| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hawkins: Let us wait and see.
Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman can wait and see. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating; we will be judged by our success in achieving our aims. The serious point is that the voluntary and the business sectors have an enormously important role to play. It is vital that both sectors be represented on the boards. I assure the House that they will be.
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) about housing. The role of local authorities and local housing associations is vital in smoothing the transition from a life of crime to one of law-abiding and industrious activity.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng:
I do not think that necessary. [Interruption.] It is neither necessary nor desirable. But against my better judgment, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hughes:
The Minister has been unusually generous. Even if the Home Secretary will technically keep the power of appointment, will Ministers reflect on whether appointments can be made only if they have the agreement of the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats?
Mr. Boateng:
I think that that suggestion is highly unlikely to commend itself to the Committee considering the Bill. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his point in Committee--and at length, if he keeps to his usual practice. We will then consider how best to take the message forward.
The message that the Bill sends out is clear: crime will not be tolerated. The criminal justice system will respond in a tough and unequivocal manner at every stage to fight crime and improve public protection. The Bill takes that agenda forward and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
Question agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
I beg to move,
We think that there is a need to reflect on the mismanagement of the issue by the Secretary of State and his Department. There are questions relating to the proposal for free television licences for pensioners aged 75 and older, which need to be put on the record.
We are disappointed that the Government have chosen to link an unjustified increase in the licence fee and the proposed free licences for pensioners over 75 in one set of regulations. Effectively, this has denied the House the opportunity of expressing a separate view on two fundamentally different elements. As the regulations cannot be amended, the package must be accepted or rejected as a whole. In effect, that guarantees that the Government will get their way on the licence fee increase, whatever the merits of the case.
I wish to make it clear that we support the BBC and its unique position within the United Kingdom and throughout the world. The BBC is a key part of our national life and has established a benchmark of quality of programmes to which many other broadcasters merely aspire. The output of the BBC World Service reaches billions of people throughout the globe, often circumventing state-imposed censorship of national news broadcasts. We should celebrate that.
Without question, the licence fee has played a crucial role in ensuring the continuation of the BBC's distinctive role and the high quality of its output. That should be retained, which means that we must be careful not to ask the viewing public to pay more than is reasonable. There is a limit, and that limit is bound to be influenced by people's viewing habits in a multi-channel age. With digital, satellite and cable delivery systems now sufficiently established for the Secretary of State to have announced a welcome target date for analogue switch-off, we think that the time has come for the BBC's role in that multi-channel environment to be reassessed and redefined.
In essence, we think that the Government are putting the cart before the horse in obliging the licence fee payer to stump up more money for the BBC in the absence of a clear and modern definition of the BBC's role. The areas to which this extra revenue is to be directed amount to little more than a wish list. They are not a coherent long-term strategy. Nor could they be, because a new director general has only just been appointed, with expectations of far-reaching reform. In what seems to us
an extraordinary omission, the question of the BBC's remit was not part of the Gavyn Davies inquiry, which led to the licence fee increase, albeit in a way not originally envisaged.
We would argue that the BBC's primary purpose should be to produce a quality and diversity of programmes that is not possible or sustainable by commercial television. The licence fee allows the BBC to take risks and to cater for minority interests, as well as providing a range of programmes of popular appeal that attract sufficient audiences to ensure that all licence fee payers find something that they want to watch at various times. In addition, BBC radio is one of the nation's most endearing institutions, and provides an unrivalled service, especially in news, current affairs and sport. Where would we be without the BBC telling us the football results at various times?
The new director general, Greg Dyke, has reaffirmed that the BBC's overriding priority must be to ensure that the maximum resource is put into programme making. We warmly welcome this approach and agree with the analysis that there remains too much bureaucracy and administration. It is a long overdue approach in the BBC.
Mr. Desmond Browne (Kilmarnock and Loudoun):
I am glad that there is a consistency of approach between that taken by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 1 February and that taken by the hon. Gentleman this evening. Indeed, one speech could have done for both hon. Members in the presentation of the argument. The key to the argument appears to be the absence of a modern definition of the BBC's role. That is a phrase that both hon. Members have used. Is there any intention to give us the Opposition's definition of the BBC's modern role?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. A narrow matter is before us. We are discussing the increase in the licence fee, and we must restrict ourselves to that and not debate the role of the BBC. Perhaps that issue can be discussed on another occasion.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act;
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.--[Mr. Mike Hall.]
That the draft Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
Question agreed to.
That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft Gas Industry (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft Energy from Waste Plants (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.--[Mr. Allen.]
8.20 pm
That the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 630), dated 6th March 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be annulled.
We have called the debate because we feel that the House should have the opportunity of debating a substantial increase in the BBC licence fee, particularly bearing in mind that the regulations substantially alter the arrangements that Parliament approved as recently as 1996. There was no way of achieving such a debate other than by an Opposition prayer. It is unfortunate that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is away on a foreign visit. I am sure that many members of that Committee would have wanted to contribute to the debate. We are grateful to them for their report on the funding of the BBC, which was published only three months ago.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |