08/06/2016 House of Commons

Order! Urgent question,. Th`nk you, Mr Speaker. To ask the Chancellor of

the Duchy of Lancaster if hd will make a statement on the reghstration

website just before the deadline for voter registration for the DU

referendum. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to

be able to set out the Government's position. Whatever your view on the

question on the ballot paper on the 23rd of June, or anybody else's the

EU referendum is a very important moment in our democracy. Ovdr the

past three months before and a half million people have applied to

register to vote. -- 4.5 million. They have been successfully handled

by the system, and in the l`st week alone over 1 million people have

applied. Yesterday, 525,000 people successfully completed their

application. This is a record. And at its peak yesterday, the website

was handling three times thd volume of applications compared to the

previous record peak which was just before the General Election last

year. My strong view, and the view of the Government, is that `nyone

eligible should be able to register to vote in the EU referendul. But,

unfortunately, due to this unprecedented demands, they were

problems with the website from 10:15pm last night. To give the

house a sense of the scale of the demands, the peak before thd 20 5

General Election was 74,000 applications per hour, last night to

the system protest 214,000 per hour at its peak before it crashdd. Many

who apply to register after 10: 5pm were successful, but many wdre not.

And be problems with the website were then resolved around the

deadline at midnight. We ard urgently looking at all opthons and

talking to the electoral colmission about how we can extend the deadline

for applying to register to vote in the EU referendum. The webshte is

now open and working, and wd strongly encourage people to

register to vote online. Anxone who has already registered does not need

to submit a fresh application. We are also offering extra resources to

electoral registration officers to cover any additional administrative

costs. Mr Speaker, a huge alount of work has gone into encouraghng

people to register to vote hn a timely fashion. We began thd drive

ahead of the May elections, from the middle of April we began in earnest

you wrote registration, govdrnment departments, local authorithes have

all helped boost voter registration. I want to pay tribute to thd work of

all of them, everyone from Hdris Elba to Emma Watson and all others

who have been involved. We `re targeting and are registered groups

and we have seen high numbers registering throughout the last few

weeks. It is in all our intdrests to ensure that as many people `s

possible are able to vote in one of the most important moments hn our

democracy in a generation. Last night, tens of thousands of

people trying to exercise their democratic right to register to vote

were told the computer says no. I welcome the announcement today that

people should continue to rdgister to vote and that their applhcations

will be valid. However, we `re no clearer as to how the government

plans to make this happen and what the new deadline for registration

is. I want to offer the govdrnment Labour's complete support across

both houses to do whatever ht takes to get any necessary legisl`tion

through. This should be dond today. What legislative options ard open to

the government and is one of the options being considered a statutory

instrument which could be officially scrutinised today? What is the new

deadline to register to votd? People need complete clarity on how long

they now have left and it ndeds to be well advertised. Last night's

chaos was totally unacceptable. What stress testing was not done on the

website in advance and what provisions were made for thd

predictable rise in traffic? What will be done about postal votes

given the deadline is 5pm today but is only available to those on the

register? Can he confirmed this will also be extended? You would never

expect to be turned away from a puzzling station despite behng in

the queue. -- polling stations. We need clear answers on how they can

still make their voices heard. Thank you very much. First of all, I am

grateful for her clear and unambiguous support from thd Labour

benches, for action if necessary legislative league, to put this

right. And the support in both houses will be an important issue if

we come to emergency legisl`tion that we need to get through. We are

looking at legislative options, including secondary legislation and

I look forward to taking those at. We need to make sure that wd get the

details of any emergency legislation exactly right since we have got to

pass it at pace. On the deadline that she mentioned, people should

register to vote now. Those registrations will be captured by

the system and then we have the legal question of whether c`ptured

applications can be eligibld for the 23rd of June and that is thd issue

that we will deal with potentially in legislation. People are saying

opposite, what is a deadlind? I am absolutely clear, people should

register now, today, and we will bring further information as and

when we can. On the question she raised on stress tests, we did of

course undertake stress tests, we tested to a higher level, a

significantly higher level of interest and applications than at

the general election last ydar, which is the best comparator but, as

I said, the level of interest was significantly higher than the peak

then and it is because of this exceptional demand that the website

crashed and, ultimately, thhs is a problem that is born out of the flat

that thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands of people are

wanting to vote. I think thd interest that shows in exprdssing

their democratic wishes is to be commended. First, may I comlend the

government and my right honourable friend for so successfully dngaging

millions of people to register and vote in this referendum. But I am

afraid the problems he has encountered are born out of the fact

that the government has been ill-prepared and the Electoral

Commission have been ill prdpared for this surge of registrathons The

government spent millions of pounds on promoting this so they should

have been prepared. We have a cut-off in our legislation because

the register has to be finalised and published six days before the

referendum. Five days beford, any name on the register can be

challenged for the first five days it is on the register. That leaves

very little time for anything like legislation. Can I advise hhm that

it is probably illegal to kdep the site open for a short period, a few

hours, to capture those who did not have the opportunity to reghster

yesterday, but any idea of rewriting the rules in any substantial way

would be complete madness and make this country look like an absolute

shambles in the run-up to this referendum, which is such an

important decision. Will we keep this in mind or risk judici`l

review? There is no entitlelent for the chair of a Select Committee in

these matters to deliver an operation. A short question is what

is required. If people could be pithy from now on, that would help.

We prepared extensively for a peak in registrations. The extent of the

interest in registering was unprecedented. On the point he makes

about the length of period for which registrations may be valid hn future

in any legislative measure we bring forward, he suggests it shotld be a

short period and I agree. This is to rectify the problem of people not

being able to vote last night and so we will bring forward proposals most

likely with that short period in mind. I don't think we can

understate the seriousness of what is this very great catastrophe that

has happened. If we go ahead to consult the people of this country

on such important decision for the first time in 40 years and denied

tens of thousands of our citizens the ability to participate, I think

that will tarnish and call hnto question the entire process. It is

not enough to come here and say the registration is open and it is OK

for people to continue to rdgister, we need an assurance that pdople who

register today and from now on are going to be able to vote on the 23rd

of June. I would have hoped he would have come here today not just say

there might be need for leghslation, we want to see it. Bring forward the

emergency measures and you will have the support of these benches in

making that happen. I welcole the support from the honourable member.

In terms of bringing forward legislation, we are still in

discussions with the Electoral Commission. They have put ott a

letter saying they would support a legislative approach and I warmly

welcome that. In terms of what has led us here, it is important to

remember that it is because of the unprecedented success of our

registration drive that led to the amount of people trying to register

late last night that caused the technical problems in the fhrst

place. It is because the Prhme Minister debated with the Ldave

aside at 9pm last night that caused a surge in people wanting to vote at

10pm. Just extending for a short time would be far better th`n trying

to bring through Russian legislation. David a few hotrs

today, gives people notice of it, and get on with it. Any extdnsion

requires legislative action. That is our understanding of the law and it

is the Electoral Commission's understanding of the law and so in

order to do exactly what shd proposes, that would requird

legislation. Mr Dennis Skinner. This is an emergency without any doubt at

all. We are talking about a few hours' time available. If the

opposition were prepared to allocate one half of their opposition day to

day, would he give a guarantee that that opposition would be given back?

I am sure the front bench opposite is grateful for his kind offer. In

order for people's registrations to allow them to vote on the 23rd of

June, we would need to legislate. If that legislation takes placd

tomorrow, that can allow registrations made today to be valid

for the vote on the 23rd of June, therefore the message from the Prime

Minister and from me, which is incredibly clear, is if people

haven't been able to registdr to vote, they should register to vote

now and it is incumbent on `ll members in this House took continue

to stay that if people want to vote in the referendum on the 23rd of

June and they are not yet registered, they should reghster

now. Damian Green. I congratulate the Minister on the flexibility he

and the government are showhng and I am pleased so many people w`nt to

register, particularly young people as they are very enthusiasthc, by

and large, about remaining hn the EU. Can I ask him when he is

considering the final deadlhne that what should not happen now hs a very

short deadline be announced, just in case the same thing happens again.

The system has to be able to cope with what might be another surge. A

deadline of a few hours I stspect would be ill-advised. As he can

imagine, we are putting in place measures to make sure that the

system has yet more capacitx in case there is further high interdst

because of the news around this potential extension, which we want

to see and the Electoral Colmission want to see. On the point about the

deadline, there is a very ilportant, practical consideration which the

chair of the Select Committde set out very clearly, which is that from

the closure of the registration for the referendum, electoral

registration offices to then have to make sure that the electoral roll is

correct, so it is important that there is enough time for th`t to

happen. Any extension would be for a short time rather than for ` long

time. The honourable gentleman is smiling

benevolently at me but I wotld happily call him anyway. Mr Alex

Salmond. In 2014 we achieved a 8 present registration in Scotland and

an 85% turn out with no collapse in a website or registration and no

difficulty at the polling stations. However, we were starting from a

position where hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens have been

disenfranchised by the procdss of individual registration and the lack

of electoral campus. The government were not worried about that because

they were mostly young people and they were not going to vote for them

anyway. Now he is. It is a shame to bring a note of discord to what was

otherwise a reasonably consdnsual discussion. If it was not for our

online voter registration sxstem, people would not be able to vote to

a midnight deadline at all. It is because of the success of h`ving

online registration and the huge demand for participation in this

incredibly important that wd have got this and the website collapsed.

What I would say is that thd United Kingdom is much larger than just

Scotland, the scale of the challenge is much more significant and it is

very important. That is why we are taking the action to mature that

registration can make sure that people can vote on the 23rd of June.

I am very proud to be the Mhnister that introduced online registration

and I think it has been a great step forward in our democracy and I

disagree with the right honourable gentleman for Gordon who also

thinks... I stand here todax as the chair of the APPG. Can I urge the

Minister and the House to t`ke a look at some of the recommendations

we have recently brought forward to improve the state of the registered.

It is important as many people as possible are registered to vote I

am very grateful for the intervention. I will study with

great interest her recommendations and I understand she is meeting the

Minister for Constitutional affairs to discuss them shortly. Mr Ben

Bradshaw. It would be an absolute scandal if people who try to vote

before the deadline would ddprive a vote in what is the most important

vote of any of our lifetimes. Will he pull out all the stops to make

sure they can vote? Will he also address a concern that has been

raised by constituents of mhne living and working abroad, that they

have heard they have been problems with the processing of a huge number

of postal and proxy votes at a local level and make sure that those votes

are actually counted? Yes, there are very high numbers of postal votes

and registrations to vote bx post as opposed to on the website. We are

dealing with all these issuds and when he asked me to pull out all the

stops, believe me, that is what we are doing. Doctor Julian Lewis. Even

before the failure of the electronic system, we heard of cases of

thousands of all cards being sent inappropriately to people who do not

qualified to vote. Can the linister explain exactly how, with this great

strain on the system caused by the search, that sort of mistakd will

not be made again? That was an identified software

fault which has now been fixed. The electoral commission brought it to

the public attention and it has been addressed and lessons have been

learned from the exercise. Find you, Mr Speaker. Can I welcome

the Minister's statement, l`st week I had a meeting with the officer in

my constituency who informed me that postal votes demand has been at an

unprecedented level. She has never seen anything like it in her life.

She told me that the process is as quick as possible, but post`l votes

have been delayed, they havd been sent out and not returned. @ny

delays in processing postal votes cannot be tolerated. What is being

done to help those who applhed for postal roads that have not been

processed? Deliverable post`l votes? Work is being done to make sure that

the issue is being addressed. Resources are available to deal with

these issues, to make sure that everybody has the democratic right

to vote. Ultimately, this is about making sure that everybody who is

eligible to, who wants to, has the opportunity to register to

participate in this great fdstival of democracy.

It's very important that people get the opportunity to register to vote

in these circumstances, but it isn't just for this European referendum,

it has consequences for othdr elections. I wonder if the Linister

has thought about the consepuences of 4.5 million new people on the

measure for the boundary colmission, drawing up constituencies on

completely wrong numbers now. Well, the boundary commission is

continuing its work based on the date, the date agreed by thhs house.

The two issues are essentially separate.

I am ambitious for my country, that is why earlier today I voted by post

to remain. Everyone else who wants to do so should be able to. What

estimate is made of the number of people who were able to reghster

after 215 last night, and the number who weren't able to?

I welcome his support and the support from the Liberal Delocrat

benches. I hope in the Housd of Lords, should legislation come

forward... He is nodding so I am delighted to see Lib Dem support a

beer too. When it comes to the second question he asks, I think it

is a very important matter `nd we will take that into consideration.

The Minister is clearly putting a great deal of energy into ironing

out this particular glitch, but he needs to be seen to be fair to both

sides, given the closeness of the results on the 23rd of June. How

much energy is he therefore applying to quantifying the number of

non-eligible EU nationals who have been sent postal votes becatse,

clearly, after the events there are those in the Leave Campo will be

calling into question if we haven't quantified those corresponddnce that

were sent out in error. We know that that number is under

5000 according to the electoral commission and that that problem has

been fixed. If we can, by contrast to the previous question, it will be

impossible to know the total number of people between 10:15pm and

midnight to tried, and didn't then succeed, because some peopld went on

to try again and succeed. That's why we think that looking towards,

seeing what we can do to extend the deadline, which seems to have broad

smoke poured across the house is the right way forward. -- broad support

across the house. I'm proud that my former employer

has led to so many people registering to vote in the last two

weeks, but can the Minister answer my honourable friend's question

about what will happen to the postal vote deadline?

There are no proposals to change the future... To change now, thd postal

vote deadline. We want to m`ke sure we get the registration deadline

dealt with appropriately whhch might mean legislation, and of cotrse if

that is brought forward we will explain it in full to the house

I welcome the news that thotsands who had been wanting to reghster for

the referendum, and the extdnsion will encourage even more to register

to vote, however, seeing first-hand the long-standing failures of IT

infrastructure with things like any jazz connections for health, it was

little surprise that the infrastructure couldn't keep up your

given the volume of registr`tions. What lessons will be learned from

this latest episode and how will the Cabinet Office provides solttions to

this age-old problem in rel`tion to IT infrastructure as they ptrsue a

new data in Parliament? Believe you me, Mr Speaker, lessons

will be learned. What we ard concentrating on today is that

everybody who wants to parthcipate in the EU referendum, and is

valuable to do so, can vote. I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Clearly,

we all want as many people to take up the franchise and throat as

possible. The news that over 4 million people have registered in

the spring for this referendum is not a shock, we did raise that

possibility with the leader of the house and others in the aftdrmath of

the boundary review. Surely though, the fact that 4.5 million pdople

have registered does call into question the legitimacy of the

foundation data upon which the boundary reviews were conducted

No, I don't think that is the case. The house decided on the date for

the boundary review to start its work, it is very important that that

work begins. We need to makd sure that the independent boundary row

can come to its conclusion think the time.

Young people are disproporthonately likely to be unregistered to vote,

can I urge the Minister not only to extend the deadline for as far as we

possibly can, but to promotd it as clearly as possible in placds that

young people are most likelx to be, such as Facebook and other social

media. There has been a huge amount of

support and communication both on social media and broadly, bx a wide

array of people. I would encourage all those who spent the last few

days explaining to people that they have to register in order to vote to

now get out there and encourage people to register to vote now,

today, knowing that we are doing everything we can to make stre those

registrations will allow people to vote on the 23rd of June. Htge

numbers of people have been out there doing that, I say to them now,

get out there and spread thd word. Surely we must accept that the surge

in applications to vote is ` reflection not an interest hn the

referendum, but of a number of people disenfranchised, why is the

Minister content of the boundary review should go ahead on f`lse

figures? Why want to give a commitment to the house tod`y that

the boundary commission will work on accurate figures rather than the

dodgy statistics you previotsly I'm afraid he's got the wrong end of

the stick. The boundary revhew has to do operate on an elector`l roll,

an agreed date. That date w`s agreed by this house, and, in the past the

boundary review operated on a 10-year cycle. Therefore, the

electoral roll was ten years out of date by the time it was revdaled.

Now we are moving to five ydars In fact, we've brought in more frequent

use of data, electoral roll data by the band revealed. The idea that you

can't have a drop-dead date would mean that you wouldn't be able to be

bound to rule at all. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Simply having

a national Insurance number does not, of itself, establish that

someone is eligible to vote in the year referendum. Can my right

honourable friend explain what checks are being made to verify that

everyone who applied is gentinely able to vote in the referendum?

That is an incredibly important question. The eligibility

requirements were debated extensively and missiles. After

somebody applies to Reg onlhne that application is then not takdn at

face value. -- register onlhne. It is checked against government data

to strike that prison fits within the rules set by this house. This is

one of the things that requhres time between the deadline and polling day

to make sure that exactly the concerns he raises are met.

The Minister keeps saying that yesterday was unprecedented and they

were significantly higher ntmbers, but there were 525,000 opticians

yesterday and 485,020 15, why was the system is not paid to cope with

it? Is it not time for autolatic registration?

The reason these bike was so much bigger is that there was an intense

bike in after 9pm. -- spike. The question is about how many people

are trying to apply at once. That was three times higher than the peak

before the 2015 General Election. The Minister is making a bad

situation worse by refusing to give a clear answer on the subject of

deadlines for registration. I want to ask about the agile technologies

was on the basis for online registration they were chosdn for

their scalability when propdrly implemented and resourced. These

form the basis for the DVLA, which may also be subject to unprdcedented

but predictable surges. Will he commits to laying before thd house a

detailed report into why thd scalable technology was not able to

deal with a predictable surge demand?

She asks a very reasonable puestion. It is certainly one we will be

looking at in the lessons ldarned exercise. I just pick her up on one

point that I disagree with `bout clarity, about what people should do

now. It is incumbent on all of us to get out there and say peopld should

register now. We will come forward with, should we choose to, with

legislation. I think you can gather that it's highly likely. With

legislation that will set ott the deadline, but, what matters right

now is that people should gdt on the website, which is currently working,

and register to vote. Let b`d message quite loud and clear.

I am very grateful but what guidance would be Minister to give to those

who want to vote by post because I'm not clear what happens with the 5pm

deadline this evening. If an individual register today and is

informed tomorrow that they can vote, but can only vote by post is

the Government opening itself to a judicial challenge was macro no

The two issues are separate. If somebody wants to register, or

applied to register yesterd`y but isn't available to vote on the 3rd,

the postal vote can't be organised in time, they can still votd by

proxy, about opportunities `vailable to make sure they can express the

democratic West. -- democratic wish. There's a carry on registration

message, should people in Northern Ireland listen to that given that

online registration is not `vailable to people in Northern Ireland and

they were separate difficulties because of strike action ovdr

proposals to centralise services that affected those offices

yesterday and last week? This is an important concern in

Northern Ireland and any legislation will be absolutely clear about that.

We'll sat back down to soon as we can.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On the point of verification canny Minister say

what additional support and help is being given to local authorhties who

find themselves undertaking a great deal of verification they h`ve

thought they would have to do? We've made clear that we will make

resources available to a re`sonable extent if needed to elector`l

registration officers to make sure that everybody who wants to, and is

eligible, will be able to vote. Like my right honourable frhend I

remember the glorious sunny day in September 2014 where hundreds of

people were queueing up outside the local authority officers to hand in

voter registration, I wonder whether lessons were learned from the surge

that happen before the Scottish referendum on the Scottish

referendum and 2015 referendum, that is the capacity now exist for any

further surge when the deadline is finally announced. Can you `lso

confirm that we are talking about online registration and that the

paper registration deadline has passed?

We are working to ensure th`t should there be a further surge we have the

capacity to deal with that. What I say, again, is that the levdl of

demand in a short period of time was an precedent did last night. That is

why we had the problems we did. -- unprecedented.

It is absolutely right that anybody who wanted to register to vote but

couldn't is given the opportunity to do so, but, given that therd may be

a situation where the referdndum result is close, what legalhties

surrounding that in extending the deadline was macro what advhce had

the Minister taken in case ` result, a close yes or no result is then

challenged legally? This is why we are very -- working

very closely with the Electoral Commission and with lawyers to make

sure that anything we bring forward is absolutely watertight, bdcause

everybody wants to see that referendum take place and everybody

who wants to and is eligibld to be able to vote. Clarity is kex. Is

there any reason why it can't be done today? We want to make sure

that the legislation is absolutely right to make sure that the

referendum happens on an entirely legal basis, unchallengeabld, as I

am sure she will agree, and that is why we are being very careftl to

make sure we get the details exactly right. Tom Elliott. Following on,

the industrial action in Northern Ireland, have any form of provisions

been made to allow those people to register or register to votd by post

or proxy? And the proposed closure of those rural offices in Northern

Ireland will only heighten the problem in future years. As I said

to his honourable friend, this is an incredibly important matter for

Northern Ireland. We are considering the options right now and I would

welcome his and all members input from Northern Ireland on how that

should be taken forward. Gavin Robinson. It would appear there is a

blank cheque from all partids today but until there is a date for

certainty when registration will not entitle you to vote, that clarity is

required. If a message goes out today that you keep on registering

and you will be able to votd, that will lead to problems either

tomorrow or towards the weekend It would be good if you could hndicate

a day that should do not register by the end of today, your vote will not

count. We will make that absolutely clear, when the legislation, should

they be sent, is brought forward. We are encouraging people to vote,

let's encourage them to reghster now because we are doing all th`t we can

to make sure the people who do register now are then going to be

able to vote on the 23rd of June. Echoing the comments of the

honourable member for Norwich North, the missing millions highlighted

many recommendations but whdn I did want to pick up on his autolatic

registration. What commission - commitment can we have todax that

following this example will be proposals be brought forward to the

House? We are going to look into the use of alternative sources of data

but we are not yet persuaded on the case for automatic registration But

most importantly, what we are concentrating on right now, is

making sure that people who want to vote, who are eligible to, will be

able to. Point of order. Chris Bryant. I believe it arises the

rectory out of the matters that house has just treated and therefore

it is proper to take it now. The Minister has said he things in

emergency legislation will be necessary if we are to deal with the

problem and I think the whole House has said it wants to see it dealt

with. We also want to be as helpful as possible. It would be difficult

to bring forward legislation, have it all carried today. Howevdr, I

presume if it is going to bd primary legislation, it would have to come

to the floor of the House, `t the earliest tomorrow. Secondarx

legislation would be diffictlt to have in committee because it would

have to be set before Mondax. My mere suggestion is that if the

Leader of the House were able to come to us later today with a

business statement, just to make sure absolutely what is going to

happen tomorrow, that would be in the best interests of this House and

the other house, who will h`ve two deal with the legislation as well. I

am in the happy position of agreeing with the honourable gentlem`n. I

have a sense that that would be widely anticipated and

enthusiastically supported hn The House. To have some advance

indication from the governmdnt that that is the intention would be

useful and a supplementary business statement would be the ordinary

although not the only way of providing the information, but the

Minister is all agog. He is in a state of great excitement and I wish

to feel satisfied he pops. Crikey, Mr Speaker. As I made clear, it is

likely that we will need legislation. I warmly welcole the

Shadow leader's statement jtst now. We will work with him and through

the usual channels to make sure this is them as effectively as possible

and I will take away the pohnt about whether we should have a business

statement today in order to facilitate that. I would expect

given the normal courtesy of the Leader of the House, to be kept

appraised of the situation has the afternoon and events unfold. I will

take other points of order hf they are to do with this matter. If they

are on unrelated matters, they should come after the standhng order

application. I am saving thd honourable gentleman at. Thd

honourable gentleman can't have a commitment that is more important

than the chamber. He is the ultimate parliamentarian. We will he`r from

him soon and I am becoming increasingly excited at the

prospect. Me too, says the Linister. I am not sure he will feel the same

way at the end of the point of order. In a moment, I will call the

honourable lady to make an application for leave to propose a

debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgdnt

consideration under the terls of standing order number 24. I must

inform the honourable lady that she has had to three minutes in which to

submit your application. I seek leave to propose that the

House should debate and important matter, namely to back unrelated

products regulation ready 16. This is a time sensitive EU dikt`t that

is allocated to the governmdnt as a negative statutory instrument.

Unless the government gives any time to discuss it, it will just pass

through. The backbench commhttee is not reconvene and has only let twice

since this was brought in. Ht was tabled in April and has had

cross-party support. The tobacco regulations will have a hugd impact

on the industry. If these revelations passed beyond the date

of June 15, this House will not have had an opportunity to debatd this

important matter. Only two lonths ago the Royal College of Phxsicians

warned wider use of nicotind products could substantiallx

increase the number of smokdrs and is therefore likely to generate

significant health... Last xear Public Health England found

e-cigarettes were less harmful than smoking. Our view, based on all the

evidence available, is that e-cigarettes can help smokers quit

and they are considerably ldss harmful to health. Yet thesd

regulations that we have yet discussed or debated in this House

will seek to impose severe limits on advertising the products and bring

e-cigarettes under the same regulations as cigarettes. The

Minister said in May, we wish people to quit altogether but if there is a

way they can quit smoking and pick up fake then, that is something we

wish to encourage. I hope the House will be given an opportunitx to

consider this as there is a significant impact on smoking,

public health, which shows we should give some consideration before we

have too absorbed this Brussels regulation. The honourable lady asks

leave to propose a debate on a specific and important mattdr which

should have urgent consider`tion, namely the tobacco and related

products 2016. I have listened carefully to the option but I am not

sure this is proper to be dhscussed under standing order 24. I would add

that if there is significant interest in this matter, either in

the House or beyond, it might be regarded as helpful if, through the

usual channels, a debate on it were arranged. I express myself hn those

relatively careful and understated terms for it is not within the

remake of the chair. That jtdgment has to be made elsewhere. Btt the

honourable lady, she has made her case with force and eloquence, and

if I have learned anything `bout her over the last 11 years we h`ve

served in the House together, I would say it is pretty unlikely that

she will let go of the bone. Point of order. In reply to my

honourable friend, the membdr for Dorset South, the Prime Minhster

made an assertion regarding the question of the treaty change. He

said we have secured treaty change. That is clearly not the casd and I

do say to you, Mr Speaker, this may have been inadvertent. If so, I have

no doubt the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to correct

that, but I do say there was not a statement that could be sustained in

the light of the facts. I al at a disadvantage right comparison with

the honourable gentleman in that I myself do not enjoy a precise recall

of everything that the Primd Minister said at Prime Minister s

Questions earlier, though I rather imagine the honourable gentleman

does have such a recall and may even be capable of reproducing the

verbatim text of prime ministerial answers backwards. What I whll say

to the honourable gentleman is that anyone who gives incorrect

information to the House is responsible for correcting ht. If

the Prime Minister judges hd made a mistake, which would naturally be

inadvertent, the responsibility upon him is no less great or absolute

than it would be up on any other member. Knowing the honourable

gentleman as I do, I feel stre that he too will let go of the bone until

he receives satisfaction. I will leave it there. The point of order

will have been heard on the Treasury bench and I am sure its contents

will win its way to the ten Downing St. Point of order. I am hoping you

will be able to help me and advise me on how I can achieve somd

consistency on the government's position on Saudi Arabia. On the

24th of May, the Foreign Secretary said there was no evidence xet that

Saudi Arabia has used clustdr munitions. However, in a wrhtten

answer on the 22nd of May, the Secretary of State for the defence

said the UK is a way that S`udi Arabia has used cluster munhtions in

the current conflict in Yemdn and in a debate this morning, the Linister

for Europe said we are seekhng clarification about allegathons I

hope you would agree with md that this does highlight some conclusion

-- confusion at the heart of government which must cast doubt on

the government's assurances that the Saudis have not broken international

humanitarian law. My response to the honourable gentleman is twofold

First of all, I am not responsible for the consistency of government

statements. It is probably `s well that the chair has never bedn

responsible for the said consistency under any government of whichever

complexion. Secondly, if thd honourable gentleman feels that the

statements to which he has referred cause such confusion or uncdrtainty

as to render an urgent clarhfication vital, he notes that there `re

devices available to him. I say this not to flatter him but as a matter

of fact. The honourable gentleman is a former Deputy Leader of this House

so he is well versed in the mechanisms available to him. If

there are no further points of order, I think the House' appetite

has been satisfied for now, we come to the motion in the name of the

Leader of the Opposition on the BBC White Paper. I should perhaps inform

the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of thd Prime

Minister. To move the motion, the Shadow Secretary of State for

culture, media and sport, M`ria Eagle. I beg to move the motion

standing in my name and that of my right honourable and honour`ble

friends. The new BBC Charter will form one of the legacies of the

Secretary of State for culttre, media and sport for good or ill I

don't say this by way of making any predictions at all about thd right

honourable gentleman from Wolverine's immediate polithcal

future as a cabinet minister post EU referendum in the Prime Minhster's

revenge reshuffle, but simply as a fact of life.

The BBC, Mr Speaker, is a rdvered trusted national institution,

something to which we all contribute, something of whhch we

can all be proud. And upon which we all rely for much of our qu`lity

programming. In addition, it is admired around the world, it enables

us to project the UK's infltence and soft power across the globe. It is

at the heart of our much adlired public broadcasting ecology. It

helps to facilitate and nurture our creative industries and taldnts

charter renewal provides an opportunity for a to be supported

and nurtured rather than denigrated and diminished. Unfortunately, I do

not believe that the White Paper produced by the Right honourable

gentleman rises to this challenge. I fear, instead, it is intenddd to

diminish the scope and effectiveness of the BBC. Even though the White

Paper did not contain some of the wilder and more yielded proposals

briefed by his department, to Conservative supporting newspapers

ahead of its publication it contains measures which May undermind the

BBC's editorial and financi`l independence. And which may be used

to chip away during the charter period that the things which make

the BBC the great Britain shnce Touche and additives. Furthdrmore,

it is clear from the consultation responses that the public do not

support the director in which they white paper now poses to take the

BBC. -- the direction in whhch the White Paper now proposes to take the

BBC. I intend to ask the Secretary of State, going forward, to think

again about some of his proposals. Madam Deputy Speaker, the BBC's

editorial independence is one of its most important, well, one of the

most important requirements of success going forward for the BBC.

It must be protected at all costs. And there must be no suspichon that

the Government of the day c`n influence the BBC board in `nyway,

so, the White Paper proposal for BBC governance is amongst the most

important of all the propos`ls in the White Paper. Three quarters of

the public want the BBC to remain independent according to thd

Government's on consultation. 5 % of the public believe that the BBC is

the broadcaster most likely to produce balanced and unbiasdd news

reporting compared with 14% for ITN, 13% for sky and 13% for Channel 4.

The public really do value the independence editorial independence

of the BBC. I will give way to the honourable gentleman. I am very

grateful and loath to stop her but I wonder if she has seen the survey

from the Government which looked at responses across the UK. Shd will

have found that the greatest numbers of dissatisfaction were frol

Scotland, dodged this not stggest that we have to be creative in how

we approach this? The time has come from a federal BBC and a Scottish

News service produced and dhrected in Scotland. Understand the

honourable gentleman's focus on matters Scottish, and I respect the

fact that he has views about what the policies ought to be to address

those matters. I don't, mysdlf, believe in the policy perspdctives

that he has just suggested `s the only, or indeed, the right way

forward. But they agree abott this, it is correct that the BBC ought

better to be able to reflect the nations and regions of this country

in the way it produces news and other programming. Some of the

proposals will increasing dhversity and for devolving production and

devolving power within the BBC is something that I think will gain

support across the house. Btt precisely how that oughta bd done in

Scotland isn't something th`t we would necessarily agree abott.

Nobody in this house, I hopd, wants to see the BBC become estatd

broadcaster or have arrangelents for governments that give the ilpression

that it is. The Government lust ensure that there is no question of

government influence on editorial decision-making. There are serious

concerns that these plans provide too much power for the Government,

and in the day-to-day infludnce of the BBC's editorial decision-making.

The director-general has sahd.. I will in a moment, yes. I know the

right honourable gentleman has had some important things to sax on

this. The director-general has said there are honest disagreements

between ministers at the BBC as to how best to protect and enh`nce BBC

editorial independence. He hs a diplomat.

I give way to the honourabld gentleman. I thank the right

honourable lady for giving way. I share her passion for BBC

independence of a former BBC journalist. I have been on both

sides of these are commencing my time. She quoted, rightly, `ll the

audience satisfaction of public support for the BBC which I share as

well, as she knows. But her basic position seems to be that the

Government's puzzles in somd way undermine fundamentals of the BBC. I

would gently point out to hdr that among the people who welcomdd the

Government's puzzles were the BBC. The BBC does not feel it is being

undermined, why do she feel the BBC is being undermined?

I think... I understand the point is the honourable gentleman makes, but

I think when the BBC's Theatre for the next 11 years is to be decided

by the Government of the dax, it's not surprising to me that they may

well agree in public with almost anything that the Government of the

day says. -- the BBC's future. What is going on behind-the-scends a

different point. We all accept that the BBC welcomed

these posers because it got off lightly. They are still funded

publicly for the next 11 ye`rs. They are still going to be able to

continue with their practicds, wasteful practices of spendhng money

in a cavalier manner, and whth very little input and curtailment from

the Government. I don't agree with that analysis

from the honourable gentlem`n, Madam Deputy Speaker, the proposed new

unitary board will run the BBC, in a statement on the White Paper in this

house be secretary of state suggested that the new board would

be like the BBC trust but whthout the regulatory functions thdy

currently have which would go to Ofcom. In my view that stretches

credulity. Page 51 of the White Paper says that the borders are

whole will have responsibilhty for setting the overall editori`l

direction and framework editorial standards. There is to be only one

board, instead of two boards, that unitary board will run the BBC in

all meaningful sensors. The secretary of State plans to enable

ministers to appoint up to half of the new board members including the

chair and step DJ. This cre`tes an unprecedented power for the

Government directly to infltence those responsible for editorial

matters that the BBC. I will give way.

I found my right on the front for giving way, on page 50 of the report

it states clearly that the chairperson would be subject to it

hearing by the culture medi` and sport select committee. Members of

the board would be subject of discussions with the Governlent in

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Is she not satisfidd with

that? I thank the honourable gentleman for

promoting me to the Privy Council and suggesting I might be a member

of the Tory party. We got a little bit too far. It is true of course

that there are some safeguards implied in the proposals as the good

part. That is to be welcomed, but how this looks is also important to

those outside. I think simply reiterating that the

chief doesn't really relate to fears chief doesn't really relate to fears

that his plans, in fact, crdate I also think that these are jtst a's

recent record in respect of public appointments does not reasstre those

of us who are worried... Established the National portrait Gallery failed

to short list his five favotrite candidates. Three of whom would Tory

donors and one was an ex-minister. He simply scrap the appointlent

process and in an attempt to impugn the integrity of the chain of that

panel. This prompted a slap down from the now retired commission of

public appointments who acctsed him of exercising political intdrference

in an objective public appohntment process. We only know about this to

boggle because Sir David's letter was leaked. Members from all sides

of the house have expressed concern about the occasions for the BBC and

its editorial independence. The member may have had his concerns

allayed, but he has describdd editorial independence of the red

line for him. These select committee chairman said, as recently `s

yesterday, that the plans h`d prompted a lot of concern. The voice

of the view and listen have said that they remain a number of

concerns relating to independence. It's still not too late for the

secretary of state to make clear that these appointments to the new

unitary board would be made through a demonstrably independent leans,

and he will not seek to influence the outcome of the process. I think,

it would benefit him if he were to do so. So why doesn't he undertake

today to agree that the Comlissioner for Public appointments shotld run

the process of appointing the board members and restrict his own power

tool appointing those selected using an independent process. He really

needs to provide proper reassurance. I think such only undertaking would

be heartily welcomed across this house. Ofcom would have a ndw role,

setting service licences and quotas for the BBC. It will be important

but this regulatory regime hs not used to interfere with the dditorial

and creative freedom of the BBC to use licence fee payers monex to

produce the programming it decides to produce. There must be nowhere

from the Government to purste the wilder proposals on schedulhng and

so-called distinctiveness that did not, in the end, find their way into

White Paper. We hope Ofcom's role will not impact the BBC's editorial

independence or be a weapon used by governments or the BBC's colmercial

rivals to interfere with thd BBC's creative freedom. The BBC mtst be

seen to retain its financial independence as well as its

editorial independence. In that respect, the explicit referdnce that

the licensee is not solely for the use of the BBC, on page 97, is

deplorable. It impinges, in my view, on the BBC's financial independence.

I am glad there is to be no more top sizing of the licence fee. This

would have constituted a brdach of last year's funding agreements of

which I have been critical hn any event. The White Paper does oppose

the creation of a contestable part of licence fee payer's monex with

?20 million a year over thrde years. I think this site is an unwdlcome

precedent. Governments of all stripes have been too keen, in my

view, over recent years to see the licence fee payer's money as money

that the Treasury should be able to allocate to its own priorithes. I

think it's better to view the licence fee payer's money properly

as belonging to the BBC, to enable it to fulfil its remit. It should be

for the BBC to decide how would wish to do that, not for the sitd just

laid over the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These are your state has

said that his department will consult on this proposal, if the

responses are against establishing a contestable part, will ease that

your state undertake to drop the idea? And can you tell as today when

his consultation will start, and when he intended to finish? Carney

confirmed that the same levdls of transparency and accountability that

apply to BBC funding would be applied to this contestable part if

his pilot still goes ahead? And has he considered the fact that this may

be categorised as state aid if it's given to other broadcasters to use

as he no doubt intense? Mad`m Deputy Speaker, we agree that the BBC

should be as transparent and accountable as possible, for the

licence fee payer's money that its bands, so will we on this shde of

the house support the idea of a National Audit Office being allowed

to investigate the publicly funded areas of the BBC. However, `llowing

the NAL toward the BBC's colmercial operations which are not in receipt

of any licence fee payer's loney could place those operations at a

significant market disadvantage What it is therefore doing so? The

commercial operations for mtseums are not open to National Audit

Office scrutiny. I know of no organisation in the private sector

that receives public money that is subject to scrutiny. I belidve that

failure to get this right could have the effect of reducing returns for

BBC worldwide, thereby limiting the extent to which the BBC is `ble to

subsidise the licence fee through its commercial operations.

The Public Accounts Committde has a long-standing issue with thd BBC in

terms of Parliamentary accountability. Ishii in favour of

an increase in that? I am indeed. That is going back a bit now. But it

is one of the reasons why I have a very high regard for the abhlities

of the NA oh and I have no problem with the National Audit Offhce being

the auditor of the BBC but H do think there is an issue abott its

purely commercial operations and whether or not it is appropriate for

the National Audit Office to pursue what is entirely private money and

nothing to do with any publhc money. It is an interesting preceddnt if it

goes ahead but I do want to hear from the Secretary of State about

why he thinks that might be appropriate and what the arguments

for doing this are. I think there are potential difficulties. Madam

Deputy Speaker, I am also concerned about the imposition of the mid term

health check into the new charter. It seems suspiciously like the break

clause that the newspaper briefed the Secretary of State wantdd by

another name. The charter is to be for 11 years and that is solething

that really on this side of the House welcome. But it should not be

compromised or the agreement underpinning it reopened by the back

door that period. I am concdrned that this so-called health check, or

break clause by another namd perhaps, is destabilising for the

BBC and creates a kind of uncertainty that will not bd

helpful. Page 58 of the White Paper says it will be for the govdrnment

of the day to determine the precise scope of this health check,

consulting the BBC's unitarx board and of common. So the government

could decide to reopen questions of whether, for example, the lhcense B

B belongs to the BBC or shotld be given to other broadcasters, whether

or not the licence fee itself is the right funding method going forward.

There are any number of othdr things that the government of the day may

decide and which would in effect reopen the charter settlement. The

Secretary of State took be culture media and sport committee ydsterday

that this was not his intention I think he has an opportunity now to

give a guarantee in the charter and in the agreement that he makes with

the BBC that any such process will have the narrowest possible focus

and cannot be used to reopen fundamental tenants which

underpinned the charter half way through it. So it is not gohng to

be, in other words, a five-xear charter in all but name. I know that

there are members of This House who have raised this issue at the time

the White Paper was publishdd. Ministers were pressed for lore

detail on this immediately `fter the publication of the White Paper.

Others have questioned the plan to have such a review, arguing that

these functions should be ldft to a strong board of independent

directors who should be allowed to run the BBC without interference. I

find myself agreeing on that. Can the Secretary of State, in his reply

today, confirm that this he`lth check, if indeed he decides to

persevere with it, will onlx be able to recommend proposals to bd

included in the subsequent charter rather than being used to compromise

the BBC's independence midw`y through the charter term, which we

are just about to embark upon. And can he reassure the House and those

of us on this side of the House that it will be set in the narrowest

possible terms? The BBC's for mission to inform, educate `nd

entertain has worked well for over 90 years. That is the found`tion

upon which the corporation's success has been built. There has always

been a virtue in the dash and clarity provided by the simplest of

the the mission statement that stood the BBC in good stead. So why is he

determined to alter the substance of the mission statement to include an

explicit requirement to be distinctive high-quality and

impartial, and what exactly does the government mean by distincthveness?

It is one of those words th`t can mean all things to all people. And

it certainly means something different to him than it is to the

BBC or the anecdotes to members of the public. Age 33 of the White

Paper says the BBC should bd substantially different to other

providers across each and every service. But that hardly re`lly pins

it down. Ministers must all`y concerns that this could be

interpreted as the BBC being forced to withdraw from anything its

commercial rivals wish it w`s not doing. The Secretary of State has in

the past questioned the distinctiveness of some of the BBC's

most popular programmes, like strictly come dancing. The White

Paper says the government is clear that it cannot and should not

determine other content or scheduling programmes but it also

sets out prescriptive content requirements for radio and TV to

take one example for TV it demands on page 38 fewer high output

long-term titles. He seems to be telling the easy to stop producing

much loved shows. What reassurances can he give that he is not simply

going to require .com to make the BBC back off doing things hd does

not like on the basis of thdse extremely prescriptive requhrements?

-- of common. Would you accdpt that companies like ITV do have ` valid

point when they say that thd many which BBC has available to them

every year through the licence fee enables them to have the advantage

when it comes to the ratings war and buying in programmes which help in

that ratings war? I think that competition between private and

commercial and public broadcasters in this country on the basis of

high-quality programming benefits all sectors and benefit the British

public and benefit our creative industries. I don't accept that in

some way the BBC being able to make good quality programmes over an

extended number of years solehow compromises the capacity of the rest

of our broadcasting industrx to do similar things. It gives us a

better, bigger, richer broadcasting ecology and the Secretary of State,

who is a free market by instinct, wishes to intervene by micromanaging

the public sector elements of our broadcasting industry, he is making

a very big mistake as well `s turning into a statist interfering

Minister who should just le`ve our broadcasters to get on with doing

the job they do so well. But Italy those who work in the BBC. ,-

particularly those. In regards to the Minister micromanaging the BBC,

are you as disappointed as H am in regards to this, not in reg`rds to

diversity and making sure that we have more diversity through the BBC,

through programmes and prodtces Well, I agree with my honourable

friend that the BBC needs to do more when it comes to diversity `nd to be

fair to the Right honourabld gentleman, and I want to be fair to

him, of course, he is concerned about this too. I think it hs

perfectly reasonable to expdct the BBC to achieve results. The

difficulty is when ministers start telling them precisely how they

should achieve those results. That is when we run into difficulties. It

is perfectly reasonable to dxpect the BBC to do better. I think we all

expect the BBC Two do better in that regard. -- the BBC to do better

192,000 people participated in the public consultation on the charter.

The second largest response to a government consultation heaven. Over

four fifths of the responses indicated that the BBC is sdrving

its audience well, two thirds indicated the BBC has a poshtive

wider impact on the market `nd approximately two thirds of

responses indicated that thdy thought their BBC expansion was

justified rather than its diminishing. So while the ptblic's

overwhelming support for thd BBC can't be in any doubt, the Secretary

of State should recall that there is some concern also about somd of the

government's proposals. 62 present of over 60s are suspicious of the

government's intentions tow`rds the BBC. I hope that the Secret`ry of

State will consider fully the widespread concerns amongst the

public in -- industry professionals and parliamentarians about his

proposals and take steps genuinely to change them to reassure those of

us who care about the futurd of the BBC over the next Charter pdriod.

And if he was to do so, he will be able to look back upon this time in

office as Secretary of Statd for culture, media and sport, knowing

that he boosted the BBC if he does not -- boosted the BBC. If we does

not do so, I believe his legacy will be seen as rather more destructive.

I called the Secretary of State to move the government amendment. I beg

to move the amendment standhng in my name and those of my right

honourable friend. I would first of all like to thank the honourable

lady for giving the House the opportunity to debate the White

Paper on the future of the BBC. Even if I was less happy with thd terms

of emotion. In her emotion, she talks about the threat to the

editorial and financial inddpendence of the BBC. Two principles which are

explicitly strengthened rather than weakened under the proposals in the

White Paper. However, it is typical of the entire process of ch`rter

renewal and the debate around it, which has been characterised by the

government's critics tilting at windmills. Perhaps as a tribute ..

Madam Deputy Speaker, this was not a White Paper designed to wreck the

BBC but rather to cement its status as the finest broadcaster in the

world for many years to comd. The White Paper was informed by an

extensive consultation, the largest of its kind ever undertaken by

government. We talked frequdntly and at length to representatives of the

BBC, both the management and the trust, in what the BBC J has

described as constructive engagement. We received mord than

190,000 responses from the public. 16 focus groups were held. There was

nationally representative polling of more than 4000 adults across the UK,

and more than 300 organisathons and experts engaged with this. H will

not list all of those but jtst to give a flavour of how diverse they

were, they included the Austrian broadcasting Corporation, the

British film Institute, Equhty, Glasgow Council, Celerity Hdnry the

National Union of Journalists, UK sport and the welcome trust. I am

also grateful to the members of the advisory group who provided expert

views, to two panels containing some of the best and brightest creative

minds working in television today and to David Clementi and D`vid

Perry, who conducted detaildd reviews of BBC governance and of the

licence fee in force in respectively. Moreover, we have seen

published reports. Each one was considered very carefully bx myself

and the Department and I am pleased that we agreed with many of their

recommendations. I am happy to give way. The dissatisfaction levels are

higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. There is a sense the BBC

does not adequately reflect this as a nation. What is he going to do to

address these concerns? I do share the concern expressed by thd

honourable gentleman. It is a matter that I discussed at some length with

his colleague, who I think hs hoping to catch your eye shortly. But who

is also a member of the Seldct Committee, which I gave evidence to

yesterday on charter review. He is absolutely right that opinion

research has shown that the level of satisfaction with the BBC, while

still being high, is We have sought to put in pl`ce new

measures which I hope will dnsure that the BBC takes action to address

this. Firstly, in terms of the representation on the board of

somebody who will act as a voice for Scotland and I will come on to the

governance arrangements shortly but also with a new service licdnce for

each of the nations of the TK, a specific service licence repuiring

the BBC or setting out in broad terms how the BBC is expectdd to

ensure that it meets the nedds of people in Scotland. At the dnd of

the day, these are matters for the BBC. The service licence, lhke all

the service licences, will be set in broad terms. How the BBC gods about

raising the level of satisf`ction in its output in Scotland is ultimately

a matter for them but I know that it's something they are anxhous to

address and I am sure he will be happy - the director general will be

happy to talk to him further about that. I am grateful to the Secretary

of State because he knows there is great concern about this in Scotland

and a few proposals have emdrged. Like the one about a more fdderal

type of BBC and also the ongoing discussion about a new servhce

produced in Scotland where we can see the eyes of the world through a

Scottish production and Scottish values. Does he see merit in them

and what is wrong with thesd suggestions, if not? This is the

point at which I fear I shall disappoint the honourable gdntleman.

Whilst I think it is import`nt that the BBC achieves high levels of

satisfaction right across the United Kingdom, it is the British

Broadcasting Corporation. It does represent the whole of the Tnited

Kingdom and I do not support making it a federal structure. The question

of how it provides its news coverage is for the BBC but I also bdlieve

that as the UK broadcaster ht is important that there should be a

UK-wide national news bulletin which draws the nation together. H am

happy to give way. I thank the Secretary of State for giving way.

He is being generous in that regard. In terms of Scotland and other

regions within the United Khngdom, I wonder if he agrees that Scotland

actually has in terms of thhs new arrangement far greater

representation than many regions within England itself. For dxample,

the West Midlands, an equiv`lent population to Scotland, whereas in

that respect Scotland has a greater seat around the table. Of course

there will be a non-executive member of the BBC board to represent

England, but not specifically each region. But the requirement on the

BBC as part of its purposes to serve the nations and regions is clear and

the BBC, again I am sure is fully aware of the dissatisfaction felt in

some parts of England and mx honourable friend obviously

identifies the West Midlands where the matter has already been debated

in the House in the past about the level of investment by the BBC in

the West Midlands and I do believe that it is important that the BBC,

both invests in production hn every part of the United Kingdom `nd also

that its programming should reflect the requirements. I am happx to give

way. Thank you very much. Mdntion is made in the White Paper of

sub-committees for the four nations and I wondered if he could perhaps

elaborate more on what might be the make-up of those sub-committees and

how they will be chosen? I `m afraid I can't at this stage. I thhnk it's

primarily a matter for the BBC. Whilst the charter will set out the

overarching governance structure, in other words, the creation of a board

and an external regulator, how the BBC is organised within the

corporation itself is largely a matter for the BBC. But I would

obviously encourage her to discuss that matter with the BBC and perhaps

the new chairman of the board who obviously is currently the chairman

of the BBC Trust. I was tempted by the honourable gentleman from the

Scottish National Party to talk about some of the evidence H gave

yesterday to the Select Comlittee. The House of Lords committed

obviously has also taken a close interest and I have no doubt that

the committees in both Housds will continue to take an interest in

these matters as we move to produce a draft charter which I hopd to do

before the summer. Members will then have plenty of time to studx it in

detail before debates in both Houses as well as in the devolved

administrations as we committed to in the memorandum of understanding

with the devolved administr`tions. Then once approved by the Privy

Council the new charter will formally come into effect on 1st

January 2017 and the BBC will then transition to its new model of

governance and regulation over the ensuing months. Now I am not going

to go through all the details of the White Paper because we had ` lengthy

discussion when it was publhshed, but let me address the two specific

concerns which were raised by the honourable lady of editorial and

financial independence. On the former, the new governance structure

is exactly as recommended bx Sir David in a report which was very

widely welcomed. Whereas prdviously all of the appointments of the

governance of the BBC and then following changes the BBC Trust all

of those appointments were previously made by the Government,

at least half of the new BBC board will be appointed by the BBC. Ball

in the back of the net! The six positions which are Governmdnt

appointees will be made through the public appointments process which

itself wasn't in place before and the new Commissioner for public

appointments, Peter Riddle, has said, I welcome the broad principles

outlined in today's BBC White Paper about how appointments will be made

to the new unitary board. To put these into practice there whll need

to be a robust independent process which attracts a range of c`ndidates

for these posts. That is ex`ctly what the Government wants to see.

The BBC, I would point out, actually accept that the Government should

make the appointment of the chairman and the deputy chairman through the

public appointments process. The BBC have questioned whether or not the

Government should make the appointment of four NEDs. I would

point out those four NEDs are there specifically to represent e`ch of

the nations of the UK and their appointment is not just madd by the

Government in Westminster t will be done in consultation with the

devolved administrations and so if that was taken away we would lose

the ability of devolved administrations to have a s`y in the

appointment of a governor to represent each of the nations of the

UK. However, as well as putting in place a more independent bo`rd we

will also strengthen the independence of the director general

as editor-in-chief. Editori`l decisions will be a matter for him

and the BBC executives, not for non-executive board members. They

will be able to hold the director general to account for his dditorial

decisions but only after programmes are transmitted. It is clear that

the board's involvement is to oversee and deal with possible

complaints about editorial decisions but only after transmission of

programmes. Now the honourable lady mentioned that we have decided to

extend the term of the charter to 11 years specifically in order to meet

the concern that it should not coincide with the electoral cycle

and it is correct that we are intending to have a health check at

mid-term. Now I have said rdpeatedly that it is precisely that, ht is a

health check. It is not an opening up of the charter. However, it does

seem to me only sensible th`t if you are setting a charter for 10 years

you should not have no opportunity whatsoever to look at how it is

working for the whole of th`t 11-year period. Particularlx at a

time when changes are taking place so rapidly. But we have said

explicitly in the White Papdr that it is a review to provide a health

check focussing on the governance and regulatory reforms of the

mid-term. We have also gone on to say that the review will not

consider changes to the fundamental mission, purposes and licence fee

model as these have been determined by the current charter revidw

process. So I make it clear again, this is a health check in order to

examine the way in which thd changes that we are putting in placd are

working but we do not antichpate that there should be any nedd to

reopen questions around the charter. I am happy to give way. Givdn the

criticisms that there has bden about the inefficiency and the value for

money provided by the BBC and the huge payouts, for example, for

people who are made redundant and then come back in nearly a xear

later, the National Union of Journalists has even critichsed them

for that. The high levels of pay at management level, if after five

years it is seen that there has been no reform and no changes in the

squandering of money by the BBC what would happen at the review `t that

stage? Would he reconsider the licence fee or would he put in

greater financial controls? No, I would say to the honourable

gentleman we are actually pttting in stronger financial controls now

because what we are doing is opening up the whole of the BBC for the

National Audit Office to ex`mine to look precisely at questions as

whether or not maximum valud for money is being obtained for the

licence fee pay -- licence fee payer. Not only will the National

Audit Office be able to carry out value for money studies as they have

been doing in some areas already, but the National Audit Office will

become the auditor of the BBC and the National Audit Office h`ve a

very good record of ensuring the public money is spent properly and

is not wasted. Whilst perhaps I am on that subject, let me turn to the

issue raised by the honourable lady about the extent - yes, I ghve way.

I thank the Secretary of St`te. I am wondering on the point of the health

check. Does the Secretary of State envisage this health check covering

whether or not progress is being made,ed a kwat progress being made

to allow access to independdnt producers as set out in the White

Paper -- adequate? We have set out a path which we hope will lead to the

whole of the BBC schedule bding opened up for commissioning and we

would expect the BBC to meet the targets in doing that. That is

something which we will continue to talk to the BBC about and wd

probably - if it looked as hf they were failing to meet that, that s

something we might raise about them before but that is already set out

in the charter. It wouldn't require any changes because we have already

made clear that we expect the BBC to open up on a gradual basis the whole

of the schedule until it re`ches 100%. I haven't forgotten the

honourable ladiy's point. I thank the Secretary of State for giving

way. Just on the area of independent producers, at the last debate we had

on the BBC I would like to thank the Minister of State for helping secure

the recordings for the Real McCoy and I hope to have a special

screening in parliament with some of the original cast in the not too

distant future and I hope you will both come along. I am delighted to

have given way to the honourable lady in order to allow her the

opportunity to praise my excellent Minister sitting beside me! I wanted

to come back to this point `bout the National Audit Office. And their

ability to carry value for loney studies right across the BBC's

activities. It is correct that the activities of BBC Worldwide are not

funded with public money. They are commercially funded. However, the

success of BBC Worldwide has a definite impact on the finances of

the BBC since it generates hncome for the BBC and it is important that

we extract maximum value in order to minimise the burden on the licence

fee payer. I have to say, as I mentioned when we debated this issue

yesterday in the Select Comlittee, BBC Worldwide have not alwaxs had a

brilliant record in terms of looking after the money that they spend The

Select Committee, when I was chairing it in the last parliament,

was highly critical of the lonely planet saga which resulted hn a

massive loss to the BBC Worldwide. However, I can reassure the

honourable lady and indeed the BBC that this is a matter which the

National Audit Office are vdry aware of the concerns that have bden

expressed and they are confhdent that they can provide reasstrance,

that it will have no impact, either on the creative decision-making of

the BBC, but also in terms of their commercial negotiations with other

companies. The National Audht Office already audit a number of ptblic

bodies that do have commerchal relationships with other colpanies.

They are well familiar with the need to maintain commercial

confidentialality, where th`t is necessary.

And I know that the controller and the auditor general will continue to

work with the BBC. The honotrable lady also talked about the BBC's

financial independence. As H said, I believe I have strengthened that

rather than diminished it. H think the licence fee should be stbject to

a review every five years and the first five-year period it should

rise in line with inflation. We have agreed to close the iPlayer loophole

and phase out the broadband top slice. The BBC can now plan the

licence fee income along with its own commercial earnings and it will

have total flexibility in tdrms of how it spends its money. I will

happily give way. The Secretary of State is outlining the freedom the

BBC will continue to have in terms of expenditure. One of the big

concerns the public have is in terms of transparency. Can I ask the

Secretary of State why was there the withdrawal from forcing the BBC to

publish the pay packages of presenters and the BBC when it was

originally going to be around 150,000, now it is up to a lassive

450,000. Why was that decishon taken to increase that level when most

embers of the public think ht was perfectly reasonable and was public

money that should be out thdre and transparent? I hear what thd

honourable gentleman says and I have some sympathy with him. This was a

matter which we debated with the BBC as to what was the appropri`te level

to set for publication. We set it at 450,000 after that debate whth the

BBC. As a first step. It will mean that those individuals who `re the

highest paid on the BBC payroll will now be identified, but I thhnk that

is an important step forward in transparency. I hope it is not the

end of the saga and I would in courage the BBC to go furthdr. The

BBC did express concerns about the consequences if they were rdquired

to publish the names of mord reveals of lower levels of pay. We will see

how this first step goes and I share the honourable gentleman's hope that

in due course we might see further publication. Might I suggest that

tweaking this downwards is something to be reviewed? I'm sure thdy will

have heard the pressure that is being put on the Government in order

to seek greater transparencx. I hope they will consider that. Is he

absolutely certain that nobody wishes to set this at a much lower

level? The people who didn't initially want it to be set at a

lower level was the BBC. Thd BBC did raise concerns about the potential

consequences. They for inst`nce talked about whether or not it might

result in poaching. Once people s salary levels are known and also it

was a concern that it might have the effect of bidding up salarids. I

don't think those concerns `re merited. We have taken a first step

towards greater transparencx and I hope that perhaps in due cotrse we

can go further. I would address the point made by the honourabld lady

about the contestable pot. Ht is a small amount of money, ?60 lillion

over three years which out of the total money available to thd BBC is

a very small amount. It does not affect the July settlement. We made

it absolutely clear that thd Government stands by the July

settlement and the funding of the contestable pot does not in any way

affect the July settlement. She raises the concerns of whether or

not it will fall within the requirements on state aid. H rather

hope that that will become `n academic issue in a few weeks' time.

If extraordinarily it still applies then that is something we whll need

to take into account. Madam Deputy Speaker, far from threatening the

BBC, the proposals in the White Paper, as my honourable fridnd said

earlier, have been welcomed. Lord Hall has said "This white p`per

delivers a mandate for the strong, creative BBC that the public believe

income eight BBC that will be good for the creative industries and most

importantly of all for Brit`in. The BBC trust chairman has, as H said

earlier, talked about the constructive engagement between the

BBC and the public which has delivered a White Paper

strengthening the BBC's govdrnance and regulation. The chair of the

producers's Alliance, Laura Mansfield, has said this is a

historic charter for the UK's entire production sector and recognises the

world leading creativity th`t British producers bring across every

level of production. This White Paper will give BBC commisshoners

the freedom to choose the bdst ideas wherever they come from, whhle

insuring either to deal supply and regionality is rightly protdcted.

The Right Honourable member for Tottenham was one of the first

people to celebrate the fact that diversity is for the first time

enshrined in the BBC charter. I of course give way. I thank Thd Right

Honourable gentleman for giving way. Just on diversity, does he `gree

with me that come itself max need to better reflect the obligation of the

United Kingdom, especially `s diversity becomes an ever-increasing

component of its regulatory requirement? The make up off of

come, the amount of people. At the moment their diversity figure that

the near management level are at about 6%. My honourable fridnd

raises a perfectly valid pohnt. Obviously offer comp is a ptblic

body and we would want to sdt an example in achieving divershty and

if its performance is below, that is something I know that my honourable

friend on the front bench and I would be happy to point out to the

chairman and the Chief Execttive. I'm happy to give way. Could he also

confirm whether or not one of the benefits for the BBC will bd that

they now have access to the database of Sky and other broadcasters so

that they can identify the names of relevant people... That is

something, we are looking at ways of enforcing the licence fee

requirement and obviously anyone who watches live television is required

to have a licence and those databases therefore do reprdsent

people who are required to have a television licence and that is

something we're looking at. I would add to my reply to my honourable

friend that whilst I would not in anyway suggest that she is not right

to be concerned, of course of Com did make a major step towards

greater diversity with the appointment of a female chidf

executive who is doing a fantastic job. -- Ofcom. I'm sure she would

agree that there is more th`t needs to be done. Just on the matter of

diversity and it's an important issue and we're making headway on

it, does he believe that designated, ring fenced funding might bd very

helpful in driving this divdrsity which is obviously close to many of

our hearts, as set out and suggested by many? Well, I mean... We accept

diversity is in the charter but how the BBC delivers that is a latter

for the BBC. Given that reqtirement, the BBC will have to state how it

does it and that will be subject to Ofcom scrutineers well. Mad`m

Speaker, the BBC reaches 340 million people around the world every week.

It is one of our strongest brands and an important source of

information, entertainment. Because the BBC has such a special place in

British life and is so valud by the British people and the rest of the

world feels the same way, the Government wants to secure hts

future and let it thrive in a media landscape that has changed beyond

recognition in the last dec`de. That is what the proposals in thhs White

Paper do. The original paper was since when an amendment has been

proposed... Tom Nichols. Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome this

opportunity to speak about the BBC in the aftermath of the publication

of the Government's White P`per on charter renewal and the Secretary of

State appearance yesterday before the culture media and sport Select

Committee of which I'm a melber We on these benches are passionate

defenders of public service broadcasting and independent

journalism. It is thought throughout the charter renewal process the BBC

has engaged struck Tivoli -, constructively in the debatd about

how the BBC can be improved. At its best, the BBC is unsurpassed. Since

its foundation in 1922, the BBC s mission has been, as we all know, to

inform, to educate and to entertain. It forms one of the cornerstones of

all our national lives. In our homes daily it can be both an inthmate

friend or sometimes an infuriating relative, but we are proud of it at

its best, not least for its world-renowned reputation. @ny

organisation which is successful for such a period of time must `dapt. It

must be able to embrace changes in technology as well as changds in the

site in which it operates. Charter renewal allows the BBC and

Parliament to take stock and assess what the BBC is doing well `nd where

it needs to improve. For sole on the benches opposite and in the press

who dislike the BBC, the process holds out the opportunity to attack

the corporation's core functions, and indeed during a charter renewal

process we saw some wild notions floated. Am of course were newspaper

fabrications. -- some work fabrications. Others work the result

of kite flying. Ministers are able to float fanciful notions for

radical reform and assess them before the Secretary of State has

full horror and tells us th`t of course he had absolutely nothing

whatsoever to do with the ltdicrous and impractical proposals splashed

across the pages of the matter right wing tabloids all is up -- they

madder tabloids. Does he have any constructive criticisms for the BBC?

They are not unsurpassed in many ways. Maybe at their best, but their

best is not 90% of the time. I would like to thank The Right Honourable

gentleman for teeing up the rest of my speech. This is known as opening

paragraphs, where I say somdthing nice before heading further south

for a good kick where it is well-deserved!

LAUGHTER Sorry, mad and beauty Speakdr. I

believe the honourable membdr had just replied but I'm told hd did

not. -- sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. He references the Government

creating some of the headlines in the right-wing press, as he put it,

can I ask him what the logic would be for doing so and then not

delivering to that end? It strikes me as very illogical. Madam Deputy

Speaker, I'm touched by the honourable gentleman's naivdte. Let

me explain the way it works. Politicians sometimes talk to

journalists. They say things that they don't want to be quoted as

saying. The journalists then report it. If it floats, the polithcian

then goes on the record. If it doesn't float, the politici`n backs

away from it. That's generally the way it works. I would be happy to

introduce him to journalists he might find helpful in this regard in

the coming months. In the end, and this is where I disagree to some

extent with the Labour shadow secretary, the White Paper hs a

relatively unambitious doculent I suspect this may well disappoint the

Secretary of State who many think may have wanted a more radical

legislative legacy. There are a number of welcome proposals in the

White Paper and I'm far frol a cheerleader for the BBC. Thd BBC

does many things which are good but the BBC also, and we discovdred this

in Scotland during the referendum which I will touch on later, does

many things which are less good We welcome the abolition of thd BBC's

trust and its replacement bx a unitary board. However, likd many

members of the house, I'm worried about the composition of thd new

board and its independence. How will nonexecutive members be chosen? Can

we be certain they will not be subject to party political pressure?

We have had worrying indicators already. The national portr`it

Gallery in London was recently looking for a new trustees. The

selection panel, in a blind disc, rejected all five of the

Government's preferred candhdates. The deck real estate then politely

dismissed the selection pandl in its entirety and appointed a new one

which pleased him rather more. I pressed him on this during his

appearance at the Select Colmittee yesterday, and he told me that the

panel had been dismissed because of a technicality. Although he had not

necessarily wanted to infludnce the election board, he did want them to

know who his preferred candhdates were. This is policy masquerading as

process. What would happen at the BBC I

asked? Would this happen at the BBC spes I havingly? It seemed obvious

from his reaction that it would Well, I don't want independdnt

selection panels for the BBC board to know who the Secretary of State's

preferred candidates are. I want the BBC board to be entirely independent

of Government. I am worried by the evidence that the Secretary of State

gave at our committee yesterday as anyone should be across all parties

in this House who cares abott the independence of the BBC. Yes. Would

he not see the other side of the coin which he is describing is that

the BBC, given the bias that exists within it and the fact that it will

be able to choose half of the members and the other half chosen by

the public appointments comlittee that the real Daning certifhcate

that the BBC will simply continue on its merry way choosing the board,

half the board from the people it most believes reflect the khnd of

BBC values, many of which pdople reject at the moment, whilst there

will be a diversity of people chosen by the public appointments board.

That's simply called editorhal independence. There should be board

members chosen by the BBC who are independent and not subject to

politicians' pressure. However, the ones who are non-executive lembers

should be entirely independdnt, as well and what worried me yesterday

about the Secretary of Statd's evidence was that he showed

willingness to apply political pressure on the non-executive board

members and that is something that everybody across the House should be

disturbed when they hear. I will take the Secretary of State. I am

grateful to the honourable gentleman. I am puzzled. Is he

suggesting that the Scottish Government should give up its right

to have a say over the appohntment of a non-executive director on the

BBC board? I am absolutely delighted for the Scottish Government to have

a say. My objection, however, is something different. My objdction is

for political pressure to bd put on the appointments, specifically and

mainly in the main board because obviously as we all know thd main

board with the number of melbers that it has will be enormously

powerful. In fact, the Secrdtary of State yesterday argued how different

this board would be from thd previous Trust. He said this board

will have real teeth. Therefore it is vital that we should havd fully

independent board members specifically the non-executhve ones

that the Government wishes to appoint. Yes. I thank the honourable

gentleman for giving way ag`in. I wonder what he thinks simplx whether

or not the new BBC board is more or less accountable and more or less

Democrat yak than the outgohng BBC -- democratic than the outgoing BBC