---

Tessa Jowell: That is precisely why the sixth of the BBC's public purposes is to deal with the digital challenge. It is why my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), negotiated an above-inflation-rate increase for the BBC, so that it would be competent and funded to meet the challenges. There is absolutely no disagreement between us on that, however the hon. Gentleman may try to represent the facts.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South) (Lab): I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on the Green Paper, which I look forward to reading in due course.
 
2 Mar 2005 : Column 970
 

I support the continuation of the licence fee. Those who complain about paying it—we have heard some of them this afternoon—tend to take the narrow view that the BBC provides only the two mainstream analogue terrestrial channels, forgetting the raft of radio programmes, including the regional opt-out. When I am in London, I listen to BBC Aberdeen broadcasts on the computer. The BBC provides a wide range of services, and I think that the best way of preserving its uniqueness and its standing in the world is to ensure that it continues to be funded through the licence fee.

I also wonder—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems that the hon. Lady may want to apply for an Adjournment debate on this matter.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for the important points that she has made, with which I agree.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): If we are not to have a separate trust for BBC Scotland—I do not quibble about that at this stage—it will be important for the geographical and cultural diversity of the station to be reflected not just in the composition of the trust but in its purposes. This is not just about national and regional representation; it is about local provision. In my constituency we have Radio Orkney and Radio Shetland, which are greatly valued by local people because they broadcast not just to local communities, but about our communities to the rest of the country. Can the Secretary of State assure me that high quality local output will not be lost in a concentration of power among a small number of people?

Tessa Jowell: There is absolutely no intention that that should happen, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point that underlines the increasing local enthusiasm for very local radio and television news. This is part of the challenge not just to the BBC but to other public service broadcasters in the reassessment of the role of regional television and radio programmes.

Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): The supreme achievement of the BBC in Wales—which has itself been a magnificent achievement for the last 80 years—is its work on the use and development of one of the most ancient surviving European languages. That is partly due to the existence of the Broadcasting Council for Wales, whose chairperson has always been a member of the BBC's board of governors. Will the new set-up, with the executive and the trust, be accompanied by a guarantee of Welsh representation, and may we have an assurance that the move from analogue to digital will involve no diminution of the content and availability of broadcasting in the Welsh language?

Tessa Jowell: I strongly believe that the BBC has an important role to play in preserving what might be seen as minority languages such as Welsh and Gaelic, on a UK-wide basis. I hope that the BBC will discharge that responsibility. I also hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give any specific undertakings at this stage about the membership of the trust. I can only tell him that I hear what he says about the importance of Welsh interests being recognised at every level of the BBC.
 
2 Mar 2005 : Column 971
 

BILL PRESENTED

Equality

Ms Secretary Hewitt, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Johnson, Secretary Ruth Kelly, Jacqui Smith, Mr. David Lammy and Fiona Mactaggart, presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights; to dissolve the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission, to make provision about discrimination on grounds of religion or belief; to impose duties relating to sex discrimination on persons performing public functions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 72].

 
2 Mar 2005 : Column 972
 

Points of Order

1.28 pm

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As far as I can recall, this is the first time I have ever raised a point of order in the House. I am doing so now not because I shall be retiring before the general election, but to record the fact that during Prime Minister's Question Time the Leader of the Opposition—whose office I have informed of this—inadvertently gave a misleading impression of what happened during Monday evening's vote. He said that I, along with 61 other Labour Members, had gone into the Lobby with him. The truth is that I had tabled amendment No. 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, and it was the Leader of the Opposition who went into the Lobby with Labour Members.

Mr. Speaker: The matter is on the record, and I will not be drawn into it.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the explanatory notes relating to the draft Company Directors Disqualification (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which we debated in a Committee yesterday. I shall not go through the detail of the actual debate, but it subsequently occurred to me that in fact the notes were rather superficial. Indeed, had I had a deeper understanding then, and had the notes been more substantive, that might have altered the contribution that I and others made. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, that when highly complex issues are to be debated—specifically in the special circumstances relating to the governance of Northern Ireland—officials be requested to provide comprehensive notes on the consequences of specific orders, so that we can have a more informed debate?

Mr. Speaker: I will look into this matter and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything that you can do to shorten the time taken up by Front-Bench exchanges during statements? This afternoon's opening statement and the Front-Bench reply took 28 minutes, which meant that the some 25 Back Benchers who wanted to get in, including me—the headquarters of BBC Wales is in my constituency and I wanted to refer to it—were unable to do so.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the point of order; if I do so, the hon. Gentleman might not need to take it further.

During points of order, a Member sometimes comes up with a gem that allows me to put it on the record that I am displeased with the fact that Front-Bench statements are exceeding the 10 minutes recommended by the Modernisation Committee. I say with the greatest respect to Secretaries of State that they are slipping into their old habit of forgetting that Back Benchers are also entitled to have their say. Today's statement lasted
 
2 Mar 2005 : Column 973
 
13 minutes, and as a result the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman took longer over his response; and so it goes on. So I take the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). I want more Back Benchers to be able to be called, and it saddens me that I have to leave some uncalled.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to pursue it. I want to put it on the record that today's statement lasted less than an hour, and that it was 10 minutes past 1 before the three Front Benchers had concluded. Not many Back Benchers were in fact standing today. Will you look into this matter and see what can be done in future?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, and of course the hon. Gentleman will remember that I was very sharp off the mark in leaving the statement because today is an Opposition Supply day, and I want to ensure that it gets a full airing.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My complaint is not that a statement was too long but that there has been no statement at all about the announcement that Nottingham East Midlands airport is to be allowed additional flight paths over my constituency at night, which will cause huge disturbance and blight. Will you ask whether a statement has been requested of you by the Secretary of State—

---