COMMITTEE FOR CULTURE, ARTS AND LEISURE

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Review of Public-Service Broadcasting

20 November 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Barry McElduff (Chairperson)
Mr David McNarry (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Dominic Bradley
Mr Francie Brolly
The Lord Browne
Mr Kieran McCarthy
Mr Raymond McCartney
Mr Nelson McCausland
Mr Pat Ramsey
Mr Ken Robinson
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:
Ms Meadhbh McCann ) Research and Library Services
Mr Adam Higgitt ) Ofcom
Mr Denis Wolinski )
Mr Richard Williams ) Northern Ireland Screen
Mr Luke Crawley ) Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union
Ms Mary Curry ) National Union of Journalists
Mr Séamus Dooley ) National Union of Journalists
Mr Patrick Styles ) Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union
Mr Michael Wilson ) UTV

The Chairperson (Mr McElduff):

I draw members’ attention to two research papers that address issues in respect of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission and the current Ofcom consultation. In the interests of providing the Committee with a broader picture, the Committee Clerk has also asked for papers on how broadcasting is dealt with in Wales and in the South of Ireland. I invite Ms Meadhbh McCann from Research and Library Services to brief members on the papers.

Ms Meadhbh McCann (Research and Library Services):

My paper provides information on the remit and objectives of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, and the timescales in respect of its work. Following that, I will focus on the consultation documents produced by Ofcom, including phase 1: “The digital opportunity”; and phase 2: “Preparing for the digital future”. The presentation is a summary of the key issues contained in those documents.

The First Minister of Scotland announced the creation of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission to define a strategic way forward for television production and broadcasting. The remit of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission was:

“to conduct an independent investigation into the current state of television production and broadcasting in Scotland and define a strategic way forward for the industry.”

The commission took account of the economic, cultural and democratic importance of broadcasting in Scotland. It was set up to:

“make recommendations for Scottish government action in those areas that lie within the scope of the powers currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament; focus attention on issues where other organisations have responsibility and encourage action to address these issues; identify matters for further consideration and debate in the Scottish Parliament”.

Members of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission include a former director of broadcasting at the Scottish Television, who was also head of news and current affairs at BBC Scotland; an award-winning playwright; a former BBC national governor and chairman of the Broadcasting Council for Scotland; a life peer, who is also a member of the Privy Council; and a director of Glasgow School of Art.

I will now focus on the consultation documents produced by Ofcom. Parliament requires Ofcom to conduct a review of public-service broadcasting once every five years. Ofcom’s research shows that the total implicit funding for commercial public-service broadcasting has declined by a quarter — approximately £130 million since the Communications Act 2003. Ofcom also estimates that the annual funding for UK children’s programming among the five main public-service broadcasters has declined by around £51 million since 2003.

Research conducted by Ofcom also shows that the audience share of the main five channels fell by 17% between 2003 and 2007.

The two main findings from ‘Ofcom’s Second Public Service Broadcasting Review — Phase 1: The digital opportunity’, were that audiences expect more from the five main channels in relation to programming from the UK nations and regions and UK children’s content, and that provision for UK nations and regions and children’s programming is relatively secure on the part of the BBC but not commercial broadcasters. Phase 1 states that the broadcasting and political needs differ between UK nations. The cost of producing multiple different editions of a single time slot makes regional news the highest public-service cost for the ITV1 licence.

I was going to ask about the advantages of establishing a broadcasting commission, but Meadhbh has already ably answered that question.

Lord Browne:

The report states that the commission will make recommendations for Scottish Government action in those areas that lie within the scope of the powers currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Am I right in saying that those powers are very limited, and that broadcasting is a matter reserved to Westminster? Does the Scottish Parliament have any more powers over broadcasting than, for example, the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Ms M McCann:

As far as I am aware, every devolved nation has the same level of power and scope. The commissions can offer suggestions and encourage debate, but they are very restricted by the powers that have been devolved to them.

The Chairperson:

I thank Meadhbh for her presentation. We will now hear a briefing from Ofcom, and I draw members’ attention to the documentation that has been provided. The team from Ofcom will have 10 minutes to make a presentation, after which I will invite questions from members. The team comprises Mr Denis Wolinski, director of Ofcom Northern Ireland, and Mr Adam Higgitt, director of the chief executive’s office. You are both very welcome.

Mr Denis Wolinski (Ofcom):

I thank the Committee for providing us with the opportunity to discuss our public-service broadcasting review. In the next 10 or 15 minutes, I will present a quick overview of the current situation in respect of the review, and outline what we feel needs to be done in the short term — until digital switch-over in 2012 — and what options exist in the long term for a sustainable future for public-service broadcasting. We are keen to hear the Committee’s views on both the big picture, and the proposals that we have made for the interim period. All members should have a copy of our presentation. We will run through it quickly.

I will first outline the reasons for Ofcom conducting this review. Under the terms of the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom is required to conduct a review at least every five years to assess the extent to which all public-service broadcasters fulfil public purposes. The review should also make recommendations on how to strengthen and maintain PSB. The first review was undertaken between 2004 and 2005, and a second public broadcasting review started at the end of 2007, largely because the rate of change in the broadcasting industry has been so rapid.

A regulatory principle under which Ofcom operates is that decisions must be based on evidence and that extensive research should be undertaken. Audience research indicates that audiences continue to support public-service broadcasting and value the services provided by the BBC in particular. However, research also indicates that those audiences want public-service broadcasting alternatives to complement the service provided by the BBC.

In Northern Ireland, 95% of those surveyed said that television was an important source of news about their area. Indeed, television tends to be particularly trusted as a source of news, possibly because it is highly regulated. Furthermore, 93% of respondents indicated that it is important for UTV and BBC Northern Ireland to broadcast news about Northern Ireland.

There used to be enough room on the airwaves only for four to five channels, of which three — ITV1, Channel 4 and Five — were commercial broadcasters. Thus the scarcity value of the analogue spectrum — that is, the airwaves — was limited because only five channels could be broadcast. That meant that the regulator was in a position to make heavy demands on commercial broadcasters in relation to public-service broadcasting obligations. Ofcom could require them to present UK, international and regional news and current affairs for England and the three devolved territories, in addition to a range of other programming, covering such areas as children’s television, religion and the arts

However, that situation is rapidly disappearing. We are moving towards 2012 when the analogue spectrum will be removed. After that spectrum has been removed, we will move fully into the digital world where there are currently up to 40 channels on Freeview and between 300 and 400 channels on Sky and cable television

That change must also be considered within the present challenging economic climate, which, according to ‘The Guardian’, saw 2,300 jobs lost in the media sector in the past week. The fall at ITV, in particular, is very marked. When Ofcom embarked on this review, the company’s share price was 120p; it is now around 30p. Channel 4 is similarly challenged; it is a publicly owned, but commercially funded, broadcaster, and its shortfall, if it is to continue to be a publicly owned public-service broadcaster, will also need to be publicly funded.

Ofcom’s remit is to maintain and strengthen the quality of public-service broadcasting, and its approach is twofold. On the one hand, it needs to consider interim issues up until 2014 — the end date of the current digital replacement licences — and, on the other hand, it needs to examine the long-term issues of finding models to ensure future public-service broadcasting.

The Committee has already heard some of those proposals. Ofcom has proposed that it wants to hold on to the ITV network’s public-broadcasting obligations. Therefore, the original programme quotas will stay the same. Most of that quota is made up of UK original programming, and ITV’s current ownership is committed to retaining that form of programming. However, that might change if ITV were taken over, which is a possibility, given its current share price. Other proposals include: ITV’s UK and international news requirements staying at the same level; peak-time current affairs levels staying the same; and the network’s quota for independent production sector remaining at 25%. Ofcom has decided to allow the network to reduce its out-of-London production quota, because ITV was finding it extremely challenging to meet. Ofcom opted for that quota only three or four years ago.

We also propose that Channel 4 produce 3% of its programmes in the nations, which, before the present phase, it was not required to do. We also propose that that should increase if Channel 4 gets suitable funding.

Yes; it is worth considering what you said.

Mr Wolinski:

There are a variety of funding options, on which I can provide further detail when members ask their questions. Regulatory assets include the cost of spectrum for being on the electronic programme guide and the amount of advertising time.

Direct funding comes from HM Treasury and is possibly the most transparent approach and has a precedent — S4C and the BBC World Service are funded in that way. There is a possibility of using some of the licence fee, because it exists for public-service broadcasting. However, Ofcom is not in favour of any outcome that cuts the BBC’s core services. There has been a suggestion that the switch-over surplus, which is money that the BBC uses for switch-over, might be used. There are other schemes that place levies on the industry.

There are particular issues for Northern Ireland, which I will not explain in great detail. Northern Ireland has the lowest level of production and portrayal on the networks; it is rare to see Northern Ireland on the main UK networks. Plurality is a particular concern and is something that Northern Ireland benefits from more than other parts of the UK: there are three daily newspapers, a variety of radio stations and people in Northern Ireland can access broadcasting and other media from across the border. Indigenous language minority programming is another important part of the UK’s public-service broadcasting landscape.

Ofcom regards the BBC as core to public-service broadcasting. We are determined to maintain plurality. Television will be an important platform, but it may not be the only way to deliver content, as was discussed earlier. The position of the devolved territories is particularly important. Regardless of whether we recommend institutional or competitive funding, when we have submitted out proposals, it will be for the Government and — subsequently — Parliament to decide on a way forward.

Mr McCausland:

I want to ask about minority-language programming, which you did not address. From attending a conference in 2002, Denis will be familiar with the aspirations of the Ulster-Scots community, and Adam also has some knowledge of that from a previous incarnation.

Page 12 of your submission states that there are:

“Formal obligations regarding Irish (and Welsh and Scottish Gaelic) arising from both the European Charter for Minority Languages and existing UK legislation.”

You did if you did not include Ulster Scots.

I am over here to influence these boys. [Laughter.]

I am concerned that the system that you are setting up is unfair in that you propose to reduce UTV’s current affairs output from five hours and 20 minutes to four hours. You also propose to reduce non-news programming from three hours to one and a half hours. We all have correspondence on the fact that the BBC is telling its regions of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that it will consider an increase of 40% in their programming. The fact that we all pay for a TV licence gives the BBC a head start. Why are you proposing to reduce the output of UTV at a time when its competitor, the BBC, is proposing an increase in local output?

Mr Wolinksi:

The answer to that involves three aspects. First, the BBC is funded by a licence fee, which amounts to £3·2 billion. That amount will not decrease, whereas the value of the commercial sector is going down. Therefore, we are simply taking commercial realities into account.

Secondly, news is particularly important for plurality; the news allocation, which totals four hours and 45 minutes and is stripped across the ITV schedule, is the same for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is extremely difficult to have different news times in different parts of the UK. If the news is slightly longer, that will cause the whole schedule to go back and will affect the schedule for the next news; therefore, it is not practical to have different levels of news.

Thirdly — and this is backed up by our research — people are particularly concerned about having alternative views in the reporting of news and current affairs. We have not reduced the quota for current affairs, for instance. However, non-news programmes such as ‘Lesser Spotted Ulster’ or ‘Ultimate Ulster’ are not considered to be contentious and are not seen as needing plurality or alternative views, whereas it is important that there is a plurality of sources for news and current affairs programmes.

Mr Higgitt:

The basic proposition is that the value that UTV gets from being a public-service broadcaster is far less than it was. We must try to keep its public-service broadcasting obligations in balance with the value that it gets out of being a public-service broadcaster. Unfortunately, as audiences fragment across hundreds of digital channels and the online world, that means that we must reduce UTV’s level of obligation.

Mr Shannon:

As Denis mentioned, ‘Lesser Spotted Ulster’ is one of the success stories. However, if the new system is introduced, whereby the quota of non-news programmes is reduced from three hours to one and a half hours, it is quite possible that were ‘Lesser Spotted Ulster’ being introduced now, it would never get a chance to be successful. Therefore, I feel that, by reducing the hours, you are reducing the opportunity to have successful programmes come through the system.

Mr P Ramsey:

It is understandable that, for many people, the issue has become quite sensitive. There is a general perception that the quality of current affairs programming will be diminished as a result of Ofcom kick-starting a process that has enabled UTV to come in with a prepared plan of redundancies, which we understand will be upwards of 35.

Was it your intention when making the plans that we would lose ‘Insight’ on UTV, for example? One might suspect that UTV is using the situation created by your draft proposals to argue that, now that there is peace in Northern Ireland, there is no need for a half-hour current affairs programme and that 15 minutes and a couple of wee stories will be grand. There is a perception among the wider community that that is happening now, and the concern is that the branding, the quality of the programmes and the staff, and the capacity of the station — all of which have taken years to develop — will be lost because of the proposals.

Mr Higgitt:

It is important to recognise that we are not proposing to cut the number of hours that UTV shows content that was produced here; we are proposing to reduce the quota. If UTV wants to go over quota and continue to show the sort of programmes mentioned by Committee members — particularly in light of the fact that there could be more coverage of the devolved legislature here — that is a decision for UTV, as a brand and a channel, to make. We are merely stating what the floor should be.

Mr P Ramsey:

I understand; but can you appreciate that, as a result of Ofcom recommending that UTV should be allowed to reduce the number of hours that it must show content that was produced here, there will now be wholesale redundancies in the current affairs programmes?

Mr Wolinski:

The Chairperson:

The meeting could go on until 3.00 pm or 4.00 pm.

Mr McNarry:

This is a major issue, as all our issues are, and we seem to cram these things. Perhaps you might give some latitude.

Well, I was until I came here. [Laughter.]

If I may return to the first question — we carry out research, and we are currently undertaking consultation. We have had very few responses from the public on the document to date. Members might have had many responses, but we have not had very many at all.

Mr McNarry:

Are you willing to change your views if public opinion provides new information?

Mr Wolinski:

We will take public opinion into account.

Mr McNarry:

It is a consultation document. Are you open to change? Surely that is the purpose of consultation?

Mr Wolinski:

More local programming would stimulate much growth in the creative industries, and we need only look at how TG4 has created jobs for the Galway region for evidence of that. You state that the three devolved regions collectively should account for 35% of productions. Will you quantify, as a percentage, your aims and objectives for Northern Ireland? What do you propose to do to protect existing broadcasting jobs in Northern Ireland?

Mr Wolinski:

We do not regulate any services other than those that are based in the United Kingdom. It would be naive of us not to recognise that channels such as RTÉ One, RTÉ Two and TG4 are available in Northern Ireland, and that people watch them.

Ofcom can apply a wide range of sanctions — from fines to the removal of a licence — on broadcasters that are in breach of the conditions of their licence or who fail to comply.

We will now receive a briefing from Northern Ireland Screen. Mr Richard Williams, the chief executive, will brief the Committee for approximately 10 minutes, after which members will put questions.

Mr Richard Williams ( Northern Ireland Screen):

I will make one holistic point in relation to the future of public-service broadcasting. It goes much wider than Ofcom’s present consultation, and it has its backstop in legislation that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) proposes to have drafted and ready in the early spring, which is the key deadline for influencing the future of public-service broadcasting.

I am slightly concerned that the breadth of the opportunity and the threat that is attached to public-service broadcasting is not being fully realised. It has been very well documented that UTV has already announced job cuts, so the duopoly of local news coverage is under threat.

Public-service broadcasting delivers much more than that, and there are three elements that I want to bring to the Committee’s attention. In the past, Northern Ireland has been served well by only one aspect of public-service broadcasting — local news and programming. As far as indigenous languages — Irish and Ulster Scots — are concerned, public-service broadcasting has served Northern Ireland very poorly in the past. The Committee will be aware of the Irish Language Broadcast Fund. That does not compare particularly favourably to the much-better funded programmes in Scotland and Wales. I also suspect that the Committee will be aware that Ulster Scots does not currently have any funding attached to it, which — even more so than the Irish language — compares extremely badly to anywhere else.

I want to draw most emphasis to the fact that Northern Ireland has been abysmally served by public-service broadcasting in relation to what the industry generally calls network production and portrayal. That has a job-creation aspect. Earlier, I heard brief mention of the creative industries. Network production is absolutely crucial because it is the central anchor of developing the creative industries. I suspect that all members of the Committee would struggle to think of any examples of Northern Ireland being portrayed on any of the UK network channels in any area other than news and current affairs.

BBC Northern Ireland and UTV have served us very well in respect of local news and regional programming. However, we have been very badly served in relation to indigenous languages and network production and portrayal. I urge that those aspects be considered within this debate, because they present opportunities.

I draw members’ attention to what has been going on in Scotland. The Scottish Broadcasting Commission was set up approximately one year ago. That commission has already done Northern Ireland and Wales a great service because it put tremendous pressure on the BBC on the issue of network production and portrayal. The BBC gave very strong commitments that that will become a reality in due course.

The commission also put tremendous pressure on Ofcom and Westminster on the issue of production and portrayal for Scotland. I had the opportunity to listen to the Ofcom submissions. I endorse some of the contents of those, particularly in relation to the future of ITV. It is genuinely possible that ITV will walk away from public-service broadcasting. That is not an idle threat — it is a real possibility.

Michael Grade could not be any more dismissive. Even in fairly confrontational situations, such as when he addressed the Welsh Assembly and, indeed, the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, he remained clear on that point.

UTV is an extremely fine organisation. It has a long and admirable tradition of delivering much for its audience. As it has been mentioned, UTV is, quite rightly, the leading news provider in Northern Ireland. However, it has a serious problem: its future as a television broadcaster is not within its own gift. As Northern Ireland’s only public limited company, it has been well aware of that for a long time. That is why it now has a large radio portfolio and has been fairly aggressive in moving into digital and interactive content. I am not saying that UTV believes that there is no future in television; it has, however, been aware that its relationship with ITV is fraught.

I submit, therefore, that it would be dangerous for Northern Ireland to plump for a solution that is entirely about shoring up UTV — not because I am, in any way, critical of the organisation, but simply because its future is not within its gift. A huge opportunity exists. As I said, I am concerned that the net will be cast wide enough and that we will, if you like, punch hard enough while the window of opportunity is available.

You make several different points. I suspect that was a reasonable challenge in Scotland that the Scottish Broadcasting Commission managed to get cross-party support and consensus on its proposals, which is critical for any lobby in Northern Ireland.

Thank you for your submission, Richard, and for answering questions.

A four-member team, comprising representatives from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union (BECTU), are our next witnesses. You are welcome to the meeting.

Ms Mary Curry (National Union of Journalists):

I am the joint mother of the National Union of Journalists’ chapel at UTV and a member of the union’s Northern Ireland broadcasting branch. Luke Crawley is the assistant general secretary of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union. Pat Styles is a national official of BECTU. Séamus Dooley is from the National Union of Journalists.

I thank the Committee for its interest in the matter, which ranges from concerns about jobs to the wider issue of the future of public-sector broadcasting. I never imagined that I would find myself here, and especially not under such circumstances. However, I feel compelled to express my genuine concerns and those of my colleagues at UTV. The impending job cuts are not only a loss for people who face redundancy at this time of year, but they are a huge loss for Northern Ireland’s fine tradition of news, sport and current affairs broadcasting.

If there were only one political party, politics would be rendered meaningless. Similarly, UTV’s cutting of jobs introduces the real threat that the BBC will find itself in an unrivalled position when it comes to producing in-depth reportage on all aspects of Northern Ireland life. UTV was once proudly billed as “your TV”, a quality local broadcaster that kept communities abreast of all that was happening. The proposed changes threaten to leave that reputation in tatters.

‘UTV Live’ is the most-watched news programme in Northern Ireland. We have always recognised that our audience requires the highest standard of news reporting. It wants us to be consistently impartial, accurate and fair. A mere four years ago, UTV wrote the following to Ofcom:

“ We believe that our experienced journalists provided considered analysis, and that they used their professional judgement to make informed comment on how a news story might develop. This, we believe, provided judicious news which appealed to our discerning audience.”

Those words now ring hollow, because much of that experience is set to go. The flagship current affairs programme, ‘Insight’, will also go. That programme exposed paedophilia in the Catholic Church and loyalist agents operating above the law. More recently, it exposed the debacle of the Northern Ireland Events Company, the face of a dangerous rapist to the community in which he lived and the deaths of two mothers at Antrim Area Hospital’s maternity unit. ‘Insight’ will be retained in name alone; it will be wheeled out like the best china a mere four times a year.

Under the Ofcom proposals, the hours of current affairs programming will not be reduced. On paper, that may look good, but the reality is much different. Little room will be available for investigative journalism, and cheaper alternatives will be left to fill the void.

In Northern Ireland’s changing news agenda, the coverage that ‘UTV Life’ gives to the arts, local events and quirkier news stories serves not only as an amiable preamble to the news but as a platform to the stories that do not make the headlines. ‘UTV Life’ will also be no more.

UTV’s coverage once took sports fans to the heart of the action. Gaelic games, rallying, local soccer and the North West 200 were its lifeblood. All of those are gone, and the back-page splashes that we regularly produced are now reduced to fillers in briefs columns.

UTV has a new motto, “Now and Tomorrow”. Now, it remains the choice of most families here who tune in to hear news, current affairs, sports and the arts delivered in a familiar, friendly and authoritative voice. Tomorrow, that voice will not be guaranteed.

Mr Luke Crawley (Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union):

I thank the Committee for the invitation to come and speak to you. The issue is very important, which is evidenced by the fact that all parties have supported a motion to outline their concerns about what is happening at UTV.

I shall speak briefly about the public-service aspect of the issue. Under the ongoing consultation, BECTU has responded to Ofcom with our view that public-service provision and funding is vital to the future of the broadcasting system. It is said that the BBC is the cornerstone of that system, and, nationally, that is true. However, as members of the Committee have already pointed out, that is not necessarily the case in Northern Ireland. In fact, there is a strong and compelling argument that UTV has a particular place in the hearts and, importantly, in the viewing habits of the people who live here. It is essential that that type of pluralism is maintained.

Ofcom stated earlier that it is not instructing anyone to stop making programmes, because that is not its responsibility. Ofcom said that it is putting in a floor, not a ceiling, to which I am tempted to saythat it is a floor. When companies are told about that, they will reduce their programming, saying that they do not have to produce one second longer than is required by the floor set out by Ofcom. That is flatly wrong, and it is somewhat dishonest of Ofcom to pretend that what happens next it is nothing to do with it. Ofcom knows full well that if it were to set a higher level of programming, the companies would be required to meet that.

Ofcom said, at some length, that it thinks that the model of public-service broadcasting in the commercial world is broken. I fundamentally disagree with that. Ofcom put forward three options: evolution; BBC/Channel 4 limited competitive funding; and competitive funding. We think that the evolution option got us to where we are, and that evolution is how we should go forward. We see no problem in doing that.

Currently, commercial television companies have a licence to broadcast in an area, and with that, come obligations. Under those obligations, those companies can sell advertising, get analogue spectrum and have a placing on the programme guide. That is not going to change in the new digital age. Those companies will still need a spectrum — it will be digital rather than analogue, and we think that they can be charged for that — and they will still want a place on the programme guide.

Michael Grade has been very bullish in saying that he would happily walk away from the entire issue now. Clearly, that is not true; he is posturing. If he stopped being a public-service broadcaster, ITV would lose its right to sell advertising in the way that it does; the two matters go hand in hand. Our argument is that public-service broadcasting can go forward if we insist that commercial broadcasters still have an obligation to produce public-service broadcasting.

There has been much talk about a reduction in the number of hours of required programming. I will not go into that, except to say that, if that goes through, it will have a major effect on what happens here. There is no question that UTV appears to be trying to railroad that through before Ofcom comes to its final decision, which will be in January 2009 at the earliest. The BBC would then have an unparalleled advantage, and people in Northern Ireland would be less well served.

Carved into the lobby wall at Ofcom headquarters in London, is the message: Ofcom is here to look out for the interests of the viewers. It seems to me that Ofcom is not looking out very hard for the interests of the viewers. In accepting that a TV company that has been profitable for a long time should be allowed to cut back on the amount of programming that it is required to make under the public-service remit, Ofcom is not looking out for the interests of viewers. That is an essential point.

Northern Ireland is not the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. Different rules do not necessarily have to apply, but the fact that it is a different place must be taken into account. UTV is not losing money; it has been making money and looks on target to make more profit, even after tax, again this year.

UTV is trying to use the Ofcom consultation as an excuse to cut jobs and slash local programming. Nothing should happen until the publication of the Ofcom report next year. There must be proper consultation.

Mr Séamus Dooley (National Union of Journalists):

Thank you all for your interest in the issue, which is of enormous importance to citizens of all ages in Northern Ireland. The National Union of Journalists was one of the first organisations to call for a broadcasting commission in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is different, and I do not accept the analysis that there is less news in Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland is not at conflict.

Happily, there is different news, and that news reflects diverse strands of civic society, economics, health and education. Those are the bread-and-butter issues that are dealt with in this Building every day by you and by your colleagues in other Committees, and they deserve coverage. They deserve more than coverage — they deserve analysis.

The review is supposed to be about public-service broadcasting, not just about UTV. However, UTV’s interpretation of a recommendation that is not yet finalised means that there will no longer be that detailed analysis. I believe that detailed analysis is a central part of public-service broadcasting.

Sport, across a diverse range, forms an integral part in the life of Northern Ireland. UTV’s proposals to abolish the position of sports editor and merge it with that of news editor, is a reflection of a flawed policy that relates to a very important aspect of public life.

ITV and UTV regard the Ofcom process as a done deal. All Ofcom has done is to say, look — no hands. I do not think that that is good enough. Ofcom’s obligation is to protect public-service broadcasting, and I do not believe that any public organisation can allow a situation in which a company files a redundancy notice and identifies, as part of it, regulatory reduction in Ofcom output. It is a recommendation, not a decision, and the state agency does nothing about it other than note it. We deserve more from Ofcom. It is a Pontius Pilate act that we cannot stand over.

Public-service broadcasting is important. We must rely on the BBC to be the cornerstone of public-service broadcasting. In the South, we know the impact of adventures that are based on commercial decisions. In broadcasting, the implications of the Century Radio debacle had a huge impact on RTÉ, its pension scheme and its employment. The one question that the Ofcom representative did not answer was Mr Ramsey’s question concerning employment. Ofcom thinks that it does not have a role in employment, but I do not think that one can ignore the employment implications of a decision, or the interpretation of a decision or direct recommendation.

The prospect of top-slicing — that is, the concept of taking money from the BBC and giving it to commercial broadcasters whose priority is the interest of shareholders — poses a very real threat. It poses a threat to the BBC and to commercial broadcasting: the incentives and imperatives are different. The imperatives of commercial organisations are share prices. They are commercial organisations: they are in it for the money. We must be very careful about the protection of public-service broadcasting. In addressing the Ofcom analysis, I believe that Ofcom is wrong in deciding that the model is flawed and that we need a new one. We need to examine the model, and we need an economic analysis that contains part carrot, part stick. BECTU and the NUJ have commissioned a study to consider the potential for financial incentives, including the use of tax initiatives for those engaged in public-service broadcasting, and levies for those who do not produce their own programmes.

Over the past 50 years, UTV has played an important part in the life of Northern Ireland. It is in all our interests to ensure diversity and plurality, and that any decisions taken because of short-term economic difficulties — and there are economic difficulties — are in the best interests of the viewers and the organisation. UTV could become simply another platform, a vehicle by which viewers can watch popular programmes. That is fine, and those programmes have their place. However, that does not become a public-service broadcaster, and eventually it becomes the lesser-spotted UTV.

Mr Shannon:

I sympathise with your points. The Ofcom representatives referred to “new hours” — their terminology. They said that these were the minimum and that UTV had the right, if it so wished, to produce more hours. Will you comment on that, please? It has been intimated by others, including Ofcom and Northern Ireland Screen, that the motives for these changes emanate from ITV centrally. You mentioned other issues such as levies and/or tax breaks, which could be examined as incentives for greater investment. Will you give us some indication of how that would work?

Mr Dooley:

Regarding the first point: the quality will remain the same. You cannot fit two gallons of water into a glass that size. No industry can afford to wipe out experienced staff members’ jobs — technical, journalistic and editorial — and continue to provide the same service. Although that may be UTV’s intention — it would be suicidal for any commercial operation to do otherwise — it cannot maintain the same level of service if it wipes out the jobs of people with decades of experience of covering Northern Ireland.

This morning, in reply to a question from either Mr Shannon or Mr Brolly, Ofcom stated that the broadcaster that jumps ahead bears the risk. No, it does not; the people who accept voluntary redundancy because they see no future for themselves, or the people who will be made compulsorily redundant, bear the risk of UTV’s pre-empting the decision. Even if the company were to make the wrong decision, it would still be able to hire new people at a lower rate.

Given that we have commissioned an eminent research institute to carry out specific enquiries into the nature of the analysis that prompted the decision, I will not attempt to answer the member’s question about it. Nevertheless, we envisage there being tax breaks and incentives for companies that meet their public-service obligations. In an Ofcom forum, our general secretary, Jeremy Dear, suggested that Ofcom should conduct a similar detailed analysis, which — rather than the current one-two-three, tick-box approach — should form part of the decision-making exercise; Ofcom refused to do that. I hoped that we might have been able to give the Committee an exclusive by having our report ready for this meeting; unfortunately, we do not.

Mr Shannon:

David McNarry asked Ofcom whether its consultation might lead to a change in the proposed recommendations, and — although extracting information was like pulling teeth — its representative replied that it might. Are you persuaded?

Mr Dooley:

Although my colleagues may wish to comment on that possibility, based on what I have seen so far, I am deeply worried that consultations may not lead to changes.

I recognise that there is a global financial crisis, with serious implications for commercial broadcasting, so I concede the fact that there will be job losses in the sector. However, there is a danger that that long-term situation might be being used to justify short-term decisions.

The Chairperson:

Do you sympathise with the assertion that commercial broadcasting is in decline?

Mr Dooley:

I do. I ran a little late for this meeting — for which I apologise — because I was taking a phone call about further redundancies in the media sector.

I wish that you had not said that — that is shocking. It is that type of stuff that is doing all the damage. If I were the controller of a television station, and wanted to earn big bucks, I would want to stage loads of ‘X Factor’-type programmes in Northern Ireland, because they would garner a great deal of advertising revenue. Anyway, I digress.

Mr D Bradley:

We have been encouraging Ofcom to engage in serious economic analyses about how to fund and promote public-service broadcasting. Ofcom’s view is that it is dealing with the current public-service broadcasters with that remit, and it will see what it can do. I believe that, as a statutory agency, Ofcom’s function is to promote public-service broadcasting; however, the approach that it is adopting is to throw up its hands in horror and say that there is nothing that can be done about it.

The nature of public-service broadcasting will change — how it evolves and how it is achieved as a result of digital technology is a challenge for everyone. However, the body that is responsible for public-service broadcasting has a duty to be proactive in promoting that concept. I do not think that we can give up — public-service broadcasting is too serious an issue for people to simply throw their hands up in horror and say that we can do without it. One of the problems is that it is very difficult to define, but people notice when it is absent.

Mr Brolly:

It is difficult to know what exactly Ofcom can do with a commercial company. It has said that UTV would have been proposing job reductions even if Ofcom had not issued the consultation document.

Having heard the arguments from both sides, I do not feel that it is reasonable to equate Ofcom’s responsibility with that of the union, because it is not an area in which Ofcom has any jurisdiction.

When I asked the Ofcom representatives what happens in the event of one of the public broadcasters defaulting on their licence prescription, I was told that they can be fined. However, although it is something of a bully-boy tactic, ITV could walk away from public broadcasting. Therefore, the issue is not with the role of Ofcom — it relates to how the unions, on behalf of the employees that they represent, can deal with a commercial company. The fact that four or five other television companies are going to shed staff indicates that the companies are trying simply to minimise the effect of the 10% downturn in advertising.

Mr Dooley:

Ofcom’s involvement in this saga arises from the identification of the Ofcom decision by management in its legal document. We accept that there is an economic downturn and are quite prepared to negotiate with the company on the same basis, in the same spirit and in the same terms as we have with the BBC, if UTV is arguing that there is a parallel between the two situations. We are seeking to minimise redundancies and work with UTV to ensure that the interests of the viewers are best served by the implementation of a restructuring that does not involve wholesale redundancies but does involve a full exploration of alternatives to redundancies.

The Chairperson:

Thank you, Mary, Luke, Patrick and Seamus, for your presentation.

I invite Mr Michael Wilson, managing director of UTV, to brief the Committee. I advise Michael that we expect a presentation lasting 10 minutes or less, after which members will have an opportunity to ask questions.

Mr K Robinson:

Before Mr Wilson begins, I want to inform him that I will have to leave the meeting shortly, so he should not feel offended if I leave during his presentation — it will not have been because of anything he has said; it is just that I have another appointment.

Mr McNarry:

Mr Robinson said that I could use up his time. [Laughter.]

Mr Michael Wilson (UTV):

Good afternoon, and thank you very much for the invitation to address the Committee today. As the Committee is aware, I wrote to every MLA in early September to bring Ofcom’s second public service review to their attention. I did that because we at UTV believed that there were significant areas that required public and political debate as a result of the review.

Since that time, the commercial conditions that UTV and other broadcasters operate under have dramatically changed — in a negative manner. When I wrote that letter, I was not expecting to have had announced proposals for change on such a grand scale. The company probably would have announced some changes, but certainly not on the scales that are currently proposed.

My presentation today will deal with short-, medium- and longer-tern issues. The short-term issues will deal with UTV’s proposals and the reasons for those proposals. The medium-term issues will deal with our concerns up to the end of our licence in 2014, and the longer-term issues will address the issues beyond 2014, and future licensing.

The proposed changes are pretty well known, and have been well briefed and lobbied on. If any member would like me to run through the proposals line-by-line, I can do that. However, the main thrust of the proposals include: a restructuring of the company, with a staffing reduction of somewhere between 25 and 35; a change to some programming; and an implementation of Ofcom’s proposals, following its review.

The reasons for the introduction of the proposals are three-fold, and I will address those reasons in order of importance to UTV. First, approximately 14 months ago, UTV plc merged the operations and the television-production department into a new division named UTV Television. That allowed us to see exactly what resources we were using, because, at one point, we almost had a supplier-user relationship, rather than a partnership. That partnership has now been established in relation to the use of cameras and editing — and the managers now sit in the same room, whereas previously they were not even on the same floor. As a result, we now understand what resources we require, now and in the future, and we see that we were over-resourced in some departments.

The second reason for the proposals is the economic downturn and its effects. The Committee must be reminded of how quickly that downturn came upon us. There were rumblings earlier in the year in relation to the financial crisis, but it was only in the last three months or so that we have experienced real issues.

What happens in Wall Street and the City of London has an effect in Limavady. Advertisers start to look at their cash flows, whether their goods or services will be bought in the future, and what prices those goods and services can be sold at. Following that, they then examine their advertising spend and, as everyone is aware, advertising and marketing is one of the first budgets to go in any business, particularly during a downturn. As a result of that, we have seen a dramatic reduction in our advertising revenue.

However, such problems are not only affecting UTV. Open any media paper and it will show advertising down 9%, 10% or, in some quarters, 25%. Indeed, I noticed yesterday that one newspaper group reported that advertising profits were down by over 60%. Those are significant reductions in advertising revenues and, as a commercial broadcaster, the majority of our income comes through advertising and sponsorship.

The final issue is the Ofcom proposals themselves. The reason that we are pushing forward with our proposals, and trying to implement them as soon as possible, is that we are over-producing, against the Ofcom proposals. I have heard the debate so far today, and I would suggest that the floor-and-ceiling argument that has been put forward is not relevant. That is because we are producing — and proposing to produce — far more than we are required to under the Ofcom proposals. Unless Ofcom significantly revises its position — by proposing that public-service broadcasting is increased by more than 50%; something that no commentator is expecting — we will be already performing within the scope of Ofcom proposals. Therefore, the use of the phrase “putting the cart before the horse” is, in fact, a red herring. I am happy to answer specific questions on that topic.

I will address the issues that are most relevant to the Committee. We must address the medium-term issues between now and 2014. The Ofcom document is a three-phase review. The first review was published, after which responses were submitted. Similarly, the second review was produced, and further responses will be submitted. Thereafter, the final report will be published. UTV’s response to the first review was bullish, because we felt that significant regional production was sustainable. Everyone knew that it would become more difficult to produce output, and, therefore, we put future reductions tied with the digital penetration in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland’s digital television consumption is the lowest in the UK, and, therefore, we proposed a glide path tied to the percentage of digital television. As digital television becomes more common, audiences for conventional channels such as BBC One, BBC Two, channel 3, Channel 4 and Five will decrease. Therefore, revenue will also decrease. It is simple commercial maths.

With that in mind, we proposed a reduction. Other broadcasters proposed a flat level of half an hour of regional and national production. We have always considered national and regional provision to be hugely important to our commercial sustainability and to our public face. We are a small brand, and we do not make programmes for ITV network. Therefore, our audience — and UTV itself — values coverage of local programming, personalities, news, sport, current affairs and programmes such as ‘Lesser Spotted Ulster’.

As Richard Williams said, our short-term future is out of our hands. If ITV plc hands back its public-service broadcast licence, we will not have a backbone of network programming to support ourselves. Neither Ofcom nor ITV have outlined details of that hand back. As Séamus said, I would be surprised — and it is a personal opinion rather than a corporate one — if ITV handed back the licence. However, we sent our letter to all MLAs to ensure that politicians in Northern Ireland are aware that such a risk exists and to encourage Ofcom to create a regulatory environment that will allow ITV plc to remain a public-service broadcaster.

Modelling is the long-term issue. Ofcom, initially, proposed four models. The latest document suggests three models, of which your researcher delivered a good summary. However, they are merely models, and none of them fits UTV’s view of the future. We prefer the evolution model, but it must be changed significantly to allow nations and regions to deliver programming that is relevant to their nations and regions. We do not support a one-size-fits-all approach; UTV wants to deliver public-service broadcasting to Northern Ireland while it remains commercially sustainable to do so.

However, the evolution model raises areas of concern. Ofcom might advertise a UK-wide channel 3 licence. Therefore, regardless of UTV’s public popularity, we might be unable to apply for a licence for Northern Ireland. The Committee and the Assembly should be aware of that possibility, and we are grateful for the opportunity to raise that issue to ensure that your policy advisers can adopt party-political positions on the matter.

The train has not yet left the station. I am aware that the Assembly will debate a motion on whether Ofcom’s consultation should be extended. That consultation has being running for almost one year now, and the broadcasters, including UTV, are seeking clarity about their futures rather than trying to second-guess the opinion of the regulator and, indeed, at times, the public and lobbyists. Therefore, we want some clarity from Ofcom and the Department of Culture, Music and Sport (DCMS) on those issues.

Mr P Ramsey:

In the briefing paper, you refer to an increase in current affairs output; will you elaborate on that? Earlier in this session, the Committee heard evidence from the trade-union movement, representatives of which provided an economic analysis of the situation in broadcasting. I will put the same question to you as I did to them. UTV receives good revenue for the advertisements that it shows during quality sport and current affairs programmes, such as ‘Insight’. Therefore, if the quality of those programmes is reduced, the likelihood is that commercial revenue will also be reduced.

As a commercial company, UTV has had it good for several years. UTV’s profit margins for 2006-07 were £2 million, which was an increase of 50%. Two directors were appointed. Last year, profit margins rose from £800,000 to £1·5 million. Therefore, UTV has had some particularly good years, but it must now sustain itself through a difficult period.

The consensus, among all the political parties, is that we are all in an economic crisis; everyone accepts that. However, surely now is not the time to dismantle the capacity of UTV’s current affairs unit, which produces investigative journalism, or the sports unit. We are all proud of that brand; it has done exceptionally good work. Once that is dismantled, it cannot be re-created. Once the capacity has gone, it is gone. Will you await the outcome of the conclusions in Ofcom’s final report before introducing the wide-scale redundancies that are proposed? I also asked the unions this question: did you enter into any discussions with the staff at UTV about efficiency redundancies prior to the Ofcom proposals being drafted?

Mr M Wilson:

I could spend the next two hours answering those questions, but I will try to summarise my points. Of course we will wait before reducing programme hours. At the moment, we are licensed to produce four hours of news programmes. Next year, we will produce between one and a half hours to four hours, depending on when the —

Mr P Ramsey:

That is not the question that I asked. My question is not about four hours or five hours, it is about your proposals to cancel ‘Insight’ and high-quality sports programmes.

Mr M Wilson:

In that case, the straight answer is no. That is not as rude as it may sound. The widely held assumption is that, on the day that Ofcom made its announcement, we devised a plan on the back of a fag packet and rushed that through. That was not the case. Long before Ofcom made its announcement, I had consulted with Mary Curry, mother of the NUJ chapel and executive producer of ‘Insight’, about changing the programme’s format next year. Those debates took place long before the Ofcom announcement.

Dominic, we can do all the things that you mentioned because, even after the changes, we will still have more editorial staff than the majority of regions. For example, STV went through significant staffing changes several years ago, and ITV is proposing similar changes now. If we were simply making cuts to save money and protect the bottom line, we could make them deeper by up to £1 million.

However, the effects of those cuts would be seen on screen. Cutting that deep would damage our commercial offering, so we are trying to find a middle way through. Welsh evening news programmes — which I hope are better comparators than Tyne Tees news programmes — will probably have six, seven or eight daily reporters. Our head of news will still have between 11 and 13 people to call on for the daily news programme.

Welsh news programmes use, perhaps, five or six cameras each day. We will offer a minimum of seven or eight cameras each day for coverage in Northern Ireland. The geography here is much less challenging than that in Wales. That is why I can make those statements with confidence. I apologise to those who have already heard me say this, but UTV has tried to reduce staff naturally over the years, because we were staffed at an appropriate level for our recent history. In the past, the day could have started with a news agenda that bore no resemblance to the eventual evening news programme. From 9.00 am — give or take a few items — we now know what will constitute our evening news programme, so fewer resources are wasted.

That is not the case. More people will put polish on the product, but that does not mean that we will have fewer people on the front line than in other ITV regions.

David asked whether I am proud of our regional news programming. The content of the regional news programming from both channels is exceptionally good. The area in which we fail — and in which the BBC fails — is the production polish of those programmes, which makes them look regional rather than being high quality. That is the area in which UTV needs to work, not its editorial output.

Mr McCausland:

Reference was made to ‘Insight’. What programmes do you regard as presently comprising your current affairs programming? What will it be like after the changes? Do you accept that many people see it as a dumbing down or a move in the wrong direction as regards the handling of current affairs?

Mr Brolly:

Dominic mentioned the top-heavy issue. All organisations of your kind employ directors and executives who earn huge salaries. It strikes me that, if cuts were made in that area, enough money would be found to pay the people who are currently employed in the organisation.

Programmes with local content are often bought in from the independent sector, and perhaps that should be considered further. I am certain that UTV employees could produce such programmes, possibly better than those outside companies. It is a false economy to get rid of people while we are in a downturn because the organisation might have to go scrabbling back and seek to employ those people again when the situation improves.

Every effort should be made to retain all your existing staff, because the people who prepare, produce and present those programmes are much more important than the news, the issue or the idea. For example, if certain people, whose names I will not mention, were to read the news, viewers would probably switch to another channel. People are your most important economic, cultural and visual asset.

The Chairperson:

Please make your answers brief, Mr Wilson.

Mr M Wilson:

I will try to rattle through my answers. At the moment, our current-affairs programmes are ‘Insight’, which accounts for approximately half of the total, ‘Late and Live’, which accounts for approximately three-quarters of the remaining half, and the remainder are single half-hour programmes, such as ‘My Brother, the Father’, for which we went to South Africa with Father Kieran Creagh, and programmes such as ‘The Troubles I’ve Seen’, the Denis Tuohy documentaries that went out earlier in the year.

Future productions will contain more analysis, similar to programmes such as ‘Newsnight’ or ‘Channel 4 News’, and much shorter programmes on current affairs. However, as I said earlier, space and funding are available for any relevant investigation — please be in no doubt about that.

“Dumbing down” is a tabloid phrase. We will let the viewer decide, but I do not equate a higher audience with a lower standard of programme, and I do not think that we are dumbing down.

