| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. To borrow a phrase much used by the Government, I wonder whether increased funding ought not to be linked more strongly to reform. Like others, I believe that there is a good case for public service broadcasting in the UK. I also
think that there is a good case for the BBC as an institution. Like others, I am a great fan of the BBC. However, in the current environment it is a huge fallacy to believe that public service broadcasting and the BBC are necessarily synonymous. Given the breadth of competitive broadcasting available, one can no longer sustain the argument that anything broadcast by the BBC is necessarily public service broadcasting just because the BBC broadcasts it. That is clear when we consider some of the output procured on the open market, which is very similar to that procured from the same sources by other channels. How can one be public service broadcasting and the other not?As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed out, it is also a fallacy to believe that the BBC is the only place where public service broadcasting can take place. That is clearly not the case any more, although the BBC may well be the best place for certain public service broadcasting in particular areas, such as the World Service.
It is also a fallacy to believe that if the Government wish to fund digital broadcasting in the UK, the BBC, through the licence fee, is the best or only place to fund that. There may be a case for some provision that is not part of a general licence fee settlement.
If public service broadcasting is considered as a separate case for funding, the clear logic in the current environment is that, while the BBC might be funded for its public service roles, it should have to move to seeking direct or commercial funding for the other output that does not form part of the public service remit. I do not accept the argument that exploiting the BBC brand to seek commercial funding would necessarily lower standards. If one had the BBC brand as a commercial asset, the first thing one would do is protect the quality and premium rating of that brand and try to exploit it rather than take it downmarket. There is no necessary conflict between the BBC seeking commercial or direct funding from viewers and the desire that we all have to maintain quality standards at the BBC.
The BBC's settlement under the last charter renewal should be seen as funding for a transition period. The BBC should have a plan and an expectation that over the course of that settlement it will move to reflect the reality of the current competitive marketplace, with more of its output being funded commercially and only that part that is truly public service broadcasting being funded through public sources. I would certainly support and accept the funding of a licence fee that was set against such a transition plan.
The problem that I have with this settlement and the annual settlement that we have before us is that they are delinked from any plan of that nature. I do not believe that they will take the BBC any closer at the end of the current charter period to being the kind of organisation that needs to be in place for the future. We should be cautious about simply ratifying a year-on-year increase in the licence fee. The Government
should seek from the BBC a plan that more properly reflects the transition that will be needed for the future of the BBC.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is useful to have this debate tonight. The more we discuss the BBC the better it will be for the BBC. The proposed increase is very modest, even if it is a little above the inflation rate. The television licence is excellent value for money, bearing in mind the services provided. We get two national terrestrial channels with 24-hour coverage, plus the regional television channels and the digital channels, which are being further developed. The licence fee also covers free national and local radio and the development of new digital radio stations. That is not bad. All that for just over £2 a week is a remarkable achievement and a bargain at any reckoning.
Compare that with buying a daily newspaper for a week. The Telegraph, if you take it at the weekend as well, will cost £4.35 and the Mail will cost £3.50. That is just for a newspaper for a week. We get all those services from the BBC for just over £2 a week, which is probably about the cost of hiring a video film for a weekend. Let there be no doubt that it is good value for money. I therefore remain a supporter of a public broadcasting arm.
However, over the next few years there is bound to be change in management and programming, not to mention the changeover to digital transmission, which the noble Baroness raised in her opening remarks. This is not the time to go into the long-term future, but it is legitimate to reiterate some concerns about the BBC. A public service broadcaster should strive for excellence and shun dumbing down. The great strength of the BBC over its lifetime has been the raising of standards of awareness, taste, education and fairness. Those qualities have gained for the BBC the support and respect of people in Britain and throughout the world. It is unfortunate that the new leadership of the corporation have given the impression that the BBC's role of providing broadcasting excellence is to be subordinated to competing in the ratings chart and that the service is to be allowed to descend into populism as a result. That attitude is a betrayal of all those who have fought over the years to retain the BBC's reputation as the best.
