BBC RADIO SHOULD HAVE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION QUOTAS
Michael Fabricant, who is currently serving on the Standing Committee
scrutinising the Communications Bill in the House of Commons, is keen that
independent production quotas should be set for BBC and independent national
radio. "The Government is setting an independent production quota for BBC
Television so it makes good sense for it also to be set for BBC Radio. And
I have tabled amendments to the Communications Bill to achieve just that",
Michael Fabricant says.
Michael, who used to work for BBC and independent radio, argues "Many fine
programmes such as ‘This Sceptred Isle’ and ‘Something Understood’ on Radio
4 are produced by independent production companies. These companies employ
many broadcasters and technicians outside London and are a valuable and
alternative career structure to working within the BBC. With the growth of
digital radio services, there is even a greater need now to ensure that
independent production companies are not squeezed out of the market.
"My amendments to the Communications Bill would not prescribe a percentage
that should be set aside for independent radio production, even though 25%
is stated on the face of the Bill for television production. I would leave
it up to the Secretary of State or the new Office of Communications to set
the level. The BBC have a voluntary commitment to 10% and I would be happy
if that were the level imposed by the authorities. But like on so many
issues, the BBC should not be allowed to be its own judge and jury when
other broadcasters endure tighter controls."
Mr Fabricant’s amendments are opposed by the BBC, but have gained support
in some unlikely places. Andy Burnham, now a Labour MP and formerly an
official with the Secretary of State at the Department of Culture Media and
Sport (which has direct responsibility for the BBC) supports Michael’s
amendments which will be debated next week in Committee. Mr Burnham
recently wrote an article in The Guardian about this which can be accessed
by clicking here:
media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,878012,00.html