Broadcasting: Recent Developments Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Hastings of Scarisbrick
Main Page: Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (Crossbench - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick's debates with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I join the multitude thanking the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for his constant, passionate advocacy of public service broadcasting.
At the moment there is a great debate taking place, some of which is unnecessary. We go round in circles and come back to the same solution, decade after decade. As broadcasting becomes more dynamic and diverse, because there are more platforms, options and ways to view, we in this House and those in the other place need to rustle up the energy to affirm what we know to be true, about the BBC in particular. It is and must remain the beacon of brilliance. It must be the benchmark of tenacity and truth in news and analysis. It must be the holder of intelligent first-source global and national perspectives. It must tell the story of a complex and compelling world, from the natural environment to surging technology to the stories of history and human experience.
All this requires investment. The truth is that the licence fee is a paltry 48p a day per household, yet we engage in a 10-year scrap about whether it should be 50p, 55p or 40p. This is foolishness. We need to give an essential public guarantee of exceptionalism for the BBC. It has gripping sport and gripping drama. I particularly thank this House for its support in 1996, when I was the BBC’s head of public affairs and, as a lobbyist, brought the case for listed events to this Chamber. This House, in particular with its hereditary Peers on the Conservative side, supported Liberal Democrat and Labour Peers against the Conservative Government to protect the listed events we have now. There are great moments in our national life, such as Remembrance Weekend, times of political transformation and moments of decision and impact. They all come to us through the BBC in a rush that we do not get anywhere else.
As the broadcasting landscape is changing and its provision becomes ever greater, there is no shortage of programming and there are endless options. Most of them are American and that is not our culture. We need the BBC. We need it despite a painful two years of mishaps and scandals. That is not the norm. Anyone who has worked as well and long with the BBC as I and many others in this House did knows that that is not the standard. It is an exception. The Government need to be bold and, thankfully, the Secretary of State and the Minister in this House have already declared affirming commitment to the BBC’s future.
But, in the fight that lies ahead in the next two years in particular, both Houses need to be consistent that we are not driven by commercial pressure bending our knee; instead, we are stating that the BBC is a vital public institution and that charter renewal allows us only to affirm the value of that institution ever more. We do not debate other institutions ridiculously like we do the BBC. We do not debate the armed services, highway maintenance, Chevening scholarships, the NHS or investment in Olympic sports development, because they are public assets. The BBC is a public asset for the UK and for the world and, for that, we must maintain its strength and the licence fee.