Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
DCMS
25 JULY 2006
Q60 Paul Farrelly: Not a lot of people
know this but Whitehaven in Cumbria used to be the fourth largest
slaving port and next year is the 200th anniversary of the abolition
of slavery so Whitehaven, rightly or wrongly, is going to be the
focus of attention already and even more so now that you have
decided to trial digital switchover there as well. What made you
bring forward switchover in Whitehaven as a project?
Tessa Jowell: Whitehaven has a
population of 25,000 with no access to Freeview and this is increasingly
one of the drivers behind the urgency to proceed with digital
switchover, and therefore it was the opportunity in a discrete
and well-defined community to run digital switchover. I do not
want the good people of Whitehaven in any sense to think that
they are experimental subjects at all. The process of switchover
will be conducted. They will then all have access to digital television
and I think that on the basis of the two Welsh trials they will
be pleased with the results. But we have trialled this in Wales,
we have trialled different questions in Bolton, and now in Whitehaven.
I think that people should be reassured by this precautionary
approach rather than being suspicious of it.
Q61 Paul Farrelly: Finally, Tessa,
with the BBC and the challenges of the new media I am sure that
old, tatty, yellowing newspapers are not really high up your agenda
but one of the responsibilities of the British Library is to manage
the national newspaper archive in Colindale. As a journalist on
a few occasions when you are looking for obscure facts you go
and you ferret them out from old newspapers, and it is a very
important archive for historians as well. It is not all on database
by any means and we need to improve the storage conditions and
access at the British Library headquarters that are now in St
Pancras. That will need funding. I just wanted to ask here at
this Committee whether you would look sympathetically on funding
for that, helped hopefully by the newspaper industry? If I were
to write to you in the future about it, it would register on your
radar amid all the other grand projects that you have got in your
Department?
Tessa Jowell: Thank you for the
question. This is an issue that I know is of great concern to
the British Library. It is also an issue that I have been discussing
with them over a period of time. You will have heard on many occasions
from many ministers about the tight spending round that we are
about to come to and therefore, obviously, there will be restraint
that will have to be shared across all the institutions that we
are responsible for funding. This is a potentially expensive project.
The decision that the British Library have made is that although
a lot of the copies are now stored in Colindale, some are air-conditioned
not all are air-conditioned, the master negatives of the microfilms—and
this is the point I want to make clear to you—are stored
off-site, therefore off the Colindale site in a properly controlled
environment, so some progress has been made and this, from memory,
was made on the strength of additional funding we were able to
give the British Library last time. I can absolutely assure you
and the Committee that we will attend very closely to this issue.
Q62 Chairman: I apologise for darting
around slightly. Just before I bring in Nigel on a new subject,
you rightly drew attention earlier to the fact that a lot of the
costs for the licence fee were essentially one-off costs, and
in particular the whole assistance package which is also to be
included. Do you therefore foresee a possibility that we may see
an increase in the licence fee to take account of these one-off
costs, after which the licence fee might be reduced once those
costs have been met?
Tessa Jowell: I do not really
want to be drawn on the level of the licence fee at this stage,
save to say that there will be a much higher level of transparency
about the BBC's budget and the liability it incurs at the behest
of public policy in relation to switchover than has ever been
the case before. I think that the new accountability that the
Trust will have to the licence fee payer means that there must
be a continuing dialogue with licence fee payers about the redirection
of money raised for one purpose for any other purpose. You will
also be aware, so that I am absolutely explicit about all these
things, that there will be the costs of targeted help. The BBC
are preparing a more detailed business plan in relation to Manchester.
I would take the view that in the long run the move to Manchester
must result in savings for the BBC and, of course, there is the
further question which we have kept open in the White Paper and
the Charter about steps to maintain plurality of public service
broadcasters and the indication that we would be sympathetic to
seeing money go to Channel 4 to help with the transmitter build
out liability, a question I think I answered at last oral questions.
We know what the extra costs are and the ebb and flow of these
costs will be factored into our calculations both about the length
of the settlement and level of the settlement.
Q63 Chairman: In the interests of
transparency, for instance, thinking about the assistance package,
which is going to represent a considerable amount of money, would
you have that as a separate component of the licence fee which
could then be removed once switchover has been achieved?
Tessa Jowell: It will be the BBC's
money to handle and manage. If you mean by a separate component,
do I think that licence fee payers should know how the licence
fee is spent, the answer is yes.
Chairman: Thank you. Can we turn to a
different subject, Nigel Evans?
Q64 Mr Evans: Secretary of State,
the casino application process; do you think everything is going
to plan?
Tessa Jowell: These are questions
properly addressed to Stephen Crow who is the Chairman of the
independent panel. As you will know, they issued a statement yesterday
clarifying the earlier position and in the interests, as I understand
it, of full clarity he decided to provide all bidders with an
additional 21 days in order to make representations about the
provisional shortlist. If I can make it absolutely clear, this
is an independent panel and they must do their job on behalf of
the Government to the terms of reference that they have, as they
see fit, and it is not for me to make a judgment about or to second-guess
the way in which they set about their task nor their conclusions,
because they are an independent panel.
Q65 Mr Evans: And whatever they recommend,
you will accept?
Tessa Jowell: It will be for Parliament
to determine on their recommendations.
Q66 Mr Evans: So the process is they
recommend; it comes to you; and then you bring it to Parliament
with a recommendation to accept or reject?
Tessa Jowell: Yes.
Q67 Mr Evans: But you have the power
to say no to them, to whatever they recommend and suggest somewhere
else?
Tessa Jowell: No, I think that
Parliament has the power because, after all, were I to choose
to intervene and recommend acceptance or rejection, on what basis
would I do that if the process had been properly and independently
conducted? No, I would see it as a process where they would certainly
submit their report to me, I would submit those recommendations
to Parliament, and it will go through the normal process.
Q68 Mr Evans: How much damage do
you think the Deputy Prime Minister's involvement in this has
had on the credibility of the process?
Tessa Jowell: I think the process
that is being conducted by the independent panel is one which
they are responsible for. They must be responsible for the process.
There has been complete transparency by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Q69 Mr Evans: Only latterly. He was
forced into that, was he not?
Tessa Jowell: No, no, the point
is this: we have an independent panel that will draw up proposals
about the location of one regional casino, eight large and eight
medium-sized casinos. They will do that and Parliament will accept
or reject their recommendations.
Q70 Mr Evans: Yes but—
Tessa Jowell: That is the process.
Q71 Mr Evans: You said that was the
process but the question was about whether the credibility of
the process has been damaged at all by the Deputy Prime Minister's
involvement with Philip Anschutz.
Tessa Jowell: The Deputy Prime
Minister's discussions with Philip Anschutz had nothing to do
with the conduct of the independent panel.
Q72 Mr Evans: Has the Deputy Prime
Minister spoken to you about anything to do with casino applications?
Tessa Jowell: I think the record
here is that everything is on the record. I am satisfied—
Q73 Mr Evans: Can you remind the
Committee then how many conversations have you had with the Deputy
Prime Minister about casino applications?
Tessa Jowell: I do not think I
have had any conversations with the Deputy Prime Minister.
Q74 Mr Evans: None at all?
Tessa Jowell: I can recall no
conversations about casino applications. Why not? Because the
management of the applications or determination of the location
for casinos was a matter only for the independent panel. Because
of the sensitivity, it was my view that this should be placed
at arm's length. I know if I cast back I can certainly recall
discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister about the number of
regional casinos there should be consistent with the regeneration
objective but this was very much in terms of the development of
the policy statement on casinos.
Q75 Mr Evans: Was he pushing for
more than one super casino so regeneration could come to more
than one area?
Tessa Jowell: The decision, to
spare his blushes—
Q76 Chairman: I do not blush easily!
Tessa Jowell: The decision to
have one regional casino rather than the excellent proposal to
have four or eight regional casinos arose from a discussion in
the wash-up period between myself and the now Chairman of the
Select Committee, who insisted that Opposition support for the
legislation was contingent on the number being reduced to one
and because I felt it was so important to secure the legislation
and the protective framework for the public, I agreed to that.
Q77 Mr Evans: Did the Deputy Prime
Minister promote more than one though? He was keen to get more
than one area because clearly his responsibility on regeneration
was one of the reasons why he had the conversation with Philip
Anschutz.
Tessa Jowell: Any discussion I
had with the Deputy Prime Minister was in the context of the development
of a statement of policy on casinos and how this small number
of regional casinos might maximise the regeneration potential.
It was absolutely essential that his Department had a view on
that as the department responsible for regeneration.
Q78 Mr Evans: So do you think it
was unwise therefore for him to have that meeting with Philip
Anschutz?
Tessa Jowell: All this has been
very well-aired by people far better qualified to make judgments
about it than I am.
Q79 Mr Evans: Do you think any other
companies then than AEG have had access to senior ministers in
the same way?
Tessa Jowell: I am quite sure
that if the Select Committee wished to establish a schedule of
all ministerial meetings with any casino provider then that information
will be forthcoming.
| 
