§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
8.24 pm§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On 14 July, I raised on a point of order a matter that the press was reporting at the time. It was being said that the BBC was intending to end the Tuesday-to-Saturday item on Radio 4, "Yesterday in Parliament". On that occasion, my protest was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Madam Speaker informed the House that she would write to the director-general of the BBC, which she did. I have seen the reply that was sent to her. I have also seen the second letter that she wrote, telling the chairman of the BBC that she was not satisfied—and that Members of Parliament were not satisfied—with the reason given for ending "Yesterday in Parliament".
I, too, took the matter up with those at the BBC, including its chairman. It is clear from the replies that I received, and from the letters sent to Madam Speaker, that a decision has nearly been reached to drop the programme, probably next April. The BBC's favourite line is that apparently some 350,000 listeners switch off when the item is due to start. That is the figure which the chairman quoted in a letter to Madam Speaker, and the BBC has used it a number of times.
It so happened that, two weeks after I raised my point of order and when the summer recess had already begun, I telephoned the BBC to try to establish the figures relating to the non-parliamentary substitute slot. The item in question is broadcast at more or less the same time as "Yesterday in Parliament"—at 8.40 or 8.45 am, ending at 9 am. Having been unable to secure that information in my telephone call, I wrote to the controller of Radio 4, and was told by Mr. Boyle that the same number of people listened to the substitute slot as listened to "Yesterday in Parliament".
It is understandable that Radio 4, and other radio stations, lose many listeners after 8.40 or 8.45 am. The BBC does not need to carry out a survey to realise that people are getting ready to leave for work at that time, or parking their cars and preparing to go into the workplace. In fact, the listening figures decline from 8 am for those reasons.
"Yesterday in Parliament" is broadcast from Tuesday onwards. The figures show that the decline in listening on Mondays—when, obviously, it is not broadcast—is the same as on the other days. In more recent times, there has been, if anything, a slight increase in the listening figures in the period after 8.30 am, including the time when "Yesterday in Parliament" is due to start.
The BBC has come up with a number of excuses to try to justify what it intends to do. The latest excuse is that listeners find "Yesterday in Parliament" too demanding at that time of the morning. When the BBC is asked why more people do not listen to the substitute programme that is broadcast when the House is not sitting—on Mondays, for instance—various facile excuses are given. One, which featured in a letter that I received from the chairman of the BBC, is that potential listeners do not switch on because they think that "Yesterday in Parliament" is being broadcast. It is very difficult to believe that, in the middle of August, people who are quite 1256 well informed are frightened to switch on Radio 4 at around 8.45 am because there is a possibility that "Yesterday in Parliament" is being broadcast. That is a lot of nonsense, and I am sure that the chairman and director-general of the BBC know it. More than 1.2 million people listen to "Yesterday in Parliament".
The BBC agreement says that it should broadcast an account of Parliament. The appropriate clause of the agreement states:
The BBC shall broadcast an impartial account day by day of the proceedings of Parliament.That was agreed more than 50 years ago. The BBC argues that dropping "Yesterday in Parliament" would not undermine that agreement, since "Today in Parliament"—which goes out at 11.30 pm—will continue. That is one of the most flimsy excuses that has been put forward by the BBC since I raised the point of order in July."Today in Parliament" now goes out only on long wave, which many listeners are unable to get. There has probably been a reduction in listeners since 1994as a result. Incidentally, on Fridays it goes out on both FM and long wave, a matter to which I shall return. "Yesterday in Parliament" has always had more listeners than its sister programme, which is perfectly understandable due to the time that "Today in Parliament" is broadcast. More people listen to the radio early in the morning. I understand that the same staff are responsible for both programmes. I am sure that it would be generally agreed that both programmes are excellent accounts of parliamentary proceedings. My wish is that they should both continue. I believe that that is the strong feeling in the House.
The BBC says that "Today in Parliament"—the evening programme—will be extended on a Friday, which of course is welcome. Instead of a 15-minute slot, the programme will be half an hour long, as it is on other evenings. Although the BBC intend to extend the programme on Fridays, it will go out only on long wave—not on both frequencies as it does now on that day. Even in that aspect, the BBC is not being honest with the House or with listeners who would like to hear what has been going on in both Houses of Parliament.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts will wish to respond to the fact that "The Week in Westminster", which has been the subject of an early-day motion, is being moved from Saturday morning to Thursday evening. That will undoubtedly mean far fewer listeners. The BBC says that to keep "The Week in Westminster" on Saturday morning is too demanding—much the same reason that it gave for dropping "Yesterday in Parliament".
Have the people who listen to "The Week in Westminster" protested about its being too demanding and said that they would like it on some other day? Have letters been sent to the chairman and director-general of the BBC saying that it is much too serious a programme for a Saturday morning? No, the BBC is showing contempt—I can put it no other way—for what goes on in the House by seeking to drop "Yesterday in Parliament" and by the way in which it is dealing with the long-established "The Week in Westminster". Those programmes are accurate, impartial and give a good indication of what goes on during the week in both Houses. There is no possible reason for the BBC to proceed as it intends to do.
As I said in my letter to the BBC, it should recognise that the liberty of all of us depends on the maintenance of parliamentary democracy. Such freedom would not last 1257 five minutes if there were no Parliament and the free democratic institutions which arise from the very existence of the two Houses. Those in control of the BBC should certainly take that into account. It should not be the job of the most senior BBC executives to sideline and marginalise the proceedings of Parliament, and then use any excuse, however flimsy, to stop broadcasting what has occurred in the House the previous day.
We all agree that some days are more dramatic than others. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), the duty Whip, would not like a repeat of what occurred in the House yesterday—but it did occur, and should not listeners hear what has been happening? Why should they hear only a studio discussion, an interview with a Front Bencher or, as often happens, a discussion between two lots of journalists?
Before the 1970s, before there were facilities for broadcasting parliamentary proceedings, the BBC was very keen that there should be radio broadcasts, as later it was keen that the House should be televised. It was right, and the House was wrong to be reluctant to do what was necessary to ensure that radio and televisual broadcasting facilities were provided.
The BBC has always had many friends in Parliament. That was highlighted not so long ago when, in the previous Parliament, it seemed that the Foreign Office intended to cut the amount of money given to the World Service. The reaction of hon. Members on both sides of the House showed that we recognise the excellent work that the BBC does in broadcasting to people abroad. One hopes that that will continue.
There is a fear that the BBC will stop having so many friends in the House if it shows such disregard of hon. Members' wishes. The matter is not one of hon. Members' wishes or egos, and whether we appear in the programmes or not. We want a well-informed democracy. I deplore the fact, for instance, that the serious papers no longer report Parliament; the tabloids never did, of course. The broadsheets carry a sketch, but that is about all.
Once The Times decided that it would not carry a daily account of our proceedings, the other broadsheets followed suit. Obviously I do not seek to justify that, but they are commercial organisations and have no obligation to Parliament. The BBC is not a commercial organisation; it is a public service broadcasting organisation. It should recognise that it has a duty to keep people informed about what is happening in this House and in the other place. It is not simply a question of hon. Members' pride being hurt; our case is not made on that. There is a need to continue the broadcasts so that people know what is going on. If anything, coverage should be extended because a well-informed society helps democracy to survive. That is another point which those who control the BBC should not forget
I should like the chairman and director-general of the BBC to come in person to see Madam Speaker, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House to discuss the reporting of parliamentary proceedings. So far, there has just been correspondence. It is clear from the most recent letter to the BBC chairman that Madam Speaker is not satisfied. She also makes the point that parliamentarians are not satisfied, and she is absolutely right. Let us end the correspondence. Let the chairman, the director-general and the controller of Radio 4 come 1258 and put their case to Madam Speaker, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House. Let the BBC try to justify what it intends to do.
Rumours are going around that as a concession some parliamentary reporting might be scheduled before 7 am for five or 10 minutes. My hon. Friend the Minister looks puzzled, and well he might, because that would not be a concession: it would show contempt. I accept that my hon. Friend has no powers in the matter, and that is right: the last thing I want is for the Government to tell the BBC what to do, except through the agreement that was drawn up 50 years ago.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will remind the BBC—as Madam Speaker, other hon. Members and I have done—that it has an obligation to report our proceedings and no justification for dropping "Yesterday in Parliament". If my hon. Friend makes those points today—they were also made on 14 July by the deputy shadow Leader of the House—I hope that the BBC will reconsider. "Yesterday in Parliament" should continue, not in some slot hidden away before 7 am but at its present time. That is what I and other hon. Members want, and we have every justification for requesting the BBC to hold to its obligation—not for ourselves, but for the public, who have a right to listen to what has been happening in both Houses of Parliament.
§ The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on securing this debate. I am well aware of the considerable concern among hon. Members about the broadcast coverage of parliamentary proceedings, and I welcome this opportunity for some of those concerns to be aired.
The obligations placed on the BBC in respect of its broadcasting services are set out in its royal charter and agreement. In relation to its domestic public services, those include broad obligations about the number of television and radio services, objectives and programme content, standards and scheduling. For example, the BBC is required to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter which serves the tastes and needs of different audiences. The BBC agreement also contains one specific programming requirement introduced—as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said—in 1948 and reiterated in 1996, that the corporation
shall transmit an impartial account day by day, prepared by professional reporters, of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament".Within that framework, decisions about programme content and scheduling are wholly a matter for the corporation itself.That position reflects the independence of the BBC in all editorial and management matters, including the content of its programmes and the times at which they are broadcast. That independence was, for the first time, enshrined in the 1996 agreement, but it is not a new concept. The need for editorial independence, from both political and commercial influences—as recognised by my hon. Friend—has been one of the fundamental principles governing the BBC since its establishment as a public corporation, and a public service broadcaster, in 1927 The Government fully support that principle.
1259 The BBC's independence brings with it obligations, including the need as a public corporation to be—and be seen to be—accountable to licence fee payers, as viewers and listeners; to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the custodian of its charter and agreement; and to Parliament as the public authority for the moneys paid through the licence fee. To realise that accountability, the BBC must keep in touch with its audiences and be responsive to their concerns.
It is clear from questions raised in the House, from this Adjournment debate, from early-day motion 246 signed by hon. Members from all political parties, and from the active interest taken in the matter by Madam Speaker that Members of Parliament are extremely concerned about the proposed changes that the BBC announced on 30 July.
Those changes include the transfer of "The Week in Westminster" from Saturday morning to Thursday evening; the extension of "The Week in Westminster" and "In Committee" from their present 42 weeks and 18 weeks respectively to a full 52 weeks a year each; and the possible dropping of "Yesterday in Parliament". It is that last proposal, and the rescheduling of "The Week in Westminster", that have caused Madam Speaker most concern.
It may be of interest to the House if I quote from Madam Speaker's exchanges with the BBC chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, which illustrate the arguments well. Madam Speaker wrote to Sir Christopher on 15 July:
you will note that there is serious concern amongst Members at the report that this programme is to be discontinued. I share this concern. 'Yesterday in Parliament' performs an invaluable function in bringing Parliament closer to the people. That is a proper function for a public service broadcasting organisation to perform and I hope that you can give me an assurance to pass on to the House that `Yesterday in Parliament' will not be affected by the programme changes that I understand are under consideration.She explained her unhappiness at the transfer of "The Week in Westminster":This causes me very great concern. 'The Week in Westminster' is a long established programme with a fine reputation for providing both an insight into the workings of Parliament and an opportunity for backbenchers to be heard. It attracts a regular attendance of over 500,000. If it were to be relegated to Thursday evening, not only would the audience be more than halved, but the whole character of the programme would change since it could no longer provide an overview by a leading political journalist of the week's activities.Sir Christopher's reply, on 24 July, made three points. First, he saw the BBC's plans as enhancing Radio 4's coverage of Parliament since they would giveall year round coverage of the work of MPs in 'The Week in Westminster' and 'in Committee', which are currently broadcast only when Parliament is sitting. This move is intended better to reflect the constituency work of Members as well as their duties at Westminster".That is an interesting proposal, although hardly reflected in the two programmes' titles and not of direct relevance to the BBC's charter obligation for a day-by-day account.Madam Speaker was unimpressed by that line. She replied:
It is difficult to see that the transfer of 'The Week in Westminster' and its replacement by 'The Food Programme' could be regarded as anything but a down-grading of Parliamentary Coverage.1260 Sir Christopher's second point was thatthe BBC's important obligation to report Parliament comprehensively"—had to be reconciled—with its need to remain sympathetic to listeners needs".He claimed thatthe Radio 4 audience drops by 350,000 when 'Yesterday in Parliament' begins and there is evidence of many listeners re-tuning to other stations at this point".Madam Speaker, in her reply of 5 November, dismissed that argument asspurious. The drop appears to be part of a trend that for obvious reasons manifests itself during the early morning and is just as apparent when Parliament is in recess as when 'Yesterday in Parliament' is broadcast".My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North also made that point.Sir Christopher appeared to accept Madam Speaker's dismissal of the BBC's claims of loss of audience when, in his reply of 21 November, he conceded that
