| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Feb 2003 : Column 167—continued
Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that there is an argument, to which I do not especially subscribe, that, if the National Audit Office were allowed to investigate the BBC, it would be in a position to judge and interfere with programming
and creative policy in the corporation? Will my hon. Friend either assure me that that would not happen or at least justify the reasons for it?
Mr. Leigh: I know that my hon. Friend takes a deep interest in those matters. He talks to senior executives in the BBC and understands their mindset. I assure him, and perhaps BBC executives through him, that we have no desire to compromise the BBC's independence or limit its creativity. It would be a retrograde step if Members of Parliament, the PAC, the Comptroller and Auditor General or anybody else tried to inhibit editorial independence. The argument that that independence would be compromised—if such an argument is being put forward—simply does not stand scrutiny. Let us consider what the CAG already does. He reports on the Arts Council and no complaint has ever been made by anybody in the Arts Council saying that the National Audit Office has been questioning their artistic judgments—[Interruption.] The Minister knows all about that. Perhaps people in the National Audit Office do not have the facility with words that he has shown on previous occasions in dealing with artistic matters, but there have never been any complaints about the activities of the CAG with regard to the Arts Council. The CAG also reports on our universities, but not a single complaint has come from any university saying that he has inhibited academic freedom. That simply has not happened.
The editorial judgments made by the BBC would be the CAG's starting point. He would say "I am not responsible in any way for the editorial judgments that are being made", but he would provide a valuable insight into how the public funds that are at the BBC's disposal are being spent. We are outlaying all the money and we want to know that it is being spent efficiently and without waste. The CAG would provide Parliament with an independent insight into the quality of the BBC's financial management. That is what the process is all about. This House started its work a long time ago in scrutinising the Executive and trying to ensure proper financial management. There are still only two areas where Parliament does not have a right to investigate financial management where public money is used—the BBC and the civil list.
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West): Is not the ultimate absurdity the fact that the BBC squeals at the very thought of a non-policy Committee such as ours considering its finances, but turns up to give evidence at the appropriate Select Committee, which can consider policy?
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that point, as I want now to deal with the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. BBC executives have claimed that their appearances before that departmental Select Committee, which is involved in policy, while the Public Accounts Committee never is, provide some sort of accountability. I believe, however, that the appearances of BBC representatives before that departmental Select Committee have proved that, despite its best efforts, it does not have the expertise or support staff, including
the support of the National Audit Office and its 700 staff, that are necessary to provide an in-depth analysis of what is going on in the BBC's financial management.
Mr. Brian Jenkins (Tamworth): Surely my friend realises that no matter how much experience, expertise and will there is, without the figures, one cannot possibly make any judgment on effective use of resources?
Mr. Leigh: That is absolutely right; indeed, it explains why a Committee of Parliament that is supported by its own civil service in the shape of the National Audit Office is needed to investigate the BBC and ensure that £2.5 billion of our money, which we spend, is being spent properly. I understand that members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, some of whom are present in the Chamber, agree with me and realise that they cannot provide the sort of scrutiny that would be afforded by the CAG.
Last July, when the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from the BBC on its annual report, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is present in the Chamber, remarked to the BBC witnesses that the idea that his Committee could substitute itself for the NAO in scrutinising the BBC was—I hope that I am not misquoting him—"frankly ridiculous". That is the view of that departmental Select Committee and I entirely agree with it.
If there were some problem with editorial independence, surely a complaint would have been made about the scrutiny that we provide in respect of the World Service. As far as I know—I have checked this matter with the National Audit Office—there has never been any complaint from the chairman or chief executive of the BBC about any findings or recommendations on the World Service ever made by the Public Accounts Committee in working on Parliament's behalf. There has never been any complaint that we have interfered in the editorial judgments or freedom of the World Service. Our work on the World Service could be regarded as a pilot study. We have been looking at the World Service for all these years, we have done our studies and we have tried to improve the service and make it work better, and never has a single complaint been made about our compromising editorial independence.
The CAG is simply an officer of the House. He is wholly independent of the Government and is effectively appointed for life. The National Audit Office gives him complete discretion in respect of the topics that he chooses to examine, how he carries out his work and whether he produces a report. I cannot force him to undertake a particular inquiry and neither can members of my Committee. He is an independent officer and is completely outwith any sort of party political or even political process. He is supported by an expert staff. They have expertise and experience that are second to none, and we believe—I want to be helpful to the BBC—that they would add genuine value to the financial management of the BBC. We believe that they could help it. They are not bean counters who will crawl all over it and subject it to all sorts of difficulties and time-wasting processes. They can help the BBC, using all the experience of the NAO, in trying to ensure that that
great organisation, of which we are all proud in our various ways, is as modern and progressive in its financial management as any other Government body.
Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East): One of the criticisms made in the IT world is that fear of the Public Accounts Committee inhibits innovation and risk taking in the public sector. How does the hon. Gentleman respond to that criticism in the context of modernisation of the BBC?
Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made it. The point that we make to Whitehall is that we are not risk averse—quite the contrary. We want Whitehall to take risks, as long as they are well thought out. My Committee has made numerous recommendations over the years that prove that point. We recognise that the BBC has to take risks. For example, it had to be prepared to take a risk in launching BBC News 24. All sorts of problems may be involved, but we would not create an atmosphere or background in which executives think "I am not going to launch a new television or radio channel because I might be summoned by the PAC to account for myself." If executives make mistakes and are wasteful or take decisions that result in the mishandling of tens of millions of pounds of public money, however, surely it is only right that they should be brought in front of Parliament to account for their actions.
Why should it be the case that in one part of the public sector—the BBC is effectively a part of the public sector—executives are not held to account by shareholders, of whom there are none, and are not subject to discipline under the Companies Act 1989, but are not accountable to Parliament either? I say to them that we are not trying to prevent them from taking risks. All we are saying is that, like everybody else in the public and private sectors, they should be held to account.
Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that executives who are in a position in which they can be investigated are also thereby given a degree of protection? From time to time, the corporation has been criticised on the ground that it has used public licence money to compete in the commercial market. It has always denied doing that, but it is currently its own judge and jury. Would not the locus of my hon. Friend's Committee include an investigation in that area if such an accusation were made? Does he agree that his work and that of his Committee might be more believable than that of the corporation in trying to defend itself?
Mr. Leigh: In some ways, I feel sorry for the BBC. It is the national butt of complaints. We all complain about it, saying that it is not doing this or that right. We all have an opinion on it. One reason for resentment of the BBC—from MPs, members of the public and its private sector competitors—is that it is an entirely independent empire that is not held to financial account by anybody. It would be a defence mechanism for the BBC to come in front of a parliamentary Committee to explain its decisions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |