Broadcasting

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

The BBC ought to be held to account for how it spends its money, whether or not it meets its objectives and its requirements under the charter. I think that that is absolutely fair. We should not get into arguments about whether particular programmes are sufficiently distinctive or different. The definition is a lawyer’s dream, and there are concerns about what it will end up meaning in practice.

We have heard tell of the £60 million contestable pot of licence fee payers’ money. The survival of that pot is a retrograde step, no matter what use it is to be put to. I note that there is supposed to be some kind of pilot and that commissioning children’s programmes is to be involved in whatever is done with the money from the underspend. The fact is that the Government are establishing the principle that licence fee payers’ money should be handed over to the BBC’s commercial rivals to make programmes. That is different from the BBC itself deciding that it might want to commission programming from independent producers, which it of course does a lot of as part of the way it does its business. The problem is that if the contestable pot simply takes money away from the BBC and gives it to its rivals to make their own programmes without any of the guarantees that the BBC would have for maintaining ethos and quality, it is no more than a raid on the BBC’s resources. That could be the thin end of what might end up being a very large wedge.

We saw newspaper reports before the White Paper was published about a contestable pot involving a lot more than £60 million. Although the pot is currently small and has been identified as a way of using underspends, the possibility that it will expand over time and that a principle will be established that licence fee payers’ money is not to be used by the BBC to fulfil its mission could be significant. I therefore would like some assurances from the Government that the contestable pot will not be vastly expanded during the period of this charter review. I do not think that it should be proceeded with at all.

I want to say a little about salary transparency. We have heard the argument that publishing the salaries of the so-called talent in the BBC is an issue of transparency. I understand that argument, but I want to put an alternative viewpoint. Far from being about transparency, this is actually a tabloid editor’s dream and a destructive bit of punishment for anybody who wants to work for the BBC rather than a commercial broadcaster. Why is it right to invade the privacy of those who work for the BBC but not those who work for any of its commercial rivals? The Minister in the other place said that this requirement—

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No—[Laughter.] I was halfway through a sentence. I might give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished it.

The Minister in the other place said that this requirement would not be extended to BBC Studios. BBC Studios will still be using public money—licence fee payers’ money—when it is commissioned to make programmes. Why is it right for parts of the BBC that are in the public bit of the BBC to have to meet this requirement when talent in other places commissioned by the BBC, using licence fee payers’ money, does not? Is this really about transparency, or is it about giving a stick to tabloid editors to have a go at the BBC?

[Maria Eagle]

This could lead to unintended consequences. When I was a trade unionist, the idea of comparability and of trying to get a pay rise because somebody else was doing a similar job was grist to the mill. If the proposal simply leads to costs for the BBC’s front-of-camera talent increasing, that might be an unintended consequence. I do not think this has been thought through.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady must recognise that there is a big distinction between people who are paid from the public purse and people who operate commercially in the private sector. The salaries of all of us in the House are publicly known, and it is entirely legitimate for the public to see where some of their money is going as far as salaries are concerned.

[Maria Eagle]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but if the ultimate bill is being paid by licence fee payers, why are they not entitled to transparency in respect of salaries just because an independent producer is involved? That is not consistent, and the proposal could have unintended consequences. This seems to be a populist measure, and it does not necessarily do the BBC any favours when it is trying to make sure it gets the talent that is available. It also gives commercial rivals a lot of inside information—published information —to allow them to see what it would take to poach talent. I do not see how that helps the BBC to fulfil its mission. I do not see the point of pursuing this vindictive little measure but, none the less, the Government have said they will implement it, so we will see how it goes.

It is good that we have got to a better place with the charter review than we might have done. From an early stage of the process, the Government seemed to be contemplating shrinking and diminishing the BBC. They denied that, but it was there in the background, and I think that if they could have got away with it, they would have done. However, a huge up-swell of support from our constituents and in both Houses of Parliament has stopped them. There are still pitfalls and problems that might end up being much bigger issues than they now appear to be, however, so we will keep an eye on how things go, especially leading up to the so-called mid-term review or health check. We will be watching to make sure that the Government do not go back to their original aims in the charter review of trying to do down the BBC. On behalf of our constituents who love and value the BBC as a great UK institution, we all hope that this charter does what the Secretary of State now says she wishes it to do, and we will make sure that it does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

This has been an interesting debate. We have heard a wide range of speeches praising the BBC, and I also come here to add my pennyworth of praise: I think that the BBC is an excellent institution. I have been in the privileged position of presenting a programme on the BBC, and I have rarely met a bunch of more professional, accommodating and friendly people than those who worked on the programme I had the honour of presenting.

I repeat a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the former Secretary of State, made about the future of the BBC and technology. It is obvious to most people in this country that we will live through a vast range of changes. There will be a vast acceleration in the ability of technology to provide programmes and changes to how people access programmes. The only thing I would say about the charter in relation to this is that it covers quite a long period. Other Members have claimed that a health check after five and a half years will be deleterious to the functioning of the BBC—that it is some sort of plot to try to change the nature of the BBC. However, if the charter lasts for 11 years, surely it makes sense to have some form of break clause or health check after five and a half years, because none of us have any idea of where we will be in terms of technology and how we access material on screen in five and a half years’ time.

My right hon. Friend said the licence fee would be looked at. I think the licence fee is little more than a poll tax. It is fairly controversial in this day and age—this is a matter for legitimate debate—to expect David Beckham to pay exactly the same as someone in much more limited circumstances just for the privilege of accessing the BBC. It is interesting that the charter will extend the licence fee, but at the end of this period, it might well be looked at and reformed. In some instances, subscription services clearly represent a more attractive approach.

We recently debated diversity on the Floor of the House and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has spoken eloquently about it. Pious words are very easy and cheap. Progress has been made, but it is difficult to measure it. Other speakers have said they think the BBC’s feet should be held to the fire on diversity. I am not just talking about ethnic or gender diversity, because we must look at regional diversity, as has been mentioned, and the balance in representation on screen between able-bodied and disabled people. There is a long way to go on this, and the BBC itself is perhaps not the best judge of how it is performing. The right hon. Gentleman said there had been about 30 diversity initiatives in the last 17 years, yet nobody says that there has been any inquiry into what has actually been achieved; there is just a general notion that the BBC has improved. I do not dispute the fact that improvements have been made, but there does not seem to be any way of measuring them, so that is something that Ministers, the BBC and others should consider.

I also want to touch briefly on the question of value for money. The BBC has £3.7 billion a year. That is a lot of money—it is a big organisation—and it is perfectly legitimate for Members on both sides of the House to look at its expenditure and rigorously question whether the public are getting value for money. When I hear Scottish National party Members complaining about an “orgy of cuts”, I tend to get slightly irritated. The BBC has not suffered an “orgy of cuts”. In fact, when we look at Government spending over the past six years, I and others see the BBC as something of a pampered child. It has been exempt from some of the difficult choices that we have made.

[Alberto Costa]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the language being used is just another example of the separatists trying to drive a wedge between the Scots and the English—or, in this case, the London media?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern about separatist language, although I do not really see it in those terms. I have heard this Father Christmas approach to public spending many times. I have always argued against it; it is not a mature approach to the difficult choices that we have to make. Complaining about an “orgy of cuts” is not a helpful or accurate way of talking about the Government’s approach to the BBC. It is perfectly legitimate for Members of Parliament to look rigorously at public expenditure and at an organisation that enjoys lavish expenditure and receives large sums from the taxpayer. It is legitimate for us to examine that expenditure and to expect a degree of savings.

In my six years in the House, I have always argued against a Father Christmas approach that involves constant public spending and protesting about orgies of cuts or austerity, which, in this instance, is not even happening at the BBC. Indeed, given where we were during the previous Parliament, I think the Government have been rather generous in their treatment of the BBC, as well they might be. It is a cherished and well-respected national organisation, and there is nothing in the charter to suggest that the Government’s approach will be any more rigorous or challenging towards the BBC’s expenditure than was the case in the previous Parliament.

The BBC is well protected, and the charter is to be commended for some of the reforms that it introduces, including new roles for the National Audit Office and Ofcom. Those represent improvements in the governance of the BBC. In the round, the charter has most things right, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) said. It has the potential to be successful, and I am very happy to lend it and the Government’s approach to the BBC my support.