Defending Public Services

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I will endeavour to meet that demand, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who made a very measured speech. I came close to agreeing with his last point, if not his earlier criticism of our Front Benchers, because this Queen’s Speech provided an opportunity to tackle the funding crisis in the NHS. Sadly, however, it did not take that opportunity; nor did it tackle the crises in social care and, indeed, the impact of the disproportionate cuts on local government. Instead, the Government are turning their ideological fire on two areas of hugely successful public provision—the BBC and higher education. The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made the point that we should not be ideological in the public versus private debate. He is right: what matters is what works.

In that context, what is the BBC White Paper all about? If the BBC were some colossal failure, plumbing new depths in unpopularity, there might be cause for reform, but we all know it is not such a failure. The BBC is the envy of the world. It is hugely popular in the UK, as we know from the overwhelming support it received in the Government’s own consultation. It is fair to say that the Government’s plans are not as bad as some of the leaks made out. I hope that that is an indication that the Government are listening. It is probably the tried and tested strategy of leaking something really bad so that, when they publish something that is simply bad, everybody breathes a sigh of relief and thinks it is okay.

Although the plans are not as terrible as was feared, there are still serious concerns. Underlying the proposals appears to be the idea that the BBC is bad for the market and therefore has to be reshaped in line with the views of the Murdochs because it is too popular, too successful and too good at what it does. The Government want to add new distinctiveness criteria to the BBC’s mission statement, which they say should be

“discernibly different in approach, quality and content to commercial providers”.

In so much of what it does, the BBC is already different, so what is this about?

The proposals could stop the BBC competing on a level playing field with commercial providers in producing popular and successful programmes. This Government believe in markets to drive up quality, so why are they interfering in this market to handicap the most successful player? They want the charter to make it clear that the licence fee is not solely for the use of the BBC, and they want to establish a contestable fund for which commercial rivals can bid. What is that about?

Why is there a requirement for the BBC to recruit 150 local reporters to feed news content to local newspapers? We all support local newspapers, and we should debate their future, but quietly top-slicing a block of public funds for that purpose without a full debate sets a dangerous precedent. The proposal for Ofcom not just to become the BBC regulator, but to have a brief to assess the market impact of

“any aspect of BBC services”

sends a worrying signal, as does the plan to undermine the BBC’s independence by allowing the Government to appoint as many as half of the non-executive directors to its new all-powerful board, which will have responsibilities for editorial direction and programming.

What is it all about? Is it that successful public services challenge the Government’s world view that only the private sector can deliver quality, or is it just that the Government do not like the BBC? In 2008, the Prime Minister wrote that the BBC has a “left-wing bias”, is “instinctively pro-Big State” and has become “oversized and over-reached itself”. His one-time hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has called the BBC

“statist, corporatist, defeatist, anti-business and”—

of course—

“Europhile”.

Perhaps most revealing is the Culture Secretary’s comments that the BBC’s approach to impartiality drives him “insane” and that its ceasing to exist is a “tempting prospect”. I must say that those comments actually make him unfit for the post he holds. Prejudice is no basis for good policy, and I hope that the Government will think again.

I hope the Government will also think again about the higher education White Paper. We have one of the best university systems in the world. It is good for UK students, and, despite the best efforts of the Home Office, it is good at attracting students from all over the world, bringing in over £10 billion of export earnings, so we should take care about meddling in it.

The higher education White Paper proposes a teaching excellence framework. I agree that a focus on teaching excellence is a good thing, but if we get the measurement of teaching quality wrong, we will create perverse and unintended consequences. That concern was expressed by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, when we looked at the proposed metrics, which also risk damaging our reputation internationally. Our universities are known around the world for the excellence of our independent quality assurance. If we move from the current system of quality assessment to the proposed three tier ratings, we will immediately send out a message internationally that not all our universities are outstanding. A system of ranking might be okay if it were part of an internationally agreed approach, but if we take a unilateral stand on dealing with quality assurance within our university system, we will be sending out the message that our system is not quite good enough, which will damage our brand and deliver students into the hands of our competitors. As I have said, the Home Office is already spectacularly effective at doing that.

There is also a risk in opening up the sector to new providers. We do not need to look very far to see that risk in practice. We simply need to look at the United States, on which the model is based. Universities operate there on a business model in which unscrupulous providers milk the publicly funded loans system and recruit students to substandard courses: the public lose, the public purse loses, students lose, and the companies pick up the profits. In recent years, more than two dozen companies running for-profit colleges in the United States have been investigated or sued by state prosecutors. Together, the 152 schools under investigation received about $8.1 billion in federal student loan and grant payments in the last fiscal year, according to an analysis in The New York Times. Some of those companies are already operating in the UK and are looking for the opportunity, which this higher education White Paper provides, to extend their operations. As with the BBC, it seems that the Government are not making decisions on the basis of what works and are putting ideology before the evidence. On both these matters, I urge them to think again.