---

Future of the BBC

My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity kindly afforded to us by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to discuss this important topic. I declare an interest as a former governor of the BBC—indeed, one of the very last—and in having a close family member working for the BBC. It is an interest that never leaves me, for the BBC permeates our daily lives and is never more missed and revered than when one is abroad and the topic is raised by foreigners. There should be no doubt that the existence of the BBC is a major factor in the reputation of this country all over the world, for the good, and as a purveyor of truth in countries where reliable news is sadly lacking. I regard the BBC as almost wholly excellent at the moment and I have some suggestions for making it even more so in the future. The licence fee is sometimes criticised, but it amounts only to the cost of a few football tickets, or 39p per household per day. One-third of the income is spent outside the organisation on, for example, independent production. The licence fee is not just for television and radio; it supports the website, the orchestras, the Proms, the Reith lecture and sport. There is also training, and not only of the BBC’s own employees—as those people spread out, the training has benefited artists and journalists in all media, who owe a great deal to the BBC. I hope that your Lordships will never countenance direct government funding or the relinquishment of the charter, which keeps the governance stable and out of politics for 10 years at a time. The future is digital. In at least one way, that is detrimental to the BBC’s desire to educate and include younger viewers, for they will apparently download what they want, which is unlikely to be news and serious political programmes. In BBC Three, I venture to suggest that the BBC has not had great success in targeting the 16 to 34 age group. BBC Three costs £87 million a year. When I was a governor, criticism of the quality of the output was off-bounds at meetings. The feeling was that the governors were not capable of judging content but had to stick to strategy. In my humble opinion, however, and now that I am freed of that constraint, if cuts have to be made, BBC Three might not be as missed as some others. It never seemed to me to have a theme. The governors of the past were, perhaps, feistier in getting involved in these things than is the carefully structured group of representative governors that one has today. There is a case for having the deputy chairman, if not the chairman, elected by his or her fellow trustees to ensure total independence from government and to ensure that all trustees who are appointed may think that they could rise to that position. Your Lordships will have noted with gratification that the BBC has been challenged by the trust to curb salaries and to suspend bonuses. That is absolutely right. When I was a governor, I challenged bonuses on the ground that the BBC was public sector and not supposed to make a profit. Therefore, there was no rationale for bonuses. The reply, from a very senior person, was, "The trouble with you academics"—I was one then—"is that you earn so little that you don’t understand money", to which I replied that there were more people like me out there than like that person. The trust, which seems to me not very different from the governors, holds the BBC to account. I fear that governance theories, as others have mentioned, may have moved the trust too far away from the executive, a process that started in my time. The trust cannot hold the BBC to account unless it knows some details in advance—for example, of the high salaries being offered and controversial programmes being made. However, there should never be any prior censorship. Holding the BBC to account means handling complaints properly. What is needed is a complaints ombudsman for the BBC—an independent external person who will handle complaints according to best practice and bring real independence as well as expertise to bear. The Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee, as it was—it is now the Editorial Standards Committee—was often asked to judge factual matters in which it had no particular expertise. For example, I remember the question coming forward whether the European Commission could properly be described as a Parliament. Only an outsider can be perceived to be independent in judging impartiality and accuracy. Moreover, it seems only right that the apology or correction when a complaint is upheld should be broadcast in the same slot as the original error or shortcoming so that the same people see or hear the correction. However, the BBC usually apologises only online. Had an independent complaints process been in place when a complaint was made about the infamous Gilligan early-morning broadcast in 2003, I have no doubt that history would have been different. The BBC also has to be representative. On screen one sees older men of various stages of maturity, complete with their natural hair colour and body shape, only as expected at their age, reading news and conducting interviews. They are seen in a position of authority. Older women with equally grey hair are invisible. There are plenty of older women with the appeal, authority and clarity of, say—I am being invidious—the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and other noble Baronesses of mature years in this House. There are plenty of them to represent the older woman on screen, whose invisibility is an insult. The BBC should not be held back too much from competing with commercial providers. It is a matter of regret to me that BBC jam, an educational website, was brought to a halt by commercial competitors and European red tape. The National Health Service would not refrain from providing the best machinery and treatment to its patients, even if private providers are in competition. As an equally public service, the BBC should do no less. Its future is to continue its high-quality product, but taking note of the concerns about expenditure, possible overextension of channels and the effects of the digital future. Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for this opportunity.