National Arts Bank

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord John, for this inspired debate. I do not know quite a few of the noble Lords here. This is a different forum, so noble Lords might not appreciate that I am the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

On our Benches, we believe there is a strong case for exploring mechanisms that improve access to affordable capital for cultural organisations, particularly those with significant civic value but limited or no ability to secure conventional lending on viable terms. Cultural organisations are very enterprising, as many noble Lords know. They exist in a mixed economy of grants. If they are lucky and live in Southwark, they are from local councils, but they are also from organisations such as the Arts Council, trusts and foundations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, said. They also seek sponsorship and philanthropic giving. There is direct income from membership schemes, commercial activities such as ticket sales, and revenue from gift and coffee shops.

Owning a building is obviously an asset for a cultural organisation but it comes with huge financial exposure. Today there are rising energy costs, the impact of wars, inflation and, previously, the pandemic. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Lowry in Salford, where I have seen this at first hand. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that I am experiencing it outside London.

Noble Lords have mentioned the excellent report on Arts Council England by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. She put it starkly when she said that arts organisations are facing a

“capital crisis, the scale of which is threatening the very fabric of the country’s cultural infrastructure”.

The last big injection of capital took place 20 years ago and, as she says:

“The boilers and lifts installed then now need to be replaced”.


There are literally cracks in the walls and buckets in the corridors and backstage, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, knows.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, recommends that the Government urgently find innovative ways of responding, and there has been a response. Earlier this year the Government announced capital investment funding distributed through Arts Council England, which will provide financial assistance to invest in

“buildings, equipment, digital infrastructure and technology”,

but much more is required, as the noble Lord mentioned in his introduction. The scale of capital need across the cultural sector is now so substantial, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, said, that demand for support, even in the form of loans or guarantees, is likely to exceed the available capacity. The question therefore becomes not simply how capital is distributed but what outcomes it is intended to achieve.

The most important criterion should be not just remedial capital investment in isolation but investment that demonstrably improves long-term resilience and sustainability. In other words, support should ideally prioritise projects that help organisations adapt successfully to future operating conditions, whether through energy efficiency, modernisation, diversified income generation, audience accessibility, digital capability, workforce development or more flexible use of buildings and assets.

Then there is social capital. Many noble Lords have mentioned NEETs, and I return to the Lowry. It is more than a building, theatres and a gallery. Through vigorous learning and engagement work, it helps and inspires young people into the creative sector. Over the years, it has forged almost 30 community partnerships across Salford and Greater Manchester and has contributed a deep, diverse and long-lasting impact on local lives through educational, volunteering and community engagement programmes. It is at the heart of its community. Many other cultural organisations are the same, but they need to have a stable and safe roof over their heads to provide outreach work, inspiration and future careers for the next generation, as so many have said.

In the past, Nesta, which the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, mentioned, set up an arts impact fund by bringing together public, private and charitable funding. It provided repayable finance to arts organisations with ambitions to grow, to achieve great artistic quality and, crucially, to impact in the specific area of social value. Does the Minister agree that social capital should be considered as leverage for raising financial funds?

Most theatres, galleries, performance venues and arts training institutions are carrying significant pressures around capital maintenance, infrastructure renewal and cash flow. A national arts bank could help unlock investment where organisations are fundamentally sustainable but constrained by the risk profile perceived by commercial lenders. There will of course be key questions around scope, governance and strategic prioritisation—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned—but if designed well, such a mechanism could strengthen the sector’s resilience and preserve important cultural infrastructure and places. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, that, without that, arts organisations are facing a crisis.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the Sporting Events Bill. My noble friend Lord Addington will be leading on this from our Benches and may occasionally hand me the baton. We welcome this Bill, which creates a legislative framework that will attract international sporting events to the UK, as the Minister said. It will provide the opportunity to inspire future generations of athletes, create unforgettable experiences, boost visitor numbers and the economy and exercise our soft power through sports. We on these Benches welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on his role as ministerial adviser on soft power and major events. We look forward to working with him.

The legislative framework is useful and will assist with the organising of those events that we have already secured—the Minister mentioned Euro 2028. It will also help when bidding to host future events, but should there also be a clear bidding framework for putting together such bids, or at least a commitment to increase transparency surrounding bids? That would be a strong sign for the sports industry of more positive intentions from the Government.

This Bill can be useful not just for sporting events; I can also see it being utilised for cultural ones. The Edinburgh Festival could benefit, as well as all-year events such as the City of Culture. It is my understanding that the Government intend to set out a strategy for major events that will include culture. Can the Minister tell us the timeline for this?

As she mentioned, London hosted the wonderful 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and I join her in paying tribute to the great Tessa Jowell. Alongside the Games was the Cultural Olympiad. Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony—a beautiful, brilliant spectacular— was a showcase for our great creative industries and ended memorably with our monarch meeting James Bond and then jumping out of a helicopter. It was not just about the Olympic arena. Across the nation, people got together to engage in cultural activities; in all, 621 productions and projects resulted in 13,000 performances and events at 1,270 venues across the UK. However, the legislation passed for those Games did not include their cultural element. For the sporting events that fall under this legislation, will the Minister consider including affiliated cultural events? There appears to be scope, and I think she was suggesting this in her opening remarks, but we would like to make this clearer in legislation.

Then there is the group A of listed sporting events, the crown jewels protected for free-to-air TV. This Bill has been created with sporting events of significant interest in mind—events that we believe should also be free to air. Group A should be expanded. There was joy, and of course sorrow, for those able to see the UEFA final last weekend. Should it not have been something that everyone could access to watch for free? What about the Glasgow Commonwealth Games happening this July? We on these Benches believe there should be no need for special pleading from the Prime Minister—just add this to the Bill.

Then there are infrastructure, transport and security. Some of these considerations have made it into the Bill, which is a positive step and again welcomed by these Benches. But built environment intervention seems to be missing: athletes’ accommodation, as well as facilities for visitors, restaurants, parks and access to accommodation at an appropriate price range. These would drive opportunities to boost the tourist economy and are needs that we think should be considered within the framework and the Bill.

We are glad to see consideration of advertising and branding. This is important for interconnected reasons: a good legal framework protects sports organisations from unauthorised branding and marketing, but also, as the Minister said, makes deals for official sponsors more appealing. It also limits the unauthorised use of marketing for activities, usually online, that could cause harm. My noble friend Lord Foster will elaborate on this topic and, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear, on gambling. There is also the matter of the use of trademarks—more on this from my noble friend Lord Addington.

Finally, and I think this has happened again today, some concern has been expressed in the House about having to wait for a draft ticketing Bill. Does this Bill not provide an opportunity to discuss how we can create a strong anti-touting ticket system across the board, with proper enforcement? Does the Minister not agree that we should seize this opportunity now, rather than have to wait another year for a different Bill? We look forward to working with the Government on this Bill.

National Museums and Galleries

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are making sure that we work with the museums on this, not in isolation from them. Last week, for example, officials at DCMS sat down with representatives from all the national museums to talk through how the process might work, in terms of having a working group with the national museums. We are clear that it is a complex matter. It is not, “It’s right to, or it’s wrong to, or we should do this as a point of principle”: we just want to work through the issues with the museums. At the moment, we have been working through the terms of reference for what that working group would be looking at, and we are not planning to come to any conclusions before the autumn.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, the much-anticipated return of the Bayeux Tapestry to the UK, to be exhibited at the British Museum, reminds us of the value of sponsorship, philanthropy, cultural diplomacy, soft power and, on a more practical level, the need for conservation skills, and indeed curatorial ones. How do the Government intend to support such skills going forward? We welcome their curriculum review, but when are we going to see actual action that reverses the years of arts education and these skills being marginalised?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am delighted, as I know the noble Baroness is, that the UK has been able to agree the loan with France of the Bayeux Tapestry. The noble Baroness correctly identified that skills are at the heart of any future policy. Every single conversation I have at every single institution I visit focuses on skills, and I have done a number of round tables around this. This particular area of curatorial skills is one that I know the museums are keen to explore. Getting our young children into museums is the first step in them stepping off on the journey of a career in the sector.

Creative Industries: Freelance Champion

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in the appointment of the freelance champion for the creative industries as announced in the Creative Industries Sector Plan on 23 June 2025.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

Freelancers play a vital role in the creative industries, which is why we committed to appoint a freelance champion in the creative industries sector plan. Since then, we have been working closely with industry to develop the scope of the role. In two weeks’ time, my colleague, Ian Murray, who is the Minister in the other place responsible for the creative industries, will hold a round table with freelancers’ representatives in the sector to finalise discussions. We will make an appointment as swiftly as possible after that.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response. As she says, freelancers are an essential part of our creative industries and these Benches have been asking for a freelance commissioner for a long time. We thank the Government for the champion. The Covid pandemic exposed the truth: a financial and benefits system that does not take into consideration the fragmented employment practices of the creative sector. Can the Minister assure us that not only the remit but the powers of the champion will be significant enough to work across government to enable change and end the discrimination that freelancers experience; in particular, in access to mortgages, loans, credit and pensions?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The champion-type role appointed by the Government is designed exactly for the purpose of making sure that these conversations are had and action is taken across government. We are very keen for the person who is appointed to this role to be involved in developing their own work plan, in discussion with the department, the Minister and the sector. The appointee will produce a work plan in their first months in the role, which will set out their priorities and planned actions. I might suggest that they have a conversation with the noble Baroness in that first period, so that she can be assured that they are looking at the right things that will support what is a vital part of the creative industries, but also one that has particular issues, as she outlined.

Broadcasting: Recent Developments

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, a truly great man and great politician. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, he led on the cause of AIDS and has always championed our PSBs. I believe he was the chair of the first committee I sat on when I came here; I think the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the previous Bishop of Manchester were also on that committee, and the subject was—guess what—BBC charter renewal. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has characteristically initiated a debate of crucial importance. In the times we live in, our UK broadcasters are essential not just to the UK but in their role across the world.

It all started with the BBC in 1922, when, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, it was audio only, and the only choice for listeners appears to have been in the sole gift of a Captain Eckersley, who would,

“trundle his piano from his local pub to an equally local army hut from which he would perform to the nation”.

The days when choice for listeners was confined to one man’s piano repertoire are long, long gone.

As the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Vaizey, have mentioned, we are now fortunate to have a variety of other vibrant and diverse public service broadcasters. ITV, Channel 4, Sky and Channel 5 all make brilliant programmes, setting the standard for accurate and responsible news coverage. In return for privileges such as free spectrum use and top positions on EPGs, these commercial channels have public interest obligations, which has resulted in high-quality competition for the BBC, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, mentioned.

Collectively, the PSBs invest in talent across the UK and in stories which are important to us as a nation, such as, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, “It’s a Sin”, “Patrick Melrose”, “Milkshake!” and huge international successes such as “Downton Abbey” and “Peaky Blinders”. I have not even mentioned the unscripted category. They are central, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said, to our hugely successful creative industries and creative workforce, which has drawn the American streamers to our shores, while making UK-centred alternatives to the programmes of the said streamers.

However, as viewers increasingly move towards streamers and on-demand and online TV viewing, those privileges become less valuable, and we need to find new ways of helping and incentivising those broadcasters. I think the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned this. Does the Minister agree that that is why it has become ever more important that the provisions of the Media Act around prominence and discoverability are both properly enforced and strengthened?

Still central to broadcasting in the UK, as everyone has said, is the BBC. The highly respected Reuters Institute updated its data on news and trust in November. The BBC remains the most trusted source, not just for the UK but for the world where news is concerned. In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy and impartiality.

A lot of what I am about to say noble Lords will already have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hall, but I want to repeat it. The BBC is not just the news—and it is important to remind people of this, as my noble friend Lord Razzall said, particularly politicians—but radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, BBC Bitesize, BBC online, iPlayer, BBC Sounds and the World Service. I hope that might, in a way, respond a little to what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, said. It develops and invests in talent and in local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV. Through its mission to educate, inform and entertain, it has made culture, news, and other people’s experiences and lives available to all.

It also plays a hugely important role in promoting the UK around the world—soft power—through both the programmes it exports and the World Service, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough, Lord Hall, Lord Hannay and Lord Bailey. That is ever more important now that President Trump has cut off funds to Voice of America. That is not all he has done. The erosion and destruction of public service broadcasting in the USA extends to all direct and indirect funding to NPR and PBS being terminated. Having had its funding withdrawn, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a lifeline to hundreds of radio and TV stations that serve their local communities, decided this week to close down. That is a cautionary tale; this cannot be allowed to happen in the UK, but Donald Trump’s disciple Nigel Farage has repeatedly vowed to “defund” a “slimmed-down” BBC.

As the noble Lord, Lord Grade, mentioned, the charter renewal process is upon us and we on these Benches welcome the Green Paper as the starting point in this process, in particular the Secretary of State’s vision for the BBC:

“Sustainably funded, with a strong presence in every nation and region so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story”.


As the noble Lord, Lord Hall, mentioned, she sees the BBC as having the same level of importance as the NHS; I could not agree more. But this 10-year event, charter renewal—why do we not just start by getting rid of it, ending the straitjacket in which the BBC, unlike other organisations established by royal charter, is in a never-ending cycle of having to make the case for its own existence? Does the Minister not agree that we should give the BBC a forever charter? Without that, and in the wrong hands—Trump-like hands—the charter can simply be terminated on its last day: no negotiations, no BBC.

We on these Benches believe that all non-executives of the BBC board should be independently appointed—no government appointees. We do not think this is appropriate for a body which oversees the BBC’s day-to-day editorial and strategic decisions.

The Government should maintain stable, secure and long-term funding for the BBC through the continuation of the licence fee until the end of the current charter period, and ensure equivalent public funding beyond that; crucially, protecting the principle of universality, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said.

Does the Minister not agree that future decisions about funding must be made transparently by an independent body? George Osborne now admits that when Chancellor he was “somewhat shocked” to discover the power that the Government, specifically the Treasury, had over the BBC. He said:

“You think of the BBC as being this big, independent organisation with lots of protection against the government … but the chancellor can basically boss the BBC around on its finances because the government sets the licence fee in the charter”—


and boss it around he did, into paying for the over-75s. That was wrong, as it is a social cost and is disastrous for BBC finances.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, we need a sufficient and durable funding settlement for the World Service. We on these Benches would increase FCDO funding by an additional £100 million per year. What are the Government’s intentions?

Finally, Ofcom’s record in upholding standards of impartiality is a cornerstone of our broadcasting system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned, it recently seems to have concluded that politicians can present news programmes—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—via a clumsy attempt to distinguish between news and current affairs; a decision that, particularly where GB News is concerned, risks undermining public trust in broadcast news. The Secretary of State appears uncomfortable and has said that she is

“looking … at what we can do as a government to deal with this. We can’t continue with a situation where people can’t trust what they see”.

Can the Minister expand on what actions the Government intend to take to ensure that Ofcom fulfils Parliament’s intentions?

I end as I began, in celebrating our UK broadcasters: long may they thrive. In our previous debate on this subject, I concluded by quoting Joni Mitchell. This time, I offer the same sentiment, but with Lisa Nandy speaking directly about the BBC:

“An institution founded to bring the best that has been thought and known to every home—if it didn’t exist today we would have to invent it”.

Arts and Creative Industries: Social Mobility

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I recognise what an important role my noble friend has had in inspiring young people to take up creative careers through her role and career as a teacher. We welcome the £2 million investment committed by Bad Wolf at the Wales Investment Summit last week, which is set to bring £30 million to the Welsh economy. Bad Wolf is a UK success story, having created thousands of jobs in Wales, and a key driver of the success of the Cardiff creative cluster, one of the largest film and TV hubs in the UK. It is really great to see that this investment will further grow this thriving cluster.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, to follow up on what the noble Baroness said, increasing the take-up of apprenticeships could help the many with aspiration and aptitude, but no financial net, to get into the creative industries. As the Minister is aware, the present apprenticeship system does not fit well with the sector, given the prominence of SMEs and freelancers. Can she give us an update on reform in this area? How is her department progressing with Skills England to consider industry proposals on how a reformed growth and skills levy could better work with this industry?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are working with the DWP and Skills England to refine and develop the growth and skills offer to deliver apprenticeships and skills training that recognise the particular needs of the creative industries. We will introduce short courses in areas such as digital, artificial intelligence and engineering to support industrial strategy sectors such as the creative industries from April 2026. The first wave of these courses will be called apprenticeship units.

BBC Leadership

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we need a trusted, respected and unnewsworthy BBC more than ever. Poll after poll shows that our country feels more divided than it ever has been, not just in terms of party politics but by geography, generation, race and religion. At home, politics seems to reward those who seek to exploit those divisions rather than overcome them. Foreign conflicts seep over into our politics and distressing images from across the globe animate our discussions, along with a preponderance of highly partisan reporting from different media environments.

Algorithms, social media and our own prejudices make it easier than ever to close ourselves off to the news that we do not want to hear or opinions that differ from our own. That is why the BBC’s founding mission—to inform, educate and entertain—which it has performed with such distinction for more than a century, still matters so much, and why it seems to be getting harder. It is also why serious and avoidable errors, such as the ones that have been highlighted in recent days, cause such dismay from across the political spectrum and do such harm to the BBC’s journalistic reputation.

At a time when populists are on the march, when criminal acts seem to be no bar to high office, when facts themselves come under attack and people are encouraged to choose their own truth, the BBC and other news organisations have to be more scrupulous than ever to set out facts clearly and dispassionately, and to own up quickly when mistakes are made. On all those fronts, it has fallen short in recent days.

Not everybody watching the BBC should come away with the same conclusions about the Middle East, the wisdom of the American electorate, or the application of sex-based rights in modern society. But how much more dangerous a society we would be if they turned off the BBC altogether.

Rightly, the BBC remains one of the most trusted sources of news in this country, but each year 750,000 fewer people choose to pay the licence fee. Millions more have grown up, whether here or overseas, without the BBC as their bedrock. Ofcom’s most recent annual report showed that YouTube has already overtaken other broadcasters to become the second most popular media service in the United Kingdom. People are increasingly importing their news and their entertainment from the far reaches of the internet. No wonder the national conversation seems so cacophonous and so confused.

The process that begins shortly—perhaps the Minister will set out some more detail about it—to renew the BBC’s royal charter and to try to anticipate the next decade in our rapidly changing media environment is a crucial moment for public service broadcasting. As well as working out how the BBC can remain a “light on the hill”, as the Secretary of State put it in this Statement, we will need to chart a course for all our public service broadcasters. Does the Minister think we will have the same number of public service broadcasters in a decade’s time as we do today? Channel 5 is owned by the US company Paramount. ITV is in discussion with Sky, itself owned by another American firm, Comcast, about its future. The respected former chairman of ITV, Sir Peter Bazalgette, has said there needs to be consolidation among our public service broadcasters. What are the Government doing to ensure that these cherished British channels remain distinctive, prominent and popular in an increasingly crowded media landscape?

On the BBC itself, what discussions have the Government had with the corporation about the threat of legal action from the President of the United States because of the errors it has made? In the absence of an ambassador in Washington, have the Government raised this matter with the US Administration directly? If the BBC ends up paying millions of dollars, whether as a result of foreign litigation or in a humiliating out-of-court settlement, who will bear the cost: the taxpayer or the licence fee payer? More broadly, what specific actions do the Government want to see from the BBC to demonstrate that it has learned the lessons of this sorry episode and that it is changing in the ways that it needs to in order to avoid a recurrence?

I put on record my thanks and appreciation for Tim Davie, the corporation’s 17th director-general. He has had more than his fair share of crises to contend with, emanating from different parts of the huge and varied organisation that he has led. In his resignation statement, he referred to the

“very intense personal and professional demands of managing this role”,

and I do not underestimate those challenges. As the process begins to appoint a successor, do the Government have a view on whether the role of director-general should be reconsidered? Mr Davie has said that it is not an impossible job, but does the Minister think that its striking breadth—in effect asking somebody to be both chief executive and editor-in-chief—is as practical now as it was in 1922?

In the past week, the BBC has brought me to tears more than once, with its moving coverage of Remembrance Day and with the final of “The Celebrity Traitors”—perhaps I tear up too easily. Today and yesterday, I listened with pride and admiration to Radio 2 as people from across Northumberland and County Durham lined drizzly rural lanes to cheer Sara Cox on as she ran through their villages, raising more than £1 million and counting for Children in Need, a charity the corporation founded 45 years ago. That is the BBC at its best. If we criticise the BBC or express our frustrations in weeks such as this, it is because we care so much about it and what it represents. While respecting its vital independence, I urge the Government —indeed, everybody across this House and another place—to hold its feet to the fire and make sure that it continues to be the best of British, now and long into the future.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement and her robust defence of the BBC, but let us not mince words: it is under attack as never before. A free press is the foundation stone of freedom and democracy, and the BBC is the foundation stone of our free press. The highly respected Reuters Institute has just updated its data on news and trust, and its findings should remind us all of the BBC’s importance for not just the UK but the world. In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy. As the Secretary of State says in her Statement:

“It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world”.


The BBC is not just the news; it is important to remind people of this. It has radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, BBC Bitesize, BBC Online, iPlayer, Sounds and the World Service. It develops and invests in talent in local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV. It plays a hugely important role in promoting the UK around the world—soft power—through the programmes it exports and the World Service, which is ever more important now that President Trump has cut off funds to Voice of America. Through its mission to inform, educate and entertain, the BBC has made culture, news, and other people’s experiences and lives available to all. To quote the words of the man who in so many ways exemplifies the BBC, Sir David Attenborough:

“It is that miraculous advance … that allows a whole society, a whole nation, to see itself and to talk to itself.”


The origin of the word “broadcast” is to sow seeds widely, and that is what the BBC does.

Of course, the BBC is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake and we welcome the BBC’s apology. However, it is obvious that the issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories, so, as the Government navigate President Trump’s latest tantrum, as he threatens to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what are the Government doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC?

Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Government truly believe in an independent BBC, will they sack Robbie Gibb, as the BBC charter permits?

The new charter offers an opportunity to rethink the BBC appointments process and end the political grip on the BBC board. Will the Minister listen to calls from this Bench for both the chair and non-executive members of the board to be appointed by an independent body and not, as currently happens, by the Government?

The BBC cannot be allowed to fail. Mistakes will happen and should be dealt with better and more quickly, but it is essential to our democracy, is trusted by its audience, provides much more to the nation than just news and current affairs, and is globally unique. We should remember the words of Joni Mitchell —or perhaps of my noble friend Lord McNally:

“That you don’t know what you’ve got

Till it’s gone”

Please let us not be in that place.

I echo the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in adding my gratitude to Tim Davie for his service as DG.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their points and questions on this matter. I am sure the BBC agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, in his aspiration for it not to be newsworthy.

As the Secretary of State said in the other place yesterday, the BBC has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards. When standards are not met, firm, swift and transparent action must follow. Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have both taken responsibility for the mistakes that they admit the BBC has made. It is right that the Government now continue to support the BBC as an important national institution and support the BBC board in managing the transition.

Before I go further, like the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, I place on record my thanks to the outgoing director-general for his service and his commitment to public service broadcasting over many years, and I thank the CEO of news for leading the BBC News operation through turbulent times. As the Secretary of State made clear, we do not underestimate the challenges that these roles pose and the pressure that they put on those who hold them.

However, I also agree with the noble Baroness that the BBC is about more than news. This Government support a strong, independent BBC. In an age of disinformation, the argument for a robust, impartial British news service is stronger than ever. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in this country, and it has stood at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century. Each of us has our own personal connection to the BBC. We can all point to the programmes that we watched growing up and the deep impact that they had on us. My own addiction to BBC News probably started with “Newsround”. The BBC continues to be an integral part of the life of almost every single person in this country, and undoubtedly every person in your Lordships’ House.

It is not possible to talk about the BBC without acknowledging the people at the heart of it and, particularly in relation to BBC News, the incredible work of BBC journalists across the country and around the world. Their tireless work enables stories to be told that would otherwise not be heard, and many BBC staff put themselves in danger in order to report fearlessly from around the world. In particular, as the Secretary of State said yesterday in the other place and as the noble Lord referenced in his remarks, the World Service is a light on the hill for people in times of darkness. We undervalue the BBC at our peril. That is why this Government will ensure that the BBC remains fiercely independent and is genuinely accountable to the public and people it serves.

I will now endeavour to answer the points raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I start by welcoming the tone of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and his clear commitment to preserving the BBC, but also to holding it to account. In relation to his question about the appointment of the director-general, that is a matter for the board. I am sure it is considering whether it should keep the role as it stands, but this can also be part of the governance consideration that will be looked at in the charter review, which I will come on to in a moment.

With respect to the lawsuit threatened by the President of the United States, the BBC has confirmed that it has received a letter from President Trump’s legal team. Lawyers for the BBC are now dealing with this. It would not be appropriate for me to comment or speculate on this point. The chair’s letter on Monday made it very clear that the “Panorama” edit of President Trump’s speech gave the impression of a direct call for violent action, and it included an apology for that error of judgment. As a Government, our commitment to an independent, impartial and empowered BBC is unwavering.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised the potential consolidation of public service broadcasters. It is clear that the TV market is transforming, so we are asking the CMA and Ofcom to look at how that could impact their work. At the heart of our views on this, though, we support public service broadcasters, particularly because we believe that they benefit audiences and their sustainability—however, I cannot read my own writing, as I was scribbling, so apologies if that was a bit garbled.

In relation to other topics, the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, named Robbie Gibb. I have no doubt that noble Lords will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individuals. The Culture Secretary has been speaking regularly to the chair of the BBC board to ensure that he and the board, as a whole, are in the best possible place to lead the BBC forward. As the Culture Secretary made clear yesterday in the other place, the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member, so she is unable to pursue that course of action.

In relation to questions around the timing and content of the charter review, raised by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, the review will consider how best to ensure that the BBC continues to deliver the high standards of reporting that the public expect, so that it does not just survive but actually thrives for decades to come. As the Secretary of State said yesterday, we will publish a Green Paper and consultation shortly. I am not going to go further than that, as I am sure your Lordships might anticipate, but I understand that “shortly” does indeed mean shortly. I look forward to future debates on this in your Lordships’ House.

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the points that they have raised this afternoon. I conclude, however, by reiterating the Government’s view on the BBC, which is that it is an institution of national importance and one that we will protect. We fail to protect it at our collective peril.

Arts Sector

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My right honourable friend the Culture Secretary will be providing a full Statement in the other place on this matter today. The BBC has issued a statement acknowledging that it should have pulled the stream during the performance and regrets that this did not happen. I share the noble Lord’s sentiments. I found the whole thing appalling—and terrifying, to be honest, that this could happen in our country. Avon and Somerset Police has already confirmed that it is looking into what happened.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Lowry in Salford, which has a successful public-private mixed economy model, as mentioned by the noble Earl, but this depends on our relationship with subsidised national organisations. The National Theatre’s “Dear England” is currently being performed across our stages thanks to that. We are lucky. Recent cuts to London-based national organisations have led across the board to the reduction, indeed jettisoning, of touring. Does the Minister recognise that the creative industries growth plan must focus on collaboration, and that both regional and national organisations must be properly funded for this to continue to be so rich?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is clear that, when she talks about “arts everywhere”, this genuinely means that every part of the country should have access to arts and theatre not just here in London but around the country. I can reassure the noble Baroness that this principle is at the heart of our plans.

Media Bill

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I say sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for going back to being political. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Watts, that I used to work at the BBC and guess what? Jeremy Paxman and Nick Robinson are also Tories.

Anyway, this is such an important Bill that I will come back to. As I said in Committee, the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, ensure that while we both update and future-proof our incredibly invaluable broadcasting media, we do not lose the principles that have made it so unique and internationally renowned. We get, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, a better balance: in particular, the reinstatement to the Communications Act of the Reithian principles of inform, educate and entertain. At Second Reading, the Minister referred to addressing the concerns of the DCMS Committee report in its pre-legislative scrutiny. The report recommended that the Government retained obligations on PSBs to provide specific genres of content, and the Bill does not. I hope the Minister has considered these concerns as set out in these amendments, which have had support from around the House.

There is a need to enshrine Reithian principles. On the “educate” principle, it is so important for our children today to come together outside the echo chamber that is social media. So many here have supported the matters on which my noble friend Lady Benjamin spoke. With regard to the “entertain” principle, the PSBs, led by the BBC, support and stimulate cultural activity and reflect our nations. They support our creative industries through innovation, skills and training although, as I mentioned in Committee, work still needs to be done on diversity. As for the “inform” principle, PSBs remain essential to UK media, and losing them would leave UK society and democracy worse off.

It is also essential, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and my noble friend Lord McNally mentioned on Amendment 6, that programmes are commissioned from and made across the UK. In Committee, I argued that the change to Channel 4’s remit potentially undermines this. I did not get much support, but I still stand by that argument.

My noble friend Lord Addington eloquently and persuasively argued to update access to listed events, particularly for clips and excerpts. I return to the words of my noble friend whom I call Baroness Flo—who cannot listen to her and accept what she says and argues for? I point out to the Minister that all she is asking for is a review.

This Bill is much needed. I welcome it. With more time, it could have been even better, but I hope that the Minister agrees to the amendments and makes it as good as possible.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, we are keen that the Bill should be on the statute book, as is the whole of the media world, which has been telling us, even as late as today, “Please, can you make sure that it goes through?” These Benches certainly support that.

It a shame that we have not had more time on the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, just said, there is a lot of consensus across the House about how it might have been improved, but I hope that the Minister gives us some comfort about the amendments in this group.

We strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, in her amendments about Reithian principles and education, as we did recently in Committee. We are also keen to support those amendments which concern children, one of which is my own. We thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made a very powerful point in Committee and even more so today. The request for a review is a modest one and, if the Minister is not able to accept this amendment, I would hope that we can persuade Ofcom that it needs to do this. As the regulator in this world, it needs to take some responsibility and do this review. I therefore hope, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that somebody is listening out there in Ofcom who might do something helpful with this.

I hope that the Minister will address the issues in my amendment, which seeks to ask Ofcom to ensure that minimum standards for age rating are adhered to. That is not to say that it should use a particular method or providers, but there should be some minimum standards, so that parents across the country understand the age ratings for the material that their children are watching. That is very straightforward and simple, and it should be part of Ofcom’s duties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

My Lords, as a relatively new Member of this House, I rise with great trepidation, following the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As a new Member, I have noticed that every time I enter the Chamber with one view, when I hear his intellectually muscular contributions and his laser-beam legal brain, I usually end up leaving the Chamber with a different view. I do not think that is going to happen today.

I say to the noble Lord that criticisms were made of IPSO made in Committee yesterday. He may not think that they were legitimate or hold water, but they were closely felt. I am not going to criticise IPSO again in this debate, except possibly to add, as I tried to yesterday, to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that my criticisms of IPSO are about the institutional structure and the governance arrangements. They are nothing to do with the professionalism of the staff, whom I only hear excellent things about when they deal with individual cases. Also, as a former colleague of Sir Bill Jeffrey, I understand that he is as intellectually muscular as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I am sure that he did a very independent review of IPSO.

My concerns today are why now, and why in this debate. On the circumstances that led to the creation of Section 40 in 2013, we had numerous Select Committee inquiries, and we had several criminal inquiries. We had independent journalism investigating criminal wrongdoing, and we had a judge-led public inquiry that did quite an unusual thing. It united both Houses and all political parties to draw a line in the sand and say, “We’re going to do something completely different—we’re going to find a way of holding tabloid media to account”. What we have been asked to do today, nearly nine years later, is to repeal Section 40 because we are being told that we have a legal framework and an independent set of governance rules, which means that we no longer need the Leveson recommendations.

What we are not being told is what we know now that we did not know in 2013 when, with great urgency because there was great public concern, we decided that we needed to act. We actually know that there was much more criminal wrongdoing, that it lasted longer, and that it was not for just a few years but nearly a decade. We also know that Parliament was misled, that members of the DCMS Select Committee who were investigating criminal phone hacking were the subject of intense media criticism—some covertly surveilled by private investigators working for News International. We know that they were lied to. The “one rogue reporter” defence was held for numerous years, but there was actually a corporate consciousness that this was not true in 2005. We also know, because we have seen the criminal case and conviction of Mazher Mahmood, the “fake sheikh” in 2016, that people were framed. Celebrities and people in the public eye were accused of crimes and set up to sell stories. As far as I can see, there has been very little contrition from the newspaper groups that were responsible for that.

I really could go on and on about the wrongdoing, the deceit, the lies, the criminal behaviour and the constant intimidation, but I truly think that everyone, wherever they stand in this debate, already knows about those.

Earlier, the Minister cited Bruce Springsteen, and I was very disappointed when he did that because I was supposed to have lunch with him today. I decided it was better to stay here to try to convince him, at this 11th hour, of the errors of his ways. I know he may be “born to run”, but I feel like “we are dancing in the dark”, as we have so often in this debate. I want to convince him of the merits of these three amendments in this little basket of discussions, and—who knows?—we may even have “glory days” together, whatever the outcome of the general election.

There are some principal reasons why this clause should be opposed. First, there is a convention that controversial policy should not be rushed through in the wash-up. We have done it before and came to regret it—I mention the Gambling Act 2005.

Secondly, when it comes to media reform, we must be incredibly transparent. The public need to understand that, if we are going to concede to media barons—and let us not deny that this is what this represents—we need to be seen to do the right thing. In trying to railroad all these amendments through in an afternoon, on the day after the announcement of a general election, you cannot make the case that this is anything other than a venal deal.

Thirdly, perhaps more importantly, I believe very strongly that, wherever you sit on the ideological spectrum, whenever we talk about regulation—this is a highly regulated market—people always tell me that when you regulate things you have to be worried about the consequences of your decisions because they are very hard to map out. We appear to be dropping the creation of a new regulator for that reason when it comes to football, and I do not understand why we are interfering with a regulated market in wash-up.

There are some principal reasons why it is time that we took a pause, and what we have is either a concession that could unite us or an argument that says let us not deal with Clause 50 in the wash-up of a general election; let us pause and come back to it, whoever wins that election.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

We on these Benches are in favour of these amendments and think we should proceed now.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I would like to add something to the constitutional points which were made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. The appropriateness of dealing with this issue in wash-up is clearly in contention. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said yesterday that the abolition of Section 40 is a clear commitment of the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto. I am afraid it is not clear: the sentence starts by saying that but it then sets conditions. It provides additional text that confuses the issue, and raises issues which were dealt with in yesterday’s debate. I have read yesterday’s debate and clearly questions have been raised about the accuracy of the information in that particular quote from the manifesto—I see the Minister disagrees. Claiming that it is clear is incorrect.

The second issue arises from the Salisbury convention about manifesto commitments. It is quite clear that this cannot be an essential commitment because the Government have had more than four years to deal with the matter, and they failed to do so. Bringing it up in the wash-up period is an insult to this House and an exploitation of the arrangements which have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, I feel very clean at the end of it—thoroughly washed.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have given this Bill considerable scrutiny in pre-legislative scrutiny and during our debates on Second Reading and in Committee. As I have said throughout, it has been amended through the pre-legislative scrutiny it received. I am glad that we have been able to reflect some of our debate in Committee and amend it further. I am grateful to noble Lords for their understanding and recognition of the great support and demand that it has from the media sector, which we all cherish and which we know will play its very important part in the election campaign that is now under way. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, on the Benches opposite and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, and her noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who spoke from the Front Bench for the Lib Dems. However, noble Lords from across the House have given it robust scrutiny, including today in this swifter form.

I will briefly pay tribute to my honourable friend Julia Lopez, the Minister for Media, Tourism and the Creative Industries in another place, and indeed to my right honourable friend Sir John Whittingdale, who covered her maternity leave for parts of the Bill. They have both played an important part in it. I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who chairs your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee and has given careful consideration to this Bill and, with other members of her committee, to many of the other issues that are related to it.

I have already had the opportunity to thank the Bill team, but I repeat my thanks. They have worked particularly hard in the last 24 hours, but this is the culmination of many years’ work since the Bill was first produced in draft form and laid for pre-legislative scrutiny. I am delighted that their hard work means that we will be able to send it on its way to the statute book. It is perhaps appropriate to finish with some words from Bruce Springsteen: “Come on, let’s go tonight”.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I have not had the chance to say my thanks and I want to thank the Minister. Apart from anything else, his sense of humour throughout this has been really helpful and refreshing. His genuine passion for the DCMS has also really come through. As I said earlier, I wish this could have gone on longer. I suspect we could have got some more concessions through him. I also thank my friends on the Labour Benches and those on the Cross Benches, although they have gone. This has been a very collegiate event. Of course, I thank everyone on my Benches, although they seem not to be here—well, one of them seems to be here, and of course my noble friend Lord Addington.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

Who is this Bruce Springsteen that everybody has been talking about?

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

Yes, there was one little thing I wondered. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, said that he was going to have lunch. For a moment, I thought it was with Bruce Springsteen.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

Yes, it was.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

You were not—oh, my goodness. Anyway, as I was saying, I thank everyone, including the Government for making the Bill happen. It is hugely important for our public service broadcasters. That is enough of my thanks and I have not cried.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I sort of gave my thanks yesterday, as I was not really sure what we would be doing today—and I was not alone. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, again for his courtesy. We are extraordinarily grateful for the two amendments that he accepted, which my noble friend Lady Thornton and I were very keen to see inserted in the Bill, along with others in your Lordships’ House.

It is always a joy to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and—from the far reaches of the back of the Lib Dem Benches—it is now an even greater pleasure to work with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Actually, I have an anecdote about death and buses, which I am quite determined to tell, now I think about it. There is a custom in Brighton for its buses to have put on their side or their front the names of well-known local personalities who have, sadly, deceased. So well-known was the lead local government correspondent of the Argus that the bus company decided that he had died, so they put his name on the front of the bus—only to discover that he wrote a column the following week saying, “No, actually, I’m still here. You’ll have to wait”.

I thank our back office team, including Clare Scally and Grace Wright, for the work they did in making sure my noble friend Lady Thornton and I spoke words that were reasonably sensible, sane and well-researched from the Dispatch Box. I have already thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for her contribution, and I do again. Today’s debate—passionate as ever—was focused well on an important and contentious subject. It is one that no doubt the House will return to in different guises in the future. I thank my noble friends Lord Watson and Lord Watts for their contributions. Their views are important.

With that, we wish the Bill well, as it is important. Broadcasters have been buzzing me on my email and message system, as they have been to other noble Lords, to encourage us to get this Bill over the line because it is terribly important for the future of public service broadcasting. We all want to get this right, because it is an important element of our democratic process. We know that it is a business and industry of excellence that we wish to support. With that said, I wish the Bill well on its way.

Media Bill

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 46 and 47 are in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. We had a bit of a knock-around on “prominence” at Second Reading—was it “appropriate”, “significant” or, as the right reverend Prelate ventured, neither? Indeed, he was right; the word itself should be enough, for the Oxford English dictionary defines it as

“the state of being important, well known, or easy to notice”.

We want the PSBs, on any screen that offers choices between PSBs and streamers, to be important, well-known, and very easy to notice. It is vital, as commercial operators do not always want us to choose the PSB, because their gods are commercial. As we know, things can get very small and difficult on-screen when customers choosing it means less income—think about how hard it is to find that tiny “unsubscribe” notice when we want to get out of emails from some commercial arrangement we no longer want. It is not in commercial entities’ interests to make life easy for us; that is why we have to mandate and prescribe “prominence”. We on these Benches do not believe it is sufficient to leave it to Ofcom to define. I have heard the arguments about “appropriate” being perfectly adequate, and we beg to disagree.

For clarity, I am trying to get across that we on these Benches believe that prominence must be defined in legislation to guide Ofcom, and not be left open-ended for it. That definition should be crystal clear: that in every and any situation where channel choice is being offered, the PSB logo or whatever should be of equal or greater prominence to any other choice offered on the electronic programme guides.

The dangers of not specifying what prominence means or seeks to achieve in the Bill could include a loss of funding. PSBs often rely on public funding or subsidies to fulfil their mandate of providing programming that serves the public interest; without prominence, they may struggle to attract viewership and advertising revenue, leading to financial difficulties that could jeopardise their ability to produce the sort of high-quality content we want them to. PSBs may find it challenging to reach a wide audience, particularly in a crowded media landscape where viewers have numerous options for their entertainment; that could lead to a decline in their influence and relevance, making it harder for them to fulfil their role as a source of impartial news, educational programming and cultural content.

The public service mandate could be undermined, as PSBs are tasked with providing programming that serves the public interest, including news, current affairs and educational content. Without prominence, they may struggle, and their content may be overshadowed by commercial broadcasters or streaming services prioritising profit. It could also be a threat to media diversity and cause a loss of trust and accountability. Lastly, if public service broadcasters are not given prominence in a democratic society, there are issues around this that could arise: an erosion of media pluralism, a threat to freedom of information, diminished public discourse, a loss of accountability, and the undermining of democratic values, social cohesion, education and lifelong learning, and cultural preservation.

As this is a probing amendment, I encourage the Minister to think about bringing back his own amendment as an instruction to Ofcom in dealing with prominence, to say that, however it writes it regulations, PSBs must have equal or greater prominence than any other offer on the screen.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, summing up from these Benches on the amendments in this group, I congratulate those who have spoken, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It crossed my mind as I was about to stand up that on the first day in Committee I was congratulating and following a prima ballerina and today it is an Olympian—which rather reduces my sense of myself. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is a remarkable example of what the Department for Culture, Media and Sport produces that we have as great legislators these great sportsmen and artists.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Baroness has said apart from the language point. Why is “significant” an improvement on “appropriate”, when neither of them are defined? “Significant” has to mean significant of something—we might think that it just means “a lot”, but it does not. It is as meaningless as “appropriate”, indefinable and cannot be quantified.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

To my mind, “significant” is very different from “appropriate”, which is a wishy-washy, woolly term, whereas “significant” is a specific term.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, it is not. If we went around the room and asked, “Please quantify it, or tell us what it means”, I think we would—

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

What word would the right reverend Prelate use?

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

I have struggled with it, but “substantial” or “substantive” might get us somewhere, rather than something that does not actually mean anything. The General Synod of the Church of England has a similar problem; it put “collegiate” in some recent legislation when it meant “collegial”—it had nothing to do with colleges. I worry about putting things in legislation that cannot be defined.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 31 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest that I was a TV journalist and executive and worked for the BBC and ITV and made programmes for Channel 4.

We on these Benches are pleased that this Government’s attempt to privatise Channel 4 failed. However, one of the conditions of that attempt, removing its publisher-broadcasting status and allowing it to make its own programmes, has made it into this Bill as Clause 31, which we oppose.

As has been pointed out often to the Minister from these Benches, Channel 4 was created in 1982 by a Government led by Margaret Thatcher. Channel 4 certainly succeeded in fulfilling her business and economic philosophy, in that our world-beating independent production sector owes a huge debt to its creation. As for whether Mrs Thatcher was quite so happy with its creative content, I suspect not.

Channel 4 was conceived as a publisher-broadcaster, not like the BBC/ITV duopoly which existed at that time and made its own programmes in its own studios, but commissioning entirely from what was then a small and innovative band of producers. As a consequence, the television industry in this country diversified as it provided new and exciting opportunities to creative entrepreneurs throughout the UK. In the TV world, it empowered and nurtured small independent producers and start-ups—the companies we were talking about in our first debate today. It played a pivotal role in driving the growth, competitiveness and creative diversity of UK indies. These companies were one of the UK creative industries’ greatest success stories.

Channel 4 invests a greater proportion of its revenue in independent UK commissions than any other PSB or commercial broadcaster, and its publisher-broadcaster status has also meant that Channel 4’s commercial revenues are reinvested in UK content production. As well as being the incubator of our thriving independent production sector, Channel 4 is also the broadcaster of “Channel 4 News”. One hour of in-depth news and current affairs at the heart of peak time on a commercial channel is unheard of anywhere else.

And then, of course, there is its pioneering coverage of the Paralympics. I believe that Channel 4’s championing of this event has led to a worldwide change in the attitude towards disability—a view confirmed by Dame Sarah Storey on Radio 4’s “Desert Island Discs” this weekend about her experience at the Beijing Olympics. She revisited Beijing a year after the Olympics and went to a disabled sports club where she was told that the transformation in the way the disabled were treated in Chinese society was immeasurable.

Due to its expansion of digital channels, Channel 4’s viewing demographic is young and diverse. We believe the cost of establishing a new in-house production outfit would disrupt its business plan—these things that it has achieved—and take money away from commissioning from others.

I do not think we should change Channel 4. It was conceived for a reason: to grow the UK independent TV sector and to represent the voice of minorities. It has done that spectacularly. Channel 4 is a vital part of our creative economy, providing invaluable support to smaller independent production companies throughout the nations and regions, although, as mentioned earlier, this needs to be underpinned. It is a platform for exciting new programming, quality news and current affairs, and pioneering coverage of the Paralympics. Why change its remit?

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I too oppose Clause 31. Channel 4—what a brilliant initiative, how extraordinary, and what a success. It is a cauldron of innovative and original talent, fundamental to our brilliant, creative country, providing a stream of talent for use by all the others, streaming, literally, into our country. It was created to foster competition and innovation in the broadcast sector, and it did. The approach allowed independent production companies to compete for contracts to create programmes rather than relying on in-house production by the channel itself—an approach the Government now seem to want it to adopt. In that independence, it still had to maintain high editorial standards, ensuring accuracy and impartiality and fairness. It had to reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom and to fulfil certain public service obligations to educate, inform and entertain with social responsibility. That model, rather than an in-house production facility and staff, enabled Channel 4 to operate efficiently.

Of course there are challenges. Channel 4 itself had become a bit reliant on production companies that have now grown big, but it is a cauldron of creative opportunity. Right now it is not having the easiest of times, but if it was producing in-house, cuts would be swingeing and challenging. As a commissioning body, it can better cut its cloth to meet the vagaries and ups and downs of its and our economy.

If the Government’s desired change were to take place, it would reduce the opportunities for independent producers, impacting the diversity and range of voices represented. It would risk creative stagnation. It would have financial implications and require investment in additional production facilities, staff and resources at a time when it is cash poor. And any shift in its programming strategy would impact its ability to attract and retain audiences. There would also be an impact on the independent production sector if this significant source of commissioning independent production companies were to be reduced, particularly the smaller ones and the ones producing risky and innovative content.