| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Feb 2003 : Column 185—continued
Mr. Grogan: The remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) deserves some response. He described his new clauses as being relatively modest and a first step, but it is clear in what direction he would take us and what his second and third steps would be were he to find himself the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport in 2006–07—we must imagine under which Prime Minister he would be serving. His remarks today were a sustained assault on the licence fee and, at times, on the BBC as well.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a recent article in The Sunday Times about a widespread refusal to pay the licence fee, and he offered us two examples—a gentleman called Jonathan Miller and a Soviet dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky. The hon. Gentleman said that he would not go quite as far as Mr. Bukovsky, but those two examples were supposed to demonstrate the widespread refusal to pay. He also referred to press attacks on the BBC and the general dumbing down of the BBC. He is right; there have been such attacks. I shall give the House three brief examples.
- "The Corporation has fallen woefully short of its duties to the public";
"Many of the BBC's present popular programmes would have been condemned by the BBC itself five years ago as intolerably shoddy";
"The BBC's policy seriously threatens the unique role the BBC has played in the cultural and intellectual life of the country."
- "disastrous to the standards and quality of public service broadcasting."
4.30 pm
The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford rightly characterises his new clauses as modest, but I would also characterise them as somewhat lop-sided. In the case of new clauses 6 and 7, it is like the Government doing a survey on what the public think of VAT, then using the finding that they do not particularly like paying it to conclude that the public do not like the health service, the education service or whatever. The proposals are very lop-sided. I am sorry about that, given that the hon. Gentleman appears to have liked "The Lost Prince". Like him, I was invited to its première. I was among the B-list category of celebrities, in that I was invited to "The Lost Prince", and not to the Brit awards as most contributors to this debate seem to have been.
How about asking what the public think of the BBC's output, and whether they think, for example, that Radio 2 has a successful schedule or whether they like programmes such as "The History of Britain" and "The Blue Planet"? We were talking about dumbing down, but those programmes are watched by far more people of this generation—between 6 and 7 million—than ever watched landmark programmes such as "The Ascent of Man" and "Civilisation" in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which achieved only about 1.5 million viewers. It is important to take a rather more comprehensive view of public opinion than those two new clauses propose.
Obviously, there are conflicting pressures on the BBC in regard to the efficiency of licence fee collection. If it did not collect the fee with sufficient vigour, it would be open to the criticism—such as that levelled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)—that it was evading its financial responsibilities. It is worth noting that since 1991, when the BBC took over responsibility from the Home Office for collecting the licence fee, levels of evasion have shrunk considerably. In 1991, there were 19.4 million licences in force; last year, the figure had grown to 23.7 million, yet evasion rates dropped from 8.8 per cent. in March 2001 to 7.9 per cent. in March 2002, and to 7.6 per cent. this year.
Despite the existence of Mr. Miller and Mr. Bukovsky, I do not really detect a mass refusal to pay that would justify the comparison to the poll tax that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford made. Life was very different when we had the real poll tax in operation some years ago. Obviously, the licence fee is economically regressive, although it has been
pointed out that those over 75 receive not just a rebate but a complete exemption from it. Indeed, that exemption was introduced three days before my father was 75. That was the one time that he thought that I had any real political influence. Of course, the licence fee is economically regressive, but, in the wider context, it is extremely progressive, because it means that the very best of our culture and national life can be made available to everyone who has either a radio or a television. Those things are not only available to the wealthy on subscription. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford mentioned subscription TV.When we examine carefully the alternatives to the licence fee, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman—who clearly wants to move away from the licence fee—would really carry his party with him. I would relish a political fight in the marginal seat of Selby if, for example, someone suggested introducing advertising to the very middle England Radio 2 channel, or privatising Radio 1. It is going to be hard to hold Selby next time, but a real challenge to the licence fee and the BBC would help me to reach parts of my electorate that I might not otherwise reach.
I do not think that such a challenge would be electorally popular, especially given some of the alternatives to the licence fee, such as advertising, subscription and sponsorship. If they were introduced, the BBC would have to serve commercial priorities, not just those of the licence payer. It would also have to start competing for revenues with other commercial broadcasters. If it were funded by subscription, it would no longer be able to serve everyone. No longer would everyone be able to watch the football World cup; only those who could afford the subscription would be able to do so. Direct funding by the Government would surely endanger the political independence of the BBC.
Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman says that direct funding from the Exchequer would surely affect the political independence of the BBC. Does he think that the World Service is affected by the fact that it is directly funded by the Government?
Mr. Grogan: Under the Conservative Government, the World Service's whole financial structure was threatened by cut after cut. That really politicised the World Service in a way that proved very difficult at the time. Thankfully, the present Government have reversed the effect of some of those cuts.
The licence fee, which funds the BBC so well, and has done over so many generations, should not be thrown aside lightly. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that other public service channels produce public service programmes, and of course they do. But part of the role of the BBC down the generations has been to raise standards and to raise the aspirations of some of the commercial channels that have other pressures. The fact that we see excellent public service programmes on ITV, for example, is partly a reflection of that.
Having had some measure of disagreement with the hon. Gentleman I would agree with him on one thing. The BBC's governors must take serious account of
today's debate on new clause 4, regarding accountability to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. I urge the BBC's board of governors to discuss this issue at an early date—I know that there are differences of opinion among its members—because it is inevitable that this change will be made at some stage. It is time that the BBC recognised that.Another allegedly modest measure is the new clause that would set up a public services fund run by trustees and would, for the first time, split the licence fee from the BBC. Obviously, the long-term aim of that proposal is to increase the percentage from 1 per cent. to perhaps 5, 10 or 20 per cent. and perhaps to have an arts council of the air, as has been introduced in New Zealand, and destroy the BBC altogether. Again, I would urge great caution. In New Zealand, it has now been decided to reverse that measure and to re-fund the public service broadcaster, because a group of trustees sitting around doling out money cannot make quality public service programmes. The BBC has a value in terms of its public service ethos and of the creativity of its producers, its staff and its training that goes back for generations, and we must be very careful indeed before we rip up that tremendous heritage.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): I should like to start by making a few remarks about new clauses 6 to 9 on behalf of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), our chief spokesman on these issues, has suggested that, to speed up today's debate, I might make those remarks instead of him—before I go on to the real purpose of my speech, which is to speak in my capacity as a member of the Public Accounts Committee about new clause 4.
My hon. Friends and I believe that new clauses 6 and 7 are unnecessarily bureaucratic and would involve the BBC in a lot of extra research work. In practice, new clause 4 will fulfil the financial requirements. It is much better to hand to the NAO the job of making sure that the money is properly spent. We have no particular problem with new clause 8 and have some sympathy for it. New clause 9 introduces an interesting idea, albeit one that should more properly be discussed when the licence system is reviewed at the time that the charter comes up for renewal. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) pointed out that it would be possible for a future Government or a different Minister to increase the figure of 1 per cent. Since the whole basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument for new clause 9 is that 1 per cent. is so insignificant that we need not worry about it, for him to admit that it could be increased at the will of a Minister seems to destroy his argument.
I am delighted to join the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in his support for new clause 4, for which PAC members have been fighting for some time. I spoke on the proposal in the House a year ago; it was part of the Sharman report and it enjoyed the support of the PAC even before then. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford pointed out, the current chairman of the governors of the BBC was fully in favour before assuming that office. It is funny how people sometimes change their views. Nevertheless, if the Minister chooses to go down that route, he may not meet quite the resistance from the BBC that might have arisen under previous chairmen.
The only counter-argument to new clause 4 is that we must defend the BBC's independence. It is hard to understand why anyone should imagine that it is necessary to defend the BBC's independence against someone such as Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is absurd to argue that Sir John would say it was important to have Jim Davidson rather than Sandi Toksvig on Radio 4 or that the NAO would ever interest itself in editorial decision making. It will examine not policy or editorial matters but whether the licence payers' money is used effectively. That is even more important now that the BBC is doing much more contracting out and buying in of programmes from independent sources. The more that is done, the more important it is to examine the contractual processes and procedures.
Only yesterday, the Comptroller and Auditor General, talking to the Public Accounts Committee about his budget for next year, made the point that he can in many ways be more objective even than a private sector auditor, who may work on a one year or three-year contract. As the contract comes up for renewal, the firm will begin to wonder whether it will be reappointed—so it comes under a little pressure to do what the client wants. Anyone who doubts the difficulties that that situation can create only has to think of the problems that Enron got into with an auditor that perhaps did not do its job well. If the National Audit Office were appointed for the BBC, it would not be under pressure to keep the BBC happy with its work because the NAO would be accountable not to the corporation but to the House.
Whereas company shareholders theoretically have the right to reappoint auditors or throw them out on a regular basis, television licence payers—in effect the shareholders of the BBC—do not have the same right. There is a standard case for appointing the NAO as the auditors for the public. It is not the Government's auditors but Parliament's auditors—and through Parliament, the NAO is the auditor for the public. Where large sums of money are spent on behalf of the licence payers, the NAO should serve as the objective watchdog guarding that money and making sure that it is properly spent.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |