Proceeding contribution from Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen (Labour) in the House of Lords on Friday, 16 June 2006. It occurred during Debate and Debate on select committee report on BBC: Charter.
BBC: Charter
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate today. Unlike many other speakers, I am no expert on the BBC, broadcasting or the media, although I am more knowledgeable now than I was before I joined the Select Committee. I have always been, and remain, a keen supporter and admirer of the BBC. My enthusiasm for the Beeb was why I was so pleased to be a member of the Select Committee on the BBC’s charter review, an experience which I thoroughly enjoyed. I was extremely lucky to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, whose wisdom and diligence guided the committee through many sticky areas. None was more sticky than when we discussed the BBC and religious broadcasting, when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on the one hand, and my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Maxton on the other, held what could be described as ““differing views””. That we came to a consensus on these and other issues owes a lot to the guidance given by our chair, and I thank him. The revised draft charter and draft framework agreement before us today are important documents. The BBC is a vital part of the life of the United Kingdom, and its aims, how it is run and its accountability play a key role in that life. I shall concentrate on three issues today: the BBC Trust and executive board, the licence fee and the licence fee payers. The Select Committee took the proposals on the trust and the board very seriously. They were the nub of so many other issues. We concluded, after lengthy debate, that there were many anomalies in the proposals for two separate entities. The differences between their roles were not immediately clear to us. To enable effective separation between governance and regulation, we opted instead for a unitary BBC board, and a strengthened Ofcom content board with duties to regulate the content of BBC television and radio. However, these proposals were firmly rejected by the Government. Indeed, when we discussed them with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, it appeared that there had never been any chance of altering the trust proposals; they were written in stone. At that point, and this being my first Select Committee, I could not help wondering why this had not been made clear to the committee from the start, thus saving us time and effort. However, members more worldly wise than I told me that this often happens irrespective of the Government in power, which only goes to show that all governing parties have their little weaknesses. However, in the draft charter before us, it appears that some of our concerns have been listened to, and some of my fears about the two bodies have been allayed. Now that the proposals have meat on their bones, we know roughly how the trust and executive board will work and who the members of each body will be, and their role and functions are spelt out in more detail, as is their relationship with each other. What was described in our discussion with the Secretary of State as a blank sheet of paper has now been written upon. For me, however, one important question remains. It is slightly different from the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, about trustees. I still do not understand exactly how the trustee board members will be chosen. In our final discussions with the Secretary of State, she said of future trustees:"““I think that what is important is that those who are appointed to the Trust reflect the new nature of the BBC Trust, the fact that it is different from the Board of Governors . . . and, therefore, in seeking or inviting applications to my Department . . . we will have to take steps to reach out beyond the population of excellent people who would in the normal course of events come forward. This is a process which takes time in my experience. It may take some time before we have a Trust which is fully reflective in the way we hope””." Obviously, therefore, the trust members are to be carefully chosen, and will be of an exceptionally high calibre. I wonder, therefore, whether my noble friend the Minister can tell the House what process is to be employed to seek people who would not normally come forward. What would be the criteria for applying to serve on the trust? The licence fee, again, created a great deal of debate, especially with those who gave evidence from rival organisations. We supported the BBC funding through a licence fee until 2017, and the proposals from the BBC itself to review alternative funding once the effects of digital switchover are clearer. We must remember, when discussing the licence fee, that the BBC’s aims are significantly greater than those of its rivals, both at home and abroad, so the need for a sensible licence fee is obvious. However, it is also obvious that the Beeb must not price itself out of the market. The committee was very conscious of this and I hope the BBC is as well. In a recent speech, Mark Thompson, the BBC director-general, tackled some of the misunderstandings and myths surrounding the licence fee and explained its importance to the BBC. He pointed out that the Government set clear objectives for the BBC in 2000, and that eminent independent commentators had accepted that the BBC had been extremely successful in meeting them. He denied categorically the accusations from some quarters that the BBC’s revenue has grown out of control, and said that he had never seen a shred of evidence to support this supposition. He also said that the licence fee is seen by the BBC as,"““a contract between the BBC and, ultimately, the British public for the delivery of content that furthers various public purposes””." As such, it is vital to the BBC and its future. I welcome these comments, which show that the BBC recognises the importance of discussion on the licence free. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, raised the worries and observations of the committee about the licence fee. The points he raised, which I shall not repeat, should be considered in depth by the Government. I also hope that full, careful thought will be given to the establishment of a permanent Select Committee, which would be enormously helpful now and in future. At this stage, I shall mention a small but important matter that the Select Committee believes could be acted upon immediately. In the first report, point 304 covers the decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee. It is nonsense for non-payment to remain a criminal offence. I ask the Government to decriminalise that offence and bring it into line with other civil offences. They should use fixed penalty notices and civil court orders instead. I shall turn briefly to the inclusion of new members of the public in decision-taking at the BBC. Audience councils for the four nations are a new and important concept that I welcome wholeheartedly. Licence fee payers from diverse and geographically different parts of the kingdom are to have a voice at the very heart of the BBC. The councils’ remits are good. They are designed to provide a wide number of opinions from local communities and to oversee how public purposes should be pursued and public value tests applied by virtue of the framework agreement. I look forward to seeing the protocol that will establish the setting up, running and recruiting of those councils. I also welcome the clear proposals relating to communications with staff at the BBC. No organisation can be fully effective unless it has its staff on its side. I hope the BBC will always remember that message. I believe that we should be, and are, justifiably proud of the BBC. So many people in the world envy us for it, and it is such a very British institution. Like other noble Lords, I pay a special tribute to the BBC World Service, which currently serves 163 million radio listeners weekly. That is a record audience, and smashes all previous listening records. It is an outstanding achievement. I send many congratulations to the director, Nigel Chapman, and his team. Serving on the Select Committee was a learning curve for me, and I undoubtedly learnt a lot during that time about the BBC and broadcasting and the media generally. As other noble Lords have said, the television and radio world is changing swiftly, especially in relation to digital switchover, and its future is exciting. Finally, I thank my colleagues on the committee from all sides of the House for the friendship we shared and the information we exchanged.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 683 c464-6
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Accountability BBC Costs Competition Digital broadcasting Channel Four Television Finance Fees and charges Governing bodies Public appointments Parliamentary scrutiny Political impartiality Public service broadcasting Reviews Royal charters Television licences
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:38:56 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_330296
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_330296
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_330296