Austin Mitchell
Main Page: Austin Mitchell (Labour - Great Grimsby)(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House calls upon the BBC to reconsider the scale and timing of its proposed cuts so as better to safeguard BBC local radio, regional television news and programmes, the morale and enthusiasm of its staff, and the quality of BBC programmes generally, all of which have made the BBC the most respected public service broadcaster in the world.
I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing this wonderful opportunity for Members to say what they think of the cuts proposed by the BBC in Delivering Quality First. It is important to get those views on the record and for us all to say what we think the BBC should do given its current financial stringencies. I am an admirer of the BBC. It is the best news and media organisation in the world, and an institution of which we in Britain can be proud. It is better to say that outside the BBC and admiring it than it is inside and working for it, as I once did, when one has to tackle the layers of bureaucracy above.
This admirable institution is now threatened by cuts. The licence fee settlement is the worst in the BBC’s history, with the licence fee frozen at £145 for six years. On top of that, the BBC is required, from 2014, to finance the World Service and BBC Monitoring, both of which used to be a Foreign Office responsibility and should, in my view, continue to be so. The BBC World Service does a better job for Britain in the world than the Foreign Office and all its pinstriped mandarins put together, and it should be financed by the Foreign Office. In addition, the BBC loses £150 million a year to finance superfast broadband, for which, again, the Government should be responsible, and £25 million a year to finance the Secretary of State’s dream of local TV stations. All this amounts to savings of 16% in the annual budget, to which the BBC has added another 4%—in other words, £670 million a year in cuts. That is on top of the efficiency savings of 3%, or £487 million, a year that were required in 2007 for the period 2008-13, and are, in fact, being exceeded. The BBC is suffering a double dose of anorexia, and that threatens quality, jobs, innovation and creativity, and hence a groundhog diet of endless repeats on television.
This is a squeeze too far. I have to admit that the BBC has certain faults, which I shall list. It has not helped itself with its erratic financial decisions. For instance, there was the hokey cokey about Broadcasting house. First, it was going to move, then it moved out to White City, and now it is going to move back and sell the old television centre at White City.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who is chairman of the all-party group on the media, on his consistency on this issue. I do not accept that the BBC has an anorexia problem. It is an obese organisation and, like the rest of the public sector, it needs to go on a diet. I accept that the BBC does a huge amount of good and is probably the best news organisation in the world. Does he accept that the decision on where the cuts fall should not discriminate against regional and local radio? The BBC is in danger of being very London-centric, retaining managers in London while laying off hard-working journalists in the regions.
Austin Mitchell
I accept that absolutely. The BBC should concentrate on efficiency savings, which are still possible in what is, as the hon. Gentleman says, a large organisation. That, and not the cuts in regional services and local radio stations that are forecast in Delivering Quality First, should be the basis of any cuts.
Austin Mitchell
I would rather not accept a lot of interventions because many Members want to speak, and I think it is better that they make their points in the debate rather than interrupt my diatribe.
The BBC bureaucracy has always been more adept and skilful at interfering with and managing programmes than at managing the finances of the BBC. As a result, it is unable to cost its services and say where the efficiency savings should come. That is a problem for the BBC, but it is being cured with the help of the National Audit Office, which says in its report on the BBC’s efficiency programme—we discussed it in the Public Accounts Committee—that the BBC is making splendid progress. I want that progress to continue. I want the BBC to be able to say, “If we cut to this extent, the overall consequences will be X and the consequences for delivery and quality of services will be Y.”
We need that clarity so that the BBC can take a firm position on what cuts it can accept instead of its current approach, which is the culture that characterises Delivering Quality First of can-do submission to whatever the Government propose. The Secretary of State shakes his head. Last October, though, the BBC apparently quaked before the terrifying spectre of the Secretary of State; we have read about what must have been a terrifying weekend of pressure that he brought to bear. It should be immortalised in some kind of drama—“Three Days in October”—showing the terrifying effect that he had on the BBC, which caved in totally. The Secretary of State put the frighteners on, Sir Michael Lyons resigned, and the BBC set about a “Yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir” programme of cuts. Indeed, the director-general, Mark Thompson, told staff in Belfast—this is very unlike him—
“If you’re really that unhappy, if you think that you can’t do your best work here then leave—no-one is forcing you to stay.”
That situation, described as consultation of the BBC staff, was forced on the BBC by the Secretary of State with his bullying tactics last October. It is a skill that amazes me. Now he sits there smiling, all friendly, but that is not how the BBC saw him last October.
I am not saying, in all this, that the BBC is its own worst enemy, because the Murdochs are still around. Indeed, the Murdochs are selling programmes; for instance, Elisabeth Murdoch sold “MasterChef” to the BBC. However, I am saying, loud and clear, that these cuts are going to be deeply damaging to the quality of the BBC service. One cannot force a 20% spending reduction over five years, with a loss of 2,000 jobs, 1,000 of which are in the vital news services, without it being a blow to creativity and to all the creative industries that supply and support the BBC, and without doing deep damage. That is what will happen over the coming years if the BBC, as it is being forced to do, follows the prescriptions laid out by James Murdoch in the MacTaggart lecture in Edinburgh a few years ago. The cuts programme has an amazing resemblance to what he said he wanted.
Let us look at the consequences. This debate provides an opportunity for all Members to give their views on the consequences and to say what they think should be done. I would like to first consider local radio. There is a strong feeling among Members that the cuts to local radio go too far and will be too damaging. That point emerged in the Westminster Hall debate.
Daniel Kawczynski
On the issue of local radio stations, Radio Shropshire is not even allowed to procure its own window cleaners. That is done centrally from London. The BBC in London sends window cleaners from Lancashire to clean the windows in Shropshire. That is highly unacceptable and must be changed. There must be better procurement and value for money at the BBC.
Austin Mitchell
I hope that the cleaners from Lancashire do not arrive with little ukuleles in their hands. That would be an example of excessive expenditure at the BBC. However, such examples do not make the case for the cuts, because the cuts will be much more deep-seated. I accept that there are anomalies and problems.
The cuts will press heavily on local radio, which we all respect. It provides our roots in society and in politics. I am particularly proud of Radio Humberside. It does not do enough on politics, but that is probably because it would lose its audience if it did more on politics. It would gain me, but it would lose its audience. It is a particularly good station. It will lose 8.5 members of staff as a result of these decisions.
In BBC local radio overall, the output will be cut by 22%, the budgets will be cut by 19%—far in excess of all the other cuts—and 280 jobs will be lost, which is an average of seven per station. That will be a crippling blow. Such harsh cuts press particularly hard on small organisations that have high fixed costs.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a magnificent speech. The talk about window cleaners trivialises the problem. BBC Radio York, which got the title of best original journalism of the year this year, will lose eight journalists as a result of the cuts. Surely the licence fee should pay for the sort of broadcast services that commercial stations will not provide. Local radio is at the core of that.
Austin Mitchell
I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that that station’s ratings will go up as his appearances multiply. It is true that local radio provides a better service for older people and that it is more listened to by older people. That is why I am dealing with this issue—I am one of the oldest Members around. It is true that the cuts will be deeply damaging to the roots of the BBC and to us in particular.
The same is true of the quality of the local press. The number of reporters in the local press is declining steadily and rapidly across the country. It is also tragic that regional television, which we rely on for the coverage of regional politics, faces cuts of 16% and 100 jobs lost. Regional news on television has already suffered from the cuts at ITV. Competition will be further damaged by these cuts.
BBC Online, which the Murdochs have complained about vociferously because it competes with their paid services, will be cut by 25%. That is real vandalism, because it is a quality service. I rely on it heavily for news and information.
The Asian Network, which is the only non-sectarian, non-political service for news, music and discussion for all Asian communities, will lose 47 people, have a budget cut of 46% and face the closure of its Leicester newsroom. That will be a bitter blow to ethnic communities and to the ethnic mix among BBC staff.
Those are the major objections that I have to the cuts. I have no doubt that other Members will put forward other objections. The BBC must consider the objections that come from us and from the rest of society. There may be other cuts to come. That is not clear because negotiations are still going on over pension conditions.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of regional television, does he think that it is consistent with the BBC charter for the BBC to locate most of its production at Salford, Bristol and Cardiff, and to leave areas such as Birmingham, the west midlands and his part of the world out of the loop?
Austin Mitchell
No, I do not. It is true that services are being unacceptably concentrated in those places. We want better services and better staffing in Yorkshire and the Humber, which—dare I say it—are a nation in themselves and deserve to be treated as a nation. The cuts are a serious setback to recruitment and to the transfer of jobs out of London, which cannot be satisfied just by the creation of the monster of a centre in Manchester.
The newsrooms of the BBC and the BBC World Service are going to be merged. There are overlaps there, which will lead to further redundancies. We are told that Radio 4 has been protected from cuts, but its producers have been required to reapply for their jobs.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of Radio 4, which, as he said, is being protected. On Merseyside, more than twice the number of people who listen to Radio 4 listen to BBC Radio Merseyside, yet Radio Merseyside faces a cut of 20% and will lose a third of its staff. Overwhelmingly, the people who listen to it are elderly, disabled or poor. Those people do not have the option of finding other means of entertainment. Does he agree that it would make sense to protect local radio rather than Radio 4?
Austin Mitchell
I agree absolutely. Radio 4 tends to be radio south-east, or indeed radio Westminster at times, given its concentration on politics. Listeners in the regions deserve the same degree of protection.
I was arguing that Radio 4, which is supposed to be protected, is not being protected because its producers are all being asked to reapply for their jobs. Audio & Music, which produces programmes such as “Desert Island Discs”, for which my invitation to appear is still to arrive—I hope that it arrives before rigor mortis sets in totally—has been cut by 18%, with a loss of 140 jobs.
To conclude, my message to the BBC is simple and threefold. To the BBC Trust, I say please go easier and slower with the cuts, particularly those to local services. To the BBC management, I say reconsider the proposals in Delivering Quality First carefully, because management in the regions are in revolt. We have had discussions with the regional management in Yorkshire and Humberside. Although they are preparing the cuts, they clearly want MPs to come forward against those cuts. They are inciting us against their own management.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I hope that I will not pre-empt my hon. Friend’s third message to the BBC. The concern has been raised with me that the BBC does not seem to be listening to the evidence of the number of listeners and viewers at a local level. It also proposes to create super-regions for television programming, in particular for “Inside Out”, where it believes that audiences will tolerate it. However, there is no evidence of that.
Austin Mitchell
I agree absolutely. The people listen to the BBC, but is the BBC listening to the people in this instance? I ask BBC management, who have proposed a diet of sacrifices and cuts for everybody else in the BBC, what they can bring to the party. Salaries have become inflated in the BBC—there are 1,065 people earning more than £70,000 a year. Good heavens, that is as much as MPs get—what a scandal! We are grossly overpaid, of course, everybody says so. There are 45 people at the BBC with salaries of more than £190,000 a year, and the director-general’s package is also pretty inflated, it seems to me.
If BBC management agreed to cut the director-general’s package to £142,000 and lower the other top salaries in ratio with that, they could save and bring to the feast £27 million. That would be helpful when they are imposing cuts on other people. We are all in it together, and they are in it as much as the BBC staff. They should recognise that fact by making sacrifices. That is my third message to the BBC.
My final message is to the Government. I say to them that what happens is their responsibility, and substantially that of the Secretary of State. If and when—I say “when” because I think it is a case of “when”—it becomes clear that the cuts are destroying quality and ending intelligent debate and discussion of politics, the Government should stand ready to provide a supplementary licence fee. All the poll evidence indicates that people are prepared to pay more for their licence fee. One recent poll showed that they were prepared to pay 7p more a day. That would obviate the need for the cuts altogether. The Government should bear that in mind. They should certainly reconsider imposing the burden of the BBC World Service on the BBC itself. It should properly be financed by the Foreign Office.
I say to my fellow MPs who will speak after me, let us please avoid the old carping and criticism of the BBC. We all grumble at the BBC—it is there to be grumbled at, like the weather. However, it is also there to be admired. It is the best producer of quality programmes and quality news in the world, and an institution that we should be proud of, not treating in this horrendous fashion of cuts, sacrifice and dumbing down.
Austin Mitchell
With the leave of the House, I would like briefly to reply to what has been an interesting debate. We have heard praise from all parts of the House for the BBC and its role as a beacon of excellence in news, television and all the other services it provides. Some of the praise from Government Members was praise with faint damns and some of them suggested various cuts that could be made that were different from those proposed in the BBC’s agenda. In particular, we could consider cuts to Clarkson’s salary, which brings to mind an interesting proposal for a programme: “Cutting Clarkson: Women Viewers Say How”, which I can recommend for BBC 2.
It is interesting that nobody defended or justified the full scale of the cuts or the full scale of the impositions on the licence fee. The Minister presented himself in a more amiable light today than in those three days in October, when he must have presented himself as The Beast From 10,000 MHz, such was the terror that he produced in the BBC. However, he made what I thought were three mistakes in his presentation. I agree with him about the desire to stimulate and develop local television, but that should not be done at the cost of cutting BBC local radio, as the current proposals do. I agree that he has defended the BBC against 19% cuts, which was the average among Departments. However, if he works it out, adding the 16% cuts that he has imposed on BBC to the 3% efficiency savings that were already in train under the 2008 agreement—and which will continue until 2013—makes 19%. That is in addition to the further 4% cuts that the BBC is imposing to generate money for programmes. This is a fairly elementary mistake.
It is wrong to say that the Government proposed the cuts and that the BBC cannot interfere in how those cuts are carried out. It has to stand itself in reserve. If the cuts become damaging to the BBC and its reputation for quality, it will need a supplementary licence fee increase to save it from disaster. That is the reserve power that was asked for.
For the rest, what has emerged from the debate is stunningly clear and loud. We are saying to the BBC that local radio should not be cut in the proposed fashion, that regional television should not be cut in the proposed fashion and, most loudly and clearly of all, that the BBC should go away and think again about the scale and timing of these cuts.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls upon the BBC to reconsider the scale and timing of its proposed cuts so as better to safeguard BBC local radio, regional television news and programmes, the morale and enthusiasm of its staff, and the quality of BBC programmes generally, all of which have made the BBC the most respected public service broadcaster in the world.