BBC

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Yesterday I said that the pre-briefing over the past few weeks had been extremely unhelpful—I wondered whether the strategy was to make the prospective content of the White Paper seem so awful in order that the final, not-so-bad publication became more acceptable. Whatever the motives behind the briefings, this White Paper needs to be assessed against the three tests set by all those who cherish the independence of the BBC. While we can be reassured by the headlines, and particularly the Statement that the Minister repeated, we have to focus on the fine detail. The devil is often in the detail.

On independence, the Government still seem intent on appointing many of the non-executive directors of an all-powerful new board that will be responsible for the day-to-day running of the BBC, unlike the trust and the governors before that. Can the Minister explain how those government appointments will continue to have a duty to the licence fee payer, as is currently the case, rather than to the Minister who gave them their job?

On funding and the future licence fee, the Government seem determined to create a contestable fund for which commercial rivals can bid. This is a dangerous precedent and, coming hard on the heels of the £650 million raid last autumn, will damage the BBC and the interests of viewers. Will the Minister guarantee that the contestable funding is not licence fee money? If she cannot, does she not understand that this erodes the independence of the BBC? What reassurances can she give the House that the contestable fund will not become a growing attack on the licence fee in the future?

On the BBC’s core mission, the Government want to rewrite Reith’s principles to include “distinctiveness”. How will this work in practice? Will it mean that the board can tell the director-general when to schedule programmes? Will it mean that the BBC cannot competitively schedule popular programmes against Sky and ITV? If competitors launch new services in the future, will it mean that the BBC will not be able to match them? These are the sorts of questions the Minister will need to answer, if not today, certainly in the debate we will have in the future. While I welcome the extension of the charter, everyone in this House will want to fully understand what the mid-term review will consist of. We need a better understanding of the extent to which that will result in changes to the BBC and its services.

We had a short debate on the Urgent Question yesterday, which focused on the process, obviously, because we could not comment too much on the details of the White Paper. The Minister seemed reluctant to reassure the House about how we will be able to properly scrutinise the White Paper and object to some of its contents. I remind the Minister that in 2006 there was an approval Motion in the House, to which the then Opposition tabled an amendment, which resulted in a vote. If it was good enough in 2006, why is it not good enough today? Will the Minister give us the reassurance that my noble friend Lord Alli asked for? She has had 24 hours and I hope she has used that time to reflect on how to ensure that both Houses of Parliament can properly scrutinise these proposals and reach some conclusion on them.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter is unwell, so it falls to me to respond to the Statement from these Benches. I know that my noble friend shares my view that the BBC is the best broadcaster in the world and one of the best gifts of this nation to the world—a treasured institution, respected and trusted around the world, and playing a central role in the wider creative industries. Nothing should be done to undermine trust in the BBC or the financial and editorial independence, the impartiality, and the scale and scope of the BBC. These are the tests against which the White Paper and the charter should be judged.

I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement but can she confirm whether the one-day debate that she has promised in your Lordships’ House will take place after we have had an opportunity to see the draft charter and agreement?

There is much in the White Paper that we on these Benches welcome: for example, the acceptance of the recommendation from your Lordships’ Communications Committee for an 11-year charter, to decouple the charter review process from the general election cycle and to allow full consultation and dialogue. We also welcome the abolition of the BBC Trust, which had the impossible task of being on the one hand a flag-waver for the BBC and on the other a regulator of the BBC. We support the establishment of the unitary board and an independent regulator. We also welcome the fact that diversity is to be enshrined in the new charter’s public purposes. We, too, are pleased, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was, that some of the rumours have proved to be unfounded. Top-slicing the licence fee for a contestable fund would have been extremely damaging. Interfering in the scheduling of programmes would have been unacceptable and forcing the BBC to sell off BBC Worldwide or its stake in UKTV would have been economic madness.

However, there are still areas of concern. The 11-year charter period, which is welcome, helps protect independence and impartiality but also provides security in terms of planning and investment for the BBC and stability for the wider creative industries that relate to the BBC. All that would be undermined if the mid-term review allows for the unpicking of bits of the charter itself. I hope that the Minister can give us assurances that this will not be the case.

While we welcome the establishment of the unitary board, we do not believe that the independence of the BBC will be achieved if non-executive members of the board are government appointees. Although the Government currently appoint all members of the BBC Trust, it is a far less powerful body than the proposed unitary board, which will set the BBC’s editorial direction, make key decisions on programmes and even have a say on how the BBC manages news. Giving these important powers to government appointees will understandably lead to accusations that we are creating a state broadcaster and not a public service broadcaster. All non-executives on the new board should be appointed by an independent panel, not by the Government. I hope that the Minister can explain clearly to this House why she appears to disagree.

There also needs to be greater clarity about the new role of the NAO. Can the Minister give absolute assurances that the charter and agreement, and the appropriate safeguards to which she referred in her Statement, will ensure that the NAO will not be able to second-guess or interfere in the BBC’s editorial or creative judgments? To echo the noble Lord, Lord Collins: can the Minister also give an absolute assurance that when the annual £20 million for the proposed contestable fund from unallocated licence fee money runs out, the BBC will not have to pick up the tab for its continuation? Can she explain to us where the money will come from?

Ensuring the independence of the BBC from government interference will be aided by providing a role for Parliament. Votes in both Houses on the draft charter, or acceptance of my noble friend Lord Lester’s proposals for statutory underpinning of the BBC, would be wise and I would welcome hearing the Minister’s views on these ideas. The BBC is the best broadcaster in the world. It is vital that the Government do nothing to damage that reputation.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree that the BBC is the best broadcaster in the world and I am grateful for the guarded welcome that has been given this morning. I should perhaps add that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, who is a Member of this House, has said today that:

“This White Paper delivers a mandate for the strong, creative BBC the public believe in. A BBC that will be good for the creative industries—and most importantly of all, for Britain”.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, made a point that we often agree on, which is that the devil is in the detail. I am sure we will come to discuss detail on this White Paper in the weeks and months ahead, but I will seek to respond briefly to the points that he and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, made.

We have tried to put independence at the heart of the proposals we have set out today. In relation to the executive board itself, I refer the House to page 50 of the White Paper, because it sets out very clearly exactly how the appointments to the unitary board will be made. A majority of members will of course be appointed by the BBC, and there will be a non-executive chair. As I explained in the Statement, that chair has already been appointed for a transitional term up to 2018, providing valuable continuity. The non-executive deputy chair will also be a public appointment. There will then be public appointments involving the nations—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—but all other non-executive members will be BBC board appointments.

It is good to know how the contestable fund will work at last after so much speculation. I set out that we will establish a contestable fund because we want to enhance plurality and provision, for which £20 million a year has been found for three years. It will enable the BBC to look at things such as children’s TV more imaginatively and is intended to fund underserved genres. I hope it will reassure noble Lords to know that we will be consulting on the scale of the fund and how it will operate. I do not see it at all as an attack on the fundamentals of the BBC; I see it as a great way of encouraging more creativity in this country.

There were questions about distinctiveness, which is rightly a key focus. We want the BBC to be different. It has other priorities to commercial broadcasters, and can take more risks and can innovate. That has been embraced by the BBC director-general, who has seen it as a driving force. He, of course, will be the editor-in-chief under the new system enshrined in the charter, which I think will help to offer reassurance going forward.

I wanted to say two or three things about a vote. First, we recognise how important the scrutiny of both Houses, including this House, is, and we have demonstrated that. We have had debates here which we have listened to, we have had excellent reports by the committees involved in both Houses and we have made it clear that the White Paper needs careful consideration. We have informed the House that there will be a debate in the coming Session.

I take the point that was made about the draft charter. I am not sure I can give an answer on that today, but I will bear it in mind. We will consider whether there should be a vote in Parliament, but I remind the House that there would be disadvantages in a vote as well as advantages. My noble friend Lord Grade said yesterday that:

“One of the underpinnings of the independence of the BBC is the fact that there is never a vote on the BBC in either House”—

poetic licence—

“and that is what has contributed”—

this is the important point—

“the most to its independence”.—[Official Report, 11/5/16; col. 1741.]

I tend to concur with that view, and would say that the BBC has been enshrined in royal charter for 90 years—a system which has served us well and preserved its independence.