BBC Transparency

Debate between Rebecca Pow and Gregory Campbell

Thursday 7th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the transparency of the BBC.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Bone. I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight my concerns about the lack of transparency in the BBC’s use of public money in Northern Ireland and, I am sure, more widely. I secured a debate on the subject on a previous occasion but had to withdraw it for a variety of reasons. My concerns are not unique to Northern Ireland, but my speech will focus on BBC NI.

The BBC’s mission is

“to inform, educate and entertain audiences with programmes and services of high quality, originality and value.”

It used to be considered a reliable source of news and informative programming. It was the broadcaster to go to in times of crisis or turmoil—the dependable, publicly funded broadcaster. I am sorry to inform the House that as a result of events over the last few years, the BBC’s standing has been diminished.

Correspondence from MPs frequently goes totally unanswered or is met with a reply that avoids the issues. Questions about the use of public money are ignored or have a veil of secrecy pulled over them. I have concluded that the BBC fat cats in Belfast are either incredibly arrogant or incredibly shifty. What they are not is open and transparent. I have written to the BBC, but have had to come to this Chamber to raise these serious issues. I use the term “fat cats” because some of the best people in the BBC are the lowest-paid: the foot soldier producers and editors who work long shifts and arrange all the programmes.

I have long argued for maximum transparency from the BBC. I have several concerns. The first relates to pay transparency. The BBC nationally has long resisted the public demand for pay transparency, but it eventually agreed to publish the salaries of 96 stars, as they are called. Their combined salaries were almost £30 million. The public are now somewhat better informed about how their money has been used; we now know that the BBC believes that men should get more money than women for doing the same task. There was an outrageous gender pay disparity. It took a decade for the BBC to be dragged to the point of publishing all salaries of more than £150,000 per year.

In recent months, the BBC has indicated that more staff will be moved off the direct payroll and will therefore not feature in any published list next year, even though they are paid in excess of the £150,000 benchmark. So much for greater transparency. Whether that is motivated by the desire to reduce BBC staff’s personal tax liabilities, to avoid public scrutiny, or both, it is a shameful insight into the BBC top brass’s complete disregard for transparency.

An outrageous double standard is at play. While BBC presenters question elected representatives and others paid by the public purse about their salary and office costs, they hide behind a veil of secrecy about their own publicly funded annual salaries of £200,000, £300,000, £400,000 or more. I am glad that the salaries, overheads and so on of those in this Parliament are accessible to the taxpayer for scrutiny; that is how it should be. Why should the public money funding the BBC be treated any differently? I do not agree with BBC staff avoiding tax by channelling money through obscure personal service companies. This House should consider the ethics of that practice with respect to public money.

My second concern about transparency relates to complaints. A constituent of mine made a very simple freedom of information request:

“I request the number of complaints recorded against matters carried by BBC Northern Ireland for the following outlets: BBC Good Morning Ulster, BBC Nolan (radio), BBC Nolan Live (TV), BBC TalkBack, BBC Evening Extra, BBC Newsline, BBC NI website”.

That was not an unreasonable request. How many complaints have been launched? My constituent received the following reply:

“The information that you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion.”

So much for transparency. That reply was sent by Mr Mark Adair, BBC Northern Ireland’s head of corporate and community affairs. He told my constituent that he holds the information but needs it

“for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’”

That is clearly nonsense. Why would a publicly funded media organisation not be prepared to make public the number of complaints about its programmes from members of the public?

My third concern relates to the commissioning of programmes. Across the UK—though I will deal with Northern Ireland—the BBC commissions independent companies to produce programmes. However, independent production companies, editing companies and camera and lighting specialists are concerned that they are not getting a fair deal. I have heard stories of slow or reduced payments and a culture of fear. Those stories are fresh in my mind, because I heard them at first hand from those affected when I began to probe the commissioning process.

I wanted to establish what auditing mechanism exists for programmes, both when the contract is awarded and after the finished product has been delivered and broadcast. I also wanted to know how the BBC, as the main contractor, could be sure that subcontractors such as camera operators, lighting operators and editors were paid for their work under the contract. I asked some simple questions of Susan Lovell, the head of multi-platform commissioning for BBC Northern Ireland. I have yet to receive satisfactory answers to those 18 numbered questions, but I was offered a private briefing. The links in her response were so numerous that my printer ran out of ink and paper before I could print them all. The briefing is a nice offer, and I am sure I will take it up, but I would prefer answers.

On Tuesday I emailed Susan Lovell again, knowing that this debate had been tabled. I made my email even more succinct. I asked three straight questions:

“1. When programmes are commissioned and public money granted, how is the use of this money audited?

2. Is an external auditor employed to ensure this public money is appropriated in an ethical manner?

3. If a Commission is granted, can the contracted production company then seek additional monies for travel and other unforeseen production costs?”

Setting aside the fact that I am an MP, I would have assumed as a viewer that that was a perfectly reasonable set of queries.

I received a reply yesterday. It is funny how quickly minds can be exercised when a debate is about to be held; it takes weeks and months otherwise. The reply said:

“Expenditure profiles are a routine feature of programme proposals and allow us to make an informed assessment”.

I always get fearful when I hear answers from large companies that talk about informed assessments, but this was an informed assessment of

“value for money; and we routinely audit our work and output against a range of metrics.”

The key words there are “we routinely audit”; one of my questions was whether an external auditor was employed—I think I have got an answer to that question, even if indirectly. When a programme is commissioned, delivered and broadcast, invoices relating to that contract should then be published online. That happens in many other areas of public service.

I turn to a specific example. In October 2014, a BBC Northern Ireland series, entitled “Story of a Lifetime”, was broadcast. According to the credits, it was produced for BBC NI by a company called Third Street Studios. However, according to Companies House,

“Third Street Studios was incorporated on 2 December 2014, after the series was delivered”.

Almost one year ago, I cited this example and asked the BBC some questions:

“1. To whom and when did BBC NI award the contract for the 2014 series ‘Story of a Lifetime’?

2. What address did BBC NI use to communicate the commission to ‘Third Street Studios’?

3. Did BBC NI check if ‘Third Street Studios’ was incorporated before the programme was commissioned?”

To date, neither the company involved nor the BBC have been able to tell me where the Third Street Studios office is, how much the contract was for and to whom the contract was awarded.

I understand that a director of Third Street Studios is a BBC presenter. Indeed, according to the map on the Third Street Studios website, its office is at Belfast city hall. The “about us” section of the website declares:

“We pride ourselves in understanding mass market television. We don’t do ‘niche’. We do ‘massive’”.

This production company is so massive that I cannot find its office in Belfast. In fact, when I went online, according to the Google map provided, the company’s location is fairly prestigious: in front of Belfast city hall—at a taxi rank. Again, we have some questions that need answering.

When I emailed the company and its director, he said:

“I don’t think that it would be helpful, or appropriate”

to answer my questions. For clarity, I asked about the procurement process, the contract value, the date the contract was awarded and the tendering process for appointing subcontractors. Remember, this is about a series that has already been broadcast on BBC television. The company director said that

“my work…could only properly be understood if equivalent information about all other production companies and their contracts with the BBC were to be placed in the public domain.”

So “I’ll go if you get everyone else to go”—that is effectively what he was saying.

That is further evidence of straightforward and simple questions being ignored. We need full transparency in BBC commissioning, and we need evidence that BBC commission contracts are externally audited.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very sound case about the BBC, but does he agree that it was this Government who called for increased transparency—maybe not in the areas that he is covering, but certainly on pay rates? They have actually unlocked many of the things that we will debate today, so this Government are definitely holding the BBC to account. Perhaps they should do more, but they are definitely working in this area.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree with her: the campaign over the past years to get further transparency is a work in progress, and we are much more advanced than we were 10 or 12 years ago. However, as I am outlining, there is much more work to do.

The fourth area that I want to cover is BBC accuracy and honesty. The BBC prides itself on posing questions, and all of us here are subject to those questions, but it is not very good at providing answers. In two instances during the past year, there have been very serious questions for the corporation in Northern Ireland to answer.

A green energy scheme with an initial potential overspend of public money is currently subject to a public inquiry; I do not intend to trespass on issues that are best dealt with in that inquiry. However, the Executive in Northern Ireland were collapsed by Sinn Féin under the pretext of what they claimed was the mishandling of that scheme. Early this year, a BBC Radio Ulster programme carried this topic for 56 consecutive days. The presenter of that programme, who just happens to be the director of Third Street Studios, used inaccurate and outrageous commentary. I will briefly give two quotes. He said:

“One of the biggest financial scandals to have ever happened in Northern Ireland: under the government’s watch, £400million of your money has been allowed to go up in smoke”.

He also said:

“What it means is that hundreds of millions of pounds of your money cannot go into schools, education, other departments in our country because the money has been squandered, the money has been wasted.”

This situation continued for a prolonged period until I appeared on the programme and confronted this deliberate misrepresentation. As the scheme had only just begun and was scheduled to last for 20 years, I asked why the presenter kept saying that the public’s money had been “wasted” and gone “up in smoke”. Only after my appearance, which was accompanied by strong letters of protest from my party to the BBC hierarchy, was the use of this reprehensible language stopped.