| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am, of course, delighted that the Liaison Committee has agreed to support the proposal for a Select Committee on the review of the BBC charter and very much hope
9 Jun 2004 : Column 272
that your Lordships will endorse its recommendation. I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for what he said.
I particularly want to thank my colleagues who were so important in helping to present to the Liaison Committee what turned out to be a rather more acceptable project than my original suggestion. That, as your Lordships may remember, had been for a more widely based ongoing communications sessional Select Committee, which would have been able to draw more permanently upon the considerable expertise and experience that exists in your Lordships' House.
However, despite what I have heard from the Chairman of Committees—and at the risk of sounding as though I am never satisfied—I venture to mention the remaining concern that the committee apparently has to wait until the beginning of 2005 to start its work. The Green Paper is not due until then but, as we all know, the whole process of charter review is already well under way. At the very least, I should have thought that it would be helpful to everyone if the Select Committee was able sooner than that to invite evidence from those taking part in the existing numerous consultations and thus to alert a wider public to the committee's promised existence.
I hope, therefore, not only that your Lordships will agree to the Liaison Committee's proposal, but that also a way can be found of ensuring that the existence of the Select Committee is well publicised at an early date and that a general invitation is extended to interested organisations to start preparing their evidence.
Lord McNally: My Lords, although I have a specific interest in wanting to see this committee established, I shall make two general points about the report. I urge the committee not to become too structured in its response as it states very clearly that the BBC charter committee cannot start until the committee dealing with assisted dying has finished its work.
We all know that committees can take a long time dying. We are working to a specific timetable in terms of the BBC charter. I was much more encouraged when the Chairman of Committees wrote to me and said that he would be happy to review the situation,
"to ensure that the committee on the BBC Charter has the resources to enable it to make a timely report".
I should like clarification on that. It would be misleading the House if in February or March next year, with the committee on assisted dying still proceeding, we were told, "Well, I am sorry; the House voted last June that you could not start work until this committee had wound up". That is what I mean about being over-prescriptive.
Another suggestion has been made and I made it in my letter. In government there are plenty of precedents for setting up committees. Ofcom is a very good example. When there is a job of work to do, one does the preparatory work of appointing the people, inviting the evidence and so on in advance of the starting gun. That could be easily done without the over-prescriptive suggestion in the Liaison Committee report. We could use the weeks and months before the committee started. I have no quarrel with the committee's starting point
9 Jun 2004 : Column 273
being the Green Paper. But I think that the preparatory work could be done now so that the committee can hit the ground running. Otherwise, we may find ourselves in the situation where usual channels are looking for recruits and so on and precious weeks are lost.
The general point I want to make is that this response is over-prescriptive and that the committee could have given a general go ahead. We could then use flexibility and common sense to start up the committee at the right time to do a real job of work. As it is, I think that we have, as it were, blundered into a very good solution. The work of this committee will be able to start after the House of Commons committee, which, under the wise leadership of Mr Gerald Kaufman, is already taking evidence. We will have that report and other evidence in our hands and be able to work.
My other point is on paragraph 8. The committee is most distinguished, but it is not the prefects' committee and it should not behave as such. If noble Lords want to collect signatures and submit them to the committee, I believe that is a matter for noble Lords. It is no business of the committee to say that they do not want to have them. We know what will happen: people will be told that it is just a bee in the bonnet of a single noble Lord. If a noble Lord wants to put an idea and demonstrate that he or she has widespread support in this House, it is a matter for their judgment and not for the committee's.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I very much support the proposal of the Liaison Committee and I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, have said about the position and timing of the committee. It seems to me that the renewal of a BBC Charter is self-evidently a crucial issue. It is a totally appropriate subject for an ad hoc committee. It is exactly the kind of issue that this House should consider because it is exactly the kind of issue where we could have some influence on the outcome.
Therefore, if the Liaison Committee could do something about the timing of the committee and set it up earlier than currently envisaged, it would be very much to the benefit of the committee and the House. The sooner the committee is set up the better and the more chance and prospect there is of the committee—and ultimately this House—having influence.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I rise in general support of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I think that the issue of looking at the BBC is determined not by how long the committee dealing with the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill takes to look at it, but the imminence of the review of the BBC Charter. Therefore, to tie one to the other is illogical.
I recognise the administrative burdens we are placing on staff. I do not know what the timescale is for the review of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, but if it is not finished by December this year, certainly in my view—and on this I disagree marginally with the noble Lord, Lord McNally—we should not wait for the Green Paper. It is to be hoped
9 Jun 2004 : Column 274
that this committee could inform the Green Paper by starting no later than January 2005. So I would seek an amendment. By all means wait for the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill review to be finished, but if it is not finished by January 2005, then start the BBC Select Committee anyway.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, it was obvious during the debate that we had in the progress of the Communications Bill that there is an enormous amount of expertise on all sides of this House on this subject. It would be a great shame not to continue to use that expertise in the way that is being proposed. I entirely support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in what has been put forward. I have heard the points that have been made, and have rather warmed to the view that the sooner all this gets off the ground the better.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, the Liaison Committee will be aware of the strong support on all sides of your Lordships' House for this Select Committee, although it looked down its lordly nose at the numbers involved. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that perhaps that does not lie in its mouth to say so, because it is important to make clear when these issues have wide and all-party support. However, I acknowledge that the Liaison Committee has rightly focused attention on certain matters; for example, there is no point doing work that other people have done before. When it is published, the Green Paper will be an amalgam of all the consultation processes. To that extent there is no point in treading over that territory again.
I want to underline the points made by noble Lords earlier that, because of the time-scale, we have got to have the preparatory work done before the committee starts. I cannot see that there is any reason why that should not be done. There is a wealth of experience in this House across the broadcasting sector, within which immense changes are taking place. If we are going to do this job—and I am glad that the Liaison Committee has now agreed that we should—we need to do it in the most professional manner possible. That means getting the preparatory work in so that we can make a very clean start early in the New Year.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I congratulate the Liaison Committee on its decision, and associate myself with the remarks made from all sides of the House on this. It is important that we do not have slippage here—it is very important indeed, as I think noble Lords have emphasised. I should just like to make one comment on the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the question of collecting names. It may be that that is not done commonly in this House. However, how else is one able to demonstrate the wide appeal of these proposals? I cannot think of any other way of doing it. I commend all the remarks that have been made by other noble Lords this afternoon.
9 Jun 2004 : Column 275
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |