10.28 am

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on introducing the debate. He will not be surprised that I agree with everything he said this morning as we have often shared this platform with other hon. Members who have spoken this morning and those who no doubt would like to speak if there is time. We have become a well loved regular cast on the subject in the past year. Maybe the BBC will think up a new soap opera in which we can be incorporated.

I should like to endorse a few points that have already been made. The first is the comparison between television and radio. A few seconds after a television appearance, 85 per cent. of the retained memories of what has happened relate to how we look. The great advantage of radio is that one cannot do that, so people concentrate more on the content of what has been said. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) said, radio is by far the better medium for getting across a complicated, many-faceted argument. That is what this place is all about. It is no coincidence that radio treats our debates far more effectively--or can do--than television. For that reason, all hon. Members who have spoken this morning have rightly concentrated on the three major programmes: "Yesterday in Parliament", "Today in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster". Radio is where one may develop an argument, or follow its twists and turns without being distracted by the visuals.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that there should be a dynamic tension between the nation's assembly and the nation's primary broadcaster. That is right, and no hon. Member is suggesting that we

14 Apr 1999 : Column 153

The Government could help us in performing that role. I hope that, in her reply, the Minister will deal with the point that there is a vicious circle. If Ministers are prepared to go on the "Today" programme and state in detail what they will later in the day tell the House of Commons, then later in the day, no reporter, journalist or broadcaster will cover the matter in the same detail. It is a vicious circle.

If statements are made outside the House--the previous Government were just as guilty of press-release politics as the current one; it is a tendency of which all Ministers should be aware--that is the way it will go. However good John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman may be in questioning the statements of Minister or of Opposition spokesmen, they cannot perform the same function as Parliament. That is what we are paid to do. The main function of this place is to scrutinise, analyse and probe what is being said.

As the hon. Member for Rotherham said, since January, 35 statements have been made in the House. It is a remarkable number, and I welcome it--as this is where Government statements should be made--but I wonder how many of them were covered effectively by the BBC. I suspect that very few of them were.

Labour Back Benchers have a much better opportunity in this place of seeing, probing and questioning what the Government are doing than they ever will in the studios. All too often, studio set-ups comprise only a couple of people with distinctly different, usually partisan viewpoints, and do not necessarily deal with the substance of the issue.

Hon. Members have already mentioned in some detail the BBC's public service and charter obligations. I believe that Ministers also have an obligation to recognise that this is the place where major statements should be first made.

Hon. Members have also mentioned the mindset that lay behind the changes. I recall that, in both our previous debates--in March, in the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and in October, in my own debate--all hon. Members stressed that we were concerned not only about what the BBC was doing, but about why it was doing it. It was as if the BBC was treating the proceedings in this place as an esoteric, odd and peculiar hobby of a very few people. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned ghettoisation.

The changes seemed to reflect a belief that stamp collecting, underwater line-dancing or following the proceedings of Parliament could appropriately be pushed into a little corner, so those who were "obsessed with Parliament"--as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said--could go away and listen to their heart's content. That is not what Parliament is about.

14 Apr 1999 : Column 154

I shall be as brief as possible, as I know that two important speeches are yet to be made. I should, therefore, say what I think that the BBC could do to redress the situation. Of course it would be great to return to the previous position, with the enhancement that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned. However, I should like to offer option 12, which I believe really would deal with the "unacceptable democratic deficit" to which the BBC chairman referred.

"The Week in Westminster" must go to the end of the week; it is ludicrous in its current slot. If there is an extremely important debate on Friday, how will it be dealt with? Let us face the fact that, as we all know, private Members' business on Fridays can be extremely important to very many constituents. The programme must go back to Saturday. Moreover, I believe that it fits much better in the Saturday scheduling than in most other slots.

I should be reconciled to leaving "Today in Parliament" in the evening slot, on long wave. At that time in the evening, there is a rather specialist audience, and there are many other competing audiences. I would not therefore go to the stake to have it on both FM and long wave.

As hon. Members have already said, the critical programme is "Yesterday in Parliament". The point about loss of audience--which would have happened regardless of what was put in the slot--has been well covered. However, the audience that is retained is very much the informed audience that wants to be better informed, and the programme naturally follows on from the "Today" programme.

I suggest that, to ensure that there is still choice in that time slot, which the BBC says is so important, the BBC should let those who want to remain with John Humphrys and the "Today" programme go to long wave; that would really test it. If--as we are being told by the BBC--everyone wants to go with "Today" and does not want to stay with us, and if, as is suggested, the debate in the studio is far more interesting than the debate in this place, let "Today" go to long wave. That will retain choice.

If the BBC is determined that there must be choice at 8.30 am, let it make the choice offered by my suggestion, and we shall test which is the better solution. I think that the suggestion, as option 12, makes better sense than all the other 11 options offered in the paper. It would not only preserve choice, but demonstrate, once and for all, what that particular audience--from 8.30 am to 9 am, in the full period to just before the news--prefers.

Before very long, parliamentarians in both Houses will be asked to deal with the future role and responsibility of the BBC. Unless the BBC's chairman and governors respond positively to the concerns being expressed in this place, and by many other people outside it, and restore Parliament to its rightful place in the BBC's schedules, they will find us a not very sympathetic audience when they come cap in hand.

14 Apr 1999 : Column 155

Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North): I should like, first, to state formally that, in his brief time left on the Back Benches, I am delighted to be associated with and to support my hon. and extremely ambitious Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on this matter--despite his slightly unkind remarks about those of us who prefer to appear on the nonvisual medium. As someone who has frequently been told that he has an excellent face for radio, I am somewhat sensitive about comments about avoirdupois and lack of hair. Nevertheless, I support my hon. Friend on the matter. I have also been amazed by the uniformity of opinion and agreement on the issue on both sides of the House.

The BBC has arrived at a perhaps uniquely British compromise in which it, in exchange for a unique funding mechanism, provides a unique facility and service. It is an odd arrangement, which is not immediately replicable in other countries, but it has worked extremely well. However, as is transparently obvious to all of us, it is not working now. If we are to assume that entertainment is all and that education is nothing, and to follow the Gadarene swine down market--dumbing down, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden(Mr. Davis) said--the future is indeed horrible.

I have seen the future. On St. Patrick's day, I found myself in Ottawa, with the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)--who is temporarily out of the Chamber--and we were treated to the sight of the Canadian Parliament in session. Canada has decided to have the full warts-and-all coverage. The Canadian Parliament delights in leaping to its feet and applauding certain speeches. The element of partisan activity on both sides of the Chamber is such that what little debate could possibly be discerned amidst the clamour and clapping is completely lost by ludicrous and antagonistic behaviour.

There is a lesson for us there. Whereas it is right and proper for us to criticise the BBC, we also have to accept some share of responsibility. Although incidents such as punching Ministers and waving the Mace around are, fortunately, few and far between, there have been occasions--far be it from me to enumerate them, although I am sure that they are known to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker--when the behaviour of right. and hon. Members, and even of hon. and learned Members, has been such as to participate in a dumbing-down process. We have a certain responsibility there.

The important point is the unique status of the British Broadcasting Committee--