BBC (Parliamentary Oversight)

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

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

[David Morris]

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

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

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

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

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