| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC237
Grand Committee
Thursday, 26 March 2009.
2.00 pm
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): It has been agreed that, should the Questions for Short Debate not run for their allotted hour this afternoon, the Committee will stand adjourned during pleasure until the end of the hour. Therefore, each Question for Short Debate will start on the hour.
BBC: Broadcasting Remit
Question for Short Debate
2.01 pm
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the BBC fulfils its public service broadcasting remit.
The Earl of Glasgow: When I first decided to initiate this debate on the BBC and public service broadcasting, I had not quite appreciated the morass that I was about to enter, including the role and powers of Ofcom, the separate responsibilities of the BBC Trust and the BBC Executive, and the fact that views on BBC output tend to be largely subjective and are based on programmes that you have or have not seen.
To start with, no one seems to agree on what public service broadcasting actually means. It certainly does not mean broadcasting for which you pay a licence fee, because Channel 4 is also a public broadcasting channel and independent television too is committed to a certain amount of public broadcasting. So what does it mean? Broadcasting in the public interest? It would be difficult to find a consensus on that one, too.
I was spurred into initiating this debate in the aftermath of the infamous Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand affair. When Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC, was interviewed about the incident, he naturally condemned it and apologised to listeners and Andrew Sachs’s family for the offence that had been caused. But he also added that young people had not been particularly offended by it, and that we must remember that the BBC is also responsible for providing programmes that appeal to younger listeners.
If we are to take that argument at face value, it means we would have to accept that the tastes of young people—I am referring to people in their late teens and their 20s—should be given a more prominent place in public service broadcasting. We would have to accept a good deal more swearing and more of what has come to be known as “gross-out comedy”. Gross-out comedy, for those of you who do not know, is about being disgusting; it is about farting, masturbation, incontinence, vomiting and anything embarrassing to do with bodily functions. That is the essence of gross-out comedy, and we already have a taste of it in the
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC238
It also raises the question, in any event, of the extent to which public broadcasting channels should reflect public taste and opinion and to what extent it should lead and direct them. Lord Reith obviously believed that it should lead them, and I tend to agree. He also defined the role of the BBC, as we all know, as being to inform, educate and entertain. That is fine, so long as you do not treat each of these aims separately. A public service programme should both educate and entertain. There is no reason why any category of programme—drama, documentary, situation comedy, soap, talk show, quiz show, children’s programme, whatever—should not inform and entertain at the same time.
The real distinction should be between specialist programming and general programming. Specialist programmes cater for specific interests like opera, architecture, classical music, astronomy, cooking, gardening or birdwatching. This also includes the more popular interests like travel, motor cars and money, as well as all types of sport, which seem to take up an inordinate amount of time on television anyway.
These specialist subjects can be—and already are in many cases—provided for on other channels. Therefore, they should not be a priority for the public broadcaster. The BBC should concentrate more on more general programmes, those intended to satisfy the largest number of different tastes, and try in particular to interest us in subjects that we did not know we were interested in. It is in that area of general broadcasting in which I would hope to see a greater degree of innovation and experimentation on the part of the BBC.
Recent technology has revolutionised broadcasting across the board. It has had a more detrimental effect on the commercial channels than on the BBC, which is still supported by the licence fee. But it seems indisputable that the quality of television as a whole was considerably higher when ITV was prosperous. I was a freelance documentary film maker in the 1970s and 1980s, working mostly for independent television companies—those who won their licences to print money, as noble Lords will remember. I do not think that I am looking back on those days with rose-coloured spectacles when I remember them as the golden age of television. ITV was competing directly with the BBC, not just on ratings for popular programmes but also in plays, documentaries, the arts, news and current affairs. There is no doubt that the competition sharpened up the BBC, which saw ITV as a direct competitor in all spheres of broadcasting.
It is understandable in the present climate that ITV has found it difficult to keep up its earlier high standards. The BBC, with its guaranteed licence fee, cannot so easily blame the advances in technology for its drop in high-quality programming. Of course, the BBC still makes or commissions a number of excellent programmes, and is unassailable in its traditional strengths, such as costume drama and wildlife programmes. But there seems much less sign of original programming and the nurturing of new talent that is expected of it in its charter. Some of its previous flagship programmes,
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC239
Recently, too, the BBC’s integrity has been called into question. On several occasions in the past two years there have been substantiated complaints about deliberately misleading or inaccurate material shown on the BBC. I have had personal experience of this, so I know that it happens. I agreed to let Wall to Wall television, which produces programmes for the BBC, film in my castle in Scotland over a period of six months. The programme that I had agreed to do was to be about the trials and tribulations of maintaining an old house—in my case, one that has been in my family for nearly 800 years—and to discover why the younger generation, in this case my son, seem prepared to continue the tradition. When we saw the rough cut, we were genuinely shocked; everything that they had filmed that showed us in a positive light had ended up on the cutting room floor.
The programme was to be called “Crisis at the Castle”, and everything shown was to display the fact that we were in a state of crisis and that the roof was about to fall in. The researcher, who was also the producer who had originally persuaded us to co-operate, was made redundant in the middle of filming, and the commentary contained so many factual inaccuracies that Wall to Wall was forced to make over 20 changes. We had to go to the BBC Trust to get the BBC to correct a blaring untruth in one of the trailers that it did for the programme. But even with those changes, the programme remained fundamentally dishonest, because it presented a completely false picture. Even the title, “Crisis at the Castle”, was a lie, unless you define an ongoing financial struggle to maintain a castle as a crisis. In that case, we have been in crisis for over 100 years.
As a documentary maker myself, I felt foolish to have been so deceived by Wall to Wall television and the BBC. We were being used, of course, to provide a bit of entertainment, which had nothing to do with what we call “education”. Perhaps I should have known better.
I am certain that all noble Lords will know of Roger Graef, a very distinguished programme maker and documentarist. In a recent article about the BBC’s tendency to compromise standards in order to achieve higher ratings, he wrote:
“Not only must the facts not get in the way of a good story, but many projects have been too rushed to discover the facts at all. In the case of some formulaic reality shows, there is a bible—effectively a script—dictating each stage of the emotional journey. If the participants' actual responses don't fit, the director's task is to ensure they do”.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is quite a serious indictment of the BBC’s integrity and trustworthiness.
However, despite my criticism and concern for its fallen standards, I still believe passionately in the BBC as an institution. It is well worth the licence fee, and its
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC240
I would therefore like the Government’s assurance that they are still firmly committed to retaining the licence fee, even if it could be seen as endorsing unfair competition. I would like the Government’s assurance also that the institutions of the BBC should remain truly independent of interference from government, even on sensitive matters of security such as the real reasons for going to war in Iraq. In the present arrangement, Ofcom and the BBC Trust have the power to direct and control it, but the Government must assure us that in no circumstances will they ever attempt to impose themselves on Ofcom.
As for redefining public service broadcasting and the role of the BBC, Lord Reith’s aim that it should inform, educate and entertain can still mean anything that you want it to mean. It is this gradual process of dumbing-down that I most fear. I would like to think that the BBC’s remit is to make a wide range of programmes to cater for a wide range of tastes, but all should be of the highest quality, intelligence and honesty. That is what I think public broadcasting should mean. I would like to know whether the Government have the same ambitions for the BBC as I do.
2.13 pm
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, for initiating this debate. The BBC’s mandate is defined by its royal charter and its agreement with the DCMS, the latest version of which came into effect in 2007, I believe.
The royal charter states that the BBC exists to serve the public interest, which it does mainly through the promotion of its public purposes. Those include sustaining citizenship and civil society; promoting education and learning; stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities; bringing the world to the UK and the UK to the world; and helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, including digital switchover, which should be completed by 2012.
While I have never worked for the BBC, I had the advantage of working for ITV, its main rival, for more than 30 years, first with Granada Television, where we quite consciously tried to match the BBC in public purpose. It set a high standard then, as it does now. As chairman of the ITV broadcast board in the early 1990s, I experienced the growing commercial pressures that make the difference between the advertising-supported channels, which increasingly must see viewers as consumers, and the BBC, which can still see its viewers primarily as citizens. At Scottish Television—alas, after the licence to print money had expired—I first had the pleasure of meeting the noble Earl, a man of real creativity and many talents, in his role as a pioneer independent producer. I can fully understand his frustration when
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC241
I recall a former chairman of the BBC, Sir Michael Swann, telling me that he had been encouraged by the then Prime Minister, Ted Heath, to shrink the BBC in London and transfer programme-making to regional centres where the real people lived, such as Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester. Sir Michael succeeded only in part but it was progress of a sort. The noble Earl will share my regret that the Swann reforms did not do more for BBC Scotland.
I am delighted to see in his place today a former director-general of the BBC, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, perhaps the most influential in that role since the days of Lord Reith. It was the noble Lord who forced through many of the reforms that have made the BBC the formidable force that it is today in the UK and in the new digital world—a well resourced national champion of which we can usually be proud.
Despite the occasional and justifiable criticisms of BBC content, I want to celebrate the fact that the new BBC Trust under Sir Michael Lyons and the BBC executive led by Mark Thompson seem to appreciate that their dominant position requires a generous and supportive approach to the problems elsewhere in public service broadcasting. ITV, Channel 4 and channel Five are all, as the noble Earl said, suffering from a sharp decline in advertising revenue. To help them, the BBC has this month agreed a partnership approach in areas such as regional news, which will cut costs for the commercial channels. In Scotland, that should also help stv on Channel 3.
The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, will also be aware of the huge boost given to our minority language and the Gaelic Media Service through its partnership with the BBC in the recently launched digital channel, BBC Alba. In addition, Mark Thompson has made a commitment that Scottish programme makers have waited 50 years to hear. To appreciate the importance of this commitment, noble Lords should be aware of one of the most extraordinary features in the operation of British broadcasting to date: the fact that 17 per cent of BBC licence fees come from viewers in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, yet barely 1 per cent of the British programmes networked in peak time—the high-quality, big-budget programming—is currently commissioned from the three smaller nations. The BBC, belatedly but emphatically, is redressing this miserable imbalance. For Scotland, it means a 9 per cent share of the total network budget of £850 million—a target of more than £70-million worth of network programming to be made north of the border each year. My only complaint is that the deadline for reaching that due proportion is 2016. A seven-year wait is surely too long. Let us make the BBC more British by 2012.
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC242
The BBC licence fee revenue is rising to around £3.5 billion a year, and it will be top-sliced for a few years yet to fund the switchover to digital broadcasting. This principle having been established, and with the BBC more dominant than ever, the top-slicing could, I suggest, be extended beyond the digital switchover deadline to serve the BBC’s other public purposes—for example,
As noble Lords may be aware, the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, with the backing of all parties in the Scottish Parliament, recently called for the setting up of a new Scottish network, based on a digital platform, as a strategy for the 21st century. Given the threats to the viability of stv, the traditional competition for BBC Scotland, a publicly funded network would help to plug the democratic deficit that would be created by a BBC monopoly of public service broadcasting in Scotland. I hope that the noble Earl and other noble Lords will support the suggestion that this might be yet another partnership in which BBC licence-fee funding could play a crucial role.
I conclude with the fervent hope that the current generosity and responsiveness of the BBC are not a transient tactic but are now enshrined as an enduring public purpose.
2.19 pm
Lord Fowler: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, about the generally high standards of the BBC, and I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, on securing this debate. I should say that I am chairman of the Communications Committee, and as our report on public service broadcasting will come out very shortly, I do not intend to pre-empt everything—or, I hope, anything—in it. I would just like to make two points.
First, I agree with the noble Earl about the fundamental importance of the BBC, particularly with regard to public service broadcasting. Whether we are talking about news, current affairs, drama or the arts, the BBC is the leading public service provider in this country. That position is well recognised overseas. When, for a previous report, the Select Committee went to the United States, there was unanimous praise for the BBC from other professional broadcasters on the production and standards of its programmes. In the United States—the home of the free market—the standards of the BBC were appreciated, and there was a certain amount of regret that there was nothing like it there. Equally, the BBC World Service continues to provide some excellent programmes. It provides objectivity, sometimes to countries where objectivity in presenting the news is not their most outstanding feature.
Noble Lords might therefore wonder why the BBC inside the United Kingdom gets such a poor press at times. It must be recognised that some other media organisations have their own agenda regarding the BBC. Another reason is the BBC’s divided leadership. When the Broadcasting Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, gave evidence to our Select Committee on the BBC’s reaction to his proposals concerning BBC Worldwide, he said that it rather depended which
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC243
It is rather an odd position. Rather than having one board and one chairman, the director-general on the board, as would happen in any other organisation of this size, there is this rather eccentric structure which, as far as I know, is unique in the corporate world. This is not a commentary, incidentally, on the people involved who have to work the system; but it is, frankly, an organisational nonsense. It is a nonsense in managerial terms and in enabling the BBC to put its view convincingly. It does the BBC no favours whatever. Jonathan Ross, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, was condemned by the BBC Trust one day and put in by the executive for a BAFTA the next. Even worse was the handling of the advertisement for the appeal for help in Gaza which was rejected by the executive. I do not agree with that, but obviously that case could be argued. Three weeks later, the BBC Trust came out to support the executive. Frankly, that support had no impact whatever at that stage, whereas if the board and the director-general had been putting the case together, that would have added to the authority. I think that it is a silly structure which does nothing to preserve the interests of the BBC and nothing very much to preserve the interests of the public. It certainly does not do much that could not have been done in other ways.
My second point is that although the BBC has a fundamental role in public service broadcasting and, in my view, carries out that role extremely well, it would be a tragedy if there was no competition for it. We do not want a position in this country where the BBC is almost the only public service broadcaster, because that would have dangers at every level and in every area. This can perhaps be best illustrated in the regional news area, which I know something about from my newspaper experience. Currently, regional newspapers are in crisis; redundancies are being made, titles are closing and competition from the internet is taking both advertising and readers. Obviously the same is happening in the United States, so it is not only in this country.
At the same time, regional television is under even greater threat. The future of ITV regional news programmes is not secure and a fight for survival is taking place. It would be unacceptable for the BBC to be the only one left standing. Such a near monopoly position would have profound dangers; there need to be alternative public service broadcasting providers. The Government have until now concentrated entirely in this debate on Channel 4. I agree that Channel 4 and its news programmes are important, but it does not provide regional news, and therefore the solution for public service broadcasting has to go beyond Channel 4. I also want to see public service broadcasting on channels 3 and 5 as well.
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC244
So, although no one expects the Minister in this short debate to go into detail, I hope that he can assure the Committee that the Government recognise, first, the need to act to provide public service broadcasting in addition to the BBC; and, secondly, that simply supporting Channel 4 is not the total answer. Alternative providers and competition in public service broadcasting are essential if we are, in the words of the Motion,
2.27 pm
Lord Birt: I thank the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, for spurring this debate on the mighty beast, the BBC, at such an apposite moment. I fear that an hour will not allow us to do justice to the many issues raised. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, for his unexpected and generous remarks. I am not much used to it.
The BBC’s public service pulse, in my view, is beating especially strongly at the minute. Mark Thompson always was, and still is, an outstanding creative leader. We can all point to programmes that we do not like—I see many programmes that I do not like on the BBC—but let me paint a somewhat different picture. On science alone, the BBC has in the past month impeccably marked the 200th anniversary of the birth of Darwin with truly illuminating programmes. I shall mention just one. David Attenborough’s essay, made with the Open University, was a tour de force: an extraordinary blend of narrative skill, production virtuosity and scientific insight, and it was shown at the heart of BBC1 in peak time.
My knowledge is growing in semi-retirement. I have just finished watching the “Story of Maths” on BBC4 and just about kept up with Professor Jim Al-Khalili’s authoritative primer on sub-atomic particles on BBC2. Altogether easier to follow, but none the less important for that, was a “Horizon” programme a few weeks ago which pulled together, in entertaining fashion, all the latest science on obesity. The BBC fuels our intellectual life more generally. Most weeks on Radio 4, Laurie Taylor and, to use his commoner’s name, Melvyn Bragg, offer unbridled opportunity for leading academics and thinkers to debate and to shine across a huge array of matters.
The BBC has created unique and innovative forms of broadcasting throughout its history. Just a week or so ago—all my examples are recent ones—we had Comic Relief, which was as usual an extraordinary mix. On the one hand, we had a harrowing, uncompromising and tormenting account of deprivation and misery in Africa and, on the other, a showcase for the noble Earl’s beloved well pool of Britain’s best comic talents, all in fine form—astute, unclichéd and often utterly brilliant. Plainly, they are not to everyone’s taste. I say that honestly; we are of a similar generation, but it is not always easy for one generation to appreciate the humour of the next. However, today’s comedians are absolutely in a tradition that we all know, understand and have enjoyed and loved over many decades. No other broadcaster rises to those levels of ambition, innovation and achievement anywhere in the world—and I am sure that that is common ground between us.
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC245
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |