| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Smith: On the hon. Gentleman's last and very serious point, the newspaper stories were so off the mark in their speculation that they did not provide a pre-emptive view of the statement. On the rest of his remarks, I hope that the proposals are well-balanced. They acknowledge that the BBC deserves additional funding, but we want much greater efficiency and much better scrutiny of what it does in return. He asked whether there would be an impact on the licence fee settlement if the BBC failed to make the savings that we want it to make. The answer is yes. We intend to hold it very firmly to the efficiency targets that we have put in place.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the role of the NAO. We considered the Davies committee proposal about its role carefully, but made our decision for two reasons. First, it does not have the expertise in fair trading issues and the division between commercial and public sector activity that we require in this exercise, and so is perhaps not the most appropriate body. Secondly, and perhaps more important, a political role is not appropriate in taking on such a degree of scrutiny of the BBC's finances. The detailed scrutiny is best done by an independent body, but its report should be made openly to the House of Commons and made available for scrutiny by it.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Are not a number of Tory MPs increasingly coming round to the view that the BBC, or a large chunk of it, should be privatised and given over to those who dominate the commercial sector? Needless to say, there would be the
Mr. Smith:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the Tories continued their opposition even when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his welcome announcement a few months ago. A Conservative was reported as saying that the concession was an "empty gesture". It is not; it is of real importance to many thousands of people.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet):
Further to that answer, the Government appear to have taken a bad and inequitable system and made it worse. Now there is division not only between people in different homes, but between ages. However, we have got a start date out of them at last. The Chancellor made the announcement and passed the buck to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The DCMS has passed the buck to the BBC. Has the Department considered whether it will make available the relevant age and age-related information to enable the BBC to implement the proposal by 1 November? Given that the Government, for the first time, are paying£300 million in direct grant to the BBC, how long will it be before the Government begin to exercise political control over it?
Mr. Smith:
We have chosen such a mechanism for implementing the concession for those aged 75 and over precisely because we do not want the Government to exercise political control over the BBC. Provided that primary legislation can be passed to enable it to do so and as soon as that happens, the Department of Social Security will make details of everyone aged 75 and over available to the BBC so that they can be contacted.
Mr. John Grogan (Selby):
Does my right hon. Friend welcome the widespread support given in evidence to the Select Committee for the principle of the licence fee, notably from BSkyB and the independent television sector, but also from virtually every witness other than Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie of Talksport? Does he also welcome the fall in licence fee evasion rates in recent years, which has been achieved largely by easy-payment schemes? Will he encourage the BBC to develop such schemes, particularly to allow monthly rather than quarterly payment of the licence fee?
Mr. Smith:
I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming the wide support for the principle of the licence fee, and agree with him about the need to ensure that we have a properly funded BBC. I also agree with him about the need to ensure that easy-payment schemes are more readily available: that, indeed, is an element of the package that I have announced.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove):
I am sure the Secretary of State is aware of the majority view expressed by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which contains a majority of Labour Members, that the BBC should not be given any further funds until the completion of a proper review of its services, and of what it should be doing in a multi-media age. Is the right hon.
Mr. Smith:
Not giving the BBC further funds to enable it to ensure that its core services remain good, worth watching and of real quality, and that it can take a lead in developing new digital services, would render the country lacking in a high-quality BBC into the future. That is not a future that I--or, indeed, those to whom the hon. Lady refers--want.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on standing up to the poodles of Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black on the Opposition Benches. Does he agree not just that the BBC represents excellent value for money, but that public service broadcasting is still one of the things that this country does better than any other?
My right hon. Friend spoke of efficiency savings. Will he ensure that the BBC makes those savings within the army of bureaucrats, managers and accountants that it has appointed in the last 10 or 15 years, and not among programme makers?
Mr. Smith:
I say a robust yes to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I note with great pleasure that in his very first statements as director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke has said that he intends to do precisely that.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):
The House enjoyed the irony in the Secretary of State's announcement that he had come to the House "at the very earliest opportunity". He went on to say that his financial proposals should be enough, without specifying for what BBC role they were to be enough. Does he agree that if you do not know where you are trying to go, any road will get you there?
Mr. Smith:
I much enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman's succinct analysis of the Tory party in its current condition.
We have made it very clear where we want the BBC to go. We want to ensure that it can be a quality programme maker into the future, providing good programmes for the entire population, and that it continues to develop, in particular, education and interactivity services, and devolved services for the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
The Secretary of State rightly underlined the Government's support for and commitment to the future of the BBC. He specifically mentioned sport. Can he assure us that those who cannot afford satellite or cable television will still be able to see a fair measure of sport on the BBC?
Mr. Smith:
I very much hope the BBC will continue to ensure that sport forms a key part of the menu of services that it offers on its channels. The listed events regulations require great national sporting events to be shown free-to-air in any case; but, in addition to that, the BBC must continue to view sport as part of its public service offering.
Mr. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden):
I thank the Secretary of State for his letter to me about the
Despite the suggestion of the Davies panel, despite the recommendation of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and despite the right hon. Gentleman's own comment that the BBC will have to satisfy the House in regard to the proper use of its money, he has decided not to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General--the House's Officer--to have access to the BBC.
The answers that the right hon. Gentleman gave a number of hon. Members were ill briefed. He said that the NAO had no experience of fair trading issues. In the past few years that I have been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the NAO has conducted eight oversights of regulatory bodies. Six related to fair trading issues. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he needed to maintain the independence of the BBC. Over the past century, the NAO has overseen universities and maintained academic freedom. He has undermined that himself with the £300 million grant. He finished by saying that the reviews would report to him. Does he consider himself to be more independent than the CAG?
Mr. Smith:
We considered very carefully the proposal from the Davies panel and from the Select Committee. The central question is how best to ensure that the BBC is opened up to the most effective scrutiny by the necessary experts, so that it maintains its fair trading commitments and has proper and robust financial systems in place. Our judgment was that that is best done by independent analysts reporting publicly, so that their analysis can be tested in debate and by questioning by the Select Committee. That is the best way to go forward.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |