BBC Transparency

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the transparency of the BBC.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Bone. I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight my concerns about the lack of transparency in the BBC’s use of public money in Northern Ireland and, I am sure, more widely. I secured a debate on the subject on a previous occasion but had to withdraw it for a variety of reasons. My concerns are not unique to Northern Ireland, but my speech will focus on BBC NI.

The BBC’s mission is

“to inform, educate and entertain audiences with programmes and services of high quality, originality and value.”

It used to be considered a reliable source of news and informative programming. It was the broadcaster to go to in times of crisis or turmoil—the dependable, publicly funded broadcaster. I am sorry to inform the House that as a result of events over the last few years, the BBC’s standing has been diminished.

Correspondence from MPs frequently goes totally unanswered or is met with a reply that avoids the issues. Questions about the use of public money are ignored or have a veil of secrecy pulled over them. I have concluded that the BBC fat cats in Belfast are either incredibly arrogant or incredibly shifty. What they are not is open and transparent. I have written to the BBC, but have had to come to this Chamber to raise these serious issues. I use the term “fat cats” because some of the best people in the BBC are the lowest-paid: the foot soldier producers and editors who work long shifts and arrange all the programmes.

I have long argued for maximum transparency from the BBC. I have several concerns. The first relates to pay transparency. The BBC nationally has long resisted the public demand for pay transparency, but it eventually agreed to publish the salaries of 96 stars, as they are called. Their combined salaries were almost £30 million. The public are now somewhat better informed about how their money has been used; we now know that the BBC believes that men should get more money than women for doing the same task. There was an outrageous gender pay disparity. It took a decade for the BBC to be dragged to the point of publishing all salaries of more than £150,000 per year.

In recent months, the BBC has indicated that more staff will be moved off the direct payroll and will therefore not feature in any published list next year, even though they are paid in excess of the £150,000 benchmark. So much for greater transparency. Whether that is motivated by the desire to reduce BBC staff’s personal tax liabilities, to avoid public scrutiny, or both, it is a shameful insight into the BBC top brass’s complete disregard for transparency.

An outrageous double standard is at play. While BBC presenters question elected representatives and others paid by the public purse about their salary and office costs, they hide behind a veil of secrecy about their own publicly funded annual salaries of £200,000, £300,000, £400,000 or more. I am glad that the salaries, overheads and so on of those in this Parliament are accessible to the taxpayer for scrutiny; that is how it should be. Why should the public money funding the BBC be treated any differently? I do not agree with BBC staff avoiding tax by channelling money through obscure personal service companies. This House should consider the ethics of that practice with respect to public money.

My second concern about transparency relates to complaints. A constituent of mine made a very simple freedom of information request:

“I request the number of complaints recorded against matters carried by BBC Northern Ireland for the following outlets: BBC Good Morning Ulster, BBC Nolan (radio), BBC Nolan Live (TV), BBC TalkBack, BBC Evening Extra, BBC Newsline, BBC NI website”.

That was not an unreasonable request. How many complaints have been launched? My constituent received the following reply:

“The information that you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion.”

So much for transparency. That reply was sent by Mr Mark Adair, BBC Northern Ireland’s head of corporate and community affairs. He told my constituent that he holds the information but needs it

“for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’”

That is clearly nonsense. Why would a publicly funded media organisation not be prepared to make public the number of complaints about its programmes from members of the public?

My third concern relates to the commissioning of programmes. Across the UK—though I will deal with Northern Ireland—the BBC commissions independent companies to produce programmes. However, independent production companies, editing companies and camera and lighting specialists are concerned that they are not getting a fair deal. I have heard stories of slow or reduced payments and a culture of fear. Those stories are fresh in my mind, because I heard them at first hand from those affected when I began to probe the commissioning process.

I wanted to establish what auditing mechanism exists for programmes, both when the contract is awarded and after the finished product has been delivered and broadcast. I also wanted to know how the BBC, as the main contractor, could be sure that subcontractors such as camera operators, lighting operators and editors were paid for their work under the contract. I asked some simple questions of Susan Lovell, the head of multi-platform commissioning for BBC Northern Ireland. I have yet to receive satisfactory answers to those 18 numbered questions, but I was offered a private briefing. The links in her response were so numerous that my printer ran out of ink and paper before I could print them all. The briefing is a nice offer, and I am sure I will take it up, but I would prefer answers.

On Tuesday I emailed Susan Lovell again, knowing that this debate had been tabled. I made my email even more succinct. I asked three straight questions:

“1. When programmes are commissioned and public money granted, how is the use of this money audited?

2. Is an external auditor employed to ensure this public money is appropriated in an ethical manner?

3. If a Commission is granted, can the contracted production company then seek additional monies for travel and other unforeseen production costs?”

Setting aside the fact that I am an MP, I would have assumed as a viewer that that was a perfectly reasonable set of queries.

I received a reply yesterday. It is funny how quickly minds can be exercised when a debate is about to be held; it takes weeks and months otherwise. The reply said:

“Expenditure profiles are a routine feature of programme proposals and allow us to make an informed assessment”.

I always get fearful when I hear answers from large companies that talk about informed assessments, but this was an informed assessment of

“value for money; and we routinely audit our work and output against a range of metrics.”

The key words there are “we routinely audit”; one of my questions was whether an external auditor was employed—I think I have got an answer to that question, even if indirectly. When a programme is commissioned, delivered and broadcast, invoices relating to that contract should then be published online. That happens in many other areas of public service.

I turn to a specific example. In October 2014, a BBC Northern Ireland series, entitled “Story of a Lifetime”, was broadcast. According to the credits, it was produced for BBC NI by a company called Third Street Studios. However, according to Companies House,

“Third Street Studios was incorporated on 2 December 2014, after the series was delivered”.

Almost one year ago, I cited this example and asked the BBC some questions:

“1. To whom and when did BBC NI award the contract for the 2014 series ‘Story of a Lifetime’?

2. What address did BBC NI use to communicate the commission to ‘Third Street Studios’?

3. Did BBC NI check if ‘Third Street Studios’ was incorporated before the programme was commissioned?”

To date, neither the company involved nor the BBC have been able to tell me where the Third Street Studios office is, how much the contract was for and to whom the contract was awarded.

I understand that a director of Third Street Studios is a BBC presenter. Indeed, according to the map on the Third Street Studios website, its office is at Belfast city hall. The “about us” section of the website declares:

“We pride ourselves in understanding mass market television. We don’t do ‘niche’. We do ‘massive’”.

This production company is so massive that I cannot find its office in Belfast. In fact, when I went online, according to the Google map provided, the company’s location is fairly prestigious: in front of Belfast city hall—at a taxi rank. Again, we have some questions that need answering.

When I emailed the company and its director, he said:

“I don’t think that it would be helpful, or appropriate”

to answer my questions. For clarity, I asked about the procurement process, the contract value, the date the contract was awarded and the tendering process for appointing subcontractors. Remember, this is about a series that has already been broadcast on BBC television. The company director said that

“my work…could only properly be understood if equivalent information about all other production companies and their contracts with the BBC were to be placed in the public domain.”

So “I’ll go if you get everyone else to go”—that is effectively what he was saying.

That is further evidence of straightforward and simple questions being ignored. We need full transparency in BBC commissioning, and we need evidence that BBC commission contracts are externally audited.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very sound case about the BBC, but does he agree that it was this Government who called for increased transparency—maybe not in the areas that he is covering, but certainly on pay rates? They have actually unlocked many of the things that we will debate today, so this Government are definitely holding the BBC to account. Perhaps they should do more, but they are definitely working in this area.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree with her: the campaign over the past years to get further transparency is a work in progress, and we are much more advanced than we were 10 or 12 years ago. However, as I am outlining, there is much more work to do.

The fourth area that I want to cover is BBC accuracy and honesty. The BBC prides itself on posing questions, and all of us here are subject to those questions, but it is not very good at providing answers. In two instances during the past year, there have been very serious questions for the corporation in Northern Ireland to answer.

A green energy scheme with an initial potential overspend of public money is currently subject to a public inquiry; I do not intend to trespass on issues that are best dealt with in that inquiry. However, the Executive in Northern Ireland were collapsed by Sinn Féin under the pretext of what they claimed was the mishandling of that scheme. Early this year, a BBC Radio Ulster programme carried this topic for 56 consecutive days. The presenter of that programme, who just happens to be the director of Third Street Studios, used inaccurate and outrageous commentary. I will briefly give two quotes. He said:

“One of the biggest financial scandals to have ever happened in Northern Ireland: under the government’s watch, £400million of your money has been allowed to go up in smoke”.

He also said:

“What it means is that hundreds of millions of pounds of your money cannot go into schools, education, other departments in our country because the money has been squandered, the money has been wasted.”

This situation continued for a prolonged period until I appeared on the programme and confronted this deliberate misrepresentation. As the scheme had only just begun and was scheduled to last for 20 years, I asked why the presenter kept saying that the public’s money had been “wasted” and gone “up in smoke”. Only after my appearance, which was accompanied by strong letters of protest from my party to the BBC hierarchy, was the use of this reprehensible language stopped.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a surprisingly compelling argument, but did not the scandal that he is referring to bring down the Northern Ireland Government? As such, was it not entirely newsworthy for 56 days—or more?

[Mr Campbell]

I have no objection whatsoever to any media organisation concentrating on events, particularly events of such import, but when it scandalously misrepresents things, as those comments and the comments of others did, and then the comments are changed after I and others confront the presenter about his misrepresentation, it proves that the BBC knows that it overstepped the mark in its initial comments. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I have no quibble or argument with the BBC deliberating at length on the subject, but the issue was compounded by the presenter’s gross misrepresentation of the facts.

A substantial complaint about those inaccuracies was lodged with the BBC, and that is ongoing; the BBC has not yet comprehensively responded to the complaints, which are from eight months ago. The complaints process is obviously laborious and bureaucratic; for those who have not yet embarked on it, I can attest to that.

I will give another, very insidious example. “Spotlight” is an investigative programme in Northern Ireland that has won awards through the years. In October last year, BBC NI television broadcast an edition looking at people who had been victims of alleged shooting by police officers in the early stages of the troubles. It was critical of the police, and both serving and former officers were concerned about the one-sided picture that it portrayed.

Shortly after the broadcast, I was contacted by someone who informed me that the reporter who had conducted the interviews and carried out the broadcast on the BBC had been a serving police officer, so I wrote to the reporter in the following terms:

“I write to confirm some details regarding a recent BBC Spotlight programme. I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions.

1. Have you ever served as a police officer in Northern Ireland? If yes, please outline the circumstances that led to you leaving the police?

2. Have you ever been known by any other name than—”

And I named her. I continued: “If so, what?” My understanding was that she had married and that her surname had changed since the programme was broadcast. I continued:

“3. As the presenter of an investigative programme which was critical of the police, do you believe that you had a conflict of interest?

4. Did BBC NI ask you to complete the declaration of interest prior to this programme?

5. How much public money was paid to you for your services in that programme?”

The sixth question was the most critical:

“Does the below BBC News story from 10 years previously relate to you?”

That news story was about a serving police officer who was in court and faced a charge—not a terrorist charge. In his concluding remarks, the judge said to that police officer that she should have known better than to give her sister’s name instead of her name. He bound her over to be of good behaviour for a year on her own bond of £500, and warned her that she could forfeit some or all of that money if she breached the order. I am informed that the person who was in court subsequently left the police, joined the BBC and did a programme that was critical of the police. No explanation has been given as to why it is critical, or why that reporter did what she did. Did she state on a declaration of interest that she was a former police officer? Did the BBC know that and then allow her to do a programme that was critical of the police?

I leave you to guesstimate, Mr Bone, what would happen in the public arena if it was discovered, after I or anyone else in this House raised an issue, that we had an interest in it that we did not declare. That is why we, and the BBC, have declarations of interest.

I did not receive an answer to any of those questions. I did not even receive an acknowledgment. I submitted a request for this debate in March, but it did not go ahead at that stage. I asked the same questions, but did not receive a response then either.

Strange to say, this week, after I had applied for the debate a third time, I received a reply from the aforementioned Mr Mark Adair, who said:

“We have been made aware of your emails to a named BBC journalist”.

Nine months after I began this process, and 24 hours before a debate, I receive a response saying that the BBC has become “aware” of my emails! The reply continued:

“the BBC has robust arrangements in place to avoid any potential conflicts of interest…we would be grateful if you direct any future correspondence about BBC staff and/or policy to me or to our Directors Office.”

That avoided the question again.

The fifth and final area I wish to cover is declarations of interest. In Parliament, MPs, Ministers and civil servants are very aware of the need to declare interests and, as I said, the BBC also has a process for its journalists to declare any interests. When a constituent, using freedom of information powers, asked to see the declarations of interests of some BBC presenters and senior staff, the reply said:

“All staff are required to complete a Declaration of Personal Interests upon joining the BBC”.

That is good as far as it goes, but it went on to say:

“We will not be disclosing...because the information that you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of”—

guess what?—

“‘journalism, art or literature.’”

That seems to cover everything. When someone does not want to answer questions, they use the cloak of “journalism, art or literature”.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

Many people have contacted my hon. Friend and me with concerns about so-called news programmes. The issue is that programmes often now straddle news and entertainment. Many members of the public have contacted me with the concern that a narrative and agenda is set, and then programmes set about getting participants who support that narrative, which is emphasised with key messages throughout the programmes. My hon. Friend makes a particularly important point about declarations of interests, because unless the public know what those interests are, we cannot scrutinise properly whether a public service broadcaster is carrying out its public duties appropriately—regardless of whether the producers are contracted in or not—being fair and balanced, and presenting the facts and all perspectives so that the public have the best opportunity to come to their own conclusions on these important matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is right, and we have noticed that the BBC—particularly in the last three or four years, for some reason—has become much more sensationalist.

I ask a straightforward question, which most people—even the BBC—should be able to answer: what is the point of having a declaration of interests, if no one knows what is in it? What is the point of that? Why would the BBC do that? Why would it ask people to declare any interests, but if anyone wants to find out whether somebody making a programme has an interest, say: “We’re not going to tell you, under”—the great catch-all—“the auspices of journalism, art or literature”? It is an entirely reasonable request that all BBC presenters’ declarations of interests be published.

I do not expect the Minister to be able to respond definitively today to every avenue that I have taken the debate down, but these matters need to be aired, so that the hierarchy in the BBC, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister are aware of what has happened and the lengths to which some of us have gone to try to get answers to straightforward questions. The bottom line here is that the BBC needs to radically alter the way it carries out its business—using our money. That is the point: it is using public money. Its procedures need overhauling, its lack of transparency is appalling, and the case for change was never more apparent.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

It might be helpful for Members to know that I think five Back-Bench Members who wish to speak. I do not intend to impose a time limit, but the wind-ups will have to start at 2.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I am delighted that so many Members were able to take part in the debate. I thank the Minister for his response. I trust, as he indicated, that the BBC, at hierarchy level, will respond definitively to not only my questions, letters and emails but those of all other public representatives. We want to see a BBC of which we can be rightly proud—one that is independent, fearless and questions and pursues issues, but that is also transparent and accountable—so that people can defend the BBC locally, nationally and internationally.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the transparency of the BBC.