I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend. Earlier today, I asked the Minister about the cost of the London Olympics—he may remember. He tried as best as he could to disguise the true position with a long list of figures, but the fact is that the costs are now £9 billion and the original estimate has trebled, rather than quadrupled, in two years. Therefore, the Government have form in estimating future costs and, to put it as mildly and as genially as I can, it is not exactly encouraging.
That adds force to my noble friend’s amendment. We need to keep a very close eye on this spending, as we do on the administration of the spending. The estimate is £600 million, all of which will come from the licence fee. The Minister knows my views on that: I think it is wrong for it to come from the licence fee, but there we are. However, the noble Lord has given an assurance—it would be helpful if he repeated it—that, if the costs go above £600 million, the overrun will be borne by the general taxpayer. We are all general taxpayers as well as licence fee payers, so, to the extent that the costs go above £600 million, we will all be required to pick up the bill.
My noble friend’s last point on the National Audit Office was also extremely strong. Looking at the matter objectively—if I can put this politely—I think that most people probably trust the National Audit Office more than they do the department when it comes to making forward financial estimates. The National Audit Office carries more clout in that regard and it certainly has a better reputation on accuracy. Like my noble friend, I do not understand the Government’s position on the National Audit Office. They say that in some peculiar way it affects the independence of the BBC, but it is clear that, when it comes to the BBC’s World Service, the National Audit Office not only operates there but operates very successfully and with absolutely no complaint. Although BBC services are sometimes criticised, when we were looking at the BBC for the charter review, we certainly heard very few criticisms of the World Service.
For all those reasons, there is a great deal to be said for my noble friend’s amendment and it deserves support.
Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Fowler
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 22 March 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c269-70GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:47:44 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_387559
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_387559
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_387559