Covid-19: Museums, Galleries and Historic Buildings

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I declare an interest as trustee of the Lowry and of One Dance UK. The subjects of this debate are important because of their essential contributions not just to the economy but to the healing process following this crisis. I welcome the Cultural Renewal Taskforce, but will the Government give clarity as to when museums and galleries will be able to open? Uncertainty makes planning almost impossible. Does the Minister appreciate the knock-on effects on artists who rely on these institutions, as well as on others who work for them? The majority are freelancers and many are unable to furlough; will the Government look at targeted support? Further, will the Minister put the case to the Treasury for a contribution of the self-employed income support scheme in line with the extension of the job retention scheme?

Venues such as the Lowry play a significant role in using the arts as a tool to support the vulnerable and successfully break cycles of deprivation. Does the Minister agree that this outreach and support is all the more essential today? For so many reasons, these institutions must be supported. They must survive.

Cairncross Review

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for this debate. Its popularity means that we will have to do speed debating, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, once suggested. We welcome the Government’s positive response to supporting Nesta’s pilot innovation fund, focused on improving the supply of public interest news, and we welcome that the Government are considering removing VAT on digital news publications. We on these Benches would like VAT to be removed from all digital publications. Please include e-books as well. Does the Secretary of State not agree?

We welcome the initiative to develop an online media literacy strategy and that the Government accept that social media and news aggregation platforms and companies have a duty of care to co-operate in creating a sustainable environment for news in the digital age. The online harms White Paper is referred to as the vehicle, but where is the Bill? Will the Secretary of State enlighten us on that?

The Cairncross Review is concerned about the sustainability of good journalism. Since the Government are intent on getting rid of suggested mechanisms to expose and punish unethical and illegal conduct, and establish incentives for news publishers to produce quality journalism, how do they intend to go forward? The Secretary of State says in her response that:

“At the heart of any thriving democracy is a free and vibrant press.”


None of us here would disagree with that—nor, I am afraid, with her when she continues:

“in this country its future is under threat.”

However, we might disagree about exactly how and why.

This is a turbulent time for the press. Quite apart from the backdrop to the Cairncross Review of unprecedented challenges to the future of news provision, buffeted by internet competition that represents on the one hand a financial pincer movement and on the other competitive and often fake news, the cornerstone of our “free and vibrant press” that is public service broadcasting is under attack from the Government. The PM’s communications team has banned Ministers from appearing on BBC’s “Today” programme, although I noted that the Secretary of State was allowed to take part this morning, if only, in her characteristically gentle way, to threaten the BBC. The Government have boycotted ITV’s “Good Morning Britain”, and declined to appear on Channel 4 since before the election. How does that behaviour allow journalists to do what she correctly states is their “vital” purpose; namely, of

“holding power to account and keeping the public informed of local, national and international issues”?

Returning to the BBC, which is under attack when it is needed more than ever, the Secretary of State uttered supportive words, but it is actions that matter. Will she confirm that the BBC’s scope and mission will not be changed by the Government before the next charter review, and that she will listen to her noble friend Lord Grade about decriminalisation of the licence fee? The other day, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, told us to beware of the slippery slope. Will she listen to him?

BBC Charter Review

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

Obviously, I cannot comment on the briefing, but I am happy to confirm the noble Lord’s last remarks.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

Can the Minister confirm that the BBC’s scope and mission will not be changed, and nor will the BBC have financial or other obligations placed upon it, by the Government before the next charter review, and that the mid-term review will not be used to impose new requirements?

[Baroness Barran]

It is clearly and widely agreed that there is a longer-term challenge in working out the business model for the BBC. We have time to do that ahead of the 2027 charter review. Clearly, the Government have a part to play in that, as it spills over into areas, as the noble Baroness understands very well, of competition and other law. So that is the long-term goal, and any funding model needs to follow the business model.

Free Television Licences

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The DCMS Bill the noble Lord refers to deals with the operational delivery of the Commonwealth Games and has really nothing to do with the BBC at all. As for his question, I have replied to it: I said that everyone knew, when the manifesto was written, that the responsibility had been given to the BBC by Parliament. That is where it rests, because that is where Parliament put it, and that is why we are disappointed with its decision.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches agree that we must support our older citizens. However, does the Minister accept that the introduction of free TV licences for the over 25s; sorry, for the over 75s—that would be expensive—was government policy and should be paid for by the Government? The licence fee is not the Government’s to spend: it is not public money but the public’s money and should be used to invest in BBC programmes and BBC content. There is no point in a free licence if the BBC is so pared to the bone that there is nothing of quality to watch.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do not agree that the BBC is pared to the bone. The BBC is a £5 billion organisation; it gets £3.7 billion from the taxpayer, so I do not agree that it is a pared-down organisation.

Free TV Licences for Over-75s

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may correct what was said from the Labour Benches: this was post-coalition. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Foster, who was then an MP, stopped a first attempt to do this.

Does not the Minister accept that the covert way in which the BBC licence fee was settled last time was wrong: that making the BBC take on the cost of funding free TV licences for the over-75s effectively made the BBC the vehicle to deliver elements of the welfare state, and that that was inappropriate? I agree with the Statement that taxpayers want the BBC to use its licence fee income in an appropriate way to ensure that it delivers for UK audiences. That is the point: the licence fee is not public money but the public’s money. Does not the Minister agree that it is double dipping to use the public’s money to pay for government policy?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The public’s money is what the Government spend. Everything that the Government do is with taxpayers’ money, so I do not really understand the noble Baroness’s point. I should mention, as the noble Lord mentioned the Liberal Democrats, that the Liberal Democrat 2015 manifesto committed to remove the concession for higher-rate taxed pensioners. We have to be careful about what we said when. As for the point about social welfare, the agreement made in 2015 was not about tax policy; it was simply about whether the BBC should have the responsibility for the concession, and that is what it was given.

Brexit: Creative Industries’ Access to European Markets

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a thriving future for the creative industries is a matter of access not just to markets but to talent, and that limiting EU migrants to those who earn more than £30,000, as the immigration White Paper suggests, will have a severe negative effect on a sector where average earnings hover around £20,000?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I agree that that is an issue; that is why there is a year-long consultation. We will represent the views of the creative industries to the Home Office.

Public Service Broadcasters

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the speech of the Chief Executive of Ofcom on 28 November 2018 in which she encouraged public service broadcasters to collaborate to compete with global giants such as Netflix and Amazon in producing high-quality original content.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Theatre Tickets: London

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend, and I believe enforcement action has been taken against Viagogo. It is not 100% certain that it has complied with the court order, in which case it will be taken back to court. We take it seriously and, as my noble friend knows, have taken measures to crack down on the worst abuses in secondary ticketing, such as bots.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I pick up on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. So many of these smash hits playing on the London stage and so much of the talent, both front and back of house, come through the regional subsidised sector. However, it is struggling, partly because of local government funding cuts. Can the Minister assure the House that funding to this sector through the Arts Council and theatre tax relief will be protected in the upcoming spending review? I declare an interest as a trustee of the Lowry.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

There are 186 National Portfolio theatres in the country, the vast majority of which are not in London. As for the spending review, we will advocate as hard as we can for the arts.

Broadcasting: Public Sector Content

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I recognise that most of what we have talked about today is for linear services. Of course, a change is taking place: people now have subscriptions for watching on-demand programmes on their internet browsers. This creates a number of challenges and we have agreed that, if Ofcom makes suggestions that take that into account, we will bring legislation forward when the time arises.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I fear I will ask the Minister to repeat, yet again, what he has said. Does he not agree that prominence is not a perk for PSBs but a fair and essential exchange? I do not know how many of you listened this morning to Radio 4’s “Start the Week”—a really quite frightening public service broadcast programme about the tech titans’ struggle for our individual attention. Will the Government commit to supporting the urgently needed updating of prominence rules through legislation?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I think I have done that—twice. We are aware that the technology is changing, and noble Lords might be interested to hear an example. More UK households now own a voice-activated smart speaker than own Britain’s third most popular pet: a rabbit.

Television Licences: Over 75s

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

When the funding settlement was put down in 2015, the BBC agreed to pay for it in 2020, in return for a five-year, index-linked settlement—the first time that had ever happened. The BBC has had four years to prepare for this; it knew it was coming. That is why we expect it to live up to what was agreed.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

If the Government persist in requiring the BBC, and hence the licence fee payer, to pay for the over-75s—a welfare benefit introduced by Gordon Brown and paid for by the Government—there will either have to be yet more cuts to its budget, and consequently to UK content at a time when PSBs are really under the cosh, or a rise in the licence fee which will have particular implications for lower-income households. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The BBC is consulting on a number of options, it has made those known and the consultation finishes next month—I am sure that noble Lords will want to contribute to it. The fact is that the BBC agreed a deal in 2015. We are not asking anything sudden; it has had four years to prepare for this and that is what they agreed to do. So I do not see why it is extraordinary to expect the BBC, a £5 billion corporation, to live up to the agreement it made in 2015.