Debates between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Baroness Chakrabarti during the 2019 Parliament

Wed 3rd Nov 2021
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Lords Chamber

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage part two

BBC: Government Role in Impartiality

Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Baroness Chakrabarti
Wednesday 15th March 2023

(1 year, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Young of Norwood Green Portrait Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I declare an interest as an ex-governor of the BBC. I echo the view that was expressed about Gary Lineker and his salary. He is like many people who have been in that position in the past and who believe that they are irreplaceable. Your Lordships will remember that Jeremy Clarkson and the “Top Gear” team thought that they were irreplaceable; needless to say, “Top Gear” thrives just as successfully without them. I have conveyed in writing to the director-general my advice to get rid of the old boys’ club of Lineker, Shearer and Wright, and replace it with at least one or two women, which we could probably do for half the price, and they would do twice as good a job.

Lord Young of Norwood Green Portrait Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
- Hansard - -

If the noble Baroness could just pause to hear the end of my contribution, I do not believe that we should be paying those kinds of prices for presenters. If the BBC did this—

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Baroness Chakrabarti
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will my noble friend give way? He has just come to a very important part of his remarks. Every community is capable of committing crime, and therefore we have criminal and civil laws that apply to all communities rather than specific measures targeted in a discriminatory fashion.

Lord Young of Norwood Green Portrait Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I thank the noble Baroness, but I think I made it clear in my contribution that I do not believe the Government’s proposals are right or necessary. Do not find a difference with me on those grounds, because it is not what I am suggesting.

If we really want to find a solution to these problems—I think one of the right reverend Prelates made a point about discrimination in education—lots of schools take real pride and make an effort in accommodating Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children. They are the examples of best practice which the Government should encourage. It is not true to say that all Gypsy, Roma and Travellers are illiterate and innumerate—far from it. In fact, one person I met who impressed me was a young woman from a Traveller family who had taken herself through university and become a teacher and an absolute credit to her community. We should beware of sweeping generalisations. They do not help us in these circumstances.

I am aware of the lateness of the hour, but I wanted to make this contribution. I like to think that my activities in support of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller group will not cause me to be labelled as unfairly prejudiced or discriminatory. Ever since I was capable of doing it, I have fought all my life against any form of discrimination, whether it is anti-Semitism, racism or discrimination against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller groups.

My plea to the Minister when she gets to her feet is to take into account the fact that there are some genuine concerns from a number of us about the nature of the government proposals and whether they will help the situation and are necessary—or whether the existing laws are such. I also do not believe that the nature of the amendments, if I take that of my noble friend Lord Rosser as an example, is a solution to the problem. That is why I suggest that, before we reach Report, the Minister convene a meeting, which might enable us to find a bit more common ground than appears to exist in the Chamber at the moment.