| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
That the following new Standing Order and amendments to the Standing Orders be made—
A. New Standing Order: Planning: national policy statements
(1) Whenever a proposal for a national policy statement is laid before this House under section 9(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (‘the Act’), the Liaison Committee shall report either—
(a) that it has designated a select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152, or
(b) that it recommends the appointment of a National Policy Statement Committee to consider the proposal.
(2) A National Policy Statement Committee—
(a) shall be composed of not fewer than seven nor more than fourteen members, all of whom shall be, at the time of nomination, members of one 15 or more of the following select committees—
Communities and Local Government
Energy and Climate Change
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Transport
Welsh Affairs;
(b) shall have power—
(i) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the UK; and
(ii) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference; and
(c) may report from time to time and shall cease to exist either—
(i) if it has reported on the proposal before the designated date, when the relevant national policy statement or amended national policy statement has been laid under section 5(9) or section 6(9) of the Act; or
(ii) if it has not reported on the proposal before the designated date, on the designated date;
(3) A committee designated or appointed to consider a proposal for a national policy statement shall have power, in the course of its proceedings under this order, to invite Members of the House who are not members of the committee to attend, and, at the discretion of the chairman, take part in, its proceedings, but such Members may not move any motion or amendment to any motion or draft report, nor vote nor be counted in the quorum of the committee;
(4) If a committee designated or appointed to consider a proposal for a national policy statement has not reported on the proposal before the designated date, then the chairman of the committee shall report that the committee makes no recommendation with regard to the proposal.
(5) For the purposes of this Order, the designated date in relation to any proposal for a national policy statement is the thirty-ninth day before the expiry of the relevant period defined under section 9(6) of the Act.
B. Amendments to Standing Orders
That Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees) be amended, by inserting after ‘(b)’ in line 17—
‘(i) in the case of a motion to agree with a report from the Liaison Committee to appoint and nominate Members to a National Policy Statement Committee under Standing Order (Planning: National Policy Statements) the motion is made on behalf of the Liaison Committee by the chairman or another member of the committee; or
(ii) in other cases’;
That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended by leaving out paragraphs (6), (7) and (8) and inserting the following paragraphs—
(6) The committee shall have power to appoint two sub-committees, one of which shall be a National Policy Statements sub-committee.
(7) A National Policy Statements sub-committee—
(a) shall be composed of—
(i) those members of the committee who are members of the Communities and Local Government, Energy and Climate Change, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Transport and Welsh Affairs Committees; and
(ii) up to two other members of the committee, one of whom shall be appointed chairman of the sub-committee;
(b) shall report to the committee on the use of the committee’s powers under paragraph (1) of Standing Order (Planning: National Policy Statements); and
(c) may report to the committee on matters relating to national policy statements under the Planning Act 2008.
(8) Each sub-committee shall have—
(a) a quorum of three; and
(b) power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
(9) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before any sub-committee.
(10) The quorum of the committee shall be as provided in Standing Order No. 124 (Quorum of select committees), save that for consideration of a report from a National Policy Statements sub-committee under sub-paragraph (7)(b) the quorum shall be three.
Electronic Communications
4.43 pm
Mr. Jeremy Hunt (South-West Surrey) (Con): I beg to move,
That the Communications (Television Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 505), dated 26 February 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9 March, be revoked.
It is a pleasure to be supported by so many staunch supporters of the BBC on the Conservative Benches.
The Communications (Television Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 came into force on 1 April. They increase the cost of a black and white television licence by £1 to £48, which may or may not trouble the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who, we learned today, has had the same black and white television for 31 years, to his credit. The regulations increase the price of a colour TV licence from £139.50 to £142.50.
Why have we called this debate over a £3 increase in the licence fee? We have done so partly because of the MP expenses issue that has engulfed the House over the past two weeks. It has shown that the public are justifiably angry about the misuse of their money, whether in small sums or large, which has reminded the House to respect the taxpayers who pay our salaries. The same surely applies to all publicly funded organisations, including the BBC.
We have called for the debate also partly because the economic situation has changed beyond recognition since January 2007, when the current licence fee settlement was made. With 2.2 million people unemployed and many people facing dire personal financial circumstances, it is surely right to ask whether an increase that may have seemed reasonable in 2007 is still justified.
We should also put the rise in context. In 1997, the licence fee was £91.50. Since then, it has increased by 56 per cent.—almost double the retail prices index rate of inflation. When the BBC’s commercial rivals are struggling, sometimes for their very existence, licence fee payers have been treating the BBC incredibly generously.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that his last point gets to the heart of the matter? Since the licence fee settlement was agreed, broadcasting’s economic climate has changed, and it is unsustainable for every other, commercial, broadcaster to manage on less money each year while the BBC has a never-ending increase in its income.
Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend does a very good job of developing my argument for me. I shall continue if I may, but he is absolutely right and his point is an important one, because the 2007 settlement was based on some key assumptions about the broadcasting market. The first was about the rate of inflation. That year, RPI inflation was 4.3 per cent., and as hon. Members may recall, that was the year in which the Governor of the Bank of England had to send a letter to the Chancellor, apologising for the fact that he had overshot his target. It was also the year in which there was an assumption that, as the commercial broadcasting market grew, the BBC would need to keep up. Both assumptions must be radically re-examined.
Yesterday, RPI inflation fell to minus 1.2 per cent., the steepest fall since 1948. That means that programme inflation, the cost of buying and commissioning programmes, is also falling, and with Channel 4’s revenues down 18 per cent. and ITV’s revenues down 19 per cent. in the first part of this year, there is less competition to buy and commission programmes. The traditional parity between licence fee revenue and the revenue that goes to commercial broadcasters funded by advertising has been lost. Last year, there was a broad equivalence between the two sums of money, but this year it is expected that licence fee revenue will amount to £500 million more than the entire sum received by all the commercial broadcasters funded by advertising put together.
Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): On the question of independent producers, is my hon. Friend concerned about the uncompetitive nature of some contracts that the BBC enters into in-house? I believe that such cosy contracts do exist. If producers inside the BBC are being subsidised and independent producers are not able to compete fairly, does not my hon. Friend think that the Public Accounts Committee should have the right to examine the BBC’s accounts, as I and the Committee’s Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), have argued for many years?
Mr. Hunt: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that point. I visited some independent production studios in Kent, which made that very point to me, saying that they were unable to compete for contracts to produce BBC programmes because they were outbid by the BBC’s in-house production facilities, which the independents believed were less competitive than they were. There are problems, and I wholeheartedly agree that the National Audit Office should be able to examine the BBC’s accounts at will and without permission and prior agreement, just as it can with most other public bodies. That is a very important point.
David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab): Before the previous intervention, the hon. Gentleman made the entirely accurate point that the advertising slump has seen a huge chunk of money taken out of ITV’s revenue and therefore out of commercial production. However, there seems to be an odd logic in saying that ITV’s losing £500 million is a pretext to take tens of millions of pounds out of the BBC’s budget. If we are losing hundreds of millions of pounds from production because of the advertising slump, is it not true that now is not the time to cut the licence fee?
Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the only way to deal with the commercial predicament faced by ITV, Channel 4 and all the other commercial broadcasters is to pump more money into the BBC through the licence fee? ITV says that, next year, the disparity between advertising-funded broadcasters and the BBC will be £1 billion. There comes a point when commercially funded broadcasters are simply not able to compete with the BBC in producing programmes for large audiences. When the BBC’s commercial rivals can spend less on programming and when the BBC’s own costs are falling, we have to ask whether it is appropriate for the corporation to have an inflation-busting £68 million rise.
David Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been generous in giving way. I would understand the logic of his position if he wanted to take money from the BBC licence fee and give it to ITV; his argument would then make perfect sense. But he does not propose to do that. He is remarking that hundreds of millions of pounds have been taken out of broadcasting because of the advertising slump and saying that we should therefore take another £75 million from the BBC. I fail completely to see the logic of that position.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the logic of my argument. If there is a huge disparity between the money that commercially funded broadcasters receive and what the BBC receives, that is dangerous for the broadcasting ecology, which becomes very unbalanced.
Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South) (Lab): I should like to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns). The hon. Gentleman has said that he has spoken to independent producers who cannot get their programmes on the BBC because of unfair competition within the corporation. However, despite the quotas that the BBC already has, if more money is taken from the corporation there will be less chance of getting more independent production into the BBC. The hon. Gentleman is arguing against his own case.
Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. We are talking about a £68 million rise in the licence fee in the context of a total licence fee income of £3.6 billion. I do not believe that it would be impossible for the BBC to find savings of £68 million without its ability to commission programmes from the independent sector being affected in any way.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): In Yorkshire, we have just discovered that ITV is closing down “Heartbeat”, “A Touch of Frost” and “Sharpe”—excellent productions that attract high-volume audiences. I do not know what we are going to do about that, and it is not the BBC’s responsibility. At the same time, the BBC is investing, certainly in the north-west. For the sake of creative talent, surely this is not the time to start cutting back on funding for the BBC.
Mr. Hunt: It is excellent that the BBC is investing in our regions. However, we also have to consider whether it is giving value for money; £3.6 billion is a lot of money. I shall go on to talk about some of the things on which it spends the money—things that I think do not represent good value for money. At a time of great economic difficulty for many licence fee payers, it is legitimate to ask whether the money is being well spent.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that when a lot of public money is taken in small sums from people without much to spend—and under threat of imprisonment if they do not pay—it is important that costs should be controlled? It is not like the private sector; I do not mind people earning a lot of money if others pay willingly for their services. Should not the BBC look at all its people who are paid very much more than the Prime Minister, many of them with the opportunity to earn outside the BBC as well? I do not begrudge them doing that, but should we not at least control their BBC wages?
Mr. Hunt: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. In fact, 50 people at the BBC are paid more than the Prime Minister. I thought that his point about taking care with small sums of money from people who might well not be able to afford an additional rise would be well taken by Labour Members, particularly as the Leader of the House announced today that the licence fee will not be eligible for the additional costs allowance. If any MPs were wavering on this issue, that should completely persuade them to support the motion.
We have had a week when many have questioned the very roots of our democracy, and there is a democratic issue at stake in this context too. A free society needs multiple and varied media sources. However excellent the BBC is—I believe that much of what it produces is world class and a credit to the UK—other broadcasters need to be able to flourish as well, and different voices need to be able to be heard, because that is how we provide choice for consumers and engagement for citizens. Conservative Members have always recognised the importance of plurality of provision. It was Conservative Governments who licensed ITV in 1955 and Channel 4 in 1982, unleashed the satellite and cable revolutions of the 1980s, and licensed Channel 5 in 1997.
What has the BBC done when faced with all this competition? It has flourished. It is completely false to say that there is a choice between competition and quality. It is because British public service broadcasting is the most competitive in the world that many people think that it is of the highest quality in the world. In order for that to continue, there must be a sensible balance between the revenue that commercial broadcasters are able to raise and what the BBC gets, and many will ask whether that is possible if there is a £1 billion gap between state-funded broadcasters and the rest.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): The point about the current impact on production has been well made by my hon. Friends. The BBC is also clearly playing a vital role in digital switchover. Its business plan has been well developed following a settlement in 2007 that was much below what it wanted. The hon. Gentleman’s proposals could destabilise that business plan. In the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, we examine the BBC all the time. I am sure that no member of the Committee would like to pre-empt the conclusions of a possible future inquiry. Nevertheless, we have considered top-slicing and recommended it in relation to Channel 4, and encouraged the BBC not to draw down the whole of the licence fee, and no member of the Committee has endorsed any such proposals as the hon. Gentleman’s. [ Interruption. ]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The time for this debate is very limited and several Back Benchers wish to make contributions. I therefore hope that any interventions will be brief.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman talks about so-called disruption to the BBC’s business plan. Businesses up and down this country are facing disruption to their business plans caused by a very severe economic recession. If they are able to cope with that, the BBC should be able to do so as well.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |