Second Reading

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill is, in a sense, a sequel to the Bill that I presented last year on television licence fee abolition. It builds on some of the comments made during debate on that Bill, and approaches the issue from a slightly different direction. The argument is that if we are to have a licence fee, income from it should be expended solely in support of public service content. Ed Richards, chief executive of Ofcom, was guest speaker at a breakfast that I was privileged to attend earlier this year that discussed Ofcom's review of public service broadcasting and content. I asked him what part of the BBC output, funded by the licence fee, was not public service content. He assured me that the definitions of the genre of public service content are so wide and all-embracing that 100 per cent. of the output of the BBC is public service content. I do not think that that accords with common sense or with the views of most people.

I shall not get involved in lots of examples, referring to Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, but I shall make the point briefly by referring to some programmes on BBC3. In the last few weeks, I have been confined to barracks by a health condition, and I was able to note how various programmes on BBC3 were described by the BBC itself. I did not waste time watching these programmes, but one programme caught my attention—"Kirsten's Topless Ambition", which was produced by the BBC, funded by taxpayers' money and, according to the chief executive of Ofcom, is "public service content". The BBC describes the programme on its website as

"A documentary in which kids TV presenter Kirsten O'Brien must decide whether to take her clothes off for a lads' mag to try and clinch bigger presenting jobs."

It adds that the programme

"contains adult themes."

In other words, it contains smut. Why should that programme be funded out of public money raised by a poll tax—that is effectively what the licence fee is? I understand that BBC3 has very low viewing figures, and it is obviously trawling desperately to try to attract new viewers.

Another programme that caught my attention on BBC3 was "Horne and Corden". It was described as

"Matt and James struggle at synchronised swimming, while gay reporter Tim Goodall investigates knife crime. Contains adult humour."

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the BBC is threatened with a lower increase in its funding than it was hoping for, which it deems a cut, it always suggests that it will need to cut important things such as news coverage and current affairs, but all it need do is cut out that kind of garbage on BBC3 and stick to what most people would consider to be core public service content?

I agree absolutely. Indeed, that is what this Bill is about. It seeks to define public service content for the purposes of public service broadcasting. Clause 1(2) proposes that public service content should be

"content which is primarily produced in the United Kingdom", which I think has a lot of public support. Why should we fund foreign-produced TV programmes and broadcast programmes from scarce public resources? Public service content would also have to satisfy one or more of the following criteria. The first criterion would be that it should comprise

"local, national, international news or current affairs which is impartial, factual and objective".

The words "impartial, factual and objective" are very important. Perhaps I can share a little anecdote with the House. Hon. Members will recall that the Prime Minister addressed Members of the European Parliament, and his speech was covered by the BBC reporter Mark Mardell. In advance of live questions to the Prime Minister, the Member of the European Parliament for South East England, Mr. Daniel Hannan, notified Mr. Mardell that he would be making what he regarded as rather a newsworthy contribution to the debate. Mr. Mardell chose to ignore that and to absent himself from the Chamber, and as a result Mr. Hannan's contribution was not recorded by the BBC. However, we know that it was recorded by Mr. Hannan and put on YouTube.

Within a matter of hours, more than 2 million people had looked at the YouTube content of Mr. Hannan's pertinent criticisms of the Prime Minister. I can recall collecting my son from a friend's house in Surrey that same afternoon and I was immediately told, "You must come and look at this. Have you seen this on YouTube?" I had not, so I looked at it. Over those 24 hours, it was something that everybody had to see. I think that it was brilliant piece of parliamentary behaviour by Mr. Hannan, on which I commend him warmly. I am sure that that is not the only reason he was so successful in the recent European elections and is the leading Conservative in the South East of England.

In fact, in less than 24 hours that recording became a worldwide phenomenon. Friends of mine from the far east and the United States e-mailed me the hyperlink to the speech. I had no idea that it had happened until friends of mine on the west coast of the United States e-mailed me and said, "You must see this."

I am grateful for that extra information on the worldwide appeal of our friend Dan Hannan MEP.

The point of the story is that after that occurred I wrote to Sir Michael Lyons, who I thought was the custodian of impartiality in the BBC. My letter to him, dated 8 April, was passed on to the director-general of the BBC, Mark Thompson. He was kind enough to respond personally to me on 27 May, apologising for the delay in his response. He recited the concern expressed in my letter, and said that he had asked colleagues in BBC News for their perspective. He said:

"They, like me, are sorry to learn that you felt that Mr. Hannan's speech received insufficient coverage."

Mr. Thompson did not even concede that he thought that it had received insufficient coverage. In a sense, he was criticising those 2 million-plus people who found great enjoyment and entertainment in seeing the clip. He went on to say:

"Choosing which stories to include in bulletins is of course a subjective matter"— don't we know it?—

"and BBC News do acknowledge that not every viewer or listener will feel we get it right every time."

He noted that

"the main story of the day on Tuesday March 24 concerned the comments by the Governor of the Bank of England on the desirability of further fiscal stimulation. The clip of Gordon Brown at the European Parliament was used as part of the reports on BBC News outlets in the context of the wider story, rather than as a report simply of the PM's speech to the European Parliament."

The letter went on to say that I would have noted that, two days later, Mr. Hannan was interviewed on BBC News and on the "PM" programme. However, he was only interviewed then because 2 million people had seen the clip on YouTube and were wondering why there had not been a report on BBC News in the first place. To try to explain the issue by saying, "Well, we covered the story of the 2 million YouTube viewers" misses the point completely. The BBC went on to say—perhaps this is Mr. Mardell speaking in code—that Mr. Hannan was

"'completely perplexed and slightly stunned' by the global reaction to the speech."

That is what my friend, Dan Hannan, had said about it, with typical modesty, but I think that a lot of licence fee payers were completely perplexed and slightly stunned by the fact that Mr. Mardell had not felt it necessary to include the incident in his reports from Strasbourg on the day.

What was the conclusion from Mr. Thompson? By the way, I think that he is on £800,000 a year, but it does not matter about that. He ended:

"Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. I hope my letter has at least served to explain the thinking behind this editorial decision."

That is wholly inadequate. In fact, it is contemptuous. He is saying to those 2 million people, "To hell with it. We made that decision; we're standing by it. We're not even prepared to admit that we made an error of judgment in failing to anticipate the significance of that question to the Prime Minister." We have a lot to do before we can be sure that the "public service content" of some BBC news programmes satisfies the criteria of being impartial, factual and objective.

The second element of "public service content" to which I draw attention is the fact that it should include content whose primary purpose

"is to inform, educate or entertain children".

A lot of us are concerned that in the present squeeze on funding for public service broadcasting, traditional children's programmes are losing out. The definition of "public service content" in my Bill would ensure that programmes designed to inform, educate or entertain children would have a high priority and could draw on licence fee revenue as programmes that contained public service content.

The third category is content whose primary purpose is "charitable or religious". That speaks for itself. Again, there has been a lot of concern that religious or charitable objectives in broadcasting are being squeezed out in the BBC's never-ceasing search for higher viewing figures.

The fourth criterion would be that the content was not otherwise likely to be provided by the market responding to consumer demand. That criterion reflects the thinking of, for example, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in its report. I am delighted that my hon. Friend Philip Davies is a member of that Committee and may be able to inform us of some of its thinking later.

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and the criteria that he is setting out. Am I right in assuming that he does not believe that the BBC should ever televise sport, which is not part of any of those criteria? Can he explain to me the rationale behind asking the National Audit Office, which is an estimable body in all sorts of ways, to act, in effect, as critics of future programming and to decide which programmes are going to be flops and which are not?

I shall deal with the National Audit Office in a moment. On the hon. Gentleman's reference to sport, none of the criteria would prevent the BBC from showing any programmes, but it would be able to be subsidised from the licence fee only if the programmes it was producing met the criteria of public service content, so if the BBC wanted to produce programmes such as those on BBC3, to which I referred earlier, it would still be able to do that. Similarly, it would still be able to provide sporting programmes, and those would be funded by the licence fee if the BBC could establish that the content would not otherwise be likely to be provided by the market responding to consumer demand.

So I am right in saying that all the major sporting occasions, which many people look forward to seeing on the BBC, would not meet the hon. Gentleman's test and would not be able to be televised by the BBC under his proposals. People who could not afford to pay a subscription charge would not be able to see— [Interruption.] Philip Davies says from a sedentary position, "ITV." ITV is losing contracts on major sporting events because it cannot afford them. What Mr. Chope is saying is, "Either you subscribe or, sorry, the grand national, the test matches, the football cup finals are not for you."

The hon. Gentleman misses the point big time. One of the reasons fewer sporting events are now on independent television is that the BBC, with the benefit of unlimited public subsidies through the licence fee, has been bidding up the price to such an extent that ITV cannot afford to show such events. I argue that if the content can be provided by the market responding to consumer demand, it is wrong that it should be funded by the licence fee payer, who is effectively paying a mandatory poll tax for the privilege of being able to have broadcasting receiving equipment.

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that I was at No. 10 Downing street today with Sir Peter O'Sullevan and Frankie Dettori handing in a petition to save horse-racing coverage on the BBC, to which I think the Minister is also sympathetic. The BBC is cutting some of the lower grade races to cherry-pick the big racing. Horse racing cuts right across the social divide, unlike any other sport, and people like me were brought up with fantastic people like Peter O'Sullevan, who encapsulated quality on the BBC. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is much more worthwhile for the BBC to cover horse racing, rather than spending £18 million on people such as Jonathan Ross?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I regret the fact that much horse racing has been marginalised.

Continuing with a response to the intervention from Mr. Heath, sport that was not provided by the market responding to consumer demand could still be funded out of the licence fee. So the example of synchronised swimming on BBC3 that I quoted earlier might be able to get funding on that criterion, but the hon. Gentleman misses the main issue relating to the funding of sport on the television.

Clause 1(3) sates:

"Where the only criterion of public service content is that contained in subsection (2)(d)"— in other words, in the case of market failure—

"the judgement relating to the likelihood of market failure shall be made by the National Audit Office, which must publish an opinion on any matter referred to it by the Secretary of State pursuant to this section."

That is because we cannot really trust the BBC to make its own judgments about the likelihood of market failure. Clause 1(3) would introduce a degree of external audit and objectivity into the equation.

Clause 1(4) says:

"No content shall be public service content if it fails to satisfy prevailing standards of good taste and decency."

I hope that that would have the support of all Members without demur, because a lot of the current output does not satisfy prevailing standards of good taste and decency. People may want to watch or listen to vulgarity and smut, but why should it be funded by a poll tax on licence fee payers?

rose—

I give way to the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place.

Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we would want to see good taste and decency, who would be responsible for monitoring that and making decisions? Would it be the National Audit Office?

No, it would not, because I am not sure that the National Audit Office is qualified to do that. However, the National Audit Office would be able to receive complaints from people who, for example, felt that money from the television licence fee had been expended on programmes that only purported to have public service content complying with the prevailing standards of good taste and decency. The National Audit Office would be able to adjudicate after the event if such complaints were made.

I would expect the providers of content to try to apply standards that they would set and monitor themselves. Although I have already expressed my scepticism about how the BBC Trust operates, I did not think it reasonable to remove any sense of self-regulation from the Bill completely. I do not know whether this is a criticism of the Minister, but clause 1(4) would, I accept, rely to a large extent on self-regulation in the first instance, although it would be subject to audit after the event.

Clause 1 is linked to the payment of the licence fee, because as clause 2(1) says:

"No licence fee revenue shall be paid to the BBC by the Secretary of State for services which do not satisfy the criteria of public service content in section 1."

It may come as a bit of a surprise to some people to learn that the licence fee revenue does not go directly to the BBC. Rather, the royal charter says:

"'the licence fee revenue' means any sums which may be paid to the BBC by the Secretary of State from time to time, pursuant to any Framework Agreement, to fund the services provided by the BBC for the promotion of its Public Purposes".

The money is therefore under the control of the Secretary of State. Under the terms of the royal charter, it is for the Secretary of State to decide how much of that money should go to the BBC. If the amount of content produced by the BBC that could be funded out of the licence fee were much reduced—which, unless the BBC wanted to change its agenda significantly, is what I suspect would happen under the terms of the Bill—there would be more money, either to reduce the licence fee or to be made available to broadcasters and providers that did want to produce public service content in accordance with the criteria set out in clause 1.

If one looks at the mass of documents currently circulating in the lively debate on the issue, one sees among other things a set of very patronising statements from the BBC, which in effect say, "Well, we're not sure that there's going to be any money left over at the end to prop up shortfalls in funding for public service content from rival channels and organisations." We know that a large amount of public service content online is currently funded without any subsidy, but it could be eligible for subsidy. We know also that ITV is being squeezed by the severe drop-off in advertising revenue, which means that it can no longer fund its public service obligations under the current regulations. The question is not whether we should have an ITV without regional news or children's programming; in my book, it is about how we can enable ITV to have regional news and children's programming. The Bill is one way of enabling that.

Clause 2(2) says:

"It shall be the duty of the National Audit Office to keep under review the total cost of public service television broadcasting"; clause 2(3) goes on:

"In pursuance of its duty...the National Audit Office must conduct, in each calendar year...a value for money audit of the expenditure incurred on the broadcasting of public service content that is funded by the licence fee payer."

That is highly pertinent and topical, because only a few days ago my hon. Friend Mr. Leigh was challenging John Humphrys on the "Today" programme on this subject, against the background of the National Audit Office report into the BBC's substantial waste of resources in respect of its radio output. Not only that, but my hon. Friend and the National Audit Office were critical of how the BBC fiddled the figures and has denied public access to material that should be available to the public on terms of transparency and accountability.

All that is set out on the record. We now know that there is tremendous pressure on the BBC to be more open about how much money it pays its presenters. There is an enormous article in one of our national newspapers today setting out the incredible figures involved in the salaries of some of the presenters and suggesting that they might be reviewed. Basically, the NAO report to which I have referred was suggesting that far too much money was spent on some of the high-profile presenters and not enough on the actual content. An important part of the Bill is that the National Audit Office would be brought into the frame to make sure that the money from the licence fee—the poll tax on everybody who has a television—satisfied the criteria of providing good value for money. The report on that would have to be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.

We do not have as much time as I had hoped for, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not refer to the wealth of other material that I have to hand. I say with all modesty that the House has to address the big lacuna of there being no definition of public service content. I put forward the Bill as a stab at that. It might not be the final answer, but I hope that it will inspire my hon. Friend Mr. Vaizey, who is to speak from my party's Front Bench, to go along similar lines when we get into government. In that way, there could be a level playing field for all the media and communications outlets, and a common description of the criteria for public service content. There could be equal funding for all public service content and equal access to public subsidy, when it is deserved.

My hon. Friend Mr. Chope has introduced an important Bill. Before I address the detail, it is important to understand the context in which the Bill is being debated.

People are right to be concerned that this Government have lost their way as regards broadcasting policy. Next week, on 16 June, we are expecting the publication of the Digital Britain report, yet we meet in the House today having lost the former Secretary of State, Andy Burnham, who has been in charge of this consultation and has now gone to the Department of Health. We learned from our newspapers yesterday and this morning that the Minister responsible for Digital Britain, Lord Carter, is set to resign very shortly after the report has been published; rumour has it that he may be on his way to Australia. Having put forward the framework, he is to abandon the sinking ship that is this Government's broadcasting policy.

We also have a new Minister in this House, Mr. Simon, who was recently appointed to take responsibility for Digital Britain and broadcasting policy. We have learned that he is unpaid. We should perhaps applaud the Government for trying to make some savings, having driven this country into the largest debt that we have ever seen, but it may also be a signal of how seriously they take broadcasting policy. With the utmost respect to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Mr. Sutcliffe, who I have got to know in the months and years in which I have shadowed his Department, it seems extraordinary that today of all days, when we are debating such an important Bill about the future of the BBC, the Department has sent the Minister responsible for sport to the House, especially given that it has so recently appointed that talented Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, who displays his interest in and influence over broadcasting policy by not being in the Chamber but someplace else. Perhaps when the Minister winds up he can explain why his colleague is not here to deal with this important Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I have debated the future of the BBC licence fee in this House on another occasion, and I commend him for continuing to bring before the House important issues to do with the BBC. As I said in the previous debate, it is not Conservative party policy to abolish the licence fee; I will speak later about the principle of the licence fee. It is also important to state that I am a strong supporter of the BBC, as are my Front-Bench colleagues and, indeed, the leader of our party. The BBC is a bit like family, in the sense that we do not question its existence, and we admire and respect it, but that does not mean that we are not prepared to criticise it when appropriate. My hon. Friend cited some good examples of the programming that the BBC is putting out on BBC3 that it might be relatively difficult for it to justify. I, too, have not spent my leisure hours viewing these programmes, but they seem highly questionable programmes for the BBC to fund. Nevertheless, it is important to restate the fact that all of us, in all parts of the House, should be jealous of the BBC's editorial independence.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the BBC's failure to cover the speech by Daniel Hannan, a Member of the European Parliament. I have known Mr. Hannan for very many years. In fact, he started his career—this is perhaps pertinent—as my photocopier: when I worked in the Conservative research department, he spent a summer holiday doing my photocopying. It was there—I would not say at my knee, but perhaps at my elbow—that he learned some of his guiding political principles, and he has gone on to become an astonishing success on a far wider stage than I have. The decision not to cover his speech is a matter for the BBC, but it is interesting that it was second-guessed by the Great British public, and indeed the global public, who endorsed his remarks about the Prime Minister.

What do the public want from the BBC? I hesitate to cite a report commissioned from MORI by Ofcom in case it provokes interventions from many of the hon. Members in the Chamber who might be sceptical about its provenance. First, it showed—motherhood and apple pie, as it were—that the audience sees television as a key source of entertainment. Although the Bill sets out worthwhile criteria for the definition of public service broadcasting, it is important to remember that when people switch on the BBC, as much as when they switch on ITV and Sky, they want to be entertained. However, some of the valid concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are met by the fact that people also want television to be seen as providing an understanding of British culture and identity as a whole, as well as building understanding and awareness between communities about different values, lifestyles and perspectives in the world around them.

Many respondents believed that the BBC had a role in educating and informing people. In fact, 83 per cent. said that they had learned useful things from television—whether that was from watching the BBC 3 programmes that my hon. Friend cited is not clear from the survey. Some 78 per cent. believed that television was influential in shaping public opinion. That addresses the point about the lack of coverage of Mr. Hannan's speech, although it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that our party continues to succeed despite the coverage given to us by the BBC.

You should worry.

Despite widespread pro-Liberal Democrats coverage on the BBC, they continue to slip in the polls, so perhaps we should not press the BBC too much on its news coverage, as it seems to be working in our favour and against the parties that it supports.

One of the most interesting things that MORI's report for Ofcom explored was whether television should cater for the interests of the majority or for different audience interests. Opinion was mixed, and some participants were concerned solely with their own viewing enjoyment and believed that their personal needs would be better met by programmes that catered for the majority. Furthermore, many felt that that would make economic sense, as it would help guarantee higher viewer ratings. When people were asked whether they would prefer a wide variety of programme types or more popular entertainment programmes, 59 per cent. opted for a wide variety whereas just one third chose more popular programmes.

It is important not to be too prescriptive about the criteria for public service content. Many great and well-loved programmes on the BBC would not fall within the criteria set out in the Bill—one need only think of "Strictly Come Dancing" or "Top Gear". I put on record my personal sadness that the BBC will obviously have to scrap another popular entertainment show, "The Apprentice", which has been an enormous success in putting business at the heart of popular entertainment. Obviously the decision by Sir Alan Sugar to take up a Government position and advocate Government policy would preclude him from carrying on presenting "The Apprentice", particularly since, as my hon. Friend Mr. Hunt, the shadow Secretary of State, has pointed out, the next series would almost certainly be broadcast during the next general election campaign. Of course, there is much time for "Suralan", or "Lordalan", as we are going to have to learn to call him, to change his mind and realise that his employment prospects are far more secure with the BBC than they would be with this outgoing Labour Government.

My hon. Friend will know that the Secretary of State has the power to authorise the BBC to enter into sponsorship agreements. Does he see that there might be a role for the Government to sponsor Sir Alan Sugar in the next edition of "The Apprentice" and make overt the way in which they are trying to manipulate public opinion?

As my hon. Friend knows, the amount spent on advertising by this Government has risen exponentially, and everywhere one turns there is now Government-sponsored advertising. We fully expect that advertising to increase as the election draws near. As he will be aware, the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend Mr. Osborne, has made it absolutely clear that a Conservative Government would in no way manipulate taxpayers' money to promote Government policy in the shameful way that this Government have in the past 10 or 11 years. If the Government do choose to sponsor "Suralan", that sponsorship will end on day one of a Conservative Government. I can make that absolutely clear.

Mr. Heath made a valid point about what he thought was lacking from the criteria in the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made clear, the measure has been introduced almost to provoke a discussion, and not to be over-prescriptive. However, I add my concern that the criteria do not include drama—which covers the well loved "Dr. Who", "Spooks", one-offs such as the plays about the early life of Margaret Thatcher, and comedy such as "Gavin and Stacey".

When the current charter settlement was agreed, the BBC was reminded that, above all, licence fee payers want entertainment. One of the clearest messages from the public consultation on the Green Paper was the importance of the BBC's role in providing entertainment. Audiences do not want an overdose of worthiness. The BBC was told to continue to take fun seriously, with entertainment ingrained in all its services and made central to its mission.

During Ofcom's second review of public service broadcasting last year, extensive and significant audience research was undertaken. There was audience support for accessible and effective delivery of the public purposes that underpin public service broadcasting. Most people still believe that such broadcasting delivers well-made and high-quality programmes.

It is also worth pointing out that our public service broadcasters still contribute 90 per cent. of UK-originated content—the BBC is in the lead there. For example, BBC 1 had nine out of the top 10 TV shows on Christmas day. They were all made in the United Kingdom and the top three were made outside London. More than half of all people watching television tuned in to watch "Wallace & Gromit—A Matter of Loaf and Death", which was the Christmas day programme with the highest ratings, with an average audience of 14.3 million.

I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the future of children's television, which is a live issue in broadcasting. The BBC provision for children is incredibly important, and the focus should be on what happens in some of our more commercial broadcasters' children's programming. They are finding it increasingly difficult to provide, partly because of Ofcom's strictures on advertising during children's television, which have rather backfired and made it harder to earn funds to make such programmes. That should be examined.

Although the licence fee has imperfections, it is probably the least worst mechanism for funding the BBC. However, we remain concerned that the BBC is set to exceed the total of private sector revenues by larger and larger margins. The free, plural media market needs a strong BBC, but it also needs strong competition. That will be increasingly difficult as the BBC gets £1 billion more in TV revenue and £300 million more in radio revenue than all commercial broadcasters combined.

We have set out a range of options to try to keep the BBC within recognisable limits. First, the increase in the licence fee from £139.50 to £142.50 should be frozen—the Government and the Liberal Democrats oppose that. We have also said that the BBC should start to publish the salaries of some of its highest paid executives and broadcasters, as well as their expenses. Our licence fee payers, who pay for that, should be able to see the figures. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that it is high time the BBC was audited by the National Audit Office.

We are great supporters of the BBC, but that does not preclude our being its critical friends. We all have comments to make about the quality of the programmes that the BBC broadcasts—I am pleased that it is taking arts programming more seriously and appointing a senior arts editor to supervise it.

There is an important point at the Bill's heart: the BBC has guaranteed revenues, unlike commercial broadcasters. It is therefore in a unique position to take risks or make programmes that will perhaps not draw in huge audiences but are worthy in themselves and plug the gaps that commercial broadcasters cannot fill. The director-general of the BBC should keep that at the forefront of his mind as he steers the BBC through the last few months of a Labour Government and into the next few years of a Conservative Administration.

It is a pleasure to follow Mr. Vaizey, who at least gives the impression that he has watched a television programme at some point. The most damning thing I heard from Mr. Chope was his condemnation of programmes, only to add, "Of course, I didn't watch them. I just know they were rubbish." Interestingly, one of the programmes that he damned had an intimate connection with a programme that the hon. Member for Wantage commended as a valuable asset, because "Horne and Corden" stars one of the major players in "Gavin and Stacey", which the hon. Member for Wantage recommended. I have seen "Horne and Corden" and it was absolutely dire, but that is a matter of personal taste, and has nothing to do with whether the BBC should be attempting to build on and repeat the success of a programme using another concept.

The difficulty with the Bill is that it gives the impression—which the hon. Member for Wantage was keen to dispel—that the Tory party has waged war on the BBC. That is a great shame, because the BBC is too important to be used as a political point-scoring machine by the political parties in this House. I want to state clearly and unequivocally that we have something very precious in the BBC. It is the fons et origo of public service broadcasting, on which much public service broadcasting elsewhere is based. We should be very proud of what it has achieved over the years.

Does that mean that I am uncritical of the BBC? No, of course it does not. Nor should anyone be uncritical of it. There are certain issues that we need to look at—or, perhaps more importantly, that the BBC needs to look at. I am wary of politicians getting directly involved, particularly in the editorial content of the BBC. There are, however, expenditures at the BBC that are difficult to justify, and introducing more transparency into the funding of BBC programming and bureaucracy would be worth while. There is still evidence, for example, that the BBC uses several people to do a job that would be done by just one person in the commercial sector. I saw exactly the same thing when I was involved in medicine many years ago. I worked in the NHS and in the private sector when I was doing agency work, and I could see the difference between NHS operating theatres and those in the private sector. There were far fewer people involved in doing exactly the same job in the private sector. I actually think that the private sector went beyond the limits of safety in some cases, however, so there are arguments both ways.

The BBC needs critically to examine how it runs its business. An example is the number of duplications that we see all the time in news and current affairs. Different people appear to be doing the same job for different parts of the BBC, and we wonder whether that is really necessary. I would like the BBC to become better attuned to such issues. Some of the contracts awarded to what is called the top talent are difficult to justify in the context of broadcasting as a whole, certainly in the present economic climate, and I would like to see that question addressed as well. It is important, however, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must not allow proper criticism of the BBC to be used as part of a campaign of attrition against the concept of the BBC itself.

The problem with Bill of the hon. Member for Christchurch Bill is that it does not provide a formula for public service broadcasting—not one bit of it. It provides for a desiccated, feeble imitation of public sector broadcasting that would be the equivalent of brown rice and cardboard as a diet to be put before the British public. The hon. Member for Wantage was right to say that entertainment is part of the mix, but it is not mentioned in the Bill.

Sport, as I said in my intervention, is an essential part of the mix, but it is not there in the hon. Gentleman's Bill. Culture of any kind is not there, unless it is so unpopular as to be unable to achieve programming in any other way. Excellence in drama is not there and neither is comedy—an area where the BBC has been groundbreaking over many years and has achieved great results.

That is why the Bill is unacceptable—never mind the fact that it sets up the National Audit Office, for heaven's sake, as some sort of arbiter of good taste, which is a function way beyond its normal parameters. I have a huge deal of respect for the NAO, but to ask it to decide whether programmes are in good taste defies any sensible definition of its present function and amounts to a most extraordinary suggestion by the hon. Member for Christchurch.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned sport. Will he tell us where he and his party stand on the BBC's proposed cuts to horse racing? Does he think it wrong when the BBC seems so determined to show only the races that any other commercial broadcaster would show, or does he think the BBC should use the licence fee to promote wider support for horse racing, particularly given that it cuts across every social divide in the country?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not averse to going to the race track myself, particularly at Wincanton, where some of the best jumping in the country takes place; I also love watching horse racing on television. I have to say, however, that the hon. Gentleman should not support his hon. Friend's Bill because it would prevent that happening. Not only would it prevent that from happening, but it would prevent the grand national from being shown, and many people would be very disappointed at that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Christchurch can shake his head as much as he likes, but such events are not covered in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) in clause 1(2)—and those are the criteria for public sector broadcasting.

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the broadcasting of such events should be funded from elsewhere, where is elsewhere? Where is the BBC to get the funding in order to show these big-ticket sporting events? That is the problem with his Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not thought it through. He is so intent on providing the extremely narrow spectrum of things he considers to be the best of public service broadcasting that he will not allow anything else. He will not allow any of us to enjoy ourselves: we must only be educated; we must go only to church services; we must see things that nobody else wants to see. That is going to be the function of the BBC. What a miserable future for the BBC, as prescribed by the hon. Member for Christchurch and his Puritan friends. I am afraid that I do not and will not accept that. I will not support the Bill today.

I am delighted to participate in what remains of today's debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend Mr. Simon sends his apologies, as he had a pressing constituency engagement that was in his diary before he was promoted to his new post. Far from us losing our way on broadcasting, I believe that this Government's record of support for broadcasting and where it is heading for the future has been welcomed by the majority of the serious players in the broadcasting world.

rose—

Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, let me point out that the Secretary of State for Health and former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was in the House this morning—he is not lost; he gave an important statement earlier on swine flu. The new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport furthermore was a noted distinguished journalist with the BBC and has a proud record on broadcasting issues.

Will the Minister explain why the Minister for Sport, but not the Minister for Broadcasting, gets a ministerial salary?

That is, of course, a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government. I actually think that the Minister for Sport should be in the Cabinet— [Interruption]—and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. He should be in the Cabinet because sport is such an important issue for the whole country and it affects all our constituencies. I would be very pleased if hon. Members raised that issue with the Prime Minister at every opportunity to encourage him to make the decision pretty quickly.

We have had an interesting debate, but it has been conducted in a tongue-in-cheek way by Mr. Chope. He may be consistent in the issues he raises about the BBC, but he knows that the Bill he has proposed would not achieve what he wants—or, perhaps it would, which would make it even more worrying for the BBC's future. Mr. Heath hit the nail on the head in what he said, so we have to be careful. I think that we should be proud of the BBC as an organisation. It has a distinguished record over many years in accordance with its broadcasting principles. It has been and is revered around the world for the quality of its public broadcasting. While I agree with Mr. Vaizey that we should be proud of the BBC—that is the only thing on which I do agree with him—we can, where necessary, be the critical friend that we should be; but, in doing that, we should in no way try to undermine the BBC, which has provided us with superb programmes for many years.

I was concerned about the comments of the hon. Member for Wantage, who half-supported some of what was said by the hon. Member for Christchurch. That sent a clear message. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's approach to what a future Conservative Government would do was rather arrogant. Any loss of the BBC's editorial independence would be very damaging. I hope that he will assure me that a future Conservative Government would in no way damage that editorial independence.

I am happy to give that assurance.

There will not be a future Conservative Government.

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State points out, there will not be a future Conservative Government. In case that day ever dawns, however, we need to ensure that the BBC is protected.

It is important to establish where we are heading in regard to broadcasting. Having listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Christchurch, I want to ensure that the whole House knows that it would be very dangerous to allow his Bill to proceed.

Given that the Minister asked me to guarantee the editorial independence of the BBC, will he tell me whether he thinks that the appointment of Sir Alan Sugar as a Government envoy, and his continued role in presenting a flagship BBC programme, compromise its editorial independence?

That has been covered in many different ways by the Secretary of State and the BBC Trust, and I think that the hon. Gentleman does a disservice in trying to score political points.

The description of public service television broadcasting that appears in section 264 of the Communications Act 2003 provides the basis for the framework of public service broadcasting regulation set out in the Act. In particular, it provides the basis for Ofcom's statutory reviews of public service broadcasting. Ofcom has already undertaken two such reviews, culminating in final reports in 2005 and in January of this year.

The Government believe that the framework set out in the 2003 Act provides a valuable starting point for examination of public service content. It may be helpful if I remind the House of the precise terms of section 264 of the Communications Act, which would be lost if the Bill were passed. The Act lists the purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom as follows:

"(a) the provision of relevant television services which secure that programmes dealing with a wide range of subject-matters are made available for viewing;

(b) the provision of relevant television services in a manner which (having regard to the days on which they are shown and the times of day at which they are shown) is likely to meet the needs and satisfy the interests of as many different audiences as practicable;

(c) the provision of relevant television services which (taken together and having regard to the same matters) are properly balanced, so far as their nature and subject-matters are concerned, for meeting the needs and satisfying the interests of the available audiences; and

(d) the provision of relevant television services which (taken together) maintain high general standards with respect to the programmes included in them, and, in particular with respect to—

(i) the contents of the programmes;

(ii) the quality of the programme making; and

(iii) the professional skill and editorial integrity applied in the making of the programmes."

The Act states that a manner of fulfilling the purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom should ensure

"(a) that the relevant television services (taken together) comprise a public service for the dissemination of information and for the provision of education and entertainment;

(b) that cultural activity in the United Kingdom, and its diversity, are reflected, supported and stimulated by the representation in those services (taken together) of drama, comedy and music"

—as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, drama, comedy and music would not exist on the BBC if the Bill were allowed to proceed—

"by the inclusion of feature films in those services and by the treatment of other visual and performing arts;

(c) that those services (taken together) provide, to the extent that is appropriate for facilitating civic understanding and fair and well-informed debate on news and current affairs, a comprehensive and authoritative coverage of news and current affairs in, and in the different parts of, the United Kingdom and from around the world;

(d) that those services (taken together)"—

The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).

Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 16 October.