| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Television Licence Fee
16. Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central): If he will make a statement on the future level of the television licence fee. [128212]
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The licence fee rose by inflation plus 1.5 per cent. on 1 April this year and will rise by the same amount each year until 2006-07, when the current royal charter runs out. That additional funding will enable the
BBC to provide a strong and distinctive schedule of benchmark quality programmes on all its services and should help to drive the take-up of new digital and online services.
Mr. Benn: In view of my right hon. Friend's reply to an earlier question about the future governance of the BBC, what lessons has he drawn from the "News at Ten" affair about appropriate frameworks for governance, given that in that case we had a regulatory body that was separate from the companies producing the programmes?
Mr. Smith: The lessons are, of course, the same as relate to any regulation of broadcasting, particularly television--that is, that it must have a robust independence from Government but must be based on firm and clear principles set out in the founding legislation passed by this Parliament.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove): Is the Secretary of State aware that many people view their television licence fee as too high, especially in view of the amount of money given to the Prime Minister's friend in the form of salary and pension pay-off? The BBC might enjoy more public acceptance if it complied better with service requirements for subtitling for deaf people. What plans does he have, in the context of the licence fee, to improve subtitling on the BBC, which presently lags behind that provided by the ITV network?
Mr. Smith: The BBC retains the strong affection and respect of the vast majority of people. It is watched or listened to by well over 90 per cent. of the country every week. On the specific question about subtitling, I have already, as part of the announcement that I made to the House following the Government's response to the Davies report, set in place new and more stringent targets for the BBC to meet, especially under digital terrestrial broadcasting.
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked--
Farming Industry
29. Mr. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South): What steps the commissioners are taking in relation to rural communities to assist their tenants in the farming industry; and if he will make a statement. [128225]
Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Cases of extreme hardship are considered individually and we try to be as helpful as possible. For example, although the circumstances of individual tenants vary widely, recent rent review settlements have typically seen rent reductions in the region of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent.
Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that representatives of the Church's tenant farmers have
written to me? Why do not the Church Commissioners make it easy on themselves and give an across-the-board rent reduction to all their tenants?
Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for helpful suggestions and I consider that one of them. As I mentioned, the circumstances of individual tenants vary widely and it would not be an appropriate use of our funds if they benefited tenants whose financial situation did not warrant it.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I am a little perturbed by that reply from the hon. Gentleman. Given that the Church Commissioners own 128,000 acres of agricultural land, with several hundred tenants and no fewer than 340 farms; and given that the Church Commissioners' annual report refers to understanding of and support for tenant farmers in difficulty, can the hon. Gentleman at least confirm that no tenant farmer has been forced off his or her land on account of being unable to pay the dues?
Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for the direct question as well as the helpful one. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Church Commissioners own 128,000 acres, including about 350 farms. His question is pertinent, but we do offer assistance when farmers wish to give up or retire from the land. That may involve buying a home to let to them or sharing with them a proportion of the proceeds arising from the sale. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's direct question, I shall be glad to provide a written answer.
Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham): Has my hon. Friend any idea of how many of the clergy in rural areas hunt? If he can establish the numbers, could he perhaps, through the Church Commissioners, remind those clergy who do hunt that their job is to save souls, not to slaughter wildlife?
Mr. Bell: I am glad to see my hon. Friend back from his perambulations in relation to the world cup. He did an extraordinary job of putting the case for the United Kingdom, and he is doing a less good job for the fox. We are conscious of the issue that he has raised--
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): Give him an answer then.
Mr. Bell: I am giving the answer. Perhaps my hon. Friend wishes to answer the question himself. We have studied the Burns report and we have no policy changes in mind. Our long-standing policy on fox hunting is that we allow our tenants to follow their consciences in deciding whether to allow hunts on the land that we let to them.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more money would be available to help tenant farmers and the clergy at large if less were spent on bishops? Over the past 10 years, the proportion of Church Commissioners' money spent on bishops has risen from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. How can that possibly be justified?
Mr. Bell: The bishops are much demeaned, and press reports in some of the Sunday newspapers were entirely
inaccurate. We are trying to put the record straight. The question of bishops' costs is subject to a review, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will be the first to know when I have the results.Redundant Churches
30. Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): What investigations are being made into the ultimate use of redundant churches. [128226]
Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): We normally impose covenants on a new owner restricting the use of the property to that approved, and prohibiting unauthorised architectural changes, disturbance of any human remains or memorials, and demolition. These covenants have continuing effect even if the building subsequently changes hands, and irrespective of how often that happens. They cannot be set aside by the Lands Tribunal and, indeed, can be varied only with our agreement.
Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful for that answer. I hope that my hon. Friend will convey it to the commissioners that we welcome the conditions that are placed on new owners with respect to church buildings; but will he ask them to consider introducing restrictive covenants on the future use of those buildings? There is disturbing evidence that some churches sold for community or social use, or to a registered landlord for conversion into low-rent accommodation, have been sold on subsequently and turned into showrooms, luxury flats, sales rooms of all sorts, bingo halls, and so on. Such functions bear no relationship to the often charitable donations that allowed a church to be built in the first place. Will he ask the commissioners to ensure that a church that is sold on retains for all time a socially useful purpose, and that it does not become a commercial benefit for those who were lucky enough to purchase it?
Mr. Bell: Well over half the 883 redundant churches that have been appropriated to new uses continue to serve their communities by providing facilities for worship and community activities, social and educational opportunities, or low-cost housing.
My hon. Friend enumerated a number of uses that have not been authorised. If he wishes me to investigate one or more specific cases, I shall be happy to do so.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): If the Church authorities want to close a church against the wishes of a congregation, is it the commissioners' policy to try their best to give priority to that congregation, thus allowing people time to put funds together so that they can continue to worship in their church?
Mr. Bell: Parishioners are always free to put their views direct to the diocese or the commissioners. Alternatively, they may seek to promote a debate in deanery synod or at diocesan level. It is hoped that parishes will be positive about new uses for former church buildings, which in many cases ensure that the buildings continue to play a role in their communities. It should be borne in mind that many church buildings are listed and cannot, realistically, be demolished.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |