Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord De Mauley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 3 February 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].


Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 233ZE, I shall also speak to Amendments 233ZF, 233B and 233C, which touch on very similar issues. Amendments 233ZE and 233ZF, which are in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, seek to provide that Ofcom prevents a person who is disqualified under the stated paragraph in the 1990 Act from being appointed under Clause 28. That is absolutely right. Our Amendment 233B raises an important point about the impact that public subsidy could have on the quality and independence of our regional and local journalism. If these consortia are dependent on public subsidy, is it too sceptical to suggest that the most important people for them to please will be in the organisation that provides them with their subsidy? There is surely a real concern that there is a risk—whether it is perceived or real is, to some extent, immaterial—that their focus will be diluted from unbiased journalism into pursuing subsidy. Instead of concentrating on providing impartial news, there is at least a danger that the consortia will become too focused on doing what the provider of their livelihood wants or what the consortia think the provider wants. Nothing needs to be said, but there is always pressure not to bite the hand that feeds you. Surely it is vital that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the best traditions of our press—namely, its freedom to report entirely independently on public figures and public bodies—will be preserved, before any public subsidy is given. Amendment 233C is a probing amendment to ask the Minister whether the Government have taken advice on whether there are any state aid issues with the provision of public funds to regional news organisations. I remind your Lordships that the Government ran into problems when they tried to pay Channel 4’s digital switchover infrastructure costs using the licence fee. If the EU managed to prevent this £14 million transfer of funding, surely it would show a similar interest in any spending of state money, which could total around £130 million a year, on regional news. Have the Government resolved such problems with the EU? I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c250 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children BBC Broadcasting Computer networks Broadcasting programmes Commercial broadcasting Channel Four Television Communication Digital technology Hearing impairment Finance Fees and charges EU law Film Equipment Internet Journalism Motor vehicles Public appointments Older people Recycling Political impartiality Public service broadcasting Ofcom Radio frequencies Radio Local broadcasting Visual impairment Registration Road traffic Waste disposal Television channels Satellite broadcasting Teletext Channel Three Digital switchover help scheme Global navigation satellite systems Television licences
Legislation
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk