Peter Black and South Wales West Liberal Democrats

The Welsh Liberal Democrats Debate: Independently Funded News Consortia

Peter Black: I welcome the wide range of support from at least three of the parties for this motion, and the Minister's evident support, with regard to independently funded news consortia. As a number of Members have stated, particularly the Minister and Alun Davies, that this is not the ideal route-it is not my choice either-but we are where we are and we must go forward to ensure that we get plurality of provision and choice for people in accessing news and current affairs in Wales. There has been a great deal of talk about the public service broadcasting requirement for ITV, and it is true to say that that requirement is still there. However, I think that we all recognise the weakness of that requirement in the current market, and the fact that not only has ITV been rowing away from it, but we are in a situation in which jobs have been lost and the number of hours of current affairs and news programming have been cut back. ITV has given a very clear signal-through its actions, not its words-that this will not last much longer. That is why we need to act now to ensure that plurality and choice.

The other important point that came out of the debate was the potential for these independently funded news consortia to support the Welsh creative industries. It is evident that the £100 million or so invested in S4C has done a huge job of work in building up the Welsh creative industries through the Welsh language. One recommendation of the Broadcasting Sub-committee related to the fact that this has not happened through the English language, and that would be one way of using public money to boost that, to reinforce the companies that have been established, the Welsh jobs that have been created and the investment that has been made in the creative industries in Wales through these IFNCs.

My biggest regret in this, which has been reflected in other Members' contributions, is the Conservatives' amendment to the motion. It is quite clear from the contribution of the Conservative spokesperson that they are being driven by Westminster on this issue against the interests of Wales. In two reports that I am aware of, that of the Broadcasting Sub-committee and that of the Culture, Welsh Language and Sport Committee, it was clearly recognised that we need diversity of provision and that public investment may be needed to secure that. As far as I am aware, the Conservative members of those committees supported those reports and backed them. However, now, the Conservative spokesperson says that this is not the case and that that is not the Conservatives' point of view. For me, that is a clear u-turn.

Alun Cairns said that the Conservatives support the plurality and choice that ITV provides, but, as has been pointed out by Alun Davies and others, the business model no longer works. There have been severe cuts in news and current affairs provision by ITV Wales, and further cuts are going to come because we are now in a free market that is not properly regulated. Alun Davies made that point very well indeed. With the move to digital, the previous monopoly that ITV Wales had on independent provision has gone out of the window. It can no longer rely on its advertisers and the money from them to cross-subsidise the same level of news and current affairs provision at regional and national levels. For that reason, we need this investment from the public sector.

Alun Cairns said that using public funds when money is tight is not right, but we must be clear that this public money comes from the licence fee digital dividend, not normal taxation. It is not money that could otherwise be spent on social services, health or education; it is money that is currently being invested in the broadcasting industry. You are absolutely right that the licence fee is attached, but the money is there already and is already being paid out. I suppose that the alternative is to cut the licence fee and have less provision, but that would have a huge impact on our broadcasting industry. The discussion about the licence fee is for another debate that we may want to have at some other time.

Alun also referred to the Archie Norman article in The Guardian, which the Minister also mentioned. It is my view-and I do not think that there is any contrary evidence to this-that that article by Archie Norman, the new chairman of ITV, was put in as a spoiler. He knows that there is a general election coming, and he knows that the Conservatives are committed to abandoning these pilot schemes. Therefore, he feels that if he can throw some mud at the whole issue the Government might back down, and he hopes that there will be a new Government that will take a different approach, leaving him in a better position. That is my view of that article, and I see no evidence from ITV's actions that what Archie Norman has said is backed up by what ITV believes. It has not put any more money into regional news. As a result of that article, Archie Norman has made no commitment to reverse the cuts that he has already made. Therefore, the interpretation of that as a spoiler is a reasonable one.

Ofcom has accepted that ITV cannot meet its franchise obligations, and it has said that it is helpless to do anything about it, hence the need for the independently funded news consortia. In a digital age, ITV can afford to walk away from its public service obligations. Michael Grade came to the Broadcasting Committee and said as much to us. Again, I have heard nothing from ITV or from Archie Norman to contradict the view being put forward by Michael Grade. The truth is that the Conservatives are not supporting this proposal because they want a licence fee-digital dividend moneys-with which this is being paid for for other projects. That is regrettable, but clearly, that is the truth in my view. They want to spend this money elsewhere rather than on making sure that we have plurality.

We cannot have a single voice speaking on our behalf in the broadcasting media. We must have plurality to offer choice and different views. Regional news and current affairs programmes give us up-to-date news; they scrutinise the political process; they provide scrutiny and reporting on social matters, such as homelessness, pollution and so forth; and they provide input into UK news and current affairs with content reflecting what is happening in Wales, as well as interpreting UK events in a Welsh context. The BBC is doing an outstanding job in providing that, but it cannot be the only voice in doing that because we will have only one angle and one view when we need to have a number of views if we are to have proper scrutiny. For that reason, I hope that the Assembly will support this motion.