| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
My fifth reflection is on local radio, which has come up just once in our debate so far when my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to it. This week, BBC Radio York—my local radio station—is the proud host broadcaster of the Great Yorkshire show, which illustrates the part that BBC local radio plays in many of our local communities. One of the BBC’s plans for expansion is to fill in the gaps of local radio up and down the country. In Yorkshire, that will mean having a station in Bradford as well as Leeds, which is well worth supporting.
Next, on the opposite side from BBC local radio is the BBC World Service, BBC World and the new experiment of Arabic television. BBC World Service radio has recently gained record listening figures and BBC Arabic television is a worthy experiment that should perhaps have happened long ago. I hope that, if we go down this route of the Foreign Office and the BBC further expanding into television, it will not be at the expense of further BBC World Service radio channels. I believe that BBC World, which is run on a commercial basis, has improved over the years and it is meant to come into profit in 2010. It is well worth reflecting that it is the only news channel in the world that is trying to run on a completely commercial basis, whereas al-Jazeera and the channels recently launched in France are very much the recipients of public subsidy.
My seventh point is about BBC Resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned the importance of the BBC’s training function. In the rush to maximise the use of independent producers, which clearly have a role in BBC output, we should not forget the importance of the core in-house service. Bearing in mind the question mark about whether BBC Resources will be privatised after 2007, it would be odd if the BBC had accountants and lawyers directly on its staff, but no longer had technicians. The BBC Trust should think carefully about that—it should perhaps do a value-for-money study—when so many big corporations are bringing such functions back in house.
In direct response to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr, I hope that moving BBC Radio 5 and BBC Sport to Manchester is just the start. Some time during the next charter period, I would like to see one of the big channels moved somewhere in the UK. That would be a major step forward and a major way of combating the London-centric focus, to which, like any London-based institution, the BBC occasionally falls prey.
My ninth point
has not arisen in the debate so far—the BBC’s coverage of
religion. We sometimes talk about great moments in sport, but in the
last two or three years, the BBC has provided great coverage of
religious events, whether it be the death of the Pope or the recent
enthronement of the Archbishop of York. It is important that the BBC
continues to provide coverage of all the religions in today’s
Britain. Last year’s “The Monastery” was an
innovative programme, which brought an understanding of religious life
to a
wide and popular audience. It is also important to show programmes
relating to worship at religious
festivals.
Finally, the dumbing down of the BBC has come up during every charter period over the years. I noticed that the News Chronicle of 1958 said:
“The Sound Broadcasting Society, which originated in the campaign to save the Third Programme from mutilation, is still keeping up a spirited fight against the declining standards of the BBC...It is sad that the BBC should have fallen so far from the high standards it once set itself.”
To a certain extent, it was ever thus: we always look back to a golden age of the BBC. I contend that, perhaps, we are not too far from such a golden age today, with the expansion of Freeview, the success of the BBC’s interventions on to the internet, the respect in which it is widely held and the quality of much of its output. BBC radio is still slightly embarrassed to have more than 50 per cent. of the total audience share, largely because of the quality of its output. Perhaps, today, we are in such a golden age. I always remember the words of Dennis Potter, who said of the BBC’s mission:
“Switch on, tune in and grow.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) pointed out earlier, one of the great things about the BBC is that it can interest people in things that they never realised that they were interested in, and long may it be so.
8.45 pm
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): It has been a great pleasure for me to sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey)—a great man—and to listen to the debate on the BBC this evening. I must, however, pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush (Mr. Slaughter), when he tried to paint the picture that Labour Members were pro-BBC and that the commentary from Conservative Members was somehow hostile to the BBC. Anyone outside the House who reads Hansard will know that the debate has been very even-handed and that positive, constructive and critical points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Certainly, in my speech, I intend to be both positive and critical of the BBC.
The best thing that I have come across during the debate was a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), when he stated that licence fees for students in halls of residence should be abolished. I totally agree with him. Why should students living in halls of residence—people who have little enough money already—have to pay licence fees? That is certainly something that I shall take away from the debate, and I hope to secure a Westminster Hall debate on the subject to try to convince the Government to abolish such fees for students.
Mr.
Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): Another argument that my
hon. Friend might deploy in trying to woo the student vote relates, of
course, to the fact
that so few students now watch television. That is not to say that their
minds are on higher things; they simply spend all their time on the
internet
now.
Daniel Kawczynski: Yes, absolutely, that is true, but I should like students to have free licences none the less.
The right hon. Member for Rotherham(Mr. MacShane) spoke extremely well in the debate. Like me, he is of Polish origin, and I know from speaking to him that he played his role in supporting Solidarity in Poland in the early 1980s. I also know that the BBC played its role in the overthrow of communism not just in Poland but throughout eastern Europe. Some of my earliest childhood memories are of speaking to relatives in Poland who tuned into the BBC, late at night in the darkness of their homes. Of course it was illegal to listen to foreign broadcasters in those days, but the BBC still brought great hope to many people who were under communist tyranny, for which I thank it, as I am sure many other people do.
I praised the BBC in the debate a few weeks ago. I am pleased that many hon. Members have saluted the BBC this evening—it deserves it—but the right hon. Member for Rotherham made a very good point when he suggested that there should be a register of interests for BBC journalists and executives. I found that point very interesting. Hon. Members try extremely hard to be beyond reproach and to register all our interests, and senior people in the BBC, who also have such a public role, should declare their interests.
I shall mention two issues that I feel very strongly about and which have already been raised in this debate—the first being this man called Jonathan Ross. My wife and I watched his television programme at our home in Shrewsbury and I was appalled by this—how can I describe him?—cad and bounder’s interviewing the leader of my party in the most gratuitous and appalling way. I took great exception to Jonathan Ross ridiculing in a very public way a very important historical figure—an 80-year-old lady who is no longer in public life to the extent that she was. I found it totally unacceptable that somebody in the BBC could speak about her in that way. I very much hope that the BBC is listening not just to me, but to other Members who have spoken out against Jonathan Ross’s behaviour.
The second issue is religion, which has been briefly mentioned already. As a Roman Catholic, I sometimes get genuinely very upset by some of the critical ways in which religion is covered. It is occasionally covered with a great deal of disrespect in modern life, particularly on television. Catholics do not always jump up and down when they are offended, but that does not mean that we are not offended. In future, the BBC needs to think very carefully about how it criticises religion. There have been many vociferous protestations from members of the Sikh community—and others—when their religion has been denigrated in some way.
Locally, we in
Shrewsbury listen to BBC Radio Shropshire, which I must say is an
excellent station. It is impartial and balanced and the quality of its
local news is exceptional. It keeps people updated, particularly the
elderly and those in remote rural areas who cannot get around. In
preparation for my speech, I
spoke to some senior citizens who live in Halfway House, in a very rural
part of my constituency. They wanted me to make the point that they
benefit greatly from local radio, particularly those who live by
themselves and are lonely.
Before today’s debate, I was grilled on Radio 4’s “Farming Today” about various issues that I am raising as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on dairy farmers; the interviewing was very robust. When we politicians are interviewed, reporters are robust, which is healthy for our democracy. I get frustrated by John Humphrys when I think that he is being rude or unfair to a colleague, but such harsh scrutiny is important. My concern is that if it is excessive—asMr. Humphrys has been in certain cases—it could put people off and stop politicians going on such shows.
I am concerned about the growing number of occasions when very junior Ministers are put up for interview, rather than a Secretary of State. In fact, on many occasions now, no Government spokesman is available to speak to the BBC, which presents a very bad image to the public. The BBC and the Government have a duty to ensure that there is always representation from the highest levels of government to counteract and answer questions. Ministers must realise their duty to appear on hard-hitting interview shows, such as “Newsnight”—which has been referred to as “Newsnicht”—with Jeremy Paxman. I rarely see the Prime Minister being interviewed by hard-hitting interviewers; he tends to go for the softer, easy options.
There has been little explanation during this debate of the governance of the BBC, yet that issue is of the utmost importance; I hope that the Minister will talk further about it when he sums up. During the tragedy surrounding Dr. Kelly, the BBC governors acted very badly. I would argue, controversially, that many were not up to the job. Chaos reigned at the BBC when the Government turned up the heat on that organisation. As other Members have stated, we need governors who will stand up to Governments of whatever colour, and who will stand up for the independence of the BBC. The BBC Trust and executive body need to represent real people and be independent. How will they be chosen? What remit will they have? I hope that the Minister will respond to those questions.
The auditing of the BBC must be far more open to public scrutiny, and Members of the House have a role to play in that. I hope that the Minister can also provide a glimmer of hope about that. On the licence fee, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that continuous above-inflation increases are unacceptable. The House of Lords has recently recommended that licence fees should not increase beyond the rate of inflation. I believe that Parliament must vote on licence fees if they are significantly above the rate of inflation.
During the
previous BBC debate, I spoke about how my wife and I enjoy romantic
costume dramas. We believe that there should be more of those on the
BBC. This evening I am going to speak about children’s
programmes. My wife and I are expecting our first child in October, and
are looking forward to it very much. We are very concerned about the
state of children’s programmes. With our forthcoming child in
mind, we watched some BBC children’s television programmes on
Saturday, and I was appalled by the
violence and aggression shown, both between children and from outside
groups towards children. I was absolutely amazed. In my day, we learned
to make things while watching children’s programmes.
[Laughter.] It was all very innocent—Labour Members
laugh, but it was. That is what children are meant to watch. The
programmes now have a lot of violence and mindless aggression. I hope
that the BBC will take note.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, was excellent. I strongly encourage the Minister and the Government to listen to the comments of someone of such quality and experience. I must disagree with him on one point, however. He said that the BBC should not get involved in television and radio in foreign countries—but I believe that such involvement is a good thing. We must challenge the global television empires and networks being built up by media tycoons. One way to do that is for the BBC to start branching out to other parts of the world, such as India and China. I would like the BBC to operate more in China, which is a great opportunity and growth market for our businesses.
Many British institutions are so popular globally and have such a good brand that we can export them abroad. For example, Shrewsbury school is so popular with foreign students that a Shrewsbury school is being opened in Bangkok, because so many Thai people want an English education. So, too, our British Broadcasting Corporation should branch out to bring our perspective to people around the world and to promote our way of life.
8.59 pm
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): As I know that another Member wants to speak, I shall be as brief as possible. I have sat through the whole debate, and it has been like an elongated version of “Points of View”—absolutely fascinating. I must admit that at one point, having drifted off, I was woken by the “Kenneth Tynan moment” when my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) intervened. On another occasion, I was roused by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter), representing what is now described as cognitive capitalism.
As secretary of the all-party National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, I am aware of a number of worries about the new agreement for BBC staff. Throughout the debate we have all extolled the BBC’s virtues, such as the high-quality service that it provides. It has been suggested that it should expand into different parts of the world, become involved in different services, and link up with the private sector in future joint operations. I think we can all agree that the BBC’s quality is based on a long tradition of high-quality professionalism among its staff—a professionalism that has given us world-leading programmes and a service that is second to none, described in the House on other occasions as a jewel in the crown of public services.
Discussions
with staff have revealed fears thatthe new agreement will
threaten their jobs and
professionalism and undermine their skills. They are concerned about the
intervention of Ofcom and the development of the window of creative
competition, or WOCC—“Doctor Who” has been
mentioned, and its scriptwriter must have hauled that one off the
screen as well—about their non-representation on the trust,
about the grotesque top salary increases, and now about advertising on
the World Service.
We have heard a good many anecdotal suggestions today that if Ofcom did not intervene, the BBC would somehow “crowd out” private sector services from the market. However, no concrete evidence has ever been produced in any research study by Ofcom itself. An Ofcom study that did take place in 2004 concluded that there was not
“sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence of overall ‘crowding-out’”.
Since then no individual instances investigated by Ofcom have proved that the BBC has somehow affected private sector operations.
Now that Ofcom is included in the agreement, market impact assessments must ensure that there is complete transparency. In my dealings with Ofcom in the NUJ parliamentary group, I have not found its role in seeking to protect public services in the ITV system to be particularly effective. We have had a number of debates in the House in which, on a cross-party basis, we have raised issues with Ministers about the loss of local production, and in particular the loss of local news services through ITN, as a result of Ofcom’s failure to fulfil its task and to display any teeth in controlling the cutting of such services by the private sector.
Ofcom will be one of the organisations that the BBC will be required to consult on codes of practice in any area where competition may arise. Let me issue a plea for full and adequate consultation with the trade unions representing BBC staff in the discussions that Ofcom undertakes with the BBC, especially as the process may result in the loss of their jobs. I am not sure why the Government have taken the Ofcom route when the BBC is already subject to competition law and the operation of the Office of Fair Trading. I do not understand why a special regime is needed for the BBC, as opposed to other public services.
As for the window of creative competition and the potential increase from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. in television services going to the private sector, the concerns expressed by staff need to be examined. It is feared that it may, in the long term, undermine the skills base and potential creativity and innovation in the BBC. Yet again, there has been no independent research to justify that increase in the privatisation element, and no independent research on the quantification of the increase from 25 per cent. to50 per cent. Moreover, there is substantial evidence—which I am happy to submit to the Minister—that when work has been outsourced from the BBC, the working conditions of the staff involved have deteriorated. Problems with wages, and even with health and safety matters, have been raised consistently by individual unions.
In addition,
the pensions assurances given to staff who were outsourced to companies
have not been
abided by. Many who are retiring are being offered benefits and pensions
significantly below those that they were promised. I urge the Secretary
of State to consider the detailed implementation of the agreement, so
that where the window of creative competition applies and enables a
wider range of services and facilities to be outsourced, there is
adequate consultation with the unions and the representatives of the
work force that will be
affected.
The composition of the trust has been raised by various hon. Members. There is disappointment that there will not be a representative from the trade union movement on the trust itself. Historically, there has been a commitment that there should be some representative of the work force on any governing body of the BBC. That has not happened under the new regime. That means that there will be a loss of expertise on the trust in terms of the debates on the longterm future of the BBC.
The National Union of Journalists and I support the licence fee and congratulate the Government on maintaining it as the basis for the funding of the BBC, but there needs to be a wider debate during the mid-term review of the new regime. We need to discuss shortly how that review will be undertaken and what consultations will be undertaken as a result of the review.
It is an obscene disgrace that the management have increased their salaries over the past three years by25 to 30 per cent. overall, while at the same time cutting jobs and reducing salaries for their workers. A ballot will take place on strike action as a result of the job cuts taking place for the NUJ. I have no doubt that that ballot will support industrial action, and that part of that result will have been caused by the reaction tothe directors awarding themselves such significant increases.
Increasingly, the incursion of advertising into the BBC is a concern, although a lot of concern has been expressed this evening about the BBC’s own adverts. The BBC News international website is to include private sector advertising. One hundred and fifty staff involved at all levels of seniority have written to the director-general of the BBC to say that that will affect the global reputation of the BBC for independence and impartiality, and that it is a step too far in terms of the development of alternative sources of income for the BBC.
I pay tribute to the BBC, to the work that it has done over the years and to the service that it has provided. That is based on the commitment and professionalism of the staff themselves. With any reform of the BBC and designation of its future, we need to take the staff with us. Job cuts, privatisation and Ofcom interference will undermine the confidence of the staff in the long-term security of the BBC. There will be industrial action in the next few weeks—as a result, I am sure, of the reaction of staff to some of the Government’s proposals. I support that industrial action, and I will be appearing on the picket lines in support.
9.8 pm
Mr.
Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): I am grateful to have the
opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John
McDonnell) and to pay
tribute to the work he does for the NUJ. As the offspring of two members
of that trade union, I know about the good work that it has
done.
May I also say how grateful I am to follow on the Conservative Benches my good friend, the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who, as usual, made a charming and effective contribution to the debate? He and I sat together through the previous BBC debate and we have sat together through this BBC debate. It is worth recalling, today of all days—hug a hoodie day—that it is the younger Members of the House who are prepared to sit through these debates from beginning to end and to listen to the arguments. I hate to say it but, apart from the hon. Memberfor Hayes and Harlington and the Front-Bench spokesmen, it is the older Members who drift in and out, taking bite-sized chunks out of the debate. Therefore, I hope that the House will listen to what we have to say, although I must stop sitting next to my hon. Friend, because it has got to the stage where people are mistaking us for each other.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, covering the licence fee, salaries, governance and the relationship between the commercial sector and the BBC. It has also covered the general nature of public service broadcasting. For me, it was an extremely important debate, with a seminal moment. I was not born when John F. Kennedy was shot and I was being born when Robert Kennedy was shot, and I never thought that I would be present in the Chamber to hear the f-word uttered. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase(Dr. Wright) breached that boundary. He had his Kenneth Tynan moment, although it may have been his Jonathan Ross moment—
Dr. Tony Wright rose—
Mr. Vaizey: I am about to get corrected.
Dr. Wright: I was quoting a bishop in Franglais, which I thought provided a certain amount of cover.
Mr. Vaizey: Apart from that terrible moment, I strongly disagreed with two of the hon. Gentleman’s other points. With the greatest respect, the snobbery of his attitude in favouring the BBC over the commercial sector would have the Deputy Prime Minister turning in his political grave. The hon. Gentleman clearly believes that everything that the BBC does is right and proper and anything that the commercial sector does is appalling and rather infra dig. That is an extraordinary attitude to take and reminds Opposition Members that the true conservatives are often to be found among Labour Members, and those who are capable of radical and progressive thinking are often found on these Conservative Benches.
I remind the hon. Gentleman
that, as other contributors to the debate have pointed out, the BBC has
often followed behind and copied the private sector. For example, it
was not until ITN started news bulletins that the BBC decided to have
them. It was not until Radio Caroline came on to the airwaves that the
BBC got round to creating Radio 1 and Radio 2. Similarly, it was not
until Sky News started broadcasting 24-hour British news that the BBC
created BBC News 24. There is, therefore, a serious point to be made
about the crowding out of the commercial sector by the BBC. It does not
just come in to clear up the clutter and make everything right: it
often drives innovative commercial broadcasters out of business or
reduces their ability to invest. Sky News stopped making a profit the
minute that BBC News 24 was started with taxpayers’
money.
The Minister will recall that in last month’s debate on the BBC I pointed out that two major private employers in my constituency, Harcourt Education and RM Ltd, are both suffering from the BBC’s decision to encroach into educational publishing—not an area in which it has been involved before and in which those two companies have built up much expertise and introduced much innovation. I am further appalled to hear the news that the BBC is thinking of starting a current affairs magazine. There could be no sector in which the BBC was less wanted.
The fundamental point is that the creative landscape is tentative at the moment. As many hon. Members have said, we do not know where we will be in six months’ time, a year’s time, two years’ time or five years’ time. There are many minnows out there trying to gain a foothold in the market, trying to grow, trying to attract investment and experimenting as much as the BBC has ever experimented. If we are to allow a thousand flowers to bloom in this new digital landscape, we cannot simply give the keys to the lawnmower to the BBC and ask it to set off. It would chop down many hundreds of companies, many doing innovative work, seeking to establish a foothold.
Last month, I mentioned the black broadcaster, Henry Bonsu, who has started a black digital radio station because, he told me, the BBC thinks that the black community only wants to listen to music and hear from celebrities. He took a different view and set up a private sector radio station for the black community. That is an extremely important point, because it shows that as much innovation can be found in the private sector as in the BBC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham wondered whether people in the BBC listened to what he said. Well, this very morning I was delighted to receive a note from the director-general about BBC jam and its effect on the private sector.
The other point on which I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Cannock Chase is his ridiculous parody that everyone on the Conservative Benches is against the BBC and has a secret plot to do it down while everyone on the Labour Benches believes that the BBC is the best thing since sliced bread and cannot be touched—although I admit that I have just parodied the hon. Gentleman’s speech in exactly that fashion. I have taken the trouble over the past few weeks to communicate with my constituents on the web, using a private service—HearFromYourMP.com—to find out what they thought about the BBC. To a man and woman, there was of course strong support for the BBC.
I agree
with every Member who has said that the BBC is a much-valued cultural
institution in this country. It is probably—dare I use the
language of the market?—one of the most powerful brands the UK
has to offer, both to the nation and worldwide. There is no doubt about
that. Equally, there is no doubt at all that
in the complex constitution of broadcasting and the media the BBC plays
an utterly vital part; it is the House of Lords of broadcasting and we
meddle with it at our peril. However, that should not stop any Member
from offering a candid critique of the future of the BBC.
There have certainly been some valuable contributions about BBC governance, which is extremely important. The division between the BBC Trust and the BBC executive board is clearly a dog’s breakfast; it has achieved the unique feat of uniting almost the entire broadcasting world against it. How can one trust a trust appointed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the director-general, both of whom will be on the panel that appoints members of the trust? It would be rather like asking the chairman of Thames Water to appoint the chief executive of Ofwat—there would not be much independence.
The process will be circular: if the trust is to appoint the director-general and the chairman of the executive board, how can it hold to account a director-general in whose success it would clearly have a vested interest? It is vital that a truly independent panel is set up to appoint the members of the trust. When I raised that point last month with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), he said it was important that people who knew about the industry were appointed, but the whole point of the trust is that it does not have a management role, but a regulatory and overseeing role. There are plenty of people who know about ethics and economics who would make good members of the trust; they would not need to have been programme makers.
Dr. Wright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, because I should like to find one item on which we can agree. Last night, viewers of BBC 1 were invited to vote for celebrities riding horses and jumping over fences. If such votes can be held regularly, why on earth could not the viewers—the licence fee payers—vote directly for one or two members of the trust? The BBC could use all its imaginative resources to run such an election.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |