Memorandum submitted by Graham Allen MP
I have been watching on the Parliamentary Channel
a number of the excellent exchanges in your committee on the BBC's
Charter renewal and I felt moved to submit this memorandum of
evidence to your inquiry.
One of the key things which makes the BBC different
to other broadcasters and which allows it to continue with some
of its financial and other privileges is its Public Service
Obligation. If this is no longer relevant and important, then
a central pillar of the need for a BBC distinct from other broadcasters
is removed. Those of us who want a strong, independent BBC must
answer the question, how do we renew and strengthen the Public
Service Obligation, so that it can last another 50 years? I outline
below my answer to that question and I hope you will take a few
minutes to consider it.
Politicians of all parties here in Westminster
are failing in our own Public Service Obligation and are struggling
to re-ignite people's interest in our democracy. It is a sad fact
that—rightly or wrongly—many of the public perceive
us as out of touch, out of date and unresponsive to outside opinion.
They do not understand (or even care) about what they feel to
be our archaic and irrelevant procedures and practices. The media—including
the BBC, which appears to offer less and less which is different
here—does little to help, content to have its own cosy relationship
with the government.
The alternative is to put both Parliament and
the BBC back at the heart of our democracy—a strong relevant
democratic forum, linked to a participating electorate, by a trusted
and impartial media organisation.
There is now on offer a massive leap forward
for our democracy, restoring a useful function for our Parliament,
a 21st century role for the BBC, and opening the door to the participation
of our people in improving the laws that govern them—the
last great extension of the franchise in a mature democracy.
This breakthrough both for democracy and for
the Corporation's renewal of its public service remit would be
the badgeing by the BBC of the online pre-legislative scrutiny
of Bills by Parliamentary Committees. I know it sounds dry but
let me explain.
Pre-legislative scrutiny is a means by which
Government policy proposals can be improved upon by Parliamentary
committees in advance of their becoming law, rather than leaving
us to clear up the mess afterwards when mistakes have been made.
This proposal enables not only Parliament but every BBC licence-payer
to contribute to improving the law. When proceedings are broadcast
over the internet by a trusted and well-known source, it would
enable any elector who can organise access to a computer to participate
in the democratic process. As politicians, civil servants and
experts give evidence to the Committee, viewers can submit their
own comments to the e-mail address which runs across the bottom
of the screen direct to the Committee mediator (usually the impartial
Hansard Society) who would put any nuggets in front of the committee
on paper as proceedings unfold. Recently, Lord Puttnam did just
this with the Communications Act. I am sure he would be happy
to tell you more about it.
The BBC would enable those electors with practical
experience to contribute. Imagine, for example, an Anti-Social
Behaviour Bill with serving police officers, victims and housing
officers etc, all contributing to improving its nuts and bolts.
Government would benefit too. Many of the legislative disasters
which governments have imposed upon Parliament and people could
have been avoided. I have no doubt that the Child Support Act,
on which I led for Labour, would not have had to have been rewritten
five times had we listened, through a sensible pre-legislative
scrutiny, to practitioners and those it affected. The BBC could
ensure that the constituency voices we currently hear as screams
of anguish and despair could instead be heard as wise and timely
advice; a public service of tremendous proportions.
The BBC, working closely with Parliament and
its select committees, could plan well ahead and produce the Parliamentary
equivalent of the Radio Times, allowing community groups,
individuals and front-line practitioners time to plan their viewing
and contribution.
Were the BBC in the context of its Public Service
Obligation to lend its brand and credibility to promoting public
access to on-line pre-legislative scrutiny, it would be beneficial
to all involved. No editorial is necessary or helpful. The BBC
website would merely present the live feed, with no commentary
and therefore no accusations of bias. This is not to say the BBC
could not creatively and actively promote public participation—imagine
a promotional ad by, say, Andrew Marr after the 10 o'clock news
along the lines of "You've complained about (for example)
anti-social behaviour, well tomorrow send your practical suggestions
in to the Committee taking evidence from the Home Secretary. Use
your experience to help Parliament make better law." Those
whose bright ideas actually became law could be properly recognised
as they are in the Scottish Parliament. It would cost very little
(the pictures already exist, as does the BBC's website) and will
be considered a laudable objective for the BBC to pursue. Millions
could be made aware of what was happening; and between us we would
create better law.
The BBC could re-centre itself as an integral
element of our democracy and make itself once again an authoritative
and respected element in our public life, abundantly fulfilling
the Public Service Obligation and facilitating the public working
with elected representatives to make laws better for everyone.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Select Committee recommends that, as
a condition of Charter renewal, the BBC's Public Service Obligation
should include facilitating public participation in the on-line
pre-legislative scrutiny conducted by Parliament of Parliamentary
Bills.
3 June 2004
| 