There are other complaints too. There is resentment over certain people who work for the BBC who regard the corporation as their personal fiefdom. Because they have been around for so long, they arrogantly suppose that they are indispensable. It is time the BBC had a look at its long-term employees.
Access to programmes is too narrow and producers and editors are too prone to promoting the Government's agenda and pandering too much to the politically correct line on the issues of the day. There is also an ongoing complaint from members of the Euro-realist organisations that they do not get a fair hearing and that the BBC is not willing to have a deep and searching investigation into the European Union.
Above all, they are reluctant even to discuss the possibility and the consequences of withdrawal from the European Union.That failure to discuss issues that are uppermost in the electorate's mind brings about the sort of upheavals that occurred in France yesterday. It is not only politicians who need to learn lessons from those events in France. The media need to learn lessons as well. The BBC has a great responsibility in that area and I hope that it will discharge it.
8 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for this opportunity to look briefly at the future, and future financing, of the BBC against the background of the forthcoming establishment of Ofcom. The central issue of the licence fee will undoubtedly continue to be debated, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it is not really a great sum. It may be great for certain people, but it is relatively mild for most people's budgets.
I suspect that another matter underlying this debate is the extent to which the BBC should or should not be totally subsumed within the regulatory authority of Ofcom once it arrives. I start from a premise that many others have already mentioned—that it is still accepted in almost any conversation on public broadcasting in any public bar or around any dinner table that our broadcasting system remains one of the best and most independent in the world. I think that the pre-eminent reason for that is the unique role played by the BBC in establishing and maintaining the concept of public service broadcasting. One has only to look to the United States to see the alternative. There, public service broadcasting remains in both substance and style an under-resourced ghetto.
My central point is very simple. If we seek, for the sake of a completely comprehensive system, to harmonise the way in which we finance, run and regulate and at the same time absorb a standard-setting, world-respected institution which has served us so well for so long, we put at risk the future quality of British broadcasting. I accept that Ofcom will have a considerable role to play in regulating many aspects of the BBC, but that does not apply to all aspects. It is important for the corporation to retain real independence, and to continue its investment in quality digital programmes. It is the quality of digital programmes that will help persuade the audience to switch over to digital and meet the Government's hoped for target date.
I admit to being somewhat wary of "giantism"—the current passion, which has existed for some time, for all-embracing, comprehensive organisations. I do not want the BBC's creativity to be stifled by the giantism of Ofcom. My central message is that we must take care not to press the logic too far, whether it is the logic of how we fund the BBC or the logic of including all its activities within Ofcom. But there is an important corollary to that conclusion. There is still much to be done in improving the governance of the BBC.
That will be even more important under the "lighter regulatory" regime proposed for all broadcasters. So there is absolutely no room for complacency at Broadcasting House.The new BBC chairman, to his credit, is plainly aware of that. His latest plans, for example, show a more hands-on role for governors in setting targets and monitoring the public interest in how the licence fee is spent. Again, however, I for one shall need to be more convinced—in the likely absence of something like the Broadcasting Standards Commission—about the independence of the corporation system in handling citizen complaints, whether about unfairness or violence. The BBC has pledged to involve outside, independent auditors when issues of potentially unfair competition arise. Would it not be splendid if an equally expert panel, which was also completely independent of the BBC, could be established to deal with unresolved complaints about unfairness or violence? That might also provide Ofcom with a model of the type of independence and transparency which I believe that it too will need if it is fully to comply with the European human rights legislation.
There is a final example. Despite the hugely competitive world of modern broadcasting, far less attention must be paid to ratings and far more to the range, diversity and, above all, quality of what is shown on BBC terrestrial channels. The ITC's latest annual report has rightly expressed serious and specific concern about "dumbing down". Although ITV bore the main brunt of the commission's justified criticism, the BBC was also shown to have cut both current affairs and arts programmes by up to 50 per cent.
I return to my main point. We must take care not to undermine the organisation which is the principal buttress of British broadcasting's generally high standards and reputation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we need the BBC to continue as a benchmark. Although its future plans look slightly more encouraging, the BBC needs to know now more than ever that we expect results.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page