Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport First Report


67. The BBC's governing principles, closely associated with its first Director-General, Sir John Reith, are to educate, inform and entertain the whole nation, free from political interference and commercial pressure. These ideals continue to underpin an enduring vision of the BBC as the "national" broadcaster. Such a broadcaster should have a remit to provide high (benchmark) quality content, across the full range of broadcast genres (with a particular focus on impartial news and current affairs services), free at the point of use and without advertising. This is what, in the opinion of many, the BBC ought to stand for. The merits and implications of these features, in a changing world, have been at the core of our inquiry.

68. According to Equity, the BBC is much more than a broadcaster. "It is part of our society, it showcases the United Kingdom to the rest of the world, it plays a crucial role in our economy, both as an employer and an exporter of goods, and it acts as a standard bearer for the audio-visual sector in terms of quality, diversity, and innovation."[45] Both Five[46] and Flextech[47] commented on the BBC's role in raising the bar and setting standards for the wider broadcasting industry.

69. In evidence to the DCMS, Public Voice summed up the overall picture very well: "It is critical to maintain a BBC of sufficient scale and scope, with the capacity to provide information, education and entertainment across a variety of platforms, and from local to national levels."[48] To this can be added the requirement (which also applies to licensed broadcasters) of the "Television without Frontiers" Directive that a majority of transmission time (with some exclusions) be reserved for European works.[49] The BBC exceeds these particular quotas by a wide margin.[50]

70. In terms of scope and remit two concerns are regularly voiced and should not be ducked by the Government's Charter review. The first is that the BBC's remit is defined so broadly that it has been free to do what it likes within the capacity of its licence fee settlement with ex ante approval by any external authority limited to the most visible and explicit new services. The second is the difficulty of defining "public service broadcasting" other than 'what the BBC does' (or vice versa) which positively encourages the Corporation to expand its presence and impact across a wide range of activities; beyond a traditional broadcasting role.

Today's BBC

71. The BBC's Charter and Agreement requires the Corporation to provide a very wide range of programming, which informs, educates and entertains. The Agreement provides a list of particular areas of content that the BBC should ensure it provides through the Home Services:

72. In each of the key programme genres, the BBC argues that it strives to provide a truly distinctive offering so that, though its content may serve the same or similar audiences to programmes provided by the commercial sector, it does so in a unique way.[51] The Corporation clearly needs to strike a balance between maintaining a wide audience and appreciation of its services, and a diversity of programming reflecting the range of individual interests in society.

73. The BBC has a special responsibility to ensure adequate coverage is given to the full range of programme genres identified in the Communications Act as being indicative of public service broadcasting. Genres such as the arts and religion should not be shunted into digital ghettos, and with the deployment of a little funding, and more imagination, could attract greater success than hitherto. Five has, for example, recently demonstrated commendable innovation in its arts programming. It is axiomatic that numbers and ratings should not be the only or the most important means of determining the BBC's success. We hope the BBC will make its commitment to the arts more consistently self-evident.

74. In addition to a wide range of radio and television content, the BBC has, during the period of the present Charter, established a major presence on the Internet. In this context, we note that the exploitation of new media already forms part of the BBC's Charter remit. The BBC Director-General believed that the web, increasingly, was going to be a delivery mechanism for very local television and news. He told us that, whereas in the past the BBC had seen charter periods in terms of the expansion of new services and new ideas, looking at the next ten years "the trends we see are to do with moving forward on demand, towards new devices, new consumer devices, new ways of using media, and that the challenge we have is more one of evolving, adapting and developing our services to meet these new challenges".[52]

75. We recommend that online, interactive and multimedia services become a more prominent and explicit part of the BBC's formal public service remit. The BBC should be a public service communications provider of content across all platforms. However, the BBC's online presence must have public service parameters and we recommend that these be explicitly clarified in the next Charter (or alternative settlement).

76. One declared aim of the BBC is to serve the nations and regions of the UK in three ways: by providing programmes and services specifically aimed at those different audiences; by ensuring that creative talent, both on and off screen, in all parts of the UK are able to contribute fully to the BBC's services; and by playing a positive role in local communities. Pat Loughrey, BBC Director, Nations & Regions, told us: "As commercial television in particular seems determined to move towards London and away from their regional roots there is an obvious need and opportunity for the BBC to take advantage of the great deal of talent which would otherwise be dormant and in the sense of fairness about collecting licences from across the entire UK."[53]

77. At a very local level, we would welcome a substantial presence of community broadcasters, provision for which is made in the Communications Act. We took evidence from Steve Buckley, Director, Community Media Association, who told us "we believe that community broadcasters, both radio and television, should be locally under control, not run for profit and separate organisations outside the BBC."[54] At the same time, there is scope for the BBC in providing further assistance to the new sector.[55] Relationships the BBC develops with community broadcasters must be on open and transparent terms.

78. We believe that regional broadcasting in all its diversity, from news and current affairs to modern drama, is a vital part of our modern democracy. We are concerned that the increasing trend in broadcasting is towards greater concentration of ownership and less local programming. We understand the challenges facing ITV, but urge that strong regional broadcasting across the genres remains the bedrock of ITV. We also believe that the BBC's regional broadcasting commitment needs strengthening and would urge the Corporation to consider further ways of ensuring high quality local and community broadcasting. We also recognise and welcome the important role the independent community broadcasters will need to play.

79. Professor Elan Closs Stephens, the Chair of S4C, reminded the Committee of the "immense" contribution the BBC has made to Welsh culture.[56] The BBC has also made a significant contribution towards the ongoing development of the Gaelic Media Service, and plans to reinforce its commitment to Gaelic programming.[57]

80. Evidence from the Gaelic Media Service points to specific recommendations and significant demand for the establishment of a Gaelic television channel.[58] We recognise the case for adequate provision of BBC services in minority languages, and the special responsibilities the Corporation has towards the maintenance of Gaelic, Welsh and other UK autochthonous languages.

81. The wider cultural impact of the BBC has been remarked upon by several witnesses. The General Secretary of Equity, Ian McGarry, commented that he did not see anybody competing with the BBC to broadcast the Proms.[59] More generally, the important role music plays in the BBC's services was put to us in detail by the Music Business Forum.[60] The five symphony orchestras maintained by the BBC provide a shining example of excellence for which the Corporation deserves credit, in manifest fulfilment of the Corporation's public service role. It must, however, be asked whether the BBC, as it is today, would establish such orchestras and concert seasons. The BBC Director-General doubted the appropriateness of "owning and operating in the popular music space", referring to other methods of support.[61]

82. The BBC has also established links with other public policy areas: for example between 'the Big Read' and local libraries. This BBC Two programme forged a partnership with the Reading Agency involving all 4,200 public libraries in the UK.[62]

83. In our Sixth Report of Session 2002-03, we urged the BBC "to review its approach and level of commitment to feature film production, in consultation with the UK Film Council, given the significant comity of interests in this area."[63]

84. The UK Film Council believes that the BBC should publish a clear film strategy and be accountable for its delivery. In addition, the BBC "must become transparent about the total amount of money which it commits to all its film-related activities."[64] Their evidence suggests that the BBC could and should intervene in three ways: by investing in talent and ideas; by showcasing the full range of UK and international cinema; and by using its unrivalled media presence to promote and encourage film-going in the UK. The UK Film Council reiterated its belief that there has been an insufficient level of investment by the BBC in feature films and that the television schedules give only a marginal presence to UK films. By connecting with Film Council schemes such as First Light, which supports the making of digital short films by young people, the BBC could further contribute to the development of the film-making skills base.

85. The UK Film Council acknowledged that the BBC "deserves real credit for investing consistently in distinctive UK films" and that BBC Four schedules a wider range of films - though the level of this activity could be dramatically increased. However, there is clear scope for the BBC both to increase the number of films it supports and the level of its investment in those films.[65] "The BBC should also review the acquisition prices it pays for UK films."[66]

86. In front of the Committee, the BBC Director-General affirmed the case for an increase in funding for British films depending on the quality of supply.[67] Following his appearance, Mr Thompson wrote to the Committee undertaking to investigate the pros and cons of an increased investment into original UK feature film production.[68] We recommend the BBC publish a strategy for promoting UK films, and should do so in concert with the UK Film Council. We further believe there is a strong case for a substantial increase in BBC funding for both feature films and short films and in the exhibition of modern UK films.

87. BBC Worldwide Limited aims to exploit BBC content and intellectual property in the UK and overseas. It licenses programme formats, sells rights, publishes programme-related materials and operates commercial channels such as UKTV - a joint venture with Telewest. BBC Ventures Group Limited is an umbrella company for four commercial companies providing broadcast services. One of these, BBC Technology, has recently been sold following approval by the Secretary of State and we note the plans, recently announced, for the rest of the group. The BBC should retain its commercial subsidiaries, but must compete on demonstrably fair terms with the profits used for the benefit of public service broadcasting. This recommendation goes further than the Director-General's assurance that "the BBC will not continue to run businesses without demonstrable public benefits."[69]

88. BBC World and BBC Prime are commercially-funded international services which have been lacking in quality and success. We recommend that BBC World should have applied to it standards of content analogous to those justly associated with the excellent radio World Service. We recommend that the Government commences consideration and consultation on the case for a television version of the BBC World Service.

Digital services

89. Digital radio and television are providing the BBC with an opportunity to reflect more fully the diversity of British culture and to cater for niche tastes. We note the BBC's view that its television and radio portfolios of linear services are now complete.[70]

90. When Richard Lambert reported, in December 2002, on BBC News 24, he commented: "The Government intends this report to be the first of a series of reviews of the BBC's digital services. I would suggest that these reviews should be made the responsibility of OFCOM once it is established. Under the Communications Bill, OFCOM will be responsible for reviewing public service broadcasting as a whole, and it would bring a proper level of professional expertise to the task."[71]

91. In the event, the Secretary of State commissioned three independent reviews covering BBC online services, and its digital television and radio services. Ofcom provided supporting analyses of the market impact of the television and radio services.

92. The review of the BBC's licence fee-funded online services was conducted by Philip Graf, whose report was published in July 2004.[72] Mr Graf acknowledged the "great public affection and appreciation of BBC Online" but recognised the concerns of commercial competitors who felt the BBC's significant market presence had deterred investment by others. Graf recommended that the BBC adopt a 25% quota for online content (excluding news) from external and/or independent suppliers by the end of the current Charter. Among his other recommendations was that the BBC's online services should be characterised by a clear remit, defined around public purposes and/or programme-related content. In evidence to this Committee, Hugo Drayton, Chair of the British Internet Publishers Alliance expressed similar sentiments.[73]

93. Tim Gardam published the report of his independent review of the BBC's digital radio services in October 2004.[74] Gardam judged that the "great bene?t of the ?ve BBC digital services - 1Xtra, BBC Asian Network, 6 Music, BBC 7 and Five Live Sports Extra - has been to offer networks on digital radio that could be funded to realise their editorial ambition. They have delivered a programme quality that is impossible for commercial radio equivalent stations at such an early stage in this market. However, this differential in funding makes it all the more important that the BBC stations define themselves by offering something editorially different to what the commercial market can offer."

94. The twin issues of scope and remit were also addressed by Professor Patrick Barwise in the context of his review of the BBC's digital television services, also published in October.[75] Seeing the two children's channels, CBBC and CBeebies, as successes, Barwise reserved particular praise for the latter as "a triumph and an exemplary PSB service for preschool children."

95. On BBC Three and BBC Four, Barwise recommended that "the top priority" was to increase their audience impact (and value for money). He concluded they should both be reclassified as mainstream mixed-genre channels, a view motivated by "evidence that television is a mass medium, not a niche medium." That evidence is presumably informed more by the analogue experience than by any great understanding of what can, and should, be offered in a digital world. It betrays a failure to understand the complementarity of broadcasting and narrowcasting. The latter can provide depth to programming of wider appeal. The Secretary of State referred to the extraordinary popularity of BBC Four "among its devotees".[76] While both BBC Three and BBC Four could certainly be improved, it will be an increasingly important feature of public service broadcasting to cater for niche, as well as generalist, tastes. They should remain as targeted channels, and not recast as clones of BBC One and BBC Two, as recommended by the Barwise review.

96. The issue of channel remits was addressed by the Secretary of State in the following terms: "I think there are a number of ways of addressing this. One is having very clear expectations attached to different services, so you have a degree of transparency against which the public assessment, not just the rather private process between the BBC and the Secretary of State, can actually be conducted."[77]

Views of the BBC's portfolio and performance

97. The BBC claims to consult the licence fee-paying public in a variety of ways: through advisory bodies and broadcasting councils; through audience research; and by viewer feedback. A balance between gross viewing figures and the results of consultations needs to be struck when assessing the value of BBC output and thereby influencing future decision-making. Building public value sets out, among other things, a framework the BBC proposes to adopt for measuring performance.

98. We recommend that the BBC continues to seek proactively the views of the public through audience research, viewer feedback, advisory bodies and broadcasting councils. The BBC should include in its annual report the results of its consultations and dialogue with the wider public.

99. In addition to our formal call for evidence, we also conducted an informal consultation into viewer attitudes towards the BBC. The focus of the Committee's visit to West Thames College and Heston Community School was to assess how future demand for BBC services might develop, based on the ways in which younger people are using these today.

100. The sample consulted by the Committee was small but internally diverse, and, across the two institutions and range of ages, quite consistent. It is arguable whether any demographic group, when asked, would say it was wholly satisfied with the BBC's output for them. However, the post-primary school to late teens age-group does seem to have a good claim to a real gap in provision. BBC One and Two are of course general interest channels seeming, regrettably, to offer little of interest before 7pm. BBC Three, which only starts at 7pm, is explicitly, if curiously, aimed at a narrow 25-34 year old range, with at best random success. BBC Four has achieved a clear identity and is aimed, with some success, at intelligent and mature viewers. The other two channels, CBeebies and CBBC, are obviously aimed at toddlers and primary school children. There is therefore a structural gap in the BBC's television services for emerging young adults—described by the BBC as a tough and very discriminating audience—between CBBC and BBC Three. We agree with the BBC Director-General that more should be done for the older children and teenager audience.[78]

101. We recommend that the BBC formally and regularly consults teenagers and young adults about their interests as consumers of BBC services, deploying appropriate modern communications technologies to improve the process. The details and outcomes of such consultations should also be published each year in the BBC's Annual Report.

102. In its Ninth Report of Session 1999-2000, the previous Committee mooted the possibility of a BBC sports channel, while wholeheartedly endorsing "the notion that the BBC should not develop additional public service channels that duplicate those already provided by the commercial sector or that unduly threaten the development of a more diverse market in future".[79] These concerns found continued echo in evidence from Artsworld,[80] The History and Biography Channels,[81] and ITN. In the latter case, the BBC's belated entry into the market for mobile phone text-based news was cited.[82] The Secretary of State told us: "I think this Charter review needs to provide a sharper definition of the BBC's role and purpose and to allow the BBC to flourish within that sharper definition … I do not think that by and large the BBC should be investing licence fee payers' money in those areas that are already very well served by commercial services…"[83]

103. The Institute of Practitioners in Advertising suggests that the BBC "should cease seeking to maintain its historical dominance in all the multifarious areas in which it operates and instead complement the market activities of the commercial players in these areas". The Corporation should enrich the totality of the offering, rather than continue competing for maximum audiences. Overall, the IPA believes in a reduced scope for the BBC, reflected in a tighter, more strictly defined operating remit. At the same time the BBC is one of the few global brands possessed by the nation - "one with which governments tamper at their peril."[84]

104. In March 2004, the Association of Commercial Television in Europe, the Association Européenne des Radios and the European Publishers Council published a "white paper" which catalogued, among other things, anti-competitive behaviour of publicly funded media throughout Europe.[85] The paper cites the BBC's scheduling of an extra episode of a soap opera against an ITV adaptation of Othello and head-to-head scheduling of reality talent shows,[86] and notes the marginalisation of serious current affairs and the near disappearance of the arts from BBC One.

105. The first phase of Ofcom's review of public service television summed up one broad perception of the BBC's television output over the past five years: "Broadcasting professionals felt that the BBC had taken a more aggressive approach to winning audiences in recent years and was less different from other channels than it should be."[87] Ofcom concluded: "the BBC needs to reaffirm its position as the standard setter for delivering the highest quality PSB. The BBC Governors should take the lead in ensuring the BBC addresses concerns about derivative formats, aggressive scheduling, competition for acquired programming and a balanced schedule in peak hours."[88]

106. We recommend that the BBC renews acceptance of its duty to provide a wide range of educational and informational programming, and high quality entertainment across a diversity of genres.

Performance of the BBC as a supporter of independent production

107. In 1986, the Peacock Committee recommended that 40% of BBC (and ITV) television programming hours be commissioned from independent producers. Following lobbying from broadcasters,[89] this was reduced to 25%.[90] Under the terms of the Communications Act 2003 and the BBC Agreement (as amended), the BBC is at present required to secure that, in each year, not less than 25% of the total amount of time allocated to the broadcasting of "qualifying programmes" is allocated to independent productions. Excluded from the calculation are programmes such as news, repeats and acquisitions.

108. The BBC has far too often failed to meet its quota for commissioning programming from independent production companies. Witnesses have argued for a commissioning process based more on merit than a desire to maintain the current high level of in-house production by the BBC. A better balance needs to be struck. There should also be a radio quota in the BBC's statutory remit; rather than the modest 10% voluntary quota the Corporation has adopted. The BBC has recently announced an analogous 25% voluntary quota for online content in line with the Graf review.[91]

109. In evidence to the DCMS, the British Academy of Composers and Songwriters argued that the present 25% quota represents an appropriate balance between supporting the independent sector and fostering radical programming ideas within the enabling infrastructure of the BBC.[92]

110. Pact has argued that, only by restructuring to focus on providing, rather than producing, content, can the BBC maximise the use of the licence fee to present the best possible range and diversity of content to the viewer/consumer. According to Pact, there should be a minimum level of external commissioning, calculated as 50% of total BBC commissioning by hours and value, with an inbuilt minimum of commissioning from independents of 25% calculated by the same means.[93]

111. With regard to the BBC spend on independent programmes, the Secretary of State thought a bigger quota might help. She told us "I see the licence fee as venture capital for the nation's creativity and I think that the BBC investment in the independent sector is not only good for working but it is good for the state of that particular and very important part of the creative industries more generally."[94] Sir Christopher Bland also thought that "the amount of programming that goes to the independent sector ought to be increased."[95]

112. We recommend substantial increases in the BBC's independent production quotas for television, radio, and online services and we note the BBC's recent announcements in this area. It is not sufficient, however, for the BBC's independent production quotas simply to be increased. Fostering new, distinctive and independent voices around the UK should be a sustained requirement of the BBC and subject to effective, external and independent scrutiny.

Provision of public service broadcasting

113. There exists a clear distinction between the terms "public service broadcaster" and "public sector broadcaster". The former refers to broadcasters on whom are imposed a variety of programming obligations over and above basic standards. The public sector broadcasters - the BBC, Channel 4 and S4C - have the most onerous public service duties. However, the remaining terrestrial "free to air" television broadcasters, though commercial companies, Channel 3 and Five, also have some public service duties imposed on them. The health of broadcasting in the UK depends on continuing competition for the delivery of public service broadcasting.

114. The Chief Executive of ITV plc, Charles Allen, appeared to endorse these sentiments when he told us: "I think it would be wrong for the BBC only to be the provider of public service broadcasting. I believe pretty passionately that ITV has a role to play, Channel 4 has a role to play and Channel 5 has a role to play and I think it would be wrong to see the BBC as the sole provider of public service broadcasting. Frankly, a multiplicity of supply of public service broadcasting has to be the model going forward."[96] We agree, but have some difficulty reconciling this statement with ITV's ongoing retreat from regional television which we signalled in our Third Report of Session 2003-04.

115. One of the proposals emerging from phase 2 of Ofcom's review involves a "rebalancing" of obligations for non-news English regional programming between ITV1 and the BBC - in effect, reducing the former's PSB obligations in this area.[97] The underlying rationale for this comes from Ofcom's assessment that the "historical compact in which PSB was provided by commercial broadcasters in return for access to analogue spectrum will come under increasing pressure. The move from an analogue to a digital broadcasting market erodes the surplus value in ITV's and Five's analogue licences which funds their contribution to public service broadcasting, and which we calculate to be currently worth around £400 million … Given our statutory duty to maintain and strengthen PSB our core recommendation is that the money should be kept in the system. However, funding that is implicit today will need to be explicit tomorrow."[98]

116. Ofcom suggests that £300 million of this newly explicit funding, could be used to establish a "public service publisher" (PSP), providing competition for the BBC. As Ofcom acknowledges, a decision on whether to take forward this option is a matter for Parliament; not least because of the funding implications. Ofcom has advanced a number of possibilities for resourcing this concept, including an enhanced licence fee model, tax revenues, or a turnover tax on licensed broadcasters.

117. None of the funding options for Ofcom's proposed PSP seems particularly attractive. A turnover tax on commercial broadcasters may present the latter with justification for further retreat from any pretence of public service provision. Noting the significant subscription and advertising revenues available to the broadcasting sector, the NUJ has advanced a case for raising a levy on the commercial sector to fund more public service output on ITV, Channel 4 and S4C. The NUJ even suggests that the BBC could supplement its licence fee income (which the Union wants preserved) from this new source.[99]

118. Top-slicing the licence fee, even what Lord Currie termed an "augmented" licence fee,[100] is problematical. It may lead to additional bureaucracy and blurred lines of public accountability.[101] Furthermore, it would lead to uncertainty in planning finances and future budgeting. We recommend that top-slicing the licence fee to fund public service provision by any body other than the BBC should be rejected.

119. At the same time there should, in the new audiovisual ecology, be scope for the introduction of more niche channels, covering areas such as film, sports, education and minority languages. Ofcom's proposed public service publisher could have a role to play in this regard. However, we are sceptical as to its likely ability to provide creative competition for the BBC. Channel 4, for example, already fulfils such a role. And the £100 million funding it reportedly[102] might need to maintain this in the future would be self-evidently easier to find than the £300 million Ofcom suggests that its PSP would require.

120. We cannot support Ofcom's Public Service Publisher idea as it stands. However, this proposal merits further consideration in the future.

45   Ev 21 Back

46   Ev 106, Q 129 Back

47   Ev 131, Q 231 Back

48   Submission to the public consultation on the future of the BBC: 'Your BBC, Your Say', Public Voice, February 2004  Back

49   Council Directive 89/552/EEC (as amended), Article 4 Back

50   BBC Annual Report and Accounts 2003/2004 pp 95-96 Back

51   Review of the BBC's Royal Charter: BBC response to DCMS consultation, 2004  Back

52   Ev 205, Q 477 Back

53   Ev 147, Q 281 Back

54   Ev 159, Q 335 Back

55   Ev 151, Q 296 Back

56   Ev 117, Q 160 Back

57   Ev 144-146 Back

58   Ev 257-259 Back

59   Ev 176, Q 381 Back

60   Ev 64-72 Back

61   Ev 211, Q 496; Ev 262 Back

62   Review of the BBC's Royal Charter: BBC response to DCMS consultation, 2004  Back

63   Sixth Report, 2002-03, HC 667 paragraph 116 Back

64   Ev 59 Back

65   Ev 189, Q 412 Back

66   Ev 58 Back

67   Ev 208, QQ 485-486 Back

68   Ev 261-262 Back

69   Ev 261-262 Back

70   Ev 205, Q 477 Back

71   Independent Review of BBC News 24, Richard Lambert, December 2002 Back

72   Report of the independent review of BBC Online, 5 July 2004  Back

73   Ev 141, Q 264 Back

74   Independent Review of the BBC's Digital Radio Services, October 2004  Back

75   Independent Review of the BBC's Digital Television Services, October 2004  Back

76   Ev 234, Q 593 Back

77   Ev 238, Q 611 Back

78   Ev 212, Q 501 Back

79   Ninth Report, 1999-2000, HC 719 paragraph 27 Back

80   Ev 197, Q 443 Back

81   Ev 193 Back

82   Ev 50 Back

83   Ev 232, Q 590 Back

84   Ev 25 Back

85   Safeguarding the Future of the European Audiovisual Market, March 2004  Back

86   see also Ev 99, Q 89; Ev 100, Q 95 Back

87   Ev 75 Back

88   Ev 75 Back

89   Submission to the Review of the BBC Charter, Pact, March 2004  Back

90   Broadcasting Act 1990; Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 Back

91   BBC press release, 8 November 2004  Back

92   Submission to the DCMS Review of the BBC's Royal Charter, British Academy of Composers & Songwriters, 2004  Back

93   Submission to the Review of the BBC Charter, Pact, March 2004 Back

94   Ev 237, Q 608 Back

95   Ev 95, Q 65 Back

96   Ev 98, Q 86 Back

97   Ev 223 Back

98   Ev 220-221 Back

99   Ev 166 Back

100   Ev 223, Q 540 Back

101   Ev 103, Q 108 Back

102   C4's chairman warns of PSP 'ghetto',, 1 December 2004 Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 16 December 2004