Estimates Day — [2nd Allotted Day — 1st Part] — Supplementary Estimates, 2004–05 — Future of the BBC

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 3:23 pm on 9 March 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Shadow Minister (Trade and Industry) (Trade and Economic Affairs) 3:23, 9 March 2005

Well, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has come to visit the Chamber today.

Not everything is rosy in the garden. There have been changes in the environment, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton said. In 1998, all broadcasting was analogue, but now more than half of all television transmissions are received digitally. The Government have a programme for analogue switch-off, but as the right hon. Gentleman also pointed out, we must ensure that we do not develop a digital divide that prevents people from viewing television when all analogue transmitters are switched off—in the same way that we do not want a digital divide in access to the worldwide web. The Committee addressed that issue in its report, "A public BBC".

The licence fee has been debated since the start of the National Heritage Select Committee. We all—at least, all of us bar one—accept that the licence fee is a regressive tax. My hon. Friend Mr. Whittingdale described it as a poll tax. However, we must accept that it is the least worst way to fund the BBC. No one has so far pointed out the effect on ITV and Channels 4 and 5 if the BBC were funded by advertising. The advertising cake is a defined size and if the BBC were to take just a £1 billion slice, let alone the amount it receives at the moment, it would cripple all forms of terrestrial commercial broadcasting, which at the moment offers a counterbalance to the BBC. We may not like that, but it is economic fact.

I emphasise how pleased I am that the Secretary of State has rejected the ridiculous idea of top-slicing. It would have created real political pressure on the BBC and the Government's wish for

"A strong BBC, independent of government" would not have been maintained.

The Government have severely passed the buck on the trustees. Whether the trustees will work as independent arbiters is not the point. The point is that justice has to be seen to be done. When complaints are made against the BBC by individual viewers and listeners, or by commercial organisations who feel that the BBC is competing unfairly, a final adjudication by the governors of the BBC is never seen to be fair whether the BBC is judged guilty or not. My fear—indeed, my prediction—is that whether the trustees are independent or not, their adjudication will not be seen as fair. The trustees will be seen as an integral part of the BBC, no matter how hard we try to ensure a distance. The only way to ensure that the BBC is seen to be judged fairly is to allow an independent organisation to adjudicate. That might be a Beebcom or Ofcom, although many members of the Committee believed that the latter has enough to deal with without adding the BBC.

We must also consider the BBC's provision of programming. My hon. Friend Mr. Evans has asked me to emphasise yet again the good work that the BBC does to encourage charitable contributions, such as red nose day. Of course, the coverage that the BBC gave to the tsunami was one of the reasons why so much money was raised for that. It is worth remembering that the BBC was able to cover that event well—not just at the time, but in the immediate aftermath—because of the large number of its broadcasters and correspondents based overseas. Let us remind ourselves that the BBC has more foreign correspondents than CNN, all three American television networks—ABC, CBS and NBC—Fox and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation combined. The BBC provides a tremendous resource through not only the World Service, which several hon. Members have commended, but its correspondents, who are seen on television stations in America and throughout the world via news syndication. They promote the values of not only the BBC, but Britain.

The Green Paper, which followed on closely from the Select Committee report, had a lot of good in it. However, it does not address the main problems that face the BBC or the population's perception of it. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to respond to those points and, especially, tell us how the board of trustees will be seen to be independent and separate from the corporation's management.