council attached
to Ofcom will have quite a responsibility to put material
into the public domain as well as discussing in private,
and I think that when that information is in the public
domain elected members tend to pick up on it and it
actually feeds the debate. One of the most difficult
things in Wales is actually to have a debate. You can
have it in the Assembly, but, outside the Assembly,
there is nowhere to have it. There isn't an array of
broadsheet newspapers where competing understandings
of our circumstances can be tossed around. You cant
have a Daily Mail view of Welsh life, or Daily
Mail or Guardian view of Welsh life. It doesn't
happen. I know when I was running the BBC in Wales,
I sometimes used to say that my main problem is there
is no external pressure, whereas my counterpart in Scotland
was being barraged daily by the Scottish press and politicians,
and so on, and that whole debate was created. It wasn't
always constructive, but being under that kind of pressure
gives you quite a lot of levers.
|
|
Vivienne Sugar
|
|
You could try addressing the Bevan Foundation;
that seemed to stimulate a debate last week.
|
|
Paul Valerio
|
|
The situation could get even worse if
the privileged positions of the BBC in digital were
not maintained, and, if I just press you on that last
point, is that now sorted?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
No, I think it's a real worry. If you
look at information in Wales, I talked about the weakness,
I think, in terms of information in the printed media.
People are very dependent for their information on what's
happening in Wales on broadcast media. Broadcast media
traditionally have had high audiences for their programme
in Wales because they've not been in the multi-channel
environment. You get into a multi-channel environment
and first of all you have an inevitable fragmentation
of the audience, but the worry then about the electronic
programme guides is that if you lose a privileged position
in the electronic programme guide it just exacerbates
the whole problem. My understanding is that after the
BBC's recent decisions, BBC1 Wales and BBC2 Wales are
still guaranteed number one and number 2 positions on
the Sky EPG, but it would have to be said that in commercial
life there are no such things as guarantees; there are
only current intentions. I think it will be up to the
regulator again to ensure that the interpretation of
due prominence is actually effective at a [Welsh] national
level rather than just UK level. I'm not quite sure
what S4C's position will be with the complete separation
of S4C and Channel 4, but, again, these issues, I think,
have to be teased out in different ways and different
places in the UK.
|
|
Paul Valerio
|
|
If we crystallise what you're saying
the Commission might recommend on this point, it would
be that the regulator ought to ensure that the requirement
of due prominence is interpreted in a way which covers
the regions and nations and, therefore, that in the
electronic programme guide you would ensure coverage
through the postcode areas of Wales in the current privileged
positions. Is that the size of it?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
Absolutely. I think what you come back
to, on a general point, is that there is a huge quantity
of news around, and a recent report done by Ian Hargreaves
for ITC I thought was very, very instructive and an
important conclusion, but, with all the news that's
available to us now in multi-channel you can
get it on your radio, PC, mobile phone; you can get
news anywhere, standing in an airport lounge
you can't miss the news. But, people are now better
informed about international matters; they're well-informed
about UK matters. The weakest area of information is
about what's going on in people's localities. There
is a real big, big gap there. That's something I'd have
thought that Ofcom will need to keep an eye on. That's
why it's very important, that clause 3O8 on the Communications
Bill on protection of localness. I have to say that,
you can argue that maybe it's 10 years too late, but
I think it will be very, very important in the context
of a more liberalised regime.
|
|
Paul Valerio
|
|
Other than broadcasting, the other two
items vital to Wales are broadband the expansion
of it and the telephone network. In Wales, because of
geography, it's one simple solution. Welsh media doesn't
bother greatly if we had roaming as far as mobile phones
in Wales is concerned. There isn't a problem, certainly
not for England, but we don't seem to make any progress
in that. Equally so, but on a different basis, the expansion
of broadband in Wales requires vast capital sums of
money to be invested in it. On the one hand, if Wales
had more control on communications, we could put in
the regulations to require mobile companies to do roaming,
but we'd still be faced with the problem of broadband
not having funds to respond. On one aspect we'd be better
off with relaxation and on another aspect the situation
would be the same because we wouldn't have the funds.
Which way would you go?
|
|
Geraint Talfan Davies
|
|
Certainly you may be better informed
on this than I am. I'm reaching the frontiers of my
knowledge quickly. You're right to flag it as a crucially
important issue and I think I'm dodging around your
particular options because I'm not clear myself on those
two options. What I would say about broadband is that
within 5 or 10 years the shape of broadcast delivery
will change very, very radically and I think that some
of the debates we're having now about broadcasting structures
may in 10 years' time look a bit quaint, so I think
the broadband issue is crucially important for the Assembly.
My worry is that in that new situation where effectively
the concept of the channel almost disappears and people
are turning to whatever piece of machinery they've got
in their homes in a way that's more like a jukebox than
a radio, in that situation there is a real worry about
the level of access to news and information, but I don't
think we can be behind anyone. We've got particular
difficulties even in urban areas like the valleys. You
do not have digital radio here in Merthyr now. There
is very little prospect of it.
|
|
Lord Richard
|
|
Can I thank you very much indeed for
exploring that with us, ending on that incomprehensible
note. Terribly helpful. Thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|