Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
60-79)
RT HON
BEN BRADSHAW
MP AND MR
JONATHAN STEPHENS
20 OCTOBER 2009
Q60 Mr Sanders: You will know, as
I do, being from a region that has already switched over to digital,
the vast majority of the complaints have come from people who
receive their service on a relay station and they do not get the
full set of stations (they do not get ITV3 and they do not get
ITV4). If you ask those viewers what they would like the surplus
on the digital funds to be spent on they would say, "Let
us have what everybody else has". It is actually quite a
high number of people who are not getting the full range of services.
Has there been any thought applied to whether the dividend could
be used in that way?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, I think there
was thought given to this and I cannot remember the reason why
it has not happened, but the Permanent Secretary might be able
to help me.
Mr Stephens: I am sorry, I cannot
help on that specific point but it is key that everyone, as a
result of switchover, receives a significantly increased range
of channels and receives all the public service broadcasting service
channels that are put out on the public service broadcast owned
multiplexes. The issue that you are referring to, that some of
the commercial multiplexes are significantly increasing their
reach but not to the point of almost universal coverage. That
is a matter essentially of commercial judgment.
Q61 Mr Sanders: It is an issue in
an area where a lot of people receive their television signal
from a relay rather than a main transmitter, which is the case
in the West Country, so that quite a high number of people are
affected. This probably will not be a problem in London, for example,
where just about everybody will receive it from the main broadcast
transmitter.
Mr Bradshaw: Indeed, there are
some in my own constituency. The Permanent Secretary has reminded
me of the reason why we have not so far taken any action on this
and that is because, as he says, everybody is getting a much better
service both in terms of volume and quality than they had before
and the channels they are not getting are really ones that are
commercially based so this would be a commercial decision for
those channels.
Q62 Mr Sanders: You could argue the
same thing about regional news.
Mr Bradshaw: With regional news
you are talking about a section of public service content within
a commercial channel. What you are talking about is an overall
commercial channel package which those commercial providers have
not chosen to make as universal as you and I would like.
Q63 Chairman: Can I return to the
BBC? This Committee, like you, wants to see strong BBC public
service broadcasting but we have had occasional criticisms of
the BBC and you have already referred to your very robust speech
to the RTS in Cambridge last month. Leaving aside the 80% that
was supportive of the BBC and public service broadcasting I would
like to concentrate on 20%. One of the things you said was that
it is time for the BBC to allow the National Audit Office access
to its accounts, something that this Committee has called for
repeatedly over many years. The BBC has resolutely refused to
give full access. Are you confident you can make it more successful?
Mr Bradshaw: I think they are
certainly making some encouraging noises and they are in conversation,
as I understand it, with the (National Audit Office (NAO) as to
how this Committee's wishes and the Public Accounts Commitee's
(PAC's) as well can be fulfilled without, as the BBC see it, their
editorial independence being jeopardised. I do not see that these
problems should be insurmountable and I think with a bit of good
will and hard work on both sides that this is something that they
can progress and I am hopeful that they will do so.
Q64 Chairman: Progress has been made
but at the moment it is still the case that an NAO inquiry into
an aspect of BBC expenditure has to be through mutual agreement
between the NAO and the BBC. We have said that the NAO should
have exactly the same access to the BBC as they have to any other
public body. Is that your view too?
Mr Bradshaw: I think there may
be arguments for a slightly different arrangement with the BBC
because of the BBC's unique status. The BBC is not like any other
public body; it has a different status. I would much rather that
this issue was resolved between the BBC and the NAO themselves
to the satisfaction of both. However, I have also made quite clear
that if that does not happen, this is an issue that is bound to
come up in the context of the next charter review and, given the
very strong feelings of Parliament on this matter, that is unavoidable.
I would hope that it can be resolved long before then.
Q65 Chairman: You also said about
the Trust, that you did not think it was sustainable in the long
term and that you know no other area of public life where, as
is the case with the Trust, the same body is both regulator and
cheerleader. These were arguments that were made forcibly by the
opposition at the time of the Communications Bill—when I
had a different role—but which were rejected by the then
Secretary of State. What has changed to cause the government to
alter its position?
