| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Michael Fabricant:
Another hon. Member demonstrated that he spends much time outside the
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1562
Chamber travelling by mentioning that the South African Broadcasting Corporation had only recently praised the BBC model—
Michael Fabricant: Well, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has come to visit the Chamber today.
Not everything is rosy in the garden. There have been changes in the environment, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton said. In 1998, all broadcasting was analogue, but now more than half of all television transmissions are received digitally. The Government have a programme for analogue switch-off, but as the right hon. Gentleman also pointed out, we must ensure that we do not develop a digital divide that prevents people from viewing television when all analogue transmitters are switched off—in the same way that we do not want a digital divide in access to the worldwide web. The Committee addressed that issue in its report, "A public BBC".
The licence fee has been debated since the start of the National Heritage Select Committee. We all—at least, all of us bar one—accept that the licence fee is a regressive tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) described it as a poll tax. However, we must accept that it is the least worst way to fund the BBC. No one has so far pointed out the effect on ITV and Channels 4 and 5 if the BBC were funded by advertising. The advertising cake is a defined size and if the BBC were to take just a £1 billion slice, let alone the amount it receives at the moment, it would cripple all forms of terrestrial commercial broadcasting, which at the moment offers a counterbalance to the BBC. We may not like that, but it is economic fact.
I emphasise how pleased I am that the Secretary of State has rejected the ridiculous idea of top-slicing. It would have created real political pressure on the BBC and the Government's wish for
would not have been maintained.
The Government have severely passed the buck on the trustees. Whether the trustees will work as independent arbiters is not the point. The point is that justice has to be seen to be done. When complaints are made against the BBC by individual viewers and listeners, or by commercial organisations who feel that the BBC is competing unfairly, a final adjudication by the governors of the BBC is never seen to be fair whether the BBC is judged guilty or not. My fear—indeed, my prediction—is that whether the trustees are independent or not, their adjudication will not be seen as fair. The trustees will be seen as an integral part of the BBC, no matter how hard we try to ensure a distance. The only way to ensure that the BBC is seen to be judged fairly is to allow an independent organisation to adjudicate. That might be a Beebcom or Ofcom, although many members of the Committee believed that the latter has enough to deal with without adding the BBC.
We must also consider the BBC's provision of programming. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has asked me to emphasise yet again the good work that the BBC does to encourage charitable contributions, such as red nose day. Of
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1563
course, the coverage that the BBC gave to the tsunami was one of the reasons why so much money was raised for that. It is worth remembering that the BBC was able to cover that event well—not just at the time, but in the immediate aftermath—because of the large number of its broadcasters and correspondents based overseas. Let us remind ourselves that the BBC has more foreign correspondents than CNN, all three American television networks—ABC, CBS and NBC—Fox and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation combined. The BBC provides a tremendous resource through not only the World Service, which several hon. Members have commended, but its correspondents, who are seen on television stations in America and throughout the world via news syndication. They promote the values of not only the BBC, but Britain.
The Green Paper, which followed on closely from the Select Committee report, had a lot of good in it. However, it does not address the main problems that face the BBC or the population's perception of it. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to respond to those points and, especially, tell us how the board of trustees will be seen to be independent and separate from the corporation's management.
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate. Let us remember that we are debating both a Select Committee report and a Green Paper. Hon. Members will not need reminding that Green Papers are Government proposals for further consultation, and I think that our debate has made a significant contribution to that process.
Before I deal with the substantive matters that have been raised, I join other hon. Members in paying the warmest possible tribute to the distinguished leadership of the Select Committee provided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). In addition to inspiring our awe and putting us on our mettle, he has earned our affection and greatest possible respect for the seriousness with which he has treated each of the many subjects that his Committee has investigated and the loyalty that he has attracted. The Committee's reports are taken seriously by not only my Department, but the many interested bodies—one might say stakeholders—in the wider industry. He has a remarkable and distinguished record and we are all in his debt.
I would also like to thank Lord Burns, who has been the independent adviser during the process of charter review. He has done an invaluable job, together with the literally thousands of members of the public—the licence fee payers—who have contributed to the consultation.
Let me begin by setting out the context in which the charter review and the Select Committee report are being considered. Debates about the BBC sometimes seem to be predicated on the question of what we should do about it, almost as if it is somehow an unintended consequence of our broadcasting policy. Let me make it absolutely clear that successive Governments have supported, albeit in different ways, a BBC that represents a substantial intervention in the broadcasting
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1564
market. That has the consequence that policy, and especially and increasingly competition policy, must be adapted to fit in with that fact. That situation exists because the BBC enjoys great support among the British people. A high level of support for the BBC was dramatically shown in the consultation and polling that we undertook.
The BBC underpins the principle of universal access to free-to-air broadcasting, which is important for this country. As the debate has reflected, we are well aware of the challenges to that founding principle that are created by the growth of digital television. The Government and the Opposition strongly support that growth—or revolution—because the British people also back it. However, as we navigate our way towards a wholly digital Britain, we will have to ensure that the principle of free-to-air access is not lost. It will be a challenge to ensure that vulnerable and elderly people and those on low incomes continue to enjoy such access. Hon. Members will know from the research that has been published that an enormous amount of work is being done to ensure that we get the situation right. We need to deal with the important individual elements that will make this big policy work, so the timetable for switchover will be finally confirmed only towards the end of the year.
We should not underestimate the trust that people put in the BBC. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred to its coverage of the tsunami. We know that there is a clear settlement in this country. People understand that when they buy their newspapers, which are part of our free and unregulated press, they are increasingly buying opinions. When they turn on television or radio news, however, they expect to hear impartial news that presents fact. That explains the importance of the impartiality and accuracy requirements that we place on our public service broadcasters.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton made an important point about future-proofing the BBC's structure, although I know that he will not like that term. The currents incumbents in the posts of chairman and director-general are excellent. The structure must be flexible enough to adapt to the changes that the BBC will be called on to make between now and switchover. Like any functional organisation, the BBC is not built around the identity or skills of the present incumbents. I am confident that the structure will ensure that.
The BBC will have a critical role in leading the digital revolution and securing universal cover through digital terrestrial television. Pursuance of free-to-air universal access is an important objective and I take all the points that have been made about the benefits of Freesat. I hope that we shall begin to see competition in the development of the free satellite offer to supplement and create choice.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |