---

BBC: Charter

My Lords, this has been an interesting and informative debate, although what we learned from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, about the fate of those who criticised the previous charter has made me a little nervous, so I shall start on a positive note."““There is nothing like a little distance to make you reflect on what makes Britain really great. Since I live in the United States for most of the time I can tell you that many is the time I wish deeply that there was a presence like that of the BBC””." Clearly, those are not my words, as I am here, but those of historian Simon Schama, voicing a sentiment expressed by so many. The BBC’s new charter and agreement recognise this, which is to be welcomed. Here, I declare an interest; I worked at the BBC for 10 very exciting years, and I am currently an associate of an independent production company. The digital future will mean that each consumer could have limitless choice. Profitability cannot be allowed to emerge as the sole measure of worth. The presence of the BBC, defined by the charter as serving the licence fee payer, placing the public interest first, and bringing the world to the UK, is an essential counterbalance to programme-making purely as a commodity. There is a ringing endorsement to be entertaining, and of course the BBC must entertain, but it also has to take on difficult subjects and not be damned if it does because they do not always attract large audiences. The Guardian recently ran a story about BBC1 having,"““sunk to its lowest ever peak time ratings””," on a night when ““Panorama”” was given a peak-time slot on a Wednesday. The Guardian said that ““Panorama””,"““failed to woo the viewers””." A forthcoming ““Panorama”” special was swiftly relegated from Wednesday to Sunday. The BBC must hold its nerve. The emphasis must, as the charter and the agreement say, be on quality, not on ratings. As the noble Lord, Lord King, has said, the process of the renewal of the charter was set against the backdrop of the unprecedented internal upheaval caused by the Hutton inquiry. The war in Iraq led not only to regime change there, but to regime change at the BBC, and relations between the Government and the corporation hit rock bottom. As the Minister said earlier, the dual role of the BBC board of governors, as both champions and regulators of the corporation, was exposed as untenable. At the time, the Secretary of State described the position of the 12 BBC governors as unsustainable, and said that it was,"““probably the most fundamental area for reform””." She has kept her word. The most radical element to the charter is the creation of the BBC Trust, but although the trust is clearly an improvement on what existed before, it is still not an independent regulator. We are told that the BBC Trust will have a line of accountability directly to the licence fee payer, and that it will be that strange hybrid, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, referred, a sovereign state inside the BBC. Would it not be much more likely to achieve the stated aims of the Government if it was a sovereign state outside the BBC? As the noble Lord, Lord King, has mentioned, there is the matter of how the members of the trust are appointed. In the evidence that she gave to the House of Lords Select Committee, of which I was proud to be a member—I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, our admirable chairman—the Secretary of State said:"““I think the challenge is as much in the range of people that come forward and offer themselves for appointment as it is in relation to the appointment itself””." At the same time, she acknowledged that this was a difficult task. How do the Government intend to ensure this and to get away from the old boys’/girls’ network when the interview panel, as has been mentioned before, is chaired by a DCMS official, and when ultimately the appointments are made by the Secretary of State? I have noticed that three ex-governors have talked today in this House. There may be a chicken and egg discussion to be had there, but surely there should be an independent oversight of appointments. Again, in her evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee, the Secretary of State said—I am quoting what the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, said, but in a slightly different context:"““I think 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””." Yet three existing governors are to be transferred to the trust. The Minister says that there is a need for continuity, but surely the trust is absolutely not about continuity; it is about being a new broom—a new body with a new function that will stand back from the corporation and represent a break with the past. Continuity lies in the hands of the executive board, the channel controllers and the programme makers. These appointments fly in the face of the Secretary of State’s stated aim that the BBC Trust should have a new nature. New nature simply is not compatible with old governance. That the BBC is to continue to be funded through the licence fee is, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, to be welcomed. However, the level at which the BBC wishes it to be set is causing some consternation both among competitors and supporters. The director-general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, contends that at the end of two years of public debate, the BBC must be given the finances to deliver the mission that emerged out of it. He refers to:"““This piece of settled public policy””." I am not sure how he comes to the term ““settled””, although certainly there was wide consultation, for which process the Government are to be congratulated. But I do not believe that the public understood that the BBC, through its licence fees, was going to be asked to bear the social costs of help for the vulnerable and elderly in the switch to digital. The Secretary of State’s view is that a targeted assistance programme is a broadcasting cost. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have already spoken on this: it is not; it is a social cost and it is not appropriate for the licence fee to be used to pay a social cost. This is in effect a new tax collected through the disguise of the licence fee, and it inflates the cost for every licence fee payer. At the moment there is strong support for the BBC and the way it is funded, but the public’s faith in the corporation will be put under severe strain if at the same time as channels and choice multiply, the cost of the licence fee rockets, and I too accept the report of Professor Barwise. But he has done that research now and we are talking about what will happen as channels multiply. The rise in the cost of the licence fee is due in part to the targeted assistance programme I just mentioned, but to an even greater extent to the Government’s insistence that the BBC—in other words, the licence fee payer—funds the Government’s policy of switching to digital. Why should the cost of switching from analogue to digital be paid out of the licence fee and not general taxation? The licence fee is already a regressive tax and this makes it more so. Another cost factored into the BBC’s licence fee bid is that of digital spectrum. The Treasury is set to make a lot of money out of selling spectrum, and if it were to charge the BBC, it would be in direct receipt of licence fee payers’ money. It would be indulging in what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, called in evidence to the committee ““double dipping””. This should not happen. The process of charter review at a time of great change across the broadcasting industry has made apparent the importance of securing a strong BBC, but not an omnipotent one. That is why the window of creative competition, as outlined in the agreement, is such a welcome concept. It recognises that content is going to be all-important in a world of multiple channels and that the licence fee must be used to finance the best ideas and the best talent to provide that content. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester expressed some concern, but I know the BBC and I do not think he need be worried. I welcome the emphasis placed in the agreement that the WOCC system be run in a fair and transparent way. A healthy, vibrant and competitive PSB ecology must be ensured in a future that poses particular challenges to public service broadcasting. Here, the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, has already been characteristically persuasive. The Government should use their power of direction to instruct Ofcom not to charge PSB channels as well as the BBC for the use of digital spectrum. If the licence fee payer, through the BBC, is to fund switchover, it is also to be welcomed that the Government are encouraging the BBC to discuss the assistance it might offer Channel 4—here I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones—in funding its capital costs of switchover. During this charter review, there has indeed been public consultation, an independent report and three Select Committees. The Government have not had to listen to any of their recommendations. The Secretary of State herself told the House of Lords committee that the Green Paper was:"““Deliberately framed in a way that was a bit like a pistachio ripple: there were some white proposals which had White Paper status””." In other words, what we said on certain matters would not even be considered. Parliament, like the public, is only consulted. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, all we can do is talk. The Royal Charter is a deal between the Secretary of State and the chair of the BBC; between the Government and the BBC. Those people who are concerned about greater parliamentary involvement must remember that at the moment we have a Government who are well disposed towards the BBC. That will not necessarily always be the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said so eloquently, Parliament must be given a greater role. The BBC should be established by statute so that its constitution is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and Parliament should be able to decide the level of the licence fee. When the BBC’s Royal Charter next comes up for renewal in 10 years’ time, the broadcasting landscape, as we all know now, will look very different indeed. In the mean time, we must cherish the BBC. I opened this speech by quoting Simon Schama and I will close with him. The future must not be what he experiences in America, where:"““It’s impossible to imagine . . . anything like the take no prisoners irreverence of Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight””—" which, I suspect, is something the noble Lord, Lord Gould, might desire—"““it’s impossible to imagine the kind of powerful and wildly eccentric satire . . . that we saw in Little Britain, it’s impossible to imagine the scale and depth and beauty of something like the dramatisation of Bleak House””." The BBC is a great institution. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we must ensure that this charter’s endorsement of a strong BBC, a BBC independent of government and a BBC responsive to public wishes is the reality over the next 10 years.