HL Deb 24 November 1992 vol 540 cc934-42

4.2 p.m.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the future of the BBC which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. The Statement is as follows: The BBC's present Royal Charter, granted in 1981, expires at the end of 1996. We now have an important, and rare, opportunity to consider the role, objectives, organisation and funding of the BBC in the years ahead. Earlier this year, in our general election manifesto, we said we would issue a discussion document about the future of the BBC, taking account of its special responsibilities for providing public service broadcasting. I am publishing that discussion document today. It is right that I should acknowledge the work done by my right honourable and learned friend, the Member for Putney, in taking the preparation of this document to an advanced stage. Madam Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to say something about the context of this debate on the future of the BBC. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and radically, both in this country and throughout the world. Everywhere the number of services is increasing, as new television channels and new radio stations open, using cable and satellites as well as conventional methods of transmission. Increasingly programmes and services are being designed for audiences in more than one country and some services can be received in millions of homes throughout Europe. The position is unrecognisable from that which existed a few years ago and it has altered even within the last year. In the foreseeable future there will be opportunities for even more services, on satellite and cable systems. Looking further ahead, the introduction of digital transmission may ultimately increase the number of channels which can be provided, first from satellite and eventually on the terrestrial network. We expect digital audio broadcasting to provide more radio services in this country in the next three or four years. Since broadcasting began some 70 years ago, and until quite recently, there have been few outlets and little difficulty in finding programme material to broadcast. In this country we devised a framework which enabled the broadcasters to achieve diversity and quality in their programmes. Now the number of outlets is increasing and all the outlets are looking for material to broadcast. This opens up new prospects for United Kingdom broadcasters both in this country and throughout the world. In this country the BBC's services are popular and widely used. Over 90 per cent. of the population use the BBC's television services every week; about 60 per cent. use its radio services. The BBC's services are part of the daily life of the majority of people in this country. As I know from the letters I receive, and as all honourable Members of this House will know, our constituents often care deeply about the BBC's services and have strong views about the programmes it broadcasts. Externally the BBC's World Service Radio, which this year celebrates its sixtieth year of broadcasting, is highly respected, particularly for the reliability of its news. The service is estimated to have 120 million regular listeners. BBC World Service Television, which is a commercial venture, is already providing news and current affairs programmes throughout most of the world. Internationally there are new opportunities for the BBC and for other British broadcasting organisations and programme makers. The Government believe that the BBC should continue as a major public service broadcasting organisation. But that is not to say that there is no need for any changes. Change there has to be if the BBC is to meet the new challenges which are being created by changing circumstances. However, there are a number of possible ways forward. In the discussion document we have tried to set out some of the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of options. We now wish to listen to the arguments and to weigh them before deciding on the proposals to bring forward to this House. The essential issues in the debate are likely to be the future objectives of public service broadcasting; the range of the BBC's programmes, services and functions; how the BBC should be financed; how it should be organised to provide its services more efficiently; and the ways of making the BBC responsive to its audiences and accountable for its services. All these issues are linked and need to be seen as part of a coherent policy for the future. I hope there will be a well-informed, considered and constructive debate. The BBC will shortly be publishing its own proposals for its future. I would like to encourage other major organisations to publish their responses to the discussion document and the BBC's proposals. In this way we should all have a better understanding of the issues and this should help us to reach sensible decisions. I am particularly anxious to hear the views of the public about the BBC's services. I would like to hear what audiences want from the BBC. I am therefore publishing a short, popular version of the discussion document which I plan to make available in public libraries and citizens advice bureaux. The BBC has its supporters and its critics on all sides of the House. But I hope that, in pursuing an informed debate with a degree of passionate interest, we shall not forget that the BBC has informed, educated and entertained most people in this country for most of their lives. The BBC has both embodied and communicated our national heritage. There are fundamental questions to be asked about the future of public service broadcasting and the role of the BBC in providing it. The Government believe that the public service broadcasting organisations exist to serve their audiences and it is the wishes, interests and needs of audiences we should keep at the forefront of our minds as we consider the BBC's future after 1996.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.10 p.m.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. I am a little bemused by the whole operation. It seems that we have had a paving Statement to lead us to a very green Green Paper which I consider has been unnecessarily embargoed. This is really not the Budget: this is just to lead us to a Green Paper for discussion, and in time, I imagine, we shall come to a White Paper and other things.

As the Minister said in the Statement, the BBC has always been of the greatest importance and, indeed, the foundation of our public service broadcasting. The Statement of his right honourable friend says that, the BBC should continue as a major public service broadcasting organisation". I find this a little disturbing and worrying. I believe the phrasing should have been that the BBC should be "the" and not "a major" public service broadcasting organisation. Therefore I hope that when we get to the discussion stage we can imprint this on the minds of the Government.

Perhaps I may ask some questions that arise even at this stage. How is the debate to be conducted? So far as we can understand from this Statement, no formal inquiry is planned. Will the inquiry by the Select Committee on the National Heritage regarding the future of the BBC be a formal inquiry? What will be the structure of the debate? People cannot just keep on running round and saying, "I think the BBC should do this or that". Surely there must be some sort of structure and some body to which people can put their views. I should like also to ask whether consideration will be given to a public inquiry so that a great many different strands can be looked at thoroughly. It is also essential that minority interests should not be drowned in the desire for mass audiences. Will there be market research along the lines of audience trends which has been carried out first by the IBA and then by the ITC?

The next very important question is funding. I hope that even at this early stage an index-linked licence fee for a period of 10 years will be the top consideration. Neither subscription nor advertising would bring in enough revenue to fund the BBC. Full subscription —I do not mean partial subscription—would more or less disenfranchise those who are in greatest need but who would not be able to afford some of the programmes they might want: educational programmes and some of the more serious programmes. In its turn it would put up the costs for others who could for the moment afford a subscription but who might find that the costs had risen greatly in the course of time.

So far as advertising is concerned, the Peacock Committee turned this suggestion down some years ago, having started off with the idea that advertising was going to be the answer. Advertising would mean the end of a proper diversity of services, and a full diversity is essential.

So far as a public service broadcasting council is concerned, this was mooted by the previous Secretary of State for National Heritage and some other organisations. Many of us, certainly on this side of the House, have not so far been convinced that this would be an advantage: in fact it could be a great disadvantage. We welcome the new technology which has been mentioned, but does the Minister agree that it would have to be balanced with the need to provide the services which most people want at a price they can afford? Although cable and satellite are here and on the increase, they should not be provided at the expense of services which are most in demand and which should be financed through the licence fee.

Finally, could the Minister give us some idea of the legislative timetable? When will the White Paper be published? When will the Bill come before Parliament, and will there at all stages be time for proper consultation? We do not want a progression just from Green to White and that is the end of it.

We look forward to a response on these matters from the Government. But I would point out once again the fiasco that occurred over the Channel 3 licences and the fact that the Broadcasting Act 1990 was so deeply flawed that even the mass of amendments that were passed in both Houses did not leave it in any way viable. The responsibility resting on the BBC has become even greater than it was then, and it is very important that we guard it as the communications treasure it is.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in thanking the Minister for repeating this Statement. With the qualification that none of us has seen the discussion paper, for my part, and from these Benches, I welcome the fact that it appears not to pre-empt in any way a full and free public debate on the future of the BBC. At an earlier stage there was some fear that the Government had in mind to close doors, and the fact that they remain open is a good thing.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I welcome the fact that the Government say in the Statement that they believe that the BBC should continue as a major public service broadcasting organisation. I only say that I would have been happier had that sentence contained the phrase, "a major adequately-funded public service broadcasting organisation". It is the funding of the BBC that will be one of the major areas of argument. I hope that at the end of the day the Government will feel that a licence fee is still probably the best basis for funding the BBC. Like the noble Baroness, I think it is important that the public funding of broadcasting should be concentrated on the BBC. The siren voices about some public service broadcasting "Arts Council of the Air" funding other organisations should be very firmly resisted.

I also agree that the BBC faces a need for change. There will be much debate about the best way in which it can bring itself up to date and about the changing landscape of broadcasting, which the Minister has just described. But will the Government please remember that they themselves, in their last Broadcasting Act, gravely undermined and damaged the public service dimension of that half of British broadcasting which is commercially funded?

The future of the BBC is the issue which will be the absolute foundation stone of quality public service broadcasting in this country. It is very important that the BBC should not itself, by its internal changes, pre-empt the great debate which the Government are now initiating. It seems to me of special importance that the BBC should retain what might be called the critical mass of its own creative programme-making capacity. The new independents have played a major role in the diversification of British broadcasting, and we all welcome that; but there is a need for a major BBC programme-making capacity at the end of the day.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, the BBC has provided high quality services in this country and overseas for 65 years, but obviously a periodic reassessment is necessary and desirable. The BBC's present charter runs until the end of 1996, so there is an opportunity to take stock and consider the future. The Government's discussion paper sets out the main questions as a framework for public debate: it is not a statement of the Government's views. We want a well-informed, realistic debate and a thorough and constructive discussion of the issues. We particularly want to hear the opinions of viewers and listeners as well as, of course, those of broadcasters and other interested parties. We welcome fresh ideas, and we do not want to prejudge the outcome.

I understand that the BBC will publish its own document soon, and I hope that other organisations will publish their responses too. This will be an important contribution to the debate. Our discussion document will be on sale from Her Majesty's bookshops in the usual way, and we are sending copies to representative organisations. Of course the Green Paper is now available in the Printed Paper Office, as is usual on these occasions. We are asking for replies by 30th April next year. In answer to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord we expect to publish the government proposals towards the end of next year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked me about the possibility of a committee of inquiry. We do not believe that the setting up of a committee of inquiry is the best way forward. Many of the issues have already been identified and a committee of inquiry would delay the timetable for decisions. Obviously the question of financing the BBC is crucial, and it will be considered as part of our review of the BBC's charter.

We think that there is no obvious replacement for the licence fee. It has been the Government's aim to keep the TV licence fee as low as possible. Since 1988 increases in the fee have been linked to the retail prices index in the same way as pensions and other benefits. The present colour licence fee of £80 a year is equivalent to 22p a day. It is good value for money for two television channels, five national radio networks and local radio. If the BBC were, for example, to raise its finance elsewhere it is equivalent to 1p on income tax or half a per cent. on VAT, which puts it in some kind of context.

It is important that the BBC has a regular and reliable source of income for the future. We shall be looking at all the options, but so far none has looked better than the licence fee. Of course it is important that the BBC is accountable for its standards. In answer to the noble Baroness, there may be a role for a public service broadcasting council, but that depends on the conclusions about programmes, finance and organisations in the future.

4.23 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, will the Minister tell us a little more about the consultation process? He indicated that organisations would inevitably make representations, but many of these organisations are special interest organisations. In the course of the activities of the independent sector consultations and discussions took place through public meetings with the viewers. Will the noble Viscount assure us that the voices of those people who view and hear these programmes will be heard, apart from those of the well-established organisations who will make their special representations?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I hoped that I had made that point clear. We want to hear from the viewers, and apart from the Green Paper we shall be publishing a popular version that will be available free of charge in public libraries and citizens advice bureaux. It is important that this is a genuine public debate.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, while it is hoped that the general public individually will respond to the request set out in the consultative document for people to examine it, and that the examination will be as wide as possible, there is nothing that the noble Baroness asked for in terms of making it free and independent in its views that is not suggested in the consultative document. Bearing in mind the future and that we shall start legislating on this for 1996, my noble friend ought to recognise the difference in tone between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches. The noble Lord from the Liberal Benches approached it in the correct way. He said yes, something that has been going as long as this ought to be examined in the light of the experience that has been garnered over the years. I did not quite get the same message from the noble Baroness.

The noble Baroness reminded me a little bit of the Midlands work chap who said that he was going home and, "if my supper ain't ready there'll be hell to pay, and if it is ready I shan't ruddy eat it". I recognised that kind of element in the preliminary observations made by the noble Baroness, who will no doubt see it through its various stages. It is a good document and a wide document, and the results that can flow from it if we all do our duty can only be good for the nation.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I see that my noble friend already has the document. Of course he is quite right that it is important that it should be read by as many people as possible. The heart of the debate on the future of the BBC is what should be the aims of public service broadcasting in the years ahead. That is what we are looking at. We recognise the BBC's special responsibilities for public service broadcasting, and we need to consider what this means for the future of the BBC's programmes and services. This obviously leads to questions about how the BBC should be organised to deliver this efficiently, how it should be paid for, questions about the licence fees, and also no less fundamentally how the BBC should be made accountable for its services and responsive to its audiences.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, it is a rare pleasure to be able to give a general welcome to the Statement. I can hardly say the same about the Green Paper. I could hardly come to such a quick conclusion about it as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. One glance and he is overwhelmed by it, but I do not think that that is something that is likely to happen elsewhere. Indeed, I trust not.

I should like to ask the noble Viscount one question and to make one comment. As regards the comment, I am sure that the noble Viscount will wish his right honourable friend to take due notice of the Viewers and Listeners Association, which has recently made a valuable input to thinking on broadcasting. I am sure that that will be among the organisations whose views will be considered. Perhaps the noble Viscount would be kind enough to confirm that.

The other point is this: the noble Viscount said that the BBC itself is producing its own document. I think we would all have expected that. What I am not clear on myself is whether that document is to be a reply taking into consideration the Government's document, or is it to be issued virtually simultaneously with it? It would be valuable to know that.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, manages to read the document he will be stimulated by it, and will perhaps have new and fresh ideas for the BBC that we shall be interested in. I am sure that the organisation he mentioned will take part in the many discussions that we shall have in the future. I understand that the BBC's document, which will be published in a matter of days, is its own document. It is not a document in response to our Green Paper, but it presumably sets out its views—I have not seen it—on what the discussion will be about in the future.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, I am not as quick on my feet as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, so I have not seen the document. I should like to ask whether the document includes a suggestion for a review of the way in which the BBC is internally organised and managed and, if not, whether this would still be appropriate for public representation. Looking back over the history—and I remember making crystal sets in the early 1920s to listen to the BBC—it seems to me that there was a period in which everybody knew the BBC's point of view. Roughly, it was Lord Reith's. Since then we have had this management—a board of governors whose responsibilities are not clear to the general public. We have a chief executive, or chief executives, whose responsibilities appear to be administrative and financial, and we have a multitude of producers and bright young men and women who go around to make programmes and who may, or may not, fulfil a public service or public duty in the way in which many listeners and viewers would like.

As was proved in the other section of broadcasting, regulatory bodies find it difficult to enforce their views. Therefore, it appears that the only way in which the public can be assured of, for instance, impartiality in public affairs programmes is to know and to understand the inner workings of the BBC. Will that matter be examined during the course of the inquiry?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, my noble friend is right. We shall need to take a fresh look at the BBC's organisation and its objectives and performance in the context of the Citizen's Charter and other government measures for improving quality in public services. There are commercial opportunities for the BBC in the new global market for broadcasting. The BBC must become more efficient with a more streamlined management and geared to carry out specific tasks. We welcome the BBC initiative to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Making changes during the next four years does not pre-empt the charter review. There cannot be a standstill on change until 1997.

Of course, the BBC governors are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the Government's recommendation. The appointments are normally for five years and the governors are not chosen from any particular age group or professional background. We look for respected public figures with personal qualities and experience who will contribute to the successful running of the BBC. We have every confidence in the ability of the present chairman to discharge his role successfully for the remainder of his term of office.

Lord Howell

My Lords, while the Statement is welcome in its tone, is it not incredible that it refers to a Green Paper which is available to us but which is described in the Statement as being embargoed? That is extraordinary—

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

No, the Statement did riot state that.

Lord Howell

That was my impression, but if I am wrong I withdraw the remark. If the Green Paper contains options which the Government wish to discuss—in that case, why cannot we he told today what those options are so that we can make sensible comment—will the Government assure the House that time will be provided for us to make our contribution as a House when we have read the Green Paper?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, there is no embargo on the Green Paper; it is available in the normal way. We are not setting options in the Green Paper. It is a substantial document of some 43 pages and sets the criteria for debate. That is important: we are not saying that it is this or that option. We are saying merely, "These are the areas which ought to be discussed and these are the areas upon which we would welcome views."