Mr Bradshaw: I am sure they were
rejected for very good reasons. I take the view—and it is
not something that I am aware of having a view on before because
I was not responsible for the policy—that it is not the
Trust itself which is unsustainable, I think the model of regulation
is one that is unlikely to stand the test of time and as we move
towards a more digital age, as we move towards the BBC—I
hope—becoming an enabler of Digital Britain, as we move
even possibly to the licence fee being used for some other important
public service broadcasting content that the public want and value
but which the market will not provide, as we move towards a different
broadcasting landscape I think that will probably call for a different
regulatory structure. I do not have a clear view as to what that
should be; I think that will depend on the landscape. I think
it is the landscape that comes first and then the regulatory structure
around it. One of the things I felt uncomfortable with and one
of the problems that the BBC had in actually defending itself
effectively has been this slightly awkward tension between cheerleading
and regulating which this Committee has identified and others
have identified. I want to see a structure where the BBC robustly
defends itself more effectively than it has done but at the same
time where it is properly regulated. I am not sure the current
structure has delivered that. I think it has done better than
the previous one, but I think we could have a better structure
still. What that is will hopefully be for me to play a role in
in years to come.
Q66 Chairman: Without going into
great detail, you believe that the BBC would perform better if
it was subject to an external regulator separate and independent
from the BBC.
Mr Bradshaw: Yes.
Q67 Chairman: Possibly Ofcom?
Mr Bradshaw: Possibly. Possibly
a separate public service regulator. Again I would not want to
be prescriptive about models. No doubt this is something that
will be debated at great length and in great detail around the
next charter review and I think that is the right place for it
to happen.
Q68 Chairman: The next charter review
is not for some time. Do you not see any case for revisiting it
before then?
Mr Bradshaw: Whether you are talking
about the regulatory structure or whether you are talking—as
some are at the moment—about cutting the licence fee half
way through a charter or licence fee period that would amount,
in my view, to an unprecedented and unacceptable assault on the
BBC's independence. It will not happen under a labour government.
Q69 Chairman: It is fairly unprecedented
to attack the government structure that you yourself created.
Mr Bradshaw: I would not say I
was attacking it. I was questioning it and I was saying that I
did not think it would be sustainable in the long term. I was
not calling for its immediate abolition.
Q70 Chairman: You also said that
you thought the BBC had probably reached the limits of reasonable
expansion. Do you think the BBC could deliver its public service
remit without all of its current range of services and funding
level?
Mr Bradshaw: Again I think that
is for others to judge. The BBC itself has recognised that there
are legitimate questions over this. I cannot remember the exact
timing of this but I think probably between James Murdoch's speech
and my speech it announced its own review, including into its
size and what it does. We look forward to seeing what it comes
up with very much indeed. I do not think it is up to governments
to be prescriptive about the size of the BBC and what it does.
That is up to the BBC Trust and the BBC itself to decide. I was
simply trying to make the point that at a time when the commercial
sector has been finding things really tough and the BBC has been
cushioned, if you like, by this inflation proof licence fee settlement,
that it needs to be more sensitive than it has been about the
impact that its activities have on its commercial competitors.
I think that is a fairly fair point to make and I think it is
a point that the BBC itself, in initiating this review, has now
itself recognised.
Q71 Chairman: The level of funding
of the BBC is absolutely a matter for you to determine. Do you
feel that the BBC could successfully deliver its public service
remit with a lower level of funding?
Mr Bradshaw: It clearly could
deliver its public service remit; whether it would be able to
deliver a range of programmes that people value depends on what
you define as public service. Do you define Strictly Come Dancing
as public service or not? These are really questions you need
to ask the BBC. One of the things that justifies the licence fee
is the universality of its appeal. There is a danger, I think,
implicit in your question that if the BBC were just to retreat
to narrow, high minded content that would undermine the argument
for funding through the licence fee although again that would
be a matter of debate when it comes up for review next time around.
If we reach the judgment and you reach the judgment as well in
your Committee that the licence fee was still the best funding
mechanism for the BBC and there is not a better funding mechanism
for public service broadcasting anywhere else in the world. That
is a view I still hold but I think you could seriously undermine
that argument if you were to say to the BBC, "You've got
to stop doing entertainment and popular things; you have to concentrate
on worthy, dull things". That is not the future that I would
want for the BBC and I do not think it is a future that most of
your Committee would want either.
Q72 Mr Ainsworth: In the RTS speech
you also took the opportunity to announce that you were going
to consult on ending the ban on product placement which struck
some people as rather odd because your predecessor back in March
had said that there was no conclusive evidence that had been put
forward that the economic benefit of introducing product placement
is sufficient to outweigh the detrimental impact it would have
on the quality of the standards of British television and viewers'
trust in it. So what changed, other than your appointment, between
March and September?
Mr Bradshaw: My appointment was
not insignificant in the change because I took a different view.
I also think that the economics of the commercial broadcasting
sector changed; they have been changing very dramatically over
the last few months. It did not seem to me reasonable for the
government to prevent the commercial sector from generating more
income through this as long as we could ensure that there are
proper safeguards in place and more than that really. The clincher
for me was that I did not think it was reasonable for our producers
and our programme makers to be put at a competitive disadvantage
not just with our American, Australian and New Zealand counterparts,
but also with their continental European counterparts all of whom
are allowing product placement.
Q73 Mr Ainsworth: What your predecessor
said in a written statement to the House of Commons was that there
was no conclusive evidence that had been put forward, so it was
not just an opinion it was a judgment based on the absence of
evidence. Did you see any additional evidence which caused you
to have a different view?
Mr Bradshaw: I am not aware that
I saw any evidence that Andy did not see, but even if it was the
same evidence I came to a different view.
Mr Stephens: If I may say so,
the point cuts both ways. As the previous Secretary of State said
originally in his announcement, he recognised that the arguments
were very finely balanced.
Q74 Chairman: There was a complete
transformation in policy with potentially very significant implications.
In addition to which, you announced in September that you were
going to launch the consultation and that the new policy would
be in place in the new year; I do not think we have yet seen a
consultation, have we?
Mr Bradshaw: No, but you will
do shortly. I think it is an exaggeration to see this as a huge
transformation of policy. I hope this is a small but useful change
in policy that will make a bit of difference to our creative industries
and our broadcast industry. I would not over-egg it; it is not
going to be the be all and end all that is going to save ITV.
I took a different judgment; politicians sometimes, even of the
same party and same government, do take different judgments. I
am sure there are members of your party, Mr Ainsworth, who have
different views on a number of issues.
Q75 Mr Ainsworth: I would find that
very surprising.
Mr Bradshaw: I just came to this
new with a fresh face and I was convinced by the arguments in
a different way from Andy.
Q76 Mr Ainsworth: Have you got an
assessment of the potential value to the commercial sector?
Mr Bradshaw: There have been various
assessments and they vary from £25 million to £100 million
a year.
Q77 Mr Ainsworth: Do you have a view
of your own on that?
Mr Bradshaw: I think it is quite
difficult to make an accurate assessment until it actually happens,
but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I think the
fact that it was warmly welcomed—I was actually rather surprised
by the near universality of the welcome of the decision given
how much I agonised over it—shows that the industry itself
thinks that this is not going to be transformational in terms
of their prospects, but it will be a useful help in difficult
times.
Q78 Mr Ainsworth: Obviously the worry
is that you get a whole lot of tacky stuff and the worry was reflected
in your predecessor's judgment. How do you set about preventing
tacky stuff?
Mr Bradshaw: There are already
safeguards around things like alcohol and unhealthy foods and
so on. We just have to make sure that we get this right as part
of the consultation and I hope that anybody with an interest,
including this Committee and others, will help us get the regulations
right.
Q79 Mr Ainsworth: It just sounds
a bit desperate really; I guess the situation is a bit desperate.
Mr Bradshaw: Desperate for whom?
| 
