HC Deb 21 October 1998 vol 317 cc1215-35

11 am

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. I recall that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who opened the previous debate, secured a debate on the BBC's obligations to Parliament on 11 March. It is largely in that context that I shall draw attention to yet another development in the relationship between the BBC and the House.

I suspect that, regardless of whatever else appears on BBC television and radio reports this evening, there will be no report of this debate. The corporation is extremely embarrassed by its failure to fulfil its public service broadcasting commitments to give proper emphasis to Parliament's role in the political life of the nation. In the past few days, I have been subjected to a stream of letters and memoranda—I suspect that other hon. Members have, too—which betray the BBC's embarrassment and defensive posture.

Hon. Members will recall the dumbing down of Radio 4, including the exile of "Today in Parliament", "Yesterday in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster" to relatively inaccessible times and wavelengths. That was the theme of the debate secured by the hon. Member for Rotherham on 11 March.

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)

I feel that I cannot take part in a second Adjournment debate today, so I beg hon. Members to excuse my absence from a debate on an issue that is dear to me. I support the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Has he seen the remarkable quotation from Miss Polly Toynbee, who said when "Yesterday in Parliament" was booted off "Today" that it was a jolly good thing because everyone was fed up with hearing Members of Parliament on that programme? Now she has recanted and said that "Today" after 8.30 am has become incredibly boring and that please could the voices of distinguished Back Benchers, such as those present—excluding myself—be heard once again. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his debate.

Mr. Tyler

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is present. I hope that hon. Members have seen his early-day motion on the subject.

The fears that were expressed in March about the treatment of parliamentary proceedings by Radio 4 have been entirely justified. We have already been forewarned that audience figures, which are coming out this week, will show that not only we, but much more importantly, the listeners, think that the BBC was wrong to replace a debate between parliamentarians with some insipid discussion in the studio. That has proved a disaster.

I note with interest that, in pointing out the hits and misses of Radio 4's changes, yesterday's edition of The Independent identified specifically such final-section debates on "Today" between 8.30 and 9 am—when we used to attract a very good audience. Those ratings appear to have collapsed. We shall no doubt hear from Mr. James Boyle later this week about how disastrous his changes have been. If they are as disastrous as has been widely forecast, I hope that, in the best traditions of the corporation, his resignation offer will shortly be on the director general's desk.

Since such events, there has been a further slaughter of the BBC's coverage of the House. At the very end of July, when there were but two days before the summer recess, it announced some further major cuts. Until July, in addition to the political teams located in each distinct part of the United Kingdom, a dedicated journalist worked full time at the Millbank studios to ensure that every relevance of Parliament to each region was identified, reported and explained. Members of all parties—Back Benchers and Front Benchers—benefited from their special knowledge, professionalism and close liaison with our work in this place. Most importantly, listeners and viewers received the service for which they were paying.

On 29 July—immediately before the summer recess—Members of Parliament received a letter from the BBC outlining the proposed changes. The letter stated that the BBC was recruiting ten political editors, one for each region in England … able to lead the way in person across all our outlets—regional television, local radio and regional text services. Regional Political Editors will split their time between their regional centres and London, working out of the BBC offices in Millbank, when Parliament is sitting. We will maintain a team of political journalists to back them up, based full time at Millbank as now, as well as our current local radio political staff in London.

Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute)

Since my hon. Friend is referring to regions in England, I should like to draw his attention to what is happening in Scotland—which is not, of course, a region. Does he agree that the BBC's reported reluctance to allow Scotland to carry its own 6 o'clock news is contrary to the spirit of devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament next year? Does he agree that that will be seen as a slap in the face for BBC Scotland and its well-produced programmes and quality staff, and will paint the British Broadcasting Corporation as yet another London-based, domineering control machine?

Mr. Tyler

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I come from another Celtic country—although we in Cornwall do not aspire to nationhood in quite the same way—and can tell her that we feel exactly the same. The steps that have been taken not only cut costs but are an attempt to metropolitanise the BBC, which is completely contrary to its charter responsibilities.

I return to the explanation given to Members of Parliament in July and the letter that was sent to us. The letter purported to suggest that there would be an improvement in regional coverage of Parliament. It said, for example: This important development can only be for the good. It will put in place a more effective system of political coverage and one with which you … will find easier to liaise. It will ensure major political regional developments are covered more comprehensively, with greater authority, and that the information reaches our regional and local centres quickly, and from there to our listeners and viewers". That is wishful thinking. The new arrangements, as they have been set out, can only be to the detriment of the BBC's regional coverage and will not offer viewers and listeners the quality of output to which we have become accustomed.

The timing of the announcement was exceptionally reminiscent of the worst media management of successive Ministers. The BBC set out plans for parliamentary coverage just as the House was rising for the summer and, indeed, as its staff were leaving Millbank to do jobs in other parts of the country, or to go on holiday. In a letter to Ariel, the BBC's in-house magazine, members of the National Union of Journalists and the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union—BECTU—wrote: The announcement that the regional political editor's post and that of the regional Westminster correspondent were to be scrapped and replaced by a new post seems to have been timed deliberately to forestall discussion by both staff and MPs, coming as it did three days before the summer recess, just as all concerned were leaving for their summer holidays. Those very astute political observers have spotted that their own bosses have been playing the games of media manipulation that we are used to from Ministers.

The claim that those cuts will strengthen political coverage is, in my view, deliberately misleading. I can imagine what Lord Reith would say about it. The 10 dedicated political correspondents based full-time at Westminster are to be replaced by four hard-pressed journalists trying to cover the whole United Kingdom. How does that strengthen the BBC's coverage of Parliament and politics?

Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) went to Millbank for an interview, only to be confronted by utter chaos. If other hon. Members have been over there in the past two or three days, they will know that the place is rundown, and depressed and dispirited as a result. No one seemed to know what was going on, and no one had any knowledge of the area.

BBC journalists themselves—we must assume that they are of the highest possible calibre, because the BBC management keeps telling us that they are—have today issued Members with a National Union of Journalists brief from its chapel about the debate: The BBC is representing this change as an 'enhancement' of regional political coverage. This is not the case. What the BBC failed to point out, in its letter to MPs last July, is that the 10 existing posts of Westminster Correspondents, based at 4, Millbank have been abolished. They will be replaced, eventually, by a team of four journalists at Millbank, working in support of the Regional Editors. They will not represent any particular region, and therefore will not be able to maintain individual contact with the region's MPs. The BBC sought to give the impression that the new Political Editors would be working from Westminster during Parliamentary term time. This is not the case. With their commitments in their regions, and taking into account travelling time, it is unlikely that they will be able to pay more than occasional visits to Westminster. Also, the facilities available to them at Westminster will be cut back. Coverage of Parliament is therefore bound to suffer. The BBC says it wants to base coverage of politics in the regions themselves. We feel, with one person expected to cover politics from both ends of the country simultaneously, coverage will inevitably suffer. The NUJ believes this to be a cost-cutting exercise". As a former member of the NUJ, I regard that as an accurate and level-headed account that in no way exaggerates the situation.

As for the claim that the appointment of political journalists in each region will offer us all a one-stop shop for contact—

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene now. I apologise for the fact that I have to be somewhere else shortly, but I am pleased to be here for his speech. Does he agree—the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting may or may not agree, but even if she does she is hardly likely to say so—that the chaos at the BBC has reached such a state that the director general and the chairman should consider their position?

Do not the developments in regional reporting that the hon. Gentleman is eloquently describing, stem largely from the way in which the BBC has done its best to undermine the national reporting of Parliament? "Yesterday in Parliament", which we have debated several times, provides an example. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the BBC is treating Parliament with utter contempt?

Mr. Tyler

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has long experience of such matters, and I think that he will agree that the present situation is unprecedented. Indeed, the appearance of BBC representatives before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport yesterday confirmed that there has been a major breakdown in Parliament's confidence in the way in which the corporation is run. I should add that I spoke to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), yesterday, and he wished to be here for the debate but cannot attend. I think that he too would endorse our views.

I shall use my region, the south-west, to illustrate the way in which the rundown of our service is likely to affect the quality of the output of the BBC. We already have in the region an excellent and experienced political editor. There is no change in that respect, no improvement. How can that man be expected to be in Plymouth and Westminster at the same time, and to cover late-breaking stories—a familiar experience in both places? Indeed, late-breaking stories are an experience with which every hon. Member will be familiar, because they happen in all parts of the country. It is beyond me that such an arrangement should be even contemplated, let alone attempted.

It takes about four and a half hours for the political editor to travel from the studio in Plymouth to the studio in Westminster. Within that time, even with modern communications—especially as Great Western Trains seems to be conspiring to try to make the time even longer, and most of the line seems to be out of contact for mobile telephones—he cannot keep abreast of developments in this place day by day and hour by hour, let alone minute by minute.

Stories break suddenly, as we all know, and events take place that are of great significance to our constituents. Such is life in politics. I fear that all too often, when something is happening in the south-west, the editor will be on a train, or here, and that when something is happening here, he will be on a train, or in the region. That is inevitable. Even when he appears at Westminster, he will have to compete at the Millbank studios with nine other editors, and the resident journalists, for three or four desks and a limited number of camera crews.

The whole operation is being run down to danger point, and starved of the necessary resources. Even if we are lucky and the political editor is at Westminster and available for an interview, there is no guarantee that he will have the facilities and the support crew that he needs.

Such practical concerns have not been thoroughly thought through by management, despite the long time for which they have been gestated. No one has explained convincingly to me or to anyone else in this place, or to the staff of the BBC, how the logistics of the new operation will work.

It is by no means clear what the four full-time journalists—the quartet who are left of the original 10—will do. So few people cannot be expected to keep in contact with all 659 Members of Parliament, let alone people in the other place, and their own regional political editors. There will be no specialisation, and no geographical or regional expertise available either to the regional editors or to ourselves.

Both radio and television coverage of Parliament will undoubtedly suffer as a result. I am especially concerned about the effects on Back Benchers. The parties, and certainly the Government, have access to a huge number of opportunities to ensure that their views are broadcast—and don't we all know it. For Back Benchers, however, making connections and forming a continuing professional relationship with a journalist who knows something about our constituencies and our regions is crucial.

I suspect that the BBC is once again, perhaps unconsciously, playing into the hands of the Government. It is the official view from Downing street and Whitehall that is most likely to be heard, rather than the views of Members, in all parts of the House, who may take a differing view.

Under the old regime, until the end of July, all Back Benchers had to do was contact somebody whom we already knew in Millbank to organise a discussion of the issues of the day. We could feel confident that he or she would know the background and something about our area, our constituencies and our special interests. He or she would also be aware of what was happening here, and its relevance to what was happening in the region. The connections would be made; one did not have to give a long explanation of where Cornwall is, or why Scotland is important. The journalist would already know; that would be part of the job. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives discovered yesterday, if one goes to the studios now, there is no guarantee that there will be anyone there who knows anything about our activities either here or in the region.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) first heard about the proposals, independently of my own representations he wrote to the BBC as follows: We also have a dedicated political correspondent at Westminster … This person is the one that we would deal with on a daily basis. I regularly see him about the House of Commons, we exchange political information in that form, he is always available on the 'phone when stories are breaking, he can be relied on to see what is going on in The Gallery so I do not have to inform him every time I make an intervention or a speech, and most important he is well aware of the developing stories in the South West, their origin and the way in which they look like developing for the future. Every hon. Member here will have a similar experience, and will be able to say that in the past the BBC has been able to take the temperature in the House in a reasonably effective way.

Most important of all, the BBC has failed to consult the House, either through individual Members of Parliament or through the House authorities. I know that Madam Speaker has made direct representations to the chairman of the BBC in the past about the lack of consultation, and I believe that the timing of the announcement at the end of July showed what the BBC thinks of her, of the House and of us as Members of it.

In my role shadowing the Leader of the House for my party, I have come across no one who shares the view that this move will—in the words of the BBC— put in place a more effective system of political coverage. I find no one who thinks that Members of Parliament will find it easier to liaise. I find no one who thinks that it will ensure that major political and regional developments are covered more comprehensively. Quite the contrary; everyone to whom I have spoken, in all parties, regards the proposals—on top of the other earlier reductions in the quality and accessibility of our coverage this year—as yet more dumbing down of Parliament and politics.

This morning, a publication entitled "Our Commitment to You: The BBC's Statement of Promises to Viewers and Listeners" arrived on my desk. Other Members may have seen it. I have looked through it quickly, and the word "Parliament" does not appear in the publication's 24 pages. Indeed, I can find no reference to politics or political activity. It is as though the BBC is saying that this place does not matter, and it is an insult that it should send such material at this time.

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk)

If the hon. Gentleman were to look carefully in the section detailing the specific promises for this year, he would find that under No. 5—this may be the nearest we get to politics—the BBC promises to devise programmes which respond to devolution and political change in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tyler

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has examined the document with even more care than me. However, I believe that I am right in saying that the word "Parliament" does not appear—not even in the context of the Scottish Parliament.

Quite apart from the BBC's intention, there is continuing confusion about the planned level of staffing. Since the original letter to which I have referred—sent on 28 July to Members of Parliament—the BBC has clearly panicked. Even after the limited response that the BBC received during the parliamentary recess from Members of Parliament, it panicked in the face of the immediate and unanimous concerns that were voiced. The latest briefing that I have been sent claims: there is the option—still the subject of negotiation—of having up to nine full-time regional correspondents, albeit on a lower grade. That has just popped out of the air in the past few days. It may be that, for once, someone is listening to Members of Parliament. I hope so, because this is a serious issue.

We do not know whether this move is all part of a ratings war with ITV, satellite and cable, or just a cost-cutting exercise to feed the voracious appetite of the coming digital revolution. Journalists believe it is the latter; I believe it may be a combination of the two.

If the BBC does not take Parliament seriously, why should we support the continuation of the licence fee? If it does not take us seriously, why should we take it seriously? Whatever else may happen, the BBC will still look to us to support it when the charter and licence arrangements are reviewed in the next few months. The chairman, governors and top management should be warned that Parliament will not take seriously their efforts to persuade us to recognise their public service role if they continue to undervalue Parliament.

The BBC's war of attrition in terms of its coverage of our affairs must end if the corporation is to continue to enjoy special privileges. If it cannot guarantee effective parliamentary and political reportage at all levels, it cannot claim to remain Britain's national broadcaster, and it must give way to someone else.

I believe, as do Members of Parliament and most members of the public, that Parliament is still the heart of our democratic system. The Speaker has warned the BBC on a number of occasions that it is out of touch with opinion here and in the country if it fails to recognise that. I hope that it heeds that warning before it is too late.

11.23 am
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on gaining this Adjournment debate on an important subject. The hon. Gentleman referred to the early-day motion that I managed to table on the last day before the long summer recess. The subject of it was brought to my attention by someone who knew what was happening in the BBC; we were not privy to that.

I am sure that Members will understand how difficult it is on the last day before the recess—indeed, the last afternoon—to get six Members of Parliament together, explain to them what is going on, win their trust and get them to put their signatures to an early-day motion. I am delighted that I was able to do so on an all-party basis. It is important that Members of all parties in the House believe that regional input into what we do here is important.

In my view, the three most important words in terms of the BBC are "public service obligation". The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the licence fee. We must justify why we tax every household in the land—I assume most have television sets—to the tune of £100 for the licence fee for the BBC, which will go up.

In her previous exalted position on the Opposition Back Benches, the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting said that the BBC ought to do a lot more to offer pensioners a reduced licence fee. Since she has got into a position to do something about it, she has changed her position somewhat. Perhaps we will hear something from her about that matter later. However, we thought that the licence fee bore heavily upon certain licence payers.

The Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson)

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is our intention to set up a panel next year to review the BBC licence fee. We have made it plain in correspondence with hon. Members from all parties that that review will include a detailed consideration of the current arrangements for licence fee concessions.

Mr. Evans

I am delighted to learn that—it may be breaking news. All Members of Parliament get constituents at our surgeries who find it difficult to understand why some obtain a concession down to being charged £5 for the licence fee while others in similar circumstances do not. The BBC will be listening carefully to what the Minister has said.

Since the early-day motion was tabled, we have been privy to information from the BBC. I have read carefully what the BBC's Michael Hastings has had to say. He is a great man but he is trying to justify the unjustifiable, although I am sure that the matter has just landed on his plate. I suspect that he had as little consultation on the re-arrangement of regional reporting as we had—which, of course, was little to none. However, his justification is pretty thin.

The BBC has already tried to marginalise the House of Commons through the changes to "Yesterday in Parliament". We were all told what a great thing that would be—we would have a much longer programme. However, the reality is that fewer people are able to listen to it. We were told that people did not want to listen because we were all boring and that they were switching off. I could imagine that some people may think us boring, but it could also have had something to do with the time of the programme. People were going to work and doing other things, and they were not able to sit and listen to it. Therefore, fewer people were able to our listen directly to our quotes on "Yesterday in Parliament."

People could argue that a wide choice is now available, with more channels and digital television. Yesterday saw the launch of BBC Parliament, the running channel made available on cable, satellite and digital on which people will be able to see non-stop coverage of the House of Commons. Few are able to see what is going on in the House of Commons currently, and the change is taking place now.

The suspicion might be that all the changes at the BBC—such as the enormous investment in the internet, which has produced some superb pages, and all the extra channels going on to digital—are costing a lot of money. The BBC is cash-limited by the licence fee, and it cannot take advertising. It is limited in terms of how it can raise revenue. One way it can do so is by chopping back and by saving money elsewhere. The BBC is saving money at the expense of the reporting of regional aspects of what is happening at Westminster.

As has been said, Front-Bench Members have enormous opportunities to be on the news at 1 o'clock and 9 o'clock and to be on various other radio stations throughout the day. They get a good hit at such broadcasting. Also, all our front players have the opportunity to appear on "On the Record". Regional reporting is completely different and it gives us an opportunity to air what we are doing here on behalf of our constituents back home. Sending journalists from London to our areas will not help us much.

The trust that is built up between regional journalists and Members of Parliament has been mentioned. In six years, I have got to know regional journalists from all the channels well, including the BBC. That trust cannot be fathomed or weighed. One cannot say, "This is what it is worth," but we know that it is worth a lot. One can pick up the telephone, talk to the regional journalist and know that what one is saying will be heard in confidence. Suggestions may be made and the journalist may be able to assist by getting a programme together or doing a piece on the issue concerned and on what the Member of Parliament is saying about it in the House. If the number of regional journalists working in the House is reduced to a mere handful, with all the others working in the regions, it will be difficult to build up the same sort of rapport with such a small group. The journalists will be snowed under, given our extra work load and all the extra issues with which we seem to be involved. Members of Parliament are already snowed under and the case load seems to increase every Session. The same must apply to journalists.

I do not know whether hon. Members have had a chance to see "News 24", the new 24-hour rolling news programme from the BBC. It is good in parts, but not good enough. I have argued that the programme could use much of the regional reporting from here, so that all the United Kingdom has a better understanding of what is going on in our country. It is all very well having good-quality programming for the regions, but why not share it out more and put some of it on "News 24", thereby making the cost of some of the reports on it more economic. As we know, news reporting is expensive. I hope that the BBC will reconsider that suggestion.

The regions have already suffered. In my area, we receive BBC's "North Westminster", on which the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting has appeared from time to time, and very good she is, too. A few years ago her wonderful appearances on that programme used to be aired twice, on the Sunday edition, which went out live, and again on the mid-week repeat. The latter had more viewers than the Sunday edition, but it was chopped. There again, a smaller audience will be left to see what we are doing at Westminster and find out what issues we are fighting for.

The BBC has made a mistake. The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that it is now rushing about, trying to plug holes and to placate us, but we are not for placating on this issue. We are fighting not for ourselves but for our constituents, who watch regional programmes and who want to know what we are doing. They write to us and from time to time they want to see us on regional television to ensure that their voices are being heard at Westminster, where it is important.

Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)

The hon. Gentleman touches on a crucial issue. Does he agree that it is not merely that our constituents want to see what we are doing, but that they are incredibly interested in highlighting the issues that they hold so dear, especially in the regions?

Mr. Evans

I agree. These are not merely the issues that interest us but those that the people in the regions feed to us—the issues about which they write to us, campaign and form lobby groups. We use regional journalists at Westminster, with whom we have built up trust, to get our constituents' views aired on the BBC on a regional basis, according to the public service obligation for which all our constituents pay their licence fee.

We want some balance. We want the BBC to reconsider. A few years ago, if the BBC was famous for anything, it was for its repeats. Let it look again at its decisions. Where it has made mistakes, let it concede that it has done so. Let the BBC concede that it has rushed this decision through without any proper consultation, that it has made mistakes about "Yesterday in Parliament" and let it change its mind. Let it ensure that there is a real improvement in the regional slant of the reporting of Westminster, so that we can air the issues and campaigns that matter most to our constituents. The only way in which we can properly do so is by consulting with regional journalists based here, with whom we build up trust and whom we see daily—not merely fleetingly every two or three weeks in the Lobby, when so many other people want to see them—so that we can get our views across on the BBC.

The Minister talked about the review of the licence fee. I ask her to use pressure to remind the BBC of its public service obligation. That is the reason why home owners and the taxpayer have to pay the licence fee in the first place—so that the BBC can cover in detail areas that would not be appropriate for commercial stations. Today, we are saying that the BBC is wrong and should think again.

11.35 am
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this debate, as it is vital that the matter be given a proper airing in the House, and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to speak about it. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), not only on his speech, with which I entirely agreed, but on his efforts and prompt action in the dark days at the end of July when any sensible person had gone back to his or her constituency to prepare for the holidays but some of us benighted souls were still here to sign the early-day motion that he pressed upon us in the corridors.

This has not been a good week for the BBC, what with the loss of the cricket coverage, the savaging by a Select Committee, the adventures of "Blue Peter" and the evidence that some presenters have an affection for more than sticky-backed plastic, and now this debate on the BBC's regional coverage. It is terribly easy for us to sound pompous on this subject and for it to be suggested that we feel passionately about it because we like hearing our own voices on the BBC. Let us be honest: there may be an element of that. We like to be able to project what we are saying to the people we represent.

However, there are far more important issues at stake for people in the regions—the service that the British Broadcasting Corporation provides for them. There are two main elements to their concern. The first is public service broadcasting, its ethos and what it means to have a BBC—something for which many of us have argued strongly and which we want protected and enhanced because it is such an important element of our national structure.

I do not like the term "dumbing down", which has been used this morning. It is an example of dumbing down to introduce that Americanism. However, we all share the feeling that the BBC is retreating from the intellectual and moral high ground that it was once able to occupy. There is a sense that it no longer aims any higher than catering for the lowest common denominator; that is not the role of the BBC, either under its charter or historically.

I also believe that the BBC has been deeply patronising in what it has suggested about parliamentary coverage and the public's interest in what happens in this place. It assumes that people are interested only in bread and circuses. I do not believe that that is so, but it is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy—if that is all that people are given access to, how can they develop an interest in politics and in the arguments in this House that will have a dramatic impact on their everyday lives?

One has only to look at other countries to see the great hunger for information about politics that is engendered where one may not expect it. Yesterday, I returned from the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, where I was monitoring the elections. There, where democracy is young and the public have had little opportunity to hold their politicians to account, people are remarkably well informed and understand the nuances of political argument, as their national broadcasting corporation carries daily the debates in their Parliament, the Sobranje.

People listen and want to know the arguments. One could say that that is inevitable in a young democracy in an area of the world that is not known for its stability, but it highlights how patronising it is to say that the British people cannot be interested in politics, or that they cannot understand anything but the most simplistic voting system—it is thought too difficult to put a tick or circle in a different place. The House should condemn such patronising attitudes.

As well as the public service ethos, we should consider the BBC's commitment to our localities and regions, about which, as someone from the west country and a Somerset lad through and through, I feel strongly. I know how far it is from London to the west country, a fact which seems to have eluded those who are based at Westminster. I know that what matters down in Somerset is not the same as what matters to the metropolitan elite in London. What we believe to be important is as valid as what people in London believe to be important—the issues that we want to raise are important.

I am sure that, like many of us, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall has come across people who assume that the distance between Penzance and Swindon is about five miles, that places past Slough are only a short trip away from one another and that anywhere in Somerset cannot be far from a broadcasting studio in Bristol even though it may be an hour and a quarter away. People are not aware of the geography of the area.

As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, the BBC has a duty to inform people of what we, as Members of Parliament, are doing on their behalf. We are not sent to Westminster to disappear from the map, not to be seen until the next election. Many hon. Members spend a lot of time ensuring that they are in touch with their constituents so that they can express their views in the House—but where is the feedback if not through the media? How do our constituents know what we are doing, or trying to do, and achieving, or not achieving, on their behalf? That is an important element in the democratic process.

My concern is not only political coverage; there is also a shrinkage in general coverage within the localities. My example is parochial, although I make no apology for that. Somerset Sound, which is an opt-out from Radio Bristol—we never qualified for a radio station of our own—used to provide a number of hours of local broadcasting from Taunton each day. Recently, those hours have been substantially reduced. We no longer have an afternoon programme from Taunton; it now comes from Bristol. I do not believe that that is because there is no demand. People want local news and views, and Bristol news, Bristol views and even a Bristol accent are not the same as Somerset news, Somerset views and a Somerset accent.

The link-up was made with no consultation with me or my colleagues who represent the Somerset constituencies—there was no attempt to reconcile us to the change. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) took up the matter, he received a remarkably candid reply from the managing editor, for whom I have considerable respect—I know that she is strongly committed to our local services. She said that her problem was money; she had not been given the budget to provide the local services in Somerset to which the BBC is, in theory, committed and which it should provide as part of its public service.

The lack of regional coverage poses three threats. First—I do not want to be too pompous—there is a threat to democracy, as local people are being further distanced from the political process and will understand it less; they will not be able to know what we are doing on their behalf and so will find it more difficult to hold us to account. Moreover, it will be more difficult properly to discuss local issues, as what starts as a local campaign seems to evaporate into the ether, never to be mentioned again. Secondly, there is a threat to local identity, as local broadcasting—and the knowledge that people are intimately concerned with the area and want to represent its views—is at least part of that local identity.

Thirdly and most importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said, there is a threat to the BBC. If the BBC cannot provide local and regional coverage and does not live up to the public service ethos for which it was created, what is it doing and why should we impose a tax to pay for it? It has a duty to provide intelligent coverage and properly researched comment for all parts of the country, not only for London, and it forgets that at its peril.

11.47 am
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this debate. This is an important issue, and it is right that it should be aired in the House. However, it is a pity that our debates on particular BBC issues turn into BBC-bashing sessions.

I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The BBC's job is to satisfy its audience, who pay for it through the £100 licence fee. If the BBC broadcasts a version of Macedonian television, on which he seems to be so keen, people will not sit round their sets listening to our breathless prose; they will switch to the many hundreds of digital and other channels that they will shortly be able to receive.

Mr. David Heath

According to the hon. Gentleman's thesis—if I understand it correctly—the BBC should be subject to market forces and not receive the licence fee. He cannot have it both ways: either the BBC is a public resource or it is not.

Mr. Atkinson

The BBC has to have it both ways. If it fails to deliver substantial audiences, hon. Members and others will say that it should not receive the licence fee, as it provides bad value to those who pay that fee. The BBC walks a tightrope, and we must allow it, in fulfilling its public service obligation—which it does very well—to make sensible editorial judgments.

I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about "Yesterday in Parliament". That programme can now be found on long wave, so that many more people can listen to it—his quality prose can be heard in Belgium, Holland, northern France and the Republic of Ireland as well as in this country.

Mr. Tyler

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that while it is possible to listen to long wave in Belgium or wherever, that is not possible in some parts of London, let alone in Cornwall. Has the hon. Gentleman read that the BBC itself has already admitted that its listener figures have collapsed for "Yesterday in Parliament", "Today in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster"? So on the hon. Gentleman's own definition—that all that matters is the number of people listening—the BBC has already made a major mistake.

Mr. Atkinson

It does not say much about our performance in the House that we are of such little interest to listeners that they cannot simply click a switch at 8.45. The fact that they cannot do that probably says more about the House than it does about the BBC. I assure the hon. Member that our constituents are not queueing up to see the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on the television. We kid ourselves if we think that the public are fighting to see us on television and to listen to us on the radio: they are not.

Having, I hope, slightly defended the BBC's right to make independent editorial judgments on what it transmits, I go on in part to agree with what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about political coverage at Westminster. I am concerned not so much with what the BBC proposes to do as with how it has done it, how it has treated its staff, and to an extent, how it has misled the House in its correspondence. I agree with him entirely that, if the BBC wants to reduce political coverage, it should stand up and say why. It should come to the House and say, "You are all so boring that we don't want to cover you any more", or whatever. Let us have it in the open so that it can be properly debated.

Mr. Burnett

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is at least a paradox that commercial television is, as far as I know, retaining all its regional coverage? Can he explain that away?

Mr. Atkinson

I am trying to criticise the BBC not for its decision, but for the way in which it arrived at it. It is not my job to defend it. These are the kind of arguments that we should have had with the BBC, not this muddling and misleading correspondence that we had with it before the recess.

The BBC must stand accused of causing a tremendous amount of uncertainty and worry to its regional staff as a result of its decision. The letter that was sent just before the recess gave me the wrong impression that the political editors would be down here in Westminster during the parliamentary Session and travel back for the recess. That manifestly is not the case and not what was planned, but it is what I thought was intended. We will have four gofers in Westminster, and the political editors will have to travel down.

I represent a north-east seat. BBC staff from my area who want to come here will be faced with at least a three-and-a-half-hour train journey to get to London in order to cover a story and a three-and-a-half-hour train journey back, perhaps spending the night in London. The same would apply to the constituency of the hon. Member for North Cornwall. It is ludicrous that that should be so. We should ask the BBC—perhaps the Minister can put some pressure on it—to think again about this. If it proposes to do this—as I said, it is entitled to—it should make a proper and open case and explain its rationale. If it is done to save money in order to invest in digital television and new technology, so be it. The BBC has to compete in that world as well.

I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that BBC news 24 hours a day would not be enhanced by long periods showing our debates in the House. Something more attractive will have to be sought. I criticise the BBC for its handling of the matter, but we should not use this debate to attack its integrity and editorial independence.

11.53 am
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam)

It is important not to launch into the BBC and also to say that we will have to work with the new structure whatever it is. But against that background I want to make the case strongly for a regional component of the BBC, and to mention in particular the issue of honesty about the changes to which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) referred.

There is a reality lag between large parts of the United Kingdom and Westminster. We all suffer from it when we return from the recess and the world of ordinary folk to the slightly odd world that we inhabit here. Regional correspondents had an important role to fill in bridging that reality gap between, in my case, my constituency in Sheffield and what happens in Westminster. It was that local component, that connection, which made Westminster understandable and intelligible. In some cases, correspondents are better able to explain what happens here than some of us practitioners, who often end up confused.

It is important that the people in the regions see us at work. They want to see all those whom they have elected and whose wages they pay at work, not just members of the Government and prominent parliamentarians, but the Back Benchers who represent them. That is the component most likely to suffer if we take the regional correspondents out, as the BBC has already done.

That connection is apparent when we bump into the correspondents in Central Lobby and refer to something that is happening the next day or next week and ask what is going on. That day-to-day contact is crucial. I can say that something is happening in Sheffield and know the correspondent will be aware of previous debates six months ago, or of the fact that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) had a debate 12 months ago. They can link those up and put together a package which is about Sheffield and Yorkshire rather than simply a hook on to a national news story.

My great fear is that, particularly with the media machine that the Government have skilfully put together, which means that its members get up earlier in the morning than anyone else to get the stories out, and are often dead by midday, an ordinary Back Bencher cannot get on to the back of a national story. We have been shut out and are left with our regional stories. Adjournment debates—there is one later this morning on a crucial issue concerning South Yorkshire—on local issues will always be covered by regional correspondents because they know that the matter is important and will be keeping their eyes open for it.

Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)

Does my hon. Friend accept that some talented and dedicated reporters have tragically been sacked—for example, Viv Robbins in the west country, who has given faithful service? As my hon. Friend said, such people are more expert than we are.

Mr. Allan

I agree. Our attachment to our regional correspondents is a testament to the skilful way in which they have done their jobs. I shall not mention any, because I did so in a previous debate and I understand that they currently do not have a contract, so I was obviously not helpful. However, that connection, and the warmth that we feel for them, reflect the fact that Adjournment debates and parliamentary questions on local issues will simply not receive coverage without someone being tuned into them, picking them up and putting them out. With the best will in the world, while we will all try to make the new arrangement work, it will not give staff adequate time to pick up on regional issues.

The way in which the proposals have been sold is shameful. Technology is moving on, but it is often used as an excuse for reducing coverage. Digital television is mentioned and we are told that there is coverage on the internet. I am a great technology fan, and I congratulate the members of staff who have managed to put my name up on the annunciator. There we see technology moving forward. But at the moment digital television and the internet do not have the coverage of terrestrial television. With the best will in the world, we cannot say that, just because we put a debate on the internet or on a digital or cable channel, it will achieve the same coverage as it would on mainstream terrestrial television.

Mr. Tyler

Even the best technology is still dependent on human input and, since my constituency came up wrong on the annunciator, I hope that my hon. Friend, as chairman of the Select Committee on Information, will take note and see that next time it appears as North Cornwall rather than Cornwall, North.

Mr. Allan

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping us with some of the teething troubles. I am sure that that will have been noted by those who are ever vigilant in the annunciator box.

Technology is moving on, but it should not be used as an excuse to take things off terrestrial television. There is an argument which, taken to its logical conclusion, would put all politics on marginal specialised channels within media such as the internet and digital television.

It could be argued that, in terms of the number of hours, coverage has increased, but in terms of real coverage to real people, that does not work. The point made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) about long wave versus FM signals is another example of a reality lag. In the real world, people simply do not switch from one to the other. If they are like me, they turn on the radio in the morning and are too bleary-eyed to change a channel on a push-button radio, let alone one with a dial. Moreover, radios commonly do not have long wave. In reality, people turn on the radio and tune to FM because it has a better signal in most parts of the country. Long wave is a distraction; it is not a serious option for people to listen to FM, suddenly to switch over for "Yesterday in Parliament", and then to switch back.

Technology should not be used as an excuse. It would be much more honest to deal with things as I deal with the commercial or independent sector in my region. We have open and honest debates about the role of political coverage, the stories it likes to cover and what is interesting and what is not. It is a pity that the BBC has not been honest and said, "We think that politics is boring and we want to reduce coverage. We only want 'man bites dog' stories because 'dog bites man'—ordinary parliamentary coverage—is no longer attractive enough." If the BBC came to us and said that, we could have a debate on those terms.

Unfortunately, we have had a debate in which the BBC has been saying, "We are expanding coverage, we have many new technologies and everything will be wonderful." In fact, we all suspect that the BBC is making it much harder to achieve the coverage that we want.

We need honesty in the debate, and we need to deal with the mass market versus specialist market interests. We need to deal with the serious broadcasting role of the BBC and its relationship to the licence fee. In that way we would no longer be floundering around, all talking on different terms and pretending that everything is fine in the garden when it is not. Honesty here is essential.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall for initiating this debate. He has done us a service by communicating the views of a range of honourable Members to the BBC. Hopefully, the comments of the Minister will communicate an official viewpoint. If we can get an honest debate, we will be able to come up with the type of regional coverage that will work, rather than making life deliberately difficult for ourselves by having people shunting around on trains or just not coming here at all.

12.1 pm

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk)

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this important debate. He put his argument extremely cogently. I thank all those who participated in the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) who has been a champion of this cause for some time and who probably knows more about the media than anybody else in the House. I welcome the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) to her new role and to the Chamber this morning.

This is a period of rapid change in the media, most notably in the BBC. We are seeing changes taking place in radio and television and we are seeing the move from terrestrial to digital. I am sure that I am not alone in having seen the new parliamentary channel in its digital form being presented by the BBC yesterday. It is impressive, but whether people will watch it in the numbers that parliamentarians may wish remains to be seen.

I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of a BBC funding review. The Secretary of State is keen on reviews, not all of which are entirely relevant, but we welcome this review in principle. The Secretary of State has said—I think that the House will agree—that the BBC needs to adapt and survive and needs to fulfil its public service obligations. Those are sentiments that the House can endorse as the Secretary of State looks at the funding picture for the BBC in the future.

I shall deal now with the specific point raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Some months ago—I am sure that I was not alone in this—BBC journalists based at Millbank approached me with great concern about their future. They had heard rumours about the changes, but nothing had been decided at that time. I made inquiries with the BBC at senior managerial level and was given assurances that the concerns were not accurate and, in fact, were misplaced. We now know that those concerns were entirely accurate and that, while those remarks were being refuted, changes were in the pipeline. I regret that.

To echo what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), last week, in view of an impending visit to my constituency by one of the members of the shadow Cabinet, I sought to establish contact with the BBC at Millbank before Parliament resumed. It was impossible to track anybody down. I discovered that the individual with whom I usually dealt had disappeared. What transpired in practice is what we are now going to have to face, which is a reduced staff. The link mentioned by other hon. Members this morning has gone, and I regret that.

We are told that the justification for the change is that it is based upon the successful practice of BBC coverage in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are to be 10 regional political editors, and seven are in place. As we have heard this morning, they will be located in places such as Newcastle, Norwich or wherever. I believe this to be a profound mistake. No part of England is comparable to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Each of those places is evolving a different constitutional architecture and a different political structure. The entities that are the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are quite different from England. The justification for the establishment of the regional editors is the alleged success in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not believe that a regional political editor coming to London from time to time will be enough. We know that there will be a reduced team.

As I and other hon. Members have said, we have built up strong relationships with the journalists based at Millbank. They know about our interests and our activities and they are on the spot to make judgments about who to approach if a story breaks quickly. That link to Parliament is now being challenged.

There is a clear message—we saw it with the changes to Radio 4—about the view that the BBC is taking of Parliament and parliamentarians. I am concerned about the effect of that in practice because a message has been sent yet again from the BBC about its view of Parliament. I do not believe that it is correct or that it is in the public's long-term interest.

We have already heard about the difficulties over Radio 4. When the changes were first mooted last year, we know that Madam Speaker complained vociferously about the scheduling changes, especially about "Yesterday in Parliament" moving to long wave. Many others echoed those sentiments. We were told that parliamentary coverage was being extended, and we were blinded by all sorts of statistics. When we sum up what happened and what is happening, we can see that there is greater width but an absence of depth. That is the crucial concern.

Tomorrow, RAJAR—Radio Joint Audience Research—will be telling us the latest Radio 4 listenership levels. I have spoken to RAJAR at length, but, quite properly, it did not reveal the figures although there have been leaks in the newspapers. We know already that the pattern that seems to be emerging is that, in absolute and relative terms, listenership is declining. That has come about in part because parliamentary coverage has been messed about and the widening of it has been at the expense of depth. As a result, people are switching off. With the proposals that we now have for television coverage, in addition to the Radio 4 coverage, Parliament will be seen to be even more irrelevant to people's lives. I look forward to the BBC's analysis of the RAJAR figures.

I want to use this opportunity to put things in context. We cannot look at the latest move in isolation. It is part of a pattern of the way in which the BBC projects itself in its public service interest. Undoubtedly, Radio 4 is the jewel in the crown of the BBC. Programmes such as "From Our Own Correspondent" are truly marvellous. However, we are increasingly seeing a downgrading of evidential and top-quality journalism in favour of quiz shows and chat shows, which are becoming ever more dominant.

I would not normally like to use the expression "dumbing down", but it fits in with many of the attitudes that now obtain, particularly in the Government, in respect of Parliament. When discussing Radio 4, the BBC's annual report and accounts for 1997–98 says: The new schedule affirms the BBC's intent to place the listener at the heart of its thinking. The BBC will ensure that Radio 4 maintains the esteem and loyalty of its audience through the excellence of its programmes. It goes on to talk about the independent advice panel and the fact that Radio 4 is a standard bearer for excellence.

We know in practice that that is simply not happening. As a result of the changes in Radio 4 and in regional coverage of Parliament, local BBC radio stations are now genuinely concerned about what will happen to them. My local radio station, BBC Radio Suffolk, is well valued by the local community. Local radio knows the issues, the problems and the Members of Parliament, and it does an extremely good job, not only in Suffolk, but throughout the country. It is naturally concerned that there will be some sort of regionalisation and a further loss of linkage between the local community, Members of Parliament and other movers and shakers in its area. I hope that the BBC will seek to give reassurance on that, because the obsession with regionalisation is wholly undesirable.

We have entrusted the BBC with a special status. It does not essentially have to refer to anybody. However, that places a special obligation on it. Although commercial stations also have public service obligations, the Independent Television Commission has a specific role to look at any possible changes in the coverage of ITV, Channels 4 and 5. That obligation via an independent body is not placed on the BBC, which has a special responsibility because it is substantially funded by licence payers.

We have heard about the extended coverage of news, and we know about News 24 and the enormous increase in channels. However, am I alone in believing that there has been a decline in quality in, for example, the flagship presentation of the Nine O'Clock News? News presentation is being increasingly tabloidised and factual reporting supplemented in ever-larger chunks by BBC correspondents' interpretation of events.

We dismiss television in the United States as being of poor quality. On the main news channels—ABC and NBC—news reporting is factual and without a huge back-up of interpretative reporting by journalists. Tabloidisation and other changes within the BBC are not welcome. Ultimately, they do not serve the BBC's best interests.

We must all accept that we are in the digital age. It is an enormously costly exercise, and huge sums are being invested in the BBC. I have some sympathy for the BBC in that regard. However, although the core functions of terrestrial television, political coverage and the jewel in the crown, Radio 4, must compete with the BBC's other functions, they must not be starved of funds because of digitalisation. That is in the best interests of neither the BBC nor the nation.

To keep the licence fee at the end of the consultation process and the independent review announced by the Secretary of State, the BBC should improve its quality. That is how to assure survival on the present basis. Given the importance of Parliament in the life of the nation, the way in which the changes have been put in place gives considerable cause for concern. The BBC has a special role in the life of this country. It has a public service remit to the people of the United Kingdom and their Parliament.

12.14 pm
The Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson)

I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for his kind congratulations. Most importantly, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing the debate. It is extremely important that we have an opportunity to discuss such issues in this place. The hon. Gentleman clearly takes his responsibility seriously in his capacity as a shadow leader of the House. He raised some interesting and important points, which I hope will be listened to carefully.

A number of hon. Members have contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) expressed concern about coverage in Scotland. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) also spoke. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), whom I almost referred to as my hon. Friend because he shares a region with me, often competes with me for regional coverage. He usually wins hands down. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that this had been a bad week for the BBC. May I repeat a popular slogan, which did the Labour party proud not too long ago—"Things can only get better"?

The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said that he hoped that this debate would not be an exercise in BBC bashing. I endorse that sentiment. In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for North Cornwall said that he bet that there would be no report of today's debate on his regional BBC station. I hope that he is proved wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has had to leave the Chamber—I suspect that he is listening to an address by the Prime Minister elsewhere in the House—expressed concern about a decline in the national reporting of Parliament. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the widely respected Chairman of the Select Committee, cannot be here, as we would all have welcomed his contribution to the debate.

The obligations placed on the BBC in respect of its broadcasting services are set out in its "Royal Charter and Agreement". They include broad obligations in terms of the number of television and radio services, objectives and programme content, standards and scheduling. The BBC must provide a properly balanced service to serve the tastes and needs of different audiences. The BBC agreement also contains a specific programming requirement, introduced in 1948, that the corporation must 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.

Mr. Tyler

I welcome the Minister warmly to her new post and commiserate with her that she has to be with us rather than listening to the Prime Minister, although she has probably heard more wisdom from us than she would from him.

There is an important distinction between what the Minister has just said and the BBC's new approach. Reportage of our debates will in future be treated as a specialist interest like potholing or collecting stamps, to be put in an exclusive ghetto of broadcasting wavelengths. I hope that she, and the Secretary of State, will consider that scenario carefully when the future of the BBC comes up for review.

Janet Anderson

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's concern is shared widely in the House, and I shall come to that later.

The position that I have set out reflects the independence of the BBC in all editorial and management matters. That was first enshrined in the 1996 agreement, but it is not a new concept. The need for editorial independence from political and commercial influences has been one of the fundamental principles governing the BBC since its establishment as a public corporation in 1927.

The Government fully support that principle, but the BBC's independence brings with it obligations, including the need to be, and to be seen to be, accountable to licence fee payers, as stakeholders and customers; 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. The BBC has a duty to keep in touch with its audiences and to be responsive to their concerns, and that includes Members of this House.

I shall quote from "BBC News: The Future", which is sub-titled "Public service news in the digital age". Hon. Members have referred to the concern that some of the changes may be due to the digital revolution, which is fast approaching. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by the booklet, which says: We will report and engage audiences in the proceedings of Parliament and the devolved assemblies of the United Kingdom. We will help people to understand the working of government and to hold to account those who take decisions. On reporting politics, it says: The reporting of politics lies at the heart of our public purpose both to inform and facilitate democratic debate. The public recognise and confirm this as a central role for the BBC. Yet dissatisfaction with politicians, the political process and key aspects of political reporting present us with a challenge: how to continue providing proper coverage of politics but … make it more engaging and accessible to audiences. We want to ensure that political argument goes beyond the soundbite to enhance public understanding of the complexities that underlie political argument. The pamphlet continues: We are committed to covering Parliament thoroughly. We have already launched the new BBC Parliament channel which offers full access to all the proceedings in the two main chambers, plus committee coverage, to enable viewers to assess their legislators at work. This new channel will maintain links to the political background material in News Online. It will become Britain's answer to C-Span in the US. We will also provide continuous audio coverage on digital radio. Our changes to parliamentary programming were approved by the Governors earlier this year. I do not want to repeat what everyone has said about the changes that have taken place, because they have been given a full airing in this place.

The BBC believes that these new arrangements put in place a more effective system of political coverage for regional broadcasting in England at a time when regional politics is increasingly important. The key objective is to ensure that political coverage is at the heart of the BBC's main early-evening regional programmes and reaches as large an audience as possible.

The BBC also hopes that the new structure will make it easier for hon. Members to liaise with a senior figure in the editorial structure of each BBC region, and that major political developments in each region will be covered more comprehensively and with greater authority.

The BBC is aware that there is still some apprehension about the new structure, and that has certainly been reinforced by this morning's debate. I understand that Nigel Chapman, BBC Controller English Regions, has a meeting scheduled with the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his hon. Friends next week, which will provide an opportunity for these concerns to be aired. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds the meeting useful.

The BBC's intention was to strengthen political and parliamentary coverage in the regions. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall, his hon. Friends and hon. Members on both sides of the House will keep a watching brief on the development of the new arrangements and whether they deliver the coverage of Parliament and politics that the BBC has undertaken to provide.

I do not believe that the BBC is out of touch with opinion in this country. It is important that it keeps in touch, and one of the best ways of doing that is to provide proper reporting of Parliament and politics. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall; I am sure that the BBC will be listening carefully to what he has to say.