Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con):
I am a supporter of the BBC and value its history. I had intended to spend some time talking about the great contribution that the BBC has made to this country and the world over many years. That was until I heard Sir Michael Lyons this morning on the radio, so I will take all that good stuff as read. On Radio 4 he suggested that if Parliament stopped the rise in the licence fee, it was a recipe for curbing the independence of the BBC. What absolute nonsense. It strays dangerously into politics. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was right about that, and Sir Michael should have stayed well away from the issue, because the public no longer
trust the BBC rigorously to enforce balance as it once did and was once famous for. The latest reported indiscretions involve the complaints that the BBC Trust upheld about the accuracy and bias of Jeremy Bowen in an article that he published marking the 40th anniversary of the six-day war. The trust said that Bowen
should have done more to explain that there were alternative views on the subject which had some weight.
That breach of impartiality guidelines underlines the BBCs failure in recent years to stop its innate liberal bias from turning into unbalanced reporting. The BBCs pro-metropolitan, liberal attitude is well documented. Some of the most significant work on the topic was compiled by ex-BBC producer Antony Jay for the Centre for Policy Studies. In his pamphlet entitled, Confessions of a Reformed BBC Producer, he describes the tribal-like mentality of BBC employees. Jay claims that BBC staff worked and socialised with people who have the same experiences and believe in the same principles, naturally reinforcing their pre-existing prejudices. Jay confessed:
We so rarely encountered any coherent opposing arguments that we took our group-think as the views of all right-thinking people.
More recently, Andrew Marr famously described the BBC as not impartial or neutral, arguing that it had a cultural liberal bias due to the type of people who were attracted to work there.
The European elections in June represent a particularly difficult challenge for the BBC: licence fee payers expect the BBC not only to give a fair hearing for the major political parties, but to report impartially on the debate between European integrationists and Eurosceptics. So far, it has been a challenge too far. An internal report for the BBC in 2005 found that its news suffered from an institutional mindset that led to a
reluctance to question pro-EU assumptions.
It said that the BBC journalists are ignorant of how the EU works and have failed to show how much of British policy originates in Brussels, and it criticised managers who
appear insufficiently self-critical about standards of impartiality.
the BBC is getting it wrong, and our main conclusion is that urgent action is required to put this right.
Unfortunately, urgent action has not been forthcoming. Another internal investigation in 2007 accused the BBC of trendy left-wing bias and stated that it was guilty of omitting opinions that were
off limits in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone.
The report noted that the BBC had come late to several important issues, including Euroscepticism and immigration.
The BBCs liberal obsession with multiculturalism means that it has become completely out of touch with large swathes of the country. The corporation has effectively censured the topics that people care about, because of its culture of uber-political correctness. That is also why the BBC gives a fairer hearing to trendy left-wing organisations such as Amnesty International and Liberty yet treats spokespeople for the Countryside Alliance and Migrationwatch UK as eccentric bores.
Mr. David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): Hear, hear!
Mr. Wilson: Thank you very much.
The BBC continues to demonstrate scant regard for balance and decency. At the heart of the issue, I fear, is the lack of willpower on the part of BBC senior executives to stand up to its high-profile broadcasters and performers. The BBC cares more about its high-profile and well-paid employees than about the people who actually pay their wages. That is why my constituents, like my colleagues, will not accept willingly an increase in this TV tax.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have a difficulty, because the Secretary of State would like to make a short reply and the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) is entitled to have the last word; perhaps, though, he is not interested in having it.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): May I have two minutes?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Davies can have one minute, and I will allow the balance to the Secretary of State.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): I am sure that one minute is about as much as people will be able to stomach from me anyway; your judgment is wise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The issue before us is whether the BBC needs an increase in funding. I have been prompted to speak because of the appalling mathematics that have been on show in the House, particularly from the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Bath (Mr. Foster). The issue is not about making a cut to the BBCs income, but about not giving the BBC an increase. When somebodys pay is frozen, it is frozen, not cutthey have just not been given an increase. The BBCs problem is that it sees no increase as a cut, because it has become so feather-bedded by the licence fee and the taxpayer. It has become totally out of touch with the economic reality faced by everybody else.
I should like to make a particular point before I conclude. The BBC is supposed to be for the whole country, but recently, for example, it made a decision about horse racing, which is a sport that cuts across the social divide like nothing else. The BBC is trying to abandon such projects to go for the high-profile stuff; it completely lacks a good sense of priorities. It should concentrate on things that the British people as a whole want. The issue is about priorities. The BBC does not need all this increase, and that is why I will support the motion.
Andy Burnham:
With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments in conclusion. It has been an excellent debate. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made an excellent speech, and said two things with which I profoundly agree. He said that the BBC does not always get things right; he was right to say that, and it is right for it to be acknowledged. He also said that the BBC was not safe in Tory hands, and some of the views emanating from the Conservative
Benches this afternoon made that point abundantly clear to anybody who cared to pay attention. The argument from those Members was that the rest of the media industry was under pressure, so the BBC should be under pressurethe quality of all the media must go down. That is an awful argument.
There was a revealing moment when the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) was asked where the money would be found. The hon. Gentleman went over the line that we should never cross. He started saying that he would make cuts to the number of imported programmes; he said that he might offer up The Wire. That was a very revealing moment about Tory meddling in the BBC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), chair of the all-party BBC group, said that Tory policy on broadcasting is about scrapping impartiality in non-public service broadcasting news. It is also about allowing product placement. That strategy would see the quality of TV news and broadcasting go right downhill, and the public do not want that. The Tories real policy is to cut the licence fee and top-slice
One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Orders No s . 16(1) and 17(2) and Order, 18 May) .
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are now at least 25 flags of a proscribed terrorist organisation flying over Parliament square. You will have heard numerous points of order about the obstruction, expense and conduct of the Tamil demonstration. Although I understand that decisions about the conduct of public order are an operational matter for the police, the message being sent out about our tolerance of terrorism is a wider policy matter of importance to us all. I would invite you, as a matter of urgency, to communicate to the relevant authorities the view that the unimpeded and open support of a terrorist organisation in front of Parliament sends the most unhelpful wider message about the conduct of our counter-terrorist strategy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he was going to raise that point of order, which I am sure will be of concern to the whole House. Mr. Speaker has expressed his own concerns about what is happening in Parliament square and all its implications, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not have the full scope of authority to deal with the situation. However, I am grateful to him for putting the latest situation on the record, and I am sure that the relevant authorities will take note.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |