Proceeding contribution from Alan Williams (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 23 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on Public Accounts.
Public Accounts
Indeed. There is no logic behind that position, but every incoming Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—and its many manifestations over the years—has been indoctrinated by officials that they must not touch the BBC. Most people who have seen the nonsense going on with BBC financing recently would think that it is an ideal candidate for investigation by the NAO and the PAC. Another point that I put to the BBC representative was that the NAO often solves problems, hence its record of saving the taxpayer eight times its annual budget. The BBC's representative was not moved. I pointed out that BBC representatives appear before Select Committees in the other place and here, and asked whether that compromised its independence. He accepted that that happened, but, he said:"““I cannot think of an example where the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee have sought to go into contentious or difficult editorial issues. Their focus is on policy.””" That almost stands logic on its head. The claim is that auditing the BBC's finances is a danger to editorial freedom, but a Committee that has power to question policy is not. If the Government cannot see the difference, one wonders what else could demonstrate the absurdity of the situation. If it is all right for Select Committees to look at the BBC, the PAC should also have full access via the NAO. As I have said, one wonders what the BBC is afraid of; perhaps, given its financial behaviour recently, it is that the public will realise that it is not very good at management. I put it to Mr. Peat that the situation was illogical. He said:"““My final comment will be that if Sir John””—" the Comptroller and Auditor General—"““wished to suggest at any time that there were areas where there would be benefits from NAO, which have not taken place in the past, I, as Chair of the Audit Committee, would be the first to recommend to the Board of Governors and the Board of Trustees that that should be very seriously considered.””" I asked:"““Sir John, given the opportunity, as you are now, would you ask to have the right to audit the BBC?””" Sir John replied:"““Of course””." So Mr. Peat had his answer back in June, and we have had our answer again—a flat, illogical refusal in the letter sent to the Committee in the past week. That is not acceptable. The Government should think rationally about the BBC. It is a great institution, but it should not be exempt from the same interrogation and analysis that every other tax-receiving body faces. I ask the Minister to raise that point with her colleagues.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 465 c222-3
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Contracts Audit Finance Private sector Public sector Public expenditure National Audit Office Select committees Committee of Public Accounts
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:15:05 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419063
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419063
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419063