| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Claire Ward (Watford): I welcome the concessions that my right hon. Friend has set out and the scrutiny that will take place of the BBC. However, when the BBC appeared before the Select Committee, it was unable to give a convincing explanation of why it wanted the extra funding and of what it would do with it. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that account is given of that money and that scrutiny takes place, so that the situation that we have with News 24 does not arise again? A vast sum of money is being spent but there is no accountability to licence fee payers.
Mr. Smith: I can indeed assure my hon. Friend of that. It is precisely because the £700 million demand from the BBC was not well put together that we have concluded that it was not the appropriate figure to go for. Any new services, any development of efficiency in what the BBC is doing at the moment, and any spending of the additional funds that are being made available to it will be subject to the clearest scrutiny and the most open processes.
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which will be reasonably well received in Wales, particularly the news that there will not be a tax on digital knowledge. May I ask him for more reassurances that the cost-efficiency savings that he is seeking from the BBC should not be to the diminution
of English-language BBC programmes in Wales? In fact, we should be working towards the setting up of an English-language digital service for Wales.
Mr. Smith: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that any cost-efficiency savings that we demand of the BBC will not be at the cost of important public service programmes such as English-language programmes in Wales.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but will he assure me of two things: first, that local radio stations will also be able to have access to digital broadcasting--for example, BBC Radio Northampton would want to provide services in that spectrum; and secondly, that, if the licence fee is to increase, it is important for the BBC to ensure that everyone can receive it?
The whole of the east of my constituency is unable to get any BBC or other terrestrial channel because they are all wired up for cable television. Even if people pay the licence fee, they will have to pay cable charges on top to get TV. It is important that people should be able to get the BBC, particularly if they are paying increased licence access to fee charges.
Mr. Smith: In response to my hon. Friend's question about digital radio, it is the case that digital radio is expected to roll out probably rather more slowly than digital television and will encompass local as well as national stations. On her key point about everyone having access to BBC services, I have made it clear that, before any overall switch-over from analogue to digital can take place, digital services, including BBC services, must be receivable by everyone who has a television set at the moment.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood): At a time when virtually every day seems to bring news of another agreement that will break down the distinction between traditional types of media and the new internet technologies, is it not increasingly clear that a nationalised institution that is prevented--and rightly so for as long as it remains a nationalised institution--from fully taking part in the multi-media world is in severe danger of becoming an anachronism?
Mr. Smith: It is precisely because the BBC has done so exceptionally well in the development of BBC Online, which brings together traditional and new interactive media, that we wish to ensure that funding is available for such services to be developed in the future.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): How, in the Secretary of State's beguiling words, is BBC Scotland to be enhanced? What can he offer the BBC World Service to prevent the closure of some of its valuable services, which are certainly worth more than missiles?
Mr. Smith: The BBC has in mind the need to develop further services for Scotland. How it sets about doing that will be a matter of considerable public discussion in the next few months. The subvention to the World Service is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, not me. My hon. Friend's question would more appropriately be addressed to him.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): Does the Secretary of State accept that it is unjust that
an old person living in a property specially designed for pensioners can obtain a low-priced television licence only if the property is owned by a council, a charity or a housing association? Is not that terribly unfair to those living in identical accommodation that happens to be privately owned? I know that the Secretary of State did not create the problem, but, as he is trying to change matters for the better, should he not at least look at that problem before he introduces new legislation?
Mr. Smith: I greatly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point, although, as he rightly points out, we inherited the situation and did not create it. We have tried to come up with the fairest and most achievable package of reforms for concessions. We believe that our package, which includes free television licences for the over-75s, half-price licences for blind people and the maintenance of the existing accommodation for residential care concessionary scheme, is achievable and affordable and the fairest that we could come up with.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): Did my right hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) ask what was so special about the BBC? Does anyone who has seen the fate of "News at Ten" not know the answer to that? As not a single voice has been raised in support of the digital supplement, may I raise mine? I know that the decision was politically difficult, but would it not have been the fairest solution, certainly in the absence of extra help for low-income households?
Mr. Smith: We considered the digital licence supplement option carefully. As I said in my statement, we decided that it would not be the best option, particularly because the take-up of digital is rising so rapidly. We intend to ensure that an overall switch to digital will take place between 2006 and 2010. Putting a
temporary measure in place that would fade out under the Davies formula as the date of switch-over arrived would not provide the BBC with the buoyancy that it requires. It was a difficult decision but on balance of argument we felt that it was better to go for a modest and gradual increase in the general licence fee.My hon. Friend rightly says that to ask what is so special about the BBC is silly. It is self-evident that the BBC is a broadcaster of great quality, providing the people of this country with news, information and entertainment of the very highest quality. Indeed, it is one of the best things about Britain in this new global world. I want to ensure that we can maintain that.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): I welcome at least the fact that the Secretary of State said that the BBC is the hub of British cultural life, rather than claiming that for the millennium dome.
In its early years, the BBC avoided the ban on advertising in its broadcast media by having advertising in other media, such as the Radio Times and other publications, and by selling programmes overseas. Why did not the Secretary of State consider a third way for funding the BBC: having advertising on BBC Online using the new medium of the internet, and on some of the new digital channels, which are not the mainstream BBC, as BBC 1 and BBC 2 are? Many--not all--think that those traditional channels should continue to be funded as a public service.
Mr. Smith: Apart from the difficulties under the European Union state aid rules, we have no problem at all with the BBC taking advertising on any of its commercial services and publications. That is done at present, and there is much scope for expanding it further. We do not believe that it is right to have advertising on core BBC services.
Opposition Day
[5th Allotted Day]
Education
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I have had to limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes on the education motion only.
4.22 pm
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead): I beg to move,
- That this House notes the Government's failure to meet its manifesto commitment to spend a higher proportion of national income on education than the previous government, despite the Prime Minister's pledge that education would continue to have 'the first call on public resources'; deplores the Government's complacency in the face of the damage being done to excellence in education by increased bureaucracy, interference in schools, abolition of grant maintained status, introduction of grammar school ballots, obsession with targets and diversion of funds to meet political goals rather than the needs of schools; views with concern the Government's disregard for parental choice or student need; and calls on the Government to introduce common sense policies to improve standards by setting schools free, letting parents choose and trusting the professionals.
Andy Warhol said that, in the future, everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. This Government will be famous for their 15 failures in education. As they have failed to deliver on their promises and presided over the beginning of a fall in standards, what has their reaction been? Typically of a Labour party that lives by press release and photo-opportunity, they have tried to spin themselves out of the problem. Far from education, education, education, we have had spin, trickery, betrayal.
Let us consider education funding. The Labour party manifesto pledged to spend a higher proportion of the national income on education. What happened in the Government's first three years? The proportion of national income spent on education went down. Ministers may say that it is not fair to consider only one or two years, so I will be generous to the Government and consider the average of education spending over the previous and the present Government. The answer is still clear.
Under the Conservative Government, an average of 5 per cent. of national income was spent on education; in the five years of this Government, it will be 4.7 per cent.Let us consider what that means in actual money. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that my figures are untrue, but they are independent figures produced by the Library.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |