This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/07/full-details-of-bbc-deal-should-be-published-says-labour-mp

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Full details of BBC deal should be published, says Labour MP Full details of BBC deal should be published, says Labour MP Chris Bryant
(about 1 hour later)
Chris Bryant, the shadow culture secretary, has called for full details of the government’s deal with the BBC to be published in order for the public to decide whether it represents a “good use of money”.Chris Bryant, the shadow culture secretary, has called for full details of the government’s deal with the BBC to be published in order for the public to decide whether it represents a “good use of money”.
In a letter to culture secretary John Whittingdale, the Labour MP has demanded to see the correspondence sent between his department, the Treasury and Tony Hall, director general of the BBC formalising a deal bashed out in just a few days.In a letter to culture secretary John Whittingdale, the Labour MP has demanded to see the correspondence sent between his department, the Treasury and Tony Hall, director general of the BBC formalising a deal bashed out in just a few days.
Bryant insists that only by seeing full details of the deal and the correspondence will the public be able to judge its merits and also hold the government to account over its pledge not to add more costs to the BBC during the forthcoming charter renewal process.Bryant insists that only by seeing full details of the deal and the correspondence will the public be able to judge its merits and also hold the government to account over its pledge not to add more costs to the BBC during the forthcoming charter renewal process.
Related: Chris Bryant's letter to John Whittingdale on the BBCRelated: Chris Bryant's letter to John Whittingdale on the BBC
“This really doesn’t look like a good deal for the BBC,” Bryant told the Guardian. “It feels as if the BBC had a gun to their head and chose to get shot in the leg instead. It is bound to lead to cuts in jobs, services and quality. It could well mean the end of free TV licences for the elderly.”“This really doesn’t look like a good deal for the BBC,” Bryant told the Guardian. “It feels as if the BBC had a gun to their head and chose to get shot in the leg instead. It is bound to lead to cuts in jobs, services and quality. It could well mean the end of free TV licences for the elderly.”
Details of the deal, which will see the BBC pay for free licences for the over-75s, taking full responsibility for the policy in 2020, were only revealed by the culture secretary in response to an urgent question to the house tabled by Bryant on Monday. There was immediate signs of disagreement between Whittingdale and the BBC over how binding the commitment linking the licence fee to inflation would be.Details of the deal, which will see the BBC pay for free licences for the over-75s, taking full responsibility for the policy in 2020, were only revealed by the culture secretary in response to an urgent question to the house tabled by Bryant on Monday. There was immediate signs of disagreement between Whittingdale and the BBC over how binding the commitment linking the licence fee to inflation would be.
“If the BBC has a guarantee from the government it should be in the public domain so that we can all hold the government to account,” said Bryant. “Otherwise it’s just a private promise of more cash some time in the future. That’s no way to treat our greatest cultural national institution.”“If the BBC has a guarantee from the government it should be in the public domain so that we can all hold the government to account,” said Bryant. “Otherwise it’s just a private promise of more cash some time in the future. That’s no way to treat our greatest cultural national institution.”
There were increasing questions raised about the involvement of BBC Trust chair Rona Fairhead, with speculation suggesting she had been first told of the deal just days before it was announced on Monday. The trust criticised the “process” while describing the deal as “legitimate”.There were increasing questions raised about the involvement of BBC Trust chair Rona Fairhead, with speculation suggesting she had been first told of the deal just days before it was announced on Monday. The trust criticised the “process” while describing the deal as “legitimate”.
In the letter to Whittingdale, copied to the director general, the chancellor andFairhead, Bryant wrote: “Licence fee payers need all the facts before we can judge whether this backroom deal is a good use of money and whether the BBC Trust’s presumption that the government will not now seek to impose further costs on the BBC during the charter period is correct.”In the letter to Whittingdale, copied to the director general, the chancellor andFairhead, Bryant wrote: “Licence fee payers need all the facts before we can judge whether this backroom deal is a good use of money and whether the BBC Trust’s presumption that the government will not now seek to impose further costs on the BBC during the charter period is correct.”
If Whittingdale refuses to publish the correspondence, including a letter sent to the BBC on 3 July and commitment made by chancellor George Osborne mentioned by the director general on Radio 4’s Today show on Tuesday, Bryant has promised to issue freedom of information requests and to table further parliamentary questions.If Whittingdale refuses to publish the correspondence, including a letter sent to the BBC on 3 July and commitment made by chancellor George Osborne mentioned by the director general on Radio 4’s Today show on Tuesday, Bryant has promised to issue freedom of information requests and to table further parliamentary questions.
The letter is scathing about the culture secretary’s about-turn on previous promises made in his report as chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, which argued that charter renewal negotiations needed to be open and transparent.The letter is scathing about the culture secretary’s about-turn on previous promises made in his report as chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, which argued that charter renewal negotiations needed to be open and transparent.
In the the report, published in February, Whittingdale wrote: “No future licence fee negotiations must be conducted in the way of the 2010 settlement. It was wholly wrong that 2010 licence fee settlement […] was not subject to any public or parliamentary consultation.”In the the report, published in February, Whittingdale wrote: “No future licence fee negotiations must be conducted in the way of the 2010 settlement. It was wholly wrong that 2010 licence fee settlement […] was not subject to any public or parliamentary consultation.”
“The 2010 settlement demonstrated that the BBC’s independence can be compromised by negotiations with the government of the day that lack transparency and public consultation.”“The 2010 settlement demonstrated that the BBC’s independence can be compromised by negotiations with the government of the day that lack transparency and public consultation.”
Bryant’s letter, which begins “Dear John”, adds: “Five months later, you have conducted the exact kind of backroom deal without transparency or consultation you criticised. The BBC Trust have also expressed their disappointment at the manner in which you have forced this deal upon them saying in their letter to you that they “cannot endorse the process by which (the deal) has been reached” and that they “could not, ultimately, obstruct any decision that you made”.Bryant’s letter, which begins “Dear John”, adds: “Five months later, you have conducted the exact kind of backroom deal without transparency or consultation you criticised. The BBC Trust have also expressed their disappointment at the manner in which you have forced this deal upon them saying in their letter to you that they “cannot endorse the process by which (the deal) has been reached” and that they “could not, ultimately, obstruct any decision that you made”.