BBC (Parliamentary Oversight)

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

15:59

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hood, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to bring this debate to the Chamber. It comes at a time when many people up and down the country are thinking and talking about media regulation. It also comes against a backdrop of shocking allegations, first against commercial media outlets and then against our own public service broadcaster. 2012 has been a dire year for the BBC, and the recent child abuse allegations levelled against BBC stars has been described as

“the worst crisis to hit the corporation for 50 years.”

None of us knows the full details of what has happened, and I have no desire to dwell on the allegations, but we do know that the BBC—like many nationalised institutions—lacks accountability to the public. I believe that we, as Members of Parliament, should now force the BBC to become more accountable.

When I was first elected, I wrote a series of parliamentary questions about the BBC and took them to the Table Office, only to learn that we MPs do not have the power to scrutinise the BBC. We have the right to ask about the property portfolio of the Church of England through Church Commissioners questions, but not the right to ask questions about our national state broadcaster. That must change.

I have no problem with the BBC Trust being the governing body of the BBC, but I believe that there must be some oversight by MPs. It has often been said in this House, and in wider public debate, that transparency and accountability improve public services. I believe that applies to the BBC as much as it does to any other state institution. In this debate, therefore, I am calling for several things. The first is that the director-general’s appointment should be confirmed by the House of Commons. Clearly we would have to devise a system to do that. Perhaps it could be done by a vote of the whole House, or through a special panel or committee. I am agnostic about the system, but I think the principle is vital. The director-general is an important public figure who wields huge power in this country, and it must be the duty of Parliament to ensure that the candidate is the right choice for both the BBC and the country, while the BBC has to accept that this appointment is one the most significant public sector appointments, and act accordingly.

Secondly, MPs should have the right to table parliamentary questions to the BBC and the BBC should have a duty to answer them. I do not mind if those answers are only written answers; the important thing is that we can bring in greater openness. Obviously, answering questions would have a cost associated with it, but I believe that that cost is a small price to pay for greater accountability.

Thirdly, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport should have regular insight into the actions of both the BBC and the BBC Trust. That should be formalised into a system, rather than meetings being held on an ad hoc basis. I believe that those three proposals, implemented together, would restore public confidence in the BBC, and as a result the BBC, Parliament and the media environment would all be enhanced.

Let us make no mistake—the BBC is a vital part of British life. Yet how it works seems to be opaque, and its leadership seems to be distant. I would like to see the day when disgruntled members of the public can come to see their MP and feel that their problems can be dealt with when they ask questions about the BBC. Similarly, I want people to understand fully how the BBC works, and for people to feel engaged with the process.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He talks about the need for the BBC to be more accountable. I am currently chairman of the all-party BBC group and I am aware that the BBC, through the director-general and the chairman of the BBC Trust, already frequently appear in front of Select Committees. They also have a monthly drop-in session in Parliament. In addition, the all-party BBC group itself has meetings with the chairman of the BBC Trust, which are open to all MPs and peers to attend. How does my hon. Friend see the current systems marrying in with the systems of accountability that he has mentioned?

[David Morris]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I would like to see a meeting that takes place once a month, just to discuss the mechanisms of the BBC itself. I believe that what is already there is helpful but it is not actually accountable, and accountability is what I would like to see. I thank my hon. Friend also for all his hard work as the chairman of the all-party BBC group.

Similarly, I want people to understand fully how the BBC works and to feel engaged with the process. I should say at this stage that my proposals would not put politicians in charge of the BBC; that is the last thing that I want to see. I have no desire for Parliament to be in editorial control. In fact, I have spent a great deal of time thinking of practical measures that would bring openness and oversight without censorship and control.

I also note that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on 21 November demanding that the BBC publish all spending over £500. That is an excellent idea and I firmly believe that it should be implemented. All local authorities now publish their spending, and the cost of doing that has been minimal. Most local authorities began publishing spending details long before they were forced to by the Government, so why should the BBC wait for legislation on this issue? It should publish this information now. I am sure that if it did so, my hon. Friend would feel not that the BBC had stolen his thunder but rather that it had done the right thing without the need for legislation. Such a move would create greater transparency with little more than the stroke of a pen. Why should the BBC be afraid of the public seeing this information?

I also believe that, as part of disclosure, the BBC should publish all salaries over £100,000, giving the public the ability to debate those salaries and judge whether they represent good value for money. One example is the high salary of Mark Thompson, the former director-general. In his final year of employment with the BBC, he was paid £671,000. We are told that he was paid that amount because his job was a difficult one, and I am sure that it is. But is it five times harder than being Prime Minister, or three times more challenging than being the President of the United States? I am not convinced that it is, but in any case if all these salaries are published the public can decide. After all, this money is not the BBC’s money but taxpayers’ money, and we have a duty to let them know how it is spent.

As I said at the outset, 2012 has been a disaster for the British media. Many terrible allegations have been made. However, let us not just lament those problems; let us move on. This period of public interest is a real opportunity for change. The BBC refers to itself as “Auntie”—a lovable and dependable figure—but its trusted status cannot be boundless.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for proposing this debate and I congratulate him on securing it. Does he accept that the BBC has a great opportunity to make itself as open and transparent as so many other public bodies, which would send a strong message of good will and of doing the right thing in very difficult circumstances? Does he also agree that we need not wait either for any legislative changes or for any of the conclusions of the BBC’s internal report? As a strong friend and fan of the BBC, I must say that opening up would simply be doing the right thing.

[David Morris]

I thank my hon. Friend for expressing those sentiments. Actually, I was right at the end of my speech, and I am thankful to him for making his intervention because I could not have put what he just said more eloquently than he did. I commend him for that.

I think we all agree that the BBC has a position of trust and that it must be managed responsibly. As such, I hope that the BBC will welcome my proposals.

16:08

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Thank you, Mr Hood, for calling me to speak. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) on securing this debate, and I thank him for providing the House with an opportunity to discuss—albeit briefly—parliamentary oversight of the BBC. I think that he only came in for the tail-end of the previous debate on local newspapers, in which I also spoke for the Government, so he may not get it when I say that I have not had time to look him up in his local newspaper on my tablet. However, I am sure that he would not miss an opportunity at some point to praise the work of his own local newspaper.

My hon. Friend made a valid and well judged speech, and he made it clear that there is almost universal support for the BBC in the House, and indeed in the country. However, that does not prevent anyone—particularly MPs—from bringing forward their concerns regarding the BBC, particularly about the oversight and scrutiny of the BBC and how it operates.

The BBC is a hugely important global institution, and its value to the UK not only as a content creator of the highest calibre but as a promoter of the UK’s values and culture cannot and should not be underestimated. In the context of recent events, which I will come to in a minute, it would be all too easy to forget the positive impact that the BBC has on a daily basis. For example, the BBC World Service, the world’s largest international broadcaster, provides services in 27 languages to about 180 million people worldwide, and the service’s future has been secured by its funding being incorporated within the BBC’s licence fee settlement.

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to the Minister’s work in supporting and scrutinising the BBC. He has rightly highlighted the World Service’s excellent work. I see it as a positive step that funding for the service has been transferred from the Foreign Office to the BBC, but does the Minister agree that the situation is now somewhat inequitable, because when the funding was with the Foreign Office the National Audit Office had unrestricted access to the accounts but now the BBC Trust has to agree to the auditing of various elements of the service?

[Mr Vaizey]

It is important that the BBC World Service has an element of independence from Government, so the move was the right one to make. In addition, savings can be found by combining the budgets for domestic radio and the work of the World Service, for example in relation to the use of equipment and technicians. It was the right move in that it provided an effective settlement for the World Service at a time of economic austerity, but I hear my hon. Friend’s point about the National Audit Office and I will turn to that issue later—it comes up time and again.

I want to make clear this Government’s firm commitment to the long-standing principle, which is of the utmost importance, that the BBC must be independent of Government and of political intervention. The political independence of the media is a live subject both in the House and outside, so it is important to reiterate that principle. The political independence of all media is key to any healthy democracy, and the Government must always ensure that such independence is secured and, where possible, strengthened. Independence, however, does not mean that the BBC, or indeed any broadcaster, should be unaccountable for its actions. Because of the unique way in which it is funded and owned, the BBC should be accountable, and primarily to licence fee payers.

I shall put that remark in context. The BBC is a public corporation established by a royal charter and framework agreement, which sets out the role, responsibilities and governance of the BBC. Within the framework of that charter and agreement, the BBC is editorially and operationally independent of Government and, rightly, there is no provision for the Government to intervene in the BBC’s day-to-day activities.

The current BBC charter gives responsibility for the governance of the BBC to the BBC Trust. The duties of the trust, as enshrined in the charter, include representing licence fee payers, ensuring that the independence of the BBC is maintained and assessing the views of licence fee payers. We believe that those principles, alongside the others set out in the charter and agreement, provide a strong, open and transparent framework of accountability to licence fee payers.

We have recently reinforced the oversight of the BBC. During the last licence fee settlement we introduced new mechanisms to further strengthen the BBC’s financial accountability, and the National Audit Office is now empowered to conduct a value-for-money review of the BBC. We understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). It is important that the National Audit Office works with the BBC, but it does have access to the BBC’s finances.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I think that many Members from across the House have welcomed the National Audit Office’s involvement, but there seems to be a disconnect between the audit that goes on at that office and the trust having a role in ensuring that there is some financial accountability. There seems to be a lack of expertise on the trust’s board with which to translate the audit information, or the understanding of it, into action.

I will give a brief example. The National Union of Journalists has, over the past week or two, pointed out that the cuts in the number of journalists and the outsourcing that have taken place have resulted in some of the BBC’s recent failings. In comparison, however, BBC management have collected £3 million in car allowances—even if they do not drive—£2 million in private health care and £4.7 million in golden goodbyes. The information provided by audit does not seem to be translated by the Trust into actions to control management expenditure.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the expertise of the BBC Trust. The way of dodging his point would be to say that that is a matter for the trust. It would not be right for me to interfere or to comment on appointments to the trust. The appointment process is independent and ensures that members of the trust are appointed without political interference. The chairman of the trust is appointed by the Secretary of State and the appointment is approved by the Prime Minister, but the hon. Gentleman should perhaps contact the chairman of the trust to raise his concerns and to explain why he feels that the trust is not doing enough to examine the BBC’s finances.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I worked for the BBC for nine years, so I speak from a position of experience. How does the Minister feel the chairman of the BBC Trust regarded MPs when he most recently stood before them in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee?

[Mr Vaizey]

I was not aware that my hon. Friend had worked for the BBC before entering the House of Commons. Given the qualifications of the BBC’s new director-general, who worked there and then left for an outside organisation, it seems inevitable that my hon. Friend will one day end up as director-general, once Tony Hall has served his term.

In a sense, the element of parliamentary oversight of the BBC—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure that the Minister is just swivelling, but I am seeing too much of his back.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am so sorry, Mr Hood. I will address you.

On parliamentary accountability, it is true that the chairman of the BBC Trust and the acting director-general appeared before the Select Committee on 27 November. The previous director-general appeared on 23 October, and the director-general before that—that shows how fast things are moving—appeared on 19 June 2012. The BBC Trust appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on 22 November, and other BBC executives appeared before that Committee in July. Also, the BBC has made appearances over the past year or so before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Lords Communications Committee, the Select Committee on Justice and the Administration Committee.

I think the chairman of the BBC Trust behaved in an appropriate fashion when he appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and answered its questions. He is a man of deep experience and robust views, and that Select Committee is capable of offering challenging points to him. Having known him for some time, I know he is capable of responding to those challenging points.

In addition to the BBC Trust and the new powers for the National Audit Office—again, those powers being to conduct a value-for-money review of the BBC, which is an important point of progress—the BBC is also subject to the regulatory oversight of Ofcom, which can sanction it for breaches of the broadcasting codes. That is, of course, with the exception of compliance with accuracy and impartiality, which are still matters for the trust.

Returning to parliamentary scrutiny, which is at the heart of the debate, the BBC charter sets out two mechanisms under which the appointment of the director-general can be made. It can be made by the BBC Trust, whereby the director-general shall also operate as chairman of the executive board, or by the chairman of the executive board, if that role is held by a non-executive appointed by the trust. At this time, we see little benefit of either the Government or Parliament having a role, whether through consultation or ratification, in the appointment of the director-general. Indeed, such a proposal has the potential to make the most important appointment at the BBC—a position that, as we know only too well from recent events, crucially includes the role of editor-in-chief—political, which could undermine the principles of an independent BBC.

That is not to say that Parliament should not have overview of a public institution as important as the BBC. Of course, we entirely support the right of Parliament to question the decisions made by the BBC and the trust, including in debates such as this one. In the past three months, senior BBC figures have appeared before at least two parliamentary Committees.

Finally, we recognise that it is necessary to put this debate in the context of recent events at the BBC, and most importantly of how the BBC responds to the significant loss of public confidence. We have been clear that the primary objective of the BBC Trust at this time must be to rebuild the public’s trust in the BBC, and I know that Lord Patten agrees. To that end, we have set out three things we believe the BBC Trust needs to achieve.

First, the immediate task must be to address the failings in the editorial process, particularly at “Newsnight”, in order to restore public confidence. The trust needs to act swiftly to ensure that the management and leadership issues are resolved and that the failings cannot be repeated. It is clear from what the interim director-general has said that the BBC is looking seriously at what went wrong, where responsibility lies and how to address the matter in the long term, and the Government welcome that.

Secondly, the trust must ensure that a strong and stable executive board is in place to manage the BBC. To that end, we welcome the appointment of Tony Hall as director-general of the BBC. He has a strong track record and extensive experience inside and outside the BBC, and it is important that he works hard to maintain public confidence in the corporation.

Thirdly, we must not lose sight of the inquiries into what is at the heart of these events. None of the developments in recent days should overshadow the investigations into the alleged horrendous abuse of children in institutions across our country. It is vital that the BBC responds correctly and decisively to the Pollard inquiry into the decision to drop the “Newsnight” item on Savile, and to the Smith inquiry on Savile’s abuses and the culture and practices of the BBC. We must wait until those investigations have concluded and consideration has been given to their findings. At this time, however, we see no evidence that suggests that greater oversight of the BBC by Parliament would have had any impact on recent events. Even if that case could be made, we must balance any benefits of such oversight against the impact on the BBC’s independence.

I reiterate that the chairman of the BBC Trust, regardless of how hon. Members regard his demeanour before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, did come to be questioned and examined by that Committee, as did the previous director-general.

We are all rightly proud of what a strong, independent BBC can achieve, and we should take the opportunity to preserve and strengthen those qualities for the good of all licence fee payers.

16:23

Sitting suspended.