12/05/2016 House of Commons

Point but other new nuclear as well. We, on this side are doing what the

other side of the House disally failed to do for 13 years, which is

to deliver on infrastructure to the benefit of all consumers.

THE SPEAKER: Urgent question, John Redwood. Will the minister make a

statement on the number of national insurance numbers issued to EU

migrants? Mr Speaker, for years UK migration

figures have been measured independently according to agreed UN

definitions. Today's report by the independent Office for National

Statistics is a clear endorsement of their validity. I welcome the

clarity that the ONS have provided on this important issue.

And to have this opportunity to clear up some so of the

misconceptions about the national insurance numbers and what they may

mean for EU migration. On the 7th March this year, the

Office office for national statistic published a note explaining why

long-term international migration figures couldiver from

registrations.en clouding the two series are like -- egg slagss,

concluding the two Differ. They published their

conclusions this morning. I stress this is independent work, carried

out by an independent Statistics Authority.

The conclusions are clear, the ONS have stated the difference between

the number of long-term EU migrants and national insurance registrations

by EU nationals can be accounted for by short-term EU migration to the UK

and that the independent international passenger surva

remains the best -- survey remains the best source of information for

measuring net migration. They say that national insurance figures are

not a good measure of measures of migration even if they are helpful

for understanding patterns of migration. National insurance

numbers can be obtained by anyone working in the UK for just a few

weeks. The ONS explains why the number of national insurance

registrations should not be compared with migration figures, because they

measure entirely different things. Short-term migrants have never been

included in the long-term migration statistics which are governed by UN

definitions. We have had short-term migrants who do not get picked up.

It will not have an impact on popular population growth and

pressures, as they, by definition, leave the UK within 12 months of

arriving. The Government looking forward to the ONS's follow-up note,

setting out their analysis in greater detail later in the year.

And we must now be care not to distort these figures following

their clear statements. I welcome the conclusions. I hope they provide

reassurance to those concerned. The national insurance data could

suggest that the published migration statistics were inaccurate. The

Government takes very seriously the need to reduce net migration to

long-term sustainable levels, from the hundreds of thousands to the

tens of thousands. We have taken a number of steps to achieve that, of

which the immigration bill, which completed its parliamentary passage

this week is just the latest. Clear and accurate statistics are integral

to what we are seeking to achieve. I am pleased that today the ONS has,

with its normal impartiality, confirmed the statistics we use

based on the International Passenger Survey do have the necessary

integrity and remain the best measure for understanding net

migration. Mr Speaker, I am grateful to the

minister for his statement. Doesn't the minister accept that the popular

programme that he and I and other Conservative MPs stood on at the

general election to make a substantial reduction in net

migration is quite impossible to honour as a promise on the

Government's own figures for migration, let alone national

insurance because it has been running well above the maximum total

that we suggested to the electorate. Doesn't it show all the time we are

in the European Union we cannot control EU migration in the way that

we promised to do in the general election? Doesn't the big difference

between the national insurance numbers and the migration numbers

also have really big implications that will be a worry to members on

all sides of the house for the impact on public services. The fact

is that over a five-year period, 1.2 million additional people came here,

got a job and got a national insurance number and obviously lived

here for a considerable number of time, even if some have now departed

and they needed to attend doctor's surgeries, to have school places for

children and so forth. If we look at the figures for GP registrations we

see in the last two years alone an additional 1.1 million people have

registered for GP services, implying the national insurance numbers are

close tore the truth and implying that we need to look at the national

insurance numbers as well as the formal migration numbers when

planning public provision? Doesn't the minister share any of my concern

that we are not offering a sufficiently good welcome in terms

of places and health facilities and school places that it is putting a

lot of pressure on settled communities and not offering

something good to the new comers. Doesn't he share my wish to get a

grip on it so we can plan our public services. I find the notes slipped

out, fortunately the speaker allowed an urgent question, doesn't answer

the discrepancy and doesn't deal with the point that iftion comes

here, works and gets a national insurance number, we need to provide

services for them? Well, Mr Speaker, I am dwrafl to my Right Honourable

-- I am grateful to my Right Honourable friend to allow me to

clarify the points. The ONS statements today are very clear. As

Glenn Watson the statistician for the policy has said this morning, we

are confident, the International Passenger Survey remains the best

available way of pressuring long-term migration to the UK.

As I have already indicated in my statement to the House this morning.

My Right Honourable friend has highlighted, I think correctly, this

issue of the public services. This is why this Government remains

committed to reducing net migration to those long-term sustainable

levels that existed before the last Labour Government.

And we remain committed and focussed to achieving that. That is why we

have taken the steps that we have to reform the visa sis accept, to make

the changes on -- visa system, to making the changes on migration,

which is why the measures approved earlier this week are absolutely

pivotal to that. The ONS are cleesh that we should not be looking at

national insurance number force that assessment of the pressure of

migration. And I think it is important to

equally stress that some have suggested that by leaving the EU

this will be the answer to the migration issue.

Well, I say to them very clearly, we only fled to look at the examples of

other countries that have decided to be on the outside. And yet have free

movement. Yet they pay into the EU budget. Therefore this idea that

somehow on the outside it would be better, I find it inconceivable that

we would have access to the single market and not have the issues of

free movement. But it is also important to stress, I think the

important achievements of the Prime Minister in his renegotiation on

putting the welfare break into effect. On dealing some of the

factors as well also as the important steps he's taken on

de-regulation. Some really important elements we have secured at that

negotiation, not just for the benefit of the UK, but for the

benefit of the UK as a whole, so we grow that economy. That we see other

European nations succeeding and therefore creating the jobs and

employment in their country. I recognition the concerns in relation

to public sisters. They remain the -- public services. They remain of

importance to this Government. We will take the measures to see the

levels reduced and to address the concerns about public services that

we see in our communities. Unlike my predecessor I see some

positives in migration. I would cautious the member for Wokingham.

Many of the GPs around the UK, particularly in areas like mine have

trained overseas. They are helping our constituent constituents. We are

brought jobs and prosperity, environment benefits and increases

the sovereignty of our country. One in five carers looking after our

growing older population have come to Britain from the European Union

and elsewhere. And currently it is estimated there are 1.2 million UK

citizens taking advantage of the free movement of labour and working

overseas in the European Union or living overseas. It is a two-way

process. In terms of the statement by the

Office for National Statistics, to quote what Glenn Watson said this

morning, "national insurance number registrations are not a good

indicator of long-term migration. This shows many people who register

for national insurance stay in the United Kingdom for less than a year.

Which is the minimum stay for a long-term migrant according to the

internationalally-recognised definition."

I'm grateful to the library for their brief, in which they cite the

national insurance manual which says, amongst other things,

initially, applicants need to make an application, for a number, by

telephone. They may then be required to attend an interview at a DWP

Jobcentre plus office as HMRC guidance explains, and it goes on to

cite the guidance. The right honourable member for Wokingham, I

suspect, like me, when he turned 15, got his first job and had to go in

person to apply for a national insurance number. He shakes his

head, that is what I had to do, that was the system, perhaps he did not

start work at 15 in a factory, as I did. The Government should look

again at that system, rather than just mailing out numbers. I am not

advocating a change, I'm advocating the Government looks again at the

desirability of the system of face-to-face interviews for

everyone. In relation to the last point, obviously that is a matter

for colleagues in the DWP, and clearly we continue to assess these

matters, but I think the key point that he was highlighting was on this

issue of the long-term versus initial term, and the fact that the

clear statement from the ONS indicates that the right measure to

look at is the long-term immigration measure through the passenger survey

data. That is the clearest way to set out the pressures of migration,

and that is what they have said very clearly, how national insurance

numbers are not an appropriate measure to assess for that purpose.

Yes, they may, as they indicate, show trends or patterns, but in

terms of the overall net migration numbers that the passenger survey

remains conclusively the best measure that we have, and it is

right that this Government should use the measure, as we have done

consistently, following the UN definitions in terms of that

mechanism. And therefore I know to what he has said, and indeed his

endorsement of the ONS report this morning. Mr Kenneth Clarke. As my

honourable friend seen the report produced by the London School of

Economics this morning, which actually demonstrate that wages in

this country continue to rise strongly after the first flood of

arrivals from Poland and elsewhere arrived in this country? And the

fall in wages that has followed in recent years is plainly caused by TD

recession, the worst we have seen since the Second World War in 2007,

and this refute some of the other arguments which some of the

Brexiteers keep using. -- the deep recession. Does he except that the

migrant crisis, which he and this country face at the moment, is a

problem of how to deal in a civil light and effective way with the

flood of people coming from war and anarchy in the Middle East and North

Africa? And the problem is not Polish construction workers and

Romanian nurses who make a very valuable contribution to the

economic life of this country. Well, Mr Speaker, I must confess that I

have not had the opportunity to see the LSE report that my right

honourable friends has referred to, but I shall certainly make a point

of seeking that out after I have left the chamber this morning. My

right honourable friends clearly makes a strong point in terms of the

challenges that we face in dealing with the migration crisis, and

obviously there are clear steps this Government is taking both in region

and in Europe to respond and deal with that. But I would also say, in

relation to the issue of newly joining members of the EU, this

Government is very clear on how we would lose our veto if we were not

satisfied as to the terms of any new country joining the EU. -- use our

veto. Therefore, those issues that we do recognise in relation to free

movement, we will have to veto and certainly use it if we are not

satisfied as to the terms of any new entrant. Members will, I'm sure,

have it in the forefront of their minds to referred to national

insurance numbers in the context of this urgent question. That is at its

heart, as I feel sure Eilidh Whiteford is well aware! I am

indeed, publication of this data this

morning, because it gives us a better understanding of migration

patterns, notwithstanding that on their own I do not think the

national insurance registrations are a reliable indicator for measuring

long-term international migration. It is vital that we remember that

migration is a global phenomenon, not just a European issue, and that

it is very much a two way street. In Scotland, we are well aware that for

generations migration has meant that many of our citizens have had to

move abroad, and even now many of our highly qualified young people

leave to build careers in other parts of the world. I am also very

conscious that, in some sectors of our economy, we are very heavily

dependent on migrant labour, not least our NHS but also other parts

of our public and private sectors. Migrant workers not only contribute

to our economy but also help anchor the jobs of local workforce in the

UK. I would like to ask the minister what assessment the Government has

made of the number of UK industries and UK jobs that there are which

depend on the free movement of labour within EU, and will he be

forthright in dispelling myths about migration and in articulating the

contribution that migrant workforce is made to our economy? Well, we

have always come as a government, been clear that we want to track the

skilled, the talented, the brightest and the best to contribute to UK

economic growth, and therefore we have, for visa nationals from

outside of the EU, a very clear policy in relation to responding to

that. What we are concerned about in relation to the EU is perhaps the

artificial draw that may come from benefits and, equally, ensuring that

we have a skilled workforce here to meet the needs of the economy. That

is why the work the Government has taken in relation to

apprenticeships, and indeed the skills levy, that we will be

producing in relation to our skilled visas, it is important so that we

are providing the right people within this country with the skills

to meet those needs, and therefore not being overly reliant on Labour

from outside the UK. Doctor Liam Fox. Mr Speaker, the publication of

these NI numbers is simply one more confirmation that there is no

chance, zero, of us fulfilling our promise to the British people on

immigration, to reduce it to the tens of thousands and less there is

restriction on free movement of labour within the European Union.

Since the Minister mentioned renegotiation, why did the

Government not attempt in any way to get a reduction in that free

movement as part of that renegotiation? Well, I say to my

right honourable friends that we do remain focused on reducing net

migration to those sustainable levels, and he will well though from

the renegotiation that I have referred to, in relation to the

welfare break, and indeed the point I made about competitiveness across

the UK on dealing with the issues of unnecessary bureaucracy, and how I

think that when we look at those differences between economies across

the EU, how actually seeing that reform is the agenda that the Prime

Minister has challenged is really essential in this as well. Plus of

course those steps that we are taking within the UK to ensure that

we have the right skills for the UK workforce as well. Dennis Skinner.

This influx of especially East Europeans is not new. Because the

displaced persons system that operated immediately after the end

of the Second World War resulted in millions of people around Europe

without jobs, without states, and I worked with many of them in the pits

from East Europe, on the basis that they were members of our union, the

NUM, they got paid the same money as we did, they did not undermine the

workers in the traditional industries. Some of them were very

much involved in the trade union movement, and yet today thousands,

millions of people are on the move, and the Government cannot see the

possibility of doing what we did in the late 1940s and insist upon union

recognition, same pay for everybody, no undermining of workers' writes,

and the net result would be no problem at all, and the rise of Ukip

would disappear like snowflakes on an oven. Well! Mr Speaker, I... I...

No, I think the honourable gentleman has made as point in his customary

colourful way, but what I think I can say to him very clearly is that,

on the fact that we see the four us, that on the Holy See what national

insurance numbers, what this urgent question is about, they are not a

good measure in relation to that long-term issue of migration. -- on

the issue of national insurance numbers. The honourable gentleman

may be more interested in snowflakes and union recognition, but I think

that is for another debate. I am not sure I saw the minister last night

at the world premiere of Brexit the Movie, but unfortunately it is not a

war film. LAUGHTER

A few months ago, the Prime Minister was telling us that unless he got

his way on migration, he would consider leaving the EU. This was a

minor change in migration figures and controls. The now says that if

we leave the EU, there might be a third World war. -- he says. I

brought the grass so that members can see the difference between the

figures, we have no idea what net migration in this country is, it is

out of control, and we need to get control back, and that is what he

should have done with an brake. Well, Mr Speaker, I was not at the

opening night of Brexit the Movie to discover whether my honourable

friend had a starring role in the movie or not. Clearly, we will wait

to see. But I say to him that the Office of National Statistics are

very clear that the passenger survey remains the right way, in their

judgment, to assess net migration, and that is the measure the

Government will continue to use. I am very disappointed, I came into

the chamber hoping to see a conspiracy exposed over national

insurance numbers, and there is no conspiracy, so it has been a

disappointing day. LAUGHTER

Well, Mr Speaker, I am sorry always to disappoint the honourable

gentleman. I think it is clearly from the clarity that the ONS have

provided. Mr Bernard Jenkin. May I remind my

right honourable friend of a report that the public as ministrations

select committee be used in the last parliament which cast grave doubt on

the accuracy and reliability of the statistics? The annual passenger

survey is just that, a sample of passengers entering the United

Kingdom. It may well be the best way of measuring our immigration, but we

decided that they are not a reliable way of measuring immigration, and

the very large rise in national insurance numbers show that

something else is going on. May I just remind him that the last census

micro show the British population was 467,000 people larger than the

Government had understood it was, and a large proportion of that was

due to unrecorded immigration? We do not have control over immigration

into this country, because every EU citizen and their dependents at the

right to come here and the Government as no means of excluding

them, even if they are criminals and terrorists. On the last point, Mr

Speaker, we do exclude those from the EU who may be involved in

criminality or terrorism, and the Prime Minister's renegotiation has

strengthened our ability to remove those who are here too. My

honourable friend, my right honourable friend highlights the

issue of the annual passenger survey. The ONS are very clear today

in what they have said, that it remains the best measure to

determine net migration. The national insurance numbers do not

provide that. And yes, of course, the ONS, I am sure, will continue to

review this, continued to assess what improvement may be made, but

they have been specific today in saying that the passenger survey is

the most effective way forward. Can I just ask the Minister to confirm

that the number of Jobcentre plus offices that are able to issue

national insurance numbers has been reduced? I have been told that

someone who applied in York was told they had to travel to Hull to get a

national insurance number. Well, what I can perhaps do for the

honourable lady is I will write to her having consulted with colleagues

from the DWP. Gerald Howarth. THE SPEAKER: We will hear from the

honourable gentleman on another occasion - I feel sure. It may be a

different question to what you expected.

I'm delighted that the ONS has published its report and bust the

myself these national insurance numbers -- myth that these ex-please

the national insurance numbers. They are explicit that the main

contribute tore these national insurance numbers are people here

less than a year and therefore will not be included in the Government's

immigration target, so have nothing to do with it whatsoever. Being kind

to those arguing the case, they believe that short-term my grants

are as bad as long-term migrants. Will the minister agree with me many

of these groups who are short-term, including 27,000 teachers, 28,000

care workers and 60,000 seasonal workers in the forming industry do

tremendous things for this country in the public services and in the

private sector? I am grateful to my honourable friend for making that

clear point. As he and I recognise the benefit we gain from short-term

migration from EU workers. It is important to recognise that those

who equally may fall within this category may be students on

short-term courses, short-term contractors and seasonal workers.

The point is, it is short-term and they leave and therefore do not

contribute to the long-term pressures. Is it not the case that

national insurance numbers are issued, but not removed how can the

Government estimate of the numbers which don't refer to people not here

at all? Would he say gently to the campaign not to descend into dog

whistle politics over migration. It It is important that we focus on

national insurance numbers and what is the best measure in relation to

that assessment of long-term migration. I think that is what the

Office for National Statistics have clearly set out. And that is, I

think, the issue to focus on. He obviously makes some important

points in relation to national insurance numbers and the system

itself. That is not the best mechanism for assessing that overall

impact. These figures clearly laid bare that

the Government is powerless to control EU immigration for the

benefit of our public services. How does the Government justify our

present immigration system which unfairly discriminates against

economic migrants from outside the EU and would it will not be better

on leaving the EU to design a fairer immigration policy with a level

playing field for nationals of all countries, some of whom might be

better qualifies? I will leaf -- qualified? I will leave it to the

honourable gentleman to make it out for a case for all EU nationals,

which is what he appears to taking forward. The Government has a clear

approach on controlling migration from outside of the EU through our

skills-based visas and other routes, as well as dealing the pressures we

have highlighted on economic competitiveness as well as drawing

with the draws such as through the welfare system.

With discrepancies of 1.2 national insurance numbers reported and it

having increased it is hard to tell whether new arrivals will stay for a

few months or a few years. It means those who want to live permanently

in Britain might have been incorrectly designated as visitors.

What has been done to ensure that they are correctly identified,

particularly in the difficult times when have accurate times is vital

and being transparent is key for trust among the British people? I

agree with the point that the honourable gentleman makes about the

need for clarity and certainty in relation to the numbers. We

obviously look to the independent Office for National Statistics, to

give us that clarity. They have obviously said that the

International Passenger Survey is the best measure they judge as

appropriate for that and they continue to review, as they do from

time to time, how best to ensure they are capturing the effective

data on the interviews they do, as well as how that is extrapolated up

in terms of the numbers they produce on a quarterly basis.

Thank all-party talks Mr Speaker. I recognise what the minister has said

about the reliability of the national insurance figures as a

measure of immigration, but he must accept that there is a perception of

significant uncertainty and am by guty over what the complete picture

is. With significant pressure on public services I would urge the

minister to respond to the concerns and outline what he thinks can be

done to give a more balanced, overall picture on immigration and

the concerns that exist there. Well, obviously one of the key elements is

you need a strong economy to be able to support our public services. I

would say in relation to the pressures on particular communities

that is why the Government will be introducing a controlling migration

fund, to assist those communities who may be specifically affected by

increases in population linked to migration and it is why we will

continue with the reforms to control migration.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The minister knows I represent a border

constituency. I have constituents who cannot get national insurance

numbers. They have worked in the south, pension in the south but paid

tax in the UK and have been issued UK numbers under double taxation

rules but they cannot get national insurance numbers. Can he assure me

that sensitivity about these statistics and the EU migrants is

not a factor in their predicament? I will make sure his comments about

the availability of being able to obtain national insurance numbers is

passed on to the colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions. I

would point to him the clear statements that the Office for

National Statistics have stated in terms of the lack of a connection on

the national insurance numbers to long-term migration and what I have

indicated in terms of what the best measures are.

Mr Speaker, it can quite clear from the minister 's answer to the our

gent question that there are -- urgent question that there are more

migrants here than previously thought at any one time. I expect

he's a good poer player, can clearly bluff and miss represent the facts.

That is out of order. Rephrase that...

THE SPEAKER: I am sure the honourable gentleman wouldn't want

to suggest that a minister has miss represented someone else.

What I was trying to say was, rather in a clumsy way, is the minister

would be a very good poker player and that, and he is an excellent

minister. What I wanted to do, Mr Speaker, was give him some career

guidance, because clearly the Prime Minister requires that the

immigration numbers come down to the tens of thousands and this NI

numbers has proven it cannot happen while we are in the EU. Could he

advice the Prime Minister to change his position on the EU and recommend

that people vote to come up so he can keep his job?

Well I am always grateful for advice from my honourable friend on a range

of issues. On this particular element, on our position within the

EU, I am sorry to disappoint him, but we do differ on this particular

issue and I believe that the UK would be stronger, more secure and

better off from remaining within the EU.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My honourable friend has given an exposition on

the position. However, there is a clear issue of large-scale EU

migration to this country for people that want to work and our public

services and many of our service industries depend on the people

coming to actually do those jobs. But does he not accept that in a

constituency like mine, which has grown from 2010 of 1,000 EU

nationals, to now 10,000 EU nationals, in just five years, that

you cannot say that's not a long-term position, because it

clearly is. At the same time, members of my

constituency cannot get their relatives in or the businesses to

get skilled people in to do the jobs required from people from the

Commonwealth. I say to my honourable friend that

clearly we can point to the net migration statistics which show the

challenges that do remain in relation to EU and non-EU migration

and how those numbers are continuing to be higher than we want them to

do. That -- them to be, that is why we continue on our reform agenda. I

would say on our visas from outside of the EU, this is why we have the

shortest occupation list to prioritise the skills which are

particularly needed so the visas can be granted where the gaps exist.

What these statistics which have been published today show is that

the national insurance numbers have risen very much so, 2003 to 7

thousand now and within the data I don't believe what the minister

actually has said about this clarifying the issue is the case,

because there's a variation in the estimate for the short-term element

of more than 200,000. Now, over the next 14 years, the Government itself

thinks that three million more will come and settle on a long-term basis

from the EU. It will be five million at current rate. This has a

tremendous impact on every constituency, including mine on

housing, jobs and services. I just ask, does the Government not care

about that? THE SPEAKER: Listening to and

observing our proceedings today are a large number of school children.

If they ask questions in class were as long as the questions we are

getting today, they would probably be put in detention.

Mr Speaker, I would not want to end up in detention, so I will be try

and be as brief as I can in answer. I would point to the actual report

which has been published and direct my honourable friend to that, which

does say that short-term migration to the UK largely accounts for the

differences between the number of long-term migrants and obviously the

IPS is the best source of information. We care about this

issue of pressure on public services which is why I have made the point

during this urgent question session on the reforms to control migration.

Think I that last question warranted a gold star rather than a detention.

I am a great believer that the waves of migration that our country has

had have been unbelievably beneficial for the country that I

have proud to represent in this place. However, I am very

disappointed with the Government because on 10th March, I asked for

the numbers to be released. Yet, for some reason, through the

cloak-and-daggers and smoke-filed rooms behind ministries these

numbers benign were unable to be released until that point. Why was

that? Well, what I would say to my

honourable friend is there has been a clear can't of detailed work which

has been conducted by the off figs of national statistics to produce --

Office for National Statistics to produce work from the work and

pensions and HMRS. I hope he will recognise this is different from the

Office for National Statistics to give that clarity, which is what I

think their report does. Is it not the case that the

International Passenger Survey is by definition random and

self-selecting? And is it not the best way to measure the number of

people in this country by ensuring that passports and identity cards

are swiped into the way into this country and on exiting this country?

Well, I would certainly say to my honourable friend that the Office

for National Statistics clearly says this is the best measure available

to be able to assess our long-term net migration numbers. Clearly we

will continue to see how issues such as the availability of exit check

data my support the ONS's analysis. Their conclusions from the report

today are clear that the International Passenger Survey

remains the measure. National insurance numbers are only

obtained by those who won't to work legally and pay the tax or claim

benefits. Inevitably some EU nationals will be in the UK working

illegally. What assessment has the minister

made of the number of EU nationals working cash-in-hand without a

national insurance number, taking the jobs of our constituents and

what is he doing to prevent illegal working by EU nationals? My

honourable friend makes a point about that - it is why the new

immigration bill we have been debating this week does include new

measures to target those who are engaging workers who do not have

those rights to be here and indeed how we will be continuing to work

across Government, with HMRCt Department for Work and Pensions to

better identify those who are not complying the rules and to take firm

action against them. What assessment of ministers made on

future EU enlargement? I would say to my honourable friend that there

is no prospect of Turkey joining the EU any time soon. It has significant

steps that it would need to undertake as part of reform on a

range of different elements, so that is not an issue, I think, relevance

to this, but I would underline how the Government will use its veto to

any new country seeking to join the EU if we are not satisfied as to the

terms of that, particularly in relation to convergence and the

impact it would have on labour markets across the EU. In my

constituency, we have seen the highest level of Eastern European

migration anywhere in the UK, driven by seasonal work, and I agree that

NI numbers would be a terrible way of measuring migration in an area

such as mine. But does he agree with me that in areas that have seen

unusual concentrations of migration, we do need a better way of measuring

migration if we are to adequately plan for public services? Well, I

entirely recognise the point that my honourable friend makes about the

particular pressures that certain areas in the UK have experienced as

a consequence of migration. I recognise the benefits, equally,

that are attached in terms of the contribution they make to our

economy. It is, equally, why we are seeking to introduce the controlling

migration fund to be able to assist certain areas where they are

experiencing that growth in population linked to migration.

Steve Baker. Mr Speaker, the Government's case rests on ignoring

the argument set out by the former Secretary of State for Work and

Pensions earlier this week, in particular into relation to people

shuttling to and fro for a few months at a time, which would be a

problem which would be ignored by looking at the passenger survey.

Will he listen to Lord Rose, the chairman of the BSE campaign, who

told the Treasury committee that the wages of the lowest paid would rise

if we let the EU and took control of migration? Well, I would say to my

honourable friend the contribution that those who arrive here actually

make to our economy, around ?2.5 billion net contribution, and how

that clearly is for our economy, while taking steps to reduce the

artificial factors, very much focus other factors within our local

areas, but equally how we get the right skills for our economy to

ensure that we are giving young people in this country the best

opportunity, which is precisely what our apprenticeships programme is all

about. The Minister has sought to defend the Government position by

continually referring to short-term workers, but witty and knowledge

that short-term workers are replaced by further short-term workers, and

therefore the pressure on public services is continuous and the

denial or diminished opportunities for UK citizens to get those jobs is

also continuous? Well, in terms of assessing pressures on population,

that is about long-term net migration. That is the clear measure

that we use, that is the UN definition, I think that remains

absolutely the appropriate way to assess those issues, as we do, in

respect of the potential growth in population, and why we do remain

focused on the measure that the ONS are clearly set out today, the

passenger survey and that assessment of long-term net migration. Thank

you. Order. Statement, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and

Sport. Secretary John Whittingdale. Thank you, Mr Speaker. With

permission, I should like to make a statement. The Government is today

laying before Parliament and depositing in the libraries of both

houses a white paper on the BBC Charter review. The Royal Charter is

the constitutional basis for the BBC. It is the framework for how the

BBC is governed and guarantees its independence. The current Royal

Charter will expire at the end of 2016. Today, we lay out our plans

for the next one. The white paper represents the culmination of ten

months' work. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the

green paper consultation process, not least 190,000 members of the

public. I am also very grateful to the team for their independent

review of the governance and regulation of the BBC, two

committees in both houses that made recommendations, and to all the

stakeholders, BBC representatives and others who helped inform the

deliberations. Mr Speaker, the BBC is one of the country's greatest

institutions. 80% of those who responded to the green paper said

that the BBC serves audiences very well or well, and every week the BBC

reaches 97% of the UK population and 348 million people across the globe,

informing, educating and entertaining them, and promoting

Britain around the world. It is our overriding aim to ensure that the

BBC continues to thrive in the media landscape that has changed beyond

recognition since the last charter review ten years ago, and that it

continues to deliver the best possible service for licence fee

payers. So today we are setting out a framework for the BBC that allows

it to focus on high-quality, distinctive content which informs,

educate and entertain is, while also serving all audiences. Enhances its

independence while also making it much more effective and accountable

in its governance and regulation, makes support for the UK's creative

industry central to the BBC operations, while at the same time

minimising any undue negative market impacts. Increases the BBC's

efficiency and transparency, and supports the BBC with a modern,

sustainable and fair system of funding. Mr Speaker, the BBC's

special public service ethos and funding allow it to take creative

risks, to be innovative, and to produce high-quality content. That

means more choice for listeners and viewers. The BBC delivers a huge

number of outstanding programming, including in drama, news and current

affairs, sport, science and the arts. Many have received awards, not

least at the Baftas on Sunday, and they demonstrate that it is added to

best, the BBC is still the finest broadcaster in the world. However,

as the BBC Trust itself has recognised, in some areas, the BBC

needs to be more ambitious, particularly on its more mainstream

television, radio and online services. The BBC director-general

has called for a BBC that is more distinctive than ever and clearly

distinguishable from the market. The Government is emphatically not

saying that the BBC should not be popular. Indeed, some of its most

distinctive programmes, such as Life On Earth, The Wonders Of The

Universe, Strictly Come Dancing, Jeremy Vine's show on BBC Radio nan

Gaidheal, they have wide audience is because they are so good, but

because of the share, with only 27% of people believing that the BBC

makes programmes that are more daring than other broadcasters,

commissioning editors should ask consistently of new programming, is

this idea sufficiently innovative and high quality, rather than

simply, how will it do in the ratings? So we will place a

requirement to provide distinctive content and services at the heart of

the BBC's overall core mission of informing, educating and

entertaining in the public interest. And we will also affirmed the need

for impartiality in its news and current affairs broadcasts. The

BBC's distinct minimum content requirements will be replaced with a

new licensing regime that will ensure its services are clearly

differentiated from the rest of the market, so enhancing choice for

licence fee payers, backed up by robust incentive structures. The BBC

will also be required to give greater focus to underserved

audiences, in particular those from black, Asian and ethnic minority

backgrounds, and from the nations and regions who are currently less

well served. This will involve the BBC building on its new diversity

strategy, maintaining out of London production quotas, and ensuring that

the BBC continues to provide for minority languages in its

partnership with as for sake and MG Alba. We want the BBC to be the

leading broadcaster in addressing issues of diversity. For the first

time it will be enshrined in the new charter's public purposes, alongside

with a commitment to serve all audiences, holding the BBC to

account for delivering for everyone in the UK. Looking beyond these

shores, the BBC World Service is rightly considered across the globe

to be a beacon of impartial and objective news. It is vital, a vital

corrective to the state-run propaganda of certain other

countries, so we will protect its annual funding of ?254 million for

five years, and also make available to work and ?89 million of

additional government funding over the spending review period as

announced by the Chancellor last year. -- available to a good and ?89

million. Mr Speaker, all organisations need a governance and

regulatory structure that is fit for purpose. The BBC's is not, and it is

no longer supportable for the BBC to regulate itself. Governance

failures, including excessive severance payments and a costly

Digitial Media Initiative, have illustrated that the division of

responsibilities between the BBC executive and the BBC Trust is

confusing and ineffective. As the independent review led by Sir David

Clementi made clear, there is widespread consent that reform is

vital. The new charter will create a unitary board for the BBC that has a

much clearer separation of governance and regulation. The board

will be responsible for ensuring that the BBC's strategy, activity

and output are in the public interest and accorded to the mission

and purposes set out in the charter. Editorial decisions will remain the

responsibility of the director-general, and his editorial

independence will be explicitly enshrined in the charter, while the

unitary board will consider any issues or complaints that arise

post-transmission. And for the first time, the BBC will have the ability

to appoint a majority of its board independently of government. This is

a major change, as previously the BBC governors and then the members

of the BBC Trust were all appointed by government. Mr Speaker, Ofcom has

a proven track record as a regulator of media and telecoms. It is the

right body to take on external regulation of the BBC. We will

require Ofcom to establish new operating licences for the BBC with

powers to ensure its findings are acted upon. It will also take charge

of regulating the distribution framework and fair trading

arrangements for the BBC. It will be a strong regulator to match a strong

BBC. The Government will introduce more changes to make the BBC more

accountable to those it serves. The charter review process will be

separated from the political cycle by establishing an 11 year charter

to 2027, with an opportunity to check the reforms are working as we

intended at the mid-term. This will be the third longest charter in BBC

history and allows for an orderly transition to the new arrangements.

The BBC will become more accountable to the devolved nations. The

complaint system will undergo a long overdue reform. And new expectations

will be set for public engagement and responsiveness. These are major

changes to the way that the BBC has governed, Mr Speaker, and they will

take time to affect, and it is important that this process runs

smoothly. The current BBC chair, Rona Fairhead, will remain in post

for the duration of her current term, which ends in October 2018. Mr

Speaker, the creative sector is one of this country's great success

stories, growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy since

2008, and accounting for ?84 billion of gross value added and nearly 9%

of service exports. The BBC should be at the core of the creative

sector, supporting everyone from established players to SMEs. It is

already a major purchaser, spending more than ?1 billion on the services

of around 2700 suppliers involved in making programmes for the BBC. The

BBC already allows up to 50% of its contents to be competed for by the

independent sector. The Government now intends that the remaining 50%

in house guarantee for television should be removed for all BBC

content except news and related current affairs output, unless there

is clear evidence that it would not provide value for money, all

productions will be tendered. There will be phased introduction of this

requirement, which will open up hundreds of millions of pounds of

production expenditure to competition. This will only benefit

the creative industries but is a fundamentally good thing for viewers

and listeners, with BBC commissioning editors given greater

freedom to pick the most creative ideas and broadcast the highest

quality programmes. The BBC plans to make it in-house production unit a

commercial subsidiary. We support these plans in principle, providing

they meet the necessary rigour late three approvals. However, the BBC

can, by virtue of its size and scale, potentially have a negative

impact on the media market, crowding out investment and deterring new

entrants, so Ofcom will be given the power to assess all aspects of BBC

services to see how they impact on the market with proportionate powers

to sanction. Rather than seeing other players as rivals, the BBC

should proactively seek to enhance, bolster, work in partnership with

the wider broadcasting and creative industries. There will be a focus on

this in the new charter. And in particular, the BBC will support and

invigorate local democracy across the UK, working with local news

outlets. That will allow other broadcasters

and producers to make more public content, such as programmes for

children and black, ethnic audiences. It will be worth ?20

million a year and will be paid for from unallocated fund from the 2010

licence fee agreement. There'll be more transparency in the way the BBC

promotes its services and to subject areas towards areas of high public

value. It will be expected to share its content and open up its archive,

so other organisations and the public can enjoy its many treasures.

Mr Speaker, it belongs to all of us, making its archive more ability is

one part of a broader opening up process. We want the BBC to be much

more transparent, in particular about improvements. The BBC plans to

make ?1.5 billion of savings by the end of this charter period. The BBC

Trust has driven some improvements. The BBC needs to become more

accountable. Nearly 23% of the public believes the BBC is efficient

and licence-payers need the fee to be spent every more spent more

wisely. So, Mr Speaker the National Audit Office which has an

outstanding track record will become the financial auditor of the BBC and

have the power to conduct value for money investigations of the BBC's

activities with appropriate safeguards for editorial matters. To

ensure the BBC is transparent and efficient in its spending by

reporting expenditure by genre. The Government expecting the broad

to cover other which can improve... And research and development

activity laying out subjectives for the future. Finally the BBC needs a

fair, accountable and sustainable accounting system which is fit for

the future. There's no perfect model for the funding of the BBC. But

given the stability it provides and the lack of clear public support for

any alternative model the licence fee remains the most appropriate

model. The licence fee has been frozen at ?145. 50 since 2010. We

will end this freeze and will increase the licence fee in line

with inflation, ot which point there'll be a new settlement. In

line with other reforms it means the BBC will have a flat cash settlement

to 2021-22. It gives the BBC the certainty and the funding levels it

needs to deliver its updated mission and purpose and it will ensure the

BBC will remain one of the best funded public funded broadcasters in

the world receiving more than ?18 billion from 2017-18 to 2021-22.

Future settlements will be made using a new process every five years

giving the BBC greater independence from Government. The concession for

over 75s will be protected during this Parliament. We will give the

BBC more freedom to manage its budgets, protected funding of ?150

million a year for broadband and ?5 million for local television will be

phased out. The World Service will be an exception to this. The current

system needs to be fairer. We will close the iPlayer loophole, meaning

those who watch on demand will need a licence like everyone else.

There'll be a system to those on lower incomes and make it fairer to

everyone. People have to bay for if first year, meaning six higher

monthly payments. We will take forward many of the recommendations

from the review to make the process of investigating and prosecuting

licence fee evasion more effective and fair. The licence fee remains

the best way of funding the BBC for this charteder period, it is likely

to become less sustainable as the media landscape continues to evolve.

The Government therefore welcomes the BBC's intention to explore

whether additional revenue could be raised at home and abroad from

additional subscription services sitting alongside the core universal

fee. The Government is clear any new offer would be for additional

services beyond what the BBC offers. It would be for the BBC to look at

these plans. We expect it to have progress in order to feed into the

next Charter Review process. We would like to see BBC content become

portable so licence fee payers have access when travelling abroad. Mr

Speaker, the BBC is and must always remain at the very heart of British

life. We want the BBC to thrive, to make fantastic programmes for

audiences and to act as an engine for growth and creativity. Our

reforms give the BBC much greater independence from Government, in

editorial matters, in setting budgets and through a longer charter

period. They secure the funding of the BBC and help to develop new

funding models for the future. The reforms will assist the BBC to

fulfil its own stated desire to become more distinctive and to

better reflect the diverse nature of its audience. They place the BBC at

the heart of the creative industries as a partner of the local and

commercial sectors, not a rival. The BBC will operate in a more robust

and more clearly defined gove very innocence and Graham work. -- and

very governance. It can inform, educate and entertain for many years

to come. I commend this statement to the

House. Thank you, Mr Speak. Can I thank the

Secretary of State for his statement and for early sight of it. Despite

him being very coy yesterday in this House when we asked about his plans

he seems to have managed to brief a large part of it, the contents of

the White Paper to various papers overnight. A deplorable state of

affairs. For the last few weeks, Mr Speaker, we've had to read a

briefing to Conservative newspapers, especially those hostile to the BBC,

which appears to have emanated from his department. The fact most of his

wilder proposals appear to have been watered down or dumped or delayed by

the Government of which he's a member is a reflection of his

diminishing influence and lack of cloud. He's not got his way in most

things, Mr Speaker and I welcome that. There's no... Mr Speaker,

there's no point him denying that he's been overruled by the

department and... He wants it diminished in scope and size. He

recently told an audience in bridge that it

If it is not renewed as a tempting prospect. He spent time in speeches

trying to tell the BBC they should not be making popular programmes and

if they do they should be scheduled at times when fewer people will

watch them. The truth is, Mr Speaker, that in large part he's not

got his way. His views, Mr Speaker, are also totally out of step with

the licence fee pay quers who value and support -- payers who value and

support the BBC. I said yesterday that the opposition believe that the

BBC charter should have governance arrangements which will guarantee

editorial independence, guarantee the BBC's financial independence and

refrain from interfering the BBC's mission to inform, education and

entertain us all. We will examine the white paper in

detail to see how well it measures up against these criteria. I can say

that I welcome the fact that the length of the charter, the new

charter s to be 11 years. I am concerned with the imposition

of a break clause which will in effect reduce it to five years, or

five-and-a-half years. This doesn't really give the BBC the certainty

and stability it requires to get on with the job. I also welcome the

fact that the licence fee is to continue until 2022, increased by

inflation. But we wait to see how his proposals over the second half

of the charter period develop and we will look at what the Government

does at that stage. Mr Speaker, I still have some major concerns. On

governance, I said yesterday that it's simply unacceptable for a

majority of the unity board which will have major influence over

output and editorial decisions to be appointed by the Government. Today

we learn he only plans up to at least half of the booshd will be

Government appointees. This board will run the BBC, despite what he

says. It will have influence over output and therefore over editorial

decisions. It is different, a unitary board to

appointing governors or trustees who have had no power if their role to

run the BBC day-to-day. His suggestions that these proposals

enhance the independence of the BBC are hard to reconcile with reality.

We have seen overnight a political campaign - the leave campaign,

headed up by Cabinet ministers threatening a broadcaster with

unspecified consequences for doing something which Cabinet ministers

didn't like. How much more serious a threat would

that be if the Cabinet ministers got to appoint at least half of the

board of the broadcaster concerned. Yet that is the prospect facing the

BBC under his plans. So, Mr Speaker, I am still worried that the

Government is seeking unduly to influence the output and editorial

decision making of the BBC or can be seen to be doing so. So, will the

Secretary of State now promise that all Government appointments will be

made by a demonster aably independent process, overseen by the

commissioner for public appointments which prevents there being any

suspicion that the Government seeks to turn the BBC into something over

which it has more control than is currently the case. Reports in

today's newspapers that the Prime Minister has personally intervened

to insist that there is a new chair of the board do not bode well in

this respect. I make no comments on the comments of Rona Fairhead, but

there's been no discussion to reach such a decision, only a ministerial

diktat. It does not seem to bode well. On financial independence, a

funding agreement was struck by the Chancellor with the BBC last year

and we will be looking to ensure it is met in full by the Government. No

more top-slicing and I welcome what he said about that in a statement

today, no siphoning off of licence fee payers' money into funds to be

simply given to other broadcasters. So we are glad that that respect

that his pot proposals, widely briefed out in advance of the

publication of the White Paper are now somewhat shrunken and are to be

consulted upon. Will he give the House an assurance that he will

listen to the results of that consultation and be prepared if

necessary and if that is the outcome of the consultation to abandon these

proposals. On the BBC's mission statement I am very concerned that

he wants to change the mission of the BBC when it has worked well for

more than 90 years and it is supported by the public. There is a

great virtue to current phraseology of that mission. However, given what

he said today, we will look at what he's proposing to see how it might

work. I do not believe, Mr Speaker, that his on is session with

distinctiveness should be imported into the BBC's mission statement.

However, we will look at what wording he prop oh poses and see --

proposes and see whether or not we have any concerns about what the

implications will be. Can I also welcome his focus on improving the

diversity of the BBC in respect of both its staffing and the way in

which it produces its output. Again I am not concerned that the mission

statement is the best place to put this. But nonetheless, we will look

closely at what he's proposed and I welcome the general remarks and his

intentions in that respect. We do not on this side of the House accept

his assertion that the size and scale of the BBC crowds out

investment and has a negative impact on the media market. Quite the

opposite. The BBC already works well with other UK creative industries,

with other broadcasters to the benefit of all and he might be

better advised to keep his nose out of this rather than to tell them how

to do the job that they do on a day-to-day basis. He ought to stop

meddling and let them get on with the job. In respect of Ofcom, we

noted what he's said about the new and enhanced role that Ofcom will

have in regulating the BBC. It will be a big job.

It will be a big job, and Ofcom already has a lot on its pledge, can

you guarantee that it will be given the proper resource in terms of

staffing and expertise and money to do the job that he now expects them

to do? He has said nothing about that in his statement today, yet it

is an important part of whether or not this will work, how they are

going to be able to do this job. In respect of what he said about the

national audit of this, Mr Speaker, I respect the National Audit Office

and its work very much, and I think everybody in this House does, and so

I have no objection. I noted that he said in a statement that there will

be appropriate safeguards for editorial independence once value

for money reports are able to be done, and that is tremendously

important. It needs to be totally clear that any work the national

audit of this does does not interfere with the editorial

independence of the BBC, so we will look to see the details of those

safeguards, and I hope that he will be very open in setting out what

that detail might be. Now, Mr Speaker, the BBC is one of the UK's

most successful and loved institutions. There has developed a

feeling both inside this parliament and outside and that the Government

is seeking inappropriate influence over the BBC, so will he now agree

that when his proposals are debated, in both Houses of Parliament, that

it should be on the substantive motion that will enable both houses

to express their views by way of a vote? Jumped the shark there, Maria!

I do have some sympathy with the right on a lady who, of course, had

a dry run at this yesterday and rehearsed all the lines of attack,

only to wake up this morning to discover that all the concerns were

based on ill founded hysterical speculation by left-wing lobbies and

others, and that in actual fact what the Government proposes has been

widely welcomed by, amongst others, the BBC. She said yesterday that she

would judge the Government proposals on three key tests. She said they

must guarantee financial independence, editorial

independence, and it must help the BBC to fulfil its mission to inform,

educate and entertain us all. I can tell her that the white paper not

only meets those three tests, it exceeds them, and that is exactly

what we intend to do. Now, she did raise some questions of detail,

nevertheless important ones, I accept, and I am happy to give her

the answers. In terms of the length of the charter, I am grateful for

her welcome that it will be for 11 years and take it out of the

political and electoral cycle. The mid-term review is not a mini

charter review, it is simply a health check to allow the Government

just to ensure that the reforms we are putting in place, which are

substantial, are working properly. It would be ridiculous to find it

was not working and not be able to do anything it for another 11 years.

On governance, I would point out, first of all, that this is the first

time when the BBC board, the body which has overall responsibility for

running the BBC, will have at least half and possibly more than half

appointed independently by the BBC themselves. I would point out to her

that, throughout the period in which her party was in government, the

appointments made were made wholly by the Government without even the

public appointments process, and I can say to her that the appointments

which will be made by the Government are six positions. They will be

subject to the public appointments process, so they will involve the

office of the commission of public appointments, and of course three of

them will be in consultation with the devolved administration of

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It will then be for the BBC

to decide how many other board members there should be, ranging

from six to perhaps eight, and who should be chosen to do that. But the

other point I would make to her, which I set out very clearly in my

statement, is that the board will have no involvement in editorial

decision-making. The Director-General remains the editor

in chief, he is responsible for editorial matters, and the board's

involvement will only come after transmission. They will not be

influencing the editorial content. In terms of transition, these are

substantial changes, and we do think it right that the existing chairman

should continue in posts to oversee the transition to the new

arrangement, and she will be there until October 2018, and of course

she herself was appointed through the public appointments process. And

in terms of the funding agreement, I can confirm to the right honourable

lady that it will be met in full, there will be no top slicing. We are

not go to read it for any other purposes, as indeed her governments

did when she was in office. The contestable part is outside of the

July licence fee funding settlement. It is intended to provide additional

opportunities for production companies specifically serving

children's audiences or black and Asian and minority ethnic audiences,

and that is something we will work on further. On the mission

statement, she said that, somehow, we had complicated the original

Trinity. I would just point out to her that, actually, our mission

statement currently is not the simple weekly and Trinity which is

so often quoted. The current one says that it is for the promotion of

public purposes through the provision of output which consists

of education and entertainment. That is not quite as snappy as the

original educate, inform and entertain. All we have done is make

it more so sink and say that those three objectives should be delivered

by producing high-quality, distinctive content and impartial

news. -- make it more so sink. I would question whether she disagrees

with any of those provisions, whether she feels the BBC should not

make distinctive programming or should not be impartial. Her

concerns about Ofcom are perfectly justified, she is right that Ofcom

will need resourcing to undertake considerable new responsibilities.

At the moment, the BBC Trust is paid for out of the licence fee, and it

would be our hope that the regulatory cost of overseeing the

BBC will be less once Ofcom takes it over than the existing cost of the

BBC Trust. But Ofcom will be financed from the licence fee, just

as the BBC Trust is at present is. On the National Audit Office, it

will be made explicit, there is no disagreement between the National

Audit Office and the BBC on this, they will not involve themselves in

editorial matters, and I would simply finish by saying to the right

honourable lady that she has had to make the best of pretending that

this white paper threatens the BBC, but it does not, and this is what

the BBC Trust has this morning said. The chairman has said, constructive

engagement between the Government, the BBC and the public has delivered

a white paper that sets good principles, strengthens the BBC's

governance and regulation, and cements a financial settlement that

will sustain the strong BBC that the public love. Order! I would just

point out that the opening exchanges between the Secretary of State and

the shadow Secretary of State have absorbed no fewer than 33 minutes,

so I look first to the author of the textbook on brevity, from whom

honourable members should take their cue. John Redmond. Will be Secretary

of State included in the charter the requirement that England is

recognised as a nation by the BBC, just as the BBC recognises Scotland?

Well, the BBC will have a duty to serve all the nations and regions,

and that does indeed include England, and of the six appointee is

under the public appointments process by the Government four of

those will be non-executive directors, each of whom will have an

additional responsibility of representing each nation of the UK,

and therefore there will be a nonexecutive director whose

additional responsibility will be to represent the interests of English

licence fee payers. I would also like to thank the Secretary of State

for advance site of his speech. The Scottish National Party strongly

supports public service broadcasting, and we on these

benches want to ensure that the BBC continues to provide distinctive,

high-quality output. The charter renewal process provides a

opportunity to celebrate the many successes of the BBC but also as a

critical friend to reflect aways on which it could improve, and while we

have had disagreements with the BBC, added best it is unsurpassed. There

are a number of welcome proposals in this white paper. We on these

benches think it is right to break the link between the electoral cycle

and the charter length. We also welcome the abolition of the BBC

Trust, and its replacement by a unitary board. It is vital that the

board should be as diverse as possible, including representations

from the nations and, crucially, more BME minority representation, as

we all agreed in our recent debate in this house. These are also the

conclusions of the DCMS select committee, ably chaired by the

member for Hartford and south Hertfordshire. We are pleased that

some of the more outlandish notions floated by the Government through

the press appear to have been quietly parked. The Secretary of

State gave us advanced notice yesterday that one of the most

visible, namely that the BBC might be prevented from scheduling poplar

programmes against ITV's popular programmes, has died a quiet death.

I noticed too that proposals to publish all talent's salaries has

been abandoned. We will learn who is on ?450,000 per year and above, but

we will not now learn who is struggling by on ?300,000 a year!

Diane Abbott! We have long learn that charter renewal is an

opportunity for the BBC to be bolder in Scotland to reflect the lives of

Scottish audiences. Like the director-general, we want to see the

production sector grow in Scotland, and we welcome ongoing commitment to

the Gallic language MG Alba. We also want to see meaningful editorial and

financial control rest in Scotland. To this end, like most Scots, both

inside and out with the BBC, we want to see a Scottish Six to replace the

overly parochial offering. We are pleased that the BBC agrees and is

currently secretly piloting alternatives. The BBC in Scotland is

sadly less trusted, Mr Speaker, than in any of the other constituent

countries in the United Kingdom. Its staff deserve better, Scotland... If

you would like to intervene, I would be more than happy. Come up to me

afterwards, Ireland your point! See you outside! The staff deserve

better, and Scotland deserves better. The Secretary of State tells

us today that he agrees, calling audiences in the nations

underserved. He is preaching to the choir on these benches. Mr Speaker,

I hope that this white paper marks a milestone, allowing the BBC to learn

from its mistakes, listen to its audiences, and build on its proudest

traditions. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman, who of course

has an expert knowledge on the workings of the BBC, and I welcome

the fact that he is able to support a number of the proposals we have

set out in a white paper. He referred to a couple of things which

were not in the white paper, such as a proposal that the BBC should not

schedule popular programmes against ITV's popular programmes. I have

said until I am blue in the face that the BBC has no wish and should

not have the ability to tell the BBC went to schedule programmes, and

therefore the fact that it does not appear in the white paper should not

come as a great surprise to him. On the fact that we are intending that

the BBC should publish the salaries of its talent earning more than

?450,000, we also say that we help the BBC will go further in judokas

in obtaining greater transparency. -- in due course. That is something

which we will continue to talk to the BBC about. The specific point he

raises about the BBC's need to serve the nations, and in particular

Scotland, the two elements in the white paper which we do believe will

make a significant difference, firstly the confirmation that one of

the members of the board will be there to act as a voice for Scotland

as well as bringing additional skills, but, secondly, that there

will be a specific service licence for Scotland which Ofcom will issue,

as it will for the other nations of the UK, which will set out the

expectations of how the BBC will go about meeting that requirement. He

may be aware, I am not sure whether he has yet seen that the BBC has

sent a letter this morning to the Cabinet Secretary for culture,

external affairs in the Scottish Government, who I talked to

yesterday afternoon, in which the BBC does set out in more detail some

of its proposals, because a lot of this is a matter for the BBC and not

the Government, but I would highlight just one commitment

contained variant, when he says that in the next charter period the BBC

will continue its commitment to spend network television bludgeon

lovelier line with the population size of each nation. There will be

other matters which he has raised which are more a matter for the BBC,

and I'm sure he will wish to continue to discuss those with him.

-- spend network television budget roughly in line with the population

of each nation. Some came to the chamber with a certain amount of

concern about is who on independence and the particular qualities of the

BBC, so does he not share at least a little of my sympathy for the

honourable lady who pleads for the opposition, because every fox she

wants to see running seems to have been shot, and the hounds are

running around in some confusion?! So I wonder whether my honourable

friend has any idea where all these rumours came from which caused so

much alarm before this statement came.

I have to say to my Right Honourable friend that he's absolutely right. I

have to say I have always voted in favour of the preservation of

fox-hunting and we've done a lot of fox shooting this morning. It is the

case and it has always been the case that the independence of the BBC and

in particular its editorial independence is something which lies

at the heart and is one of the reasons why the BBC is so trusted

around the world. It has always been our intention not to diminish that,

but to strengthen it. I believe that the White Paper does deliver that.

And I would only add that I had previously quoted the chairman of

the BBC Trust in welcoming the proposals contained in the White

Paper. I understand that the Director-General has put out a

statement in which he says this White Paper delivers a mandate for

the strong and creative BBC which the public believes in.

Can I thank the Secretary of State for those aspects of the statement

that will promote a common cultural identity, which is so crucial for a

healthy democracy. But democracies work because they have great

organisations which are powerful in their own right and are not directly

accountable to the Government. Of his near 70-paragraph statement,

only one was given over to the governance of the board. Might he

confirm what I thought he said in his original statement and in an

answer earlier, that if the board wishes to go for eight numbers, the

Government's membership will only be four and the commission on public

appointments will actually steer those appointments.

No, that is not quite correct. There will be six members of the board,

that is the chairman, the deputy chairman and the four non-executive

directors, speaking each for the nations of the UK, who will be

Government-appointed, using the public appointments process. The

size of the board will be for the BBC to decide.

Our proposals match those recommendations. It was suggested

that the board could be between 12-14 and that it should be for the

BBC to decide. So it will be for the BBC to determine the number of

additional non-executive directors and the split between executive

directors and any on the board which would then compromise a total board

membership of between 12-14. Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I may, on

behalf of my constituents in Herefordshire, correct my colleague

from the Scottish National Party on my party and congratulation the

Secretary of State on this White Paper, we will scrutinise the

details from the sport and media committee. I welcome its recognition

of the BBC's important achievements, public ethos and broadcaster. I

welcome the fact that the White Paper has incorporated

recommendations we made on the unitary board, the 11-year charter

and the NAO. However, we did identify issues about the culture of

the BBC and, I don't know if the Secretary of State saw the article

by lenry Henry about black and ethnic representation on which the

BBC has been weak. I have welcomed what he said. Could he talk more

about how that will be enforced and whether there might be a duty on

offcome to keep an eye on those -- Ofcom to keep an eye on those

aspects of the charter? I am grateful to him for his welcome of

our proposals. It is right that we did look carefully at the

recommendations in the report, which he produced, the Select Committee

produced under his chairmanmanship, as we did examine the proposals

contained in the report produced by the previous chairman of the Select

Committee, both were highly influential. In terms of the

specific point he raises about diversity, as I made clear this is

something which the Government believes should be a central

priority of the BBC, that is why for the first time we are enshrining it

in the public purposes. Precisely how the BBC goes about delivering

that is a matter for the BBC. Because it is now within the public

purposes, it will be for an external regulator, Ofcom, to determine

whether or not the BBC is delivering that purpose.

Mr Speaker, I am sorry to say to the Secretary of State, but the British

people will not be fooled by his words today. There might be some

fantasy foxes being shot this morning, but the fact is by sounding

like a budget when this is being crawled over and we look at the

detail, I believe this is going to be a deep, dark day for the BBC and

the British public... OK, those who seem to have been joined by hating

Europe and hating the BBC - the fact of the matter is this is going to be

a champagne night for Rupert Murdoch and the BBC is better than that and

it is owned by the British people, not this Government.

I have to say Mr Speaker that was utterly desperate. Because he cannot

find anything in the statement he disagrees with, the honourable

gentleman thinks there must be something hidden away which he can

object to. I can only say to him that the detail of the white pap ser

very well known to the Director-General and the chairman of

the BBC Trust, both of whom said this is an excellent White Paper,

which will help ensure the BBC continues to thrive into the future.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the BBC have struggled with

diversity on screen and off screen for too long. I absolutely welcome

the enshrinement of diversity into the charter. It is the right and

wise thing to do. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that

attracting the brightest and most diverse talent will actually improve

the content of the BBC's offering and also ultimately the ratings?

I do very much agree with my honourable friend. She is right to

highlight this. This is a matter which a number of

people have been pressing, not least my honourable friend, the minister

who is sitting besides me and the member for Tottenham, who I am

pleased to see in his place. I would like to thank lenry Henry, who has

been to talk to us on a number of occasions about this. I do agree

with the honourable lady because the research we have conducted showed

whilst appreciation of the BBC is high throughout the country, there

is a feeling, particularly amongst some black and Asian minority,

ethnic audiences that they are being underserved. It is that which we are

keen to address, both in terms of the diverse range of talent behind

the camera and in the production process, also those who appear on

screen and particularly in ensuring those who choose to watch the BBC

find from every section of our community that there programming

there that they want to see. Thank you. By the deed shall we know

them. In 2010 and 2015, the Tory Government raided the BBC budget in

order to pay for Government expenditure.

Will the Secretary of State now accept that was wrong? And will he

give an assurance that it will not happen again during this charter

renewal period? His commitment to the BBC and its independence will be

judged by this answer, not by warm words.

I would say to the honourable gentleman, first of all, raiding the

BBC licence fee to pay for Government projects is something his

Government initiated with the ang log switchover budget. I have made

plain to him and I said, that the funding settlement we agreed with

the BBC last year represents a broadly flat-cash settlement, once

one takes into account we have agreed the licence fee should start

to rise again after a freeze and we will close the iPlayer loophole and

do away with the top sliess s for broadband and local television. I

made it explicit that the licence fee settlement is for five years.

The Government has no intention of revisiting that until the next

settlement, which will be part of a new, independent and transparent

process, in which we discuss the needs of the BBC with them.

15 years ago n the Public Accounts Committee we started a campaign to

get the BBC's accounts and spending accountable to the general - it is

like pulling steel teeth from concrete. They were allowed to

investigate the matters the BBC choose. Can I make a thing clear, I

no ethe control general, there's no chance whatsoever of him getting

involved in editorial policy. He's utterly independent and if you spend

over 4 billion of public money you should be held accountable for that

spending. I absolutely agree with my

honourable friend. I remember his campaign when he was chairing the

Public Accounts Committee. I think several previous chairman and every

chairman since has been pressing this case. There's no question that

if National Audit Office is effective in ensuring the taxpayer

and in this case the licence fee payer extracts maximum value for

money. I spoke to him yesterday and he reiterated what my honourable

friend said. He has no interests to get involved in independent

editorial decisions. His soul concern is to make sure that the

public get maximum value from the money which they put into the BBC.

Mr Speaker, I also welcome the development of the BBC's new

diversity strategy and that it will be enshrined in the new charteder.

How will it relate to the representation of sick and disabled

people, including on the BBC's trust board, within its workforce and that

of its contractors? I understand the honourable lady's

concern. She will accept that a lot of these matters are for the BBC. It

is not for the Government to lay down, particularly in terms of how

the BBC goes about serving all the different audiences, which make up

the UK. In terms of the board membership, obviously there'll be

opportunities for non-executive directors to be chosen, both under

the public appointments process by the Government I have set out and by

the BBC board. I am sure they will want to appoint the best possible

people to represent every section of the community on the BBC Board.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I welcome the restatement of the financial

protection for the BBC World Service? Can I welcome the

recommendation that the new yuntry board should consider the weakness

of BBC World News on television and how fast does he expect the board to

come forward with proposals to address that situation?

I think my honourable friend is right. The BBC World Service is

admired across the world and does a fantastic job projecting the values

that this country believes in around the globe. BBC global news is a

different beast. It is a separate commercial subsidiary of the BBC,

which actually loses money and I think is perhaps not achieving the

same success that the World Service has. We have said that the BBC needs

to look at that very carefully, with a view either to making it perform

much better or considering, or examining different ways of

achieving the objective. I am relieved the Secretary of State

has resisted the temptation to be the BBC fat controller, but to

demonstrate that he will keep his hands off all the levers. Can he

confirm there'll be clear and transparent processes for appointing

the board, setting the licence fee, ensuring the public's voice is heard

for Parliament to approve the charter, and finally, that the BBC

health check he referred to will be just that and could not be the

precursor to a major operation? I think I can confirm everything

that the honourable gentleman gentleman has asked me about.

I can tell him, in terms of the mid-term review, it is a health

check. We do not have any intention or wish to revisit the charter and

agreement, unless it appears something has gone badly wrong and

wed need to make amendment. The world is changing very fast. We

don't know what the media landscape will look like in five years' time.

That is the reason for having the health check. It is not our

intention that it should represent any mini-Charter Review. In terms of

the future appointments, I have said that those that will be made by the

Government will be through the public appointments process. There

will be involvement by the office of appointments and the panel which

will assess the suitability of those who apply for those positions and in

terms of setting the future licence fee we have said it will be a

process which is more independent and transparent and where there'll

be a proper opportunity for the BBC and the Government to discuss the

funding needs. And finally, in terms of the public opinion, there'll be a

clear expectation on the board to put in place mechanisms, whereby

they take account of the views of the public, in all aspects of the

BBC's operations. Can I congratulate him for listening

to the voices of sanity in this debate and this morning being one of

the voices of sanity in this debate. He has achieved a system of outside

regulation that holds the BBC properly to account without in any

way damaging its vital role at the heart of the cultural life of this

country. Can he confirm that the National audit office will only be

auditing the publicly funded part of the BBC and not its Private

commercial operations, as that would be an unprecedented extension of the

NA oh into the private sector? I'm grateful to my right honourable

friend for his comments, he has a long knowledge and interest in the

BBC and therefore I'm very pleased that he agrees that the proposals

contained do represent a good, strong future for the BBC. On the

specific point he braces about the National Audit Office, there is

agreement that they should be able to conduct value for money studies

on all publicly funded aspect of the BBC operation. With regard to the

commercial activities, there is a very strong interest for the licence

fee payer because of course the more the BBC can raise through commercial

activities unless is the call on the licence be payer. But the extent to

which and how the National audit of this examines whether full value for

money is obtained from BBC worldwide is something we are continuing to

discuss, but I would point out that one of the greatest disasters which

resulted in the loss of ?100 million of money for the BBC was the

acquisition of Lonely Planet by BBC worldwide. My thanks to the

Secretary of State for his answer. He says the BBC will become more

accountable to the devolved nations. Could you talk more about how this

will be achieved in Wales? My answer to the honourable gentleman is very

similar to my answer to the honourable gentleman who speaks for

the Scottish National Party, in that Wales, two, will have a member of

the BBC board, one of the nonexecutive directors will have the

responsibility for speaking for Wales as well as bringing of the

skills, and there will be a clear service licence set out by Ofcom

which will give greater detail as to how it is expected the BBC will meet

its requirement to serve the needs of the people of Wales. The BBC has

written today, as I said earlier, not just to the Cabinet Secretary in

the Scottish Government but also to the first Minister of Wales setting

out more detail about how... It will be interesting to find out who opens

the and the loop! But setting out more details about how it intends to

go about setting out that task and I would be happy to supply him with a

copy if he has not seen it already. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My father

spent his whole life working in a ministerial capacity for the BBC so

I have an natural and filial affection for that institution, and

I'm delighted my right honourable friend has ensured the BBC will

remain robustly financed and retain its integrity to build on its past

strengths, but I hope also he is strongly addressing its weaknesses

through his measures to deal with its lack of impartiality and

diversity. I hope you will recall the words of a former Labour

appointed director-general who said, such was the modular tea of view,

the Guardian reading views of those running the BBC, that it had failed

to give proper representation to public concerns about Europe,

immigration and, I would add, and environmental policies. I speak as

one who is banned by the BBC from broadcasting following me having

pointed out that Met office forecasts ten years ago proved

incorrect. This troupe also inconvenienced the BBC has removed

the podcast for the apology for broadcasting my views on its website

and made it clear I would not be interviewed in future. I can look

after myself but can he make sure the BBC, in encouraging diversity,

encourages the inclusion of view is that the greatest oppressed minority

in this country, those of Conservatives? He is clearly

saddened that his filial affection has not been reciprocated.

I'm concerned to learn the extremely persuasive arguments which are

always advanced by my right honourable friend are not being

aired on the BBC. That is a matter for the BBC but I hope they will

reconsider that. I would say to him that, under our new public purposes,

we have rephrased the public purpose is to make it clear the expectation