Public Service Broadcasting (Communications Committee Report)

My Lords, first, I thank my committee for its exceptional, hard work on the report and, indeed, for its work on all the other inquiries that we have conducted. Secondly, I acknowledge receipt of the Government’s response delivered this lunchtime, which shows Whitehall catching up with the transport concept of "just in time delivery". It responds, in several respects, very constructively to the points that the committee made. It is an extremely well written response, which I put down entirely to the new broadcasting Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Perhaps the first question is, "What exactly is public service broadcasting?". We could so easily spend the next two hours debating its scope and how it is expressed. For the purposes of the debate, however, I suggest that the working definition we give at paragraph 13 of the report— ""an approach that focuses on the provision of core elements including national and regional news, current affairs programmes, the arts, children’s programming, programmes dealing with religion and other beliefs and UK content"—" roughly describes the area that we are in. In the provision of these kinds of programmes, there is no doubt that the BBC is, and has been for three-quarters of a century, the pre-eminent provider. It is something of a national pastime to hurl bricks at the BBC. Sometimes they are justified. For example, personally, I am on the side of the Public Accounts Committee, which was reported this morning to have said that the BBC should give information about the salaries and fees that are paid to its very expensive presenters. It should make that a term of the contracts that it provides. However, it should also be recognised how important a national asset the BBC is. One of the lessons that the Communications Committee has learnt in its short career is just how valued the BBC is at home and how much admired it is overseas. No other broadcaster is able to provide the promenade concerts or range of drama, for example, that are provided on Radio 4 and, indeed, on Radio 3. No other media organisation in this country is able to provide the range of home and overseas news that is broadcast by the BBC. I am not one of those who believe that the future somehow belongs to citizen journalists. By their very nature they are part-time and issue-driven. They undoubtedly have a part to play, but the real need in an increasingly complex world is for professional journalists with the ability to dig beyond the press releases. Here, again, the BBC sets a standard of professionalism and objectivity that is difficult to match. Having said that, it is always important to remember that the BBC is not the only public service broadcaster in this country. In the committee’s view, it would be entirely unsatisfactory if it was ever to become so in Britain. The Government’s response also makes that point clear. ITV, Channel 4 and Five make important contributions. With regional news, for example, ITV attracts four to five million viewers every evening and the research shows that audiences value the choice that this gives them. Of course, however, as the committee points out, the commercial public service broadcasters currently share a common feature: they are all having to deal with the severest financial weather to hit broadcasters for over half a century. The transfer of analogue to digital has deprived them of the implied but very real subsidy that was being provided. The internet provides increasing competition for advertising revenue, and the world recession has meant company after company cutting back on spending. The impact is severe and undoubted. My speech will concentrate on news provision, not least because, earlier in the day, the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, dealt with many of the issues surrounding the arts. We face the prospect that, unless action is taken, much broadcast news will simply disappear. ITV has already made it entirely clear that, under present arrangements, its regional news programmes—much valued but expensive to produce—will go. Equally, the much admired "Channel 4 News" programme has always relied on cross-subsidy from Channel 4 itself. In the present cold economic climate, the subsidy cannot continue indefinitely. So the questions are those of what could be done and, of course, whether anything should be done. One argument is that it should all be left to the market. We rejected that argument, partly because some of the alternative programmes—good as they might be—could not be accessed free by the public but depend on subscription, but crucially because, if you take the area of news, going the market way would end up with a virtual BBC monopoly, which I think would be totally undesirable in a democracy. A range of solutions were examined by the committee. There was a proposal to merge Channel 4 and BBC Worldwide—corporate engineering, as one witness described it—leading, as the Minister memorably put it, to PSB2. The government response indicates that this is still on the table for consideration. Such a merger would undoubtedly be to the benefit of Channel 4, but the evidence we heard suggested that it was opposed by the BBC. Perhaps that is not the best basis for a merger, but others may have things to say on that point. There was another proposal to put together Channel 4 and Five. This was enthusiastically supported and pursued by Five and just as enthusiastically rejected by Channel 4. Having looked at all those options and others, the committee proposed that the best way forward would be a system of contestable funding. I think that was first advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, not only in his evidence to us but previously. The noble Lord has the great advantage of previously having been an adviser on broadcasting to the present Government. There is a danger in today’s media world of being buried in jargon, so I shall explain in practical terms what "contestable funding" actually means and how it could relate to regional news. The prospect with ITV regional news is that unless something is done it will disappear. We will be back to the 1950s: the BBC will be the monopoly provider. In fact, it would be appreciably worse than the 1950s. In those days, regional newspapers had large readerships. There were flourishing morning newspapers and very strong evening newspapers. In those circumstances no one would talk of a BBC monopoly. But today regional newspapers face as serious a crisis—perhaps an even greater crisis—than the broadcasters. Some newspapers have already closed and more closures are threatened, just as in the United States. Evening newspapers in the big cities face particular challenges. I here declare a past interest as a former chairman of the Yorkshire Post Group, based in Leeds, and of the Birmingham Evening Mail and Post Group, based in the West Midlands. I