BBC: White Paper

HL Deb 06 December 1994 vol 559 cc848-902

4.10 p.m.

Viscount Astor rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper on the future of the BBC (Cm 2621).

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on 6th July the Government published their White Paper on the future of the BBC. In drawing up the proposals in that White Paper we have taken account of the results of a consultation exercise, following the publication of a Green Paper in November 1992. We have also had the benefit of a report on this subject by the National Heritage Select Committee in another place.

The main proposal in the White Paper is that the BBC should continue as this country's main public service broadcaster. That should remain its primary role, and it should be spelled out in its new Royal Charter.

The White Paper identifies a number of objectives for the BBC's public services. Those include providing programmes of information, education and entertainment; giving priority to the interests of the public, and being open and responsive to their views; providing diversity and choice in its services; and enriching the cultural heritage of this country through support for the arts. We have proposed that those obligations on the BBC's public services should be stated more clearly and explicitly in the BBC's new Royal Charter and Agreement.

The White Paper also proposed that the BBC should take steps to exploit the commercial opportunities represented by its experience and reputation around the world, in partnership with the private sector, and that it should develop into an international multi-media enterprise.

I believe that it is fair to say that the White Paper received a good measure of support on all sides of this House, in another place, and in the country at large. The Government invited views on the White Paper by 31st October. By the end of November, some 109 members of the public and 93 organisations had sent in their comments. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has today placed a list in the Libraries of both Houses of organisations responding to the White Paper. The vast majority of responses that we have received have welcomed the continuation of the BBC as a public service broadcaster. There has also been broad support for our proposals for the BBC's commercial activities.

There have, of course, been concerns raised about certain aspects of the White Paper. The Government welcome all the comments received and we will take those into account very carefully before reaching final decisions.

I would in particular like to thank the multi-party broadcasting group of this House, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Caldecote, for its considered response to the White Paper, and would like to spend a little time addressing its main anxieties. Your Lordships were mainly concerned to ensure the accountability of the BBC to Parliament and to the public. The Government share those concerns, and the White Paper makes a number of proposals to achieve that.

We have proposed that there should be clearer objectives for the BBC's programmes and services and that the basic obligations on programme standards, including the obligation of due impartiality, should be stated clearly in the new Agreement between the Government and the BBC.

The BBC should publish a statement of promises to its audiences, which should include undertakings on programme standards. The BBC should also consult audiences on its services, and publish information about its performance against its objectives and promises.

I know that the multi-party group is concerned about who will ensure that the BBC meets all its obligations. The White Paper makes it clear that this is the primary responsibility of the BBC's board of governors. The board's role is not to manage the BBC, but to represent the interests of the BBC's audiences and the general public. The Government do not favour interposing a separate, outside regulatory body between the BBC and its audiences. That would undermine the close, direct links with audiences which we see as essential if the BBC is to fulfil its duties as a public service broadcaster.

The BBC's position is significantly different from other broadcasters in this country. The BBC is a public body, established solely to serve the public. It has no other object. By contrast, the commercial broadcasters are primarily motivated by the requirement to make a return for their shareholders, subject of course to their licence conditions.

The BBC's governors are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, on the advice of the Prime Minister. They carry out the regulatory functions which in the independent sector are borne by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. If they do not fulfil their duties, they can be removed.

The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has raised an important point, in his amendment to the Motion before the House, concerning the obligation of impartiality. I can say straight away that the Government accept without reservation the noble Lord's point that the concept of impartiality is too important to be left to a reference in the annex to the BBC's current Licence and Agreement. The White Paper itself acknowledges that in agreeing with the purpose of the recommendation to that effect in the report by the Select Committee in another place.

The Government propose that the BBC should be subject to a specific obligation to observe due impartiality in dealing with controversial issues. That obligation will be expressed in the same terms as that which applies to independent broadcasters. We have considered very carefully how that should be framed, and where we should include it in order to ensure that it is effective and enforceable.

It may help the House if I briefly outline the purpose of each of the main documents which will replace the current Charter, Licence and Agreement. First, there will be a new Royal Charter. That will establish the BBC as a public corporation and will set out its constitution and give it its powers. It is, broadly speaking, an instrument of enablement.

Secondly, there will be the Agreement. As I said, that will be a binding legal contract between the Secretary of State and the BBC. It will set out the BBC's obligations and undertakings for the programmes and services which it broadcasts, and for its other activities. Those will include all the current undertakings which are currently found in the annex to the present Licence and Agreement. The annex itself will disappear. The new Agreement will therefore be, broadly, an instrument of control.

The third document which will be required will be a Licence for the BBC to transmit its television and radio signals. That is a licence dealing with technical matters only, under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and the Telecommunications Act. It will be issued on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, as for other broadcasters. The new Licence will replace the technical parts of the current Licence and Agreement. That will allow the new Agreement to concentrate on programme obligations, rather than technical matters.

Returning to the question of impartiality, we have considered very carefully which of the governing instruments would be the right place for an obligation of this sort in order to ensure that it is effective and enforceable. We have concluded that the reference should be placed in the Agreement. That provides the most effective guarantees. It will mean that the obligation extends explicitly to every programme in each of the BBC's services.

After the recent Question in your Lordships' House, I considered very carefully the alternative approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, of placing the reference in the Royal Charter. However, that would not provide such an effective safeguard. The Charter does not cover specific programme requirements or set controls. It is, as I said, an instrument of enablement, not of control, as is the Agreement.

We could not therefore easily frame a requirement to go into the Charter in the firm and explicit terms that we envisage putting in the Agreement. The Charter and the Agreement have equal weight in law, but do different things. In the case of the obligation on impartiality, the Agreement is the right document for such a reference.

As I said, I accept without reservation the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. The Government will place a specific obligation on the BBC to observe due impartiality, and that will be included in the body of the new Agreement, which replaces the current Licence and Agreement.

On the same question, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has previously raised the position regarding the role that this House will play in considering the new documents which will regulate the BBC's activities for a further 10 years. I shall try to explain the position clearly to your Lordships. The Royal Charter is issued under the Royal Prerogative. It is not, therefore, subject to the approval of either House. However, we intend that it should be debated in both Houses.

The Agreement will be a contract between the Secretary of State and the BBC. Because it deals in part with communications overseas—and only for that specific reason —it will be subject to the approval of the House of Commons, under Standing Order 55. Your Lordships' House has no equivalent standing order.

The technical Licence, setting the rules for the transmission of the BBC's radio and television signals, will be issued on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade. In common with the technical licences for all other broadcasters, there is no parliamentary process.

As I said, the Government intend, with the agreement of the usual channels, to provide your Lordships with an opportunity to debate both the Royal Charter and the Agreement before either document comes into force.

We have welcomed the responses which we have received to the White Paper and will take them carefully into account. I also look forward to hearing the views that will be expressed in your Lordships' House today. I can assure noble Lords that we shall also take those views into account. By my explanation of the Charter and the Agreement and their nature, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that we have indeed taken the right course. I also hope that we have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who has also tabled an amendment to the Motion—

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, my noble friend has made it perfectly clear that the power resides in the Agreement and the Charter together. If it is felt that the Agreement has been ignored, or not dealt with correctly, but that it is in keeping with the general purpose of the Charter, which of them would have pre-eminence in any decisions that arise from that difference of view?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I do not believe that any have pre-eminence in the way suggested by my noble friend. I do not believe that there is any conflict of interest in that way. If we had one rule of impartiality in the Charter and a separate one in the Agreement, then we could possibly find a difference between the two. But, as I said, the Charter is an enabling document which continues the establishment of the BBC as an entity; the Agreement actually applies to the specific obligations of the BBC. It is an agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC. If the BBC does not keep to that Agreement, it is accountable to the Secretary of State.

As I said, I shall obviously listen very carefully to what your Lordships have to say. At the end of the debate I shall have the opportunity to answer any points raised. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper on the future of the BBC (Cm 2621).—(Viscount Astor.)

4.23 p.m.

Lord Annan rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but regrets that it does not meet the recommendation in paragraph 59 of the 2nd Report of the National Heritage Committee of the House of Commons, Session 1993–94 (HC 77) that 'the principle of impartiality is too important to be confined to an Annex'; and requests Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that this principle will be included in the Licence and Agreement of the BBC").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the amendment because the National Heritage Select Committee in another place made the cogent criticism that impartiality was really too important a matter to be left in an annex to the Charter. I should like to say immediately that I am very satisfied by what the noble Viscount said. I cordially accept that, of course, the Agreement is the place in which impartiality should be imposed upon the BBC.

However, the amendment was designed to go a little further. It was designed to probe the ministerial mind. Ministers are very busy men and women and they cannot spend their leisure hours watching television or listening to radio. In a sense they are rather worse placed than many members of the public to judge what the broadcasters are saying. But I am sure that the noble Viscount accepts, as I hope we all do in this House, that impartiality does not mean that every programme has to be balanced and express an anodyne view. We must accept that some programmes will express a bias or at least an individual outlook.

In defending that principle the BBC says that its staff are instructed to keep a balance between conflicting views. Unfortunately, some producers interpret that principle in a somewhat cynical manner. A sizzling programme designed to cast doubts on conventional values in the most provocative way is broadcast in January. They then argue that that is balanced by transmitting the Trooping of the Colour in June.

Timing in the balance of programmes is all important. The chieftains of television and radio really must accept that if they transmit a controversial programme they must in the interests of impartiality transmit a programme, not necessarily on exactly the same topic but something as pungent, that represents the views of those who found the first programme offensive. Similarly in news both sides must get a hearing on a critical news item.

The BBC should recognise that where opinions are concerned viewers and listeners are rather like Jekyll and Hyde. The noble Viscount knows me as a mild, ineffectual old fellow. But put me in front of a television screen and I am transformed into a fighting cock. If that brilliant master of words, Mr. Christopher Hichens, addresses me—he is, perhaps I should explain, the Derek Hatton among Left-wing journalists—my hackles rise. But they rise even higher when I listen to Mr. Paul Johnson, who was once an angry young man of the Left and is now an angry old man of the Right. Long may those two live to enrage me and make the adrenalin flow through my veins. But I do ask that their views should be counterbalanced within a few weeks.

There is only one exception to impartiality. When the state —I do not mean the Government—is under threat in a battle against armed terrorists or against the armed forces of another state, the BBC has a duty to remember that it is the British Broadcasting Corporation and cannot be impartial between the two sides.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Annan

It must of course be truthful. The BBC won an international reputation during the Second World War for trying to be so. But when our soldiers, sailors and airmen are risking their lives, broadcasters should never treat the military authorities as potential liars and on an equality with our enemies. We do not want broadcasts of the kind, "I counted them all out and I counted them all back", which suggest that our commanding officers will lie if given a chance.

Understandably enough people ask: what happens if the BBC disobeys the terms of the Agreement? Indeed, the noble Viscount tried to address himself to that. What happens if the BBC is not impartial, and disobeys them not once but continually? In commercial broadcasting the ITA and the Radio Authority have sanctions to hand. They can fine companies or, indeed, withdraw their licence. But there is no corresponding sanction within the BBC. The governors represent the public interest but, if they fined the corporation, they would simply be penalising the public who pay the licence fee. It is absurd to imagine that any government would even dare to sack the governors en masse because the governors, not the Government, are responsible for seeing that the BBC obeys the law.

The governors are often attacked by the public for not insisting on impartiality or for sanctioning extravagance and so on. And they are attacked just as ferociously by the broadcasters for interfering with their freedom.

I want to defend the governors this evening. In the 1980s the BBC got into deep political trouble over Ireland, over the Falklands and over a considerable number of other matters. The governors showed they had a sanction; they sacked the director-general. They also cleared out the top echelon of BBC policy-makers. Since then they have left Mr. Birt to improve the standard of news and current affairs output. No doubt some will say that there is still room for improvement. There always is—perhaps the director-general would like to have a look at the "Today" programme. But in my judgment there is a substantial difference between now and 10 years ago.

Some will urge that the governors ought to be strengthened and should regard themselves as the equivalent of the board of directors of a plc. I do not myself agree with that because I think that the BBC must remain a public corporation, and the governors have to represent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Probably also someone from the Foreign Office is needed among their number. They cannot be like the board of a private limited company. But I do think that the board of management of the BBC might well invite some men and women of experience in business to join them as non-executive directors. It is there, I think, that outside advice would be particularly useful.

On impartiality, the governors and the director-general can do only so much. Impartiality depends on the heads of television and radio and the producers beneath them. Anyone who puts on controversial programmes is like a man driving along an unmarked frontier that he knows he must not cross. At some point or other he is bound to make a mistake and cross that frontier. Those who control programmes ought to work on the studio floor in rehearsal and in run through to see that that frontier is crossed as rarely as possible. Similarly, the creators of programmes must not be grindingly hostile to the controllers. They must consult right up the line to the director-general himself if necessary. And that goes for independent producers as well as for the BBC staffers.

In the 1950s when the BBC was in hot competition with ITV the creators were pushing back the frontier in the BBC. But in those days they did not regard themselves as avant-garde rebels cocking a snook at the top BBC brass. There was merry co-operation and a readiness to admit that some of the most audacious ideas went way beyond the frontier and had to be scrapped. Above all, it is important that there must never be an in-house interpretation of political events within the corporation.

I sometimes wonder whether broadcasters have read the admirable advice that the BBC gives in Producers Guide, chapter 3, section 5. Of course the director-general and the governors are right to back up their staff when they consider that a particular criticism is unjust. But it would impress the BBC's critics more if the BBC acknowledged that when a mistake had been made, it had been made; and if it is a gargantuan error, to state what action has been taken in regard to the offender.

More years ago than I care to remember, I wrote a sentence in the report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting which ran as follows: He who drops the clanger should carry the can". It is because I would like occasionally to see a producer with a gloomy countenance carrying a can, that I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but regrets that it does not meet the recommendation in paragraph 59 of the 2nd Report of the National Heritage Committee of the House of Commons, Session 1993–94 (HC 77) that 'the principle of impartiality is too important to be confined to an Annex'; and requests Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that this principle will be included in the Licence and Agreement of the BBC")—(Lord Annan.).

4.35 p.m.

Lord Donoughue

My Lords, I must begin by thanking the Minister for the opportunity to have this important debate and for his characteristically positive and accommodating style in opening it and especially in accepting the first amendment on impartiality. My amendment from this Bench includes that aspect and therefore we are happy, although my amendment does go much wider.

We welcome the White Paper which is commendable in a number of respects. It has been received with great relief both inside and outside Parliament. There is relief that the fanatics of privatisation have been kept at bay and that the licence fee is preserved as a source of finance, at least until 2001. It should have been for longer but we shall come to that. There is relief that the White Paper does not introduce advertising, sponsorship of programmes or a wide dependence on subscription, although a big door is opened for that with the onset of digital development. There is relief too at the continued support for the BBC World Service, surely almost the brightest jewel in the BBC's crown.

Some of the changes proposed in the White Paper such as merging the Broadcasting Standards Council with the complaints commission presumably will require primary legislation at some time—although I stand to be corrected on that—before the new Charter comes into effect. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if there are any plans for that and the Government's timetable for publishing the draft Charter and Agreement. We welcome the promise to give us an opportunity to debate that.

It is well known that the Opposition preferred an Act of Parliament to replace the Royal Charter to give greater public accountability. That was rejected by both the Select Committee report in another place and by the White Paper on the grounds of alleged greater flexibility and political independence. Personally—I speak personally here—I am content to accept the Charter approach on the grounds that it has worked reasonably well for 70 years and also based on the assumption that the needs of accountability, which we were looking for in a statute, can be met specifically in the new Agreement.

Having expressed relief that the White Paper is not as bad as had been feared in the heyday of what historians might term "late loony Thatcherism" I must, however, raise several questions about its detailed content and what it does not contain. First and most important is the White Paper's central assertion that the BBC should evolve into an international, multi-media commercial enterprise, as described by the Minister. Presumably that is based on the assumption that if that is very successful it could lead to the abolition of the licence fee. Of course, we all accept that the BBC must change and must adjust to the new technologies that are emerging. The convergence of media technologies means that the old boundaries between broadcasting, telecommunications, the printed page and other media are being eroded. The BBC must adjust to that and survive in what is now an intensely competitive industry. We welcome the efficiency savings and the commercial successes it has already achieved although one feels there are probably still too many layers of bureaucracy sitting on top of the programme makers at the sharp end.

We accept also that the BBC could do much more to exploit its great broadcasting assets, both the historic treasures in its archives and its unequalled programme making skills. But I do not accept, as the White Paper may imply, that such commercial enterprise could at some point become the BBC's main priority. What the Minister said on that was, I thought, reassuring, but it still can be interpreted as a strategic view.

I question whether the BBC can ever hope to be a major world media producer. Its best programmes seem to me to have a particularly British flavour and currently sell only to specialist markets abroad. If it tried to produce what one might call mid-Atlantic pap it could fall between two stools and compromise its domestic appeal.

I hope that I shall not be misunderstood. I am in favour of maximum commercial expansion compatible with the BBC's public service broadcasting priorities. However, we must be realistic. The present commercial revenues are still, I believe, less than £100 million. They might be doubled, trebled or quadrupled, but that would still be only a fraction of the £1.5 billion produced by the licence fee.

There is a more fundamental underlying issue about which the White Paper, like the Minister today, is encouraging. The BBC is above all a public service broadcaster. It invented public service broadcasting 70 years ago. It is still the best exponent of public service broadcasting in the world, as the Select Committee report on the BBC asserts. Maintaining that role and supremacy must be its first priority, over and above any drive to achieve commercial advantage. It must avoid the terrible traps offered by the global media market.

Therefore, striving to remain Britain's, and the world's, best public service broadcaster is a large, worthy and perfectly satisfactory corporate objective. That glittering niche offers a sound basis for the BBC's future; it is certainly better than following the siren calls of total commercialisation. The BBC has been, and can only be, built as a public service broadcaster on the foundation stone of financial stability, derived from the licence fee secured for many years ahead.

In return the BBC must deliver the public service broadcasting goods. It must be informative and educational as well as entertaining, to use the old phrase, and must satisfy the highest quality standards and standards of decency and good taste as well as impersonal performance indicators. It must produce a wide range of diverse programmes meeting the needs of minority as well as of majority groups. It must be editorially independent of all financial pressures, and should have a high percentage of programmes made in the United Kingdom. For me, that is a definition of public service broadcasting; it is what the BBC must continue to do. It is not something that all of its commercial rivals seek to, or do, achieve.

Only the financial stability of the licence fee enables the BBC to perform that role in full. That is why I question in my amendment why the licence fee is only for five years. The Charter and the Agreement are extended for 10 years. In my view, so should the licence fee be. Hence the first part of my amendment and my suggestion that the commitment to public service broadcasting should be—and I sense that it may well be—explicit in the Agreement.

Given that supreme commitment to public service broadcasting and given the financial stability to support it, the BBC does not need—unlike the rest of the commercial media facing, as they do, intense competitive pressures—to descend into the sewers of contemporary tabloid journalism. The BBC has no need to experiment with so-called tabloid television, which is a cover phrase for descent into trash. It can and must avoid the trend to downmarket scheduling so apparent—and sadly increasing—elsewhere, especially in satellite but also in terrestrial television.

While the preservation of the fundamental principle of public service broadcasting is my main argument today, there are several other issues of importance which I wish to raise briefly with the Minister. While commendably attempting to confront the dramatic technological changes facing the BBC, the White Paper fails to exploit some of the opportunities which the new technological revolution offers. The first is in the area of education, and the BBC's great potential as a provider of educational services. Broadcasting is a unique educational instrument, an extra teacher in every classroom. The new interactive technology now emerging makes it much more potent, providing scope for active participation by the pupils. The opportunity must not be missed. That applies internationally. I believe that World Service Television should be encouraged to link up with the Open University and the British Council to provide British educational services to the outside world, especially to the developing third world. I believe that the commitment to expand the BBC's educational services should be explicit in the Agreement.

The related questions of the BBC's accountability, regulation and user representation also greatly concern this side of the House. The appointment and the role of the governors require further examination. Section 5 of the Charter provides that opportunity. Clearly, self-regulation has not been wholly successful. In the regulatory field we support the White Paper proposal to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. However, we wonder whether that should not go further to include the integration of the Independent Television Commission, with the remit clearly specified to provide a powerful unitary body regulating the BBC, ITV, satellite and cable television. That would be a body strong and comprehensive enough to cope with the cross-media ownership of the converging multi-media services we now see.

There is also urgent need to clarify the mushrooming structure of some 60 advisory bodies and to specify their representative, consultative and monitoring functions. Again, we probably need a single, strong institution to look after the consumer's interest.

In the arts, the BBC is the greatest single patron in Britain, spending more on the arts than the arts councils. It provides vital training for practitioners in the arts. It is unique in its scale of commissioning, especially of new drama and of new and live music. None of those would survive in a primarily commercial enterprise. We welcome the fact that that vital cultural role is highlighted in the White Paper and deduce—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that it will be written explicitly into the Agreement as a continuing cultural obligation.

On the privatisation of the transmission service, which is contemplated although thankfully not promised in the White Paper, the Government should be aware that the Labour Party in government will oppose any privatisation of the BBC, whether as a whole, which, in my view, would be ideological vandalism, or in part, such as the transmission service or BBC Enterprises. I believe that the BBC's conclusion is that it needs its own transmission service. That was announced by the deputy director, Bob Phillis, last night.

Turning to the question of impartiality, what I have to say derives from all my previous arguments. Impartiality is intrinsic to public service broadcasting. It must be highlighted in the Charter and the Agreement. I am pleased by what the Minister said so positively and constructively on the question. However, I should like to go further and propose the inclusion of other explicit requirements, some of which I have mentioned.

Hitherto, a narrow range of obligations on quality, taste and impartiality has appeared in the annex to the Agreement as a resolution by the governors. I wish to suggest—and this may well be in line with the thinking of the Minister and the Government—that henceforward the new Agreement should contain both the comprehensive range of services which the BBC is required to provide and an extended list of the explicit conditions which the Government require from the BBC in return for granting the Licence. The Agreement should also contain the governors' resolutions to meet those conditions and obligations. So it is quite simple and logical: the Government set out requirements in the Agreement; the governors resolve that they will meet them. It is not clear to me whether the Minister, when describing the new organisation, was proposing to include in the Agreement the substance of the old annex with its valuable commitment by the governors to obey certain conditions and requirements.

I conclude by summarising our extended list of explicit conditions for inclusion in the Agreement: first, due impartiality; secondly, commitment to public service broadcasting as the BBC's supreme priority; thirdly, a commitment to universal access to BBC services, free at the point of delivery; fourthly, commitments to the highest standards of quality, taste and decency; fifthly, the expansion of educational broadcasting; sixthly, the continued patronage of the arts, including and specifying new arts; seventhly, freedom of expression; and, eighthly, the continuing coverage of parliamentary proceedings. In my view, those should be the public broadcasting service requirements of the BBC which it should give in return for the guarantee, I suggest, of a 10-year licence fee.

The challenge facing the BBC in this technological future is very daunting. It must compete with so many changing technologies. If it seriously loses market share in that competition, then it will obviously grow more difficult to justify a universal licence fee imposed on everyone. However, if it maintains its share through going downmarket it compromises its unique public service broadcasting status so making the licence fee again hard to justify.

We on this side of the House will give the BBC every support in the difficult task of reconciling those pressures, on the assumption, of course, that it will meet the standards and requirements I have set out. But we accept that it can only do so if the Government provide it with the financial stability that it deserves.

4.52 p.m.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in thanking the Minister for the way in which he introduced the White Paper. I ought to begin with a declaration of interest, as a former chairman of the former Independent Broadcasting Authority. One of the advantages of a decade at the IBA is that it inoculated me against over-excitement at the prospect of white-hot technological revolutions. When I was invited to join the IBA in 1979 I was confronted by Ted Turner of CNN. He prophesied that a tidal wave of satellite and cable broadcasting across frontiers would wash away European terrestrial public service broadcasting and put it in the dustbin of history. We are now in 1994 and it has not happened that way, despite the growth of cable and satellite channels—a few of them good, adding to our total choice and enjoyment, but many of them full of the cheap end of American imports.

Of course, the new channels will continue to grow, but I venture a prophecy: if Parliament and governments in this country keep their nerve, if the broadcasters keep their nerve, then I believe that they will remain the heartland of British broadcasting, with the loyalty of perhaps two-thirds of the audience, well into the next century.

It is in that spirit that I give a welcome to the Government's White Paper on the BBC, albeit not an uncritical welcome. It is an infinitely wiser White Paper than the one which produced the Broadcasting Act 1990. That Act has destabilised the commercially funded half of British broadcasting and damaged the quality and character of the service it provides for its viewers. I notice that Mr. Andy Allen, the chief executive of Carlton Television, recently attacked daytime viewing for its banality. He said: Those who are housebound should qualify for a special allowance for watching it". He should know.

Nor should the BBC be smug and complacent in this situation. It is not immune to the present pressures to lower standards. When I watched the launching of the National Lottery, such was the vulgarity of the programme that I wondered whether the editorial control had been handed by the BBC to Camelot, the lottery company. Gresham's law that the bad drives out the good applies to broadcasting as well as to economics. I was therefore glad to see the Government agreeing in paragraph 2.5 of the White Paper that, the BBC should continue to be the main public service broadcaster in the United Kingdom, and that this should remain its primary role". I was also glad to see that the White Paper recorded the first objective in the Government's view as, giving priority to the interests of audiences. The BBC's services should be provided for the benefit of viewers and listeners". That may seem almost a platitude, but it is a very important platitude.

While the commitment to keep the licence fee is welcome—at least until 2001—I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that it is a great pity that, in extending the Charter for 10 years, the Government did not decide to extend the commitment of the licence fee for the same period. For all its defects, and after all the argument and investigation of the licence fee, it remains the least bad method of funding the BBC. Currently at around 23p a day, it is a lot better value than all the competing offers from the new breed of cable and satellite broadcasters.

The licence fee also deals with the problem of maintaining BBC radio in a television age. If the licence fee were to go for television, it is hard to see how it might be maintained for radio. Since, sadly, commercial radio appears to have abandoned much of its public service role, the maintenance of BBC radio remains very important.

However, with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I regret that the Government have failed in that field to respond immediately to the many proposals that were made for a single body to deal with complaints from viewers and listeners and to influence standards. Those proposals came in different forms from the Select Committee itself, from the Voice of the Listener and Viewer—of which I am a patron—from the Consumers' Association and a number of other organisations. Contrary to what the White Paper argues, I believe that such a body would strengthen rather than undermine the broadcasters and the regulators. The merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is a small step in the right direction, but I hope that the Government may have some second thoughts about the larger vision of a broadcasting consumers' council.

The two amendments on the Order Paper deal with the question of impartiality. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, goes a good deal wider than that and I find myself in great agreement with its general spirit. I am glad that the Government have responded, as they have done, to the way in which impartiality should be dealt with under the new Charter and Agreement. It is right in principle that there should not be a dual standard in the legal sense between the impartiality requirements for the independent television companies and for the BBC. As I understand it, the government proposal deals with that aspect.

I entirely agree on the general issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Annan. Given the special degree of influence that broadcasters have on the climate of opinion in this country, if we are to have a well-informed electorate it is vital that controversial issues should be presented fairly. I recognise that for some journalists—I had plenty of experience of this in the past—"due impartiality" is regarded as dull impartiality; crusading is much more exciting. On the other side, however, one should not let the whole issue get out of perspective. The presentation of politics in broadcasting is generally fairer than the presentation of politics in print. It is now only on television and radio—and indeed mainly on the BBC—that there is any real reporting of the proceedings in either of the two Houses of Parliament. The so-called quality press has virtually abandoned its former practice of reporting parliamentary debates.

The BBC is currently required to provide daily reports of proceedings in Parliament. There is no mention of this in the White Paper. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister at the end of this debate that that requirement will be included in the new agreement.

I turn now to the importance that the Government attach to what they describe as the BBC evolving into a multi-media enterprise. I share almost exactly the views of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on the importance of the BBC operating as successfully as possible abroad and selling as many of its programmes abroad as it can, and also in the cautionary words that the noble Lord felt obliged to offer.

Clearly, the BBC's world radio service is one of the great achievements of Britain and is widely recognised as such round the world. For my part, I do not see why the development of a world television service from the BBC should not enjoy the same degree of public funding support from the Government as the radio service enjoys. It is important and adds value to Britain's reputation abroad.

Turning to the programme selling aspect, one has to watch this side of things rather carefully. The prime role of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain the British public. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that if the BBC becomes over-obsessed with providing material for world markets rather than attending to its domestic duties there is a risk of ending up with too much rather bland cosmopolitan programming. In any case, I believe that the market-place for British programming is sometimes greatly exaggerated. I sometimes think that the President of the Board of Trade in another place lets the excitement of that go to his head a little. Any broadcaster will tell you about the difficulties of getting a British programme, however good, from the BBC or from ITV, into prime time in the United States.

In regard to the proportions, one has to bear in mind that at present BBC sales yield under £100 million as against the licence fee running at more than £1½ billion. Against those proportions, programme sales abroad will not make a dramatic change to the British balance of payments.

There is the very real practical problem of insulating those operations in terms of sales abroad from the BBC licence revenue. Anybody with any experience of these matters in purely commercial undertakings knows how difficult cross-pricing can become. In the BBC's case, I do not believe that it has yet fully faced up to an adequate solution to the problem. It is not sufficient to rely on an internal audit in the BBC, even inviting distinguished people of the right experience to sit on the Board of Governors to chair the audit committee. That is a matter with which only the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee can deal effectively.

In the old IBA—and, I understand, in the present ITC—the chief executive is the accounting officer and is responsible to the National Audit Office and the PAC. I would be interested in the Minister's comments. I can see no reason why the Director-General of the BBC should not face the same discipline and be exposed to the same openness and transparency in terms of dealing with this problem.

Finally, the future of the BBC must be seen as only part of the future of British broadcasting—important part though it is. I beg the Government, when they bring the new BBC Charter before Parliament, to bring along with it a new broadcasting Bill. I understand from the White Paper that a Bill will in any case be necessary to implement some of the proposals that are in the White Paper. It would be wise for the Government to use that opportunity and to see the future of broadcasting in this country as a comprehensive whole.

There is, for example, a need for new provisions for cross-media ownership. The Government have been grappling with this issue for some time. The rules relating to media monopoly within Britain need modernising. I do not believe that there are simple solutions, but modernisation is necessary. It is also clearly unfair that continental media within the European Union can bid to take over British television companies whereas it is impossible for a British company to take over a European one.

It is now time to insist that BSkyB conforms to the rules which the terrestrial broadcasters have to follow. BSkyB has enjoyed several years of a privileged situation to enable it to get itself established. As the present flotation on the Stock Exchange shows, that has been successful. In terms, therefore, both of ownership and responsibility for making its share of original programming, BSkyB should now be ready to compete on the same playing field as the traditional British broadcasters.

There is also a need to change the provisions in the Broadcasting Act that relate to Channel 4. These provisions were designed in 1990 to provide an ITV safety net to ensure that Channel 4 was able to continue its remit for special programming even though it was now competing in the advertising market. It was never really intended that Channel 4 should begin to produce a substantial annual subsidy to the shareholders—I believe to the shareholders rather than the programme makers—of ITV.

The year of the new BBC Charter, 1996, is an opportunity to put the whole of British broadcasting on a new footing and to face the challenges of the 21st century. Despite digital technology and fibre optics, and the potentiality for hundreds of channels, I suspect that most people will finally settle for eight or 10 buttons to press in the evening; but perhaps I am getting old! As I said at the start, there is no reason why the public services of the BBC should not continue to be at the very heart of British broadcasting and still be regarded in the 21st century as the best broadcasting in the world, as they have been up to now.

5.8 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark

My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the opportunity which this debate provides to express appreciation not only of the Government's White Paper but also of the long tradition of excellence in broadcasting by the BBC. I believe I can speak for the Church of England, and also for our ecumenical partners, in expressing the conviction that the BBC should continue to serve the nation as a public service broadcaster, reflecting the nation's culture in all its breadth and richness.

Given the present period of upheaval within the BBC, with a fifth of the staff having been cut, the White Paper affords the corporation the opportunity of a period of relative calm, free from major anxieties about funding. Given also the pace of development in communications technology, it seems appropriate for the BBC's Charter to be renewed until the year 2007, by which time the broadcasting world may look very different.

My interest covers all aspects of the White Paper, but as chairman of what is euphemistically called "CRAC", the Central Religious Advisory Committee, which acts on behalf of the BBC and the ITC, I have particular concern for the role of religious broadcasting. I wish to concentrate my remarks on that subject. In doing so, I assure the House that I am not interpreting religion in a narrowly Christian sense.

It seems clear that, since the days of Lord Reith, the dramatically changed social ecology of Britain has resulted not only in deep social fragmentation but also in a pluralism which has left seriously weakened our concept of the common good. However, it would be a mistake to draw a further conclusion; namely, that religion in all its forms is being discarded and cast aside. The evidence does not seem to support such a view.

Many people still claim to be religious. In any poll which asks about the level of religious belief, the large majority will claim to believe in a supernatural being. Many parents who do not go to church still want their children to be baptised; and more than half of the marriages that take place each year are conducted in a place of worship. There is growth in the numbers of people going on religious retreats. There is parental demand for religious teaching in schools. The interest in religion and the search for the spiritual is an integral part of many people's lives, even though they may not he expressed in regular church attendance.

Television more or less consciously reflects that spiritual dimension to life. It cannot avoid it. News footage about the murder of James Bulger aired serious questions about the nature of evil, punishment and forgiveness. Documentaries, dramas, even soap operas such as "Coronation Street" and "East Enders" periodically tread in religious territory. Indeed, I believe that the broadcast media have a special responsibility. Like it or not, television in particular has enormous potential to help make or mar in our societies a sense of responsibility for each other, a sense of shared values and a sense of spiritual possibilities and meaning.

As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury recently remarked, religious broadcasting has a special role. It is as the trustee of that spiritual dimension, ensuring that the media's heavy responsibilities in influencing the spiritual life of the nation are exercised consciously, coherently, and for good, in both the programmes made by religious broadcasting departments themselves and other programmes too. That role is all the more essential and difficult in a society beset by the increasing fragmentation and privatisation of religion.

Bearing those matters in mind, I believe that more attention and emphasis should be given to the role of religious broadcasting within the BBC's output. If there is a moral vacuum in our society and if, for the health and wholeness of the nation, there is a desire for a shared public morality, the BBC is ideally placed to explore and express moral and ethical issues from a religious standpoint.

In the White Paper there is only one reference—on page 11 —to religious programmes. But I am quite sure that that particular and somewhat passing reference picks up three very important statements contained in Extending Choice, the BBC's own document, in which it outlined its role in the new broadcasting age. The quotations are brief and unequivocal. First: The BBC should place priority on … religious, moral and ethical programming, which maintains a prominent place in the radio and television schedules for programmes of religious worship, music and journalism, covering a wide range of faiths, portraying many aspects of religious culture, and exploring the major moral and ethical issues of our time". Secondly: BBC1 should be the main national channel, delivering quality programmes to a wide audience. It should … ensure that religious programmes retain a prominent place in the schedule". Thirdly: BBC2 should be the more innovative, experimental channel, addressing different groups within the audience … [and] ensure that programmes for special interest groups (whether religious, ethnic or community of interest) are offered when these groups are available to watch". Noble Lords will have noted the commitment of the BBC to maintaining the place of religious programmes in the schedules. Your Lordships will also have noted the repetition of the phrase "in a prominent place in the schedules". In that connection, the BBC has kept faith. It is to be congratulated on taking the decision, for instance, to leave its "Songs of Praise" programme at its peak time slot on Sunday evening. Despite competitive scheduling on other channels, the audience figures are higher than they have been for the past six years. They regularly reach the 7 million mark; they are watched by one in eight of the population. That is surely an indication that commercial pressures and religious programmes are not necessarily opposed.

Given the fact that for some of its other religious programmes on radio and television very considerable audiences are attracted, the BBC would, I hope, not be averse to increasing its religious output. As a lover of sport I am grateful for the full and quality coverage that sport receives on the BBC. But it is worth remembering that more people attend church, chapel, synagogue, mosque and temple than attend sporting occasions each week.

One other key factor which emerges from the quotations that I gave from Extending Choice concerns religious broadcasting covering a wide range of faiths and portraying many aspects of religious culture. The Central Religious Advisory Committee, which I chair, is a multi-faith committee, and rightly so. One of the key roles of religious broadcasting lies in allowing communities of different faiths to speak to one another. It is also a key aim of the Inter-Faith Network of Great Britain and Ireland, which I have the privilege to co-chair. As a former Bishop of Bradford, I know the inherent dangers of stereotyping. I know also that ignorance creates fear, which in turn produces tension and all too often intolerance. In a pluralist society the role of religious programmes must at least partly be to help people understand what others believe and how they practise those beliefs. Understanding is a key requisite for tolerance; and tolerance is a vital ingredient in a healthy society.

I thank the noble Viscount for having made this debate possible. I want to thank the BBC for the quality and spread of its religious programmes. I am not complacent; nor, I believe, is the BBC. There is room for improvement. The BBC has committed itself to that task. Along with many others, I look forward to monitoring progress and measuring delivery against commitment.

5.19 p.m.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying how very much we enjoyed the contribution of the right reverend Prelate. The three or four contributions that we have heard so far all made positive suggestions as to how we can go forward, not necessarily strictly in line with the White Paper. We are at liberty to make constructive suggestions because the document was described, unusually, as "a White Paper edged in green". If that means anything, it means that it is flexible; that ideas will be gathered and, where appropriate, incorporated in the final plan. I should like also to congratulate warmly the mover of the amendment. He always entertains us because he has such a light touch. The whole House is sympathetic and he gets his message across clearly and briskly.

I must pass on the apologies of my noble friend Lord Renton, who sadly underwent an operation on his eye last Friday and is therefore absent today. He was a loyal member of our group and attended every meeting. He asked me to say that, had he been here, he would have said that there is no excuse within the BBC for some of the sex and violence currently shown; that it is not appropriate to public service broadcasting. It is harming the morale of the community as a whole and it seems that powerful producers continue to compete with some of the independent elements rather than carrying out the duties of a public service lighthouse which is so appropriate to the BBC.

As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, vast numbers of views on the White Paper were probably received. It is a question of keeping up with the reading of them, and the noble Lord mentioned one or two. On balance, our group favoured the cohesion of one complaints authority. We felt at one time, as one of the earlier Green Papers suggested, that there could well be a broadcasting council. I concede that we have probably lost that battle unless the Government decide to rethink the matter.

One task must be undertaken with regard to the ITC, the Radio Authority, Sky, Cable and so forth if they are to be in touch and complaints are to be dealt with fairly. The standard letter is too often used in replies. I was glad to see at the beginning of the year that the BBC set up its own complaints authority. I am sure that that is a move in the right direction. Peter Dannheisser is in charge of that and I have been in contact with him. However, it still means that it acts as judge and jury for itself, even if the BBC does not like that accusation being made against its administration and programmes.

When we look to the press complaints authority, we realise how difficult it is to bring a regulatory body into existence. We spent 45 years in that regard finding different chairmen and different solutions and it was not altogether successful. We wish the BBC's internal organisation well. However, it is difficult to believe that the people serving on it will not find their careers adversely affected if they are harsh on some of the headstrong leaders among the producer staff. That is just the sort of accident that happens, with people being sidelined rather than remaining in the main body of the promotions ladder. I fear that that may happen. I hope that the service of those good people will be reserved to carry out what we all hope will be to the advantage of the viewers.

The 1990 Act contained certain argumentative points. But the main thrust was to do with impartiality, taste and decency, which were to be found in Clauses 6 and 7 and in relation to the Radio Authority Clause 90. We spent 13 days in this House debating the issue. And this House is perhaps better suited to undertake such consideration than the other place, where there is less expertise than there is on these Benches. Many of us cannot see why those clauses cannot be lifted out of the Act. The BBC said that it would take cognisance—I believe that was the phrase used—of all that was contained in the Act. Perhaps we can look once again to see why those clauses should not be lifted straight out and included in the new Agreement.

Impartiality was strongly recommended, incidentally, by the House of Commons Select Committee. I wonder whether when we come to the great issues of the mixed constitution of the public service BBC it would be a good idea to have a joint Select Committee. There is a great deal of expertise and experience in this House—I think of the noble Lord who spoke earlier—which could he brought to the counsels on these issues.

It is worth looking at the results achieved by both the ITC and the Radio Authority on the question of sanctions. It is easy to say that this or that must be done. But what is the possible alternative for admonishment or even standing down a contributor who continues to disobey or disregard the rules? I have read the ITC quarterly reports since they were first published. I am sometimes surprised to find that complaints made by viewers are not upheld. I do not need to tell the House that most complaints concern Channel 4. Last week's programme on "The Word" contained a vivid description of Mr. and Mrs. Bobbitt and was pretty close to pure pornography. It was not appropriate for broadcasting into private homes.

"Spitting Image" is bad enough when it lampoons the Royal Family and particularly our Queen. But when it produced the figures showing Jesus Christ, 150 people immediately wrote in. Those complaints were only "partially upheld". But what can be more abusive to the Christian faith than to make a spitting image of Jesus Christ?

I was in touch with the authority and asked what was done about the thousands of complaints, of which only 100 or so were upheld in the past year. I will describe later the action taken by the Radio Authority. But I was told that nothing had yet been done; nobody had been fined; nobody had been stood down. I made the point that on Saturdays and Sundays there is a good deal of evidence of footballers who are shown a yellow card and warned. If they repeat their actions they are shown a red card and sent marching. Why cannot we do something like that when people continue to disobey the codes of conduct, which are very strict? I have the latest one here, but it is almost too heavy to hold up. I wonder whether any of those in control at the BBC ever read, learn and inwardly digest its contents. If they did there would not be a problem. But I fear that some of them become rather more arrogant than humble and the rules are disregarded.

"Spitting Image" was a classic example. But one example which received publicity is Granada which has been disobeying the rules of advertising codes—I believe eight times so far. At present the authority is trying to levy a £6 million fine on the channel. But that is not as bruising as some may think. Its total turnover for the year is £190 million, so it is roughly 3 per cent. That is the first action taken in the independent sector.

I asked the Radio Authority for a summary of its actions and received a fax this morning. Apparently nine stations were fined for code offences, amounts ranging from £500 to £5,000; a further five stations were fined from £800 to £1,000 for failing to record programmes. That is a little bit of a discouragement, but I wonder whether we will see any action by the ITC. I am sure it would not have happened in the noble Lord's day.

I congratulate the Government on stopping the broadcasting of Red Hot Dutch. That porn channel may be a sign of what is going to happen in the future. Perhaps we should initiate a change in the European law that satellite and cable should be licensed in the country in which the programmes are received rather than just in the country from where they are transmitted. Such a change might be universally popular in Europe and even certain people in the House of Commons might vote for it. Perhaps we could make that change. I do not believe there would be much argument about it.

I wish to make two other brief points. First, because we are not setting up a Broadcasting Council we are giving much more power to the governors. The introduction to the Directions to the Governors, signed by Duke Hussey, which I received from the BBC this morning, asks: How can the BBC be made more accountable to viewers and listeners while maintaining its independence?". The governors have a part to play, but when I read this document I wondered whether they would have enough time to carry out all their responsibilities. They will have to look into cross-subsidisation as between the private sector and the public sector and it will be very difficult to unravel overheads. They will have a real problem on that score if the private sector is to be a substantial amount of the whole. The more I looked down the list of their responsibilities in the document, the more I wondered whether they would have enough time and energy to carry them out and also whether they would be suitably rewarded for all the time that they would be taking attending to the many functions for which they are now taking on responsibility.

Secondly, I should like to say a few words about the watershed. A good debate on the issue was initiated last January by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and noble Lords in all parts of the House seemed to agree that the watershed should be later. In France it is 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m., but still we make it 9 p.m. That really is unrealistic. Nine o'clock is far too soon, particularly when young people are so adept now at using video recorders. They can set them up and go to bed and watch the programme the next day. I believe that the watershed is being used as an excuse. I have seen dramas in which four-letter words are liberally used. When one asks whether that is not objectionable, the answer comes, "Well, it was after the watershed". But taste and decency and all the qualities that we are trying to encourage in this country are not allowed after 9 p.m. We are suborning the young. I believe that we should take account of the recording methods now available and strengthen the watershed. It should not be an excuse for showing sex and violence and all the other things that are leading our nation astray.

One of the biggest consumer protection associations in this field, the National Viewers and Listeners Association, which is run by Mary Whitehouse, was set up in 1966. Mary Whitehouse is now a very elderly lady but is still energetic. She wrote a book entitled A Most Dangerous Woman. In it she records that an order was issued by the then director-general, Hugh Greene, that, under peril of losing his job no employee of the BBC was to have any contact with me whatsoever". That lasted for 11 years. Hugh Greene left the BBC three years after he made the order but it stayed there. Twenty five thousand people accepted that she could not be talked to. Even her letters were not allowed to be forwarded. They had to be sent to a national newspaper and then sent on.

It is extraordinary how a modest, humble lady, who was trying to work against the general swing of an extreme political slant, was sent to Coventry and was not in any way used. It is nothing new, but I hope that it has now finished. In 1981 only two people were on the list which had to be sent up for approval. One was Mary Whitehouse and the other was Enoch Powell, obviously for some past reason. I am not blaming the current BBC because I am sure that it has reconsidered the matter. However, it is very unpleasant indeed when the most powerful media influence can make sure that someone is not used on any programme. I recognise that Winston Churchill had exactly the same treatment in the 1930s. The people of the day also used their power to keep him off the air. If that had not happened we might have been better warned than we were of the rise of Hitler's militarism.

I shall finish with a quotation from the most admirable speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in the debate on the Address. He finished with some classic words which bear repeating in this context. He said: The aim is not to knock as many people as possible off their pedestals and feel good about their downfall. The aim is to help all of us … to serve the common good as well as we can".—[Official Report, 22/11/94; cols. 175–6.] Those are the words of the most reverend Primate and I do not apologise for repeating them. They stand repeating. I hope that notice will be taken of them and that we shall get that message across to the broadcasters who have the power to influence for the good or for the bad.

5.35 p.m.

Lord Greenhill of Harrow

My Lords, personally I find the White Paper a somewhat disturbing document. However, I know a great deal less about this subject than I used to and mine, I think, will be regarded rather as a voice crying in the wilderness.

My attitude may well be due to my inability to anticipate and understand the full extent of the technical progress that is likely to take place sooner than we think in the broadcasting industry, nationally and internationally. Many of us have heard qualified people speak of the air being full of satellites of the Murdoch type which will be able to penetrate this country without our ability to impede them in any way. That may all be an exaggeration, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was very encouraging about the situation. But there is a real possibility that some of these horrors are nearer than we really think. Others may be able to see and understand more clearly what is happening in the technical world and are content therefore to await events and just "take note" of the White Paper. The Government clearly believe that the BBC will be able to evolve into an international multi-media enterprise. I wonder whether that is true. I do not believe that the phrase "multi-media enterprise" is a very encouraging description.

It is perfectly true that the BBC has an unrivalled reputation, but it will be competing with a host of powerful competitors with great resources and very wide international experience. There is every evidence that standards of programmes, generally speaking, are declining worldwide and the BBC may well find that its virtues will be insufficient to sustain its position. I very much hope that this expectation is not ultimately found to be true.

As a governor of the BBC in the early 1970s I found the corporation a pleasantly confident organisation; financially well off, with a staff of skilled and experienced broadcasters still relying, rightly, on their wartime reputation. They faced little competition and enjoyed public support. The governors were politely treated, quietly deceived from time to time and starved of information about future programmes. I shall refrain from giving examples. Since those days the Corporation has, of course, in many ways changed for the better. The noble Lord who follows me will be able to explain what has happened. But it is still possible for laymen to pick holes in its behaviour. Impartiality is one of the key issues. I agree very much with what the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Donoughue, said. The BBC has to be more honest than it has been in the past.

But if we are going to protect the BBC's position in the future, the most important thing to my mind is to change and enhance the role of the governors. They must decide the overall policies of the Corporation and ensure that the management carries them out. The chairman must exercise ultimate executive responsibility and although the governors should be non-executive their position should be virtually the same as that of the non-executive director of a public company. The present quaint arrangements must be eliminated. This, I know, has long been rejected but when the Corporation finds itself facing several powerful international rivals the Government may like to think again.

5.42 p.m.

Lord Barnett

My Lords, I suppose I should declare a past interest in that I was deputy chairman until last year. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, did not like the White Paper. I find myself therefore in the somewhat unusual position of defending the Government because I do like the White Paper. I formally welcome it, although I am bound to tell the Minister that in due course I shall mention one or two reservations.

I welcome the fact that in the White Paper the Government, as has been said, propose that the BBC should be the main public service broadcaster. I am sure that that is absolutely right and a sensible thing to have suggested. I am bound to say to my noble friend Lord Donoughue that I agree with him—and I believe I understood what he was saying—that he and I both disagreed with the Labour Party in the idea that there should have been an Act of Parliament to deal with the BBC. I believe that the Royal Charter and the Agreement which have been proposed are a much better proposition if we are to be really concerned about the independence of the BBC. That is a matter to which I wish to refer in a moment.

There has been reference to the commercial nature of the BBC; I want to say a word about that. I know that there is some anxiety about the commercial activities of the BBC, as expressed by a number of bodies outside and in this debate. Bob Phillis, the deputy director general, in a very good speech yesterday, made it clear that there would be a level playing field and that there really is no need to worry about the way the BBC proposes to carry out its commercial activities.

I believe it right to continue the establishment of the BBC with a Royal Charter. I agree with my noble friend Lord Donoughue about the period of 10 years and I wish to return to that. It is right that it should be 10 years from January 1997 and not 15 years. A great deal is going to happen in the 10 years to the year 2007. I wish I could foresee the possibilities; clearly, however, there are going to be many technological changes. It would be silly to take the matter beyond that, given that we do not know what the position will be.

I wish to say a few words on the subject of impartiality. A great deal has been said about that. I believe that my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Annan knows very well the enormous respect and regard I have for him even if I had not agreed with what he said, which I did. I am glad that the Minister also agreed that the word "impartiality" should appear right at the heart of the Agreement. It is made clear under Recommendation viii in an annex to the document.

As regards the period of five years or 10 years, I shall return to that in a moment. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, about programmes such as "Spitting Image". I am bound to tell him that I do not normally watch it. When I did watch it in the past it was so awful that I decided not to watch it again. The noble Lord suggested that if a broadcaster had been lacking in impartiality in a programme he had produced he should perhaps be given a yellow card or two yellow cards which is the equivalent in football, as he knows, of a red card and then dismissal. I am not sure whether we should get to that level although as a strong Manchester United supporter I always regret it when one of our players gets a red card or two yellow cards or whatever. Certainly, I share the noble Lord's concern about impartiality.

My noble friend Lord Annan said that in the past the board of governors sacked a director-general. I am sure that he is aware that the current chairman and I did sack a director-general fairly shortly after we became chairman and deputy chairman. We did that with the support of the board of governors because we did not think that the director-general was doing the job as we expected. That has and can be done. We have to be very careful how we handle that particular sanction. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Annan will agree that as governors we must not be seen to be constantly breathing down the necks of programme producers; otherwise independence will go straight out of the window and I do not know what kinds of programmes we would get. In the first instance the sanction must be in the hands of the director-general and then ultimately in the hands of the board of governors, particularly those of the chairman and deputy chairman. I believe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was saying.

Inevitably, there is concern as regards the question of impartiality. When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury I woke up every morning and used to think—I nearly said "My God"; I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me—how on earth did that come to be the first item on the news? Why did they put it that way? I thought that they were biased. The important factor to recognise is that we are not impartial, especially those of us who were in another place. None of us is impartial; we are all biased politicians. What we see as biased, others will see as unbiased. So one man's bias is another man's wholly and absolutely perfect programme. It is important that we recognise that. The programme producers are never going to get it absolutely right.

I believe that the Minister said that the balance should be in one programme. I hope that he did not mean it because the noble Lord, Lord Annan, recognised, quite rightly, that one has to balance over a series of programmes although, as he rightly said, one must not produce something which is lacking in impartiality in January and then say that it will be put right in July or maybe August when there is a quiet session. The matter should be put right within a few weeks. It is absolutely right that that should be done.

I know for a fact that programme producers, controllers and the managing directors of programmes care very much and look very closely at this whole question. They have produced the guidelines. If producers are not abiding by them they had better watch out. Whether they get the yellow card or not is another matter, but it would certainly be frowned on if they were not carrying out their remit of producing impartial programmes. Surely it is better to do it that way. There is a very good guideline which is sent out to producers and there is a systematic review and continuing discussions about it.

That is the situation at the moment. As regards impartiality, I know that there are programmes which can never be impartial because they give the particular view of one person. By the very nature of things that cannot be unbiased. But that is part of the editorial mix. The following week another person will be giving the opposite view. That is perfectly reasonable. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, nodding in agreement. It is dangerous to lay down rules that are so tight that they destroy the very independence of the BBC about which we all care.

I turn now to the question of producer choice, which has also been much criticised in many quarters. As the paragraphs in the White Paper make clear, producer choice has been abused. The new arrangements make an excellent change whereby responsibility for commissioning programmes is separated from making them. That ensures better value for money. Indeed, in its first year, there was a saving of £100 million which went straight into programmes. That has to be a good way of getting value for money.

I turn next to the question of listed events. I care a fair bit about sport and listed events bother me. I am bothered, for example, that Sky and other such channels can buy premium league football—and have done so—thus excluding public service broadcasting, apart from the BBC which has been able to get such programmes late on a Saturday night. If we are not careful and the Government do not ensure that the question of listed events is watched closely, the only way in which the public will eventually be able to see a listed event will be by subscribing to Sky or some other satellite television channel. I am sure that none of us would want to see that.

Reference has been made to World Service Radio and increasingly to World Service Television. I shall not say too much about that except to note that it has been said that World Service Radio has a good reputation all over the world and is of great benefit to the UK. It certainly is. The Select Committee said that World Service Radio provides a superb service and greatly enhances the UK's international reputation. That comment related to audibility. In fact, the World Service is not only helpful in terms of radio and television; it is helpful to our traders around the world. It is a wonderful service that people tell you about all over the world. World Service Television only began in 1991 —it is hard to believe that—and is already building a similar reputation. I believe that the competitiveness of the BBC in World Service Radio and Television does us all a great service.

I turn now to the licence fee, a point on which I have some disagreement with the Government, as does my noble friend Lord Donoughue. I am pleased that the licence fee is being proposed as the main source of funding. Paragraph 1.17 says that that will be the case for at least five years and that the position is to be reviewed before the end of 2001. Frankly, that contradicts what is said later in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.9. The Government recognise, as I did when I served in government, that although it sounds fine, democratic and fair to say that they will take from income tax, value added tax or general taxation the amount that is now provided by the licence fee, in practice it would put the BBC into the public expenditure round every single year. As one who for five years had to deal with public expenditure, I know what that would mean. I would not want to see that happen. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter is nodding in agreement. We must ask why, if the Government believe that, they are saying that they will review the position in five years rather than 10. I simply do not understand it.

Of course, there is no disputing that the licence fee is a form of poll tax. It may be that because the Government had such misery over the poll tax they do not like the idea of continuing the licence fee beyond five years. I should be glad if the Minister could tell us that the review is only about the amount and that, in practice, they propose to continue with the licence fee for at least 10 years, and not five.

I recognise the problem that is posed by the licence fee, as would any of your Lordships who used to canvass at election time. That is especially so in sheltered accommodation where some people pay only 10p for the licence fee while others pay a lot more. I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, agrees. One was not well received in such circumstances, especially if one was a Minister. One had to try to find an easy explanation—and it was not easy to find one. On the other hand, I am bound to say that, much as I would have liked to find some other way of dealing with the matter, to adopt a means of funding the BBC other than by the licence fee would be to do great harm to the very independence of the BBC about which we all care.

I turn briefly to the question of the appointment of members of the board of governors. Again, I agree with the Government that to have such appointments approved by a Select Committee would once more be to bring the BBC right into the party political arena. I would be very sorry if that were to be proposed. Of course, party politics enters into the appointment of governors—although the fact that the present Government appointed me answers that argument, I suppose. I do not know, but it certainly shows a little impartiality on the part of the Government. In my seven years as deputy chairman, there was never one occasion that I can recall when party politics entered into our discussions on BBC matters. I do not know the party political views of other members of the board of governors. All that I know is that we did not have a problem with party politics.

I hope that any government would seek to be fair and balanced in making appointments to the board of governors but, after that, the board of management must be a matter for the board of governors. The board of governors should appoint the director-general, who will then advise the board of governors on the appointment of the rest of the board of management. We were very fortunate and, I believe, absolutely right as a board to appoint John Birt who has been heavily criticised and wrongly abused. I believe that he is doing an excellent job running the BBC in a way that should please all your Lordships.

Finally, perhaps I may return to the question of accountability to Parliament. Constant examination by Parliament of the details of the way in which the BBC is handling its affairs and programmes may sound like good parliamentary accountability but, as paragraph 6.41 says, it would subject the BBC to party political controversy and damage once again that crucial independence about which I have spoken.

Overall, I believe that the White Paper has got it about right. I do not have too many opportunities to congratulate the Government, so I am happy to do so today. I welcome the White Paper. The Government deserve our congratulations on introducing it.

5.57 p.m.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, those responsible have concentrated ex-governors of the BBC into the middle of the list of speakers. I have to confess that I, too, am an ex-governor of the BBC—of 1960s vintage. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and my noble friend Lord Greenhill probably have justifiable complaints that they wasted a lot of time correcting mistakes for which in my day I was responsible.

A great deal of what is at stake depends to a certain extent upon the meaning of words. I should like to express my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for the temperate way in which he has addressed these problems in the correspondence that we have had from him in the unofficial all-party working group. By way of illustration, perhaps I may consider the word "impartial". You cannot be impartial as between good and evil. Somebody had a bright idea and said, "Let's coin a new term and call it 'due impartiality' and leave other people to decide what difference the word 'due' makes". That is the sort of thing that makes the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a little difficult to agree with. When the noble Lord uses the word "impartiality" does he mean "due impartiality" or just "impartiality" stripped of any qualification? I do not know. Perusing the documents, here and there I come across a phrase and reflex action makes me search for my blue pencil immediately. It could never have been penned by somebody who understood what he was writing about. I wonder how it found its way into the documentation.

What that presupposes, of course, is some kind of hierarchical structure with a top and a bottom. Between the top and the bottom there is a process of delegation, including, possibly, the authority to delegate further. Somewhere down the lower regions of the organisation there is accountability, answerability, responsibility, and so on, to the source of authority. But when I read a combination such as "delegated responsibility" I wonder whether whoever penned those terms could possibly have been aware of what he was doing.

You can delegate authority; you cannot delegate responsibility. You cannot make someone else answerable for what you are answering for. That is the basis upon which I have been searching for the proper attitude to be taken towards the subject matter of our discussion. If one goes to any manufacturer of a product, whether it is a sewing machine or motor car, and ask him, "What do you make?", he will be able to show you a sewing machine, a motor car, a bottle of coca cola, or whatever it may be, but the product of the BBC, and all the programme companies, is variable. First, it is not the same from channel to channel; secondly, it is not the same from hour to hour; and thirdly, it is not the same from day to day of the week or from week to week of the year. It is an utter impossibility for any one person to monitor in real time the whole output of the BBC, either in advance or in retrospect. What can be done is to set up a system of monitoring. That is done for the BBC partly by the Government and partly by the BBC itself.

The answer to what should be done to those who violate the code has been much advocated by myself and the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, and has been discussed in philosophical terms by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. For someone who disobeys a clear directive there should be a warning, followed by a final warning, followed by dismissal. That should be understood clearly, and somehow or other written into the person's contract of employment.

If we compare the structure of the BBC with the structure of an ordinary public limited company there are certain differences which are worth noting. We should ask ourselves whether they are intentional differences or whether we have merely introduced them by inattention. Of course, the establishment document of a public limited company is its memorandum and articles of association, but the shareholders elect the directors to direct the company, to settle its policies and to approve its managerial structure. They do not issue directives to the directors telling them how to do that. Directors are supposed to be qualified to know how to do that before they ever come forward for election.

Furthermore, the directors regard their position as more or less a marriage rather than a job to be initiated at one point and dropped at another. If one joins the board of a public company it is with the belief that one is going on with it until retiring age. Of course one has to suspend one's directorship and be re-elected every three years, or whenever the company articles prescribe, but one is not put on the board for a few years with someone else put on the board to replace one. It is not like that. There is a continuing team.

The board of directors appoints its own chairman as the board's spokesman. It has complete authority from the shareholders to make that appointment. The shareholders do not appoint someone to be chairman over the heads of the other directors. In the case of the BBC, we have an appointed chairman, and that immediately derogates from the authority and responsibility of his colleagues. He becomes thereby, through the exercise of ministerial authority, or whatever it may be, primus inter pares. However, even he is not a permanent appointment in the sense that the chairman of a public limited company is, of course, like the other directors, subject to re-election every so often. Normally the expectation is that he will go on as chairman until he reaches retiring age, whatever the retiring age for the company may be. He then retires and takes his place at the old boys' lunch with the other former directors.

None of that applies to public corporations such as the BBC or other quangos: the chairman is appointed over the heads of his colleagues, and that puts him in an unusual position. We must ask ourselves whether that is really what we want. I go back to the analogy. The directors of a public company appoint the managers. They may recommend one or two of the senior managers to be executive directors as appointed by the shareholders. They too must come up for re-election from time to time, and if they were not re-elected by the shareholders, they would probably lose their jobs as managers.

The directors do not get down to the work of managing themselves. They see that the company has the right managerial structure. When it comes to the relationship between the governors of the BBC and the management board, they appoint the director-general, and they and the director-general may choose certain selected managers to be members of the management board. But of course they do not, and should not, interfere with the day-to-day management. They should do that through the director-general and their executive colleagues. While they cannot inspect the BBC's output on a day-to-day basis or an hour to hour basis, they can monitor it.

I remember a conversation between my father and André Citroen. My father asked him, "To what do you attribute the success of your enterprise?" André Citroen's answer was, "I have a complaints department that reports direct to me. All complaints go ultimately through my hands, after being sieved out for me". It was to that, he said, that he attributed his success. That is what the governors of the BBC should do. They should have a monitoring system for complaints. They should then take the appropriate disciplinary action, after due warning, in respect of people who systematically disobey the rules laid down.

Whether those analogies between a public limited company and the BBC should be followed exactly and precisely, I do not know; but those are the things we should be debating. Parliament must then monitor the monitors, as it were. We are responsible for everything. So I come to the vexed question of the Charter, on the one hand, versus Act of Parliament, on the other; in other words, do the memorandum and articles of association of the BBC come from the Queen in Council, the Queen in Parliament, or from both, or from one of them?

With our usual preference for compromise, the establishment document is issued by the Queen in Council, and the Agreement is subject to approval by the Secretary of State in Parliament—the Queen in Parliament, the final authority. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, I do not know, but with my general distrust of words and draftsmanship and our ability to put what we mean in unambiguous writing, I am in favour of having one document issued from one ministry approved by one Parliament, as opposed to two documents where it is not necessarily obvious that words in one mean the same as words in the other and one can go on playing hide and seek indefinitely with terms of reference.

I suspect strongly that game of hide and seek with the Charter, the Licence and the Agreement is something that went on in my day and that it still goes on. That is why the board of management can do exactly as it pleases, and treat the governors, very politely, as more or less nonentities.

I want to say one thing about the corruption in the world in which we live. I received a document—I expect that the noble Viscount has it—from the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association which contained a potted version of all the pornography and violence that there has been in the broadcast media for the past six months. I was unable to circulate the document because it was embargoed until one minute past midnight this morning. However, I have placed a copy in the Library and it is available for everyone to read.

The document is absolutely shocking. The language is shocking and in that connection I must enter a disclaimer. Bad language is sometimes excused on the ground that for reasons of artistic integrity and so forth corrupt people must use corrupt language. Artistic integrity does not excuse the public display of corrupt documents. However, your Lordships should have no illusions as to where the corruption lies; it lies with us not as Members of Parliament but as human beings. The public are corrupt, we are corrupt and human beings are corrupt. We indulge our corruption at third hand, as it were, by seeing it as entertainment on broadcast media. That is why we have tolerated it so far, but we should tolerate it no further. In that spirit I shall sit down.

6.10 p.m.

Viscount Caldecote

My Lords, it is a daunting task to follow three former governors of the BBC. I well remember an incident some 70 years ago. After fiddling with a cat's whisker, I suddenly heard through the earphones, "This is 2LO. Hello children". Since then, I have had a great admiration for the BBC and therefore I am in support of the White Paper in general—in particular the decision to continue the BBC as public service broadcasting funded by a licence fee.

However, there are present drawbacks which need to be rectified when the new Charter comes into operation. Many of them stem from the lack of clarity about the responsibilities of the governors. As other noble Lords have said, clearly it is not the job of governors to manage the BBC. However, it is their job to agree the policies of the BBC and to monitor the management in carrying them out. At present, those tasks are far too remote from each other. The question is whether the governors accept full and ultimate responsibility for all the activities of the BBC, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggested they should, or whether they see themselves principally as guardians of the public interest, acting as a regulator remote from what management does.

If it is the latter it is too much of a "judge and jury" arrangement for the BBC when criticisms are made. In limited specific cases complaints can be dealt with by the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Now they are to be merged but apparently will have no more power than they have at present. In my view, the Board of Governors should act in the same way as the board of any plc. However, I entirely accept that the analogy must not be taken too far, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. The board should have similar obligations to obey the law and it should be answerable to a regulator, in the same way as directors of plcs are responsible to the DTI, the independent television companies to the ITC and the trustees of charities to the Charity Commissioners.

It would be perfectly possible to make a combined BSC and BCC perform the regulatory function of ensuring that governors abide by the Charter and the Agreement. That would be preferable to setting up a second regulatory body. However, in the absence of a regulating authority, the BBC has set up its own internal complaints department. As far as it goes, that is good. It is set up to deal with criticisms not covered by the BCC or BSC but it simply emphasises that the "judge and jury" factor still exists.

I believe that there should be a regulatory body for the BBC similar to that for the ITC. It would deal with all the accusations relating to breach of the Charter and the Agreement. How else can the Agreement and the Charter be enforced, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Astor? As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, there are no problems with the ITC because it has full powers to revoke licences or impose financial penalties. But, clearly, that is not practicable for the BBC because such penalties would simply be passed on to the public.

That is a most difficult problem to solve. Perhaps, as has been suggested, individual producers could be penalised for consistently breaking the rules. It is possible that governors could be held to account and personally penalised, as are directors of plcs for unlawful trading. Some solution to the problem must be found, otherwise we shall continue with the flabby disregard of the present Charter and codes of practice that lead to the kind of broadcasting so forcefully described by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We must find a solution or we shall have a continuation of the present situation whether on impartiality, violence, sex, crime or children's programmes.

I have one final question. Will my noble friend Lord Astor give a categorical assurance that this House will have the opportunity to debate the Charter and the Agreement in draft form? Time can then be given for amendments to be made before publication of the final Charter and Agreement. Surely, that is the best way of enabling this House, which has so much experience in this field, fully to contribute to the continuing high quality and success of the BBC.

6.17 p.m.

Viscount Tenby

My Lords, the "ex-governors of the BBC" section has now come to a close. I thought that perhaps I should make that clear. It is right that we should have a debate on this most important, complex and sensitive subject, even though some of the "light blue" noble Lords might have wished for a happier date on which it might be held. I thank the noble Viscount the Minister for his assurances in respect of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Annan.

Just as beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, I am inclined to the view that partiality principally lies in the ear of the hearer. Impartiality is of importance and is greatly to be desired. But control of taste and decency and of the right of people not to have their cherished beliefs mocked or ridiculed, or of ethnic minorities not to be spoken of disparagingly, seem to me to be equally important objectives. We have heard all about impartiality; but those issues must be thought about, too.

The fact is, however, that politicians—and I hope that they will forgive me for saying this—tend to be obsessed with the subject of impartiality. As the distinguished biographer, Philip Ziegler, recently wrote: It can be taken for granted that every British politician believes the BBC to be prejudiced … in favour of the other party". How true, my Lords! I seem to recall a downward twist in the earlier relationship between the government of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and the BBC—so nothing much changes over the years.

I further believe—and I have no statistical evidence to support the belief—that politicians tend to exaggerate the influence which radio, TV and the press have on the electorate. Incidentally, by doing so, they unconsciously diminish and patronise that very body of the people.

Having made that observation, let me say straight away that it is vital to have in place machinery to ensure that the common-sense rules of impartiality are not breached and that standards of taste and decency are not grossly offended.

The Government's statement from another place said: Like other broadcasters, it"— that is, the BBC— will continue to have obligations to observe due impartiality on controversial issues and to ensure programmes do not encourage crime or offend against good taste, decency or public feeling".— [Official Report, 6/7/94; col. 1292.] Well, Amen to that!

The objectives are certainly admirable. But with regard to "like other broadcasters", the whole point surely is that the BBC is not like other broadcasters. It handles its own affairs in isolation from the statutory framework which embraces all other broadcasters. It only has to satisfy its governors who admittedly represent the listeners and viewers but who scarcely mirror the role of non-executive directors, as we have been hearing this afternoon, in terms of a hands-on commitment. Of course, it also metes out its own justice.

Indeed, in the White Paper the Government go further and at paragraph 6.10 they envisage that the governors' main responsibility will be, to ensure that the BBC's programmes, services and other activities reflect the needs and interests of the public". That may be satisfactory to ensure that the BBC does not bury Radio 4 in future or switch all listeners to FM bands; but it does not exactly send out a message to producers who are seeking to try it on that their card is numbered. After all, it is hardly the same ball game for independent broadcasters where, in extreme cases, the licence may even be removed and where financial penalties for infringement of obligations are imposed.

In a service financed by the public purse, such an outcome is clearly not possible. Very well; alternatives should be considered, and it really is important that we should not just tiptoe round this issue. We really must get down to start thinking about it properly.

Although I am doubtful whether the suggestion about the football referee's yellow and red cards or indeed a points system not unlike that in use for motoring offences, where you gradually come up until you become a "totter", would necessarily work in respect of erring directors and producers. They might be adaptable or they might not. But if they are not, then let other ways be found for I cannot seriously believe that human ingenuity cannot devise a procedure acceptable to most people which protects the freedom of artistic endeavour but which punishes those who usually abuse it—and I have to say this—for sensational or commercial reasons. That is why they do it.

I do not wish to appear unhelpful. No one could be more relieved than I at the Government's acknowledgement of and commitment to the concept of excellent public service broadcasting as exemplified by the BBC. Gone (one would hope for ever) are the flushes and fancies of the 1980s with regard to ideas such as the BBC paying for itself through advertising or appealing to the lowest common denominator in programming to achieve success in the ratings war. Conversion is always to be welcomed, and I harbour a sneaking hope that like all converts, this Government, should they be in a position to be so, will in future become a stronger advocate of the merits of public service broadcasting than even the most vociferous disciple of the late Lord Reith.

As I have said, I do not wish to appear unhelpful; but I cannot for the life of me understand this preoccupation with Royal Charters. Perhaps it was a good wheeze in 1926 because it enshrined the new corporation's freedom from political control. I can understand that. But that was nearly 70 years ago and if the penny has not dropped by now that the BBC is an independent body, it never will. Why cannot the BBC be established by statute, just like all other forms of broadcasting in this country, and be not controlled by Parliament but directly answerable to it? I have the distinct feeling that that preference for Royal Charters, which, as we have heard, inevitably obscures the direct lines of responsibility, is a more cosy arrangement for the principle players involved. I believe that it serves only to obfuscate the chain of command, thereby making largely unenforceable control of the corporation's obligations.

I conclude by welcoming two proposals arising from the White Paper; first, the development of the BBC's commercial expertise in partnership with other organisations, which must be widely welcomed as must secondly be the proposed merger of the BCC and the BSC, about which we have heard so much about today. That will undoubtedly result in less confusion which arises inevitably when there is a multiplicity of bodies with disturbingly similar names and whose very existence may perversely have had the effect of deterring potential complainants who, when it came to the crunch, could not be bothered to find out which body did what.

The trouble with a debate like this is that one agrees a little bit with nearly everybody so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not refer to them by name; but I also agree with the idea of a single body in future. I would hope that the Government will look again at that.

It is right that these matters should be fully debated in this House, for what we have here are a number of noble Lords with unparalleled experience and knowledge of these matters—former governors of the BBC; chairmen of broadcasting authorities; directors of radio and TV companies; broadcasters themselves; and even the principal player in an important and admired report on the future of broadcasting. Accordingly, I would ask the Minister to ensure, via his right honourable friend in another place, that the voice of this House is heard loud and clear as the moves unfold and not—as was the case in the composition of the Select Committee, I have to say—shamefully ignored.

Put quite simply, those matters and their implications are too important to become flawed by prejudice, ignorance or hearsay.

6.27 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, the Minister should feel very happy about this debate. He has been given a clean bill of health as regards the White Paper and he can report back that there is almost unanimous approval of the general message which comes from the White Paper. The only exception to that for a fleeting moment, was from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow. He gave very wise advice with regard to future technical developments. He advised us not to take things for granted because matters which we now accept as being almost certain may proceed rather differently when these issues come to fruition.

At one stage at the very beginning of the debate I thought that we were not to have a debate at all. If one remembers the opening words of the Minister's speech, he used almost the identical words of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Since the agreement was so complete, I thought that he was going to say, "We accept the amendment and therefore there is no need to proceed further". That was not quite what happened but it was reasonably near to it. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend should feel satisfied because what he has commended today to the House has received almost unanimous approval.

At this stage, I do not believe that we want any more inside knowledge about the BBC, the governors, the deputy chairmen and those who have been part of the actual machine itself. They have played their part and their evidence is most valuable. Of course, it ought to be taken into account, as I have no doubt it will be. I am concerned that we, as part of Parliament, should examine the effect that the BBC, under the machinery as it is set up, is likely to have on the nation. We should be the watchdogs in that respect.

I have much admiration for the right reverend Prelate. He made no bones about it. He said that, whatever minutes he had in this debate, he would use them to sell his Church. He said that he would make clear the rights that his Church has to have its beliefs and its teachings focused properly through that important media; and he did so. In my small contribution, I should like to do the same. However, I should like to do so on the basis of a parliamentary party politician.

I believe that we ought to look at what happened pre-war as compared with post-war. It really has been quite tremendous in terms of its impact on the country. Many of us were parliamentary candidates before the war and operated as such because Parliament is a parliamentary democracy based upon the party system. That is what it is and that is what it is our duty to try to operate. Before the war, Members of Parliament were the real source of influence in arriving at what was a national view on things. They were the ones who, by and large, gave the lead and that was generally accepted. However, that is not accepted today. The power of influencing thought, especially in the world of politics, no longer lies with Members of Parliament; it now lies with the BBC announcers, the people in the media and the columnists in the newspapers. They are the opinion-formers today.

Many of us were fascinated by party politics and government generally when we were very young. I recall the time when my noble friend was Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. I remember him as a colleague back in 1932 when we were organising political schools, and so on. When I think back to those days and compare where the power and influence have moved to, it seems to me to be quite tremendous. I do not believe that it is to the good; indeed, I believe that it is very much to the bad that the influence for creating public opinion should have moved to the areas that have it today. There is nothing we can do about it. It will not go back. It is a matter of harnessing it in a way where, if it is wrong—and I believe it is in terms of the trend—it will be less wrong than it might be if we did nothing about it.

One example I can give of the contrast is that before the war I was the candidate for Nelson and Colne—little Moscow they called it—against little Sydney Silverman, who was a most adept politician. I was a parliamentary candidate at that time, not a Member of Parliament. However, people turned up when one had a meeting. Indeed, 100, 200 and sometimes thousands on the odd occasions. One was able to use one's influence as a candidate and appeal directly to the people. The influence that one had at times was not that much; but at any rate the direct contact was there. Moreover, when one made a speech it was reported by the newspapers. They did not just pick out one or two words which happened to fit in with the message that they were going to put in their editorial column that day. That applied with the local press in particular, and often with the national press.

It is not good if what I am saying is true; but I believe it to be true. In terms of standing in society, especially in the area where one is operating, my status as a parliamentary candidate then was 10-times higher than that of a Member of Parliament today in terms of public esteem. MPs have been downgraded in a way which is very dangerous indeed. At the end of the day, they are the ones who have to prepare the statutes which eventually become the law of our country. That is what happened then. Now, all the influence is exercised by the columnists and the television announcers. If one wants to influence society, one should not think in terms of becoming Prime Minister or a Member of Parliament; one should think in terms of becoming a BBC or an ITV commentator.

What can we do about the situation, if anything? I believe that the most we can hope to do is to ensure that the new communicators—the ones who in this modern age are in the position to influence public opinion, which results in the sort of government that we have—are treated in the same way. I am not arguing only from the Conservative point of view, which happens to be my belief: the same problem applies to all sides. They are as insignificant as we are in terms of exercising that great influence. But what can we do about it? The most that we can do is to try to get the new communicators—the broadcasters and the columnists —on the same level as the politicians who had this influence in the old days. Of course, our standing ought to be better; if we got theirs to the same level that would be a move somewhere.

When I first came into Parliament—and I have colleagues from those days here in the Chamber—we had no register of interests. We called each other the "honourable Member" on the basis that we were satisfied that we were honourable people. If people declared their interests before they made their speech or before they voted, which is quite correct, that was sufficient. However, that is not now the case. We have to have a register of declared interests, right down to the most minute detail. Then the new communicators pick a little bit out of that declaration, distort it and twist it in a way which makes the honourable Member concerned look as though he is a member of the corrupt brigade. That is how it works now.

I believe that that trend has had the effect of making people who make their contributions as Members of Parliament that much more careful to ensure that they do not allow their personal greed or their personal preferences to take over. Therefore, to that extent it has had a function. However, I should like to put a thought in someone's mind. It could be the mind of the BBC's complaints authority. In order to keep on the rails, why can we not have a register of interests for the new communicators, many of whom slip in as an aside some of the comments which cause the most danger? Why can we not know what is their true background? If those communicators have such power—and, make no bones about it, they have—which I argue they have taken from Members of Parliament, why can we not have something equivalent to, if not the same as, the register of declared interests for them?

It is the little aside which does most damage. "Any Questions" is one of our most prestigious programmes and some of our most estimable people act as the chairman. Great trouble is taken to ensure that the forum is properly balanced, with Government supporters, Opposition supporters, middle of the road supporters and people from industry. The chairman is supposed to be impartial and an outstanding character who can be trusted against all sorts of odds. If one or other of the people appearing on the programme seems to be making a good point which is swaying the programme, the chairman will pop in and make a few remarks as though he is one of the protagonists, but because of his position his remarks carry 10 times more weight than those of the person who made the first point.

I congratulate my noble friend on being able, after this debate, to take back to his department such unanimous approval. However, I hope he will not leave the matter there and that he will find some way of being able to control to some extent this new group of people I have mentioned who are, for the most part, represented by those who operate in the BBC. I am not talking about the governors, the deputy chairmen or the people who operate the machinery, but the people they employ, who appear on programmes and make their points from the powerful positions they hold which the BBC has given them. I support those who have suggested that there should be some way of dealing with people who find a way through the impartiality fence. Why not show them the yellow card and deny them the right to make future appearances on this prestigious, valuable platform? We need to find some way of controlling the people who have taken over the authority which once belonged to Members of Parliament in informing public opinion on political matters. I am not talking about other matters.

It is right that one should speak from one's own experience. I remember vividly that I fought a by-election in Nelson and Colne. It was impossible for a Tory to win that by-election. Six months later I was brought out of the Army again to fight a by-election in Preston against Lord Shackleton, who was the most delightful opponent to have to deal with. When it was announced that I was to be the candidate, Lord Beaverbrook, who was then the great power in the land, rang me up. He asked me whether I would fight the election, with his backing, on the basis of being the anti-American loan candidate. I had to say no. I said that I did not think I could do that because I felt that, after the cost of the war and all that that meant, the loan to prime the pump such as was envisaged in the American offer was not only desirable but vital. Lord Beaverbrook was not very pleased about that. He sent a secretary to my first public meeting to say in public what he had said in private about the desirability of my being the anti-American loan candidate. I gave the same answer in public as I had given Lord Beaverbrook over the telephone. I was an insignificant candidate who did not have a wax cat in hell's chance of winning the by-election. The majority against me in those days was 15,000 or 16,000. However, when I gave a similar answer in public to the one I had given Lord Beaverbrook in private, the whole of the opinion column in his paper said that I was a weak-kneed, vacillating Tory candidate who lacked guts.

The next day Sir Anthony Eden was due to speak for me. He said to me, "Well, your view is ours". He made a speech which more or less supported what had been done and the column in the newspaper stated, "The master is as bad as the pupil". But the column space devoted to Sir Anthony was only half that devoted to me.

I make that point to show the influence that people have who are in control of these organs—in the case I referred to, it was a leading newspaper—such as the BBC and the television companies. If we do nothing about the influence these people have and the way in which they use it, where they allow their bias and their personal views to interfere with what should be impartial leadership, we shall be in trouble.

I wish my noble friend the best of luck. He has had a good evening and he has the debate as he would like it. I think it is right that that should be the case, but I would ask him, please, to make certain that his department and, as far as he can, any who follow him are aware of the fact that everything is not rosy, easy and quite as wonderful as some people would suggest it is.

6.46 p.m.

Baroness O'Cathain

My Lords, I welcome this debate and like most previous speakers I thank the noble Viscount for making it possible because it gives us an opportunity not only to pay tribute to the BBC but also to air some concerns and, indeed, to make some suggestions.

The BBC is one of the few categories in which the United Kingdom is a world leader. It is a world leader in broadcasting and, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, the BBC World Service on radio and TV is indeed excellent. One only has to travel to experience that. The worldwide competition for the BBC tends to be banal at best and tasteless at its worst, and we really should take pride in the BBC and not knock it. I mentioned the word competition. The BBC competes both nationally and internationally for audiences and export sales, and indeed nationally for scarce financial resources.

As a country we have not yet accepted that there has to be greater public accountability in every case where public funding features. The creativity of the BBC is not an excuse for lax accountability. I hasten to say that I am not accusing the BBC of lax accountability but there is a perception, a suspicion abroad, based on evidence of, for example, TV crews "hunting in packs", that overmanning still persists. The new regime at the BBC under John Birt is to be congratulated in achieving greater management standards —producer choice being just one manifestation of this. There appear to have been strides made in achieving greater efficiency. We must be patient in demanding even more strides in these directions. Speaking from somewhat bitter experience I know that to achieve change in a creative environment is exceedingly slow.

Impartiality has featured very much tonight. I have nothing to add to that, but there are other concerns, two of which are of personal concern to me but I believe they are fairly widespread concerns and both can be tenuously linked. I refer to what I call the lowest common denominator factor and the subject of religious broadcasting.

In preparation for this debate I managed to obtain and read a copy of Producers' Guidelines, which refers to the objective of enabling, programme makers and the public alike to see the editorial and ethical principles that drive the BBC". It is an excellent publication. It is a document of great clarity and it is easy to read.

The BBC has all sorts of responsibilities thrust upon it, some arduous and others that are almost impossible to achieve. But I believe that as a public service broadcasting organisation it has the responsibility to, do nothing to undermine standards of behaviour or, as the annex to the licence states, not to, offend against good taste or decency". Both of those statements are couched in negative terms. I would prefer to be positive, and I personally should like to go further and state that the BBC should ensure that standards of behaviour are maintained or, better still, improved.

Of course I realise that I have now ventured into the quicksand of definitions of taste and decency, and that is a pretty hopeless situation. I shall try to explain my reasons by anecdote—a factual description of what occurred last Sunday evening.

Four people were in my sitting room at home. Three were watching television. The fourth, me, was struggling under a mountain of Christmas cards. I positioned myself at the far end of the room. I had no view of the television screen; there was a cabinet in front of me. However, I could hear the television. That point is relevant. The programme on the television was "Seaforth". Shortly into the programme one word appeared to be used frequently. That word was "bloody". It is a swear word. Having counted about 15 repetitions of that word I spoke to the viewers at the far end of the room. I said, "That's a bit much, isn't it?". "What is a bit much?" they replied. "The constant use of that word". They had not noticed. I was flabbergasted. I realised that while watching television one can downgrade one's attention on the words and concentrate on the visual action. It is subliminal, I fear.

If the words spoken—the dialogue—had featured, say, on Radio 4, there would have been an outcry. We are subjected to lower standards on TV than on radio. Why? And why was that word so essential to the plot that it had to be repeated ad nauseam? I asked the viewers in my sitting room if it would have detracted from the story if the word had not been used. The answer was no.

I know the counter-argument: it is real life. It is said that people speak like that. Sadly, that may be true to a large extent. However, it is not real life. This is real life here in Parliament, and we do not use that word. It is not true of the boardrooms of our commercial companies. It is not true of the Church. It is not true of the professions—the law and medicine (at least, not universally true). Therefore, why stoop to the lowest common denominator? Speech programmes on BBC Radio 3 and 4 maintain standards and set standards in terms of little use of swear words. Why is that not true of TV?

As part of its role of public service broadcasting I suggest that the BBC should have the responsibility to try to encourage the population to desist from using swear words. Swear words cause distress and show a complete lack of respect for fellow human beings.

It is universally acknowledged that there has been a relentless and insidious deterioration in standards of behaviour and respect for others. That downward slide has led, I believe, to an unhappy and even degrading sense of malaise in so many walks of life. It is seen to be smart, chic and radical to push constantly at the existing bounds of decency. Surely the BBC can help to stop that rot rather than encourage it.

I am not so sure that programmes which offend are particularly popular. This week I have heard nobody talk about "Seaforth" but I have heard many people talk about "Martin Chuzzlewit".

My concern about the issue of the lowest common denominator and how it could be tackled is linked with my second concern —religious broadcasting. That subject was ably addressed by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark. Again, I know that I am on dangerous ground and will be told that we are a secular society, and so what if you have to switch on the radio at 6.25 a.m. for "Prayer for the Day", and so what if, because you have been indoctrinated by the BBC to rely on FM you are unable to find the "Daily Service" on medium wave. I know that "Songs of Praise" is popular, as we have been told. An audience of 7 million viewers is terrific. But it is difficult to find religious broadcasts on radio. In this decade of evangelism, subscribed to by all Christian Churches, very little encouragement is given by the BBC to those who wish to learn, to be informed and to draw strength from The Bible.

The timing of religious programmes—or is it a fact that they do not seem to be "trailed" as much as other programmes?—leads me to feel that they are accorded very low priority. Better advertised and better timed religious programmes, plus special programmes to take account of the decade of evangelism, could help to restore standards of behaviour and respect. Coupled with a reduction in bad language, that could make a big difference and enhance the public service broadcasting responsibility of the BBC.

I ask, is that Utopia? Is it achievable? Who would be responsible for effecting this? Would it be the board of governors? From what we have heard on this aspect today, I fear not.

I said at the outset that I would make some suggestions about how the BBC could be improved. I have dealt with my concerns and have given suggestions. I should like to endorse the suggestion that the organisation of the top echelons of the BBC should ensure that there is true responsibility for the product of the BBC at the highest level, as there is for any product from any commercial organisation at board level. If that is not possible at board level, I subscribe totally to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Annan, that the board of management at the BBC be strengthened by non-executive directors. Until then, I fear that there will always be a charge of "all power and no responsibility", or, as per my noble friend Lord Annan, not enough people who drop clangers carry the can.

6.55 p.m.

Baroness Rawlings

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate the White Paper. Indeed, I welcome the White Paper itself. I hope that the BBC will continue to be our major public service broadcaster, despite all the new technologies, for at least another 10 years. That is an important responsibility.

Several knowledgeable comments have been made by experienced Peers. I agree with many, especially the point concerning the role of the BBC in relation to education and the arts mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I should like to make just one point.

The BBC has great influence in Britain. It has even greater influence worldwide, due entirely to the high respect in which it is held. The World Service has a worldwide audience of 130 million people a week, not only for its wireless broadcasts, but now also its highly successful television broadcasts. I wonder how many people in Britain listen regularly to foreign radio or television stations. Perhaps they do, as we did as children to "Top 20" on Radio Luxembourg.

When I visited Bulgaria at the time of its first free election after the fall of Mr. Zhivkov, so many people came to thank me—not, I hasten to add because it was me, but because I was British. Their main ray of hope for years was the possibility, often illegally, of listening to our BBC World Service. It played a vital role in their lives.

Yet back here the television that speaks to us in our own homes has an unrecognised, even disproportionate, influence on our lives and on the way we form our ideas and arguments. As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls stated so clearly—and I repeat the point because it is so important—during any national election campaign in this country today any large political meeting can no longer compete with the television screen. The BBC accordingly has an enormous responsibility.

Edmund Burke referred to the fourth estate as: more important than them all". As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, explained recently, he meant that through what the media wrote and said they had more influence on people's thinking than the other three estates—the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons.

A natural tension always exists between journalists working in a free and open society and the government of the nation in which they operate. It was said recently by a foreign journalist that, governments have the natural tendency not to reveal all the facts about their departments and operations. That tendency often clashes with the duty of the free press; to uncover and tell the people what they need to know about their government's operations". He went on to say that, there should be no restrictions placed on the press when it investigates government, acting in its role as 'watchdog' or guardian of the public good". However, investigative journalists—whether they be from the television, wireless or the written press—should always conduct themselves in accordance with professional journalistic standards when pursuing their investigations. Even in a country like Britain which is very open, where we have a great tradition of free press and free expression, any government nevertheless wants to protect itself. Our free written press and the audio visual media are vital elements in the reporting of everyday life, of the good things in our society as well as the exposure of corruption and wrongdoing.

But, in turn, my point today is that they have a duty to report responsibly and fairly. I want to thank the Minister for introducing the debate today. I welcome the Government having produced the White Paper setting out a blueprint to carry the BBC into the 21st century. I hope that they will continue the exciting new steps they have taken recently in forming a global strategic alliance with Pearson Plc. That will keep the BBC—as is the aim of the White Paper—serving the nation and competing worldwide.

7.1 p.m.

Baroness Wharton

My Lords, like many other speakers, I also welcome the White Paper on the future of the BBC. As a corporation, the BBC has played a major part in our lives. The licence fee ensures that it remains publicly funded with a firm commitment to public service broadcasting. However, the commercial advantages offered by opportunities opening up in the media market should still remain secondary to the corporation's fair and balanced public service broadcasting commitments. I sometimes wonder, I must admit, whether those principles have gone a little astray. At this point I should like to thank the Minister for his clear assurances on the matter.

I accept that there is a long-established rule of impartiality now incorporated into the BBC Licence. This should mean freedom not only from government but commercial influence. It is very important to the corporation's national and international standing.

The Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council are to be merged. I hope that a stronger body will emerge from this union. Am I right in thinking that it will not have any statutory powers? By comparison, the ITC does have statutory powers. Its code on impartiality is clearly drawn up with no room for misunderstanding. The code applies to all licensees and compliance is a condition of the Licence. It is the responsibility of licensees to ensure that employees and programme makers—independent or on the staff—observe the provisions of the code. A section under the heading "Objectives" states: Impartiality does not mean that broadcasters have to be absolutely neutral on every controversial issue, but it should lead them to deal even-handedly with opposing points of view in the area of democratic debate. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact". The BBC has undergone a substantial change to its structure in recent years and some of that change relates to training schemes. For instance, the reporter training scheme appears to have been abandoned, as have apprenticeships in engineering and technical operations. Sadly, the closure of the BBC radio and script units may mean that guidance which used to be offered to young writers has been reduced, though I now understand that a team might be transferred to the drama department.

Traditionally, the BBC has provided the seed corn for most of the entertainment industry. Practically every media person I know has either been trained by or worked at the BBC. Because of its role as a leader in industry training, it is worrying to see the BBC contracting in this department.

I am afraid I am going to take a slightly different view. I believe that the introduction of producers' choice has gone some way to undermining the stability and continuity of employment at the BBC. I gather that the input from independents has risen as high as 46 per cent. for drama and light entertainment. Just how the percentage is split between those two groups I do not know. It must be that, on average, independents could usually underbid the BBC because of differing base costs. John Birt himself has said that the BBC needs to ensure that its in-house departments are good enough to win orders but that could only come about if there was a level playing field between the two sectors.

At an all-party media group meeting, John Birt accepted that morale was at a low ebb, and that in the short term it was probably not likely to improve. However, he stressed that once the restructuring of the corporation was completed, morale would improve. He himself has also said that there are powerful arguments for the BBC to maintain its strong production base. However, could it be that the structure of employment contracts, with their potential lack of continuity, need to be reviewed in order to preserve the BBC's greatest asset—namely, a committed, qualified and experienced workforce? Within the current climate, surely it must be difficult to retain and motivate individuals of the calibre which in the past enabled it to establish an unassailable international reputation for diversity and for excellence.

We need to make sure that the BBC, with its enduring service to public sector broadcasting, continues to prosper and build on its already considerable achievements well into the next century. I do not want to see any part of this large corporation sold off to the private sector. Once it becomes fragmented, it will gradually cease to be great.

7.6 p.m.

Lord Ashbourne

My Lords, I wish to address two issues in my brief contribution this evening: the importance of maintaining standards of taste and decency within the BBC and the particular challenges arising from increased satellite broadcasting from abroad.

I have told the House before how I believe that there is no better guide for standards in broadcasting than the inscription which appears in the foyer of Broadcasting House in Portland Square. It bears repeating: To Almighty God, this shrine of the arts, music and literature is dedicated by the first Governors in the year of our Lord 1931, John Reith being Director General. It is their prayer that good seed sown will produce a good harvest, that everything offensive to decency and hostile to peace will be expelled, and that the nation will incline its ear to those things which are lovely pure and of good report and thus pursue the path of wisdom and virtue". We have sadly often had cause to feel that the BBC has departed from that path in recent years. I am glad, therefore, that this White Paper does stress in paragraph 3.13 that the BBC should pay more attention to audience concern about violence, sex and bad language.

The BBC should, for example, study seriously the latest report from the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, showing that in 20 films screened on BBC 1 and BBC 2 between January and June this year there were 67 violent assaults. Such violence makes a profound impression on young people and surely must be one contributing factor to some of the horrific violent incidents we have seen involving young people in recent years. I should say, of course, that there was violence on other channels mentioned in the report, but this debate is mainly on the BBC.

I would favour that the proposed agreement between the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the BBC board of governors, mentioned in paragraph 6.3 of the White Paper, should spell out in simple terms what is meant by standards of "good taste and decency". Then no one would be in any doubt about what to expect from programmes.

Of course, the BBC does not operate in isolation from other broadcasters either in this country or abroad. I am not suggesting one set of rules for the BBC and one for other broadcasters. They should all operate to the same high standards on issues of taste and decency.

We caught a glimpse of what the future might hold with the broadcasting of Red Hot Dutch earlier this year, first from Holland and then from Denmark, which, thankfully, the Government stepped in to ban. I understand that the European Commission will shortly announce its proposals for a new trans-frontier broadcasting directive controlling broadcasting in Europe. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will fight hard to protect standards to avoid a repeat of the Red Hot Dutch débâcle.

In closing, I make one suggestion to the Minister. If a satellite broadcaster wishes to broadcast into a country it should have a licence in the receiving country and not just in the country from which the broadcast is made. If the new directive included such a provision, the UK could maintain standards and protect the BBC by preventing anyone from broadcasting unacceptable material into the UK. That was, of course, the point made by my noble friend Lord On-Ewing in his balanced and authoritative speech earlier in the debate. Is that not something which, surely, we would all support?

7.10 p.m.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Viscount for enabling us to have this debate. I also welcome him back to DNH, with its major broadcasting responsibilities not only for the BBC but also for the Welsh fourth channel. I declare an interest as chair of Screen Wales, which is a media partnership agency involving BBC Wales as one of the senior partners; and also my membership of the general advisory council, which makes me responsible, among other things, for the selection process for membership of the Broadcasting Council for Wales.

I shall not, however, talk about the specifics of the structure of the BBC this evening. I want to take as my text paragraph 1.7 of the White Paper and to welcome the statement there that: The BBC's programmes should reflect the interests and cultural traditions of the United Kingdom as a whole. Programme-makers, presenters and performers in all parts of the United Kingdom should contribute fully to the BBC's national output, as well as to its regional and local services". Having read my text, I want to congratulate the Government, and indeed the BBC governors and board of management, on taking the debate on broadcasting in the United Kingdom a little further than we took it in our debates in another place on previous broadcasting legislation. As a number of noble Lords emphasised, we are in the world of multi-media global culture. I make no apology for using those words. They are used generally within the industry and within culture. They present a challenge to traditional terrestrial broadcasters. They also present a challenge to traditional nation state regulators. This is where the Government are catching up with the real world. They are understanding that it is only as a public service broadcaster which is also an international media player that the BBC can survive and contribute not only to the internal cultural diversity of the UK but to broadcasting systems worldwide.

In relation to that, I would emphasise that competition in the multi-media global scene does not just emerge from the BBC centrally. It is not just BBC Enterprises or the BBC's board of management in Broadcasting House and White City which is a multi-media player. The national regions—as the BBC has always fondly called them—are also players in their own right. It is important therefore that there should be opportunities for them to play their role, not just within the network structure but also on the broader basis of the multi-media scene.

It is for those reasons that I welcome the commitment in the White Paper to the role of the BBC in the multi-media market and to looking at the BBC as an engine of economic development in the cultural field. That is just as important as the contribution that it makes to reflecting the life of the United Kingdom internally. In that sense, I do not share the concern that was expressed by some noble Lords about the role of the Department of Trade and Industry in the promotion of broadcasting (or of broadcast product) or indeed the role of the Welsh Office in the context of Wales in the development of multi-media. I warmly welcome the speech that was made on this very issue this week at a conference in Cardiff by the Secretary of State for Wales. We have an opportunity now to develop our cultural product in all parts of the UK in a way that will benefit us economically and will also benefit our cultural image. I believe that there are people world-wide who look to us to do that.

I do not share the pessimism which, again, was expressed by some noble Lords about the difficulty of programme sales in other markets. The demand for content now in our multi-media industry is so enormous that we shall be at pains to fulfil it. Therefore, there is clearly a role for the quality product of the BBC and other broadcasters in the UK in that market.

I turn now to some of the issues that arise in the way in which the White Paper is to be implemented. I share the view that was expressed by a number of noble Lords that perhaps the time has come for us to have conventional broadcasting legislation for the BBC rather than the arrangement of Charter and Agreement. I say that because, as someone who debated previous broadcasting legislation involving both the ITC (as it now is) and S4C, there seems to me to be no inherent difficulty about legislating in the normal way for broadcasting structures. I appreciate that, historically, at the time that the BBC was created there was a different relationship between the state and broadcasting. Now we are in a world of greater diversity in terms of numbers of broadcasters. It might have made more sense to go down the road of regulating for all public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom in one piece of legislation. I agree with the noble Lord on that matter. After all, it is not just the BBC that is a public service broadcaster. All our broadcasting is either publicly funded or publicly regulated in some form or other. Therefore there is a case for an organising principle in legislation which bears all those matters in common. That is where some of the difficulties that we have arise in relation to some of the specific matters that will be in the agreement.

I turn back now to the commitments set out in the White Paper on regional product and regional programming. I refer in particular to paragraph 3.24, which reads almost as well as if it had been written by Screen Wales itself in that it talks about the importance of the variety of programme production; it says that there should be significant programme bases in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in the major English regional centres; and of course in that way incorporates part of the recommendations of the Select Committee, which emphasised that the possibility of a commitment to network production outside London might be included in the Charter.

I understand that the Minister's view is that such a statement might be included in the Agreement. I shall be very interested to have his response on that point at some later stage in our debates. I do not share the view that was expressed by some of our Scottish colleagues, and by some independent producer representatives, that there should be a quota for programme production. I believe that we are capable in the national regions of competing on a level playing field with the rest of the BBC or indeed with other independent production centres. However, we need to make sure that the playing field is level, in the sense that the resources are there and also in terms of staffing, and in financial terms to enable our media centres to develop a competitive base. For those reasons, I hope that there will be clear reference, if not in the Charter then certainly in the Agreement, to the whole question of programme bases outside regions. I understand that that may well be the Minister's view, and I look forward to hearing his response.

A related issue is the structure of the broadcasting councils, the role of governors and the role of the national councils. I welcome the statement in the White Paper about the specific role of the governors in relation to the board of management of the BBC centrally. I also welcome the fact that a similar role—to use the word in the White Paper—is envisaged for the broadcasting councils. This is significantly more than their present role. It means that they now have a role in the management, or at least in the accountability, of the BBC's operation in the national region. Controllers, will have a greater independence in relation to their budgets. (This is stated in paragraph 6.22 and in the whole range of surrounding paragraphs from paragraph 6.16 on, which I shall not quote in detail so as not to lengthen my speech inordinately). Paragraph 6.22 gives controllers a budget for programmes produced specifically for audiences in each country. We have therefore a clear devolution of the internal structure of the BBC.

My questions are: how much of this will appear in the Charter; how much will appear in the Agreement; and how is it to be policed, as it were? I appreciate that the BBC itself has taken some major steps in transferring its programming out of the metropolitan centre to other metropolitan centres or to regional centres. I appreciate also the fact that the BBC now has an English regional structure. I always believed that it was important for the English regions to be treated at least on some basis of equality with the national regions of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. On all those counts therefore I welcome the level of debate which is now seen in the White Paper.

But as I said, there are a number of concerns. To what extent are we to have a clear programming policy incorporated into the objectives of BBC management? How are resources to be allocated equitably between national regions and other regions? How will we ensure that there is a sufficient level of capital investment in talent and production skills throughout the UK? How are we to ensure that the responsibility towards a regional policy is clearly stated? Is it to be in the Charter or only the Agreement? How are we to ensure that the structure for appointing the various governors and councils makes them as democratically accountable as possible? With all due respect, I do not believe that the present structure of parallel selection and nomination amounts to democratic accountability.

Having asked those questions, I end by welcoming the White Paper and the fact that there is a clear statement of the way in which public service broadcasting can be revived and made multinational in the true sense of that word, in the context of our multi-media global village and its mass culture. I believe that it is important that the whole of the UK in its cultures, regions and nations participate in that process.

7.21 p.m.

Lord Ackner

My Lords, I view my position in the list of speakers as that of a long-stop and I shall not ask your Lordships to stop long, having regard to my contribution. I propose to confine my observations to the question of impartiality.

My first point is that the BBC accept, and so inform their producers in their written guidance, that, the notion of impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. No area of programming is exempt from it". It has been said that an Irishman—maybe an Irish BBC official—when asked how he managed to be fair and just, said that he always tried very hard to be halfway between partial and impartial.

In the annex to the Licence and Agreement, which prescribes the terms and conditions of the corporation's operations, the BBC accepts as a duty, to ensure that programmes maintain a high general standard in all respects (and in particular in respect of content and quality), and to provide a properly balanced service which displays a wide range of subject matter [and] to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality … both in the Corporation's news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy". That vitally important aspect of the BBC's constitutional position is clearly far too important to be confined to an annex. I am delighted to learn that that is also the view of the Government.

I should like to attempt to make a positive suggestion. I believe that the obligation to act with due impartiality needs to be spelt out, particularly having regard to the absence of any effective sanction when impartiality is not exhibited.

Noble Lords' viewing and listening habits no doubt vary considerably, but I imagine that none of your Lordships will have any difficulty in producing some clear examples of the media's failure to act fairly and justly. Let me take a recent example known to all noble Lords: the programme on your Lordships' House. It was a mocking, insulting programme, designed to ridicule and to parody the activities of the House and its important contribution to the legislative function of Parliament. Some may say that such trivia has no impact and that its lack of quality and content ensures its own almost immediate destruction. But does it? Last Friday, at a dinner in Cambridge, I met a German professor who told me that the film had been shown on Bavarian television because Bavaria has an upper House in some respects comparable with ours. He was astonished at the way in which our House had clearly been caricatured.

What is involved in the obligation to act with impartiality? I suggest that there are five features at least. First, the programmes must be properly balanced. If the programme itself does not contain its own internal balance, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, the balancing views must be produced within a reasonable time in order that all views should be reflected in due proportion.

Secondly, a complete and detailed picture should be presented, thus avoiding any suppression or censoring of valid points on one side or another. Thirdly, questions should not be hostile, hectoring, aggressive or rude. Interruptions in the middle of a sentence should be avoided. Fourthly, the approach to contentious issues should be dispassionate. For example, the easy ride should not be allowed to one side when the other side is examined vigorously. Fifthly, the personal views of the presenters and reporters should not feature in the programme. An interview is not an occasion for the interviewer to put across his opinions and views. Its purpose is to obtain the views and opinions of the interviewee, developed and tested by questioning.

There is not the slightest novelty in any of the observations I have just made. I culled them from the guidelines produced by the BBC for its producers. I add a further proposition of my own; namely, that there should not be put in the mouth of interviewees answers which they have not given but which the interviewer hoped they would give and put into their mouths as a preamble to a long question. The experienced person will say, "One moment, I didn't say that" and then go on to deal with the question. The inexperienced person, anxious to answer the question, will overlook the fact that there has been attributed to him something that he or she did not say at all. I submit that it is essential that the elements of due impartiality are adequately recorded either in the Agreement or in some suitable exchange of letters between the Government and the BBC.

The noble Viscount observed that the obligation of due impartiality should be stated clearly. How else can it be stated? Secondly, he said that the binding legal contract is the instrument of control and added that the obligation of due impartiality should be there stated to make it effective and enforceable. However, the obligation must be adequately particularised if it is to be taken seriously. That is the purpose of my suggestions.

7.29 p.m.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, we have had a particularly interesting and wide-ranging debate in relation to the Government's proposals for the future of the BBC. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said that he agreed a bit with everybody. So do I. I wish on that note I could sit down, but I should perhaps attempt to respond to some of the individual points raised by your Lordships, even though I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he said that Ministers are not often able to see much TV. Indeed, I shall not make my remarks too long so that I can go home this evening to watch some television.

We had wide agreement in your Lordships' House on the importance of the role of the BBC as a public service broadcaster. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, was particularly concerned with what happens if the BBC disobeys the terms of its Agreement. The Agreement is a contract between the BBC and the Secretary of State. If it contravenes the terms of the Agreement, a number of important sanctions are open to the Government. Under the Charter the Secretary of State can take steps to revoke the Charter if the terms of the Agreement are broken. I am sure the BBC would be loath to put itself in a position in which the Charter was placed in jeopardy.

The noble Lord suggested that if contraventions occurred, heads should roll. Members of the BBC staff who do not abide by the rules which stem from the Charter and the Agreement are subject to the normal disciplines of the organisation. If the governors were responsible for such contraventions, they could be removed.

It is always difficult to achieve a balance and impartiality between programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, is right in saying that it is not sufficient for the BBC to say that a balance can be achieved by broadcasting an unconnected programme some months later. That does not achieve the obligation of "due impartiality over time". The BBC's Producers' Guidelines say, It is not sufficient to claim that other unconnected programmes or media will ensure that balancing views will be heard". Those are its own guidelines in Section 3.5 to which the noble Lord referred.

The noble Lord also put forward the suggestion that the BBC's board of management should invite members of the commercial sector to act as non-executive directors. The Government have said that we will ensure that appointments are made to the board of governors to ensure that there is the necessary commercial expertise on the board. The BBC appointed senior management staff with considerable private sector experience to direct its new commercial activities. In addition, by participating in joint ventures with the private sector, the BBC will also have the benefit of the expertise of its private sector partners. However, if it wishes to appoint non-executive directors to the board of management, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so.

I welcome support from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for the BBC, one of our more important institutions in this country. I am only sorry that his party feels unable to support one of the other great institutions in this country at the moment.

The noble Lord made two important points in relation to the BBC's commitment to the arts and its educational role. It is agreed that the arts are an important part of the BBC's role as a public service broadcaster. It is a major patron of the arts, spending more than £300 million a year on arts programming. The White Paper says that, the BBC should remain a major cultural patron of music, drama and the visual arts. It should continue to commission and broadcast new works, and to nurture creative talent". It has undertaken to maintain its support for the arts, and that undertaking is currently contained in the annex to the Licence and Agreement. We propose that an obligation on those lines should be included in the new Agreement.

The three aims of the BBC in its programmes and services are to inform, to entertain and to educate. We propose that those three traditional aims should be stated more clearly and explicitly in the new Agreement and Charter. The White Paper says that, the BBC should continue to broadcast educational programmes of all kinds". The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that the Agreement should contain both a list of services and an extended list of conditions and, importantly, the governors' resolution that they will meet those requirements. The new Agreement will contain all three elements. As I said, it will be a contract between the BBC and the Secretary of State. That is an important point and I hope that it resolves the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. We aim to bring forward the new Charter and Agreement to give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to debate the documents during this parliamentary Session.

The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked also whether parts of the White Paper needed legislation to be implemented. The merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission will require primary legislation amending the 1990 Broadcasting Act. We hope to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The noble Lord referred also to the privatisation of transmission services and the BBC's view. The BBC is assessing the future of its transmission service. At present it has not come to any conclusion on the most effective way forward. As I said in response to a recent Question in your Lordships' House, we are considering that matter carefully ourselves.

Lord Donoughue

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he aware that the deputy director of the BBC last night announced that it concluded that it needed to keep the transmission service?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am not aware of what the deputy director of the BBC said last night. I do not believe that there is a yes or no answer on this. It is important that we put the BBC in a position where it is able to take advantage of and have the money to finance the important step into terrestrial digital television in order to be competitive in the market and in the BBC's world market.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked whether the new Agreement would contain an obligation to provide a daily report of Parliament. Yes: that is an important part of the BBC's obligation as a public service broadcaster and the requirement will be carried into the new Agreement.

The noble Lord made the interesting point of why world service television should not be funded from public funds in a similar way to world service radio. World service radio has a wide reach and provides news coverage and other programmes in many countries and languages. To build up that network required a large input of public funds. But world service television is different. We do not see it as replacing radio or matching its wide coverage in the near future. It is an attractive commercial product for the people around the world who value the BBC's reputation for high quality programmes and fair coverage of events. People are willing to pay for these new services, and it is right that the BBC should be able to take advantage of that interest to generate a return for the licence fee payers at home. That is why we do not propose that world service television should be paid for from public funds.

The noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing were concerned about the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council. They offered the alternative of a merger with the ITC to bring forward a consumer council for broadcasting. The main responsibility for considering complaints rests properly with the broadcasters themselves and the broadcasting regulators. The BBC is subject to both the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and their procedures. A consumer council would weaken the links that we believe should exist between the BBC and its audiences. It is essential that broadcasters stay closely in touch with public opinion and it is preferable for audiences to speak directly with broadcasters. The role of the governors is absolutely crucial in that respect.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, asked whether the two merged bodies would have statutory powers. The answer is yes. The new body will continue to produce statutory codes of programme standards. All broadcasters, including the BBC, are subject to these codes. If the BSC finds that a broadcaster has failed to keep within the codes, it can require it to broadcast its findings and prevent it from repeating the offence. That will continue to be the case for the new merged body.

The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggested that the BBC governors should have a complaints unit and should discipline producers who break the rules. The Government are very keen that the BBC should listen carefully to the views and complaints of its audiences. As my noble friend Lord Caldecote said, the BBC has already set up a programme complaints unit and a complaints committee to give independent consideration to serious complaints. Where the governors discover that the BBC's own rules have been breached, they will take steps to ensure that the breach does not recur and to exercise the normal desirable disciplines over its employees.

My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was concerned whether the BBC governors could realistically carry out the onerous responsibilities that we are putting on them. We believe that the duties we are placing on the governors are reasonable and realistic and similar to those on directors of other major organisations. The governors will have primary responsibility for all the BBC's activities and will be accountable to Parliament and the public for them. That does not mean, of course, that the governors have to have direct control over these activities. Their main duty is to ensure that the necessary framework and rules are in place to enable the BBC to meet its obligations and objectives and to ensure that the BBC employees work within that framework and those rules. That is no more onerous than the very broad responsibilities borne by boards of many major companies.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who told me that, unfortunately, he had to leave at 7.30 p.m., referred to the importance of religious programming. The BBC has committed itself in Extending Choice ensuring that religious programmes retain a prominent place in the schedules. We support that commitment and the BBC's wider responsibilities to serve all parts of the community. I listened with great care to the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on religious programming.

Three distinguished former governors of the BBC shared their experiences with us: the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord Barnett, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We also had the opposite view. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, spoke from the other end of the spectrum, from the point of view of the viewer, and referred to the effect of the BBC on this country. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls spoke while wearing what one would describe as his political hat. He explained why his career of standing in elections is over. In his speech he probably persuaded your Lordships' House why his career of standing in elections should be far from over. He made a campaigning speech which I am sure would win him any election now.

The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, outlined the role of the governors and the director general in giving guidelines to producers on programme standards, including impartiality. I very much agree with the noble Lord that the governors and the director-general have responsibility for setting the framework of standards for the BBC's programmes. The Producers' Guidelines, to which the noble Lord referred, provides that framework. Ultimately, it is the governors' responsibility to ensure that producers abide by the rules set out in that document.

The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was also concerned about sport and listed events. We believe that viewers and listeners should have the best possible range of choice. Choice is being enhanced by the introduction of specialist sports channels, increasing the extent and variety of sports coverage on television services generally. The sale of rights to broadcast sporting events is one of the principal ways for sporting bodies to generate income. They generate significant income. Sporting bodies should themselves be allowed to judge the balance between the amount of income from broadcasting rights, the size of the television audience, the amount and type of broadcast coverage, and the impact on potential spectators and players and on the individual sport.

My noble friend Lord Caldecote asked whether we would debate the Charter and Agreement in draft. As I said, we shall ensure that there will be a debate. The Charter will be laid for debate in draft. The Agreement will also be capable of change if that is regarded by the Government as necessary because of what is said in debate in either place.

The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, talked about the new responsibilities of BBC Wales and how they would be spelt out in the new Charter and Agreement. The Charter will include a clearer definition of the role of the national councils. The Agreement will include an obligation on the BBC to make a reasonable proportion of its network production in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Together, the two documents will make it clear that all parts of the UK should contribute fully to the BBC's activities. The BBC's commercial activities will largely be built on the vast archive of quality programmes which the BBC holds. Those will include programmes made in Wales and other parts of the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked about an accounting officer and whether the BBC should be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee. The BBC is different from most of our public bodies. Its very establishment by means of Royal Charter helps to ensure that the BBC remains properly at arm's length from the political process. In this country we have a long tradition of ensuring that there is no undue control over broadcasters by all of us who are closely involved in the political process. That must continue. The functions of accounting officers provide a direct link of accountability to the PAC in another place. For the BBC to be put in a position of such direct accountability to Parliament could place the principle of separation in some jeopardy. The BBC reports to Parliament in laying its audited annual report and accounts before both Houses. The National Heritage Select Committee in another place can, and does, probe the activities of the BBC. I believe that these are appropriate means of holding the BBC to account.

In the second part of his Motion the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asks, in effect, why the licence fee should not continue for longer than five years and whether the review is only about the level of that fee. We may well conclude in five years' time that the licence fee is still the best way of paying for the BBC. That is our conclusion at the moment. We looked at the other options, as your Lordships know, and we have concluded that at present the licence fee is by far the best way of paying for the BBC. But who can tell what will happen in five years' time?

We have heard tonight of some of the changes that may happen in broadcasting. The broadcasting picture is changing very rapidly and so we cannot be sure. That is why it is important that we keep it under review, at the five-year point, before the end of the new Charter. I do not think we should prejudge this and I do not think that the Government are prejudging it. All we are saying is that we need a point to look at in five years' time in order to review the position and make sure that we are still doing the right thing.

The Government welcome the responses to the White Paper and the contributions which your Lordships have made to that process in the debate today. I can give your Lordships the assurance that the Government will consider carefully all the points made in this debate before reaching any final conclusions. I reiterate that your Lordships will have the opportunity to debate these issues again before the BBC's new Charter comes into force. It is important that I should point out that it is not only the Government who should pay careful attention to this debate but also the BBC itself—the chairman of the BBC, the governors of the BBC and the management of the BBC. I am sure that they will pay close attention to this debate. I hope that they pay particularly close attention to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.

I hope that the assurances I have given this evening will have gone all the way to satisfying the very valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I have said that I agree entirely in principle with what he is trying to do. I hope I have explained why we believe that the Agreement is the best place to put these important elements of impartiality. I also hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who has a similar intent to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I trust that I have satisfied his concerns.

I hope that following what I have said about the review it will be felt that in no way are the Government prejudging any debate on the licence fee. To keep that option open is not a detriment but could be an advantage. It could easily be an advantage to the BBC. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will feel able to withdraw his amendment to my Motion.

Lord Annan

My Lords, the noble Viscount has spoken so generously that I very much hope that the House will give me leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.