Oral Answers to Questions

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I agree that impartiality at the BBC is paramount and that the particular comments to which my hon. Friend refers were totally inappropriate. I can understand why many people found them offensive. By way of reassurance, I say to him that in the selection process for the new chairman of the BBC Trust, which is responsible for impartiality, we have said that all candidates must show commitment to improving governance at the BBC. I hope that these issues will continue to be addressed.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and I agree about the importance of the impartiality of the BBC. With the withdrawal of Sir Howard Davies from the shortlist for the chairmanship of the BBC Trust, there is growing speculation that the favourite is now the former chairman of the Conservative party. In those circumstances, it is particularly important that the appointment process is transparent. Will the Secretary of State therefore agree that the all-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee should scrutinise the two candidates referred to him by the appointment panel before he makes a recommendation to the Prime Minister?

[Mr Hunt]

Let me reassure the shadow Secretary of State that the process is transparent and fair. If he does not like it, he and the last Labour Government should not have set it up when they established the BBC Trust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

Ministerial discretion is restricted to what is reasonable and fair in the eyes of the law. The process was set up in the Enterprise Act 2002 by the previous Government. It is incredibly important that due process is followed at every stage. We will publish exactly what we have done and whom we have met at every stage of the process when I make my decision, in order for Parliament to be able to scrutinise the process and ensure that it has been totally fair and impartial.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State would accept that the Government’s handling of this quasi-judicial responsibility has been nothing short of a constitutional disgrace. The Business Secretary was stripped of his responsibilities because he

“declared war on Mr Murdoch”,

the Culture Secretary is on record as saying that he sees no problem with this particular deal, and the Prime Minister has now been found tucking into turkey in the middle of the process with the chief executive of News International. What breathtaking arrogance and contempt for their constitutional responsibilities!

Will the Secretary of State now tell the whole House whether he intends to meet any of the concerned parties before making a decision on this referral? Will he also release the Ofcom report—he has the ability to do so—in advance of making his decision, so that the House can be reassured that his judgment is impartial?

[Mr Hunt]

I remind the shadow Culture Secretary that when the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) made the decision on the Sky ITV purchase he published the Ofcom report when he announced his decision, so I am doing nothing different to what he did. On the issue of impartiality, I say this:

“Rupert Murdoch”—

has

“been a force for good in improving the quality of broadcasting for British consumers”.

Those are not my words, but those of the shadow Culture Secretary. I wish that he would stop sucking up to the Murdochs.