---

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that money lost in unpaid licence fee is money lost to programming. It is therefore a responsibility of the BBC, through its agencies, to ensure that the licence fee is collected.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): For a politician who wants to get a message over as opposed to winning brownie points with his constituents and others, steam radio is of course a matter of greater importance. The Secretary of State says that, for radio, the BBC has adopted a voluntary 10 per cent. quota and that the Government will consult on whether that is sufficient. To some of us, at first sight, it is grossly inefficient. In those consultations, I hope she will look after radio in general, and World Service radio in particular. What is the position of World Service radio?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course we will consider the proposed 10 per cent. quota. It is also worth underlining that Radio 4 is one of the largest commissioners in the world of new writing
 
2 Mar 2005 : Column 967
 
for radio and that Radio 3 is the largest classical music commissioner in the world. The Green Paper sets out clearly the continuing support for the World Service and the challenges that face it: questions about the number of languages in which it is broadcast and about the migration from radio to television, as well as the role of BBC World. No one who travels the world underestimates the importance of the BBC World Service, and we are determined that it will continue to be strong.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): Is it not a fact that the World Service has been subject to parliamentary scrutiny for years without any threat to editorial independence? Why was there no mention in the Secretary of State's statement of parliamentary scrutiny of the rest of the BBC through the National Audit Office? Why did she not respond to the points made on this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale)? Is it not true that the BBC has consistently resisted parliamentary scrutiny of nearly £3 billion of public spending? Are not the voluntary arrangements working quite adequately? Why should the Comptroller and Auditor General, alone for the BBC, have to ask permission to investigate any matter? Will the Secretary of State open the matter up in the charter review?

Tessa Jowell: I realise that I did not deal with that point following the remarks made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. I apologise for that and welcome the opportunity to deal with it now. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is well aware, new arrangements have been established on the basis of agreement between the BBC and the NAO. The right and proper way to proceed is to judge how well those new arrangements are working, but to keep the question open during the remaining stages of charter review. However, there are good processes, which, as I understand it from the BBC's perspective and the NAO's perspective, are satisfactory. The question whether we go further during this charter period is still one for debate.

David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): While I welcome my right hon. Friend's defence of the BBC, is she aware that it would be unacceptable to many of us for any slice of the BBC licence fee to go to other bodies, which in practice could mean some of the BBC's commercial competitors? Without wishing to be anything other than polite to all concerned, it would be best if Lord Birt kept away as much as possible from interference of any kind with the BBC. His record as director-general is not quite what she told the House.

Tessa Jowell: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not necessarily believe all the stories he reads in the newspapers. What would unite this side of the House is a commitment to ensuring that not just the BBC, but public service broadcasting in this country, which is an important part of our broader broadcasting tradition, remains strong. That is why I have put on the record today the need in prospect to review the security of public service broadcasting before the end of this charter
 
2 Mar 2005 : Column 968
 
review period, hence the debate for a later day on whether some licence fee money needs to be diverted to maintain the strength of public service broadcasting.

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): The Secretary of State rightly said that the BBC needs to provide a range of specific services for the UK's nations. What new powers will BBC Scotland and BBC Wales have to make their own decisions on all news priorities and programming? Will there be specific BBC trusts for Scotland and for Wales? She talks about improving BBC programmes and news and current affairs, but how does she imagine that is possible when budgets are being slashed and 3,000 jobs are about to go?

Tessa Jowell: Let me deal with the last point first. Those are matters for the BBC; they are not matters in which Ministers should interfere. The Government set the terms of the charter and the BBC has to meet those terms. Secondly, there will not be separate trusts for Scotland and for Wales, but we would expect the membership of the new BBC trust to take account of the nations and regions in the ways that I have described.

Alan Keen (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): From all the information we receive, it is clear that the public regard the licence fee as excellent value for money. It is also clear that the public trust the BBC more than politicians, which is obviously not an over-generous compliment to the BBC. The BBC is successful, so why do people fall over themselves to restrict its output against the commercial sector? I say that as someone who is happy to pay Sky five times as much as I pay the BBC so as to receive specialist sports and films. Why try to restrict one of the most successful organisations in the country?

Tessa Jowell: Maintaining public confidence and support for the licence fee relies on people believing that they are getting value for money. I referred to the concern, represented by about 500 letters a month to my Department, expressed by people who are not yet able to get Freeview, although they pay the licence fee. Hence the importance of the momentum behind the move to digital switchover.

My hon. Friend has made an important point. This country has a mixed economy of broadcasting, but the bedrock of that mixed economy is universal access, free to air, to the BBC. That leaves people free to make choices about further services to which they may wish to subscribe, but in the context of that universal entitlement—subject to payment of the licence fee—and it should continue.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): The Secretary of State just acknowledged that her Department receives more than 500 letters a month from people complaining that they cannot get Freeview. Can she tell me what other licence fee involves charging people for something that they cannot get? It really is unacceptable. Many of my constituents are very angry that they cannot get Freeview, but are paying for it.

Tessa Jowell: It is only a matter of time. Opposition Members may grimace, but a project as complex as digital switchover cannot be completed overnight.
 
2 Mar 2005 : Column 969
 
The transmitters must be upgraded, and equipment must be replaced. We must ensure—while being consistent with the principle of universal access—that no one is left behind, and that we do not have a population of elderly and vulnerable people who are shut out from the benefits of digital television. It is a clear aim of Government policy that the switchover should be led by broadcasters and the industry, with Government support, and that that should take place between 2008 and 2012.

Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) (Lab): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on seeing off all the voices—heavily represented on the Conservative Benches—that wanted her to begin the process of weakening and dismantling the BBC. Is it not the case that the more our society fragments, the more we need the voice of a common culture? Is it not the case that the more the rest of the media engage in a race to the bottom, the more we need the BBC to lead the race in the opposite direction?

My right hon. Friend has issued a quality challenge to the BBC today for the next 10 years. Is it not the BBC's job to rise to that challenge?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. It underlines the profound difference between our view of the BBC and public service broadcasting, serving the people of this country, and that of the Opposition.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton) (Con): The Secretary of State has made an outrageous comment. It is because people like me believe that public service broadcasting and the institution of the BBC are important that we would have begun innovative thinking now, rather than deferring it. Does the Secretary of State realise that it is not attacking the BBC to say that in the real world people may not still be watching television on television sets within the time scale that she has set? We shall be able to download it on telephones; we shall have it on our mobile systems.

This is a transforming technology, and that transformation is happening now. There is no point in promoting citizenship on the BBC if no one watches the BBC. That is public service broadcasting set aside for the elite, not the people. It is because we want the contribution of public service broadcasting, and the BBC's traditional programming, to continue that I despair about the Secretary of State's failure to tackle those issues now. The change is happening now, and people are changing their viewing habits now.

---