To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is planning any review of the new system of dealing with independent television franchise applications.

No.

Has the Minister not been advised by his officials—he certainly should have been—that it is the near-unanimous view of everyone who cares about broadcasting that the franchise allocation system is a complete and utter farce? Is he aware that one of the most damaging aspects of the system has been the loss of about 2,000 jobs—especially in the regions—and the loss of production facilities and skills, largely to London and the south-east, but, taken as a whole, throughout the industry? Surely the Minister owes it to us to undertake a thorough review of the system, to stop listening to advertisers and the Treasury and to start listening to viewers and programme-makers.

The proof of the tendering system for licences will be in the results of that process, which we have yet to see. I am encouraged that about 40 excellent contestants have entered the ring. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about job losses in some independent television companies that are bidding should be set against the views of those who are responsible for the companies. If the hon. Gentleman spoke to them they would acknowledge that the time had come when it was necessary to run their operations more cost effectively. If the bidding system has helped to that end, that is one of its benefits.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we put all the television companies, including the BBC, on the same basis? Should not we consider in the next few years getting rid of the paraphernalia of the licensing system, detector vans and people being taken to court, along with all the other nonsenses that have been involved in raising finance for the BBC? Cannot the BBC stand on its own two feet along with all the other television companies?

My hon. Friend is well ahead of herself. We shall examine the structure of the BBC when the charter comes up for renewal in 1996. I accept, of course, that the way in which the BBC will be financed is a matter of intense debate and interest. If we abolish the licence fee, I do not know what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will ask about during Home Office Questions.

Does not the Minister recognise the potential damage to the quality and diversity of programming that the loss of thousands of skilled staff jobs and production facilities in every region is likely to cause under the mad and blind auction system? In the run-up to the new Channel 3, will he respond to a plea from the television companies to reconsider the Treasury take, which, under the levy system, is being unfairly inflated because of a decline in advertising? There are dire warnings about the inflated take jeopardising the ability of the companies to deliver on their programme promises.

On the contrary, the process of tendering ensures that each contestant company has to show that it has the resources, the management skills and the capacity to produce the programmes that it says will be produced so as to cross the quality threshold. The system underpins what the hon. Gentleman wishes to ensure.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern within ITV that some franchise applicants are still actively seeking financial backing for their bids and are now free to show the programme proposals of their competitors? Does not that undermine the integrity of the bidding process? Will he confirm again to the House this afternoon that the intention of the legislation was that applicants should have their programme proposals and business plans, soundly backed with finance, already in place when their applications were submitted?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Act requires bidders to show that they can carry out what they say they will do. Whether any additional piece of information is acceptable at a later date is entirely a matter for the Independent Television Commission, but I am sure that it will read what my hon. Friend has said about the matter and take note of it.