---

BBC: Charter

My Lords, in recent years this House has had several opportunities to address comprehensively the issues that face the BBC, in particular at a time of enormous change in broadcasting culture and hitherto unparalleled technological advance. But in the debates leading to the Communications Act and in their overall response to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the BBC charter review, the Government have on some matters, although aiming to be open and transparent, shown a remarkable capacity to be immovable. I hope that the further airing of views in this debate, rather than being superfluous, may lead at the very least to some appropriate tweaking. I shall confine myself to matters that continue to concern my Benches. First, as a member of the Select Committee I pay tribute again to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. He has been a superb chairman. I am very glad that the Chairman of Committees has agreed that the Liaison Committee should look again at the possibility of a permanent Select Committee. In a graciously robust way the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has repeatedly raised the important matter of definition in relation to the costs of helping vulnerable people with switchover. That matter concerns my Benches. Yet this morning the Minister repeated the Government’s view that these are not broadcasting costs. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has pointed out, they arise directly from a Government rather than a BBC policy decision. I am sorry to hear that the Minister is unable to offer even a ray of hope that there could be movement on that matter, which is a social cost—the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that it was a hidden tax—and thereby possibly avoid an adverse impact on the delivery of other BBC services which are at the heart of the charter. I suggest that the uncertainty caused by the delay in settling the licence fee is being compounded by this unquantified cost being laid at the BBC’s door. The BBC has made a strenuous and sometimes controversial effort to see that licence fee income goes into programme making, so it is odd for the Government to weaken that focus. In some areas, however, the Government have listened and moved, and it would be churlish not to recognise that. I was among those who expressed concern to the Secretary of State that there seemed to be a lack of connection between the first ever definition in law of public service broadcasting in the Communications Act and the expectations about PSB being placed on the BBC in the March draft agreement. So I am pleased that in the latest draft agreement the link between the Communications Act’s definition and what is expected of the BBC is much clearer. Of course, the Communications Act’s definition of PSB does not of itself place obligations on the BBC. The BBC Trust will presumably have to reflect that in providing UK television services covering all types of PSB programmes, and the test of intent will be when the trust starts consultations on the purposes and service licences; so we will have to wait and see. ITV has argued that the funding settlement should be made in the context of the wider impact on the UK’s PSB ecology, while recognising the BBC as the key provider. Frankly, there are serious concerns, not least after Ofcom’s review of public service TV broadcasting, about the sustainability of PSB on channels other than the BBC. To my mind, ITV’s PSB commitment, though strongly asserted, is looking weaker. The noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Clement-Jones, have rightly raised concerns about future PSB across the broadcasters. However, if the BBC ends up as the only real provider, regrettable though that would be, it is surely absolutely vital to get the specifically PSB aspects of the charter and the agreement clear now. The Communications Act specifically includes religion within its PSB definition, which is now linked to the agreement. As the press has recently reported, I, together with one of my Roman Catholic colleagues, have written to the Secretary of State calling for a stronger mandate for religion in the charter and agreement. We have acknowledged the Government’s wish to ensure through the PSB definition that religious programming remains a feature of the BBC’s output, but we contend that the BBC’s broad coverage of religion should be included in the charter under more than one of the BBC’s new purposes. The draft charter does not signal where, for example, moral and ethical dilemmas will be discussed; and yet, as the director-general of the BBC said at a governors’ seminar last year:"““In broadcasting, religion and faith is not just a genre . . . Issues of belief and non-belief inspire programme makers from many genres””." One might argue that having a director-general who acknowledges the huge importance of religion on the world agenda should enable the Bishops’ Bench to be content that things are now in safe hands. No, my Lords. As my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has said elsewhere, this is too important to be left to the good will of one particular director-general, especially when four in five members of the British public define themselves as having a faith, and one in four goes to public worship at least once a month. That is why church and other faith leaders are concerned that the charter as drafted will mandate the BBC to an insufficiently rigorous coverage of religion, one that fails to reflect the indisputable fact that for good, and sadly sometimes for ill, religion has great and growing significance across the world. We do not regard it as sufficient for greater detail to be found only in the service licence and purpose remits, at a time when top quality, intelligent, balanced and informed coverage of religion is vital. As the Chief Rabbi said earlier this week about broadcasting in this country,"““it is unthinkable that faith issues, of such significance in Iraq and other parts of the world and in our daily lives are not explained to people equally clearly””." I am also sorry that the Secretary of State has not appeared to move on quality, about which I pressed her in the Select Committee and about which I have subsequently written to her. I hope that that is a matter to which the BBC Trust will give early and careful attention. In the five characteristics, at least one of which BBC outputs must display, quality becomes, effectively, optional. I am puzzled by that. Why is quality not given greater significance? The way its inclusion is currently proposed seems to run counter to the Communications Act, which requires programmes of a high general standard taken together across all the output. There could also be an unintended effect on quality because of the ““window of creative competition””. I certainly welcome and have supported the WOCC proposals, but if, for example, in-house BBC departments win fewer commissions and shrink in size or capacity, accumulated knowledge and experience within the BBC will be lost, and I do not believe that it will be necessarily relocated in independent companies. I realise, of course, that the trust has no formal responsibility for quality and that responsibility for in-house capacity will rest with the management, but the trust will be responsible for operating the WOCC. I simply flag up my slight fear that the excellent WOCC and the draft charter provisions could just have the unintended consequence in the long term of damaging quality and losing too much in-house expertise. Finally, I turn to the move north. The BBC governors’ decision yesterday to authorise the North Project Team to treat Salford Media City:UK as the leading bidder in principle, and to conduct exclusive discussions with a view to confirming Salford as the preferred bidder, was issued with clear warnings that there are outstanding issues to be resolved. As it would seem, the move is still in some sense a negotiating pawn in the battle over the licence fee settlement. The director-general made it clear in his statement that the move will happen only if it is affordable. It is not a done deal. Not surprisingly, I have taken a particular interest in this move. I very much hope today for continued assurances from the Government that they will encourage and enable the BBC to bring its plans to fruition, not only because of the enormous economic and cultural benefits that the move will bring to the north-west, but because of the exciting opportunity that it provides for the BBC to work in partnership with other broadcasters, independents and the voluntary sector, as promised in the BBC’s recently published partnership code. I remain worried, as I have said in earlier debates and in the Select Committee, about the ability of the BBC to work effectively in partnership with others. I would like to see, as others have stated elsewhere, the trust’s remit specifically include a clear responsibility for overseeing partnership working across the BBC. This evening, or, I hope, this afternoon, I shall return to my diocese and to the two cities of Manchester and Salford that are in it. Each was hoping to have the new media hub. I shall, I fear, in Vicar of Bray style, console the one and congratulate the other, conscious, nevertheless, that both remain determined contenders. Then I will wait for the licence fee settlement in the hope that the move really will happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly said, on its own merits—and there are many—that it will happen in a manner that is consonant with the interests of the licence fee payer and that, in the end, the north-west will not turn out to have been the victim of a southern metropolitan game.