Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 178 - 179)

TUESDAY 29 JUNE 2004

BSKYB

  Chairman: Good Morning, gentleman. It is very nice indeed to see you, as always. We are going to launch straight into the questioning. John Thurso.

  Q178  John Thurso: Can I begin with a pretty straightforward question. From your perspective, is there really any need for a BBC? Should the BBC actually exist?

  Mr Freudenstein: A big question to start with! I think you really need to look at why you want a BBC and what it is there to achieve; and I think in that we probably agree with some of the things that witnesses to this Committee have said before, such as Sir Christopher Bland earlier in the month said, I think in general terms, "the BBC is there to provide a quality and range of programmes that will not always or frequently have been provided by commercial television and commercial radio". So I think there is a role for the BBC in terms of providing high quality programming that would not be provided by the commercial stations. I think there is also a role for them to lead the way in innovation and risk, if that is what society thinks is important.

  Q179  John Thurso: If one looks at the BBC and the way it has developed, it has moved into a lot of areas which might be considered the province of the commercial operators and clearly the boundary between what it is appropriate for the BBC to do and how far they go is one that needs to be debated. In your view where should that boundary be drawn? What is the preserve of the BBC and adds the value that you have just described, and where is it that they trespass into the areas you would really like them to keep out of?

  Mr Freudenstein: I think you keep bringing it back to what does society want to see? What programming and content does society want to see provided? Is that being provided by the market? If it is not being provided by the market, then the BBC should provide it, then you have to have a debate about how much money they need to do that and then you can have a debate about how you fund it. The one thing that is clear is that, however that is decided, you need to set a pretty clear remit for what you want the BBC to do. An example is what has happened with BBC 3. For the first time there has been a remit and some rules laid down about what the channel should be, and the emphasis is on being distinctive from what commercial channels provide, and then you need someone to make sure they live by the rules.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 16 December 2004