Superfast Broadband Delivery: Somerset

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered superfast broadband delivery in Somerset.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I know the Minister is swimming in unfamiliar waters this morning, but I am very grateful to him for coming to respond to this debate.

The Connecting Devon and Somerset intervention area, or CDS, is the biggest in England, and it is connecting some of the hardest-to-reach communities in the country. CDS did not have an easy task by any stretch of the imagination, and it is important to say right at the outset that the purpose of today’s debate is not to beat up CDS for the Gigaclear contract unravelling as it has. In fact, rather than starting with criticism of CDS, I would like to pick out Matt Barrow, an employee of Devon County Council who has been working on the Connecting Devon and Somerset project since its beginning, and who has spent hours by my side in public meetings in village halls across my constituency. I know he has done it with many colleagues elsewhere in their constituencies, helping residents to understand the differences between fibre to the cabinet and fibre to the premises, the way that CDS is working and when they will get their broadband.

There is absolutely no shortage of effort or expertise at Connecting Devon and Somerset, and the organisation has all the right intentions to deliver the best possible quality broadband to the residents of Devon and Somerset as quickly as it can. The reason we have this debate this morning is that the Gigaclear contract, which was signed for the delivery of phase 2 of the state aid intervention, has not run to time. Indeed, at the very first check after only six months of its anticipated delivery, Gigaclear is already well behind and has admitted that it needs to relook at the programme for delivery.

There are three key areas for our discussion this morning. The first is the soundness of Gigaclear’s position. Can it actually deliver what it has said it can? The second is the continued case for state aid in some parts of Devon and Somerset. The market has changed over the last year or so, and commercial providers are now delivering fibre to the premises, which raises a question about the legitimacy of state aid in those circumstances. Thirdly, how can we get on with the final 5% of premises that are now awaiting connection?

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I commend Connecting Devon and Somerset on the biggest roll-out of rural broadband in the country. A great deal has been achieved, but it must not be forgotten that many of my constituents, and indeed those of my hon. Friend, have been ill-served. They have waited all this time, but nothing has been delivered. It has been a catalogue of incompetence and things that have arisen by the way, and many of my constituents are still not receiving broadband. The most important point in all this is that we resolve it as quickly as possible.

[James Heappey]

I think my hon. Friend means that nothing has come yet as a consequence of the phase 2 contract, and she is absolutely right. The phase 1 contract, which was a fibre to the cabinet deal, is now complete in its delivery. Tens of thousands of homes and businesses in my constituency have benefited from that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend has seen the same in hers. She is absolutely right that we are more than six months into the delivery window, and it has been over a year since the contract was signed. Not one constituent of mine is a Gigaclear customer yet, and I know from my hon. Friend’s intervention that it is the same in her constituency, too.

Gigaclear’s position is what it is because they were supported by the Carillion group, which met its demise. I think it is now clear that Gigaclear has quite inexplicably failed to understand that a lot of roads in Devon and Somerset are single-track lanes, which require somewhat more endeavour to dig up and somewhat more planning around road closures—it is not possible simply to go down one side of the road or even on the verge to the left or right.

I am inclined to agree with some of the comments from the county councils. There was overconfidence on the part of senior management at Gigaclear: they were telling the Connecting Devon and Somerset leadership and our county councils that all was fine, when it was obvious that things had not progressed as they should have. In the light of that, we need to ensure that what Gigaclear now says it is capable of doing is realistic. It has already overpromised once. As it seeks to put together a remedial plan to deliver the contract, we must ensure that it is at a realistic pace, so that, crucially, our constituents can have certainty about when their broadband will arrive. The Government, the Broadband Delivery UK programme and the county councils will want to be certain about the continued financial support that Gigaclear has secured.

I will raise some issues later that make the business case slightly less sound. It needs to be tested by BDUK and CDS to ensure that Gigaclear is still the answer, especially since the market has changed and commercial delivery is happening. When Gigaclear gets to communities as part of the state aid programme, it may well find that they already have fibre—it will have already been taken up. Gigaclear might not hit its uptake targets or realise the customers that it was expecting to. Now that Gigaclear is operating in a more competitive environment than the one that it negotiated when it took on the CDS contract, we need to look robustly at whether their numbers still stack up and whether we need to relook at the intervention area. In the briefing to MPs last week, which was the first indication that we had had of what the remedial plan would be, Gigaclear said that by the summer of 2020 it would deliver 40% to 50% of all that it had promised to have completed by 2020. That is a significant reduction in the pace of delivery, and Gigaclear now wants to deliver the remainder of the contract by 2022.

[Rebecca Pow]

On that point, is it not the case that the Government funding secured by Gigaclear needs to be spent by March 2020? One of the key issues is whether we could ask for an extension of the funding in order for Gigaclear to get its house back in order and to roll out the new, proposed programme that they are suggesting to us.

[James Heappey]

My hon. Friend is ensuring that the Minister gets the message loud and clear, because that is one of the key questions for today’s debate. The remedial plan presented by Gigaclear already runs beyond the date that the Government have said that all available money for the delivery of phase 2 will be spent. Clearly, if Gigaclear’s remedial plan is accepted, the Government will need to be willing to extend the period over which the money is spent from 2020 to 2022. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some good news on that.

Given that only 40% to 60% of properties that were due to be connected by 2020 will now be connected by that time, we might also look at whether we should offer a voucher scheme to people who now find themselves in the 50% to 60% that will not be connected, so that they can take some sort of interim measure themselves. We did exactly that for those who were going to be in phase 2 or in the final 5% when the phase 1 delivery programme was rolled out; we offered voucher schemes of £500, so that people could take interim measures within their homes.

The second issue is the ongoing case for state aid, which we have spoken about a number of times. When the delay in the Gigaclear delivery was first announced, I was straight on local TV and radio, and speaking to my local newspapers, because I was very, very cross. My expectation was that my mailbag was about to explode and that I was going to be contacted by hundreds, if not thousands, of very angry people who were concerned that the broadband they had been waiting for for years and they thought was just weeks away was actually going to be years away again.

The reality is that I have had hardly anything, and that makes me wonder why. If I go back to my former employment, there is a very important part of the military planning process. When assessing the orders to be given in order to achieve a mission, we keep asking ourselves whether the situation has changed, in order to make sure that we are not problem-solving against a situation that no longer exists. I have come to realise in the last few weeks that the reason why so many of my constituents have not been in touch with me about the Gigaclear delay is that they have sorted themselves out.

They have gone to Openreach and put in place a community fibre partnership, or they have gone to companies such as TrueSpeed or Voneus that have cell-to-build business models. Those companies go out into communities and engage, they get 30% sign-up and then draw down the money from Aviva, which underwrites the delivery of the infrastructure, and they build the fibre into those communities. When the Gigaclear contract was delayed, there was complete silence from all those communities that were flashing red on the whiteboard in my office as those which most urgently needed broadband. The reason is that the market is already providing, and has already provided, for a number of them.

[James Heappey]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right: the market is delivering. Whatever the business model, and whether that is cell first and build second, I now have hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of TrueSpeed, Voneus and Openreach fibre-to-the-premise customers in my constituency—a situation that has been delivered through an open-market solution, within the area that the open market review had identified as requiring state aid.

A key question for the Government today is whether state aid is even legal in areas where the market has already provided. I am not sure that we should be using taxpayers’ money to subsidise the delivery of a competitor into an area where a commercial company has already set up. TrueSpeed is underwritten by Prudential. How absurd that we would be spending taxpayers’ money to subsidise the delivery of an infrastructure underwritten by one pension scheme while another, Aviva, has underwritten the money on a commercial basis without the need for taxpayers’ intervention. As the market has changed, we need to be very clear about whether we need to go back and look at the open market review again to understand where the market is now providing.

It is certainly the case that my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) and for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) will benefit more quickly because TrueSpeed is working away from the transatlantic fibre link that lands at Weston-super-Mare. TrueSpeed has accessed that link to fibre and is fanning out from there. The delay in the Gigaclear contract is an opportunity for us to look again at whether the market has changed, and whether Gigaclear’s priorities need to be tweaked.

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is making a very expansive case. On the point about extra funding and the money going to the different companies, I believe that Connecting Devon and Somerset has just received £5 million from the Rural Development Programme. I wonder whether we might push to see where that money is going to be spent and whether the Minister has any revelations to make about that. I believe it is for phase 2, and some of it is destined to go to Airband, Gigaclear and the various companies providing the different methods of rolling out the service.

[James Heappey]

My hon. Friend is an excellent pacemaker—she runs slightly in front of me. I am coming to that point, but it is very helpful for the Minister to hear such things twice.

There is another part to the point about the change in the market and whether state aid is relevant. There is also the frustration that communities feel when they have got themselves motivated to bring in an alternative provider, such as TrueSpeed, Voneus or Openreach, and when they have fibre to the premise already, and yet their roads are now being closed and dug up with their tax money to deliver something that causes huge inconvenience to them while it is being put in, and which they have already got. A number of communities have written to me not to criticise the delay in the Gigaclear programme but to ask, “Why on earth are you still digging up our roads and blocking off our village when we have already got ourselves sorted and we have got it? Can we not have our tax money spent on improvements to our junction or a new road or something else?”

I know that is not how it works, but it certainly underlines the case for reassessing the priorities that Gigaclear has been set by Connecting Devon and Somerset, so that Gigaclear focuses on areas where we know the market will not be able to provide over the next 24 months, rather than focusing on areas, as is the case at the moment with its early areas, that are in direct competition, particularly with TrueSpeed. I am not sure that that is the most effective spending of Government money.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) pointed out, we have been given extra money by the Government to look at further broadband improvement in rural areas. There is a real opportunity to take the money that the Government have announced—I know that the Minister will be enthusiastic to remind us of the vast sums of money that the Government have made available to Devon and Somerset—and to add it to the £5 million-plus already available in gainshare from Openreach from phase 1 of the CDS roll-out, and the substantial additional money that is still to come as part of that gainshare, and look at where that combination of funds could be used as an intervention to deliver the final 5%.

We know now, by definition, what the final 5% is, because phase 2 delivers everything but the final 5%, so surely we can deliver that final 5% concurrently rather than waiting until we have connected the 95th percentile to get on with connecting the 96th through 100th percentiles. It seems to me that the money is already available. The gainshare is coming onstream very quickly. We have a real opportunity to get the whole thing cracked in a few years by taking advantage of what the market is now providing.

In some ways, we have an embarrassment of riches, because in some parts of Somerset we now have two entirely independent fibre-to-the-premise networks being dug in on very remote rural lanes, which is a slightly absurd situation. In small communities such as Badgworth, Biddisham and Lympsham, people will soon end up being able to choose which fibre-to-the-premise provider they want to use—not the internet service provider, but actually who is going to put the fibre to their front door. I am not sure that that is actually what taxpayers’ money should be being used for.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely. Property rights are the foundation of a market economy and intellectual property rights are the 21st-century version of that. The copyright directive is a good directive. We have to get the details right in its implementation, but it is a good step forward and I look forward to it becoming law.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

It is great to hear so many references to cricket this morning. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the Secretary of State are well aware that the cricket world cup will come to England next year. It will include games between New Zealand and Afghanistan and between Australia and Pakistan, at the glorious county ground in Somerset—in Taunton, indeed. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the event will attract the maximum number of international visitors, as well as home visitors, including, perhaps, the Secretary of State himself?

[Matt Hancock]

It is almost as if my hon. Friend had some connection with Taunton. [Laughter.] She certainly speaks well for it.

We are absolutely determined that when the cricket world cup comes to this nation next year we will gain the full benefit, including all the business people who will come here. I went to India with the world cup trophy itself to encourage Indian tour operators to send as many people as possible from that fine nation to this country, and that includes Taunton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

1. What steps the CPS is taking to improve the rate of prosecution of people responsible for forced marriages.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

2. What steps the CPS is taking to improve the rate of prosecution of people responsible for forced marriages.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

The Crown Prosecution Service takes forced marriage very seriously and the prosecution of these crimes remains a priority. In May of this year the CPS secured the first two convictions under the specific offence of forced marriage in England. These successful prosecutions send a clear message that forced marriage is unacceptable and that those responsible will be prosecuted.

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, and I am happy to tell him that the legal guidance and protocol used by the CPS have been updated to include the experiences of male victims, to help challenge myths and stereotypes and provide details of any support services for them. Indeed, a section on male victims was included in the forced marriage training session held in December of last year, which is now being spread locally throughout CPS areas by forced marriage leads.

[Rebecca Pow]

Why is the CPS finding it so tough to secure female genital mutilation prosecutions?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is right to acknowledge the challenge facing prosecutors because these prosecutions are among the most complex referred to the CPS. They involve victims being hurt and coerced by members of their own families and communities, and therefore victims coming forward is a confidence issue. But the joint CPS and police forced marriage focus group is working hard to address the challenges faced when prosecuting these crimes.

Proposed Media Mergers

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

On the latter question, yes; I very much hope so, and I am optimistic, presuming that the parties engage in full and rapidly. I have deployed my team to take forward immediately after this statement the work that is needed to finalise the procedures.

