Examination of Witness (Questions 260-279)
LORD CARTER
OF BARNES
CBE
10 DECEMBER 2008
Q260 Janet Anderson: Pact has pointed
out to us that BBC Worldwide does not make public how much its
29 UK and overseas channels pay for programmes acquired from the
BBC, so we really have no way of knowing.?
Lord Carter of Barnes: Then that
is rightly a question which I am sure you already have put and
probably should put again to the management of BBC Worldwide.
On your principal question, as I say, I think you can argue the
case either way, but slightly going back to Mr Farrelly's question,
I do think we need to frame this question in a different way.
In this country we are extremely good at high quality UK-originated
content, extremely good at it. The BBC is very good at it, ITV
is very good at it, lots of independent production companies are
very good at it, Channel 4 is very good at commissioning it. It
is something we are very good at. The global market for that content
is growing and growing and growing, and how do we get the right
balance between competitive protections and at the same time creating
a British success story, or allowing a British success story to
compete in the global markets? I am not sure the two are essentially
at odds with each other. At the moment, you can see the conflict,
but I think that is largely a function of current structures rather
than necessarily the fundamentals.
Janet Anderson: Thank you.
Chairman: We are going to jump slightly
because Helen Southworth is not able to stay because she has another
meeting and there is a particular issue which she wants to raise.
Q261 Helen Southworth: If I could
ask you to focus some attention on the development of creative
industries and the BBC's role within that and to ask what you
are hoping for from the development of the Media City at Salford
in terms of the development of creative industries within the
UK and what opportunities that is going to give us for a global
market position?
Lord Carter of Barnes: I think
there is an awful lot of evidence to show that the changes over
the last—and it really has only been over the last five
or six years, not just with the BBC but also with the independent
production process more broadly, have, to use, I think, a previous
Secretary of State's quote, "spread the venture capital for
the UK creative industries more broadly" both in the ownership
of it and in the geographical home of it. What does that do? It
spreads employment opportunities and it spreads creative opportunities.
I think there is a reasonable degree of evidence—and this
slightly goes back to Janet's question—that it actually
creates value, absolute value, because you get competition in
the market and you get organisations and entities which can own
their own assets, and they can grow scale and they can acquire
and therefore they can invest themselves. So the strategy is,
I think, one which has been borne out by evidence and the Salford
move, the expansion of the BBC's capabilities in Scotland, the
extension of the window of creative competition, the transfer
of secondary rights, the extension of the regional quotas, these
are all designed, I think, to create a greater level of competition
and creativity, and the evidence so far is good. I think it is
good.
Q262 Helen Southworth: Are you hoping
that the BBC is actually going to invest significantly in making
that happen, because it is the big public service body which can
make it develop?
Lord Carter of Barnes: I have
heard the siren voices which say, you know, as ever, it could
be done quicker, there could be more of it and it could be more
efficient, and it may well be that all of those things are true,
but I certainly do not sense any lack of enthusiasm from the BBC
senior management for these changes, and I think that is for the
good.
Q263 Rosemary McKenna: Minister,
various organisations and individuals have argued that the BBC
Trust is not a credible check on the BBC's commercial ambitions.
Has the record of the Trust so far lived up to your expectations?
Lord Carter of Barnes: That is
a nice googly there, Rosemary! Well, it is a relatively new innovation,
is it not? If there is any place in which you can say these things,
it is probably in this House. Creating institutions fast is a
contradiction in terms because you need some time to do that and
the BBC Trust is still in its relatively early days. Is it an
improvement on the completely integrated governing structure that
there was before? I think on balance, yes. Is it a forensically
separate structure where accountability sits clearly in one place
and regulatory responsibility sits clearly and singularly in another?
No, it is not, but it never was. It was always designed to compromise
and to balance the conflicting challenges of how do you provide
the necessary degree of common guidance to a market whilst recognising
that the BBC is different? And the BBC is different, on lots of
levels, not least around this question about how do you have a
player which is funded largely, in the vast, vast majority, by
taxpayers' money through a licence fee whilst at the same time
encouraging it to do commercial activities in order to put a ceiling
on what that is. So there is an almost inevitable tension in there
because you are asking it to stimulate it to do things which might
of itself be in conflict with the market. I think the evidence
so far is that the BBC Trust has by and large exercised its judgment
on most of those things pretty well, but it is very early days.
Rosemary McKenna: Thank you.
Q264 Chairman: On some things the
Trust has clearly taken quite a hard line against the BBC Executive,
on others the Trust has seen its role to defend the BBC, and there
is an inherent contradiction between those two roles. It is not
a question of whether or not it is early days, it is obvious from
the start as to whether or not there is a contradiction. Is this
an issue, do you think, which bears re-examination in due course?
Lord Carter of Barnes: Well, everything
bears re-examination in due course. It depends on how long you
mean by "due course". Is it on my agenda? Is it a burning
issue? Do I sense that the collective and independent objective
analysis of the judgments made which have been bad demand a re-think?
No, I do not. I do not.
Q265 Chairman: So until we come round
to the next charter renewal period, the existing structure is
likely to remain in place?
Lord Carter of Barnes: I would
say that is highly likely. Making big structural changes on governance
no one does lightly. I know you do not mean this, Chairman, but
it is always in a sense easy to have these discussions at a conceptual
level. It is always worth bearing in mind the effect on the organisation,
the people who work in it, the organisations which have businesses
that depend upon the BBC, the knock-on effect in communities.
Whilst these things are important and surely we would always want
to get them 100% right, we also want to make them 100% operational,
and I would say the Trust is operational as itself well. It is
up and running. It has quality leadership. There are quality people
involved in it. It has set out a framework and a set of guidance.
It has created a reasonably effective—with some inherent
constructive tension around the edges in its working relationship
with Ofcom, the sector regulator, but it seems to be more than
functional and actually having a bit of tension in that system
is not all bad in a way. So would I rush to make a change in the
near future? No, I do not think I would.
Chairman: Thank you. I think we will
now move slightly beyond the BBC to your more general responsibilities.
Q266 Mr Sanders: Your appointment
indicated the need for convergence at Ministerial level. Is it
time for a converged Department of Communications as well?
Lord Carter of Barnes: One of
the many fascinating things about my sector is that it affects
almost every aspect of what government does because it affects
almost every aspect of what all of us do, so you might end up
with a very big department. I think at the moment the remit is
a remit to look at how best we maximise our position as a country.
What does that mean in terms of citizens, consumers, viewers,
listeners, the industry, infrastructure and investment? Machinery
of government issues, I have to say, are not part of the brief.
Q267 Mr Sanders: Are there not areas,
though, where the two departments might be at odds?
Lord Carter of Barnes: I am sure
there are. I have to say, I have not seen it yet. As I say, what
I have discovered in two months or so is that it involves more
than just two departments. I sit in two departments because that
is where, if you like, the centre of gravity of activities are,
in the Department of Business and the Department for Culture,
but there are significant issues which are relevant in the Department
of Innovation, there are significant issues in relation to broadcasting
in the devolved nations departments, there are significant issues
in terms of education and skills and there are significant issues
in terms of general public service delivery, in the efficiency
of public service delivery using new technology, so trying to
tidy it all up in one place, even if one tried to, I think might
be trickier than it appears at first, but I have not found it
an obstacle, let us put it that way.
Q268 Mr Sanders: How do you view
the job? If something came up which straddled both departments
and required you to take two positions, say a leadership role
which went down on one side or the other—or do you see yourself
as a referee who just observes and approves one department over
the other, or do you see yourself getting your hands dirty and
actually setting one department against the other where there
may be conflicting interests?
Lord Carter of Barnes: Well, I
see myself as a technocrat, to answer your question, rather than
as a referee. I think at the moment we are at the stage of trying
to frame the questions and the answers. If it comes to the point
of adjudication and the ability to exercise the judgments of Solomon
if there are conflicting departmental interests, I think that
would be for other people rather than me. My job is to try and
bring the analysis into one place, to try and build a common understanding
of what our digital economy is going to look like in five or six
years' time, to understand what that means for the big questions
both in public policy and in commercial industrial policy and
see how best we align them. If there are conflicts, we will take
them as they come, but that is not where we are in the process
right now.
Q269 Mr Hall: You are probably in
a very good position or place to deal with the relationship between
Government and Ofcom. Both are charged with the requirements of
policy planning, yet there is really a very strong potential for
a dichotomy between the roles of Ofcom as a regulator and the
Government as a policy maker. How do you see that and how would
you resolve that dichotomy?
Lord Carter of Barnes: I used
to say when I was at Ofcom that one of the few mistakes I think
were made, if I am allowed to say so, in the passage of the Bill
into an Act was calling it Ofcom. It would have been better if
it had been called the Strategic Communications Authority, because
actually that is largely what it has become, but I think part
of the reason why it has become the Strategic Communications Authority
is because this has not been an area where Government has been
focused. There was, I think, a degree to which the Communications
Act was passed, Ofcom was created and the sector was progressing
and inevitably Government has multiple priorities. I think the
reason why Government has returned to it with some degree of forensic
focus is partly because of what is happening in technology, partly
what is happening in real people's lives, partly what is happening
in the macro-economy, that we need other sectors which are going
to grow and thrive and succeed. Look around the world. Look at
how important the digital economy is to President-elect Obama's
plans. Look at what the French Government is doing and what the
German Government is doing, or go to Asia and spend any time in
Asia, as I am sure many of you have. Building an effective digital
economy and having a government position in policy and framework
planning is a critical part of government leadership, and I think
that is where Government needs to be and that is what we are focused
on doing. My sense from the Regulator, in its role as a strategic
thinker, if you like, is that it is very welcoming of Government
regarding this as a priority—and who would not be?—but
there is a very clear recognition that in Ofcom's role as the
independent statutory regulator it continues to exercise its judgments
independently, and rightly so.
Q270 Mr Hall: So you see this as
a very healthy relationship without many pinch points at all and
that both Government and Ofcom are ostensibly working in tandem?
Lord Carter of Barnes: Personally,
I think it is a tripartite relationship between Government, the
Regulator and the industry.
Q271 Mr Hall: Have you got any plans
to change their name to the Strategic Communications Authority?
Will that be primary legislation?
Lord Carter of Barnes: I do not
think we would be using valuable legislative time to effect a
name change! It was more to illustrate a point.
Mr Hall: Okay. Thank you.
Q272 Philip Davies: Just in terms
of some of these conflicts which you have not yet identified,
if I could sort of throw one in to see what you think. The "nanny
state" fanatics at the Department of Health appear to be
more and more obsessed with banning so-called "junk food"
advertising at every single second of the day, whereas historically
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has taken a much more
sensible view about these matters, and Ofcom appear to be put
in the position of referee in this particular dispute themselves.
I just wondered where you stood on the existing restriction on
advertising of so-called "junk food" and whether there
are any plans to extend it, as the Department of Health seem so
keen on?
Lord Carter of Barnes: My sense
is that those discussions have got to a sort of sensible working
place where there is now an industry-funded initiative. It seems
to have the support of the Department of Health as well as the
Department for Culture, where there is a commitment to look at
the codes and the self-regulatory rules and obligations placed
on advertisers to sensibly promote, whilst at the same time having
a kind of common participation in a communications exercise in
the broader sense of the word to encourage people and inform people
about healthy lifestyles. So my sense is that the flurry which
you refer to has brought everyone together—you could take
a view as to whether it was done as constructively as it could
have been, but nevertheless it has brought everyone together in
a way which has created a degree of common cause. So I do not
sense there is the need for another government intervention in
this area right now.
Q273 Philip Davies: So on any proposal
to extend the ban you, as the Minister for Broadcasting, would
stick up for the broadcasters and point out what a devastating
impact it would have on their revenues, would you?
Lord Carter of Barnes: Well, any
decision to ban, to use your words, or any decision to restrict
advertising is a matter for Ofcom. It is not a matter for the
Government, it is a matter for Ofcom.
Q274 Philip Davies: So you would
stand idly by and watch it happen even if you thought it was going
to have a devastating effect on the industry of which you are
the Minister?
Lord Carter of Barnes: I do not
think I would stand idly by, but it is just factually a matter
for the Regulator to decide, as indeed it was factually a matter
for the Regulator to decide the amendment to the rules they made,
I think a couple of years ago, but I do not think it is an issue
and I do not sense it is on the agenda.
Q275 Philip Davies: Just linking
back to the BBC bit, obviously you were the Chief Executive of
Ofcom yet you seemed to be very happy for the BBC Trust to regulate
the BBC when it strikes me that the obvious alternative to do
it would be Ofcom. Given the widespread disquiet there has been
about the BBC Trust's recent regulation of the BBC, what are the
faults of Ofcom which either you identified when you were there,
or with the current regime makes you think they were very good
for regulating everybody else but not very good for regulating
the BBC?
Lord Carter of Barnes: I do not
think that was the issue. The issue when the charter was being
renewed was where should accountability for the BBC lie in the
first instance, not actually regulatory responsibility but accountability,
and the judgment was made by Parliament that that accountability
should no longer lie with the governors, that you needed a new
institution and that it would be wholly wrong for that level of
public accountability to sit with the industry regulator. So the
BBC Trust was created as a vehicle for that. The question then
is whether or not accountability and regulatory responsibility
overlap, and they do overlap in some areas. As you know, Ofcom
has regulatory responsibility for the BBC in a whole range of
areas already, but there are some specific aspects of the BBC's
functions where Parliament decided that it wanted that to be held
in a separate place. It wanted that to be held by the body which
was also the body that was going to be publicly accountable to
Parliament and to the people. As I said in answer to the Chairman's
question, that is a compromise, it is not a pure forensic allocation
of responsibilities, but the reasons for it were because of the
underlying distinction of the BBC. I do not think it was to do
with the view that there was a flaw in Ofcom or a flaw in the
BBC Trust.
Q276 Philip Davies: I am not really
trying to get a history lesson on the background as to how we
have arrived at where we are, I am trying to extract your bottom
from the fence as to where you think, as a Minister—not
what Parliament thought—these things should best be done!
Many people think that if Ofcom is good enough to regulate other
broadcasters, then it should be good enough to regulate the BBC
and not just left to the BBC Trust, which rather than being a
regulator is more of a cheerleader.
Lord Carter of Barnes: Well, my
bottom is not on the fence, it is on the facts, and the facts
are that as a Minister I am doing what Parliament decided very
recently, which is living with a structure where there is a very
clear set of allocated responsibilities. Whilst I am sure there
are many people who are unhappy with it, I am sure I could find
many people who are very happy with it. Therefore, at the moment,
what I am saying—
Q277 Philip Davies: They probably
work for the Trust, though?
Lord Carter of Barnes: Listen,
it is not my job to be a cheerleader for the Trust, but the structure
is a new one and by and large it seems to be working, if you are
asking my opinion.
Q278 Mr Evans: Stephen, as the Minister
for Broadcasting, have you taken a view as to whether a broadcast
of an assisted suicide should be shown on television?
Lord Carter of Barnes: I have
not taken a view on that, although like, I suspect, many other
people, I have read the newspapers and watched the coverage of
it. I have not actually seen the programme because it has not
yet been broadcast.
Q279 Philip Davies: Have you taken
a view on anything yet?
Lord Carter of Barnes: Yes, but
you have not asked me a question on any of the things that I have
taken a view on! You have asked me questions on a lot of things
which have already historically been decided!
| 
