BBC Commissioning

Debate between Gregory Campbell and John Grogan

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The compulsory nature of the licence fee has been raised on previous occasions, and I am glad that he has raised it again today.

Troubling questions remain on the issue of independent accountability. Independent media companies in Northern Ireland have approached me. They are concerned that they do not get a fair deal because of the lack of transparency. I intend to go into that in a little detail, Mr Betts.

I first raised concerns about the BBC Northern Ireland commissioning process back in November 2016—two years and four months ago—when I asked a series of questions of the BBC. Some hon. Members will recall that I raised similar matters in the House in September 2017; I was forced down this route after BBC Northern Ireland kept stonewalling.

Initially, I raised the question of how contracts were awarded. I raised that with senior BBC management and with some who were BBC presenters and had benefited from contracts. Answers were not forthcoming. As a result of the lack of accountability and openness, I took the matter to the office of the BBC director-general, Lord Tony Hall, in April 2018, my questions still not having had satisfactory responses. My concern then focused on a single contract that I was aware of relating to a company called Third Street Studios. There are three points to ponder in relation to Third Street Studios. First, the contract was awarded to a company that did not exist at the time of broadcast, the contract having already been paid. Secondly, this particular company has repeatedly received contracts worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. Thirdly—this is the irony—the company had no office and the postal address on its website took anyone who investigated to a taxi rank in Belfast city centre. The lack of independent accountability for these significant sums is staggering.

By August 2018, I still was not getting answers. I then went to the National Audit Office here in London to try to obtain satisfaction about taxpayers’ money, those who were, if I can put it like this, on the inside track in the BBC and how they did not account for their expenditure. I met the National Audit Office, and the meeting was good and constructive. The National Audit Office was then helpful in writing to me to confirm that although it does not normally investigate this type of contractual expenditure, an investigation would be opened up into a number of areas concerning the BBC Northern Ireland commissioning process. I want to concentrate on this for a few moments, just to show the significance of it. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that the National Audit Office of the United Kingdom has found grounds to investigate BBC Northern Ireland on a contract of this nature. “Unprecedented” would be an appropriate word to describe this.

Let us just remember the guidelines that the BBC operates under. I will quote them briefly. On “Editorial Integrity and Independence”, the statement is as follows:

“The BBC is independent of outside interests and arrangements that could undermine our editorial integrity. Our audiences should be confident that our decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests.”

On “Fairness”, the BBC states:

“Our output will be based on fairness, openness, honesty and straight dealing.”

On “Transparency”, it states:

“We will be transparent about the nature and provenance of the content we offer online. Where appropriate, we will identify who has created it and will use labelling to help online users make informed decisions about the suitability of content for themselves and their children.”

Lastly, on “Accountability”, it states:

“We are accountable to our audiences and will deal fairly and openly with them. Their continuing trust in the BBC is a crucial part of our relationship with them. We will be open in acknowledging mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them.”

[John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)]

Given that last year I was the only Labour MP to join with most members of the Democratic Unionist party in defending press freedom when there was the chance of a state-appointed press regulator, will the hon. Gentleman recognise that investigations such as that into the renewable heat incentive by BBC Northern Ireland are in the long tradition of fearless investigative journalism by both the BBC and UTV that has served Northern Ireland well during the last 50 years, in both good times and bad?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes, I unequivocally agree with that. The only addendum I would make is that the BBC is not exempt from scrutiny itself—that is the point.

It is an appalling reflection on BBC Northern Ireland’s management that a Member of Parliament who has taken a keen interest in these issues both in Parliament and outside has had to take the steps that I have over many months to escalate concerns to the National Audit Office.

Future of BBC Parliament

Debate between Gregory Campbell and John Grogan

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Westminster Hall

[John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of BBC Parliament.

It gives me great pleasure to speak in praise of BBC Parliament, which is the most watched and most successful dedicated parliamentary TV channel in the world. In a good month, when there is controversy in this place, BBC Parliament has a reach of more than 2 million viewers. It is true that the average age of those viewers is quite high, with 60% of them over 60, but as I approach the age of 60—I would not presume to guess your age, Mr Robertson, but I am 57—I think that might not be such a bad thing, because many people involved in all our political parties are the “young retired”, which is a growing age group that needs to be served.

The whole population may not have noticed but BBC Parliament in its current form was under serious threat over the summer, and I want to speak in praise of the people, in this place and elsewhere, who saved it for the nation. Those people include the director-general of the BBC, Mr Speaker, the Lord Speaker, and the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). I intend to tell the story of what happened, which is a good story with a happy ending. I will do three things in my contribution: look at the history and the context of parliamentary broadcasting, consider the controversy over the summer, and try to point the way for the future. In 10 years, when, I anticipate, I will be retired and watching Yorkshire play cricket, where will BBC Parliament be?

While I was preparing for the debate over a cup of coffee in the Members’ Tea Room, I looked up and saw a picture of John Wilkes, which reminded me that the reporting of this place has never been straightforward and simple. There has always been controversy. My 14th birthday, 24 February 1975, happens to be the day that this House debated whether to televise Parliament. In the end, the House decided not to televise Parliament but instead to start experimenting with radio. Coverage began on the radio, and BBC Radio 4 listeners were up in arms about the afternoon play being shoved aside sometimes, but the experiment went on, and three years later it was confirmed that the BBC and others would be able to broadcast parliamentary proceedings on the radio permanently. I remember when I was 18 listening to Michael Foot summing up for Her Majesty’s Government against the vote of no confidence that finally brought the Government down by one vote. I remember being impressed by the atmosphere and the argument that night as I listened to the radio. That coverage was not easily achieved, however, and the debate then turned to television.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a timely debate, given the context that he has laid out. He talks about things that are not easily achieved. Does he agree that, in a wider context, what should be more easily achieved within the BBC is more openness and transparency regarding how it commissions programmes, spends money and deploys resources? There has been a veil of secrecy over much of the BBC. I do not make any assertions about BBC Parliament, but about the BBC more widely. We need to get to the nub of the matter in a wider BBC context.

I have applied for debates in this Chamber—thus far unsuccessfully, but hopefully I will be successful in the next few weeks—so that I can elaborate to some considerable degree on the complete lack of transparency and openness in the BBC more widely.

[John Grogan]

Openness and transparency are always to be encouraged. I wish the hon. Gentleman luck in pitching for a future debate, at which I hope to be present.

The debate about television and Parliament was heated. The late Howard Wilson, who was my father’s hero, is mentioned in the Crossman diaries asking Crossman whether the BBC would be able to cut the video tape up, take a bit of speech and introduce it into a magazine programme. Crossman replied, “Certainly,” and Wilson concluded that that could not possibly be allowed. In the 1972 debate, the Conservative Back Bencher Brian Batsford said:

“The introduction of the cameras will bridge the gulf which has widened so much between Parliament and the people.”—[Official Report, 19 October 1972; Vol. 843, c. 468.]

The 1970s were a time of conflict in Northern Ireland and of industrial strife. The nation was divided, people said. One BBC executive said, perhaps rather hopefully:

“What then is our public attitude? It is to let the different voices speak for themselves.”

He was in favour of parliamentary broadcasting.

To move the story on, the other place was more progressive. It brought in cameras in 1983, some years before the Commons finally decided do so in 1988, after no fewer than 11 debates in the preceding 14 years. Ian Gow was the first person to be seen on screen.

Without going into all the details, broadcasting in the ’90s was organised through a consortium of cable channels that went under the name of the United Artists cable channel. It broadcast Parliament until 1998, but perhaps the viewing figures were not as high as it had hoped when it took on the contract, so it wanted to pull out. There was a big debate in this place about whether it was appropriate for the BBC to take over. The discussions and negotiations went on for some months, but then a deal was done between the BBC and Parliament and live coverage began. Connoisseurs of BBC Parliament will remember that in the early part of this century, the lack of bandwidth on Freeview TV was such that the pictures of the Commons in operation took up only a quarter of the screen and there were various captions. As the decade went on, digital TV improved and the BBC got more bandwidth, and we got BBC Parliament as we have it today.

That brings me to the second part of my remarks. This summer, the day after Croatia beat England in the World cup semi-finals—if there could be any bigger blow—it leaked out that, as part of several changes to political programming that the BBC was going to make, BBC Parliament was not going to continue in its current form. The proposal was not to totally discontinue the channel but to remove any of the associated programming. Even the captions were under threat. The BBC would have continued to take the feed from this place and the House of Lords and so on, but would not have broadcast during parliamentary recesses. It would only do the very basics, and no doubt that that would have come under threat in years hence.

I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary BBC group and I recognise the tremendous pressures that the BBC is under. It has to save £550 million by 2021-22. BBC News, which took the decision to try to scale back BBC Parliament, has to find £80 million in that period. I realise that there are challenges for the BBC management, but the cost of BBC Parliament is such that they would have saved only about £500,000 by getting rid of most of the staff. The transmission costs of BBC Parliament are nearly £7 million and another £1.7 million is spent on content and distribution, so the really significant money is in actually transmitting the channel, which I will come back to in a minute.

What happened then was that at a sitting of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee just before Parliament went into recess, Lord Hall was asked by the Chair if he would be pulling all of the additional edited programmes on BBC Parliament. Those programmes obviously include things such as the coverage of the conferences and of Select Committees, but there is also a book programme about political books and a host of programming based on anniversaries, including of general elections. Indeed, there was programme a few years ago on the anniversary of Winston Churchill’s death, with a replaying of his funeral and so on. All this associated political programming would have gone. Recently, Steve Richards has done a series in the old style of A.J.P. Taylor really, just extemporising—rather like I am doing now—for a period to the camera, and his theme was “Prime Ministers” who never quite became Prime Minister, and so on. As I say, all of that programming would have gone.

Lord Hall suddenly said in reply to the Chair of the Committee:

“I want the edited programmes to continue. Let me just say we are constantly reviewing what we do…Could we do this better? Could we do it more effectively? But do not read into that necessarily something that we intend to do.”

That was a glorious moment. Some in the House may have watched “W1A”, a BBC comedy about the inner workings of the BBC—there was a similar comedy about the inner workings of the Olympics—and this was a “W1A” moment. The poor press officer at the BBC then had to issue a press release saying:

“As the director general has said, certain programming on BBC Parliament will continue as before”.

That was a very elegantly achieved U-turn.

Then the Speaker stepped in and he also made representations, so it looks now as though BBC Parliament will continue very much as before, with its current staffing levels, producing the range of programming that I have referred to. It really is important also to have the captions on the screen. Another programme that BBC Parliament has made is the “A to Z of Parliament”, which explains different things we do here in Parliament—for example, Divisions—to the public. In that sense, there is a good story to tell about BBC Parliament, but as I said earlier, today I want to look ahead and consider what BBC Parliament could be like in 10 years’ time. How can we attract more people—perhaps more younger people—to watch it and how can we take it forward?

I remember that about 10 years ago, when I was previously in the House, I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), now Deputy Leader of the Labour party, to save BBC 6 Music and the BBC Asian Network on the radio. I would like BBC Parliament to improve and expand, rather like BBC 6 Music has in the 10 years since it came under threat. How might BBC Parliament do that? It is obviously a question of resources and so on, but if the BBC put its mind to it, working in association with the parliamentary broadcasting unit, it could do for Parliament what it has done for things such as the Olympics, the FA cup and so on. It is a common theme in the BBC now to have My BBC—a digital concept. If I am interested in Bradford City’s results I can get an alert from the BBC about those results, or if I am interested in a particular area of news I can get alerts about programming in that area of news.

I think the parliamentary broadcasting unit now has, on some days, no fewer than 20 transmissions from various Committees around this House. There must be a way of linking those transmissions in to the promotional power of the BBC. Indeed, Lord Hall said in the Select Committee hearing:

“For example, could we…work with the parliamentary website to allow people to search more easily by topic, to have notifications when things are being brought up in the House? Could we extend our service in that sort of way, too, so that if you are particularly interested in…say the A303…every time that came up in Parliament you were told it was about to come up”.

I understand that Lord Hall, who has a very progressive vision, may well meet the Speaker to discuss that. As a vice-chair of the APPG on the BBC, I will write to the Speaker and the director-general of the BBC suggesting that the director-general to come into Parliament and perhaps have a seminar—if the Speaker would host that in his house, it would be great—about the future of BBC Parliament, with the authorities of the House present as well, to consider how we can improve the channel’s digital output.

In years to come, TV will probably change again. In recent years, all TV sets have switched to digital. There was a tremendous effort by the private sector and the Government, who worked together to make that change happen. In the future, something similar will probably be done with connected TVs. At some stage in the future, we will probably all have connected TVs, so I guess that eventually the BBC will make savings on the transmission costs of BBC Parliament. In the years ahead, it is really important that BBC Parliament remains a terrestrial channel that everyone can access, regardless of income. I hope that that has been achieved, but it is also important that we consider how the broadcasting of this place, the other place, our Committees and so on can be reviewed, to refresh it for another age. I say that because one of the things that has happened in recent years is that many young people have become involved and interested in all sorts of politics. BBC Parliament has done a massive and magnificent job for our nation over the last 20 years or so, and I would like to see it doing a similar but different job in the years to come for the generations to come.