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, we have subjected Comcast’s bid to the law in exactly the same way. The truth is that Comcast’s existing UK media footprint is very small, so it simply does not raise the same concerns over plurality. The Murdoch family trust has very significant other media interests—not least in newspapers—whereas Comcast does not, so it is in a different situation, but we have applied the law in the same rigorous way.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

Having been a journalist and broadcaster for most of my life, I was prompted to speak because I think we should speak up for maintaining the high-quality news and journalism that Britain is famous for. That should be at the heart of this decision. We need competition, and we need Sky News still to be giving a professional service, especially in these days of fake news. That is essential. I am sure that the Secretary of State is taking this to heart, because it is important.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Of course, there are always legal opinions about everything, and our legal opinion is that that is consistent—that is the basis on which we are proceeding. As I am sure the vast majority of Members would agree, it is important that we control our borders.

The Bill provides new data rights, including a stronger right to be forgotten.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I welcome the element of the Bill about the right to be forgotten. I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is carrying out an inquiry into fake news, during which this whole issue of data—who owns it, who holds it and who knows what about whom—has come under the spotlight. Can he say how the Bill might help to control that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I have been contacted by a number of businesses in Taunton Deane that are concerned about the work already placed on them to comply with data protection legislation. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Bill will not give them a further workload, that it will indeed help those needing to trade in future across Europe and that it should, overall, be a benefit?

[Matt Hancock]

That is right. The Bill is structured to be consistent with the EU law elements of GDPR, which automatically apply from 25 May this year, to ensure that the non-EU elements of data protection, with respect to general data processing, national security data and law enforcement data, provide for a full spectrum framework for data protection once we leave the EU. The Bill is designed in such a way that it is as simple as possible for businesses to comply with the data protection standards that will be directly enforced from 25 May anyway. That is why from the point of view of small businesses, it is important that we get this Bill through by 25 May, and we have a fully functioning data protection framework. However, I certainly take on board, and am sympathetic to, the concerns my hon. Friend raises about small businesses and the need to ensure our data system is innovative in the future, and that people can comply with the rules. I hope that satisfies her on the concerns of small businesses in her constituency, as well as those of small councils and indeed small charities, which have to comply as well.

The schemes are designed to make sure the police can keep using and sharing personal data to prevent and investigate crime, to bring offenders to justice and to keep communities safe. Likewise, the Bill makes provisions for the personal data processed by our intelligence agencies, so they can continue to protect our country at a time of heightened terrorist threat. The intelligence services will be part of this new framework under the supervision of the Information Commissioner.

We also want to support the hard-hitting investigative journalism that holds the powerful to account and that we have touched on already—and it is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) engaging with the digital economy on his smartphone; I am delighted that he welcomes at least some elements of the 21st century. On this point, I want briefly to comment on the proposed clauses inserted by the Lords. I set out our response to the consultation on the future of the Leveson inquiry last week, so I will not set out the arguments again in full this afternoon, but I will say this: the amendments are simply not the answer to today’s problems faced by the media. It has been six years since the Leveson inquiry reported; since then, we have seen the completion of three detailed police investigations, extensive reforms to police practices and some of the most significant changes to press self-regulation in recent times. Meanwhile, the media are facing critical challenges that threaten their sustainability, including fake news, declining circulations and in gaining revenue from online content.

On top of that, the amendments undermine our devolution settlement. The new clauses seek to legislate on a UK-wide basis, despite press regulation being a reserved matter for the devolved Administrations. I hope Scottish National party Members, and indeed all Members, will join me in voting these amendments down.

Sky/Fox Update

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

These two questions are separate. We have a consultation on the Leveson issues. In policy terms, I really care about making sure that we have a sustainable future for high-quality journalism, but that is separate from this quasi-judicial decision, which has to be done within the existing law, and that is how I will take it.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his position and congratulate him on the transparency with which this process is being conducted. Does he agree that it was sensible to refer the merger of Sky and Fox to the CMA to avoid making it party political? Given the Government’s commitment to high standards in broadcasting, will the Secretary of State assure my constituents in Taunton Deane that the Government will continue to maintain high standards in broadcasting and journalism? I have a vested interest as a former broadcaster, but it is also what the people on the street want.

[Matt Hancock]

I am not sure that the high-quality journalism of “Farming Today” will ever be the same again without my hon. Friend. Undoubtedly, the importance of high-quality journalism, with a sustainable business model to fund it and plurality around it, are incredibly important policy questions. We will no doubt debate that in future, but it is a commitment to which I stick firmly.

