---

BBC

No, I will not give way. It is normal courtesy for the Minister who is leading on an Opposition day to say why the Secretary of State is not present. The Minister has said that the BBC will get the settlement that it needs to deliver public service broadcasting, a sentiment with which we can all agree, but without proper debate the charter review and licence fee settlement will not enjoy universal or even majority support. He boasted of the unprecedented consultation conducted by his Department, but are the Government and the BBC actually listening? We cannot have a proper debate without openness and transparency, particularly in the definition of what actually constitutes public service broadcasting and in the detailed scrutiny of the figures and planning assumptions behind the BBC’s application for an unprecedented increase in its licence fee. Indeed, the Minister seems miffed that we have called the debate, which was warmly welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Eccles (Ian Stewart). It is no argument to say that the Government are calling a debate on the BBC next month, because that debate will only cover charter renewal and not the licence fee. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) has already mentioned the DCMS website, but the Minister failed adequately to deal with his point. The section of the DCMS website entitled ““BBC charter review”” states that the charter review is expected to be completed in mid-2006. It also states:"““Mid 2006 Licence Fee level agreed””" and—this is the crunch point—"““Mid 2006 Parliamentary debate on Charter and Agreement.””" In other words, both the charter and the licence fee were expected to be on the table for next month’s debate. On 6 June, however, the Secretary of State, who was speaking to the all-party group on the media at a Channel 4 bash, said that the decision would be made towards the end of the year. Why did the media section of The Guardian state that that comment scotched speculation that a deal might be concluded before Parliament goes into its summer recess? The speculation was on the DCMS website. Mid-2006 does not mean October and November, but June and July—when Parliament is sitting, not when it is in recess. The DCMS website gives the game away. Something has happened between the publication of that and what the Minister said today and the Secretary of State said at the drinks bash the other evening. The real reason is that the DCMS has been rocked by criticism from the independent commercial sector. The PKF report commissioned by the Department, which is yet again mired in an ongoing difference of opinion with the Treasury, concluded:"““there are a number of areas which point towards a significant need for discussion in regard to the BBC’s Red Book bid for the licence fee settlement for the next period. We consider that our detailed report contains specific information for the Government to progress discussions with the BBC which would point to a lower settlement than currently sought. There are, however, a number of areas, especially in relation to digital switchover, where figures can only be finalised following policy decisions by Government””." In his excellent opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon called for several questions to be answered. We need proper scrutiny of the BBC through the National Audit Office, not the voluntary scheme that we have at the moment. What is the point of the NAO being told by the BBC when it can and cannot look into financial matters? The Minister said that the NAO should be involved in licence fee negotiations. Perhaps the Minister who responds could clarify what he meant by that. He said that it could be an attack on editorial independence, but he did not answer a straight question and give some examples of what he meant by that. Will the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box next month, when we have the debate on the charter review, that all the figures featured in the Government’s negotiations with the BBC will be public and transparent so that everyone can see what is going on? There has been a powerfully expressed view in the media that the bid offered by the BBC in October 2005 requesting the RPI plus 2.3 per cent. settlement presents no more than a superficial wish list of spending demands that is not grounded in adequate evidence or justification. The House of Lords Select Committee on the Review of the BBC Charter said of the BBC’s costings that they are"““rudimentary and could be significantly reduced…the BBC has admitted that the figure in the bid was based on the easiest calculation possible rather than on a real estimate of how best value could be provided.””" The PKF report found that"““costings used to support the investment programme are generally best estimates…in the past five years…the BBC…has delivered only marginal cash releasing organizational efficiency savings””." Several Members pointed out that the extra money going to the BBC in future might distort the marketplace and stifle innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that it would crowd out competition and asked why Ofcom will have only a limited input in looking into BBC practices. According to the way in which the charter review is worded, the BBC Trust will act as both poacher and gamekeeper. Licences for online services seem to be lumped together whereas, as several hon. Members have said, each online activity should have its own specific licence. A report published last month by the consultancy, Indepen, commissioned by ITV, said that the BBC’s bid risked fuelling ““super-inflation”” in the recruitment of on-screen talent. It also claimed that the proposed above-inflation rise in the licence fee would hit lower-income families harder and contradicted the BBC’s claim that the cost would fall as a percentage of disposable income. I have only had 10 minutes and there is much more to say, but I need to leave 10 minutes for the Under-Secretary’s winding-up speech. It is pleasure to see the Secretary of State in her place. However, it would have been far better if she had been here at the start to deal with the Government’s lack of response on the subject.