---

BBC: Charter

My Lords, it is good to follow my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane, with whom I am fortunate to share an office. I said to him this morning that, with people of his experience and insight participating in this debate, not least my noble friend Lord Bragg, it would be a little challenging for people such as myself and that, as my remarks are heard, it would become clear that I come from the ranks of laymen. I join those noble Lords who have thanked the Select Committee for its thorough, excellent and challenging work; in particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for his outstanding chairmanship. I sympathise with noble Lords’ sense of disappointment that more of what the committee advocated does not appear to have registered, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, will appreciate that that experience is not unique to the Select Committee and that some of us who have served in other quarters will have a sense of solidarity. However, I congratulate the Government and the BBC on having concluded their work on the charter and the framework agreement. Whatever reservations we may continue to have, all of us must now concentrate on making a success of the outcome. Structures are inanimate. It is people, their calibre, commitment, vision and energy that make success; and that will apply to the executive board and the trust. There must be an active interface and real constructive tension of meaningful accountability between the trust and the executive board. The arrangements for appointments and the criteria to be used in making them will be critical. There is a danger that the trust could become a formality. It must not be dependent, in effect, on servicing by the executive board. The quality and effectiveness of the trust’s secretariat will be essential—perhaps I may say that we all know that the success of our Select Committees is related to the strengths, however diplomatically or sensitively deployed, of the Clerks and special advisers. The better the Clerks and advisers, the better the committee. The national representation envisaged for the trust is important. But society in each of the four parts of the United Kingdom is a complex matrix of civil society and of social, economic, ethnic and religious or humanist groupings. Six open places for that matrix are not much to play with; but the matrix needs to be reflected in the membership of the trust and combined with relevant skills and experience for the task and its six purposes. Similarly, the audience councils must vigorously be representative and demanding. That, too, will require effective, independent servicing. They will be a waste of public funds unless they have a vigorous, confident voice to express in the debates about the future—and about performance. Perhaps I may put in a word regarding the role of local radio and television, for which I am an enthusiast. Not only can they make an important contribution to the life of the community which they serve, but they can strengthen the purpose of democracy by acting in an imaginative way to bring national and international issues into a local context. I am not sure that that possibility has always been exploited as it should have been. The high standing and credibility of the BBC are undoubtedly related to its perceived independence from political pressure and government pressure in the discharging of its mandate, once that has been determined, rightly, by politicians on behalf of the nation. Ultimately, of course, the BBC remains accountable to the body politic—the renewal of the licence fee is the key example. However, I believe that there is a good case for saying, as was argued by the Select Committee, that the strength of the mandate will be even greater if Parliament as a whole has been involved in endorsing it. That said, I repeat that the independence of the BBC in functioning within the mandate is crucial. That independence places huge responsibilities on the BBC, not just for fulfilling the six purposes in practice and in spirit—and that means building a culture and ethos with which all who work in the BBC can identify—but also for ensuring balance, coupled with stringent financial discipline and cost-effectiveness. These should go hand in hand with a recognition of the inevitable impact that such a large organisation will have on the rest of the media and communications in general and a sensitivity, demonstrated in policy and action, which at all times demonstrably takes that into account. Insulation from crude market pressures underlines responsibilities in this respect. In my view, successful democracy depends on the quality of information and analysis, which is its lifeblood. In the media as a whole, apart from the issues of power play, there has always been a tension between the high calling of journalism in a democracy and the bottom line of business profitability. I do not believe that I am alone in being saddened by the increasing dominance of that bottom line at the expense of quality. Global warming, the energy crisis, globalisation of health risks, issues of international security and global terrorism—not to mention the related challenges of making a success of a culturally diverse and pluralist community within the United Kingdom—all demand the objectivity and gravitas of an organisation which is not just part of the media market. Personally, I am perplexed by the argument advanced in some quarters that the resources available to the BBC should be related to the current financial success of the commercial sector. That is surely to miss the point of what our forebears saw so clearly from the outset. The role of the BBC is to be the guarantor of freedom of open debate, of independent analysis and of creative, innovative originality and dynamism in our cultural life. It therefore has to be free from the short-termism of market forces. If we recognise that, we must then face up to what it will cost and ensure that the necessary resources are available. However indispensable the market may be, it is not synonymous with democracy or society as a whole. The BBC is not about the market. Lord Reith would tremble at the thought. At a time when we preach the virtues of freedom, accountable government and democracy to the rest of the world, the World Service—arguably the jewel in the crown—becomes more relevant than ever. But I worry at indications that it sometimes tailors its outreach to where the size of audience is greatest. It may well be where the audience is not so large that the most significant contribution can sometimes be made to the quality of debate, which is essential to strengthen the democratic process and the cause of international security. I am not arguing for a BBC which is exclusive. It must all the time be pushing at the frontiers of inclusion in, and access to, the enjoyment of quality. It should invariably be a leader in the fight for civilisation. Bringing people to the upmarket, not taking the BBC to the downmarket, is the constant and enduring challenge. I conclude with two specific observations. In this House, we are all concerned by prevailing social mores. We spend a great deal of time deploring the absence of respect and the prevalence of yobbish behaviour. Manners and courtesy should be central to the handling of news and current affairs. Aggressive bullying is easy; it is also weak. The real test of professionalism is to demonstrate how truth can be revealed and how dishonesty and inadequacy can be exposed in a reasoned, searching way. The strength of argument is not the insensitivity with which it is advanced. That may sound stuffy, but the BBC has an unrivalled opportunity to demonstrate how civilised society can work. At its best, it does this very well, but not always, and it should always fight shy of celebrating the journalistic bully. There is also the danger of the arrogance of institutional elitism. In its news programmes, these days the BBC sometimes tends to interview its own staff as the source of all expertise. There is, of course, some place for that but, surely, all the time, it should be seeking to draw on the relevant expertise and experience of others. Those points are matters of emphasis. At its best—I am in no doubt whatever that that best is the norm—the BBC is a magnificent part of the profile of what most of us would like Britain to be—part of our super ego. Long may that remain the case. I wish it well with the new arrangements and with its battle for a fully adequate licence fee.