BBC Pay

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

It is, of course, for the commission to tell Lord Hall that. We have to be careful to ensure that the relationship between the Government and the BBC is proper, because the BBC is a public broadcaster, not a state broadcaster. The action that the Chair of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has announced—calling Lord Hall and potentially others to give evidence—will ensure that they can be held properly and directly to account.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

All credit to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Government for exposing the problem we are talking about today. Pay ought to be linked to ability and experience, so it cannot be right that men in the BBC are so often paid more than women with the same ability and experience. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC must be held to account and soon, and that questions need to be asked about why the BBC has suppressed coverage of this story?

[Matt Hancock]

I think that there is plenty of coverage of the story. No doubt the House has aired the issue and will air it again, should we so choose. The Select Committee has done a good job and I look forward to its further work. I know that my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Committee, will do that work extremely well.

Uber: Personal Data Theft

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course I will. We rule nothing out.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

Obviously, there will be an awful lot of very worried people out there with Uber accounts. Can we please have some reassurance from the Minister that, first, Uber will be held to account and, secondly, that we have the right legislation and structures in place to stop such things happening?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I give the assurance that, at this stage, our initial assessment is that, for Uber customers, the stolen information is not the sort that would allow direct financial crime. People just need to make sure that they do not respond to phishing emails and that they follow NSCS guidance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

It is a live consultation, and I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to submit his views to it.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

The Natural History Museum is embarking on the monumental task of digitising 800 million items, including a collection of dung beetles and flea beetles. These items could hold the keys to our future biodiversity, climate change and pollution problems, so they are very important. Does the Minister agree that this is the kind of project the Government should be supporting in conjunction with our global partners?

[John Glen]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government are indeed supporting that sort of work, and we have some internationally renowned institutions doing wonderful work. Digitisation is really important, and the University of Sheffield, for example, is working closely with the Natural History Museum to take advantage of some of the pioneering work it has already undertaken.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I am familiar with the case that the hon. Lady mentions. Clifford’s Tower is a particularly difficult site to deal with, but I shall be happy to meet her to discuss her specific concerns, and I will take them to English Heritage directly, if that will help.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

On 21 October, the town of Wellington will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the laying of the foundation stone that commemorates the Duke of Wellington’s success at the battle of Waterloo. Although that wonderful monument, which can be seen from the M5, is accessible from the outside, the staircase on the inside is not, because the monument is undergoing a massive restoration project. Will the Minister join me in wishing all the people of Wellington well in the celebrations—in which I will take part—and does he agree that it is very important to restore monuments of such magnitude? That benefits not just local people, but those nationally and internationally, because such monuments are very important to our history.

[John Glen]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election to the DCMS Committee and endorse everything that she says on this matter. I will be looking at progress as these improvements proceed, and it was a pleasure to visit her constituency in the recess.

BBC Transparency

Rebecca Pow 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan), with his passionate speech, and I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for bringing this subject to the Chamber.

The BBC, as almost everyone would agree, is a unique and much-loved organisation, revered for so many programmes, such as news, gardening—I do not know whether that is sad—and, in particular, “The Archers”. I simply could not live without “The Archers” and, sometimes, I catch the same episode three times a week, because I hear the programme in the evening, again at lunchtime and then on the Sunday catch-up. That is how sad I am, but I love it.

The BBC, however, has to be held to account and to the highest standards because of the unique way in which it is funded, and we must do something when it is found wanting, so I am delighted that this Government are insisting on high standards, including of transparency and high quality. Part of reporting and programming is what the public expect and what they deserve. Clearly, the Government’s new insistence is giving the BBC a bit of a shake-up, which I think we would all agree is a good thing. The BBC charter implemented at the start of this year goes further than ever before in promoting fairness and transparency, and in ensuring the value for money that we deserve.

I wanted to touch on one of the points made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry on the commissioning of programmes. I had a crack at getting commissioned when I ran a production company. Frankly, I gave up. I wasted so much time going to the constant round of briefings on what the BBC wanted, might like or did not want—mostly what it did not want was the kind of thing I wanted to make—and logging in online. It all took up so much time that I gave up and devoted my money-making activities to other areas of the media, and many other independent companies did likewise.

Indeed, many I met when on the round of consultations and briefings turned out to be no more than hobby producers: they said they could not earn enough money simply from commissions to make life viable. I do not know if there is any way to address that, unless it is through more bidding for programmes—so perhaps it will be addressed now—but it is certainly something I noticed. I would like to think that the BBC charter and the Government will hold the BBC to account for such things, if we are to get more people into this very important creative industry.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend made a point about one thing that is close to my heart and that we have to careful about. I agree, totally, that we have to look at the BBC, but we must preserve its independence. That is what everyone appreciates about the BBC, so we have to be very careful when we bring the might of Government to bear, although I am pleased that we are getting involved. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) rightly said, programme makers sometimes come along with a narrative, and we very much noticed that in Jaywick in my constituency. The Channel 4 team—not the BBC—arrived with a preconceived idea of what they wanted to shoot. They wanted me to get involved in the programme, but they shot not what was there on the ground but only what reflected their preconceived narrative. The programme makers—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are pressed for time. I was pulled up for this when I first started; interventions have to be short, especially when we have such strict time limits. I am sorry.

[Rebecca Pow]

Only this week I have faced the issue of preconceived ideas; I will mention this example. I launched my new environmental pamphlet from the Conservative Environment Network, which I thought would make an interesting and wide story. I encouraged my local BBC people to come to the launch, but they rang up to ask, “Will this be Rebecca Pow saying that the Government do not do enough for the environment?” That is what they wanted their headline to be—they had not even read what the pamphlet was about. I said, “Absolutely 100% not; it is the opposite of that”, so they did not come. That was a preconceived idea, but had they come, they would have discovered an interesting groundswell of an idea going on, which would have made a good and informative story for the public.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will give way—as long as the hon. Gentleman is brief, Mr Bone.

[Kevin Brennan]

That is a matter for the Chair. Is there not some difficulty with what the hon. Lady is saying? She is putting the emphasis on the Government holding the BBC to account, but by doing so is she not undermining the proper role of Parliament and its Select Committee? Indeed, the Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), her hon. Friend, and that is his job, not that of Government.

[Rebecca Pow]

All I will say is that public money is funding the BBC, so we need to ensure that it is run in an effective way, with value for money and transparency, so that we get what the BBC was set up for in the first place.

I will move on and focus on the pay discrepancies that have been revealed, which have received a lot of media attention, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) referred. I am pleased that they are being highlighted in the debate. It is right that the BBC has taken action, but the proof will be in the pudding. I am pleased that the assessment and consultation on the issue have been launched this week, although it has got to be said that across the whole of the BBC there is a good balance of male and female—52% men and 48% women, which is pretty good compared with lots of other organisations.

Many years ago, I remember going to produce and present “Farming Today” on Radio 4, and I was only the second ever woman to do so. I will not tell the Chamber how long ago it was, because people might work out how old I am—

[Kevin Brennan]

I thought this was about transparency.

[Rebecca Pow]

I will not respond to that. Now “Farming Today” has an all-female team—what a turnaround that is. When I went to the programme, farming and all that were considered very much part of a male world, so I applaud the BBC for a good thing.

Let us not be completely hijacked by the gender pay gap among those at the top of the BBC. I think most of us would agree that the high-profile women at the top actually are pretty well paid. It is wrong and scandalous that, on the whole, the men receive more, but in truth those women are quite fortunate. Let us not forget the many women all over the country whose unequal pay deserves just as much attention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh mentioned. I commend the Government, who are doing more than ever to sort this out and make sure that we even up pay, which is still not equal enough across the board. That goes to the heart of the issue of publicly funded bodies. For example, in 2016, only 20% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were women. Perhaps we should look at the issue in a much wider context. We are holding the BBC to account; surely the same standards must be applied across the public sector.

I want to return, just for a minute, to the BBC and the gender pay gap. I venture to suggest—I mentioned this to the Minister earlier in the week—that all the attention on women and the gender pay gap has slightly clouded how much these high-profile presenters are paid overall, which I know many members of the public are questioning. Some are paid huge sums, and some people on the list do not put in that many hours for their pay. I will not name them, but one or two really make the blood boil. Some work very hard for their money, but the way the money is spread seems completely unequal.

The total budget for all BBC local radio stations—the hon. Member for East Londonderry raised this subject—is £152 million. That is not a huge sum of money for the phenomenal work they do and what we get back. That needs to be looked at, too. Some people at those stations—particularly the presenters who get up every morning to do breakfast shows—really are not paid very much. I have BBC Somerset right on my patch and I am a great fan; the people there work very hard. Obviously, they always try to hold me to account and catch me out, but that is their job. We get very good value from that. Local radio stations are constantly having to tighten their belts. That needs to be considered as well, because they provide an excellent service.

In conclusion, it remains for the BBC to address the problems we have highlighted, and the public expect that. I reiterate that I am pleased that the BBC announced its review this week. Let us not forget that the Government unleashed all this debate; they must be praised for that. I would like assurances from the Minister that the Government will still hold the BBC’s feet to the fire, because we expect fairness, equality and transparency, but above all good service and value for money for the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

In the interests of transparency, like the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) and Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), I, too, am a product of the BBC, having spent almost a decade of my career as a television producer there. I have many great memories from there, and indeed made good friends during an interesting career. The BBC has many faults, and I have never stepped back from calling it out on those, but I am a critical friend of the BBC who will defend absolutely its editorial independence.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing this debate. He raised important issues relating to complaints, commissioning, accuracy and honesty, and the gender pay gap. Although those issues mainly related to Northern Ireland, they do have a resonance across the UK, as we heard in contributions from the hon. Members for Eastleigh, for Keighley (John Grogan) and for Taunton Deane, and from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).

The hon. Member for Eastleigh spoke about the gender pay gap and working in BBC local radio. It says something if she is too old for radio, although I do not believe it for a minute. The hon. Member for Keighley talked about looking after those workers at the bottom of the pay scale.

I feel the pain of the hon. Member for Taunton Deane. Like her, I have experience as a struggling independent producer trying to get commissions. We have missed out on many excellent ideas from Oh! Television.

[Rebecca Pow]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I have been made aware that there is a sound failure, so Hansard cannot report. I can hear you and we can hear each other, and I do not want to lose the debate, so we will continue.

[Rebecca Pow]

Slightly in jest, if one did reach that stage, one might put in some proposals to make programmes about one’s life here. Perhaps the BBC might find that entertaining.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I think it would have to be broadcast after the watershed.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made an important point about how the BBC managed to get away with what it was doing in terms of the gender pay gap for so long. Transparency is absolutely essential. She also mentioned the discrepancy between what is raised in Scotland and what is spent in Scotland, and I agree that that is unacceptable and must be addressed as soon as possible.

We are living in an age in which society quite rightly expects—indeed it increasingly demands—transparency and openness as the hallmarks of our society. Anything and any organisation that benefits from the public purse has to be open and accepting of that scrutiny. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry said, we in this place, above all, are open to scrutiny and transparency. Going forward, the BBC has to expect those standards as well. At a time when it was emerging from a series of damaging historical scandals, with accusations of it being complicit and numerous attempts at cover-up, it was something of a surprise to many of us that the BBC should be so vehemently opposed to having to publish how much its top presenters earn. Indeed the then chair of the BBC Trust, Rona Fairhead, said that it was “disappointed” that it would have to change and that the decision on the disclosure of presenters’ pay was not, in her opinion,

“in the long-term interests of licence fee payers”.

Even the director-general, Tony Hall, questioned the merit of the Government’s decision, saying,

“this will not make it easier for the BBC to retain the talent the public love”.

He continued:

“The BBC is already incredibly transparent.”

The much-fabled BBC insider fed to the press that it would be a “massive headache” for the BBC if it were forced to publish presenters’ pay. Indeed. Those were prophetic words, because that did give it a massive headache—but for very different reasons from those it first imagined. It must have thought that there would be a day of voyeuristic tittle-tattle in the office when it came out. It did not realise that that frenzy of indignation, which it thought would pass in 24 hours, would take on arms and legs in the way it has.

By forcing the BBC to reveal its salaries, it revealed its gender pay gap. It must have been living in some kind of time warp not to have realised what it was doing. The disparity between top-earning men and top-earning women is and was shocking. It is something that the BBC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, had no right to hide from the very people who finance the corporation. The BBC, as we have heard, is in a privileged and unique situation, and therefore it has to undergo a level of scrutiny far beyond those in the commercial sector. The gender pay gap, the scandal and the attempt to cover it up, at a time when the BBC’s popularity, particularly in Scotland, was on the wane, are mind-boggling. The decision to force the BBC to disclose its top salaries has been vindicated, because had it not, the gender equality issue would have remained hidden and unrecognised, and therefore unchallenged.

I realise that I am running short of time; I conclude by saying that the gender pay gap is not the only problem. I urge the BBC to look, as a matter of urgency, at the pay gap that exists within its own structures. What also emerged during this scandal was the massive pay gap that exists between the top and bottom earners within the BBC, with the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union reporting that 400 BBC employees earn less than 1% of its top-earning presenter. That is a scandal, and it should be addressed immediately. I look forward to the BBC taking it on and making a better job of that than it did of the gender pay gap.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

At times this afternoon, the debate has felt like a reunion of former BBC employees. There have been certain complaints about BBC journalism, and at one point I thought we were going to hear the accusation that it was responsible for turning off the sound system and stopping our comments being broadcast to the nation—or the dozens of people following us on the BBC Parliament channel as we speak. Perhaps it is not dozens of people.

As many hon. Members have said, transparency is extremely important. Since I know the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is digging deep on this issue, I should reveal my interest in the matter, which is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have received payments over the last year or so for my work as a musician from the TV channel Dave, which is owned by UKTV, which in turn is 50% owned by the BBC as part of its attempts to raise money from sources other than the licence fee, which of course it does in considerably greater amounts than it originally did. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He raised a lot of issues that I know he feels strongly about in relation to BBC journalism, and in particular the coverage of the issue that, as he pointed out, brought down the Administration in Northern Ireland, which we all hope will be up and running again soon. He raised points about transparency and salary, declarations of interest and other matters, including the vague answers he got to his questions from the BBC.

I will go on to make some positive remarks about the BBC as well, but I think it is better to give clear answers to Members of Parliament—they should be directed to the management, by the way—rather than the sort of vague answers that the Government routinely give to parliamentary questions. I would much rather the BBC answered questions directly, because a lot of the answers the hon. Gentleman gave from the BBC sounded like the sorts of answers I get when I table parliamentary questions. I do not know whether other hon. Members have had that experience when tabling questions to the Government, but I certainly have, and it necessitates further questions, freedom of information inquiries and so on.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) spoke very well, as always, and said that—rather like the Government—the BBC’s left hand sometimes did not know what the right hand was doing. She rightly explained the importance of the BBC ensuring pay equality. One thing that came out in the recent publication of BBC staff’s salaries was the issue of gender inequality, and indeed other forms of inequality. It is absolutely right that that information should be published and made transparent, and that the BBC should take urgent steps to address the issue—as should other broadcasters that are not subject to freedom of information requests, and do not have to make an annual report to Parliament in the way that the BBC does. All those in the private sector should also be looking to ensure gender equality, and other forms of equality, when it comes to pay and personnel.

I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan) for 37 years, and he has been top talent himself all that time. He made a good point about the exposure that high-profile BBC presenters get, and the fact that that has huge value, beyond the salary that they are paid. I completely agree. He also rightly pointed out the difficult job that journalists have had to do in Northern Ireland, and that we should remember that at all times.

The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) told us that she could not reveal her age to us, despite this being a debate about transparency. I intervened on her, because we should be careful about the language we use when we talk about Government “holding to account” the BBC. It is worth reminding ourselves that the BBC is an independent organisation, established by royal charter. If we think for a moment, it is vital that it is not ultimately the Government’s role to hold the BBC to account for its journalism and impartiality, for example, because the Government are extremely partial themselves.

It is a dangerous thing in those countries where the state broadcaster is in effect controlled by the Government. We know the implications of that in countries such as Russia. We want a publicly funded, transparent BBC that is accountable. The proper ways for it to be accountable are: to us as politicians via Parliament and the Select Committee, which is ably chaired by a member of the hon. Lady’s party and has a number of my hon. Friends as members; and through, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley pointed out, an independent regulator, whose job is to make sure that the BBC fulfils its role under the charter, which is negotiated and in partnership with Government, and sets out that broad scope. That is the point I was making: it is a fundamental principle that we should not lose sight of.

[Rebecca Pow]

Perhaps I did not express it well, but my point was that clearly that system was not working well enough, hence the Government had to step in to require more transparency, which is now having an effect.

[Kevin Brennan]

We do not have time to rehearse exactly what happened and how all this came about, but I wanted to make that point with force.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said something that caused me concern; it was about whether the BBC’s reporting was perceived to be biased. She said—I think I quote her accurately; I am sure she will tell me if I do not—that it does not really matter whether it is true that the BBC’s reporting is fair and unbiased; all that matters is the perception. In other words, if she is saying that it is not about fake news but false perception, that is fine, but she seemed to imply that the perception is right, and that the BBC does not report impartially on politics in Scotland.