DUTIES OF BBC AS RESPECTS INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIONS (Hansard, 9 May 1990)

§ Mr. Maclennan
I beg to move amendment No. 698, in page 126, line 21, leave out subsections (3) to (9).

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 606, in page 126, line 21, leave out 'The Director General of Fair Trading ("the Director")' and insert 'the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC'. No. 607, in line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert-— '(4) the Chairman shall publish any report made by him under this section in such manner as he considers appropriate and for the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege shall attach to any such report'. No. 608, in clause 172, page 127, line 27, leave out clause 172.

§ Mr. Maclennan
This group of amendments returns to a subject that we debated exhaustively in Committee relating to the requirement that the BBC should achieve a target of 25 per cent. production of designated programmes by independent producers from 1993 Onwards. The amendments deal with the Bill's proposed requirement that that should be monitored by the Office of Fair Trading. The BBC has strongly argued that that is unnecessary and will duplicate its efforts in that role. The achievement of that target is on course. This year—the year up to March 1990—independent transmissions will be running at the agreed target of 360 hours. There is no evidence that the BBC is unwilling to meet the target, and the system of monitoring in place has been carried on since the BBC was set up.
359 The board of governors has responsibility for regulating the BBC, and it would be a remarkable departure from the board's historic role to give the task of detailed regulation of that requirement to the Office of Fair Trading. It is not clear why that has been done. It suggests a lack of confidence in the board of governors——

§ Mr. Skinner
What is the reason?

§ Mr. Maclennan
I have yet to hear the reason. I think it may be that the Minister simply wanted to demonstrate the Government's hostility to the BBC, but it is an odd way of doing so.
I shall not repeat the warnings uttered earlier by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) about the danger of tampering with the BBC in future. I take the point which has been made forcefully by the BBC—that, if this form of regulation is to be imposed upon it, it is odd that it is not being imposed upon independent producers as well. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.

§ Mr. Skinner
That is one way of putting it.

§ Mr. Maclennan
It is not an original way of putting it, but it is certainly a way of putting it. At this time of night, it is not too bad.
I shall not delay the House, because the arguments were extensively canvassed in Committee and the points were made forcefully. The BBC remains strongly hostile. When the BBC is as cost-conscious as it has to be, and is making savings that are leading to cuts in manning, to sackings and to a diminution of service, it is irresponsible to impose upon it the double duty of monitoring itself and providing the information to the Office of Fair Trading at its behest. It seems like a fifth wheel, which I hope the Government will remove.

§ Mr. Corbett
I do not intend to repeat the arguments which were made extensively in Committee. Very few of us can understand the logic behind the Government wanting to import the Director General of Fair Trading into this position. It looks very much as if the Government do not trust the BBC. If that is the case, it is unfair. There is no reason to assume that the BBC will not do what is asked of it, especially as it reports to the House annually.

§ Mr. Mellor
The answer is that no organisation can be above regulation. The governors of the BBC, in whom we have a great deal of confidence, are part of the BBC structure. They are the broadcasters. Although the initiative is going well, the relationship can be fraught with difficulty. The independent producers are entitled to expect that there should be an independent body charged by the House with responsibility for competition policy, monitoring the way in which these arrangements are carried through. It is no disrespect to the BBC, any more than it is disrespect to Ministers that we can be made subject to Parliament, to Select Committees or to the judiciary. It is part and parcel of the checks and balances in a sophisiticated society.
We went over the arguments in Committee. I am grateful for the forbearance of the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I cannot devise any novel arguments as to why we are doing this. We should not have to apologise for saying that there should 360 be objective assessment by an indpendent body charged with dealing with competition policy. That is the thinking behind the provision. We mean no disrespect to the governors of the BBC, but the governors are just that—the broadcasters in relation to the BBC. They cannot claim to stand sufficiently apart from the BBC to be accepted as entirely independent should any difficulties arise.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel the need to press the amendment.

§ Mr. Maclennan
The Minister has repeated the arguments which we heard before. They carry no greater weight than they did when they were first deployed. It remains mysterious that the Government should feel so vulnerable to unreasonable criticism from other quarters removed from the BBC that they feel they must impose a duty upon the governors. It is not a duty which will involve no cost, and it will involve a considerable amount of bureaucratic time. It is unlike the Government to go down that route for what we cannot regard as a practical reason. To this audience the Minister feels that he has made his point and that there is nothing more to say.
I hope that the Government will think again. I have no doubt that the matter will be considered in another place, where there are former senior figures from the BBC and from the regulatory authority. They will latch on to this point and reconsider it. For all the Minister's disclaimers about hostility to the BBC or lack of trust, there is no history whatever of the BBC not carrying out the statutory obligations imposed upon it by the House. If Parliament imposes upon the BBC an obligation to have a certain proportion of independently produced programmes, there can be no case on the basis of history for arguing that the BBC will not fulfil that obligation.
The Minister has baffled us by using what seems to be a piece of dogma but not a "cost less" piece of dogma. I hope that the matter will be taken up in another place and that we shall hear more about it in later debates on the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.