I am not on UTV’s board, but it should be praised for creating a vibrant media company that has invested in new media and radio across the UK and Ireland. Had we not made that investment, the future of media in Northern Ireland would be bleak, and the board should not be criticised for creating employment and prosperity here. Their salaries, which were criticised, are benchmarked with the industry, and the solution to the problems does not lie there.

The buying in of programmes is the subject of one of the main creative debates, and I could adopt either position. I do not know whether Richard Williams is still here, but the position that I have taken is to try to represent the broader production sector in Northern Ireland. If companies such as UTV were not helping young companies to make their first independent productions, there would be no pool of individuals with production experience from which Channel 4, the BBC, Five, or even ITV, RTÉ, and so forth, could select, and the creative industries in Northern Ireland would not flourish.

Mr Brolly, you are right about jobs, but not about the wider creative industries. Richard Williams would argue strongly that we are right to have a policy of investment in the independent sector. I like to think that we tread a reasonable middle ground, with good in-house production and the best of out-of-house production, but we could debate that subject for hours.

We have some fantastic people. I am not certain whether I equate reading the news with celebrity, but I guess that that is true of local television. Although we have proposed a reduction in the number of presenters, familiar faces — whichever those faces turn out to be in three or four months’ time — will still present the UTV news.

Mr Brolly:

Your being based here gives you a terrific advantage in relation to your audience, and the fact that your programmes spill over to most of Ireland makes it more economically viable.

Mr M Wilson:

That is one area on which we disagree with Ofcom. We take no additional revenue out of the Irish Republic. Certain advertisers, of which Kellogg’s is one, buy advertising for Northern Ireland as an all-Ireland purchase, and they do not buy advertising for Northern Ireland out of London. Therefore, there are some accounts that are handled in Dublin for which the money would otherwise have come from London. That is not additional revenue; it is simply revenue from the same ads that you see in the UK, but the advertising is bought out of Dublin.

Also — and I do not like admitting facts such as this — but TV3, with programmes such as ‘Coronation Street’, ‘Emmerdale’ and ‘The X Factor’, is an extremely strong channel. Our audience share in the Republic has dropped dramatically since TV3 got its act together, and even our overspill audience is nowhere near its former level.

Although I do not like to admit that, if we are talking about commercials, it is a fact.

The Chairperson:

Thank you for answering our questions and making your presentation.

Members, the Committee is now tasked with discussing the action that it wishes to take as a result of the evidence that it has heard. It must consider several options. Does it wish to submit a formal response to the Ofcom consultation? If so, what are the main points that it wants to make? Are there common issues of concern on which we can all agree?

The Minister discussed the Ofcom consultation in the House on Monday 17 November 2008. He said that his Department would submit a response to the consultation. Does the Committee wish to ask the Department to copy it into its response? Does the Committee wish to write to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in order to raise any high-level concerns that it has for the future of broadcasting here?

Does the Committee wish to write to Minister Campbell to ask that he reports back to us in person after his meeting with his counterparts in Scotland and Wales in order to discuss their experiences of a broadcasting commission and a broadcasting committee? The Committee could then explore with the Minister what action must be taken to protect local broadcasting. It must be remembered that the Committee first raised the idea of a local broadcasting commission. Therefore, I seek agreement on the way forward. Does the Committee Clerk have anything to add?

The Committee Clerk:

The first matter that must be considered is whether the Committee wishes to submit a response to the Ofcom consultation or whether it wants to go one level higher and go directly to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Mr Brolly:

Quite, clearly, as someone said earlier, the creation of a commission will take time, which we simply do not have. Therefore, we must try to think of something that can be put into action much more swiftly. Fundamentally, we must get to that point before UTV sends final notices to its employees. At present, it is outside our remit to deal with the how the company operates. People who work for UTV produce the type of programmes that we like to watch. Clearly, those programmes will suffer as a result of the swingeing cuts that have been proposed.

Mr P Ramsey:

Even though UTV is regulated by Ofcom, the consultation is a separate issue. Ofcom has raised several important issues during its consultation. We should submit a formal response to that consultation. The debate that will take place on Monday 24 November will play a huge part in deliberations because it will demonstrate all parties’ positions on the matter.

I do not want to stifle debate, but today’s session has been long. Meadhbh McCann presented an informative research paper on all areas. We must take time out to examine that paper. It would be useful to hear whether Ofcom has conceded to David’s request to extend the consultation period. We plan to meet on either Monday 24 November or Tuesday 25 November, which might, perhaps, be too early to discuss the matter properly. We should, however, take time to consider the matter before the meeting on Thursday 27 November.

Mr McNarry:

We must take a position now in order to justify why we have been here for two and a half hours. Our position can then be sent to interested parties. I will need time to reflect on the matter, because today’s meeting has shifted the focus. Although the focus has been on the able presentations that were made by the unions and UTV, which are diametrically opposed, the heat is on Ofcom and how it has approached the situation. Therefore, in order to determine what the broader picture is in the longer term, we must examine the Ofcom situation in more detail.

Chairman, we must take a position on the matter fairly quickly. Even if it is ignored due to time constraints, we must put down our marker to Ofcom during the consultation.

The Chairperson:

Any imminent discussion will benefit from the Hansard records of today’s meeting. You have often said, David, that you like to read those records.

Mr McCausland:

The deadline for submissions is currently 4 December. Our next meeting is on 27 November. Are we not in a position to be fairly well firmed-up with a response by next week? I was going to suggest the possibility of deferring one of the agenda items to create more space for that.

Mr McNarry:

Is it possible that Kathryn and her team could put together a draft for us on the basis of what they have heard? Monday’s debate worries me slightly, because much of the content relates to commercialism. I would be happier if that were deleted, but that is not going to happen. For us to go deep into commercialism is, I think, beyond us. We need to establish principles. I think that the consensus is that we need to stand up and fight for a local broadcasting company that is under the hammer, and we need to do that to the best of our ability.

Mr D Bradley:

I do not remember all of the alternatives, but I agree about the response to the Ofcom consultation. It would be useful to get a copy of the DCAL response, if possible. I think that it may be worth considering some communication with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regarding our concerns about the future state of local broadcasting in relation to the commercial element.

I think that, out of today’s deliberations and the debate on Monday, the Committee staff should be able to distil the core views of the Committee and we can add to and extend that next week.

The Committee Clerk:

Chairperson, when my team receives the Hansard report of today’s meeting, which may not be until Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, we will also have the Hansard report of Monday’s Assembly debate. We can then put together a list of the key issues that members and the various organisations have raised.