BBC: Finance

HL Deb 27 March 1985 vol 461 cc1040-52

3.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the financing of the BBC which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"In December 1981 the BBC were granted increases in the colour television licence fee to £46 and the black and white licence to £15 and required to live within the income thus generated for the period ending on 31st March this year. This they have done. The result of the way their expenditure was, as planned, phased over this period is that the cost of their service in the current year equates to a £51 licence fee. As the House knows, the corporation applied last year for an increase in the colour licence to £65 and in the black and white licence to £18 to last for a further three years.

"This application has stimulated renewed discussion about the possibility and desirability of some or all of the BBC's services being financed through advertising or by other means than the licence fee. On the one hand it is suggested that at least a proportion of the BBC's services are of a character which would not be materially affected if they were financed in whole or in part by advertising. On the other hand, it is said that the impact of advertising is bound to lead to a lowering of standards, and that if advertising were introduced in one area, the pressure for it to be extended to all BBC services would be irresistible and damaging. In considering these issues, however, it is essential not just to consider the impact on the BBC of any change in its methods of financing. It is also necessary to take account of the impact of any such change on independent broadcasting, on other media supported by advertising revenue and also on the Exchequer.

"The issues raised are complex. In my view, they require more detailed, careful and above all comprehensive analysis than they have so far received before any conclusions can be reached. I am therefore appointing a committee to review all of these matters and I am glad to announce that Professor Alan Peacock, Chief Economic Adviser to the Department of Industry and Trade from 1973 to 1976, more recently Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, and now at Heriot-Watt University, has agreed to chair it. I hope to announce the other members of the committee before long. The review will be required to assess the effects of the introduction of advertising or sponsorship on the BBC's Home Services either as an alternative or a supplement to the income now received through the licence fee and to identify a range of options with an indication of their advantages and disadvantages. One of the central questions for the committee is the possible impact the introduction of advertising would have on the character and quality of all broadcast services. It will also consider the scope for the BBC to obtain additional revenue from the consumer other than through the licence fee. I am circulating a copy of the full terms of reference in the Official Report, and copies are also available in the Printed Paper Office.

"I must stress that the appointment of the committee does not in any way imply that the Government have decided to make changes in the present arrangements, still less changes of any particular character. Nonetheless, the appointment of the committee does mean that options for changes will have to be considered in the light of its report. I cannot, of course, commit the inquiry to a precise time-scale, but I hope the committee will have completed its work by the summer of next year, after which its conclusions will have to be carefully considered. I have therefore decided that the present licence fee settlement should be for a period of two years with the intention that any possible changes in the system of financing broadcasting should be considered in the light of the committee's report before the licence fee falls to be further renewed. But if decisions cannot be made in the light of the report within two years, or it is decided there should be no change to the system, this settlement will run for a third year with the licence fee continuing at the rates I am announcing today. The BBC should therefore plan its expenditure for the next three years on the basis that it must for that period live within the income equivalent to that generated by fees at the level announced today.

"As to the level of the fee, my task has, as always, been to balance the interests of the licence fee payer with the need to ensure that the corporation's Home Services are adequately funded.

"I start from the present cost of operating the BBC's services. The 1981 settlement provided the BBC with an income at the rate of £46 per colour licence until the end of March 1985. Taking account of inflation, it was clearly understood at the time that the effect of this was that the BBC would be spending at less than the rate of £46 per licence at the beginning and more at the end of the period. Currently, services are being provided at a cost of approximately £51 per colour licence.

"There will no doubt be some inescapable cost increases over the next three years, and the Corporation would like to improve and enhance its services in various ways. On the other hand, it is right that the BBC should strive for greater efficiency and economy, and there is a limit to what licence fee payers can reasonably be expected to afford.

"In accordance with previous practice I do not propose to give a detailed account of the way in which I have balanced these various factors and it will be for the Corporation to decide how to use the money available to it. I believe, however, that the BBC could and must achieve greater productivity than it has done in the past or has so far planned for the future. The BBC already has a useful programme of activity reviews and has stressed its commitment to achieving value for money. But, in the light of the report from Peat Marwick and Mitchell commissioned by the BBC with my agreement and subsequently published, I believe there is scope for the BBC to achieve greater efficiency through improved management procedures and strengthened management attitudes.

"The BBC has already produced an Action Plan to implement all but two of the specific recommendations in the Peat Marwick Report by the end of 1985–86, with three-quarters of them being implemented within the next six months. The governors will also be calling for reports every six months not only on the implementation of these specific recommendations and the continuous programme of activity reviews but also on the management training programme and other steps designed to ensure that the change in emphasis in management style and approach sought by Peat is being achieved.

"Taking all the various factors into account, I believe a settlement substantially below the level requested by the BBC should enable the Corporation to maintain its present level and range of services. But the BBC's ability to enhance its services will depend very largely on the degree to which it achieves the improvements in efficiency that I have referred to.

"On this basis I have decided to increase the fee for a colour television from £46 to £58 and for a monochrome licence from £15 to £18. I have laid the necessary regulations which bring the new fees into effect at midnight tonight.

"I, of course, recognise that the licence fee represents a substantial sum for many people, particularly so when it is seen as an annual payment. There are now a number of schemes to enable those who wish to do so to spread the cost in advance over the year. In addition to the television savings stamp scheme it is possible for people to pay towards their next licence by instalments through a direct debit from their bank account or by cash instalments over post office counters. Payments may also be made by credit card. But I am conscious that far too few people pay for their licences in any of these ways compared with the number who would find the licence fee easier to pay if they did so. I shall therefore be urgently examining with the BBC and the Post Office whether any improvements can be made in these arrangements and whether any new arrangements can be made to help people to pay the licence fee without greatly increasing costs of administration or imposing extra burdens on the taxpayer.

"I appreciate that the review I have announced will lead to a period of uncertainty, not only for the BBC but for the other media, in particular independent broadcasting. But our broadcasting system has inevitably had to develop over the years, and there is nothing new in the fact that it has to face the possibility of change now. What will not change is the Government's commitment to broadcasting services which achieve the highest standards, in quality, popularity and diversity of consumer choice".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Following are the terms of reference referred to in the Statement:

TERMS OF REFERENCE OF REVIEW OF FINANCING THE BBC

1. (i) To assess the effects of the introduction of advertising or sponsorship on the BBC's Home Services, either as an alternative or a supplement to the income now received through the licence fee, including
1. (a) the financial and other consequences for the BBC, for independent television and independent local radio, for the prospective services of cable, independent national radio and 1044 direct broadcasting by satellite, for the press and the advertising industry and for the Exchequer; and
2. (b) the impact on the range and quality of existing broadcasting services; and
2. (ii) to identify a range of options for the introduction, in varying amounts and on different conditions of advertising or sponsorship on some or all of the BBC's Home Services, with an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each option, and
3. (iii) to consider any proposals for securing income from the consumer other than through the licence fee.

3.56 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place, may I extend to him my warmest congratulations, I am sure accompanied by the congratulations of the whole House, on his new responsibilities?

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, if I may say this personally, I hope we shall enjoy the same amicable hostility and, indeed, the same complete personal mutual trust that I had the privilege of enjoying with his predecessor, to whom we also wish well in regard to his new position.

The sting of the Statement came on the sixth page of a very lengthy document, and in the eighth minute of its being repeated in your Lordships' House. The sting was that there is to be an increase in the licence fee, in regard to colour television, of what I arithmetically compute to be 25 per cent. or just over, and, for monochrome licences, of some 20 per cent. One's first reaction is that it does not appear to be a very confident prediction in regard to the inflation rate—the one pride in the Government's whole programme which one would have expected having regard to Government pronouncements.

If I may say so, there is also one matter which I suppose has been conceived in an over-suspicious mind. I would be so grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could tell me that I should not have such a quality in my mind at all. But one noted from the Statement that the BBC has been told that it must keep to this rate of increase for two years, and that indeed it might be for three years, but that would depend upon the decision taken after two years and after a decision-making process, when the committee about which we heard has come to its findings.

My calculations seem to infer that there could be a general election between the two and the three years. I should love the noble Lord the Minister to confirm to me that that is a completely unworthy thought in my mind, and that the Government have no intention of having their decision in any way coloured by whether or not a general election is imminent when they are considering the question of an increase in the licence fee.

Viscount Whitelaw

As the Labour Party did, my Lords!

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, there was a broadcast there, but I did not actually hear it. In regard to any increase, one immediately and sympathetically thinks of the aged and the handicapped. One knows that the benefit which accrues to those who are afflicted with age or a handicap, or to certain of them, comes in arrear. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister can confirm that active thought is being given to seeing that relief arrives in time, so that there is not an expenditure before the benefit is in fact achieved.

We have learnt about a committee. I suppose it will be called the Peacock Committee, because it will be chaired by a very eminent gentleman who bears that name. One honestly would have thought (would one not?) that advertising on radio and television, and its advantages and disadvantages, had been thought about so many times and deliberated upon on so many occasions; so much so that one is tempted to wonder whether the setting up of a new committee is not a device for merely delaying decisions. I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will be able to tell me again that that is an unnecessary and unworthy thought of mine.

As your Lordships will have done, I noticed during the course of the Statement that one of the things that the committee is to consider is the scope for the BBC to obtain additional revenue from the consumer other than through the licence fee. Would the noble Lord the Minister give us some clarification upon that item? I, personally, could not conceive what was in the mind of the Minister when he put this in the terms of reference.

Finally, may I mention to the noble Lord the Minister two grievances which I believe are held by the public? The first is the inability to recover any part of the licence fee paid in advance when it is given up. The second, which is a much more substantial one, is the way in which our big hotels, some of whom may have over 500 television sets, find themselves in the lucky position of paying exactly the same fee for their licence as do noble Lords in this House who have merely one set in their residences.

I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will not find that I have been too unkind in dealing with the Statement which he read so ably to the House. I am sure that he will deal in the same able way with the questions that are put to him.

Lord Aylestone

My Lords, we, too, on these Benches, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and to join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in congratulating the Minister on his attaining a new post. I shall not say that he will actually be delighted with it. We were always grateful to the noble Lord when in his former post for his great courtesy in replying often to difficult and awkward questions from this side.

The BBC has managed on a licence fee of £46 for three years and has done it well in a period when costs were unquestionably rising. It has perhaps had in mind a feeling of peace, knowing that at the end of three years it could legitimately come forward for an increase, as it has done. No one likes an increase. All increases are painful to bear. But the BBC has managed for three years. I am afraid, however, that the period of two or even three years starting from this very minute will not be so peaceful for the BBC or for broadcasting generally. I forecast that, the committee having been set up, distinguished as it undoubtedly will be, both independent broadcasting and the BBC, for the next two and possibly a full three years, will be more or less in a state of uncertainty and turmoil, wondering what is to happen at the end.

It is suggested in the Statement that nothing much may happen; maybe so. But the BBC will worry about whether or not it is going to be forced to take advertising. The independent side will worry as to whether the committee is going to recommend changes that can only result in part of the advertising revenue going out of its coffers into those of the BBC. I am afraid that the Statement will throw the whole of the broadcasting industry into disarray, probably for two years and possibly for longer.

I hope that the distinguished committee will bear in mind what the Government have done during the past 12 months in the field of broadcasting. We have required, the House has required, and the Government have required, that advertising revenue should pay for ITV, which of course it does, though there again, we should bear in mind that when it loses revenue, as it has done in five out of the last nine months, the Government also lose revenue.

We should bear in mind that many of the smaller independent local radio companies are on the verge of having to close down. By joining two or three smaller ones together the IBA has tried to save them. But, in fact, joining together two companies that are losing money does not always mean that they are able to continue. Advertising revenue is very limited. But the Government want it not only to pay for television and radio, for Channel 4 and for breakfast television, but also to make a contribution to direct broadcasting by satellite and, if it ever starts, cable television.

While we accept that the BBC must have an increase, we are of the opinion that this is likely to upset the whole of broadcasting in this country for a number of years until new decisions are taken. My final word is one of regret that although an increase is necessary, it is pensioners and people on small, fixed incomes who will find it most difficult to bear.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their acceptance of the Statement and for their kind remarks about my new position. I look forward to a long association with these particular matters that are new to me.

I should like to clarify the question that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised about whether the licence fee was to cover two years or three years, or whether, as he rather mischievously suggested, there was the thought of an election in anyone's mind. I can tell the noble Lord that there was no such thought, as he will be well aware. The fee will last for two years, or three if there is no change made to the system at the two-year point. That is why we expect the BBC to plan its expenditure over a three-year period and so live within the income provided by the fee announced in the Statement. The significant point is that the licence fee payer will not pay any more than £58 in any of the next three years. I hope that I have clarified that matter.

As to the noble Lord's question about inflation, as the Statement which I repeated says, it is not the usual practice to give details of assumptions made by my right honourable friend. But the settlement of £58 broadly compares with the BBC's own estimate of the £60 necessary to maintain existing services over the next three years. Taking a realistic but somewhat more demanding view of BBC costs than that contained in the BBC's application, this means that there is no need at all for programmes to suffer as a result of the settlement.

The noble Lord was concerned about the handicapped, pensioners and people in similar circumstances. It is important to note in this respect that the Government are committed to maintain the real value of pensions and other long-term benefits for retired and disabled people. The increase in the licence fee is reflected in the RPI, and this, in turn, is taken into account in up-rating pensions. As the noble Lord will be aware, whereas the cost of living has risen by 76.4 per cent., the cost of pensions has gone up by 83.6 per cent. since November 1978. That in itself represents a very significant improvement of some 7.2 per cent.

So far as hotels are concerned, under new licensing arrangements for hotels which came into force on 1st January this year, hoteliers will be allowed to instal television sets in up to 15 guest rooms on payment of a single fee but will pay an additional fee for each five guest rooms with television over that limit. The Government consider that these arrangements recognise the interests of the hotel and tourist industry and of licence fee payers in general. In the circumstances, we believe that they are fair and reasonable.

On the question of refunds, I certainly note the noble Lord's points. They will be kept under review. But the rules relating to refunds, I understand, are tightly drawn. Nevertheless, as I say, I note the noble Lord's remarks.

The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, is concerned that broadcasting will be thrown into disarray for years to come. I do not, I must say, share that rather pessimistic view. It is important that the circumstances of financing the BBC are looked at in this way by the review committee which has been set up by my right honourable friend. The noble Lord did not ask me any particular questions on it, but I have to say that it is my right honourable friend's view that this is the right way to proceed and that is why he has chosen it.

Lord Hill of Luton

My Lords, may I put one simple but important question to the noble Lord? Will the terms of reference of the proposed committee require it to study the level of broadcasting in other countries, in particular in those where broadcasting is provided by two commercial services competing for the limited amount of advertising? Such a study would enable the committee to see the extraordinary difference between the quality of broadcasting in such countries as compared with a country in which a public service competes with a commercial service, with great success.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the terms of reference of the review are available and the noble Lord will no doubt want to study them. I could repeat them now, but I think that that might waste the noble Lord's time. They are broad, and I think it would be best if he studied them. Then, if he has any further queries, I shall try to answer them.

4.11 p.m.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, I was about to rise when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, wished to intervene. Naturally, he deserves precedence in a matter of this sort. He knows more about the subject than most of us; certainly he knows more than I do myself. I want to make it quite clear that this is not a question; it is a declaration. The Government should not be satisfied, nor should the BBC be satisfied, with the kind of question and answer session we are having this afternoon. What is required to justify the existence of the BBC is an adequate debate. In particular, all its financial activities and other activities should be publicised. So far as I know—but I am ready to be corrected if I am wrong—there is nothing in the Library that would enable us to find out how it spends its money, to whom it gives it, what entertainers get, what politicians get, what salaries are paid all over the place, etc. There is a great deal more.

We must not be afraid to criticise the BBC, even if it means that it is not going to ask us to go on to its programmes. I need not worry about it. I am having a bit of trouble just now. The BBC is actually offering me a fee for a programme. It is a very substantial fee, but I do not want to take it. This is not because I do not need the money. I do need the money, but that is another matter; we do not want to discuss that. I am not taking the hat round. I must be interested in the programme.

I want to ask this question. Why cannot we have a complete inquiry? Why cannot we have all the BBC's activities publicised? In my opinion, its greatest achievement is its overseas programmes, which enable us to show to other countries our behaviour, our civilised existence, our endeavour to promote better behaviour on the football fields and even in another place. We do not require to apply it to your Lordships' House. That is the sort of thing we want. If it comes down to brass tacks, it may be necessary to adopt the method of advertising in order to provide the BBC with the finances it needs.

I remember the discussions we had in the other place and in your Lordships' House 40 years ago, when this was initiated, as to whether there should be advertising over the whole field of broadcasting. It was decided, on very high and mighty moral standards, that it would be inadvisable—indeed, almost immoral—to have advertising on anything like the BBC. What nonsense that is! I have a lot of questions in my mind. I have done many programmes for the BBC. Recently there were some birthday celebrations, for which, as many of your Lordships know, I did not ask. I did any number of programmes for the BBC. During that period I never accepted a fee, even when one was suggested. After the birthday celebrations were over I said to some of them, "Now that I'm back at work, it's a different proposition".

How do I know the BBC is offering fees? Recently a programme was suggested; I shall not mention the name of the programme. I wrote to the promoter and I said, "What do you pay those people who are coming on to your programme?" To my surprise he told me. He also said, "You can have it". I have not responded. I want to make this quite clear. I have not yet told him that I am going to have nothing to do with it; I say it now, so that he will hear what I say. I do not want it. I want to know a little more about this BBC business. If it comes down to brass tacks, it could take a bit of advertising or find the money in some other way. If it does not find enough for entertainers, and even for some politicians, at least it can go on with its overseas programmes. That is a great achievement and I would rate it 100 per cent.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I note the very sincerely held views of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. The accounts which detail all the BBC's financial affairs are of course published and available for him. In answer to his suggestion that it ought to be a wider review, I would point out that the terms of reference of the committee clearly ask it to look at changes in BBC financing and their impact on the range and quality of existing services. I am sure the review will spark off a wider public debate which will inevitably involve consideration of the nature of the BBC's activities and the rationale for them.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it is the terms of reference, which are to be published shortly, that are very important? The Peat Marwick and Mitchell terms of reference seem to have been very restrictive. According to one of their partners, writing in The Times, they were not free to look into some of the internal expenditure of the BBC; that was not in their terms of reference. One would certainly endorse the anxieties expressed in various parts of this House as to whether this investigation is going to be able to look not only at ways in which the BBC is currently spending its money but also at certain of the BBC's activities which really are not essential to public service broadcasting.

It was said in the Statement that the BBC, quite naturally, wished to improve and enhance its services. Will the terms of reference allow the investigation to consider whether some of these activities ought not to be cut out and left to the commercial field, where they would not fall on the licence holder? Will the Minister consider also whether some sponsorship is possible? The Statement mentioned advertising, but there was not any mention of sponsorship. It would be unrealistic not to look at sponsorship, because many sporting activities—we can all think of them—are very heavily sponsored at the moment. I hope that this will be included in the terms of reference.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I note my noble friend's views on the terms of reference. They are of course available, and he will want to study them. One of the terms includes a range of options such as sponsorship. I think it is best if the noble Lord studies them. The Peat Marwick and Mitchell report was of course a report which the BBC commissioned. It was a most useful document. It helped to inform my right honourable friend in considering the licence fee application and indicated to the BBC—which deserves credit for commissioning the review—the areas where improvement can validly be sought. I think my noble friend will be reassured by what he reads about the terms of reference.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, the Statement says that the names of the other members of the committee will be announced before long. Can the Minister say how many additional members are going to be appointed by the Government? Will he give confirmation that, on the committee, in addition to members representing English regions, representatives of other parts of the United Kingdom will be appointed as well?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the aim is to secure a thorough, crisp and business-like study of a lot of very complex issues. We therefore have in mind a total of perhaps seven members, including the chairman, who will have a wide range of experience and background. I am sure they will take account of the noble Lord's particular concern.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, will the Minister make sure that there is a crisp Welshman there as well?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will note the noble Lord's concern.

Lord Marsh

My Lords, I should declare a direct financial interest in a commercial station. Will the noble Lord the Minister be kind enough to again address himself to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone? Leaving aside whatever decision is finally reached, the commercial sector is comprised of companies dependent upon private investors. There is a finite amount of advertising revenue available, and to place commercial companies in that sort of level of uncertainty for a period of years is extremely dangerous for the companies concerned and for the thousands of employees who work within those companies.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I note the noble Lord's concern. Of course, one of the reasons for holding a review is that the issues concerned are difficult. I am sure that they will note that concern.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, whether or not, as was hinted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the Minister had a general election in mind when he decided upon the committee's timescale, may I ask this question? Is my noble friend aware that 20 minutes ago it was clear that the Labour Party also had an election in mind? Their official spokesman formally announced that if ever the Labour Party came to power, it would take steps to ensure that all old-aged pensioners would not pay the licence fee, and that those on supplementary benefit would pay a reduced fee? The fact that that would cost about £400 million was not mentioned. Clearly the Labour Party had in mind the possibility of an election, and it sounded to me like squalid electioneering.

Can my noble friend say whether the terms of reference are now definitely fixed? If the BBC recognises that to have sponsorship or advertising would affect quality—if it truly believes that, and clearly it does—and if the BBC says that it would cut out morning broadcasting and regional broadcasting in order to keep within a sensible budget, it would be left providing quality without providing quantity as well as quality. Is it too late for that to be included in the wording of the terms of reference?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the terms of reference are quite clear, and my noble friend can study them. Unless he has done so, I do not think that I can usefully comment on his question. On the cost of the present concessions, I think that my noble friend makes a good point.

Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon

My Lords, can my noble friend give us the latest estimate of the number of television sets which are being illegally operated without a licence, and can he tell us roughly how much revenue is being lost? What are the prospects of making substantial inroads into that problem?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, it is estimated that there are about 1.6 million television licence evaders, and that at the new fees this level of evasion would cost about £80 million a year in lost revenues. However, we shall be examining whether the present ways of spreading the cost of the licence can be improved. If practical improvements can be found, they should have an effect on evasion. However, one of the real difficulties with this particular area is that we can only hope that we are almost down to a hard core of people who perpetually evade buying a licence.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, the noble Lord has just answered a question about the number of television sets which are illegally operated. What about companies illegally broadcasting? Will any action be taken regarding the pirates? Will the question of the pirates be an issue at which the committee can look?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, that is not included in the terms of service; but I believe I am right in saying that that is a matter for another department and not mine. However, if I am wrong, I shall let the noble Lord know.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, before the Minister finally sits down, will he forgive me if I repeat a question that I asked him but which he obviously overlooked in his reply? I asked him to explain, if he could, or give some instance of what is meant by the phrase at the top of page 3 of my copy of the Statement that the committee: will also consider the scope for the BBC to obtain additional revenue for the consumer other than through the licence fee"? What do the Government have in mind in that term of reference?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I apologise for taking some time to find my way round a different area. However, it will be open to the committee to consider whether there are ways open to the BBC to secure additional income from the consumer. For example, it is sometimes suggested that in the future the BBC could benefit by providing at least some of its terrestrial services on a subscription basis, and it is already envisaged that the direct broadcasting by satellite services, in which the BBC is to play a major part, will be provided on payment of a subscription. That is one aspect to which that particular part of the Statement refers.