| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The BBC was not perfect in my day and it is certainly not perfect now. It never will be, but it must perpetually strive to be better, which is what we are here to talk about. We all have our little list of suggestions, which is the curse of any director-general. Here is my current shortlist, which I am sure will be as welcome as that of other noble Lords. First, for my taste, too little BBC drama matches the freshness and originality of its comedy. Secondly, I feel that the BBC is chronicling the financial and economic crisis brilliantly but it is doing far too little to help us understand the crisis and learn from it or to mount the scale and intensity of inquiry justified by the enormity of events. The BBC’s current affairs muscles appear to be withering. Thirdly, the BBC’s editorial standards do need reasserting. Creative talent will always and should press at the boundaries of public taste, but some behaviours are simply not appropriate in a public service space dedicated to high ethical values.
It is inevitable with an organisation of the scale and complexity of the BBC that there will always be areas of weakness as well as of strength. However, on the question that we are invited to discuss today, on what the Government can do to help this great institution progress—and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has already said some things that I shall echo—I fear that the Government’s new prototype for the governance of the BBC is a timid compromise and has proved a disappointment. Yes, the trustees administer the odd rap across the knuckles or opine on efficiency, but they have not stood back and acted as the trustees of all licence payers, identifying their needs and challenging the BBC to serve them. Let us hope that we can do better in the next charter review.
There is an even bigger challenge for government, which the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has already mentioned. In the heyday of public service broadcasting in the UK, the regulator obliged ITV to spend half its revenues on challenging programmes while Channel 4 was cracking open the mould and an independent production sector was blossoming and biting at the ankles of the old monoliths. The BBC enjoyed and responded to intense creative competition. Now we are at a crossroads; the digital era has brought vast commercial competition and a structural decline in advertising. Investment in programmes in the public service tradition has been decimated and ITV has all but left the stage. If we do nothing, Channel 4 will soon follow.
So we face the grim prospect of the BBC returning to the near monopoly status as a public service broadcaster that it had 50 years ago. That would not be healthy for anyone including the BBC itself. It will be hard for a distracted Government to focus on how we can maintain the right level of investment and competition in public service broadcasting, but they must. Long after this accursed financial crisis is over, the continuing strength of one of our great glories—our public service broadcasting system with the BBC at its core—will really matter.
2.35 pm
Lord Parekh: I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, on securing this debate and initiating it with great wisdom and insight.
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC246
I need hardly say that the BBC is a great national institution which deservedly enjoys a considerable reputation both at home and abroad for its professionalism, courage and impartiality. Although it does not have a monopoly on public service broadcasting, because other channels do it as well, it is the cornerstone of public service broadcasting. As such, we expect it to set the highest standards and act as a custodian of the values of our public life. We also expect it to reflect the diversity of our society, interpret one community to another and over time help create a broadly shared national culture and a reasonably harmonious society. These are the criteria by which we need to judge whether the BBC has been able to realise its objectives of providing public service broadcasting. By and large, it does very well, and it certainly has substantially realised many of these objectives. But there are four areas where I think it can do with further improvement and progress.
First, as the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, rightly pointed out, and other noble Lords reinforced the point, bad language occurs far too frequently after the watershed hours and more so than in any other country that I know. As an academic I have spent a lot of my time in various universities in Europe and the United States and I cannot remember any television, public broadcasting or any other, which has this degree of frequency of bad language. There is no good reason why this should be so. It serves no artistic purpose. It is gratuitous and often a case of schoolboy humour and a certain style of self-indulgence. The BBC is a public space and should set the tone of society. If it violates norms of decency it breaks the long-developed inhibitions and taboos on what may or may not be said in public.
The Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross outburst was not entirely accidental but a product of a certain prevailing trend. The BBC said in response that the young were not offended. That is hardly an argument; the young routinely use the language and obviously are bound not to be affected by it. The question is whether it was the right thing to do as determined by the broad consensus of British society. On that score, everyone agreed that it was unacceptable.
Secondly, the BBC should reflect the diversity of our country. I am not convinced that it does so as well as it could and should. The British Muslims do get some coverage, largely because they are seen as a threat to public order. Other communities do not. How do our Indian and Chinese communities live? What goes on in these communities? What is the source of their relative success compared with other communities? We know very little. An impression is created that if a community is quiet and does not make noise or achieves reasonably well, it should remain invisible. You become visible only if you fail. This is hardly the way to sustain high standards in our society.
Ethnic minority music and arts also do not receive much attention. This relative neglect of diversity is partly due to the fact that the BBC’s power structure is largely monocultural and its senior executives and programme makers are not drawn from the ranks of ethnic minority communities. Those communities constitute 9.5 per cent of the population and 6 to
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC247
Thirdly, we are privileged in this country to have great universities and research institutions, and their members possess great expertise, detachment and objectivity. However, they are rarely drawn into public life and invited to comment on public issues. In France and Germany, public intellectuals and academics frequently appear on the television but not, sadly, in Britain. Let us take “Question Time”, which I watch regularly and which has acquired a considerable following. It includes only spokesmen of different political parties, each rehearsing a familiar and predictable line but none standing back and critically reflecting on the major issues of our society. I should have thought that public interest in this country would be better served if programmes such as that were depoliticised and drew on independent-minded academics, scholars and others who were asked to debate important issues in a calm and reflective manner.
Finally, as Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director-general, rightly argued in his keynote address on 19 March, the BBC should be concerned with the public sector not only in Britain,
It is in our enlightened self-interest to nurture and promote public service broadcasting in developing countries—not just Muslim countries but also others. If we could co-operate with them more than we do at present, we, by which I mean the BBC, could give them technical and other forms of assistance, train their staff—programme makers as well as technical staff—buy their programmes and offer ours at a price that they could afford. There is no reason why films and programmes shown on the BBC must come only from the United States or Australia. For a long time now, I have not seen a programme from India, Indonesia or Mexico, where some great films that won Oscars were produced. The BBC can give a moral lead by doing this kind of thing in our increasingly interdependent world.
2.42 pm
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: I add my congratulations to my noble friend on introducing this debate. Having seen “Crisis at the Castle”, I have no recollection of the title, only of the charm of the castle’s owner, so, if I were him, I would not worry too much.
I declare an interest as an associate of an independent production company and also as someone with insider knowledge, having worked for many years making PSB television programmes for the BBC, as well as for Channel 4 and ITV.
British broadcasting, as we all recognise, has reached a critical point: a transition is under way from one age to another—from the analogue age to the digital one. The analogue age lasted for about 100 years, during which time Britain developed arguably the best broadcasting system in the world. Of course, central to that system is, and always has been, the BBC and its position, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, has just said, as the cornerstone of public service broadcasting.
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC248
Through the years, there have been many attempts at defining public service broadcasting and why it is so important—first by Lord Reith and most recently by Ofcom. I choose on this occasion to refer to the words of Sir David Attenborough, a man who in my opinion exemplifies what our broadcasting system has allowed to flourish. In a recent lecture, he described the advent of broadcasting in this country, and the public service remit that is so integral to it, as,
- “that miraculous advance, still not a century old, that allows a whole society, a whole nation, to see itself and to talk to itself ... to share insights and illuminations, to become aware of problems and collectively consider solutions”.
I think that when we talk about the BBC fulfilling its public service remit, in this era of multiplying channels and platforms, the institution is as important to protect as the programmes that it makes and commissions, so that—I return to Sir David—
- “all kinds of people, with all kinds of interests and insights, can share them with society as a whole. That ... cannot be achieved with a few individual programmes ... It can only be done by a coherent network”.
It is fashionable to say that the concept of inheritance, whereby viewers watching “EastEnders” find themselves drawn into a programme about, say, the fall of the Shah of Iran or vice versa, no longer applies due to the existence of Sky+, BBC iPlayer and so on. However, despite the fact that we can in effect view what we want when we want to, the vast majority of viewing is still linear.
In 1922, when the British Broadcasting Company was set up, it had a staff of four. Today it has a staff of 19,540—I have done my research. It was financed by the licence fee and continues to be financed in this way. Of course in those days the BBC was a monopoly provider, which was a situation that we must not return to, as everyone in this room has said.
Today we have ITV, Channel 4, Five and digital channels showing PSB programmes; but this plurality is under threat. An essential element in ensuring that the BBC fulfils its PSB remit is competition. This is what the public want. According to Ofcom, 86 per cent of viewers consider plurality to be important. We on these Benches welcome the Government’s commitment in Digital Britain, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to maintaining a plurality of public service broadcasters.
Throughout the BBC’s history there have been quarrels with the Government over perceived general bias and about individual programmes. The last most explosive case, on regime change in Iraq, ended with regime change at the BBC. Although it is not for the Government, as my noble friend said, to interfere in the BBC’s editorial output, recently it has sometimes seemed that the corporation has not wanted to help itself. In the case of the unacceptable behaviour of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, the BBC were arrogant—first appearing to deny the problem, then belatedly responding with suspension of the pair, while all the time the bosses refused to take part in the debate. This allowed those who do not like the licence fee to have a target that they laid into with relish. It is important when things go wrong to ensure that they do not happen again. It remains vital that we maintain a truly independent BBC. We should think long and hard—here I disagree
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC249
The expansion of the BBC into digital channels has produced some great new PSB programming. Indeed, there is a whole new channel of it on BBC Four, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, the “Story of Maths”. Through BBC Parliament there is not just coverage of what is going on in our various legislatures, but truly imaginative, informative use of political archives. But I am concerned that the BBC is not listening to the wise words of Sir David. These are digital channels with small, niche audiences, which represent a tiny percentage when compared with a terrestrial channel. Increasingly the BBC uses digital channels’ existence as an excuse not to commission programmes for the channel they should be on, BBC2. I am referring particularly to current affairs. Some BBC Four programmes are repeated on BBC2, but it is always late at night.
The other day I saw a very moving and well made documentary called “Jack: A Solder’s Story” which is about a soldier who was incredibly brave in Afghanistan and was awarded medals but who could not deal with life back in Britain and was stripped of his rank. The programme ticked all the PSB boxes. It was commissioned by BBC Three, but, in my opinion, it should have been on BBC2.
The new world we are entering leaves the BBC in a very powerful position, and it must tread carefully. It has responded to Digital Britain, the interim report of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, with a wholehearted acceptance of the need to share. We welcome the fact that the corporation is actively working on developing partnerships with ITV in regional news resources and with Channel 4 on a link with the BBC’s commercial arm, BBC Worldwide. However partnerships have not historically been what the BBC has been best at, and once again, as it did with the advent of competition back in 1955, it will have to change its culture. In particular the BBC Worldwide/Channel 4 partnership cannot simply be a cover for a monopoly by another name, BBCC4. It is essential that Channel 4 retains its separate nature and that the proximity of the organisation’s interests within BBC Worldwide does not undermine essential competition between the two channels.
Thanks to the licence fee, the BBC is able to provide a service that is universally available and free. It is essential that it delivers more fully on its PSB remit on its terrestrial channels than it is now doing. It must move with the times but never ignore the fact that it is a public service broadcaster, not simply a publicly financed one—because that way top-slicing lies.
2.50 pm
Lord Luke: We are all grateful to the noble Earl for raising this debate. I should like to reiterate everything that my noble friend Lord Fowler has said. We believe that the BBC is a highly valued and very important national institution and we want it to remain at the heart of UK public service broadcasting. We are in a time of great and rapid change in terms of the economy, the technological shift from analogue to digital and, as
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC250
My right honourable friend David Cameron has declared that we should freeze the licence fee for one year, because a 2 per cent increase due to start in April of this year would mean that the fee would increase by £3 for an individual colour licence. Given the current difficult economic circumstances, does the Minister agree with this policy? Do the Government have any intention of discussing this matter with the BBC or the BBC Trust, which have disappointingly decided to take up this year’s increase? Does he agree that it would be an important and significant gesture at this time?
Mr Cameron has said that we want to see the BBC,
We therefore welcome the BBC’s new programme of efficiencies which will mean planned savings of some £1.9 billion by 2012-13. The BBC’s budget for the next three years also includes a further £400 million of cuts and reductions in expenditure. After all, the licence fee income for this year could be as much as £1 billion more than the entire income of the advertising-funded TV sector.
All channels are struggling at the moment. We are all aware of the difficulties facing ITV and that predictions in October last year stated that some thought that Channel 4 could face a deficit of as much as £100 million in 2012. It is vital for the continued success and improvement of the standards of the BBC and its programmes that plurality and a healthy competition with other public service broadcasting channels are maintained. The BBC should be the cornerstone, but not the only public service broadcaster.
We welcome news that the BBC has signed a memorandum of understanding with ITV with the intention of cost savings for regional news on ITV1. Nevertheless, by 2016 this will be worth only £7 million to ITV and so will not of itself save regional news. Will the Minister inform us what more is being done?
The BBC has six main public service purposes: sustaining citizenship and civil society; promoting education and learning; stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities; bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; and, in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.
I shall refer to just the first of these, sustaining citizenship and civil society. The BBC has a social responsibility as manifested in its great power to educate the public and bring important issues to the fore. It is therefore very important that a proper balance is always maintained by the corporation in the way in which it deals with important issues.
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC251
One of the ways to ensure this is to make sure that the BBC has a completely independent regulator and not one which just repeats what the BBC executive would like to hear. At the moment, the BBC and the BBC Trust, which regulates it, submit joint responses to committees and reviews. Their responses to Ofcom’s public service review were submitted jointly even though they included some proposals which the BBC Trust would have to approve. As they were submitted together, it looked as if the decisions had already been taken, which is not right.
Finally, I turn to the future. The pressure on the BBC and other public service broadcasters to adapt to the changing technologies is very great. There are fears that some of those channels outside the BBC may not survive the transition to digital. New technologies such as 3DTV are beginning to take off. Are the Government providing help to the BBC and other channels as they move through this difficult transition?
I would like to end on a positive note. According to figures from the end of last year, 93 per cent of the population tune into one or other of the BBC’s services every week. We all know what an important cornerstone of our life the BBC is, and we all wish it to stay that way.
2.55 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am in some difficulty as I have five minutes in which to respond to the debate. I crave the leave of the Committee to extend the debate a little so that I can do justice to the contributions that have been made, as the next debate is relatively short.
The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, said at the outset that this was a specific question. In that case, he will get a specific answer. The answer is clear: the Government do not undertake any steps to ensure that the BBC is fulfilling its public service broadcasting remit. Assessing whether the BBC is meeting its public service remit is entirely the responsibility of the BBC Trust. This is set out in the charter, which states that one of the functions of the trust is assessing the performance of the executive board in delivering the BBC’s services and activities and holding the executive board to account for its performance. That is there because the other great principle of the BBC is its independence from government. Any other formulation would leave the BBC open to government pressure and gentle political pressure. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is well versed on issues of political pressure, but he will know the difference between the independence of the BBC in its formal position and any change to the charter, the structure of the BBC and its relationships to government which would compromise its fundamental independence. That does not alter the fact that the whole nation has views on the BBC, and this debate has given a fundamental airing to a number of the issues which exercise us all.
I am sorry about the particular instance that the noble Earl indicated with regard to his own programme; he identified that editorial standards were perhaps not as high as they might have been. That is a genuine worry. Where it is identified that the BBC’s editorial control and exercise of judgment fall below acceptable
26 Mar 2009 : Column GC252
One feature which has underpinned this debate is a genuine respect for the BBC’s performance and output. We do not just need to make our own internal judgments on this: the world’s judgments on the BBC are there to see. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, gave us an illustration of the American position, which he identified from his Select Committee visit to the United States. That is the experience that we all have when talking to Americans about the comparisons between their television services and the BBC. It is also a reflection of the commercial success of the BBC’s programmes worldwide. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, also said, the World Service continues to enjoy that very high reputation.
We have to put mistakes in context, and this includes the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross mistake. I accept that the BBC did not move with the adroitness and alacrity that the occasion demanded. The British public as a whole decided that the behaviour was unacceptable. It was the actual behaviour, what was done at the time, that was so wrong, not the swear words. The BBC executive was also slow to react. A price was paid, of course. The director of Radio 2 resigned over the issue. But there was tardiness.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, will see the incident as buttressing his more general case that the structure of the BBC, as developed in the legislation that we passed not so very long ago, is wrong. That is not the case. The board could perhaps have moved in a more forthright manner on this matter. Nevertheless one would be hard pressed to say on the basis of such an instance that BBC structure and control are lacking. I hear what the noble Lord says—after all, we debated this at great length during the passing of the Bill—and I respect his opinions on this. If he is proven right in the long run, I have no doubt that I shall have the opportunity on several occasions in the future to eat humble pie, as will other members of the Government who defended the policy.
However, I emphasise that these instances remain few and far between. We have not had many of these areas of great national concern. Almost everything the BBC does which is significantly wrong is also very publicly wrong and therefore occasions great public debate. I am not sure that this incident showed a crisis of governance at the BBC. I respect what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said from his informed perspective regarding his reservations about the structure.
We have got to give the present structure the test of time. Certainly it is understandable that it will take the members of the board a little longer than the professionals who work within the BBC to settle into their roles and their positions. I accept the criticisms that there were lapses and that there have been one or two failures, but I do not accept that they identify that the structure is wrong.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |