Lord McNally, Liberal Democrat communications spokesman in the Lords, expresses his concerns about the future for ITV.

When the Puttnam Committee (the joint pre-legislative scrutiny committee on the Communications Bill) reported in July 2002, one of its key recommendations was that the new regulator, Ofcom, should be asked to examine the implications of non-EU ownership of ITV before any such transfer of ownership would be allowed.

Our reasons were threefold:

First we believed that such an exercise would provide a breathing space to allow a unified ITV (which we supported) time to settle down and establish some sort of track record before it was again thrown into the melting pot by take-overs and rumours of take-overs.

Secondly we wanted to give Ofcom time to settle into its new role as super regulator. Lord Currie, its chairman, and his team assume their responsibilities on 29 December of this year.

Thirdly, we wanted, to quote the Puttnam report, "evidence rather than a decision based on largely unproven expectations" to determine whether an American or other foreign financed take-over would provide the benefits ministers claimed would flow from such a management change.

The government took its time to consider most of Puttnams' one hundred and forty plus recommendations - and accepted most of them.

However, on the matter of ITV, Tessa Jowell and Patricia Hewitt were briefing within hours that the government would resist at all costs attempts to prevent or delay opening up the possibility of an American takeover.

They were as good as their word and the Communications Act offers no protection for ITV. The ministers, Tessa Jowell in particular, stick to the assertion that American ownership of ITV will produce improved management, greater investment; but no dilution of either programme quality or British content. To say that this is the triumph of hope over experience is an understatement.Almost immediately the go-ahead is given for a single ITV the City flexes its muscles over the chairmanship and ITV is firmly in play.

Whether the removal of Michael Green is a welcome assertion of shareholder power or a softening up exercise to prepare the company for early sale is a matter for others to speculate.

What is important to assert, however, is that the future of ITV is not just a matter of City speculator. It is worth remembering why we have a Communications Act and do not leave the sector to the general rules governing competition and enterprise.

It is because parliament recognises that there are wider interests at stake - cultural identity, democratic values, regional representation - which means that broadcasting is covered by legislation which goes beyond the rule of the market place and the dictates of shareholder value.

Parliament does distort the market when it comes to broadcasting and it does so for the wider public good.

That is why ministers and Lord Currie, even before he gets behind his desk at Ofcom, should make it clear that would be purchasers of ITV are not buying a vacant lot.

The government may have resisted giving ITV the breathing space it deserved before throwing it open to possible American take-over; but parliament did insert some tough and specific licence obligations to protect the regional and public service remit of ITV.

Of course we already have noises off claiming that those commitments will restrict the profitability of ITV. But if parliament had wanted ITV to provide a terrestrial version of Sky One, it would have said so. It didn't, and both Ofcom and ministers have a duty to make it clear to would be purchasers that the licence commitments of ITV will be enforced.

If that cools the ardour of some would be suitors, so much the better. It is not as good a defence as the Puttnam breathing space would have given ITV; but it is better than nothing against the casual predator.

The tragedy is that it is not so long ago a unified ITV was being touted as a possible British-owned force in global broadcasting. Is the industry so poor in managerial and creative talent, or the City so timid in its investment decisions that our ambitions stop at a pre-sale fattening exercise orchestrated on the basis of shareholder interest first and last?

Tessa Jowell and Patricia Hewitt have a lot to answer for if that is the case.

It may be left to Lord Currie and Ofcom to prove that they have more teeth than might previously have been thought and that he is willing to use them if the City makes ITV into a speculative football. ITV is a national asset with national responsibilities going beyond shareholder profit, and the regulator must be prepared to defend those interests against a City bounce.

This article first appeared in the ePolitixPlus communications sector bulletin.