Proceeding contribution from Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 December 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
My Lords, I have listened to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, with some interest. I certainly acknowledge his experience and his interest in the future of the BBC over the years. He described himself as a committed supporter of the BBC and I certainly endorse that. However, by raising this issue in this way, I fear that he will undermine the very cause that he at the same time is seeking to champion. I say that for a number of reasons. There may well be the need to have a debate over the future of the BBC Trust. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, the previous Secretary of State, Ben Bradshaw, has already described the BBC Trust as not a sustainable model in the long term, a fact which we acknowledge. But this is not the time for such a review. The truth is that over the last few months the BBC has been battered by the challenges to its role. There have been, as has been acknowledged, powerful forces seeking to undermine its role. It was forced in an unseemly timescale to agree a financial package that might have been more robust, more defensible and more justifiable if a longer time had been taken over those negotiations. In its wake, questions have been left over the future funding of organisations like the World Service and S4C which might not have been intended at the outset of those negotiations. More importantly, that whole period over the last few months has left a question mark in the minds of the great British public over the future of the BBC. It is worth acknowledging in this debate that whatever we think of the BBC and the way that it is run, it is still a much loved institution in this country. The general public would like to see that we are standing up and defending that organisation, because it is still held in very high regard. There has been a bit of a debate about whether or not this is a teasing amendment. Like others, I do not know enough about the constitution to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is serious or not. If he is, why create further uncertainty at this time, particularly as the current Secretary of State at the DCMS has said that major changes are not appropriate before the review of the royal charter in 2016? If that is the current state of play of the Government, then why create further uncertainty and further question marks over the BBC’s future? Also, this is not the appropriate vehicle for such a debate. If there is to be a review, we need to find an alternative venue and structure for a measured, thoughtful and timely debate that will allow us to look at the future governance in the round. This will enable us to ensure that when we come to a solution about future governance, it is more sustainable than the structure that we have in place at the moment. My colleague the shadow Secretary of State for the DCMS has asked for an inquiry by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, will be aware of the power of those sorts of Select Committees. There is a role for these kinds of bodies to give the sort of scrutiny that these issues will allow—to take them away from the cut and thrust of the Chamber and work through something that will be sustainable in the longer term. There has been a lot of criticism of this Bill already in terms of its framework, style and lack of depth, and therefore the opportunity that it gives for people to put their pet projects on to the list, perhaps without due scrutiny. I was very interested in the comments made by my noble friend Lord Wills that there is a need not only to look at the governance of the BBC but to look at some of the other institutions that we have in the round. Again, I argue that this Bill is not the means by which we should do that. Yes, let us have a debate about the future governance of the BBC. Yes, let us find the right opportunity and the right time to do it. If we can find the right means for that, there might well be more consensus going forward than this amendment, in this form and in this Bill, will allow. I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it on that basis.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 722 c1564-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Devolved matters Audit Agriculture Broadcasting Costs Closures Audit Commission Legislation Horticulture Pay Minimum wage Public sector Public bodies Redundancy Non-departmental public bodies Migrant workers Wales Tenants Rented housing Tenants' rights Agricultural Wages Board Tied housing BBC Trust
- Legislation
- Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 19:36:42 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688386
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688386
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688386