BBC Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Thursday 12th May 2016

(8 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Whittingdale Portrait Mr Whittingdale
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The BBC rightly wishes to make available its news content on whichever platform viewers and listeners choose to access it, and that includes online. There have been concerns that, sometimes, BBC online services have strayed too far away from that into soft news and beyond, and that represents unfair competition. The requirement for distinction will apply online just as it does to all other BBC services, and that can be adjudicated by Ofcom.

Stella Creasy Portrait Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - -

I wish to press the Secretary of State on some of the detail of his statement, especially given the concern that many of us have to protect all members of BBC staff from politically motivated attempts to interfere in their work. He said very clearly that editorial independence would be guaranteed pre-transmission, but in his statement today he sets out that the unitary board

“will consider any issues or complaints that arise post-transmission.”

Will he clarify to whom the Government appointees on that board will be accountable for their interventions—will it be to the Government or the licence fee payers?

John Whittingdale Portrait Mr Whittingdale
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The position as regards reporting for the Government appointees, chosen through the public appointment process, will be no different from the responsibilities of the BBC Trust. Once appointed, they are independent and are not subject to any instruction by the Government. They will be accountable to the licence fee payer and to Parliament, which is where Select Committees have a very important role. I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of not having any political pressure put on BBC employees, whatever their level, so I hope that she will join me in condemning the petition initiated by the “Jeremy for PM” campaign, which now has 15,000 signatures, calling for the sacking of the BBC political editor because they did not like one of the stories she reported.