---

Future of the BBC

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for enabling the House to address important issues on the future of the BBC and for the report on public service broadcasting from the Select Committee, which he chairs and of which my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is a member. I declare an interest in today’s debate as an occasional broadcaster and former chair of the Churches’ Media Council. No one who has lived abroad for any length of time would need much convincing of the quality and range of BBC broadcasting. Its output of information, edification and entertainment at home, and its role as a cultural and informative ambassador for Britain abroad has been a valuable part of our national life for decades. If we from these Benches have not been uncritical of particular aspects of the BBC over the years, we are in general its strong supporters and we wish the BBC to have a viable and fruitful future. In particular, we wish to express support for the BBC's wide range of good religious output as part of its wider public service commitments, but my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool will address this more fully in his speech. Significant as the past contribution to the life of our nation the BBC has been, this debate is concerned with its future, and there is naturally some concern as to how the BBC will survive intact in the coming digital marketplace. For me, a parable of hope might be the way in which in central Africa in the 1970s people like me every evening tried to tune in to the eight o’clock news from the BBC World Service on shortwave radio. This was no easy task, because the night ether was full of signals from radio stations both near and far, with a babble of different call signs and languages. Nor was the BBC one of the stronger signals; on the contrary, one had to be patient and have a keen ear to eventually pick up the unmistakable BBC sound and style. It was not only British expatriates who believed that the effort was worthwhile, for it was generally believed that the BBC provided a breadth of news and an objectivity of reporting that was not to be found so clearly in other stations. It was worthwhile, therefore, going to some effort to find and tune into the BBC among the shortwave maelstrom. Listening to the eight o’clock BBC news became quite a ritual. That was then and this is now; technology is transforming every aspect of life, including communications. In the digital age that we have now entered, it is perfectly easy to find several BBC stations and channels at the touch of a control button. The problem is that in the digital marketplace it is equally easy find dozens of other competing stations. Also in this 24-hour news world, an eight o'clock or even ten o'clock ritual of listening to the news is becoming a thing of the past. People find and listen to the news whenever and wherever they want—on television, radio, laptop or mobile phone, and probably before long on key-ring. But this is not necessarily bad news for the future of the BBC. Just as in shortwave Africa, people went to some effort to make the BBC their station of choice because of its quality and objectivity, so in the easy come, easy go digital age, enough watchers and listeners will make the BBC their first choice, provided that it maintains quality and objectivity. I think that a sign of this is the number of people now making the BBC News 24 webpage their default page on their laptops and mobiles. Nor does this just apply to news-gathering, telling and interpretation. The director-general of the BBC said in a recent lecture that it was his concern that the BBC should deliver to the British public the best programmes it can, and to turn fine words of the theory of public service broadcasting into journalism, drama, documentary and children's programmes that live on in the memory and, ""open doors that otherwise would be shut"." From these Benches we would want to say yes to that. We look forward to the report of the review which the director-general and the BBC Trust have set up to look to the post-switchover world of 2012. In the same lecture, the director-general tells us that we might expect to see a further shift of emphasis in favour of key priority areas: the best journalism in the world, high-quality programmes and services for children, content of every kind that builds knowledge and shares music and culture, a long-range commitment to outstanding British drama and comedy, and national events that bring us together. These words echo, in many details, the first recommendation of the report of the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. Perhaps unintentionally missing is what is included in the Fowler list but is not included here: an explicit reference to programmes dealing with religion and other beliefs. I presume that religion and faith, which form such a vital part of the lives and behaviour of many British citizens, will continue to form an integral part of the BBC’s future output. However, the director-general’s words also contain a warning: ""Expect to see reductions in some kinds of programmes and content"." And there's the rub. For cut back some minority interests and the specialist units interpreting them become no longer viable and it will be very difficult to build up such specialisms again. We on these Benches will be interested to monitor the effects of any future cutbacks. What structures might the BBC need for effective service in the post-switchover world? The corporation, like any institution in today's world—including my own church and perhaps even your Lordships’ House—stands on the frontier in history between what is no longer appropriate and what has not yet been invented. This is not a comfortable place to be, because predicting the future is always hazardous and deciding what needs to be carried from the past into the future requires some judgment. We on these Benches wish the provision of excellent public service broadcasting to have a strong place in the future life of the BBC. If this is to be so, then the BBC will need to have sufficient institutional independence and financial security to be able to plan ahead with some confidence and without constant change. At present, this institutional independence and financial stability are provided by the royal charter and the licence fee. It will be for those who feel that these are no longer appropriate to make their case. I, for one, will take some convincing that any other package will serve the nation better.