all radio networks lose some of their listeners as part of a national trend between 8.30 and 9, but…Radio 4 loses its audience share faster…in the 15 minutes from 8.30–8.45 audience share falls by 1.3 per cent. and falls by a further 0.9 per cent. by 8.45–9.00.With regard to "The Week in Westminster", Sir Christopher accepted in his letter of 21 November that the audience on Thursday eveningis likely to be significantly lower than on Saturday morning".However, he pointed out that a new Thursday evening slot for "The Week in Westminster" would place it in an evening of strong factual programmes, including "The Moral Maze", "Analysis" and "In Business". He did not respond to Madam Speaker's observation that, in a mid-week slot,the whole character of the programme would change"—from being an overview of the past week's activities.Those, especially the assessment of existing and putative audiences, are complicated matters, but as the BBC's case for change rests on them, they need to be considered in some detail. Mr. Peter Hill, a former BBC parliamentary correspondent, wrote in The House magazine on 20 October that the radio audience
rose sharply at 6 am to 8 am to a peak of around 4.3 per cent. of the UK population over 15 (around 2 million) and then drops sharply to about 1.5 per cent. (about 730,000) where it stays for most of the morning. So the audience is dropping just as sharply during the "Today" programme at 8.10 and 8.30, and the "Start The Week" type programmes at 9.05 as it is during "Yesterday in Parliament". What is more on Monday morning, when there is usually a book reading in the same slot, the decline in audience is exactly the same. So let's kill the myth that it is somehow politics that makes people turn away or retune".The BBC's response is interesting. It accepts that the drop is, as Mr. Hill says, the same, but claims that its qualitative research shows thatthe typical listener found the Parliamentary reports far too demanding at that time in the morning".Madam Speaker's response to the BBC's explanation was that it didlittle to allay my reservations about the changes you have in mind".Sir Christopher's latest letter to Madam Speaker, dated 11 December, says that he understands her continued 1261 reservations and believes a meeting between them would be "valuable" andan important part of the consultative process.In her letter of 8 December, Madam Speaker welcomes such a meeting so long as it is held before the BBC's decisions are irrevocable.Madam Speaker is an eminently reasonable person. Why is she, like so many other Members of the House, so exercised about this matter? It is because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North explained in correspondence with Mr. James Boyle, the controller of Radio 4:
all our liberties depend on the maintenance of Parliamentary democracy",and that can be achieved only if our debates in both Houses are available to the public on a daily basis as laid down in the BBC's charter.In recent years, the national press has changed and diminished its coverage of Parliament, but that should not be claimed as a precedent for any downgrading of coverage by the BBC, as newspapers are commercial bodies with no public service obligations, while the BBC is our key public service broadcaster, financed with public money and operating within obligations set out in the charter.
§ Mr. WinnickIs it not interesting that when the BBC says that it is observing the agreement it always cites "Today in Parliament" in justification? However 1262 although, as I said, that programme lasts half an hour, it is broadcast only on long wave. Indeed, on Fridays, when it usually goes out on both frequencies, it is to change to long wave only. Is it not disgraceful that people who previously listened will no longer be able to do so, simply because they cannot receive long wave? Does not that demonstrate again the fact that those who control the BBC have no real wish to carry out the agreement in practice, except to the bare minimum?
§ Mr. FisherI think that implicit in Madam Speaker's remarks about the difference between "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" is her interpretation of the words, "the obligation to report". A report is a retrospective activity, and "Yesterday in Parliament" fulfils that spirit of retrospective reporting in the charter.
I know that the BBC chairman and governors take their charter obligations seriously. I am confident that they are well aware that their role is to ensure that the public interest in our democracy is properly served, and that they will listen carefully to the views expressed by Parliament and by Madam Speaker, not least in the meeting that Sir Christopher has offered her.
Thanks to my hon. Friend's choice of subject for the debate, this has been an interesting and useful exchange. I have welcomed the opportunity to discuss an important matter, and I thank my hon. Friend again for his initiative in securing the debate.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Nine o'clock.