Friday1 April 2011

HOUSE OF COMMONSOFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES

(HANSARD)

Friday 1 April 2011

Volume 5260.144

£5·00

677 Broadcasting (Public ServiceContent) Bill

I APRIL 2011 678

[Gloria De Piero J

night, and the book was brilliantly adapted byottinghamshire writer Billy Ivory of "Made In

Dagenham" fame. If we really want to talk about improvingpublic service broadcasting, we should let the BBC domore to inspire new Briti h talent. As Billy Ivory remindedme the other day, single dramas like "Play for Today"and "Screen Two", which many hon. Members willremember, were vital in giving young screenwriter theirfirst break. Ken Loach, Mike Leigh and Stephen Frearswere part of a whole generation of the brightest andbest writing and directing talent who cut their teeth on"Play for Today' and went on to define British cinemain the decades that followed. I would like the BBC to domore to ensure that it provides the space for the aspiringwriters and actors who will be the stars of the future.

In conclusion, we do not agree with the narrowdefinition of what constitutes public service broadcasting.We believe that the licence fee should not only continueto fund news, current affairs, children's and religiousprogramming, but should be used to allow the BBC tocontinue to offer the mix of drama, science, documentaries,entertainment and sport that make it the envy of theworld. I am confident that the House will join me inrejecting the hon. Gentleman's wrong-headed proposition.It is wrong on so many counts. Turning the BBC into agraveyard for programmes that politicians think areimportant is not the answer and, crucially it is not whatthe British people want.

11.47 am

Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): May I sayhow pleasing, if not ironic, it is that in a debate on thefuture of broadcasting the Member introducing theBill-my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough(Mr Bone)-should be a virtual promoter, and not theactual promoter, who is my hon. Friend the Member forChristchurch (Mr Chope)?

I had some sympathy with the Bill when I first read it,and I had some sympathy with it when I first heard myhon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough speak.However, as his speech went on, I lost some of mysympathy. The Reithian principles underpinning theBBC to "inform educate and entertain" have changeddown the years, and the BBC itself is no longer thecolossus of information that it used to be. Sundays nolonger stop for "Hancock's Half Hour" as they did inthe 1950s and we do not all sit down to "Morecambeand Wise" on Christmas day as we did in the 1970s. TheBBC provided those programmes. Today, young peoplein particular get their information, news and entertainmentfrom a diverse set of media, largely digital. The BBCneeds to take account of that.

However I was concerned that one reason my hon.Friend gave for not scrapping but reducing the licencefee was that a gang of little armies in the BBC visitrecalcitrant licence payers saying, "I II be back-untilyou pay." That is no reason for saying hasta la vista tothe BBC, which, I think, the Bill is designed to achieve.

I am uncomfortable with the Bill especially becauseof the definition of public service content. I was particularlystruck by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member forGainsborough (Mr Leigh), which cannot be improvedon, and his consideration of what pu blic sector broadcasting

Broadcasting (Public ServiceContent) Bill

is and the fact that any definition is subjective. Oneman's demotic entertainment is another man's vitalpublic service.

Who i to say what constitutes that vital public service?For example, is satire a public service? Some of us heremight not think that it is, but many of our constituentsmay believe that satire is a vital public service. Whatabout "Lark Rise to Candleford"? I personally thinkthat it is one of the most tedious and interminableprogrammes on the BBC but others may say, "It'seducational and should be provided free of charge." Myhon. Friend the Member for orth East Somerset(Jacob Rees-Mogg) mentioned' Top Gear". Some maysay that it is childish and inane, whereas others may saythat Jeremy Clarkson is a national treasure who shouldbe preserved, and that the programme is a public servicethat should be provided free of charge. What about"Just a Minute" on the radio? My hon. Friend theMember for Welling borough spoke for not one minutewithout hesitation, deviation or repetition, but about67. Is that programme just a bit of fun or does it providelisteners with a good educational service, which improvestheir English if nothing el e?

Mr Bone: I mu t leap to my feet. My hon. Friend ison dangerous ground when he talks about "Just aMinute". Imust warn him that it is my wife's favouriteprogramme.

Christopher Pincher: I leap to its defence. I am a greatfan of "Just a Minute" and I want it to continue andNicholas Parsons to remain in the chair for as long aspossible. I certainly do not want it taken off the airbecau e ome people say that it is not public servicebroadcasting, that it should pay its own way and, if itcannot, that it should go.

My hon. Friend mentioned "Test Match Special".Does he think that it is impartial? I would say that it isnot. When England play Australia, Aggers is particularlypartial. Would my hon. Friend therefore strike theprogramme from the list of public service broadcasting?I hope that he would not. He seemed to say that hesupported it.

My hon. Friend appears to want to turn the Secretaryof State, the ational Audit Office or both into somesort of latter-day Lord Chamberlain's Office, to adjudicateon what is appropriate for public service broadcasting.We could end up with programme makers, uncertainabout whether the programme that they wish to put onair will qualify for public service subsidy, going script inhand to the Secretary of State, saying, "Here you are,sir. Read this. Do you think you'll give us the money forit?" That would put the Secretary of State or the NAOin an invidious position. either are equipped for thatrole and they should not be asked to undertake it.

On the basis that I do not think that we can properlydefine public ervice and that the Secretary of State orthe AO should not be responsible for deciding what isaired and what is paid for, I oppo e the Bill. I wouldrather have Lord Patten who is a big man who can takeit on the chin, trying to sort out the BBC, and my hon.Friend the Member for Gainsborough examining clo elythe way in which the BBC spends our money-howmuch more than other broadcasters it spends on sendingjournalists and technicians off, for example, to theOlympics or to Libya-than try to interfere in editorialcontent.

Broadcasting (Public ServiceContent) Bill

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member forWelli~gborough understands my reasons for opposingthe ~ill and that he will consider withdrawing his supportfor It.

679 I APRIL 2011 680

11.54 amMr David uttall (Bury orth) (Con): It is always a

pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member forTamworth (Christopher Pincher). Iwanted to commentfurther on what the hon. Member for Ashfield (GloriaDe Piero), who has just left the Chamber, said. Like her,I grew up in Yorkshire, albeit not in Bradford, but inRotherham in south Yorkshire. Also like her, Igathereda lot of political news from the BBC in my earlier years.I remember watching the great Brian Walden on aSunday I~nchtime. I hope it is not too embarrassing tosay that m some ways, I rather looked forward to hisinterviews and his tremendous style. It was a greatpleasure to me that as I progressed in politics, I had theopportunity to meet him in person and to listen to himat greater length. I am glad that he i now far moresupportive of Conservative views than perhaps he waswhen a Labour Member of Parliament. evertheless,he was a great interviewer.

I have that in common with the shadow Minister butat the outset, my hon. Friend the Member' forWellingborough (Mr Bone), who so ably moved theSecond Reading motion, mentioned Dan Hannan'ssuccessful viral video, which had 2 million or 3 millionhits from around the world. As my hon. Friend said onSecond Reading of a similar Billin 2009, it wasmentionedthat that story was covered by the BBC not at the time,but two days later, when Mr Hannan, a Member of theEuropean Parliament, was interviewed on the BBC notbeca~se of t~e speech itself, but because of the coveragethat It received on YouTube. With typical modesty,~r Hannan said that he was completely perplexed andslightly stunned by the global reaction to his speech butmany licence fee payers would have been completelyperplexedand slightlystunned by the fact that Mr Mardell,the reporter who covered the story, had not felt itnecessary or appropriate to cover the speech in hisreport from Strasbourg on the day when it was made.

I shall not stand here this morning and launch adiatribe against the BBC-far from it. I have no axe togrind against the BBC, which does the job that it was setup to do. In many ways, the problem is historical andlies with the legislation. Many good people work in theBBC, and day in, day out, carry out their duties to thebest of their ability. I do not see it as my job to attackthe BBC.

Debates on such matters often turn into a debate on:vhether one i~pro or anti-BBC, but I want to approachIt from the pomt of the view of the public. What is bestfor the public? What is best for an average family sittingat home? What do they want from their television setand radio?

We are moving to a completely new et-up for thewhole of broadcasting which is why I think this debateis so timely and important. The licence fee dates back toan era when broadcasting was new and cutting-edgetechnology,and I can wellunderstand whyit was necessaryfor it to receivepublic help. It was sensible for Parliamentat the time to say, "Look, if this new technology is toget off the ground, it needs help and something to pushit along" and so the licence fee was born. It started life

Broadcasting (Public ServiceContent) Bill

modestly. I think that the first licence fee, back in theearly '20 , was just a few shillings. It then developedover the years to what it is today. The first licence feewas for a radio-of course, there was no televisionwhen it was introduced-and was just 10 shillings inNovember 1922. The first television licence fee was £2the first colour licence fee, which was introduced in1968, was £10, and today it is £145.50.I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for ensuring

that the licence fee will be frozen for the next six years.When it comes down to the household budget, that willbe of great benefit, certainly to all of my constituents.

Mr Bone: As usual, my hon. Friend is making apowerful speech. Iwould have to disagree with him onone thing though. How can it be right that when everyother public service has to make cuts, the BBC only hasto freeze its spending? That does not seem fair to me.

Mr uttall: There is that point. One might ask why itwas not asked to reduce the licence fee, but it did takeon additional responsibilities, as I understand it. Thatwas covered in the letter from the Secretary of State toSirMichaelLyons inwhichhe reaffirmed theGovernment'srespect for the BBC's editorial and operationalindependence, but made it clear that, as part of the newettlement, the BBC would have to provide funding fornew broadcasting activities. That includes local media,to which I will return later. However, the thing that hasreceived most publicity is that it will take over fundingfor the World Service, BBC Monitoring and S4C. So theGovernment have asked the BBC to take on newresponsibilities, so, in effect, there will be a reduction.

There is, however, plenty of scope for cuts to theBBC's budget. The amounts involved are eye-watering.I realise that £145.50 does not sound like very much.People would think, "That' pretty good value, isn't it?"It might well be good value, but the point is that it ismultiplied across the whole nation. Let us considerhouses split into separate flats and households. Eachneeds a eparate television licence. In large cities, suchas Sheffield, Manchester and London, there are housesthat have been divided into flats, and there could be sixeight, 10 or even more individual units, each paying ~£145.50. It is therefore quite feasible for the BBC toreceive more than £1,000 from just one small block.

It is also notable that the licence fee has never gonedown. Most technologies are expensive to start with,but as more and more people are drawn into the market,the costs come down.

Christopher Pincher: Does my hon. Friend acceptthat although the price of the licence fee has not gonedown, its cost as a proportion of individuals' incomeshas?

Mr uttall: I do not know what the relative cost of a.10shilling licence was as a proportion of weekly incomeIn-

Christopher Pincher: The average weekly income in1922 was between £2 and £3.

Mr uttaU: So yes, on that basis, the licence fee isprobably more affordable now. However, that is not tosay that my underlying point about the wealth, assetsand fmancial power of the BBC is not entirely valid.