Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220
- 229)
TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER 1999
MR STEVE
ANDERSON, MR
DAVID LLOYD,
MS ANNE
SLOMAN AND
MR PETER
PHILLIPS
Mr Hopkins
220. I have become concerned in the last 20
minutes of this discussion and sadly I slightly disagree with
my colleague, Barry Gardiner. In the previous meeting with the
broadcasters and the BBC I said would it be a thought, a possibility,
to somehow separate out the capital equipment in this building
and to pay for that by direct grant, as has been suggested from
the Chair, without in any way infringing the independence of broadcasters
and the licence fee arrangement which I very strongly support,
I have no hesitation in saying that. It was interesting that the
BBC were reluctant to pursue that. They were concerned that this
would actually undermine the licence fee arrangement financing
public service broadcasting. I just wonder if we could find a
way forward on that basis that might cut the Gordian knot between
the one extreme of having Parliament providing everything itself,
and you, the broadcaster, dealing with the raw material once we
have fed it out and, at the other extreme, the broadcasters having
complete control of everything that happens in the House as well.
Those are the two polar opposites in a sense. This idea of Parliament
itself buying and investing in equipment in this building, and
the broadcasters having freedom beyond that, that is a possibility.
It struck me as a reasonable possibility, and I speak as one who
believes very strongly in public service broadcasting and the
licence fee. I am not wanting to undermine the arrangement. I
am just throwing that out as an idea. I hope it is relevant.
(Mr Phillips) We already have that mixture of arrangements
because there are already significant portions of capital that
are paid for directly by Parliament. For example, some of the
equipment for Select Committees.
221. I am thinking about the future, the new
equipment.
(Mr Phillips) My point would be that there would not
be any change of principle there because we already have some
capital paid for by broadcasters and some capital paid for by
Parliament. From our perspective the important thing is about
the clarity and fairness of who pays for what and how those divisions
are worked out rather than any question that we would move away
from having that mixture of some things are paid for by the broadcasters
themselves and some things are paid for by Parliament. Picking
up Mr Gardiner's earlier point, I do not think it is a question
about playing poker and trying to jostle for the best deal, it
is simply about trying to get a clear set of principles that are
fair and represent the interests of both parties. Our concern
at the moment is that it is a bit of a muddle and it is not clear
why Parliament pays for some things, why the broadcasters pay
for others. We think it would be in everyone's interest to have
that clarity.
Mr Gale: I think whatever else we may
agree or disagree on, we can all agree that there is a need for
much greater clarity and for a very clearly stated set of rules
and principles.
Mr Gardiner
222. I certainly endorse that. I think we do
need to separate in our minds two important things. One is the
immediate question of the costs of new equipment and the other
is the arrangement which is represented by PARBUL. I would like
to say that I do feel that there is a very significant value in
PARBUL because it does represent the broadcasters having a stake
in what is going on and that is absolutely valuable because it
focuses them on how best to disseminate the information that this
place puts out. That commitment is valuable and that is why I
would certainly not wish to see the PARBUL enterprise carved up
and disposed of either for a World Service type model or anything
else. I think there is a real value in PARBUL as such. It seems
to me, Mr Anderson, that what you are saying is that in fact the
issue of the costs of new equipment, and we have really jumped
on to running before we can walk here because the first thing
is the digital equipment for the next few years, after that we
need to be looking at the broadcasting on the web and so on. In
relation to this initial investment of equipment for this next
phase, it seems to me that what you are saying if I have understood
you correctly is that could be of such an order that it in itself
would destabilise the PARBUL arrangement. If that is truly what
you are saying, that the costs that you are looking at in the
next phase of technology are so large that it would destabilise
PARBUL, I have to say I doubt that. I may be wrong and that would
have to be something that is borne out by the evidence of the
future but I do think, going back to the original figures that
Mr Phillips gave us, seven million pounds investment over a ten
year period for the organisations that you four people represent
is not a substantial one.
(Mr Anderson) I do not know what the figure would
be for the digital investment. It would be stabbing around in
the dark here. We would have to be realistic. ITV would have to
take a decision. If we were being asked to fork out millions of
pounds which we believed was disproportionate to the material
we were getting in return then there would be some serious questions
to be asked about it. I would not want to see ITV pushed into
that position where it has to reassess its position on PARBUL
because that would put a lot of strain on the BBC, a lot of strain
on Channel 4, and I would rather stay in than out.
Mrs Gordon
223. I just want to ask a practical question.
You set up this sub-committee because obviously you are concerned
about this issue of funding as well. I just wonder if you could
give us an idea of the remit of that committee and the programme
for meetings and what is actually going to happen at the end of
this process?
(Mr Phillips) The idea of the committee was something
which was proposed by Sir Alan Haselhurst at the last PARBUL Board
meeting. He suggested that the committee should meet at some point
in the late autumn probably and he suggested the three parliamentarians
who should make up the parliamentary side of the committee and
subsequently the broadcasters have agreed which three broadcasters
should represent them. Beyond that initial meeting there is no
firm timetable. What we had suggested in the discussion was that
it would be in everyone's interest to try to bring those discussions
to a conclusion as quickly as possible and that it was not either
in Parliament's interest or in the broadcaster's interest to have
uncertainty over what the funding arrangements were going to be
for any longer than was absolutely necessary. There is no firm
timetable that I am aware of but maybe Sir Alan has a clearer
view of that than the broadcasters do.
Mr Gale
224. I think for the sake of the record I ought
to perhaps clarify something. What you have just said, Mr Phillips,
illustrates the difficulty that we are faced with in having Members
of a Select Committee as non-executive directors of the organisation
that they are seeking to hold to account. I have tried to put
a Chinese wall right down the middle. Anne Sloman said totally
fairly earlier "but you know what is going on". Yes,
I do with that hat on but with this one we are taking evidence
on behalf of a Select Committee that is seeking to come to its
own conclusions. They may or may not necessarily agree with the
conclusions of the sub-committee that has been set up by Parliament.
It is a difficulty and I think we must all recognise that. Mrs
Gordon, does that satisfy you?
Mrs Gordon
225. Yes. I just want to know what is the process
of what happens to these deliberations when you complete them
or you have come to some conclusion? Does that come back to us?
(Mr Lloyd) It goes to PARBUL.
(Ms Sloman) It goes to the Board of PARBUL.
Mr Hopkins: I want to make a couple of
general points before we finish. I was slightly worried about
the drift of the debate earlier on and the suggestion that somehow
Parliament and politics and what we say here is inherently fascinating
and interesting and something that you desperately want. I do
not think that it is like a comedy series or a drama series or
something which you find attractive and want to put on for your
viewers. Some of what we do, perhaps quite a lot of it, is inherently
dull and not very interesting but very important. It is part of
the democratic process, an essential part of it, so that people
know what is going on and what legislators are saying and doing.
You have a role in presenting this to them, making people aware
of what is being said in their name and how they are being governed.
It is quite different from political commentary and news programmes,
that is a separate issue, but actually what legislatures are doing
and what they are saying. In a sense we have a role as democrats
in wanting our public out there to know what we are saying as
well. So we have an interest in this, not just you. I would not
like to push you to a point where you say, "Well, it is not
worth the money so we will walk away." That is an extreme
possibility. Obviously you are not going to do that. It is important
that people know what is going on. The idea that we have something
to sell and you are in the market to buy and you pay all the money
and we give you the programme, I do not think that arrangement
is the way I see it at all. From what I know of the present arrangements
and I am a pretty new member of this Committee, I do like the
way it is done at the moment. I do not have a basic complaint.
I would worry in case we make dramatic or drastic changes to what
we are doing now and actually make some mistakes because I think
what we do now is possibly quite good and it may be that the parallels
of Scotland and Wales are not appropriate parallels. Maybe there
is something different about this place. I think the way it operates
and the way debates take place is very different here from what
I have seen of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
I really would like to register that I think we have something
we want you to take. It is not just something we have to sell
that you need to buy. In that sense I think personally it is legitimate
that we pay something towards this arrangement and that is perhaps
at odds with what some of my colleagues have said today, but I
would certainly like to register that view.
Mr Gale
226. It would be wonderful to end on that note
if it were Christmas but it is not quite yet. There is one other
outstanding item that must be raised before you leave us. Could
you reasonably briefly tell us, in the light of your resistance
to covering other things, what plans you have to cover Sittings
in Westminster Hall?
