Alec Shelbrooke
Main Page: Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative - Elmet and Rothwell)(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I will wish to comment on that issue a little later. The use of public money to drive up salaries against competitors needs to be considered within the debate about the BBC.
We need to speak positively when there are good practices; there are some isolated examples of the BBC interrogating itself. The best example was the “Today” programme interview that John Humphrys did which led to the departure of the last director-general. That, however, is the exception rather than the rule. A number of daily and Sunday newspapers and journalists regularly pursue the BBC, and the organisation persistently defends itself, whatever the issue and whatever the rights and wrongs.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
How much does my hon. Friend feel that the BBC stepped back from carrying out in-depth investigations after the behaviour at the time of the 45-minute dossier?
Alun Cairns
That is an interesting point, and I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to catch the Deputy Speaker’s eye and expand on it. I know the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend has on that issue.
I am describing the issues that the BBC should be actively examining from a management or journalism point of view, as that would be not only good management practice, but in the interests of the licence fee payer. I hope the House will allow me to demonstrate the point a little further. Recently, the BBC has not been seen in a positive light on a range of matters. The Jimmy Savile scandal was the ultimate demonstration of that, but I could mention so many examples. Why was £100 million wasted on a now-abandoned digital media initiative? Has anyone lost their job as a result? How do executives pay millions of pounds in severance payments to themselves? Why are staff allowed to leave the BBC on significant pay-offs only to return in a freelance capacity? Why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) mentioned, are BBC talent salaries not published? What about the extent of BBC talent—is it used as a way of preventing the publication of salaries of other senior appointments, because BBC talent is not simply restricted to broadcasters? How can presenters interview organisations that pay them handsomely to speak at conferences in a private capacity outside their employment with the BBC? Is that not a conflict of interest?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he is being most generous with his time. Does he find it deeply ironic that when the BBC was found guilty of mishandling premium charge calls for competitions the result was that it was fined, once again hitting the taxpayer?
Alun Cairns
That is part of the difficulty and is another demonstration of how and why the BBC needs to look internally. I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Laughter.]
I would suggest that had there been similar questions about conflicts of interest and other bodies, the BBC would rightly demand answers and transparency.
Mr Whittingdale
I am not in the least surprised to find that I agree completely with my hon. Friend, who was an excellent member of the Committee for a time. I will come on to this issue, but he is absolutely right that there has been a change in terms of the amount and diversity of content available. The advent of Classic FM, which is hugely successful, means that Radio 3 should no longer need to occupy the same space, but concentrate, as it does most of the time, on a little more challenging and difficult classical music than the more commercial Classic FM output. That applies equally in other areas.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has described this as having been an annus horribilis for the BBC, and she is certainly correct. Reference has been made to the Jimmy Savile exposure. We have seen the Pollard report and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan is right that, given that a lot of money has been spent and a great deal of evidence taken, it is worrying that questions remain, particularly about the evidence submitted to Pollard by Helen Boaden and its apparent conflict with that supplied by Mark Thompson. Pollard did not really address that and I know that others may wish to pursue it.
Of course, the bigger question was not about the Pollard review, which examined why “Newsnight” came not to be broadcast, but about how Jimmy Savile was able to operate in the way that he did for so long. We await the findings of Dame Janet Smith’s review of the culture of the time. That may prove to be rather more shocking and it may have greater lessons of which we will need to take account.
The next failure, which was certainly as shocking, was the Lord McAlpine programme. It would have been the most catastrophic failure of editorial judgment at any time, but it defied belief that it happened such a short time after the failure to broadcast the Savile programme. Obviously, that led to the resignation of the then director-general, but there was a failure in editorial standards right across the news and current affairs division, and it is still not clear to me that everybody responsible has been identified or that sufficient action has been taken.
Another issue is the so-called respect at work inquiry into the bullying practices that apparently took place over a long period and the failure of management to take any action when presented with worrying findings about the way in which some employees at the BBC were treated. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) said that those were historical episodes. There is evidence that the bullying is not an historical, but a recent practice. The Select Committee will pursue that matter with the management of the BBC.
A lot of attention has been given to the level of the pay-offs and salaries. Those are serious matters. A culture appeared to exist whereby a small group of people at the top of the BBC awarded each other pay-offs when they came to leave. Those severance payments far exceeded any contractual liabilities.
Alec Shelbrooke
My hon. Friend hits on an important point about the costs that people at the BBC brought forward. Will he comment on the problem that the BBC’s behaviour, for example in the Jimmy Savile case, leaves it open to being sued by the relatives, which would create a multi-million pound compensation deal? The trouble is that that bill would, once again, be paid by the taxpayer. The BBC has a commercial arm. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on how the confidence of the public, who pay a tax to the BBC, is affected by these matters? It is not just the salaries that outrage them, but the fact that every time the BBC does something wrong, it is the taxpayer who pays the bill.
Mr Whittingdale
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not follow him in talking about the legal liabilities that may flow from the various cases. He made the point earlier that the BBC has been fined for breaches of the broadcasting code. If a publicly funded organisation such as the BBC is required to pay a fine, it of course comes out of the licence fee. It may be that we have to consider other measures. A fine is not necessarily the best way or even a sufficient way to punish failures by the corporation.
Although the severance payments are a serious issue, the amounts of money involved were relatively small. By far the worst financial failure of the BBC is the digital media initiative, which has cost the licence fee payer £100 million, to no benefit whatsoever. It angers people in the BBC, as much as people outside, that they have been required to deliver savings in front-line programming, when they see huge amounts going on senior management salaries and pay-offs, and the huge waste of money in the digital media initiative. It worries me that, in making efficiency savings, the BBC has made cuts in some of the areas that it is most important for it to invest in, such as news and current affairs and local radio. It is no wonder that there is serious anger throughout the BBC when its employees have been told that investment in certain types of programming cannot be afforded, but they then find that £100 million has essentially been thrown away on the digital media initiative. That reflects a failure of governance.
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said. She recognised that the existing model is flawed and that there needs to be change. That is clear to me. There is a conflict between the two roles of the trust, even though I hear what she says about the trust being the cheerleader for the licence fee payer. I was interested in her idea about a mutual status. Perhaps she would like to expand on that further when the Select Committee considers the future of the BBC in the new year. It is certainly something that we would consider.
My view has always been that the BBC needs to be properly regulated from outside. It already is in some areas by Ofcom. I have always found the argument that Ofcom is well equipped to carry out the regulatory functions persuasive. Perhaps the BBC should have a more traditional model of corporate governance. Those are issues that we need to consider. What is clear is that the existing model is not working.
I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State that the National Audit Office will have full access to the BBC. That has been called for by successive Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee over the past 20 years. The BBC has said repeatedly that that would be a dangerous intervention and that it might interfere with editorial independence. That is absolute nonsense. There is no reason why the NAO should not examine the accounts of the BBC—that does not represent editorial interference. In my view, what has come out over the past year, particularly with the DMI, makes it plain that the NAO needs that full access. I therefore very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement.
Mr Whittingdale
I agree with my hon. Friend, and the point I was coming to is that that issue should be part of the debate about what the BBC should be doing—and, indeed, what it should no longer be doing—in this new environment. I have referred to ITV’s success, and we now have Sky investing a huge amount in original content and British programming—my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) mentioned Sky Arts. Perhaps even more excitingly, BT is entering the content provision market, and possibly in due course Liberty Global, which has just acquired Virgin Media, will go into content. We do not know, but that seems possible.
A rapid change is taking place, and we therefore need to look at how the BBC fits into the new media world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) was saying, there are areas where the BBC appears to replicate content that is already available in a number of different commercial places, and it is not clear to me why the licence fee payer should pay for programming that the market already supplies. We need to address that important part of the debate.
The other part of the debate concerns whether the licence fee is still the most appropriate way to finance the BBC. I have always been critical of the licence fee, which is highly regressive, inefficient and evaded by a large number of people. The BBC director-general is now announcing that some programmes will be made available on the iPlayer before they are broadcast. That raises questions because the traditional licence fee model means that someone needs a licence if they own a television set in their corner. More and more people are now accessing content through iPlayer on catch-up, which is outside the original definition of what the licence fee should be for. Whether the licence fee is sustainable is cast into question in that different world. There is no easy answer to the question of what we put in its place—perhaps straight Exchequer subsidy is a better solution than a flat-rate poll tax, which is what the licence fee essentially is—but it should be an important part of the debate we need to have as charter renewal approaches.
Alec Shelbrooke
Does my hon. Friend agree that, fundamentally, the question is this: what should a public service broadcaster do?
Mr Whittingdale
That is the question. The debate on what public service broadcasting is has occupied my Committee and all commentators on media matters for a long period. The answer is that public service broadcasting is changing. A lot of material that could, at one time, be found only on the BBC is now available in a large number of other places and meets the definition of public service broadcasting.
These are exciting times in broadcasting because there is a huge range of programming and choice that did not previously exist, but we need to examine where the BBC fits in with that. I remain a strong supporter of a publicly owned, publicly funded public service broadcaster. I am not sure that it needs to be as big as it currently is or that it needs to be funded in the same way as it is. I am also not sure whether it needs to do all the things it currently does. I hope we address those questions as charter renewal approaches.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a great delight to congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) on securing the debate. I wish I could congratulate him on his speech, but, unfortunately, I disagreed with every word of it. The most exciting moment was when he declared that he was conscious. I am not sure what Hansard will make of that.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on fundamental principles. First, I believe that, nearly always, broadcasting tends towards monopoly. It is in the nature of the business because it costs an awful lot to make one hour of programming. It costs a lot to broadcast it to five people, but it does not cost that much more to broadcast it to 10, 10,000, 5 million or 20 million more people. That is why the state must intervene in the market, which is why I support the licence fee.
Secondly, risk-taking in the broadcasting industry—it is expensive to make one hour of broadcasting—is very expensive, especially in two notable genres, drama and comedy. Making drama is expensive. If people get it wrong, they might end up making 10 or 13 weeks of a programme that nobody wants to watch. Everybody will chuck mud at them for weeks. Comedy is even worse. For every “Fawlty Towers”, there is a “Miranda”—[Interruption.] I do not like “Miranda”, although some Government Members obviously do. It could be the other way around for people who do not like “Fawlty Towers”—for every “Miranda”, there is a “Fawlty Towers”. My point is simply that, in matters of taste, it is difficult to jiggle all the nation’s funny bones at the same time. State intervention is therefore important, because the market would not otherwise provide.
Australia abolished the licence fee, and what happened? The first thing that disappeared from the market in Australia was the one thing Australians loved watching—mystery drama set in Australia. It does not exist any more. It can be seen nowhere in the world because there is no licence fee in Australia to invest in it.
Thirdly, we need enough diversity in the whole of the market to be able to entertain the whole of the country, and to represent democratically the whole nation. A diversity of voices is therefore important. S4C in Wales is under the BBC and paid for from the licence fee, and I worry that there is not enough diversity of voices within Welsh broadcasting.
When I was first elected, but not because I was elected, the Rhondda Leader was phenomenally popular. Currently, remarkably few people buy it. All hon. Members know that local newspapers are dying in constituencies up and down the land. That is not because of BBC online, but because people are not buying newspapers, and because, in some cases, local newspapers have failed to seize the imagination. However, I worry that local government is virtually unscrutinised. That is why a diversity of voices in the market is important.
I am delighted that ITV in Wales decided, in the end, that it would be a mistake to move away from local news and current affairs. Otherwise, it would have lost its sense of being and its importance to the nation. However, I worry about the future because, all too often, there is only one broadcast voice outside London and the south-east. Let us face it: if the BBC excels in one thing more than anything, it is local radio. Nobody else produces the same quality of local radio—it is produced and resourced locally and brings local stories to light. Can Sky broadcast units be made to go outside the M25? Occasionally they do, such as if there are multiple murders—[Interruption.] They will visit the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) because he is Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and a very important panjandrum, but, all too often, if it were not for the BBC, the television news would be a version of events from London and the south-east.
Chris Bryant
Of course I will give way, but the hon. Gentleman has made an awful lot of interventions already.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being generous with his time. This is a fascinating debate. I am a supporter of public service broadcasting, but is it the role of a public service broadcaster to chase ratings? That is the key question.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman walks straight into my trap. Public service broadcasting is not about making programmes that nobody wants to watch or listen to, which is in effect his argument. I do not believe that Radio 3 prevented Classic FM from coming into existence. If anything, Radio 3 enabled Classic FM to come into existence. There was competition at the start, but Classic FM found a different way of presenting classical music. It relied on an audience that was already out there—an audience created largely by Radio 3—and on players, singers and concert halls that, effectively, were subsidised by the BBC. There is a double benefit from the BBC. The licence fee paid by my constituents in the Rhondda pays for the hon. Gentleman to watch all the highbrow, intellectual stuff he watches, and to listen to the wonderfully intelligent and academic stuff he appears on and contributes to. My constituents are interested in watching “EastEnders” and, on Saturday evening, “Strictly Come Dancing”. They are also interested in watching sports programmes such as Wimbledon, which get very large audiences.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
First, may I say what a personal privilege it is to be making this speech under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, so soon after your election, and may I add that I hope you have a very long career in the post?
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) on securing this debate on the very important topic of the future of the BBC. We must focus on that subject, but, with that in mind, we must first get out of the way what many believe to be the elephant in the room: the subject of BBC bias.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said he found the BBC to be quite right-wing. I was monitoring the twitter feed after he said that and I do not think many members of the public agree with him. However, I sometimes think it is wrong to say the BBC is too left-wing. That very much depends on the individuals who are presenting the show, not the corporation as a whole. There is no doubt that the BBC attracts liberal-minded people to work for it. Anyone who has done BBC interviews, especially at regional level, cannot fail to notice that the newspapers available to read while waiting to go into the studio are usually The Guardian, The Mirror or The Independent—The Guardian has almost become the in-house newspaper of the BBC. Setting that aside, however, this question very much depends on the show and the interviewers.
I think that one of the most politically neutral shows on the BBC is the “Today” programme. Some people will gasp at that comment and say, “It’s outrageous: John Humphrys sits there berating the Tories but never gives Labour such a rough ride.” However, when Labour was in power that was exactly what it said, and I think that when both sides of the House believe there is favouritism for the other side, the balance is probably just about right.
Where the BBC does tend to have its issues are in areas such as the Radio 5 morning phone-in show. Some of the comments the presenter of that show has let slip leaves us in no doubt about where said-presenter’s political loyalties lie. That does the BBC a disservice, because, by revealing the political hand in the comments made, the idea of neutrality goes out of the window.
Damian Collins
I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend’s attempt to be invited on to the “Today” programme tomorrow morning to talk about this debate, but does he agree that the issue is not so much about balance or the number of questions asked or the people invited on to shows, but about what the BBC wonderfully calls “internal plurality”, which is, in effect, making sure that a breadth of different types of opinion is involved in making decisions on what news is and what is important?
Alec Shelbrooke
We know that there was a serious editorial and management change of direction for the “Today” programme in 1987, when it was decided that the show should shape the coming day’s agenda rather than report what happened the previous day. From that moment on, it became a more controversial show among politicians. I feel there is less bias in it than people on the right of politics think. However, it is clear that there are presenters who have deeply held left-wing political views. For example, we all remember the Jim Naughtie comment on the “Today” programme: he said “we” while interviewing a representative of the Labour party, rather than “you”. Such slips do get made.
We do not want to see programmes being dumbed down, however. That is where “Question Time” lets the BBC down very badly, because it is dominated by left-wing opinion. I was at a public meeting last night and the question at the end was, “Who would you most like to share a panel with, and who would you least like to share a panel with?” Somebody said they would like to share a panel with Peter Ustinov, which was interesting, and somebody else said they would not like to share a panel with Nick Griffin. My answer was different. I said I only want to share a panel with people who have been put there because they have been elected by and are accountable to the public. I want “Question Time” to have elected, and therefore accountable, politicians from across the political spectrum so that the public get to hear how the issues of the day are addressed by those representing the range of political opinions in this country. I get sick to the back teeth of opinionated comedians et al going on and spouting forth when they are not in any way accountable to the public. That is where the BBC lets itself down—through what I call a dumbing-down.
In the early-1990s “Harry Enfield’s Television Programme” probably did more damage to Radio 1 than anything else when it introduced the DJs Smashie and Nicey and completely undermined and caricatured such figures. Interestingly, I wonder whether Harry Enfield had the same impact when he caricatured “Question Time” six or seven months ago. Anybody who watched that caricature of “Question Time” will have found very little they could disagree with. It showed the BBC was in danger of losing an important part of its audience. We should consider the difference between “Question Time” and “Any Questions”, which is a very different type of show.
That point leads on to what I want to talk about: the future of the BBC, and how the various radio and TV stations feed into the whole organisation, and how it serves the public. The hon. Member for Rhondda made an important and interesting point when he said that public service broadcasting should be there for the highbrow programmes—and I certainly do enjoy them and the education I get from them—but then asked why people who pay that tax and do not want to enjoy those programmes should have them taken away. The idea that it is the role of a public sector broadcaster to entertain and to be informative is laid out in the charter, but I believe that it is surely the role of a public sector broadcaster to enrich the people it serves.
We then get into the argument about what lets such a broadcaster enrich the people it serves, and, thus, whether it is wrong to say that any of the BBC’s programmes or content should be commercialised. The BBC may have led to Sky Arts being formed and having a high-level arts output, but I would argue that BBC News followed Sky News. On stations that should be changed and either commercialised or kept in the public sector—I will deal with that point in a moment—BBC News 24 could seize the opportunity to split its content each hour between the half-hour rolling news that it does on the hour and having the next half hour become, in effect, the televised version of the World Service. This is an important point for the BBC, because it should not be competing with Sky News and its like. We hear the argument all the time that “We need to feed the 24-hour rolling news.” The BBC is a very important brand, which people feel does deliver knowledge in a way that they appreciate. It therefore has a prime opportunity to enrich people’s knowledge of what is going on politically in the world by making half of that broadcast output on BBC News 24 a televised version of the World Service.
Which areas would I commercialise? I often feel that BBC 1, Radio 1 and Radio 2 could easily exist in a commercial environment. Why do I say that? I say it not in order to cut the TV licence, but to bring in more money for investment in the things that will enrich our lives. Let us examine some of the most successful television comedies, such as “Little Britain”. It made a journey from Radio 4 to BBC 2 to BBC 1, whereupon it was hugely successful in its sales of DVDs, books, CDs and so on, as many BBC programmes have been. I would like the BBC to focus its resources much more strategically, rather than taking a scatter-gun approach across many a television station. I feel that BBC 3 and BBC 4 are excessive and are not actually needed. BBC 2 used to have the content that BBC 4 and BBC 3 show, and it was often seen as the feeder channel into BBC 1, along with its having the highbrow content. A lot of the stuff on BBC 1 can survive in a commercial environment because it has the ratings, but that is not to say that we should bring in commercialisation to cut the television licence; the BBC should be able to gain as much revenue as it can in order to invest that back and carry on investing in British comedy, British drama and news. Although the BBC has cut its funding to news, it did not need to do that and should not have done it. I hope the Secretary of State has heard what I have said about the television side of things.
What I am saying is far more important for the radio side of the BBC. I have said that Radio 1 and Radio 2 should be commercialised, and I hear people gasp and say, “Hang on a minute. Radio 1 does put on show some new talent and brings those sorts of things forward.” It does, but it often puts those things on early in the morning or late at night, and we also have Radio 6, Radio 1Xtra and so on. Other radio stations are involved in bringing in new talent, and some of the things on Radio 2 would probably be commercially viable.
Damian Collins
Does my hon. Friend accept that although it may be possible to turn Radio 1 and Radio 2 into commercial broadcasters, there would be a massive knock-on implication for other commercial radio broadcasters if those stations became fully commercialised, attracting advertising revenue and so on? We have to consider the impact on the whole market, not just whether or not an individual BBC property could survive in the private sector.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The question that will need to be assessed by the Secretary of State and her Department is whether the BBC has that effect now on the commercial radio sector. For example, I am a great fan of Absolute Radio, which attracts only 1.9 million listeners. It has diversified over the years; it does things decade by decade, and plays rock and different genres. Given that it has 1.9 million listeners, one must question how it is viable. It must be viable through the commercial airtime that is available. We know that commercial revenue has reduced in the year, which is why ITV now has four minutes of adverts compared with the two minutes there were some 20 years ago, as it needs to meet the costs along the way. However, a fear of allowing something into the market should not change our approach; we should allow the commercial operators to say, “If that is there, we have to compete.” That might raise their game.
The big “but” is that it comes down to this: do we want a public service broadcaster to enrich our lives? I believe we do, as that is very important. I believe there will always be a role for Radio 3, Radio 4 and the World Service, and, of course, for Radio 5 and local radio stations. When the cutbacks were coming to local radio stations, the point had to be made that there is no better broadcaster in this country during a time of crisis, whatever that may be—nine times out of 10 it is weather-related—than BBC local radio to inform its listeners of what is happening in the area. That service must be protected, as must the content on Radio 5 and Radio 5 live sports extra. We have had the discussion about sport, and over the years televised sport has gone from terrestrial television to the pay-per-view satellite broadcasters, but the same has not happened to radio sport; we get a wide range of programmes on the radio. That is one of the key reasons why Radio 5 should always remain on medium wave, because it has a greater reach than FM.
That reach is also why the BBC, this Government or any future Government must not allow the FM or analogue broadcasting frequencies to be switched off in favour of digital. We had this argument in 1992, when the BBC was talking about turning Radio 4 long wave into a 24-hour news channel, and we heard about the areas that Radio 4 FM cannot reach whereas long wave can. The analogue stations may be crackly and hissy every now and again, but we do get something. I drive down the M1 every week to this place and I very much enjoy listening to Radio 5, the World Service and Absolute Radio on my in-car digital radio, but there are plenty of places along the way where the signal is completely lost. We may get hisses, cracks and bangs with an analogue signal, but with digital we either get all or nothing. So when we talk about the future of the BBC, it is very important that the BBC makes sure that, above all, it is there for everybody and there to enrich life. I hope that I have given the Secretary of State many a point to consider.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
We have had a wide-ranging debate on the BBC. I want to concentrate on the charter renewal and the new licence fee agreements from 2016 and to give some thoughts on the future of the BBC in that regard.
I am a fan of what the BBC does. It does some incredible work; I was at a launch event last week at Broadcasting House for the coverage that the BBC is preparing to mark the first world war centenaries that start next year, with 130 commissioned new programmes that will produce 2,500 hours of programming. That is a pretty impressive commitment to the four-year centenary period. It is difficult to think of any other broadcaster in the world that would have prepared in that way for something that will be of huge national significance over that period.
The BBC has a role in setting high bars for creativity and programming and doing the things that a public sector broadcaster can invest in on a scale that might not be possible for a fully commercial broadcaster. As some people have reflected during the debate, that does not mean that only the BBC can deliver high-quality programming in drama, factual programming and children’s programming. They are done to exceptionally high standards across the broadcasting world and we should appreciate that. We are fortunate to have such a rich diversity of creativity and talent working in broadcasting and programming across the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Select Committee, is back in his place, let me say that I think that the key point in the debate about the future of the BBC and about the licence fee is how people consume television. Gone are the days when people watched television by turning on a box in a room. I noticed that in his recent speech on the future of the BBC, Tony Hall commented on the fact that on transfer deadline day there were 9 million hits on the BBC Sport website from people looking for news, that 40% of iPlayer use is through mobile devices rather than desktop computers and, on the question of TV on demand and previewing television online, that there were 1.5 million requests to the BBC for its programme “Bad Education” before it had even been broadcast. Whether one is a fan of “Bad Education” or not, that is certainly an impressive number.
Alec Shelbrooke
Does my hon. Friend feel that the advent of 4G, which will give so much more bandwidth and allow television to come through, could kill off the television licence overnight?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I shall come on to that and he is welcome to pick me up on it when I have made a little more progress if he feels that I have not done justice to his point. Undoubtedly, 4G will only accelerate the process of TV being watched on demand and on the go where people want to watch it.
We should not underestimate the massive public appetite that remains for live television and radio, particularly when it comes to major national events, soap operas and dramas. The country comes together in its millions to watch something live and the appetite for that has not diminished. The evidence for it can be found in the incredibly robust performance of the commercial television advertising market, which has not been diminished by the internet at all and has recovered from the recession. When I first joined the Select Committee, I remember that the chief executive of Channel 4 said that we would never again see TV commercial revenues back at peak. Now they are not only back at peak, but in many cases exceed their previous level. That shows the demand for live TV, as well as for TV on demand.
Through the incredible initiative of Netflix in commissioning Kevin Spacey’s remake of “House of Cards” and broadcasting that so that people could watch the entire series as they might watch a boxed set at home, without having to wait for the next instalment, a commercial broadcaster has demonstrated that it is possible to pay for very high-quality content through a subscription service. We must acknowledge the fact that television is changing, and therefore the role of the BBC and the nature of the licence fee will inevitably change with that.
The director-general has set out a number of initiatives for the BBC to improve the breadth of the iPlayer, the period of time during which people can continue to watch programmes for free, and the ability to preview programmes through the iPlayer. Another interesting initiative is the creation of what he called BBC Store, whereby people can access programmes in the BBC back catalogue digitally through the iPlayer and pay a fee to do that. In the same way as they might pay to buy a DVD of programming that they were particularly interested in, they will be able to pay a subscription to watch it through BBC Store instead. This creates very interesting and exciting commercial opportunities for the BBC and raises some fair questions. If the BBC is allowed to develop more commercial properties and allowed to make more money from its back catalogue, how is this money used in the organisation? Can this be offset against future demands for a freeze or reduction of the licence fee if it is decided that that is the best way to go forward?
The BBC is also developing for music and radio an interesting platform called Playlister, which will help people to find music played on BBC radio stations and in BBC programming, identify it and add it to their playlist through Spotify, Deezer or whichever platform they use. This creates an interesting way for people to interact with BBC broadcast content and continue to consume it through whichever channel they choose.
This opens up an interesting debate about the way people consume the BBC outside the live environment. If people increasingly use the BBC through these online platforms, they create their own bundles of programming and content that they want to see. They prioritise the things that they want to consume. They effectively become their own director-general. They are their own editor-in-chief of BBC content. They will see that there is a great deal of content that they are happy to use and a great deal that they will not use. This may provoke a debate about the future of the licence fee.
Should there be a licence fee that covers a core service—core programming and the sort of channels that we would expect to see in a free channel bundle? There may be other programming and services that should be accessed through a subscription, so there would be a core BBC, plus extra services that people choose to opt into through extra channels. That should be part of the debate as we move towards the charter renewal process in 2016 and consider the future licence fee.
We know that people are changing the way that they consume media. We know that they want it on demand on mobile devices. A licence fee linked to a physical television set in a room is clearly no longer suitable, so how do we decide how the BBC should be funded? Should that be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) suggested, through general taxation? I am uneasy about that, because the BBC would tend to become even more like a Government Department than it is already. The idea of some sort of fee collected through the way in which people consume BBC output, perhaps linked to what they consume, is an interesting idea and should be part of the discussions.
Alec Shelbrooke
Does my hon. Friend believe that if the licence fee were replaced by a grant through central Government, the BBC would be under any more influence from Government than it was in 2003 in the case of the 45-minute dossier, when a Government who were not happy with reports from the BBC, which turned out to be accurate, tried to impose and did indeed impose their will on the BBC?
Damian Collins
I do not believe that that pressure would exist then any more than it does now. The BBC will come to negotiate the licence fee settlement. If it is like the last few settlements, there will be downward pressure on that or an idea that the BBC should take on other services that it should pay for, as it did when taking on the World Service through the most recent licence fee negotiations. That will be part of the debate, and there will be a robust debate between the Government and the BBC.
The BBC must be independent of Government, but it must accept that it effectively receives public money so there deserves to be some scrutiny of it. Criticisms that have been made of the scrutiny of the way the BBC uses public money have not been robust enough and are valid. Additional scrutiny through the National Audit Office may well be the best way to go. Throughout the debate legitimate questions have been asked about the BBC Trust. While I was a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee I thought that was particularly evident during the Savile affair and the session that the Committee held with George Entwistle.
The relationship between the director-general and the chairman of the Trust is more akin to the relationship between the chief executive of a company and the chairman of the company, but the chairman of the Trust behaved, certainly through the Savile crisis and its aftermath, like the chairman of the board of the BBC, a member of the organisation. I do not criticise Chris Patten for that. I think he did what anyone would have had to do in that situation—a senior figure who could speak for the organisation had to take charge at that difficult time, and he did that. But that is not the same as being the chairman of the body that exists to scrutinise the BBC—to be chairman of its own regulator. It raises questions about whether the current chairman of the Trust should be seen more as the chairman of a board of governors and whether there should be a new body that is more independent and that has more of an independent voice, whose members are perhaps selected with broader consent from the public, but is clearly a separate regulatory body.
If it is not possible to achieve that, the debate will surely come as to whether the BBC should be regulated by Ofcom as all other broadcasters are, and treated as any other broadcaster, with the current chairman of the Trust being the chairman of the board of governors, representing the viewers’ voice within the organisation. That must be a legitimate part of the debate on the future of the BBC.
If we had a blank piece of paper and if we could recreate the entire broadcast landscape of this country, we might not create the BBC as it is now, but we must recognise that it is a global media brand of enormous importance, it is an ambassador for this country around the world, it produces some iconic programming, it is chosen repeatedly by the nation as its preferred viewing platform for major national events, both state events and sporting events, and it is something that we should celebrate. However, there are genuine questions about the way in which it raises its finance, linked to how people consume its services and to the way it is governed, and those should form part of the debate as we come closer to charter renewal.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right. I am referring to some of the issues to do with the ability to intervene on things in a timely manner. I think particularly of the Entwistle payment, where we had to wait, I think, three months before it was able to be investigated. Those sorts of things do not help when we are trying to rebuild trust in the BBC.
So yes, lessons have to be learned from the last 12 months—some of the most turbulent times in the organisation’s existence—but we must also look to the future. We need to consider a whole host of issues that have been raised, such as convergence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) raised, and the importance of the BBC’s independence in the future. I could go into a whole range of things, but I would like particularly to focus on the BBC’s vital role in our creative industries, which are a growing part of our economy. At a time when we are all focused on growing the economy and prosperity for the future, the BBC’s figures demonstrating that for every £1 spent on it through the licence fee there is £2 of value added in the economy is a good story to be telling for jobs, expenditure in the economy and economic opportunities. This represents the BBC generating some £8 billion of economic value for the UK.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford explained extremely eloquently, the impact of the BBC goes far beyond the economic. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan mentioned the BBC’s role in public health and the part that it played, extremely effectively, in raising awareness of AIDS. He asked whether the BBC could do further work on child safety online. That is an extremely interesting area. The BBC has already announced—I think in February—Share Take Care, which is an initial piece of work in that area; perhaps more will be done.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for her contribution, in which she spoke incredibly powerfully about the BBC’s role in taking concepts of democracy and human rights around the world. I would like to touch on the impact that the BBC can have on the international stage in representing us and playing a key role in how we are perceived as a nation. As well as stimulating the interests of businesses and tourists alike, through the work of the BBC we are spreading Britain’s reach and enhancing our reputation as a nation. In a recent survey of about 900 business leaders in the United States, India and Australia, nearly two thirds of respondents said that the BBC was the main way in which they found out about the UK, and over half said that they were more likely to do business with the UK because of what they knew about the BBC. That is extremely powerful, and important to understand. Therefore, when the BBC fails to adhere to the standards we expect, and does so repeatedly, the potential for damage is great and goes well beyond our shores. That is perhaps another reason why this debate has been so heated at times. As a brand and as a business, the BBC has an important and powerful role in helping us to preserve what is great about our nation and taking to a wider audience what Britain stands for today.
The BBC also has an important role to play in helping to preserve the culture and languages of our nations. In Cardiff, the BBC has built a drama production village in Roath that is now the BBC’s biggest drama centre in the UK, home to “Doctor Who” and “Casualty”. BBC Scotland’s presence on the banks of the Clyde has an equally positive impact. In terms of Welsh language broadcasting, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan has a keen interest and about which we have many conversations, the BBC became S4C’s major funder in April this year. The BBC has an existing statutory obligation to provide at least 10 hours of programming a week, at a cost of roughly £20 million per year, and BBC Cymru content is regularly at the top of S4C’s viewing figures. This can be in the form of “Pobol y Cwm” or rugby coverage, the latter of which draws over 100,000 viewers, possibly confirming a stereotype about rugby being such a part of Welsh DNA—something that I can certainly agree with. I was extremely pleased with the recent spending review settlement in which the Government were able to confirm our support for minority-language broadcasting, maintaining S4C’s Exchequer funding at its current level and investing a further £1 million in MG Alba, north of the border. It is important that we are doing this given its significance to our minority languages in this country.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members raised the issue of local radio. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and I agree on many things, but on this we may have to disagree slightly. I will read Hansard to make sure that I clearly understood what he said. As regards digital radio, we have to be consumer-led, and that is the approach we have taken. It is important that we respond to consumer demand in that field. I am sure that he and I will continue to discuss the issue.
Alec Shelbrooke
To clarify, digital radio is an important platform, but a public service broadcaster must make sure that it can reach everybody, so if people cannot get digital radio we must make sure they can receive it on analogue.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend makes an important point that this is about responding to the consumer. We are on common ground. Decisions have to be made at some point and we need to make sure that we take the consumer with us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton addressed the role of local radio, particularly in Cheshire. She has campaigned hard and I do not have much to add at this stage. I hope she gets the answers she needs and that BBC Radio Manchester and BBC Radio Stoke pay heed to and focus on her powerful arguments.
The BBC has been and continues to be a creative and cultural powerhouse. It is totally unacceptable that recent scandals have overshadowed that. We need the BBC to learn from its mistakes, pick itself up, dust itself off and restore public confidence. The BBC Trust and executive must look to learn from the past and to build a BBC for the future that sets the highest possible standards in absolutely everything it does. We would expect nothing less.