---

Future of the BBC

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on his good fortune in introducing yet another debate on broadcasting when we also have a Bill on related areas before us on which we will spend a great deal of time. The noble Lord made a somewhat more tendentious opening than he sometimes does as chairman of the Select Committee in his onslaught on the Secretary of State’s position. I regard that as a thoughtful contribution to an ongoing debate on a crucial issue. I shall discuss that issue because the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has long been critical of the BBC Trust model and is concerned that we should address the matter. The issue cropped up in a number of contributions today and is the most significant feature of this debate on the future of the BBC. I shall come back to it in a moment. I appreciate the noble Lord’s indication of his approval of so much of the BBC’s work, particularly his tribute to the quality of its news provision; it is unparalleled and is one of the features of the BBC that we hold in the highest regard. That is why, when we discuss the future of the corporation, we have to pay great regard to that crucial role. I was also grateful for the concern he expressed about the opportunities for BBC Worldwide and the way in which it might, with partnership, extend those opportunities to the benefit of the country. That issue certainly needs to be looked at. There was a Question this morning about the creative industries and there is no doubt that the BBC has a critical role to play. The creative industries are an important part of the British economy and we should look at ways in which resources can be usefully invested in that area. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, also stressed her appreciation of the value of the BBC in the nation’s life. She particularly emphasised the role that it needs to play in the provision of high-quality children’s television. The noble Baroness takes the opportunity on every occasion to stress this crucial point—as she did today—and it is well taken by the BBC. Television plays an important part in the education and development of our children and it is important that we guarantee that high-quality children’s television is available, and the BBC’s role in that is of considerable importance. She also emphasised the importance of the commercial sector and the role of Channel 4 in public service broadcasting. These issues, inevitably, will be discussed within the framework of the Digital Economy Bill over the next few weeks, when noble Lords will be able to deploy their arguments in greater detail than they are able to do in this short debate today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for identifying that point. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark made a thoughtful contribution about the issues of religion and faith in broadcasting. He will be aware that this has been a fairly lively issue in this House during the past two weeks or so. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, identified a controversial dimension to it, which he expressed in his usual trenchant manner. Suffice it to say, I do not think that the BBC Trust’s decision regarding "Thought For The Day" a couple of weeks ago did anything other than identify that it foresaw a significant role for religious and faith broadcasting within a certain context and regarded "Thought For The Day" as exclusively for that purpose. It therefore rejected an alternative position which my noble friend Lord Maxton would have advocated. The right reverend Prelate’s anxiety can be allayed. Given the multiplicity of views and faiths in our community, the BBC would be neglecting its duties if it did not respond to the points that the right reverend Prelate put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, in his short speech expressed more eloquently what might have taken me 10 minutes to say about the role that the BBC has played in our national life throughout its history. If any of us wants to appreciate the significance of the BBC in our national life, a reading of the noble Lord’s speech would prove fulfilling. It took away from me the need to defend much of the BBC’s role, because it was done so cogently by him. There is no doubt that the BBC is a unique institution which is a world leader and greatly envied elsewhere. That is why this debate is of such great importance, dealing as it does with the future of the corporation. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, also spoke of the value of the BBC and reflected her concern about the threats to it, to which I shall come in a few moments. An important point to emerge from the debate is that, in an age in which substantial resources are available for pay and commercial television, and given the changes in the way in which people receive their entertainment and information, the challenge to the public service broadcasting of the BBC is obvious. That was certainly reflected on the noble Baroness’s side of the House, particularly in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who said that we should pay attention to the BBC’s need to be able to resist challenges from sources which have different values from those which it enshrines. The noble Baroness mentioned top-slicing the licence fee. She will recognise that what is being suggested for independent news broadcasters are pilot studies for development of a response to what we all recognise is a very serious issue; that is, the loss of support and revenues for independent news programmes and the great danger that the BBC therefore adopts that monopoly position which it aspires to but which would be forced upon it if independent broadcasters and alternative news centres failed. That is why it is right that we address these issues within the framework of the Digital Economy Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will regard it not as a threat to the licence but as a necessary action by the Government. After all, we are converting resources for the digital switchover towards this wholly beneficial development to sustain independent news consortia. I hope that is regarded as a constructive contribution to the broadcasting position. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, also emphasised her respect for the BBC and the role that it plays. I hope that it has listened to the point that she makes about the question of the extent to which mature women can make a contribution to our broadcasting life and viewing perspectives. I know that she has a powerful ally in Joan Bakewell, who has also been campaigning on this issue. There is no doubt that there is an enormous danger that, because television has such a significant role to play, it deals with narrower stereotypes than may be appropriate for a broadcaster, which ought to appear to all sections of the community and represent them in every way that it can. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Haskel for his contribution and his emphasis on how this Bill related to the Digital Economy Bill. He fleshed out the question of pay rather more than the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, did in her contribution. I shall turn in a moment to the governance of the BBC, but the trust moved with some strength and alacrity to address the concern about BBC pay levels among senior executives. I hope that the House recognises that the Director-General of the BBC has acted to put these issues more into the public domain and that there is concern about this. The point that my noble friend Lord Haskel introduced goes much wider than the BBC; that the disparity in average pay within any industry and the salary levels of the top managers should concern us all. He asked whether they are actually justified with regard to performance. That goes wider than broadcasting; the banks bring dramatically to mind the issue of whether high-level pay is necessarily a reflection of high-level or indeed any level of performance at the banks. I hope that the House appreciates that the BBC is responding to that. Discussions are going on on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, on the National Audit Office and those aspects to which it may properly address itself with regard to value for money at the BBC. His point is being addressed by the BBC. I hope that it will be recognised that there are constructive perspectives in those terms. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised a number of interesting questions, as he always does. He was constructive in his comments about the World Service and the concerns about commercial radio. The BBC has the right with its radio services to cater for licence payers in all their plurality. Many of the programmes that it puts on are hugely popular. But it would be wrong for the public sector to adopt a monopoly position on this. I am sure that the BBC is all too well aware of the point that the noble Lord made—but these are issues that we can discuss in more detail in another arena. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked a question at the end, which the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, began to answer at the beginning. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that he did not know what was wrong with the existing structure of governance. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has always advocated a different perspective on governance with regard to the BBC from the trust. What is more important about the BBC than the trust is the charter, which is a 10-year agreement between government and the BBC that is the essential protection of the BBC’s independence from direct government interference. I therefore take it that, when all noble Lords are praising the BBC for its achievements—even if they are not following the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, in all his details—they also recognise the bedrock on which it stands, the charter, and its importance in the construction of a public service broadcaster which is responsible to the nation, paid for by licence holders but independent of government interference. It was clear from our charter review of the past few years that the public wanted the BBC to remain the cornerstone of public service broadcasting. They also wanted the BBC to be independent: separate from government and direct parliamentary interference. The charter is undoubtedly the best way to achieve both these aims. It gives the BBC the independence which it requires. That is why, even though we must expect the BBC to be able to show flexibility in a period of rapid change both in broadcast technology and in the audience’s demands upon it, it is important that it has the independence and security to plan its responses to the challenges that lie ahead. Granting a charter of fixed duration provides the opportunity for a fundamental, root-and-branch review of the BBC’s future role and purpose at the end of each charter period. It is somewhat premature for noble Lords to be definitive in saying that the trust model has failed when we are only two or three years into its operation. As I have indicated, the BBC has responded to several areas of acute concern over the past couple of years. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, acknowledged, I do not detect a deterioration of the BBC’s performance, responsibility or the general regard in which it is held resulting from its new structure.