(Ms Sloman) It has not been discussed. I am not aware
of discussions having been made about that. I know there was a
suggestion on the PARBUL Board that broadcasters should equip
it and the broadcasters drew back from the expense of that and
as far as I am aware there have been no discussions about that
at the moment. As I understand it the Grand Committee Room is
being done by temporary equipment going in. I want to go back
to what Mr Gardiner said about the crunch point because you are
right, it is a huge sum to re-equip the Chamber, but the equipment
in the Chamber is permanent, it is fixed. A lot of the cost of
putting it in is in the cost of the fabric of this very special
and wonderful building. Broadcasting is becoming more and more
portable. We can get in and out of all sorts of countries now
and do very sophisticated broadcasting on temporary equipment.
I think there is a case which maybe the sub-committee will discuss
and we are not saying it has to be one thing or the other, but
there is a case for saying one of the particular reasons why Parliament
should make a contribution of some sort or we should share the
costs for that instalment is it is an investment in this building
rather than investment for the broadcasters who cannot during
the recesses take it out and move it to Kosovo or somewhere else
where we need to use it. I just throw that in as a thought which
I am sure the sub-committee will wish to pursue.
227. That is clearly helpful. If I can just
come back to Westminster Hall for a moment. With the new session
of Parliament, the State Opening, after 17 November, the second
Chamber, call it what you will, is going to be up and running.
As we have already indicated there is some concern over the existing
coverage of Committees. The broadcasters are present as Members
of Parliament, do you have any interest in this already or are
you super-saturated with parliamentary coverage at the moment
and frankly want nothing of it?
(Mr Lloyd) I think we have a definite interest in
it but, as Anne has already said, it seemed to us that in the
first instance the thing to do would be on an experimental basis
to move one of the units from a committee room and then basically
take it from there.
228. The machinery may be available but what
we are interested to know is, and Mr Anderson has already indicated
the broadcaster's view, how much expression of interest in taking
the product, never mind for the moment who pays for its generation,
how much interest is there in taking the product and do you have
any plans for taking it?
(Mr Anderson) It depends how good the story is. As
journalists it depends what the story is. If it is a good story
then we will be interested.
229. So what we are now talking about is hard-nosed
journalism, this is a story and it has nothing whatsoever to do
with democracy?
(Mr Anderson) It is to do with journalism. We are
journalists, we cover stories.
(Mr Lloyd) There is no one broadcaster's view, if
I may say so. I think you would get a slightly different answer
from Mr Anderson as you would from Anne Sloman, as you would from
me. We are different channels and we do different jobs.
(Ms Sloman) We are also here to give evidence on behalf
of PARBUL. I would not speak for the BBC on this matter, it would
be quite inappropriate, just as my colleagues who gave evidence
for the BBC would not address themselves to questions that they
thought were for PARBUL.
Mr Gale: You make a very clear point.
Mr Lepper: I want to make just a general
point. We began this afternoon talking about varying the diet,
as it were, that is currently available to the viewers both in
terms of the way what happens in the Chamber is presented and
these other issues of access. The view that I believe all of us
parliamentarians here share is that the product that we have available
is indeed already rather more varied than the product which you
choose to take in your role as broadcasters and present to the
public sitting there at home. The issue of what goes on in Westminster
Hall, the Grand Committee Room and wherever, is one aspect of
that and what goes on in Standing Committees is another aspect.
I think what we are concerned about is that in democratic terms
there is a particular view of Parliament that dominates at the
moment through what you as broadcasters choose to relay to the
public. There is a lot more to the job of being parliamentarians
than is provided in that view. I think that we are anxious that
we try to work together in some way—the issues of cost will
be important ones—to provide that rather more varied use
of the product that we are providing.
Mr Gale: Thank you. Lady, gentlemen,
you have been very generous with your time. I think it is time
that we drew this to a conclusion. I hope that my parliamentary
colleagues might be able to remain for a few moments because you
have raised a number of matters that we need to consider, not
least whether we should perhaps take evidence from some of those
involved in broadcasting in Scotland and Wales, in which direction
you have rightly pointed us and I am grateful for that. We look
forward to receiving your further memorandum when you have had
a chance to consider it but as soon as possible, please. Mr Anderson,
Mr Lloyd, Mr Phillips and Anne Sloman, thank you very much indeed.
|
