TV Licence Fee

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it would be an argument for never prosecuting anyone for anything, because everything uses up court time. I am not sure that it is a real argument. I am much more convinced by the costs that people who do pay would incur if evasion went up. That already costs people quite a lot of money.

The fundamental question in all this is whether we believe in public service broadcasting. I do. I think it is a public good, and we finance many things because they are a public good. Some people do not want to pay for them. I remember a gentleman who told me during the election campaign that he did not see why he should pay taxes for the education system, because he did not have any children. “They pay your pension,” is the answer to that one. We get such comments all the time.

I think that we get a good service from the BBC. We think that our television is terrible, until we go abroad and look at what is provided there. We do not realise how good the BBC camera operatives are, until we try to watch rugby or football from somewhere else, where they are not as good, and we miss the goals because they are up at the other end of the pitch. We think that BBC News has its problems, until we are trapped somewhere where the only English language service available is CNN, which seems to be designed for people with the attention span of a gnat.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Sorry? [Laughter.]

[Helen Jones]

Gnat with a g, in case the hon. Gentleman thinks I am insulting him.

We are not good at celebrating our successes in this country, but the BBC is a great success and we ought to celebrate it. Who else would have thought that televising Dickens as a serial, as it was originally done, was a good idea? Would any commercial broadcaster have thought of reviving a clapped-out old science fiction programme in which someone travels around in a ship disguised as a police box? But “Doctor Who” earns hundreds of millions of pounds around the world now. Would a commercial broadcaster ever have taken up a proposal for a serial about two old-age pensioners who meet after many years apart and who have dysfunctional families, or got actors of the calibre of Derek Jacobi and Anne Reid to play them? Then we would not have had the brilliantly named “Last Tango in Halifax”. I doubt very much that a commercial broadcaster would have taken up a proposal for a serial about a woman police sergeant in Yorkshire who looks after her grandson, or one where people said, “Oh yes, we’re going to cast Sean Bean as a Catholic priest in this.” If the BBC had not done so, we would never have had the brilliant “Happy Valley”, which has some of the best parts for women that I have ever seen, or “Broken”, which had some of the best acting that I have seen this year.

If that sounds like a recital of my favourite programmes, it is. Other people will have other favourites, but that is the beauty of a public service broadcaster: the wide range of programmes that it produces, whether they are brilliant nature documentaries, great dramas or good news broadcasts. There are also some turkeys, as we all know, but that is the price we pay for trying to bring in new programmes. We get successes and we get failures, but what we do not get is people constantly following the pattern of what went before. I therefore think that we ought to celebrate our public service broadcasting. We ought to ensure that it continues and, because of that, it has to be paid for.

Nothing comes for free in this life. If we do not pay for the BBC through the licence fee, we have to find another way of paying for it, but we should be clear that the BBC as it exists today, across radio and TV and online, is a success and that, by and large, we get very good value for our licence fee. It is interesting to see what the petitioners have said, but my view is that we should keep the licence fee and keep the model that has been so successful for us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). I am pleased that there seems to be a consensus across the House that we should retain the licence fee, and that that is the model we should adopt. Along with the hon. Member for Warrington North, the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Solihull (Julian Knight) and for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) also made that case, and I include my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who was eventually dragged, albeit kicking and screaming, to the pro-licence fee side of the debate. I am particularly pleased about that because the Scottish National party fully supports public service broadcasting and believes that the best way to finance the BBC is through the licence fee. Let me be absolutely clear about that from the outset.

We believe that the retention of a strong, well-financed, high-quality public service broadcasting sector is in the best interests of the people of this country. Public service broadcasting makes up an essential part of the television, radio and online landscape. However, we have serious reservations about how the BBC operates, in relation to the enormous gap between the money raised and the money spent in Scotland. We will continue to argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun did, that the interests of Scottish viewers and listeners would be best served by powers over broadcasting being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Although we welcome the new BBC Scotland channel due to launch late next year, we have expressed, and will continue to express, grave concerns about the budget for the new channel, which I believe will be completely unsustainable going forward.

Scotland has been the victim of an historically low ratio of money raised to money spent by the BBC in Scotland. As well as having a hugely detrimental impact on our creative industries, it has without doubt eroded public support for the BBC in Scotland. It was therefore not a huge surprise that the report published last year by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport showed that Scots had the highest dissatisfaction rates anywhere in the UK, with viewers in Scotland consistently being the most critical and least supportive of any group, regardless of where they live, their age or their social group.

I have absolutely no doubt that those figures reflect the depth of feeling that many had after the 2014 independence referendum. It would be something of an understatement to say that the BBC did not cover itself in glory in the eyes of many yes voters in Scotland. Members will be relieved that I am not about to reopen that debate this afternoon, but what is absolutely irrefutable is that many Scots felt that their views and opinions were not fairly represented by the BBC throughout that campaign. The anger felt during the referendum has not gone away. Judging by the most recent figures, for many Scots the trust they had in the BBC has not returned.

The hon. Member for Warrington North said that evasion rates were very low, but it is worth making the point that rates in Scotland are almost twice as high as those in England and Wales. They are the highest of anywhere in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, that is not the same as people taking a principled stand by not watching live television and therefore not having a licence.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the same survey found that only 37% of Scots felt that the licence fee offered good value for money. Again, that is the lowest of any of the nations of the United Kingdom, and who could blame them for feeling that? In the financial year 2015-16 the BBC raised £320 million from the licence fee in Scotland, but spent just over half—54% or 55%—of that revenue on programming in Scotland. That is a ridiculously low figure, particularly when compared with the other nations of the United Kingdom. Almost three quarters of the money raised in Northern Ireland was spent in Northern Ireland, and an astonishing 95% of the money raised in Wales was spent in Wales. The BBC’s director-general, Lord Hall, was forced to concede that for Scotland, 2015-16 was “not a good year”. Indeed it was not, but neither was it an isolated year. For years the funding gap between what is raised and spent in Scotland has been unacceptably wide.

I wholeheartedly concurred with the sentiments of John Archer, the award-winning producer and former head of music and arts at BBC Scotland, when he argued recently that all the money raised in Scotland by the BBC should be spent from Scotland—not necessarily in Scotland, but from Scotland. He said:

“Scotland would still be paying its fair share towards the programmes that are made elsewhere and screened in Scotland. But Scotland would decide what is made here.”

[Deidre Brock]

I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for the BBC, and as a huge supporter of public broadcasting. I certainly welcome the commitments made to the nations of the UK during the charter renewal process, but does my hon. Friend agree with independent producer David Strachan’s comment about the importance of the BBC making programmes for Scotland and about Scotland? That is core to those commitments.

[Brendan O'Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Tern TV, which Mr Strachan is heavily involved in, is one of the numerous examples of excellent independent production companies making excellent content for Scottish viewers. I wish them all the best for the future, because there is absolutely no reason why we cannot have high-quality, high-value network productions featuring Scottish stories, told with Scottish voices, made in Scotland and using the incredible talent that BBC Scotland and our independent production sector has.

To be fair, BBC Scotland recognises the problem. A spokesman recently said:

“We recognise that there’s a deficit in programming in Scotland; there’s no doubt about that”.

Everyone seems to accept that there is a problem, but how we deal with it is another issue completely. We had dared to hope that there was light at the end of the tunnel earlier this year, when the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—encouraged and cajoled by the redoubtable Mr John Nicolson—unanimously backed the idea of a bespoke Scottish “Six O’Clock News”. Trials were run, hopes were raised and rumours were rife before being unceremoniously quashed: the fabled “Scottish Six” was not happening. What emerged from the detritus, however—a new Scottish channel—seemed very exciting. It was as if the BBC had said, “You wanted a Scottish ‘Six O’Clock News’; we’re giving you your own channel.” It was immediately welcomed, because the SNP had been urging the corporation to do it for many years. Back in 2009, the Scottish Broadcasting Commission made the case and calculated that a new channel would cost around £75 million a year. That figure is less than half of the shortfall between what the licence fee raises in Scotland and what is spent in Scotland.

So far, so good. The new channel was warmly welcomed by the Scottish Government and across the Scottish political spectrum. Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs, said:

“It’s vital that the new BBC Scotland channel has complete commission and editorial independence, and is provided with the funding needed to match ambition.”

Therein lies the rub. The simple fact is that the ambition of the people involved in creating and delivering the new channel simply has not been matched by the funding on offer from the BBC in London. In 2009 the cost of a new channel was calculated at £75 million a year. The new venture is being offered £30 million a year, with £7 million ring-fenced for news.

As someone whose career before arriving in this place was as a television director and series producer, I can say without fear of contradiction that an annual programme-making budget of £23 million is simply not enough to make a quality product. I reckon that the average hourly spend for the new channel will be £25,000. To put that in perspective, for the last series I made for BBC One from Scotland, my spend was £220,000 an hour. That was almost 10 years ago. I have absolutely no doubt that the people employed to deliver the new channel will be extremely able—indeed, I have worked with many of them—but they are not magicians.

What does the BBC director-general expect of the new channel? He told the Select Committee last week that he would judge it on the standard of content produced and that high production values cost money and high broadcast standards are not cheap. He cannot have both. We cannot make cheap television and demand high standards, so my question to him is this: how many of the programmes made for the new channel, as currently funded, does he expect to get a network outing on BBC1?

Scottish viewers rightly demand quality. After all, we pay for it through our licence fee. I do not believe for a minute that they will accept cheap low-production value TV simply because it is Scottish. It has been said by many people, both inside and outside the BBC, including by people with long experience of working in television, that this channel, with its current funding model, has been born to fail. I sincerely hope that that is not the case, but I fear that with such a low programme budget and with no current slot on the electronic programme guide confirmed, the Scottish content faces being ghettoised and people will turn off, allowing the BBC at some point in the future to throw up its hands and say, “We tried, but there simply was not the demand for a Scottish channel.” That is why people fear that this entity was born to fail.

As I said earlier, I and my colleagues welcome the channel, but as it stands the proposed funding model makes it unsustainable, so I urge the BBC leadership to look again at the funding model for the channel and fund it properly, thereby allowing the BBC Scotland staff and the wider Scottish indie community to—as the head of BBC Scotland, Donalda MacKinnon, said—“make something precious”, because that is how it should be. BBC Scotland has the expertise and the staff. The Scottish indie sector is more than capable of delivering high-quality programmes. All that the BBC leadership in London has to do is provide them with the adequate funding to do it. If they do not and the venture fails, there will be a lot of very angry people: viewers, independent producers and BBC Scotland staff. Scottish licence fee payers have been short-changed by the BBC for long enough. This is their chance to redress that. I urge them not to throw away this chance by failing properly to invest in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not deny that, but I must say that I hugely enjoy being able to access things such as the BBC “In Concert” series from the 1970s via YouTube. There is, of course, an element of advertising to watch that content, albeit a very small one in the case of YouTube. I am arguing only that the right balance needs to be drawn. The hon. Gentleman is right that the BBC needs to raise funds through other means than the licence fee, and some initiatives have been happening in recent years. For example, the BBC is a 50% owner of UKTV, which includes the channel Dave, on which I have appeared from time to time on “Unspun with Matt Forde”—I may be declaring an interest by saying that. My point is that sometimes people do not realise the extent to which the BBC seeks to raise funds—over £1 billion, as was mentioned in the debate.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has been a long-term critic of the BBC. He made similar points the last time we debated the BBC, in this room not so long ago. He knows that I agree with him on the issue of transparency, particularly with regard to salaries. I think it has been proved that that information is in the public interest and should have been revealed. I commend the Culture, Media and Sport Committee for recommending that that should happen, and I agree with the Government’s decision to include it in the charter review. In an intervention, it was pointed out that the BBC had lost “Songs of Praise” during the commissioning process. It reminded me of the great Welsh hymn, Mrs Moon, “Cwm Rhondda”, with the words:

“Songs of praises, songs of praises

I will ever give to thee.”

“Songs of Praise” has unfortunately been lost to the BBC, but it will still air on Sunday evenings for us all to see.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) spoke about how he had worked for the BBC in his previous career. I have to say, for an allegedly lefty organisation, the BBC seems to produce an awful lot of Conservative Members of Parliament, as evidenced by the line-up in today’s debate. They are all excellent Members of Parliament; clearly a BBC career is not a hindrance to a career in politics on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Gentleman said that in his judgment, and from his experience working on the opposite side of the world, the licence fee system is the best system and we should maintain it.

I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition this evening. I will not repeat much of what has been said during the debate, because hon. Members spoke very well. We on the Opposition Front Bench understand the concerns that have been expressed in these e-petitions. It is probably true that if we were to design a public service broadcaster from scratch in today’s media environment, we would probably not come up with a licence fee system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North pointed out in response to an intervention, it is rather like what Winston Churchill said about democracy: it is the worst system, except for all the others. It seems to me that the charge against the licence fee probably boils down to people saying that it works in practice, but not in theory. That is the wrong way round, in a sense; it is things that work in theory but not in practice that we should be concerned about. The fact that the BBC licence fee is a bad idea in theory does not mean that we should abolish it. It is actually a practical and pragmatic way to fund our main public service broadcaster, in a world where other public service broadcasters are funded by alternative means.

We should remember what the licence fee supports and pays for. The BBC is the most used media provider among people of all ages, and in all parts of the United Kingdom. As well as creating content, it creates jobs and often serves as a creative centre of gravity in the communities in which it is based. I have to say to my colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), that the extra funding that has gone into Scotland provides a real opportunity. I moaned about it, because we in Wales did not get as much as Scotland out of that particular deal. We will always have those arguments, but it presents a real opportunity to create the kind of centre of excellence that we have created in Wales—for example, in Cardiff around the drama village. There was not a very good drama service there a few years ago.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as I said, achieving high standards and quality costs money? I congratulate the Welsh on securing 95% of the funding received from fees in Wales, compared with barely 55% in Scotland. That anomaly is a real hurdle, which cannot be overcome without funding.

[Kevin Brennan]

If the shoe were on the other foot, the hon. Gentleman would say, “It’s because we have an SNP Government in Scotland. That’s why we’re doing so well.” I am not going to say that we are doing so well in BBC funding in Wales because we have a Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff, because that would be quite wrong. The BBC is independent and would not respond to that kind of political pressure.

There are excellent hubs around the country, whether it is Media City in Salford, in Greater Manchester, or the drama village that I mentioned in my own city of Cardiff. Those hubs create tremendous opportunities for people across the UK, with around £450 million going into small creative and independent businesses each year. With the creative industries urging further development of creative clusters across the country, the BBC provides a positive example, and a catalyst for the kind of success that the creative cluster approach can have. Through the diverse range of public service broadcasters that we have in this country, people can see others like themselves creating content, and telling stories they can identify with and relate to.

The stability of the licence fee model means that, as hon. Members have pointed out, the BBC does not have to rely on ratings for advertising, and is therefore freer to make content that is difficult for other broadcasters to produce. It is an advantage of our system that each of our public service broadcasters is funded differently, because it means that they are each distinctive, meet different challenges, and make different types of content. Some 95% of the licence fee goes towards creating content for licence fee payers, and only 5% is used for running the organisation of the BBC itself. Some 82% of households feel that the BBC informs, educates and entertains them successfully.

I will not go on much longer, you will be pleased to know, Mrs Moon, but I want to say one or two things about children’s content. We have already seen concerns about what can happen when a funding gap appears in a particular part of the broadcasting landscape. In recent years that has happened in children’s television, as was mentioned in the debate. The relaxation of the obligations on producing children’s TV has meant that spend on TV content for children has seen an almost 50% drop this century. As a result, children in the UK today are watching significantly less home-grown content. When the Digital Economy Act 2017 was passing through Parliament, Labour pressed for an amendment to give Ofcom the power to assign the commercial public service broadcasters, such as Channel 4, Channel 5 and ITV, quotas on children’s content. As I understand it, Ofcom is currently consulting on that topic, and I look forward to hearing its findings.

That experience should serve as a warning of what could happen to public service broadcasters at large if we neglect the importance of continuing to fund the BBC in an appropriate way. We need to future-proof these precious public assets. I have quoted this before, but as Joni Mitchell once said:

“You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”

That is certainly true of the BBC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

My goodness! There are more people from Chester than women in this debate. What is it about the wonderful, great city of Chester that leads to so many people with an interest in one of our greatest national institutions? Chester, the city of my birth, is a great place. I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) describe himself as a leftie—he has never given any indication of that before. In this debate, like many others, he is probably closer to the Government position than to that of the leadership of his own party.

I am amazed at how much spare time the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has to watch things on the BBC, to write texts about chaperoning Mrs Balls around the Labour party conference, to watch 1970s music programming and even to appear on Dave. I am delighted that he has spared a bit of time to turn up.

I am grateful that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) declared unambiguously the Scottish National party’s support for the BBC, but he made some unreasonable attacks because he was unhappy about what he perceived to be the BBC’s balance, which is a pity. He might be unhappy with the outcome of the referendum, but I think that the reporting surrounding the referendum truly demonstrated the impartiality to which the BBC is committed. When it comes to the BBC’s representation and its expenditure on programming around the UK, the clue is in the name: the BBC is the British Broadcasting Corporation, and it has a duty to spend money in—and, indeed, to reflect—all parts of the UK. Whether it is the west midlands or each part of Scotland separately, it does that. That is true for Wales, Northern Ireland, the west midlands and cities within Scotland—it is not just about Scotland as a whole. It is the British Broadcasting Corporation, and it rightly serves the UK as a whole.

[Brendan O'Hara]

For the record, will the Minister confirm that he thinks it is acceptable that Wales gets 95% of spend, Northern Ireland gets 75%, and in 2015-16 Scotland got 55%? Is that acceptable?

[Matt Hancock]

I was just coming on to that. As the BBC’s new regulator, Ofcom will require the BBC to allocate its TV network spend and programme hours based on population, and in Scotland that will mean at least 8% a year. Because the Government represent and govern the whole UK, we are dealing with that point, but the way to do so is to help the BBC ensure that it reflects the whole nation, rather than make unreasonable and mean-spirited attacks on it.

Let me move on to some of the other speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) expressed her strong support for the BBC, and in particular for the increased transparency and accountability that we have brought to it. I have enormous respect for her—I consider her a friend—but I want to pick up one little thing. She said that people do not have a choice not to pay the licence fee, but as we discovered from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), they do have the choice if they do not watch TV or use the iPlayer. It is not a choice that many people exercise, partly because of how brilliant BBC content is, but they do have it.

Many hon. Members called for more flexibility. As part of the BBC charter renewal, we are introducing a contestable fund, which will ensure more flexibility on how licence fee money is spent on different programming. We will introduce details of the contestable fund shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made an excellent speech, and he made a point that I want to pick up. He said that content should be neutral. I think that the language we use is incredibly important. I do not think that the BBC should be neutral; I think it should be impartial. There is an important difference between the two. It should not simply take a neutral position between two stated arguments and split the difference. It should carry out an active, muscularly objective, fact-based analysis of the arguments, then put forward an impartial point. That is actually much harder. It requires more judgment and probably more self-confidence. The BBC should be aiming for true impartiality, based on objective analysis of the facts before it. For instance, my hon. Friend mentioned the slip about universal credit this week. I think that, culturally, the BBC should be appalled when a slip or a factual error is made. It happens, although it is rare. We all make mistakes. The BBC’s attitude should not be defensive; rather, it should be open and responsive to criticism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and the hon. Member for City of Chester talked about “Blue Planet II” and the value that the BBC can put into productions, but there is a bigger point. Of course, the BBC has great production capacity and can set long-term budgets. The poor, poor producers of “Blue Planet II” had to go to the south Pacific twice in two years— we all feel their pain—because they missed those extraordinary scenes of the fish shooting up while they were spawning, which we enjoyed. But that is changing, and the context is changing—the length of the BBC funding settlement is not changing, which is a good thing, but the context is.

The nature of the internet means that people now reach global audiences quickly, with Netflix the best embodiment of that, so the BBC is increasingly competing against production budgets in the private sector that are predicated on a global audience. Hence Netflix can pay an enormous amount for a production, whereas the BBC relies on licence fee income plus commercial income, largely from Worldwide which is the commercial exploitation of BBC content. I agree, however, that the BBC has an opportunity to broaden where it gets such revenues from, and I was interested that the director-general talked recently about how to make the most of the amazing back catalogue and see whether the BBC could monetise it further in order to put more into production. That was discussed by several Members, and it was interesting.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), with whom I have debated this subject in the past, pushed hard for more transparencies, some of which we are bringing in, especially on pay. He also wants greater transparency in commissioning, and we have been through some of the detail of his concerns. As I have said in the past, the BBC must engage with those concerns and ensure that it listens to them, responding appropriately. Also, I always stand by to assist him in getting the responses he needs.

I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), who made a brilliant speech—a forensic dissection of the petitions worthy of a journalist of 17 years who trained at the BBC. It was also a brilliant exposition of the BBC funding model—he went further than the hon. Member for Cardiff West who said that if we did not have it, we might not invent it—and how, if it did not exist, we might want to invent it as it is. He also made the point, however, about the need not only for a broader range of people but, crucially, a broader range of people reflecting the whole of Britain.

The BBC has a special responsibility for diversity in its broadest sense, not only in the important protected characteristics such as gender, race, sexual orientation and disability. Those are important, but so is ensuring that BBC, in front of and behind the camera, represents and reflects back to us the nation that we live in. There is no doubt that the BBC is the finest mirror we have on our society. It is incumbent on the BBC, from the programme makers through to those who are on screen, to lead rather than to follow, and to ensure that they represent and reflect the whole of the country they serve.

I will touch on a couple of other points. It is clear to me that this debate has broadly reflected the views of the country. Recently we had a charter review, one of the biggest consultations undertaken by Government. We received 192,000 responses and engaged with more than 300 organisations and experts. The process was overseen by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) who is no wet blanket and by no means an instinctive cheerleader for the BBC, yet we have come up with a solution that has a broad consensus of support behind it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I am very pleased that Superfast Essex will reach 95%, and, as I said in my opening remarks, the superfast programme does not end at the end of 2017; we expect a further 2% of premises to be covered by superfast under the programme. I also urge my hon. Friend and her constituency neighbours in Essex to encourage take-up of superfast broadband, because, as people take up access to it, money then comes back into the system to connect even more premises to superfast broadband.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State explain why the UK Government’s contribution to the Scottish Government’s broadband roll-out project is just £21 million, an amount less than that awarded to Devon and Somerset? Will she join me in applauding the scale of the Scottish Government’s ambition to achieve 30 megabits per second for every Scottish household? Does she not think that the people of England deserve that level of ambition from their Government?

[Karen Bradley]

This is about delivery of superfast broadband, not just ambition, and I am afraid that the Scottish Government are behind on every single measure compared with other areas—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman talks about money, money, money but the important point is that this is about delivery. Other local authorities and areas have been able to deliver, and I hope that the Scottish Government will take note.

Gaming Machines and Social Responsibility

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

I can confirm that to be the case. The call for evidence brought in many people’s views and made the need to take action very clear. The consultation sets out four options for the reduction in stakes, but the call for evidence makes it certain that the status quo will not be maintained.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I fear that the Government have missed yet another opportunity to tackle this problem. By announcing yet another consultation, they are attempting to kick this matter further into the long grass. The move to cut the maximum stake, while welcome, does not go far enough. In Scotland, £4 billion is spent every year on 2,000 gaming machines, and this is at a time when more people are being identified as problem or at-risk gamblers. Action is needed now. If this Parliament is unwilling to act, the Scottish Parliament is. Will the Minister start today the process of devolving all gambling powers to the Scottish Parliament?

[Tracey Crouch]

We have already devolved a number of powers to the Scottish Parliament that it has yet to take up.

National Railway Museum and Ownership of National Assets

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on raising this incredibly important matter? He has not only highlighted the specifics of the National Railway Museum’s decision to dispose of these three locomotives to private companies but given the House the opportunity to debate the principle of who has the power to do what with important national assets. Unlike some of the previous speakers, I cannot claim to be an enthusiast. I cannot possibly display the passion of the hon. Members for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), but I can claim to have been born a platform’s length—albeit a long one—from the legendary St Rollox works in Springburn in Glasgow many years ago.

[Rachael Maskell]

I just need to correct the hon. Gentleman: nothing has moved into private organisations. They are charitable organisations.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank the hon. Lady for that, but I think we are dancing on the head of a pin. They have been taken out of public ownership and removed from public control.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I have had advice from an academic lawyer who has investigated Swanage Railway in particular. It has charitable connections but is actually a private company.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of clarification.

I am not at all surprised that a locomotive engine was the motivation behind today’s debate because I well remember, just before the summer recess, being caught between the hon. Member for Luton North and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) as they indulged in a deeply passionate, highly technical and absolutely bewildering debate on every aspect of every vehicle ever invented that had wheels and an engine. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion for and knowledge of the subject.

This debate goes much further than the deaccession of the three locomotives in question. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—it raises the question of who has the right to deaccession, flog off, privatise or sell these national assets and treasures that the public believe are being held securely for future generations to enjoy and appreciate. Let me be absolutely clear: I am making no criticism whatsoever of the Foxfield Railway company, the Swanage Railway Trust or any other recipient of these locomotives.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

As I said in my speech, I am an absolute admirer of all the heritage railways and have been on many of them myself. They do a fabulous job supplementing the national collection.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Gentleman is right. This is not about the companies involved; it is about questioning the decision of the National Railway Museum to dispose of its assets to organisations that, however reputable, are steam railway services and not accredited railway museums.

As we have heard on a number of occasions, this is not a loan of an asset to another organisation; it is the disposal of an asset. Deaccessioning is defined as the process by which a work of art or object is permanently removed from a museum’s collection. As it stands, a national museum seems unilaterally to have decided to dispose out of public ownership a number of its assets into private hands. That sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Today we are talking about three locomotive engines being passed on, but where could that lead? Will the cuts affecting the arts and culture budget in England in particular lead to other museums and collections disposing of assets similarly?

I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for York Central and have no doubt that a transfer to enthusiasts may seem like an attractive option. However, I fear that it is not a long-term solution for how we deal with our industrial heritage. These are national assets, and they should remain within the ownership and care of the National Railway Museum. The hon. Member for Darlington asked a number of very pertinent questions about the whole idea of gifting these assets from our national museum collection.

There are a number of questions to be answered. Why were these locomotives allowed to be given to the companies they were given to? Why did the National Railway Museum feel unable to look after this important part of our industrial heritage? What did the museum mean when it said that the T3 in particular was causing an “imbalance” in its collection? Given this precedent, how can the Government guarantee that other museums will not deaccession some of their collection in order to ease financial worries? As the hon. Member for Luton North said, where is the strategy for preserving this country’s cultural heritage?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is about more than just the fate of these three locomotives, important as they are. It sets a dangerous precedent for who has the right to deaccession, flog off or privatise these national assets, which should be held for future generations to enjoy and appreciate.

Scottish National party Members believe that culture and heritage make an invaluable contribution to our social and economic wellbeing. Everyone, no matter their background, should be able to experience, enjoy and access these cultural activities and pleasures. Despite this Government’s swingeing cuts, I am pleased to say that the SNP Scottish Government are doing their utmost to preserve the culture budget in Scotland, and national museums in Scotland are still free to access for everyone, regardless of where they come from.

In conclusion, I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and agree with what he said. We are entering dangerous territory if national assets can be disposed of without public consultation. That is something we have to be very wary of and guard against.

Leaving the EU: Data Protection

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s extensive understanding of these issues, not only from his time as a Minister but since. His understanding is so good that he has correctly anticipated the next page of my speech. That is exactly what we are seeking, because it is strongly in the mutual interests of the UK and the rest of the EU that such an arrangement is put in place.

Having just set out my punchline, perhaps I can describe the build-up to it. The goal is for data to be unhindered when security and privacy are respected. It must be unhindered, so that trade and communication can be effective and so that we can innovate in the use of information, including through advanced techniques such as machine learning and artificial intelligence. But data can be unhindered only where it is appropriate for it to go—with data held securely and privacy respected—which means where there are high standards of cyber-security and data protection.

On cyber-security, the 2017 British Chambers of Commerce digital economy survey reveals that at least one in five UK firms were subject to a cyber-attack in 2016, with larger firms more likely to be hit. As more and more citizens, and the wider economy, rely so heavily on digital technology, it is vital to keep data safe from cyber-attack. On the other side of the coin from strong cyber-security is strong data protection. The UK has been a world leader in data protection for a long time, combining privacy with support for dynamic data-driven innovation. We are determined to ensure that, after our exit from the EU, the UK remains a global leader, promoting both the flow of data internationally and high standards of data protection.

For more than a generation, the Data Protection Act 1998 has been regarded as the gold standard in the world. That Act, which was based on European rules set out in 1995, was the result of a piece of work that started under the then Conservative Government, with the legislation enacted by the subsequent Labour Government. That demonstrates the cross-party approach that has been taken to data protection in the UK. Technology marches on, however. It is almost 20 years since the 1998 Act, but the legislation needs to be kept up to date in this changing world. The Data Protection Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place earlier this week, will modernise data protection legislation, giving citizens more rights over their data while allowing businesses to use modern data management techniques. It offers greater transparency and accountability, thus giving people more reassurance about how their personal data is used by businesses and organisations. Increased accountability and public confidence in how data is used can enhance the digital economy for the benefit of all.

To return to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Bill will prepare Britain for Brexit. It will extend the EU’s general data protection regulation—GDPR—and bring into UK law the law enforcement directive. It will extend the principles of GDPR into many areas of our domestic law, which will help to ensure that we prepare the UK for the future after we have left the EU. The implementation of the Bill will ensure that we preserve the concepts of the Data Protection Act that have served us so well. We will aim to ensure that the transition for businesses, individuals and charities is as smooth as possible, while complying with the GDPR and the law enforcement directive in full. That means we will be as well placed as possible to achieve the unhindered flow of data with the EU through something akin to the adequacy deal mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. That is strongly in the interests of both sides in the negotiation.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

The Minister said “something akin” to an adequacy deal. Will he explain what that might mean?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

At the start of this week, the Prime Minister told the United Kingdom to be prepared for the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. The warning was clear and unambiguous that with gridlocked negotiations a no-deal Brexit was becoming increasingly likely. Of course, the effects of a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic. The consequences for our economy, our trade and our EU citizens are obvious, and they have been well documented. Less obvious, and among the multitude of hugely important issues that rarely make the headlines, is the impact on data protection of the UK leaving the European without a deal.

Data protection has been described by The Economist and others as:

“The world’s most valuable resource”.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) described data as “the new oil”. Currently, the UK Government define data protection as the controls on how personal information is used by organisations, businesses or the Government. Everyone responsible for using data has to follow strict rules, and they must make sure that the information is used fairly and lawfully. Information that is held on individuals can include their name, address, credit history, employment history, salary details and even internet browsing history. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members would wish some, if not all, that information to remain as secure as possible. Robust and strict data protection is therefore absolutely essential to avoid any improper use of that information, whether for online fraud or identity theft, and to keep it from falling into the hands of people or organisations with which we would rather not share it.

Data protection may not be something that we think about every day—indeed, it may not even cross our minds from one year to the next—[Interruption.] Perhaps that is not the case for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). Whether we think about data protection on a daily basis or not, its importance is not diminished. That is why it is absolutely vital that the level of data protection we currently enjoy as EU citizens is guaranteed on day one of Brexit, so that businesses and individuals can continue to rely on existing data flows. It is no exaggeration to say that millions of jobs across Europe rely on data protection and data processing to a greater or lesser extent.

As the Minister acknowledged, the security we receive from our data protection legislation already has a distinctly European flavour, originating as it does from the 1995 EU data protection directive, which was adopted into UK law in the Data Protection Act 1998. Since then, the way in which we create, collate, access and use data has changed enormously, as has the amount of data we create as individuals and as a society. In recognition of that, in 2016 the EU introduced a new legislative framework for data protection: the general data protection regulation, of which we have heard so much, and the police and criminal justice directive. Both those pieces of legislation form the basis of the Data Protection Bill that is in Committee in the other place. The regulations will apply in member states from 2018, and EU member states are required to transpose the directive into national law by the same date.

The Scottish National party agreed with the Minister when he said in February that the GDPR was a “good piece of legislation”. We were pleased that it was included in the Queen’s Speech and that the Government made it clear that our current data protection framework would be amended and made compatible, so that we can adopt the new regulations. We very much welcome the Government’s move to implement the GDPR, giving people more power and control over their own data.

In normal circumstances, I believe that that piece of legislation would be relatively uncontentious. However, as it has done and I believe it will continue to do, Brexit makes the subject of data protection hugely problematic. If we are to leave the EU in March 2019, what is the future for our newly agreed and freshly implemented cross-border, pan-European arrangement with our EU partners? What will be the consequences for businesses and individuals if the UK suddenly finds itself on the outside without a deal to continue the free flow of data not just with the European Union, but with the safe nations with which the EU has secured a reciprocal deal? At a stroke, could the United Kingdom lose its right to exchange data with the United States, a nation on which the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade seems to be pinning so much hope for our future trade?

We are in an era in which geographical boundaries for data do not exist. Today, as probably every speaker in this debate has said, almost half the large EU digital companies are based in the UK, and a remarkable 75% of cross-border data flow out of the UK is with EU countries. We also have significant data flow with the United States, which occurs because we enjoy access to the EU’s privacy shield agreement. There is no such thing as sovereignty where data is concerned. Currently, we are a signed-up member of an international network committed to safeguarding data. In this global economy, the unfettered free flow of data across international boundaries safely and without delay, cost or detriment is absolutely essential, not just for individuals and businesses but for agencies that need to work across international boundaries. We have heard about many of those agencies today, and they deal with matters such as crime prevention, disease control and national and international security.

For the UK to be able to take full advantage of the continued free flow of data with the rest of the European Union post Brexit, the most straightforward route would be for the EU to issue an adequacy decision. An adequacy decision, as we have heard, is given to a third country—a country that is outside the EU and the EEA—to allow it to operate securely and freely within the framework of the GDPR. It can be given to countries that meet the required standard of data protection, a criterion that currently applies to the United Kingdom. The problem is, however, that an adequacy decision is designed for third countries, and the UK is not—yet—a third country. Indeed, it will not be one until the end of the Brexit process. There is no existing legal mechanism to enable the EU to award an adequacy decision to a country in advance of its leaving the EU. As the leading data protection lawyer, Rosemary Jay, said, the EU has to go through a legislative process, and it is simply not in the EU’s gift to do this in an informal way. I cannot comprehend what the Minister meant when he said that he sought “something akin to” an adequacy deal.

[Matt Hancock]

The negotiation of the EU’s future relationship with the UK is not some sort of informal approach; it is a very formal set of talks. We hope that it will lead to a good deal, which we hope will include this area. That is exactly what I meant.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank the Minister for his point, but I stress again what Rosemary Jay said: the Commission has to go through a legislative process, and it is not within the EU’s gift to do this in an informal way. There could be a further complication in the UK’s achievement of an adequacy decision. As the hon. Member for Cardiff West said, ahead of granting an adequacy decision the European Commission is obliged to consider a variety of issues, such as the rule of law, respect for human rights and legislation on national security, public security and criminal law.

That being so, there is a very strong suggestion that the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 may jeopardise the ability of the UK to receive a positive adequacy decision. The Investigatory Powers Act has already been accused of violating EU fundamental rights. Eduardo Ustaran, the internationally recognised expert on data protection law, has said:

“What the U.K. needs to do is convince the Commission—and perhaps one day the European Court of Justice—that the Investigatory Powers Act is compatible with fundamental rights. That’s a tall order”.

While the Government are understandably desperate to secure an adequacy decision, the harsh reality is that a lengthy and challenging legal process may have to be undertaken before that happens.

I fear the Government are in denial about this. Indeed, when questioned by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee back in February about what would happen on the day after Brexit if we do not have an adequacy decision in place, the Minister said:

“we seek unhindered data flows but we want that to happen in an uninterrupted way—that is to say, on the morning on which we have left the European Union, it is very important that our data rules work, so that there is an uninterrupted system in place”.

He is absolutely right—I could not agree more—but that did not answer the question about what happens if we do not have such an adequacy decision in place on the day we leave.

Just yesterday, at the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I asked the Secretary of State a very similar question about the need to have an adequacy decision in place when the UK leaves the EU. Her answer was that she was

“very hopeful of getting that deal”.

I am sure she is and I wish her well, but at the moment there is no deal in place. The longer negotiations are at a stalemate, while we continue without the legal mechanism to get a third country deal, and, given the issues in relation to the Investigatory Powers Act, securing the agreement the UK needs and absolutely desires is becoming less and less likely.

Another potentially huge problem arises if we do not secure an adequacy decision by the day on which we leave the European Union, because not only will we be outside the EU and isolated from the other 27 member states, but we will also be outside the EU-USA privacy shield agreement. The consequences of that happening may be unthinkable for UK businesses and individuals, but it is absolutely incumbent on the Government to think the unthinkable and to be adequately prepared for it. Putting all their eggs in the one basket of hoping to secure a negotiated adequacy decision is a very high stakes game, so I again ask Ministers: where is the plan B should there not be an adequacy decision? What assessment has been made of the UK not having such a decision in place on the morning on which we leave the European Union, and when will Members of the House be able to see that plan B and that assessment?

Nobody wants such a situation to arise—we want a deal to be struck—but even if the Government’s faith is rewarded and we do secure an adequacy decision, the UK faces another problem. As the GDPR evolves over time, as it surely will, the UK, to maintain its membership, will be required to amend its data protection law to keep in line with European law. The EU charter of fundamental rights and freedoms is now central to EU data protection law, and the charter is interpreted by the European Court of Justice, yet clause 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill quite clearly states that EU courts will cease to bind UK courts and tribunals following withdrawal. I suspect that if the UK does manage to secure an adequacy decision, to keep it, it will have to fall into line with the European Union Court of Justice.

As I said at the start, we welcome the Bill as a move to ensure that people have more control over their own data and to bring the legislation into line with the huge technological advances since the 1998 Act. We welcome the commitment to implementing the GDPR and to the UK remaining fully involved in protecting EU citizens’ data post-Brexit. We question, and we will continue to question, the Government on how they can take this forward when an adequacy decision is not guaranteed and while there are still unresolved issues about the Investigatory Powers Act, at the same time as they are seeking to remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

Of course, it does not have to be this way. The best, easiest and most straightforward way to ensure that there are no disruptions to data flows between the UK and the EU after Brexit is for the United Kingdom to remain a full member of the single market. The agony and the fear for millions of businesses and individuals of being cut off from both Europe and America if we do not secure an adequacy decision could be avoided by our staying in the single market. Why put people and businesses through this?

After all, no one in any of the nations of the United Kingdom voted to leave the single market. In fact, two of the four nations of the United Kingdom voted to remain in the European Union. We are in this situation because of the Conservative party’s extreme interpretation of Brexit, and that is why we are now actually having to prepare ourselves for what, hitherto, was unimaginable—a no-deal Brexit, with the catastrophic consequences that it will inevitably have for our society and our economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My breath is taken away by the very suggestion. I do not like to correct my hon. Friend, but 2021 will be the City of Culture year. I will not be making any further comments on that, given the shortlist. The Commonwealth games will be in 2022, and he will have heard the Prime Minister’s comments at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, when she gave a very firm backing to Birmingham’s bid.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

The UK’s creative and cultural industries have benefited greatly economically, creatively and culturally from being part of Europe for the past 40 years. That explains why 96% of the Creative Industries Federation voted to remain in the European Union. Other than assuring them that it will be all right on the night, can the Secretary of State tell me what she is doing to ensure that the creative and cultural industries will be able to access the talent and skills that they need from across the European Union? Does she agree that the UK staying in the single market, at least, is the best way to do that?

Sky/Fox Merger

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

As I have not had the chance to do so in the House, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his return as Chair of the Select Committee. I look forward to being interrogated by him, I am sure at length, in a few weeks’ time. He is right: the process is set down in the Enterprise Act. Parliament voted for this process, and it has asked me as Secretary of State to follow the process. I have taken that role very seriously, and I will continue to make sure that I act scrupulously fairly in this matter.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of her statement. She rightly acknowledges that there is growing public concern about the concentration of media ownership in fewer and fewer hands. SNP Members absolutely share those concerns. It is essential that there is a plurality of voices within the media across the UK for the maintenance of diversity and standards.

Before the recess, SNP MPs absolutely welcomed the fact that the Secretary of State was minded to refer this matter to the CMA, and we are delighted that she has now confirmed that it is her position so to do. We also welcome the fact that she is now minded to refer the takeover on the grounds of broadcasting standards as well. In doing so, I believe that she has bolstered the confidence of the public that broadcasting standards and diversity within the media will have been carefully considered, even should this takeover be given the green light at some point in the future.

If the CMA says that this deal does not pass the public standards test, will the Secretary of State follow its advice, or, in her quasi-judicial role, will she allow Fox to make further representations and give assurances before she reaches a final decision? As the process is ongoing, will she commit to consulting MPs such as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) to ensure that employees’ views are also taken into account before she reaches a decision? We welcome her commitment to openness and transparency, but will she do everything she can, within given constraints, to ensure that the announcement of a decision, when it is reached, is made to this House rather than through a written ministerial statement?

[Karen Bradley]

To deal with the last point first, I have given every statement to the House first. The only occasions on which I have not been able to come to the House in person have been when Parliament has been in recess. At those times, I have always written to Mr Speaker, the Lord Speaker, the Chairs of Select Committees and my shadow on the Opposition Front Bench. I will continue to ensure that Parliament hears first about any decisions that I take.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), who I know has raised concerns in this Chamber about Sky employees. The terms on which I can intervene on the merger are set out very clearly in the Enterprise Act 2002. They relate to public interest tests, and I am minded that the CMA should look further at those on plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards. The rules governing this process are quite prescriptive, but I am aware of the hon. Lady’s concerns.

It is worth putting it on record that although nothing has changed in my “minded to” decision on plurality, I can make a referral to the CMA only once. I must make that referral on the basis of all the grounds for referral; I cannot do it piecemeal. That is why I have not yet referred to the CMA on the issue of plurality. Now that I have set out my “minded to” decision, the parties have 10 working days to come back to me. I will then make a final decision on the basis of that.

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is an important part of the process of gaining public confidence in media mergers. It is something that Parliament has prescribed, and I am determined to ensure that I abide by the rules.

BBC Transparency

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

In the interests of transparency, like the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) and Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), I, too, am a product of the BBC, having spent almost a decade of my career as a television producer there. I have many great memories from there, and indeed made good friends during an interesting career. The BBC has many faults, and I have never stepped back from calling it out on those, but I am a critical friend of the BBC who will defend absolutely its editorial independence.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing this debate. He raised important issues relating to complaints, commissioning, accuracy and honesty, and the gender pay gap. Although those issues mainly related to Northern Ireland, they do have a resonance across the UK, as we heard in contributions from the hon. Members for Eastleigh, for Keighley (John Grogan) and for Taunton Deane, and from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).

The hon. Member for Eastleigh spoke about the gender pay gap and working in BBC local radio. It says something if she is too old for radio, although I do not believe it for a minute. The hon. Member for Keighley talked about looking after those workers at the bottom of the pay scale.

I feel the pain of the hon. Member for Taunton Deane. Like her, I have experience as a struggling independent producer trying to get commissions. We have missed out on many excellent ideas from Oh! Television.

[Rebecca Pow]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

Slightly in jest, if one did reach that stage, one might put in some proposals to make programmes about one’s life here. Perhaps the BBC might find that entertaining.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I think it would have to be broadcast after the watershed.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made an important point about how the BBC managed to get away with what it was doing in terms of the gender pay gap for so long. Transparency is absolutely essential. She also mentioned the discrepancy between what is raised in Scotland and what is spent in Scotland, and I agree that that is unacceptable and must be addressed as soon as possible.

We are living in an age in which society quite rightly expects—indeed it increasingly demands—transparency and openness as the hallmarks of our society. Anything and any organisation that benefits from the public purse has to be open and accepting of that scrutiny. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry said, we in this place, above all, are open to scrutiny and transparency. Going forward, the BBC has to expect those standards as well. At a time when it was emerging from a series of damaging historical scandals, with accusations of it being complicit and numerous attempts at cover-up, it was something of a surprise to many of us that the BBC should be so vehemently opposed to having to publish how much its top presenters earn. Indeed the then chair of the BBC Trust, Rona Fairhead, said that it was “disappointed” that it would have to change and that the decision on the disclosure of presenters’ pay was not, in her opinion,

“in the long-term interests of licence fee payers”.

Even the director-general, Tony Hall, questioned the merit of the Government’s decision, saying,

“this will not make it easier for the BBC to retain the talent the public love”.

He continued:

“The BBC is already incredibly transparent.”

The much-fabled BBC insider fed to the press that it would be a “massive headache” for the BBC if it were forced to publish presenters’ pay. Indeed. Those were prophetic words, because that did give it a massive headache—but for very different reasons from those it first imagined. It must have thought that there would be a day of voyeuristic tittle-tattle in the office when it came out. It did not realise that that frenzy of indignation, which it thought would pass in 24 hours, would take on arms and legs in the way it has.

By forcing the BBC to reveal its salaries, it revealed its gender pay gap. It must have been living in some kind of time warp not to have realised what it was doing. The disparity between top-earning men and top-earning women is and was shocking. It is something that the BBC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, had no right to hide from the very people who finance the corporation. The BBC, as we have heard, is in a privileged and unique situation, and therefore it has to undergo a level of scrutiny far beyond those in the commercial sector. The gender pay gap, the scandal and the attempt to cover it up, at a time when the BBC’s popularity, particularly in Scotland, was on the wane, are mind-boggling. The decision to force the BBC to disclose its top salaries has been vindicated, because had it not, the gender equality issue would have remained hidden and unrecognised, and therefore unchallenged.

I realise that I am running short of time; I conclude by saying that the gender pay gap is not the only problem. I urge the BBC to look, as a matter of urgency, at the pay gap that exists within its own structures. What also emerged during this scandal was the massive pay gap that exists between the top and bottom earners within the BBC, with the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union reporting that 400 BBC employees earn less than 1% of its top-earning presenter. That is a scandal, and it should be addressed immediately. I look forward to the BBC taking it on and making a better job of that than it did of the gender pay gap.