shall try to explain why contestable funding provides a way forward. ITV would continue to provide the slots—if you like—for regional news programmes on channel three, but would neither provide the news nor bear the cost of producing it. Public funding would be offered to companies that could provide that news, but that process would be open to competition. Regional newspapers would be allowed to take part in those consortiums competing for contracts, meaning that it would be necessary to change the regulation here, and so, too, would an organisation such as ITN. However, I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that the case for relaxing regulation by allowing newspapers to take part in those consortiums would receive favourable treatment from the Government. The net result of all that is that in the end you could have news provided with the television skill of ITN and the local knowledge of the regional press. We should remember that much of today’s regional television news is a follow-up to the newspaper stories that appear in the evening press. That plan is very close to the Ofcom proposal of independently funded news consortiums. As Ofcom points out, there is a choice between retaining the current ITV regions or going below those regions. We should not believe that the present regional boundaries necessarily represent local interest. When I was Member of Parliament for Nottingham South, there was little interest there in what was happening in Birmingham. When I became Member of Parliament for Sutton Coldfield in Birmingham, 40 miles away, there was little interest in what was happening in Nottingham, but they were both covered by the same regional company. Of course, I add that what I propose about the regions of England also applies to the nations of Scotland and Wales, and to Channel 4’s evening news programme, which is already contracted out. The big question then becomes how you support such a system—where does the money come from? The committee rejected more taxpayer support but made a number of other proposals. At that point in their response, the Government became remarkably coy and basically said, "Wait for the final report". I have the utmost confidence that that is exactly what the Minister will say tonight, but let me set out some of the ways in which money can most certainly be raised. First, there is the obvious potential in increased partnership between the BBC and other broadcasters. Whether it be BBC Worldwide co-operating with Channel 4 or studio space being made available at a regional level, the potential is great, although I accept that it will take time to deliver and develop. It will also require a commitment by the BBC to partnership that has not always been evident in the past. Secondly, the digital switchover scheme—financed by agreement by the BBC—is underspent. There is no reason why that money should not be used also and, even more so, why that amount should not continue to be used to provide secure future finance. Thirdly, although we are moving to digital from analogue, there is still a value in analogue. It is not unreasonable to say that as analogue provided the undoubted subsidy for public service broadcasting in the commercial sector, that sector might also benefit from the sale of analogue spectrum. I do not run away from the prospect that in the final event those measures may not be sufficient or, more likely, will not be able to provide the resources quickly enough. If that is the case, there would be no other option but to use the money—or a little of it—from the licence fee. We might remember that, between 1927 and 1961, a portion of the licence fee was devoted to general public funds. I obviously recognise that that would not be welcomed by the BBC and agree with it that the licence fee should not be treated as some kind of milch cow available for the Government to finance any proposals that they happen to have in mind. Personally, I think it is questionable whether the licence fee can be diverted for providing broadband, for example, but that is doubtless a debate that we may come to. There is a much stronger case for using some small part of the licence fee for providing broadcasting; after all, that is what the public believe that they are paying for. The public would not want a situation where the BBC was the only television news provider. It would put far too much power in the corporation’s hands. Frankly, I do not think that the corporation would welcome it either. This proposal is not an attack on the independence of the BBC. It would be ludicrous to characterise it in that way; it is to ensure proper competition and proper choice for the public. It also recognises that, in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s, the BBC has a unique advantage of a secure income of over £3.5 billion a year. The BBC should not be defensive on this; it should not seek to defend its budget to the last pound. It is in a uniquely privileged position and should take a leadership role to help all public service broadcasting, particularly the news, through this challenging and difficult time. I take some comfort from the Government’s response, which says that they agree with the committee that, ""responding to current challenges requires a greater role for the BBC … using its talent, facilities, resources"." We will see exactly what that means in practice. I also believe that what I am saying is what the public would want. In the Government’s response we come to the department’s familiar Stalinist tradition. I remain of the view that it is a great pity that our elected Parliament does not have a greater say in some of these affairs. I emphasise that I am not seeking to intervene in the day-to-day running of the BBC or challenging its independent reporting. That is a lazy argument of last resort used by those who simply want to defend the status quo. But the public’s view is crucial in deciding exactly the case that I have been arguing: whether some part of the licence fee should be used for other purposes, such as helping to support public service broadcasting in the commercial sector. That is where Parliament has a proper role to play. Those who oppose that might consider what happens at the moment. The Minister will certainly remember that the BBC charter and what flows from it are not the subject of legislation or any serious decision in Parliament; it is a straightforward deal between the Government and the BBC in which Parliament has no meaningful role. In this age of much greater transparency and promised reform, I do not believe that the present system deserves to last. Even more, what I and the committee want is a range of public service broadcasting in this country with the BBC remaining in the lead, but with other broadcasters being enabled to make their contribution. That is the aim and the goal and it is the challenge, over the next years, that we must meet. I beg to move.