---

BBC: Charter

My Lords, I start by sharing with my noble friend Lord Fowler his disappointment that so few, if any, of his excellent committee’s recommendations—or, indeed, the recommendations of other bodies, such as the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport—were listened to, let alone acted upon. As usual, his speech was most articulate and very much to the point. I also congratulate my noble friends Lord King and Lord Inglewood on their perceptive contributions to the debate. It seems extraordinary that a Government who so frequently claim to be listening have taken such an obstinate and intransigent stance on the committee’s proposals for establishing the BBC Trust. Indeed, I cannot do better than repeat the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester when he said that the Government display a remarkable capacity for being immovable. That is a wonderful Churchillian phrase. The BBC is one of the great institutions of this country, giving people across the United Kingdom and all over the world an opportunity to watch and listen to a quality of programming which is far above what would otherwise be available. However, the BBC’s deservedly fine reputation does not mean that the taxpayer should continue to pour enormous sums of money into it without asking very serious questions about how it is spent. The debate over how high the licence fee should be has degenerated into a morass of confusion, contradictory statements and half-answered questions. The announcement by Tessa Jowell to delay the decision failed to give any proper explanation for this. Leaving aside the question of whether a garden party was an appropriate place to make an announcement about something which will affect so many people, can the Minister clarify exactly why this delay was thought to be necessary and what is hoped to be achieved by it? I also hope that he can assure us that the decision will not be announced during the Summer Recess. There are several more questions that need answering about the licence fee. All highlight the importance of improving the transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of the process. The current method of fixing the licence fee is so secretive that it is not surprising that there has been such strong criticism of the requested increase. The final level should be set after a debate based upon clear and publicly scrutinised figures, rather than the current hotchpotch of a process. It is completely unclear upon what basis the decision will finally be made. The calculations that have gone into drawing it up appear opaque at best and downright wrong at worst. Notably, one of our leading accountancy firms, PKF, has expressed serious doubts as to the accuracy of the figures. Can the Minister assure us that its criticisms will be taken into account in revising the estimated costs of the BBC, and that the adjusted figures will be released to the public before a final decision is made? Does the Minister agree that the National Audit Office should have a role in overseeing the calculations, as I understand that the licence fee is now classified as a tax? The BBC’s request for such an enormous increase in the licence fee is doubly surprising when one considers the growth in the number of households served. The BBC has already benefited from these new households, and is looking set to continue to benefit from future increases in household numbers. Has this been taken into account by the BBC or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? The confusion continues when we look at how the money is to be spent. We know that £300 million will go straight into the Chancellor’s pocket to pay for the digital spectrum, a clear example of yet another stealth tax, this time to be hidden in the licence fee. Can the Minister explain exactly why television licences for the over-75s are paid for out of taxpayers’ money, but the cost of the digital switchover—including providing coverage for the vulnerable and those self-same over-75s—are to be paid out of the licence fee? What are the reasons for such a fundamental and illogical difference in the source of funding? My Lords, the licence fee is only one of the areas that needs to be properly debated. Perhaps the most important is how we define public sector broadcasting in the 21st century. What do we mean by it? Does it mean competing in every sector? Is the BBC in danger, despite its protestations, of putting audience share ahead of audience reach? While the BBC should be congratulated on its continuing commitment, it is not the only broadcaster with public sector commitments. The importance of maintaining sufficient competition in this area was set out by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, in his evidence to the third report of the Select Committee. It is extraordinary that we now seem to be debating the level of the licence fee completely separately from the debate over what the BBC should be aiming to provide. The BBC’s requirements to provide public sector broadcasting are discussed separately from those of ITV or Channel 4. This incoherence must surely be resolved. The reviews of ITV and Channel 4 should be conducted simultaneously, later this year. As we have already heard in this debate, there is a great deal of worry about the effects on the independent sector of the increase of £6 billion pounds that the BBC has asked for over the period. The other television channels and radio stations that are funded mainly by advertising will face massively increased licence-fee funded competition over the years. There are also concerns about how the BBC’s handling of digital switchover will affect the commercial channels. I understand that the BBC is in talks with Channel 4 about providing help with the capital costs of switchover and some additional digital terrestrial capacity. The Minister mentioned this is his speech, but can he reassure me that the discussions will result in concrete measures to help Channel 4 in these areas, as promised in the White Paper? Concerns about maintaining sufficient competition and diversity among the media are not confined to television. Commercial radio, too, sees the BBC increasing its share by alternating popular radio shows during the day with programmes that fulfil its public service requirements, other than news, weather and travel, through the night. It is clear that the public sector debate must therefore be extended into all areas covered by the BBC, including the internet and downloads. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions and those asked by other noble Lords to ensure that the charter and agreement receive some small part of the proper parliamentary scrutiny that is quite clearly essential.