To call attention to the future of the BBC; and to move for papers.

My Lords, you can go for months in this House without there being a debate on the media and then, rather like buses, two come along at the same time—the digital economy yesterday and the future of the BBC today. As the House knows, I am chairman of the Select Committee on Communications and, before that, I was the chairman of the BBC Royal Charter Select Committee. However, in this balloted debate for Back-Benchers I speak only for myself, although I concede that I pay tribute to the wisdom of the Select Committees that I chaired.

I start on a sour but important note. The Secretary of State, Ben Bradshaw, in an interview in the MediaGuardian on 23 November, said that it was his duty to point out that there were real dangers of a Tory Government in their policies towards the BBC. He added:

“Like the National Health Service, the BBC reflects Labour values”.

That was a fairly crass statement. Historically, of course, it is entire rubbish. Labour can certainly claim to have started the National Health Service, although it does not really justify a claim of ownership, but the BBC was started not by a Labour Government but by a Conservative Government. In the same way, public service broadcaster Channel 4 was also started by a Conservative Government, as too, of course, was independent television generally. So my party does not need to establish its credentials so far as broadcasting is concerned.

More fundamentally, the Secretary of State’s comments lead us in entirely the wrong direction. The characteristic over the years has been the way that there has been all-party support for the BBC. That does not mean that there cannot be disagreements on particular issues, but such disagreements are against a background when all the major parties in this country support the concept of the BBC and its major role in public service broadcasting. There is obviously a debate to be had on the future of the corporation—hence this debate today—but much of it is with some of the BBC’s powerful commercial competitors, not least with News International, which has at least been frank about its ambitions.

In his MacTaggart lecture in the autumn, James Murdoch was quite explicit in his attack. He said the BBC produced “state sponsored journalism”; that impartiality in news was impossible to achieve because it always depended upon choices that editors have to make; and that the only real guarantee of broadcasting independence is profit. I disagree with all three assertions. It is absurd to draw parallels with the real state sponsored journalism of countries such as the old East Germany and, regrettably, the many other countries that still suffer from it today.

As to impartiality, what matters is what the organisation aims for. It is never going to be perfect but the question is: what are the standards? When I worked for the Times in the 1960s, my first editor was William Haley, former director general of the BBC. There was no question what the standards were: you were required to be fair and accurate. The BBC come nearer to achieving that than, for example, Fox News, which reported the Iraq invasion to the accompaniment of martial music and the stars and stripes fluttering in the corner of the screen.

As for profit, I do not believe that that is the only criterion. I will say a word later on BBC profit. The central concept of the BBC is that it should provide not only impartial news but also good drama, good entertainment and good children’s programmes on television, on radio and, of course, now on the net, in return for the licence fee. Rightly, the BBC has rejected the argument of some of its competitors that it should simply make programmes that the commercial companies find unprofitable to make. That is not the agreement with the licence-fee payer.

The BBC has achieved a great deal. In the provision of news, for example, it provides more world news than any other media company in this country and, arguably, in the rest of the world. At a time when newspapers have been forced to close their foreign bureaux and rely on journalists being flown in as firemen to report particular crises, the licence fee has enabled the BBC to retain year round foreign coverage; while the World Service, funded differently, continues to provide excellent journalism. The country has been well served by the BBC and anyone who doubts that should cross the Atlantic and talk, as the Select Committee did, to some of the big media companies there. The reputation of the BBC is high and the British concept of public service broadcasting is much admired. The challenge now is to ensure that, at a time of unprecedented change in the media, the BBC retains its high position. That is vital for the BBC.

This brings me to a fundamental defect in the BBC’s organisation. Although it has a total revenue of over £4 billion, more than 20,000 staff and offices throughout the world, it has no chairman and no proper board. Instead, it has a curious, divided structure unlike anything else in corporate Britain. It has an executive committee headed by the director general and then, in a separate building, it has what is called the BBC Trust headed by Sir Michael Lyons, who can call himself BBC chairman, but only as an honorary title.

At this point, Government Ministers tend to shrug. “What does it matter?”, they say; “It is only a matter of organisation”. If it does not matter, they should ask themselves why was there so much concern when ITV seemed to be failing to find a new chairman; why there was so much interest in the new chairman for Channel 4 and how he would lead the organisation; why there is always speculation and comment when a chairmanship becomes vacant in any big company? The answer, of course, is that having the right chairman is crucial to the health of any big organisation or company.

The Minister will agree that this is not a recent criticism of mine or of my colleagues. In the BBC you do not have the normal process of co-decision that you have in virtually every other company. You do not have a chairman and a chief executive standing side by side in joint decisions. It too often appears to be the case that the trust, in its regulatory role, is standing to one side from the corporation. At the time, we strongly proposed what had been proposed but were told it was non negotiable. The Government said that it was a unique arrangement but the BBC was a unique organisation, and that was that. The truth, of course, is that this is a shambolic compromise as a direct result of the Government’s dispute with the BBC on its early coverage of the Iraq war—a questioning which, frankly, looks nearer the mark with every witness that appears before the Iraq inquiry.

I was critical of the Secretary of State at the beginning of my remarks but I certainly give him credit for having recognised the truth. His view was given in a speech to the Royal Television Society in September. He said that he was concerned about the regulatory structure of the BBC and that the trust was,

“not a sustainable model in the long term”.

He added:

“I know of no other area of public life where—as is the case with the Trust—the same body is both regulator and cheer leader”.

So, there we have it: four or five years after the Government introduced this eccentric system, they admit that it does not work. But the question for the Government now is what they propose instead. They have a corporate organisation in which they have no confidence. It would be utterly wrong for them to allow it to struggle on in this way; the BBC is too important for that.

I accept that making changes is difficult under the royal charter process that the Government have chosen to follow. Again, I have to say that it was not the process that the Select Committee advised them to follow. We said that the BBC should be set up on a statutory basis, allowing changes to be made in it, but that was overridden again by the Government.

Therefore, as far as the incoming Government after the election are concerned, this is unfinished business. We should not be overinfluenced by Michael Grade’s opposition to any change, as set out in his article in the Financial Times yesterday. He of course was responsible for negotiating this defective arrangement. He may want to go down saluting at the mast, but that is no reason why the rest of us should be dragged down at the same time.

My final major point is about the wider role of the BBC. It is a massive media player in the United Kingdom. By partnerships with other players, such as in sharing costs, it can make a big contribution. However, it is very good at talking the talk about partnership. I am struck by the number of witnesses who say in evidence to the Select Committee that, in practice, it is nothing like as successful as that. As a big media company, it must be careful not to crowd out the efforts of smaller companies in the United Kingdom—that is important, too.

However, the argument does not go all one way. It is often not the smaller companies which complain but some very big competitors. We should recognise that there are some very determined opponents of the BBC out there who would like nothing better than a diminished corporation, which may not be in the public interest.

The future of the BBC also affects many other people who are not employed on the permanent payroll: directors, actors, writers, musicians and entertainers. If dramas, for example, can be sold overseas, that is good for the BBC and for the companies which have made them.

That is the role of BBC Worldwide, one of the corporation’s undoubtedly successful companies. It sells around the world, and its aim is to create value from BBC content. Its values are BBC values, and it provides very good value for licence-fee payers. It has an annual revenue of more than £1 billion and it makes profits for the BBC of more than £150 million. How far do we want this BBC company to go? Your Lordships may have seen a press release from the BBC Trust last week on future policy here. The flavour is given by its headline:

“Trust announces new limits to Worldwide activity”.

What other corporation would take pride in being able to boast that its highly successful commercial subsidiary was aiming to limit profit and activity?

I would put it rather differently from the trust. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The British film industry’s prosperity was much limited by distribution being in the hands of the big United States studios. With television, BBC Worldwide is already there; it is established; its reputation is well known. It needs the resources to grow further. Licence-fee money is limited and, in any event, this is a commercial activity best done with private sector resources. The opportunity is for a new company to be formed—a public/private partnership. There is no reason why other broadcasters should not take shareholdings in it. The BBC should be able to earn better profits from such a company and be a substantial beneficiary of any sale.

The BBC should remember the opinion poll organised by the Department for Culture a few years ago which showed that 90 per cent of the public agreed with the proposition that the BBC should raise as much money as it could from selling its products and programmes overseas. That is the case particularly when that action would be to the direct benefit of the broadcasting industry generally and those who work in it.

The opportunity here is to create a leading global media brand. The question is whether, in its international operations, BBC Worldwide can be freed to carry out even more entrepreneurial action. I know what its competitors would do given the same opportunity. It is something of an acid test for the BBC. Those of us who are supporters of it want to preserve its standards, but we also want it to take its chances. Here is a very big chance, and I very much hope that it takes it. I beg to move.

My Lords, I shall not be the first today to thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for this opportunity to discuss the future of the BBC, but I do so very warmly. Your Lordships’ House is lucky to have had him, with his distinguished media as well as parliamentary career, as chairman of its Select Committee on Communications, since this was first established after a little battle with the powers that be earlier this century. It has been a great privilege to be part of his team.

I am glad to say that research shows clearly the importance and value of the BBC to this country. Eighty-five per cent of UK citizens would miss it if it were not there, and the level of trust in all that it does continues to grow. Above all, our citizens want a strong, confident and high-quality BBC. Its “jewel in the crown” image is as accurate today as when that phrase was first coined. It is also agreed that there needs to be a competitive range of public service broadcasting programmes from the commercial media, particularly to provide independent, high-quality, impartial news of the kind currently provided by ITN and Channel 4. This House, as we know from yesterday, will shortly have an opportunity to discuss in detail the Government’s DE Bill’s proposals about how this might be provided in future, but it must be said that there are doubts about what is proposed.

As your Lordships know, debate continues about the BBC’s governance, the licence fee arrangements and even whether in today’s multimedia/internet world such a privileged organisation should continue to exist. The BBC’s current governance has been criticised in our Select Committee reports. It is said that the Communications Act 2003’s two-tiered self-regulatory structure, with the BBC Trust at arm’s length from the day-to-day responsibilities of the main board, does not really work. Ofcom has some regulatory responsibilities for the BBC, but a consensus is said to be developing that an altogether different structure is needed.

However, if change is needed, there is a different danger to be avoided. We should certainly ensure a greater degree of transparency about how the licence fee settlement is reached between government and BBC through proper parliamentary scrutiny, as our Select Committee has suggested. Equally, the independence of the BBC from undue parliamentary as well as government influence must be maintained once a settlement has been reached. It is well known that every Government have tried to put pressure on the BBC at some stage in their relationship. The very existence of the royal charter, despite these kinds of pressures, allows the BBC to continue asking the right questions at the right time—and, thankfully, it still does. For that reason alone, it is also reassuring to learn that a recent press report that the Conservatives might be planning to get rid of the BBC charter altogether was denied.

There are increasingly difficult challenges for the media as a whole. Digital switchover is well under way; there has been a huge increase in the number of internationally accessible competing worldwide channels and multiplexes; and a growing internet attraction for the advertising industry has led to a rapid decline in TV advertising. Hence, ITV’s decision that it can broadcast public service programmes in future only if they are fully funded from elsewhere. Likewise, Channel 4’s situation, as it, too, has been funded previously out of advertising revenue, is equally problematic. On top of that sits the appalling economic situation, together with uncertainty about when the recession will end. It is therefore entirely right that the BBC look for economies within its own situation, as well as ways of supporting other PSB initiatives. It looks, and we look to it, to do so.

We need to put into perspective the normal situation that existed in this country about salaries and bonuses before the crash. High salaries, based on what the market showed one had to pay to attract or retain the best people, were the norm for remuneration, as were bonuses. I can remember thinking that the proposed salaries for Ofcom’s top management were very high indeed when it was set up, but I was told that that was the media market price. It is hardly surprising, if we take that into account, that BBC top salaries and talent costs are high. Therefore, it is commendable that the director-general, Mark Thompson, has decided to publish a range of salaries paid to top BBC personnel together with plans to contain them in future.

Equally important is the recent insight to which he referred, when addressing the Voice of the Listener & Viewer conference a week ago, on how the commitment is progressing that was given five years ago to see that the BBC should be as small as its mission allows. Considerable progress has been made with thousands of jobs gone, including whole divisions—but the clear impression also given is that the BBC’s view for the post-2012 switchover is both imaginative and radical but will inevitably mean some pretty uncomfortable choices. Although continuing to resist every form of top-slicing, I am certainly heartened that as well as the best journalism, high-quality arts and drama, particular priority will be given to high-quality programmes and services for children—that is crucially important—and that there will be a greater proportion of original British content.

To end on two points, the majority of BBC radio channels, especially Radio 4, are quite outstanding, and, I hope we are going to see the plans for digital radio fully in place by 2015, as I said yesterday. But I also want to commend the BBC World Service, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, did, on its reach, with 238 million listeners for its weekly international news alone, and its reputation for objectivity and relevance. It is funded mostly via the FCO and includes some TV and online content. Since the launch of BBC Arabic Television two years ago, this has become the most widely respected, comprehensive news and information multimedia service in the area.

Finally, looking back over the many years and enjoyable hours that I have spent listening to the BBC, I think one memory reigns supreme. It must have been at least 30 years ago that that incredible series, “Life on Earth”, was made by David Attenborough. I still have all the programmes on video and they remain amazing to watch. Now, as I watch the latest, equally amazing and beautiful Attenborough programmes on insect community life, I think that heritage is yet another example of exactly what the BBC is all about. I know just how lucky I am to have been around for all but the first 10 years of its quite remarkable life.

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for enabling the House to address important issues on the future of the BBC and for the report on public service broadcasting from the Select Committee, which he chairs and of which my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is a member. I declare an interest in today’s debate as an occasional broadcaster and former chair of the Churches’ Media Council.

No one who has lived abroad for any length of time would need much convincing of the quality and range of BBC broadcasting. Its output of information, edification and entertainment at home, and its role as a cultural and informative ambassador for Britain abroad has been a valuable part of our national life for decades. If we from these Benches have not been uncritical of particular aspects of the BBC over the years, we are in general its strong supporters and we wish the BBC to have a viable and fruitful future. In particular, we wish to express support for the BBC's wide range of good religious output as part of its wider public service commitments, but my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool will address this more fully in his speech.

Significant as the past contribution to the life of our nation the BBC has been, this debate is concerned with its future, and there is naturally some concern as to how the BBC will survive intact in the coming digital marketplace. For me, a parable of hope might be the way in which in central Africa in the 1970s people like me every evening tried to tune in to the eight o’clock news from the BBC World Service on shortwave radio. This was no easy task, because the night ether was full of signals from radio stations both near and far, with a babble of different call signs and languages. Nor was the BBC one of the stronger signals; on the contrary, one had to be patient and have a keen ear to eventually pick up the unmistakable BBC sound and style.

It was not only British expatriates who believed that the effort was worth while, for it was generally believed that the BBC provided a breadth of news and an objectivity of reporting that was not to be found so clearly in other stations. It was worth while, therefore, going to some effort to find and tune into the BBC among the shortwave maelstrom. Listening to the eight o’clock BBC news became quite a ritual. That was then and this is now; technology is transforming every aspect of life, including communications. In the digital age that we have now entered, it is perfectly easy to find several BBC stations and channels at the touch of a control button. The problem is that in the digital marketplace it is equally easy find dozens of other competing stations. Also in this 24-hour news world, an eight o'clock or even ten o'clock ritual of listening to the news is becoming a thing of the past. People find and listen to the news whenever and wherever they want—on television, radio, laptop or mobile phone, and probably before long on key-ring.

But this is not necessarily bad news for the future of the BBC. Just as in shortwave Africa, people went to some effort to make the BBC their station of choice because of its quality and objectivity, so in the easy come, easy go digital age, enough watchers and listeners will make the BBC their first choice, provided that it maintains quality and objectivity. I think that a sign of this is the number of people now making the BBC News 24 webpage their default page on their laptops and mobiles.

Nor does this just apply to news-gathering, telling and interpretation. The director-general of the BBC said in a recent lecture that it was his concern that the BBC should deliver to the British public the best programmes it can, and to turn fine words of the theory of public service broadcasting into journalism, drama, documentary and children's programmes that live on in the memory and,

“open doors that otherwise would be shut”.

From these Benches we would want to say yes to that. We look forward to the report of the review which the director-general and the BBC Trust have set up to look to the post-switchover world of 2012.

In the same lecture, the director-general tells us that we might expect to see a further shift of emphasis in favour of key priority areas: the best journalism in the world, high-quality programmes and services for children, content of every kind that builds knowledge and shares music and culture, a long-range commitment to outstanding British drama and comedy, and national events that bring us together. These words echo, in many details, the first recommendation of the report of the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.

Perhaps unintentionally missing is what is included in the Fowler list but is not included here: an explicit reference to programmes dealing with religion and other beliefs. I presume that religion and faith, which form such a vital part of the lives and behaviour of many British citizens, will continue to form an integral part of the BBC’s future output. However, the director-general’s words also contain a warning:

“Expect to see reductions in some kinds of programmes and content”.

And there's the rub. For cut back some minority interests and the specialist units interpreting them become no longer viable and it will be very difficult to build up such specialisms again. We on these Benches will be interested to monitor the effects of any future cutbacks.

What structures might the BBC need for effective service in the post-switchover world? The corporation, like any institution in today's world—including my own church and perhaps even your Lordships’ House—stands on the frontier in history between what is no longer appropriate and what has not yet been invented. This is not a comfortable place to be, because predicting the future is always hazardous and deciding what needs to be carried from the past into the future requires some judgment.

We on these Benches wish the provision of excellent public service broadcasting to have a strong place in the future life of the BBC. If this is to be so, then the BBC will need to have sufficient institutional independence and financial security to be able to plan ahead with some confidence and without constant change. At present, this institutional independence and financial stability are provided by the royal charter and the licence fee. It will be for those who feel that these are no longer appropriate to make their case. I, for one, will take some convincing that any other package will serve the nation better.

My Lords, first, I give many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this important debate. He has covered the ground in detail. I intend to be more general.

The BBC is unique. I believe that that is worth emphasising at the outset. In any other country it would be a thing of wonder. Like the British Museum, the British Library or the magnificent cluster in South Kensington, it is difficult to imagine that it would be invented today. We are very lucky that these institutions exist. Like them, the BBC has world fame, and of the most distinguished kind. But other countries, and other cities in this country, have their great museums and libraries for which they, too, claim eminence. None has the BBC, which—in the volatile, acutely competitive, commercially saturated, piranha-infested waters of the global media—retains its distinctive independent clout, its own tradition, its reach and its potential for good, for democracy as well as for culture, and for the reflection and portrayal of the singularity of our nations.

If you were to judge the BBC by those in this country who have eyes to see and ears to hear, this would be a brief debate. The overwhelming number of listeners and viewers—the majority of our population—rely on and use the BBC through the weeks, and they support it. Despite blips and often rather dubious statistical evidence from its opponents, there is sovereign proof in this country that it is regarded as being earthed in our society. For many people today, given the sad and embarrassing shadows across government, and the shame across the financial world, it is something of a rock. I declare an interest. I work for BBC Radio 4 as a freelance and for ITV as an employee.

This is an information society in which much information is tainted. It is sometimes lightly biased by harmless enough prejudices or transparent interests. It is at other times distorted, even used deceitfully and as near propaganda as makes no difference. Yet the BBC is constantly attacked for its independence—by politicians, for instance. The Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems, and I would guess all other parties have asserted from time to time that it is biased against them. This usually means that they feel criticised, challenged or analysed, with their plans to rule or misrule us put to a public test. That is what we want to happen in a democracy. Surely in a country as mature as ours, that is to be expected. In fact, it surprises me—given the way in which over the past decades Governments have often sleepwalked into mess after mess out of which the people have had to bail them—that the criticism is not much fiercer.

It can be said of the BBC, as has been said of democracy itself, that, unsatisfactory though it might be, it is far better than anything else on offer. And the BBC offers plurality, the essential twin to democracy. What it delivers is not the state propaganda which we still see in many countries, and not the oppressive commercial pressure that we see in others. By being what it is and by being so powerful, it is a constant corrective to the two extremes of the controlling state and unbridled Mammon. So powerful—that, I think, is the rub. The BBC is not the valiant rump of public service broadcasting that exists in the United States of America. Nor is it the impoverished, policed service available in other parts of the world. It is a rich global player. It has a strong income protected by an elected Parliament of which it is independent. That is unique and quite extraordinary. Its quality at its best is undeniable: in drama, documentary, science, arts, natural history, national news, foreign reports and, of course, the peerless World Service.

At a time of increasing lawlessness in the digital world—as we heard graphically spelt out in your Lordships’ House yesterday—the BBC's public accountability is of greater value by the month. The creative industries, 8 per cent of our economy, are under serious threat, for instance, from copyright theft. The digital world is so under-regulated that the consequences could be a severe collapse in what has been our finest post-war success story: the growth of intellectual and imaginative property, the creative economy in which the BBC is a major player.

Of course the BBC has faults. They must be tackled, and frank friends must not hold back. Unsurprisingly, they reflect the state of the country which the BBC mirrors and describes so comprehensively. The BBC is, some critics claim, too stuffed with middle management and hired consultants, over-regulated, over-bureaucratic —like, well, the NHS, the great maw of Whitehall itself? The BBC is, other critics claim, over-aroused at the prospect of boundless expansion and puts itself about too promiscuously—like the City, the banks, the Government? Importantly, the BBC is now being caned for what it was asked to do by the Conservative Government; that is, to supplement the licence fee by going out there, using its brand and bringing in private profit to swell its coffers and lessen the burden on the licence fee, to keep the BBC as it ought to be. The BBC went out and did just that.

To put the BBC in context gives us perspective, but of course it does not erase legitimate anxieties about the organisation that it needs to address. There are more current local anxieties that have emerged recently—for instance, the position of the BBC Trust, so closely examined by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. And, like the ever-present chorus in a Greek tragedy, there is the constant lament about dumbing down, although in my view that is largely misplaced.

The BBC is an archipelago of variety in radio, television and the new media, and it is at the forefront of all of them. It has so far followed the two great forces: one is meeting change, while the other is maintaining the essential, even unchanging heart of any great enterprise, as happens here in your Lordships’ house. It is a difficult feat to yoke these two, but it is provenly the only way to move forward without a form of self-destruction. In doing this the BBC has shown us, and at its best still shows us, at our best. It still has its core mission to educate, inform and entertain. The future of the BBC is embedded in the fabric of the future of this country.

It certainly matters that the BBC makes fine programmes; essentially, in one way, it is the sum of its programmes. It certainly matters that the BBC continues in a tradition that has proven itself for many years, because we in this country have respect for such things. It matters most, though, that the BBC is the way we do things in broadcasting. It has survived the arrival of other systems and it has sustained itself. It is part of the difference that we in Britain have and cherish because we can see how close it is to our core aspirations and our character.

The future of the BBC, then, warts and all, is worthy of all the support that your Lordships can give in the undoubted battles ahead, with the slings and arrows that are waiting just over the horizon.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on this debate, which is both topical and timely. I declare an interest as an associate of an independent production company and as someone with insider knowledge, having worked for many years at the BBC.

While we have heard nothing but praise inside this Chamber, out there the BBC is under attack. The Government want to top-slice the licence fee, while the Conservatives, in the shape of David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt—if not the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—want to freeze it.

Rupert Murdoch wants to reduce the corporation to a US-style public subscription channel offering only education and information and providing absolutely no competition to the commercial sector. His son James accuses it of being,

“a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision”,

and, I am afraid, normally sensible newspapers have taken up this accusation. Feeling the pain of competition with the internet, they have turned on the BBC, despite the fact that in every other country—none of which, unfortunately for them, has a BBC—newspapers are facing equally dire problems. The head of Australia’s public service channel said about James Murdoch’s pronouncement:

“But strip away the lofty language, and you see that the James Murdoch solution is less about making a contribution to public policy than it is getting rid of the BBC’s services, effectively destroying the BBC as we know it—a tragedy for the UK—a tragedy for the world”.

Simon Schama, in self-imposed exile in New York, has said:

“There is nothing like a little distance to make you reflect on what makes Britain really great. Since I live in the United States for most of the time I can tell you that many is the time I wish deeply that there was a presence like that of the BBC”.

An ICM poll a couple of months ago of those of us who live here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to, showed that public confidence in the BBC has grown; 77 per cent regard it as a national institution that we should be proud of, 69 per cent declare it trustworthy and two out of three people think that it provides good value for money. Politicians and Sun journalists would pay for such accolades.

As all of us taking part in this debate know, British broadcasting has reached a critical point: the transition from one age to another, from analogue to digital. The analogue age lasted for about 100 years, during which time Britain developed arguably the best broadcasting system in the world. Central to this system was and is the BBC.

In 1922, when the British Broadcasting Company was set up, it had a staff of four people. I do not know how many noble Lords have seen that admirable series, “A History of Modern Britain” with Andrew Marr, but it had wonderful footage of those pioneering days when the BBC—radio, of course—appears to have been the possession of a Captain Eckersley, who would, to use the words of Andrew Marr that accompanied the film,

“trundle his piano from his local pub to an equally local army hut from which he would perform to the nation”.

Then along came Lord Reith, who put an end to Eckersley and such frivolity.

The BBC was financed by the licence fee and of course in those days it was a monopoly provider, a situation that we must not return to. The creation of Independent Television in 1955 and the introduction of competition had a profound impact on broadcasting: the BBC lost its captive audience and large numbers of viewers deserted it. It had to learn to connect and it did. It did not jettison its values but it changed what it did.

Then the independent TV companies, raking in the money in those days, were asked to spend a proportion of it on PSB. BBC2 was created and then Channel 4, and in parallel with them was the creation of the independent production sector—and we enter a wonderful world of plurality and diversity. This purely terrestrial world was further enhanced by the advent of subscription channels such as Sky and for a time there was peaceful cohabitation. Today we see this under threat. Competition from digital channels and the internet has led to declining advertising revenue for the commercial public service broadcasters, exacerbated by the fact that we are in recession.

Those critics whom I referred to at the beginning of my speech fear a return to a monopolistic, overpowerful BBC. Here I depart slightly from what has been said so far today, because I believe that the BBC has not helped itself. Its behaviour in some areas has only fed concerns about its size and scope. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, here. The salaries paid to its executives are ridiculous, with 39 of them earning more than the Prime Minister, one with the title “director of organisational development and change”—perhaps what Prime Ministers should aspire to be. These salaries are being paid against a background of cuts to high-quality news programmes that are central to the BBC’s PSB remit. Recently a BBC reporter told the Evening Standard that on many current affairs programmes the producer is flying solo, with no researcher to help them dig into the story and check the facts. I used to be a producer on “Panorama” and “Newsnight”, and it is not a job that you can do well on your own.

The BBC’s commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, charged with making profit to cushion the public service BBC, has been told this week by the BBC Trust that it should desist from activities that are not in keeping with the BBC brand—such as the £90 million purchase of Lonely Planet, perhaps, which so many of us supporters of the BBC questioned at the time. Like other noble Lords, I have sympathy with those running BBC Worldwide—their remit, after all, was to make money—but the way in which that remit was sometimes handled reminds me of an image conjured up in a speech made by Tim Gardam, once my boss and a former senior executive at the BBC. In it, he asked his audience to remember Walt Disney’s “The Jungle Book”, and compared the BBC to that,

“well meaning herd of elephants, stomping through the jungle, trumpeting its achievements, each executive holding onto the tail of the one in front. They are undoubtedly a force for good, but unfortunately can be oblivious to what might get crushed under their enormous feet”.

Now, more than ever, this elephant behaviour has to be banished.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, we on these Benches would like to abolish the BBC Trust. We called long ago for a truly independent regulator of the BBC and argued at the time that the BBC Trust was established that this arrangement would only perpetuate the muddle between regulation and governance. It has. Considering that these were the very sentiments expressed publicly by the latest Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, does the Minister not think it odd that the matter of BBC governance is not addressed in the Digital Economy Bill?

Next, there is the fact that, while commercial public service broadcasters are struggling and suffering, the BBC is seen as being too big. It was good that the director-general’s speech, a week ago, acknowledged this; we look forward to his commitment to establishing more focused, slimline boundaries within the BBC. The other essential element in ensuring a healthy future for the BBC is competition and we welcome the Government’s commitment in the Digital Economy Bill to Channel 4.

The transformed economics of commercial PSB have put the provision of regional and local news under particular threat. Without intervention, the BBC will become a monopoly supply in this area, so we also welcome the launch in April of three independently financed news consortia pilots. We Liberal Democrats, as I think everyone in this House knows, were always against £600 million of the licence fee being used to pay for digital switchover’s targeted assistance programme. Now it appears that not all of that money is needed and some is to be used to pay for those news consortia pilots.

While we were against BBC money being used to fund the social cost, we support the surplus being used to help to fund commercial public service broadcasting—but there it ends, because we are absolutely against top-slicing the licence fee, which threatens the independence of the BBC and blurs lines of accountability in public service broadcasting. Andy Burnham, the last Culture Secretary, when responding to a Conservative debate on the licence fee, said:

“Would any Government be properly challenged by the BBC when the corporation’s fate was always under review and the corporation was engaged in almost never-ending debate with civil servants and Ministers about … funding?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/09; col. 1582.]

No—and the present Secretary of State should take heed.

While we do not believe that the licence fee should be raided, we feel that the BBC needs to share the good fortune that its funding formula gives it. A year ago, with a great fanfare, the corporation announced that “the power of partnership” was to be the name of the game and the answer to everything. However, a year on there seems to have been little progress. The proposals to share regional news resources with ITV have come to nothing and talks with Channel 4 are at best ongoing. Andy Duncan, the recently retired chief executive of Channel 4, told the Communications Committee, of which I am a member, that,

“had the BBC wanted to ... they could have moved a lot quicker than they did. They kept their options open and it has been frustrating trying to get the partnership nailed down”.

Historically, partnerships have not been what the BBC has been best at and it seems that, unlike with the advent of competition back in 1955, it has failed to change its culture. It must learn to share.

In conclusion, through the years there have been many attempts at defining the elusive quality that is public service broadcasting and why it is so important. Sir David Attenborough is to me, as he is to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, a man who exemplifies what our broadcasting system—at the heart of which sits the BBC—has allowed to flourish. I choose on this occasion to refer to his words in a lecture last year. He described the advent of broadcasting in this country, and the public service remit that is so integral to it, as,

“that miraculous advance, still not a century old, that allows a whole society, a whole nation, to see itself and to talk to itself … to share insights and illuminations, to become aware of problems and collectively to consider solutions”.

My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity kindly afforded to us by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to discuss this important topic. I declare an interest as a former governor of the BBC—indeed, one of the very last—and in having a close family member working for the BBC. It is an interest that never leaves me, for the BBC permeates our daily lives and is never more missed and revered than when one is abroad and the topic is raised by foreigners. There should be no doubt that the existence of the BBC is a major factor in the reputation of this country all over the world, for the good, and as a purveyor of truth in countries where reliable news is sadly lacking.

I regard the BBC as almost wholly excellent at the moment and I have some suggestions for making it even more so in the future. The licence fee is sometimes criticised, but it amounts only to the cost of a few football tickets, or 39p per household per day. One-third of the income is spent outside the organisation on, for example, independent production. The licence fee is not just for television and radio; it supports the website, the orchestras, the Proms, the Reith lecture and sport. There is also training, and not only of the BBC’s own employees—as those people spread out, the training has benefited artists and journalists in all media, who owe a great deal to the BBC. I hope that your Lordships will never countenance direct government funding or the relinquishment of the charter, which keeps the governance stable and out of politics for 10 years at a time.

The future is digital. In at least one way, that is detrimental to the BBC’s desire to educate and include younger viewers, for they will apparently download what they want, which is unlikely to be news and serious political programmes. In BBC Three, I venture to suggest that the BBC has not had great success in targeting the 16 to 34 age group. BBC Three costs £87 million a year. When I was a governor, criticism of the quality of the output was off-bounds at meetings. The feeling was that the governors were not capable of judging content but had to stick to strategy. In my humble opinion, however, and now that I am freed of that constraint, if cuts have to be made, BBC Three might not be as missed as some others. It never seemed to me to have a theme.

The governors of the past were, perhaps, feistier in getting involved in these things than is the carefully structured group of representative governors that one has today. There is a case for having the deputy chairman, if not the chairman, elected by his or her fellow trustees to ensure total independence from government and to ensure that all trustees who are appointed may think that they could rise to that position.

Your Lordships will have noted with gratification that the BBC has been challenged by the trust to curb salaries and to suspend bonuses. That is absolutely right. When I was a governor, I challenged bonuses on the ground that the BBC was public sector and not supposed to make a profit. Therefore, there was no rationale for bonuses. The reply, from a very senior person, was, “The trouble with you academics”—I was one then—“is that you earn so little that you don’t understand money”, to which I replied that there were more people like me out there than like that person.

The trust, which seems to me not very different from the governors, holds the BBC to account. I fear that governance theories, as others have mentioned, may have moved the trust too far away from the executive, a process that started in my time. The trust cannot hold the BBC to account unless it knows some details in advance—for example, of the high salaries being offered and controversial programmes being made. However, there should never be any prior censorship.

Holding the BBC to account means handling complaints properly. What is needed is a complaints ombudsman for the BBC—an independent external person who will handle complaints according to best practice and bring real independence as well as expertise to bear. The Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee, as it was—it is now the Editorial Standards Committee—was often asked to judge factual matters in which it had no particular expertise. For example, I remember the question coming forward whether the European Commission could properly be described as a Parliament. Only an outsider can be perceived to be independent in judging impartiality and accuracy.

Moreover, it seems only right that the apology or correction when a complaint is upheld should be broadcast in the same slot as the original error or shortcoming so that the same people see or hear the correction. However, the BBC usually apologises only online. Had an independent complaints process been in place when a complaint was made about the infamous Gilligan early-morning broadcast in 2003, I have no doubt that history would have been different.

The BBC also has to be representative. On screen one sees older men of various stages of maturity, complete with their natural hair colour and body shape, only as expected at their age, reading news and conducting interviews. They are seen in a position of authority. Older women with equally grey hair are invisible. There are plenty of older women with the appeal, authority and clarity of, say—I am being invidious—the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and other noble Baronesses of mature years in this House. There are plenty of them to represent the older woman on screen, whose invisibility is an insult.

The BBC should not be held back too much from competing with commercial providers. It is a matter of regret to me that BBC jam, an educational website, was brought to a halt by commercial competitors and European red tape. The National Health Service would not refrain from providing the best machinery and treatment to its patients, even if private providers are in competition. As an equally public service, the BBC should do no less. Its future is to continue its high-quality product, but taking note of the concerns about expenditure, possible overextension of channels and the effects of the digital future. Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for this opportunity.

My Lords, I, too, associate myself with all the appreciation that has been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for his initiative and leadership in this whole area. I also associate myself with my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark in declaring an interest. Like him, I contribute to the BBC in the “Thought for the Day” slot—but perhaps more of that later.

It was 40 years ago last month that I had my first encounter with the creativity of the BBC, when, as a student, I was invited to take part in my first religious broadcast. It was to be on All Souls’ Day. The creative producer decided that the best place to celebrate this would be the chapel of the local crematorium. As your Lordships will appreciate, there is not exactly a regular congregation there, so it was decided to bus in the relatives of all those who had been cremated in the previous year. This may sound rather macabre and morbid to your Lordships, but the chapel was packed to capacity. I remember being shown to my seat at the microphone, next to CA Joyce, a famous broadcaster of the day. There, on the seat, was a shining white card with, emblazoned on it in black letters, my name: James Jones. I was suitably impressed, picked it up, turned it over and read “in memoriam”.

Before ordination I was a producer. It was a time when video had been launched on to the market. Some noble Lords may remember the great battle between VHS and Betamax over which format would dominate. At that time, it was widely and wildly predicted that video would see off cinema and kill it for ever. Of course, since the advent of video, we have never had such a creative period in the history of cinema in this country. It just shows that we should always be cautious when it comes to predicting any future, especially the future of the media.

Also, when it comes to prophecy and prediction, nobody towards the end of the last millennium ever predicted or prophesied the role that religion would play in the third millennium. I know it is a surprise to many that two powerful religious forces—evangelical Christianity in America and Islam in the Arab world—continue to shape political ideologies. This is presumably why Mark Thompson himself in a recent lecture on faith, morality and the media said:

“So many of the big stories of the day—war and peace, global poverty, environmental sustainability, advances in science and medicine—throw up issues and debates in which religious perspectives feel relevant”.

One of the distinctive features of the BBC is its religion and ethics department, which has an international reputation. It produces outstanding religious programmes on radio, and, on television, programmes of remarkable quality given their limited budgets. These programmes inform and educate the audience at a time when religion is shaping the world again. These are vital programmes, enabling the audience to understand what is happening in and to our society. I have had the opportunity, over the years, to broadcast across the spectrum. The difference between making religious programmes with the BBC, as compared to ITV—with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, with whose speech I would like to identify myself very much—is that religious producers at the BBC are not just skilled broadcasters. They are also theologically literate. They understand the subtleties and nuances of the religious landscape, which is so vitally important in a culture of different faiths today. Producers who were less aware could so easily undermine the harmony and cohesion that are among the virtues of public service broadcasting.

I welcome the recent decision of the BBC trustees to maintain the religious character of “Thought for the Day”, not because I want to marginalise atheists and agnostics, but because introducing a non-religious element into that programme would simply change its nature—like introducing hockey into “Match of the Day”. “Thought for the Day” is a religious broadcast within a major current affairs programme, covering events in a world where religion not only frequently makes the news but helps shape the world. It seems to me that the trustees’ decision was a proper editorial judgment of an international public service broadcaster to maintain a religious input in a prime-time programme.

Yesterday, in the digital economy debate, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, spoke about the Government’s commitment to public service broadcasting as a means to creating,

“a well informed, well educated and socially cohesive society”.—[Official Report, 2/12/09; col. 746.]

I hope that I may be permitted to say “amen” to that. The truth is that in an increasingly digital age when tens of millions have their own web cameras, there will still be an appetite for someone to collate, synthesise and disseminate, out of the billions of daily images, some sort of common narrative. My own view is that such a public service broadcasting service would still merit some form of licence fee, but that the contract between the BBC and the public will inevitably be constantly negotiated in a process that will require the BBC to watch and listen as much as the public watch and listen to the BBC. Such media outlets possess extraordinary power as they interpret the world to us, the audience.

There is one principle of public service broadcasting that I hope will be enshrined and protected by the BBC of the future. There is a tendency within all broadcast media to dramatise every issue in order to attract larger audiences, to find the extremes on every subject and to polarise every debate; it simply makes more interesting viewing or listening. Unfortunately, to do so can reinforce prejudice and not only hinder understanding but actually undermine cohesion. A stable and harmonious society is well served by a public service broadcaster that is truly committed to inform and to educate, so that there is indeed mutual understanding between the polarities in a diverse society, and even reconciliation. A public service broadcaster is one that serves the public in all its diversity. It serves both as a model of service and as a means of enhancing the common good. I believe that these ideals are consistent with the original Reithian values, which I hope will continue to be one of the hallmarks of a future BBC.

My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for introducing this debate. I also thank him for his chairmanship of the Communications Committee. I have served under him on the previous and current BBC committees. We always get on but we do not always agree. However, I have always found his chairmanship even-handed, balanced, extremely useful and much better than a previous chairmanship under which I served when I was down the other end.

I never knew that the House authorities had a sense of humour, but they obviously have in having me speak immediately after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, who has just spoken about religion on the BBC, because everybody knows that I take an almost diametrically opposite point of view from him on that matter. I am fascinated by the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester that there is religious broadcasting, and that everything else on the BBC is non-religious and, in a sense, anti-religious. It is a remarkable point of view. I hope he would accept that the rugby international at the national stadium in Wales is a religious broadcast because they all sing “Bread of Heaven” at some point or other. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Harrison when he says that we ought to have humanists on “Thought for the Day” in the morning. I do not think that we ought to have “Thought for the Day” at all—not that we ought to introduce something else into it, but that we should not have it at all.

I have been a strong supporter of the BBC ever since I entered politics, and certainly since I became a member of the national heritage Select Committee—as it was then—in the other House, which became the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have supported it to the extent that when the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of Gerald Kaufman, introduced a report which was highly critical of the BBC, and almost suggested that it ought to be abolished, I wrote, and had published, a minority report. I remain a strong supporter of the BBC. It may be that this is my old-style socialism coming out, but I actually believe in nationalised industries and that they should have rights over those that are not part of the nationalised industries.

The BBC creates high-quality broadcasts and programmes, not just public-service broadcasts or stuff which the cultural elite think is good, but it produces quality. Radio 1 is a high-quality radio station, because it allows high-quality and new pop music to be played in a way that is not necessarily the case with other commercial radio stations that play pop. “EastEnders”, the BBC’s most popular programme, and “Coronation Street” on the other side, compete for the most viewers, but in terms of production values “EastEnders” wins hands down almost every time.

The BBC is a high-quality producer and should remain so. It has moved into digital broadcasting. I do not watch BBC Three and, therefore, I should not comment on what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said about it. However, I watch BBC Four, which produces excellent programmes, not only on jazz music for older people such as me, but across a range of other areas. I should pay tribute to our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for the BBC’s innovations on the web. When I want to see what is happening in the news, when I sit in front of my computer, I do not turn to Google or anywhere else, I go straight to the BBC website. Although I am down here, I live in Scotland—the SSRB may wish to take note of that. When I want Scottish news, I look at the Scottish BBC website to see what is happening. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, is to be complimented, because he introduced the BBC website.

The BBC continues to be an innovator on the web. I hope that many noble Lords have seen the BBC’s recent website innovation Democracy Live, which allows you to watch this House, the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament live or on video. That is an important innovation. It may be only for anoraks such as me, and political anoraks in particular, but it is well worth having.

BBC iPlayer has been a great innovation. I have some reservations about it, because I wish we would be allowed a slightly longer period in which to watch programmes, and I hope that the BBC will persuade Virgin Trains to allow us to watch it on the train. You cannot do that at the moment.

What has been done on the BBC website should not be curtailed for commercial reasons by any party which comes into government. There are those who say that Rupert Murdoch transferred his support from this side to that side because he believes cynically that the party opposite will curtail the BBC’s websites and allow him to charge for the Times and his other newspapers on the web. If that is the case—and I hope that the Conservative spokesman who is to reply will take the opportunity to say that it is not—it would be a most cynical act. We certainly cannot allow that to happen. The BBC should be allowed to continue to develop its websites.

I have two further points. I entirely agree with those who have suggested, because it is a publicly funded body, that freedom of information legislation should cover all aspects of the BBC. We should be able to find out exactly what is going on, not just because the BBC is publicly funded, but because it is an important part of the democratic process in this country. For that reason alone, we ought to open it up. In my view, we should open up the whole media to that scrutiny, because they play an important part in our democratic processes.

I have some reservations about some of the news coverage on the BBC. I absolutely accept that it is not biased in favour of any particular party. However, there are occasions when, in my view, it is anti-politics and that pervades a large amount of the BBC output. There is almost an element of sneering at politicians and at those who are part of the political process. Even this morning, in a report on Prime Minister's Questions, there was the throwaway line: “All the Labour Back-Benchers cheered at that but they would, wouldn't they? They don't get out very much”. That was unnecessary and it was a smear. I hope that the BBC will look at that.

One last, slightly jokey point is that a great advantage with the BBC is that throughout all its coverage, on television, radio and everywhere, there are no adverts. Your listening and watching are not interrupted by adverts. I fully support the BBC. I believe it should continue and it will continue in the longer term as a producer of high-quality programmes for what I constantly call the narrow-casting age and not the broadcasting age.

My Lords, today is the 16th anniversary of my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. During that time, I have spoken on matters about which I have known something and on matters on which I have been briefed—that is certainly not the same thing. I have also spoken on matters about which I feel very strongly and that is the case today. I know little about the BBC but, like many others in this House and in the country at large, I feel very strongly about its future. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for giving me this opportunity to say something.

I want to speak up for the BBC because, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, put it, the BBC sees me as a citizen and not a consumer. I want that to be preserved. Yes, the BBC plays an essential role in maintaining and developing our culture—I mean culture in all its aspects. One of the more obvious aspects is music, which is especially important to me. The BBC commissions music; it has some of our finest orchestras; and it runs the Proms, which is our biggest musical festival. Then there are the drama and comedy programmes and human interest programmes which inform and entertain us. Perhaps less obviously cultural is the news gathering and the news dissemination about which many noble Lords have spoken. What is cultural is the fair, balanced and thorough way in which that is done, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester explained. That culture of public service broadcasting needs to be preserved; it needs to be impartial; and it must not be an arm of the state with political pressures, nor an arm of commerce with commercial pressures, but its pressures should be budgetary and ethical. I want to see that continue in the future.

The BBC helped its case by having Professor Sandel as this year’s Reith lecturer. He spoke about the common good and the limits of the mind. He provided the answer to those who would like to commercialise the BBC more and who see the licence fee as distorting the market, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, described.

We now know that markets may serve us as consumers but they do not necessarily serve us as citizens. To protect us from exploitation as consumers we need the agencies and regulators, like Ofcom, because without that protection we would get bland content for entertainment and selected news and current affairs with incomplete and unbalanced information. That is the limit of markets. Of course, that cannot happen in a vacuum. To serve the public properly, public service broadcasting needs to come from a variety of broadcasters from every region and needs to serve every minority.

I agree with your Lordships’ Select Committee that plurality is required here, and that the market will not provide it. Because of the emerging broadcasting platforms and viewing patterns due to digitalisation, it is obvious that the advertising business model is no longer sustainable. Unless the regulatory and market framework is changed, the dominance of the BBC will become so great that it will have a virtual monopoly.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler: monopolies spell danger. The future of public service broadcasting will be secure only if there are alternative providers to the BBC, or if the BBC works with others. That, together with a variety of sources for commissioning and content, will provide the competition to encourage the raising of quality and the incentive for innovation. That is a difficult balancing act, complicated by the current financial crisis and the rapidity of changing technology. Of course, that is one of the purposes of the Digital Economy Bill, which your Lordships debated yesterday. The Bill places a particular duty on Ofcom to ensure that many broadcasters provide public service content. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that when he winds up.

What about the BBC and the new digital technology? Digital technology, like all technology, is a means to an end—an end that opens up new possibilities. It is the artistic content and development that will drive it. That is why the plurality of the licence fee and commercial funding should serve us well. We do not know where the digital age is leading us. We have a good idea of the direction of travel, and alternative viewing patterns and platforms are appearing, but who knows what the destination will be? That makes it especially important to preserve the private and the public sectors in broadcasting. Some of the great technical and innovative advances have been made possible by public involvement and support. I agree with my noble friend Lord Maxton that the online activities of the BBC, a public broadcaster, are leading the way.

As other noble Lords have said, central to this is the independence of the BBC—independence from politicians, financial short-termism and the pressures of a race to the bottom. Mark Thompson is right to seek that all political parties respect the royal charter, which gives the BBC its independence and the multi-year funding regime, and let the trust conduct responsible and ethical stewardship. Let the trust hold the management of the BBC to account, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, put it. I have always thought that one of the great strengths of our arts organisations is that funding is handled by an intermediary which takes its stewardship responsibilities very seriously. It works far better than when the donor calls the shots.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that responsible stewardship is badly lacking in the private sector. That is something that business could learn from the BBC. A stewardship issue regarding the BBC and most parts of the public and private sector is the pay of senior executives, about which the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter and Lady Howe, spoke. I have a slightly different perspective.

A combination of the spectacular earnings of rock stars and footballers and boards matching the pay of senior executives in an ever-upward spiral mean that top executives this year will earn 81 times the average pay of full-time workers. Nine years ago, that figure was 47 times the average wage. This cannot go on. Has anyone noticed a corresponding rise in competence accompanying this spiralling rise in pay? I have not. It will not stand up to public scrutiny. As well as being transparent about salaries, a welcome initiative from the BBC would be to adopt the proposal in the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Gavron, which we have debated in your Lordships' House. It states that organisations and companies should state what the ratio between directors and shop floor workers currently is and, perhaps, what it should be in their organisation. That is what is called “serving the common good”. If the BBC would adopt it, what a nice way it would be of showing that it listened to its own Reith lecturer.

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, what must have been said to him 16 years ago: I hope we will hear much more from you in the future. It is only 14 years since I first addressed the House. At that time I was being mentored on the BBC by Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I remember that in those early debates I had to fight off Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who had a group that met regularly and believed that the BBC was a leftist conspiracy which had to be attacked. It is a great pleasure to say that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has been a notable exception to that. He is in a tradition of which the Conservative Party can be proud in the initiatives it has taken over 80 years to sustain and provide public service broadcasting in this country.

I also take pride in the success that the noble Lord has made of the Select Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, it took a little while to persuade the powers that be to have such a committee on communications, but it has been a success under his stewardship. I put down a marker to noble Lords. We must ensure that the committee is reappointed at the beginning of the next Parliament because, as this debate has so clearly illustrated, there will be a big agenda of work for such a committee in the new Parliament.

We have covered a great deal today. On the BBC Trust, I would just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that I did not see all that much which the governors had got wrong in the previous 80 years to justify having this creature thrust upon us. But whatever comes next, I hope we can have some kind of all-party consensus which gives it some long- term prospects.

This debate is really a continuation of yesterday’s debate on digital Britain. There are obviously discussions outside this House between those who see the BBC as key to a successful digital Britain and those who see this as an opportunity to marginalise it and cut it down to size. Indeed, although it is difficult, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool said, to predict the future, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, gave us some clues yesterday. He did not name names but he spoke about media moguls who,

“want to commandeer more space and income for themselves … because they want to maintain their iron grip on pay-tv … They also want to erode the commitment to impartiality—in other words, to fill British airwaves with more Fox-style news. They believe that profit alone should drive the gathering and circulation of news”.—[Official Report, 2/12/09; col. 747.]

The noble Lord did not name names, but I notice that today's media have leapt to the conclusion that he meant Mr Murdoch and son. If he did, it shows the remarkable chutzpah of the noble Lord because, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, mentioned yesterday, it was he who dispatched Mr Blair halfway round the world to kiss hands with Mr Murdoch—I think that is what he kissed, anyway—before the 1997 election.

As has been mentioned today, this Government have a sorry record of attempting to bully and intimidate the BBC during their term of office. I ask both sides of the House when they will learn that Mr Murdoch does not create winners; he follows them. He has ditched Labour because he thinks it will lose, and he has switched to the Conservatives because he thinks that they can deliver. Clearly the Conservatives think that decisions on broadcasting are being made elsewhere, because not many of them are here today to listen to the debate. I make no complaint about Mr Murdoch; I simply want our politicians to defend the public interest with the assiduity with which he defends his shareholders’ interests.

The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, speculated on whether there has been some Faustian pact with the Conservative Party on the future of the BBC. Unless such attacks have been spelled out in detail in the Government’s manifesto, and unless the matter is thoroughly debated in the general election campaign to come, I hope they will not claim any Salisbury convention to see such attacks on the BBC go through this House, should they by any chance be in government after the next general election. Vague words in an election manifesto do not give them the mandate to dismantle something that, as has been said time and time again, has been an important part of our politics, culture and social cohesion over 80 years.

In that respect, I hope that we can look to the coming debate on the BBC with an eye not to commercial interests outside but to the fact that this Parliament of ours, with the will of the people, has for more than 80 years willingly distorted the market to make the BBC the iron pole of quality and, in the old Reithian terms, to educate, inform and entertain the whole nation. The BBC has delivered that in spades, which is why the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, emphasised the importance of the charter and the licence fee as key to keeping that commitment going.

The BBC must be careful not to crowd out commercial radio. It is powerful and it could become a monopoly provider, particularly locally and regionally. Indeed, both the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, warned of the danger of the BBC getting into monopoly positions in various sectors or in regions and localities.

I agree with the praise heaped on the World Service by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. I give only one warning. We are entering a time of austerity. Whenever the budgets of my old friends in the Foreign Office are under attack, they often find it convenient to send the dear old World Service budget to the Treasury as a kind of sacrificial lamb, saying, “You want cuts. Well, here you are”, and they take a great hack at the World Service. They have done it before and I warn the House that they will try to do it again.

I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter and the noble Lords, Lord Maxton and Lord Haskel, all drew attention to online services. What Mr Murdoch is proposing is what I pay for and get through my licence fee: the excellent online services of the BBC. He proposes that that should be stopped so that he can make me pay for his online services at the Times. I get the news service that I want. I do not get it for free; I pay for it through the licence fee and I should be able to continue to do that.

I think that we are in dangerous territory. There is no doubt that powerful forces want to damage the BBC at this time, but one thing that Tessa Jowell said during her period of responsibility was very true: she described the licence fee as venture capital for our creative industries. The contribution on the cultural and creative side is important, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, described as the ability to talk to ourselves and to the world with the distinctive voice that the BBC gives us.

The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, once described the great gifts in Britain of the 20th to 21st centuries as being our impartial Civil Service and the BBC. The BBC is still a great gift that we should all work to protect and cherish. It has its critics and its failures, and some of those criticisms have been made today, but it is something well worth defending. As I have said to both sides of the House, if defending it needs, defend it we will.

My Lords, I join in thanking my noble friend Lord Fowler for introducing this debate.

Two main issues when considering the future of the BBC are content and how far the activities of the BBC should be extended beyond its historical television role. Where content is concerned, is the justification for the BBC and the licence fee—which, when all is said and done, is a tax on watching television—that the BBC will produce higher-quality television and make programmes that might not otherwise be made? If that is the case, it calls into question the reason given by the BBC when accused of going downmarket and producing populist programmes: that these programmes are what the public want.

Of course, there must be programmes that appeal to the public but it is difficult to see the justification in the BBC using taxpayers’ money to provide more than a minimal amount of the sort of popular programmes that can be provided by commercial stations at no cost to the taxpayer, especially when there are so many superbly good things that the BBC has done and which it has made its own. When considering what the content should be, it would be hard to improve on the recommendation by the Select Committee on Communications, of which my noble friend Lord Fowler is chairman, which reflects the definition contained in the Communications Act 2003. The committee recommends 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”.

The BBC should not use taxpayers’ money to compete in the commercial arena against companies which do not have the luxury of large streams of cash, on which no return has to be given to shareholders or interest paid to banks. Purchases such as the Lonely Planet only go to show how far the BBC has strayed from its core brief.

The size and scope of the BBC has come under increasing criticism recently—justifiably so. It would make sense, in the use of taxpayers’ money and to avoid abuse of its position and deflect criticism, for the BBC to restrict itself to promoting and reusing its existing television and radio material, including its online news content, in such a way that it does not abuse its privileged position or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, put it, trample on others, rather than full-bloodedly trying to create new content for other kinds of media.

The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, asked this side to comment on Rupert Murdoch. My comment is this. It is inconceivable that the noble Lord’s proposition is correct. If he seeks a reason for the change of loyalty by the Sun newspaper, he has only to look at the sorry state of so many things in this country brought about by the present Government to easily understand why that newspaper should change its allegiance. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, appreciates this.

We on these Benches are against the use of the BBC licence fee to help fund independently financed news consortia, as was touched on yesterday in the debate on the Digital Economy Bill. If it provided the finance, the state would end up being the ultimate provider of news. While I am sure that no Government, even the present one, would abuse this position, it is a dangerous path to go down. In a world where spin has become a way of life, it might be too much of a temptation for some future Government to try to become the piper calling the tune. Also, it would always be a temptation to an organisation seeking funds to slant news content in the direction it thinks the paymaster would like, even if no such indication had been either given or implied.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. As he is calling the licence fee a tax, could he explain why he does not apply the same principles to the other taxes that we pay, those which are used to fund the police, the Army and to rescue banks?

My Lords, those things do not supply our entertainment in the same way as the BBC. Any money which is taken compulsorily from a citizen of this country is a form of taxation, whatever guise it comes under.

In the 19th century there was a debate over whether some of the tithes that went to the Church of England should be distributed to other churches. This was firmly rejected because it would create a monopoly supplier. The same argument applies today just as strongly in the provision of news.

Another argument against top-slicing is that the pursuit of the grant would soon eclipse the pursuit of news. If anyone doubts this, they have only to look at the National Health Service to see how, over the years, the growth of bureaucracy and administration has far exceeded the expansion of patient care. A simpler and better way to assist the independent companies would be to get rid of some or all of the many restrictions under which independent suppliers of public service television are governed. Most of these restrictions are inappropriate in a digital age. As well as being expensive, they create heavy-handed and onerous regulation. Steps such as getting rid of cross-ownership rules and giving greater freedom for the sale of advertising would be of considerable assistance to the industry, but this needs to be acted on promptly to avoid any necessity for subsidy.

As my right honourable friend David Cameron and my honourable friend Jeremy Hunt in another place have both said, this party supports the principle of the licence fee and the BBC, but agreeing that something is overall a good thing does not necessarily mean full agreement with the way it is executed or with every point of detail. For example, it was disgraceful that this year, at a time when people are being made redundant and there are pay freezes extending even to public sector employees, the BBC should have taken a licence fee increase in excess of the rate of inflation. In the ever-accelerating pace of change in the world of television and media, it may well be that different methods of financing the BBC will evolve. It would certainly be nice to see the end of the bullying and unpleasantness which accompanies demands for the licence fee. Rather than waste your Lordships’ time, let me say that as far as the BBC Trust is concerned the words of my noble friend Lord Fowler are worthy of your Lordships’ consideration and attention.

I urge the Minister to give the National Audit Office full access to review the BBC. The huge sums of taxpayers’ money involved and the disquiet over aspects of remuneration at the BBC make it ever-increasingly difficult to justify the BBC being exempt from the examination to which all other bodies are subject.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on his good fortune in introducing yet another debate on broadcasting when we also have a Bill on related areas before us on which we will spend a great deal of time.

The noble Lord made a somewhat more tendentious opening than he sometimes does as chairman of the Select Committee in his onslaught on the Secretary of State’s position. I regard that as a thoughtful contribution to an ongoing debate on a crucial issue. I shall discuss that issue because the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has long been critical of the BBC Trust model and is concerned that we should address the matter. The issue cropped up in a number of contributions today and is the most significant feature of this debate on the future of the BBC. I shall come back to it in a moment.

I appreciate the noble Lord’s indication of his approval of so much of the BBC’s work, particularly his tribute to the quality of its news provision; it is unparalleled and is one of the features of the BBC that we hold in the highest regard. That is why, when we discuss the future of the corporation, we have to pay great regard to that crucial role. I was also grateful for the concern he expressed about the opportunities for BBC Worldwide and the way in which it might, with partnership, extend those opportunities to the benefit of the country. That issue certainly needs to be looked at. There was a Question this morning about the creative industries and there is no doubt that the BBC has a critical role to play. The creative industries are an important part of the British economy and we should look at ways in which resources can be usefully invested in that area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, also stressed her appreciation of the value of the BBC in the nation’s life. She particularly emphasised the role that it needs to play in the provision of high-quality children’s television. The noble Baroness takes the opportunity on every occasion to stress this crucial point—as she did today—and it is well taken by the BBC. Television plays an important part in the education and development of our children and it is important that we guarantee that high-quality children’s television is available, and the BBC’s role in that is of considerable importance. She also emphasised the importance of the commercial sector and the role of Channel 4 in public service broadcasting. These issues, inevitably, will be discussed within the framework of the Digital Economy Bill over the next few weeks, when noble Lords will be able to deploy their arguments in greater detail than they are able to do in this short debate today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for identifying that point.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark made a thoughtful contribution about the issues of religion and faith in broadcasting. He will be aware that this has been a fairly lively issue in this House during the past two weeks or so. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, identified a controversial dimension to it, which he expressed in his usual trenchant manner. Suffice it to say, I do not think that the BBC Trust’s decision regarding “Thought For The Day” a couple of weeks ago did anything other than identify that it foresaw a significant role for religious and faith broadcasting within a certain context and regarded “Thought For The Day” as exclusively for that purpose. It therefore rejected an alternative position which my noble friend Lord Maxton would have advocated. The right reverend Prelate’s anxiety can be allayed. Given the multiplicity of views and faiths in our community, the BBC would be neglecting its duties if it did not respond to the points that the right reverend Prelate put forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, in his short speech expressed more eloquently what might have taken me 10 minutes to say about the role that the BBC has played in our national life throughout its history. If any of us wants to appreciate the significance of the BBC in our national life, a reading of the noble Lord’s speech would prove fulfilling. It took away from me the need to defend much of the BBC’s role, because it was done so cogently by him. There is no doubt that the BBC is a unique institution which is a world leader and greatly envied elsewhere. That is why this debate is of such great importance, dealing as it does with the future of the corporation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, also spoke of the value of the BBC and reflected her concern about the threats to it, to which I shall come in a few moments. An important point to emerge from the debate is that, in an age in which substantial resources are available for pay and commercial television, and given the changes in the way in which people receive their entertainment and information, the challenge to the public service broadcasting of the BBC is obvious. That was certainly reflected on the noble Baroness’s side of the House, particularly in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who said that we should pay attention to the BBC’s need to be able to resist challenges from sources which have different values from those which it enshrines.

The noble Baroness mentioned top-slicing the licence fee. She will recognise that what is being suggested for independent news broadcasters are pilot studies for development of a response to what we all recognise is a very serious issue; that is, the loss of support and revenues for independent news programmes and the great danger that the BBC therefore adopts that monopoly position which it aspires to but which would be forced upon it if independent broadcasters and alternative news centres failed. That is why it is right that we address these issues within the framework of the Digital Economy Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will regard it not as a threat to the licence but as a necessary action by the Government. After all, we are converting resources for the digital switchover towards this wholly beneficial development to sustain independent news consortia. I hope that is regarded as a constructive contribution to the broadcasting position.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, also emphasised her respect for the BBC and the role that it plays. I hope that it has listened to the point that she makes about the question of the extent to which mature women can make a contribution to our broadcasting life and viewing perspectives. I know that she has a powerful ally in Joan Bakewell, who has also been campaigning on this issue. There is no doubt that there is an enormous danger that, because television has such a significant role to play, it deals with narrower stereotypes than may be appropriate for a broadcaster, which ought to appear to all sections of the community and represent them in every way that it can.

I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Haskel for his contribution and his emphasis on how this Bill related to the Digital Economy Bill. He fleshed out the question of pay rather more than the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, did in her contribution. I shall turn in a moment to the governance of the BBC, but the trust moved with some strength and alacrity to address the concern about BBC pay levels among senior executives. I hope that the House recognises that the Director-General of the BBC has acted to put these issues more into the public domain and that there is concern about this. The point that my noble friend Lord Haskel introduced goes much wider than the BBC; that the disparity in average pay within any industry and the salary levels of the top managers should concern us all. He asked whether they are actually justified with regard to performance. That goes wider than broadcasting; the banks bring dramatically to mind the issue of whether high-level pay is necessarily a reflection of high-level or indeed any level of performance at the banks. I hope that the House appreciates that the BBC is responding to that. Discussions are going on on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, on the National Audit Office and those aspects to which it may properly address itself with regard to value for money at the BBC. His point is being addressed by the BBC. I hope that it will be recognised that there are constructive perspectives in those terms.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised a number of interesting questions, as he always does. He was constructive in his comments about the World Service and the concerns about commercial radio. The BBC has the right with its radio services to cater for licence payers in all their plurality. Many of the programmes that it puts on are hugely popular. But it would be wrong for the public sector to adopt a monopoly position on this. I am sure that the BBC is all too well aware of the point that the noble Lord made—but these are issues that we can discuss in more detail in another arena.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked a question at the end, which the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, began to answer at the beginning. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that he did not know what was wrong with the existing structure of governance. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has always advocated a different perspective on governance with regard to the BBC from the trust. What is more important about the BBC than the trust is the charter, which is a 10-year agreement between government and the BBC that is the essential protection of the BBC’s independence from direct government interference. I therefore take it that, when all noble Lords are praising the BBC for its achievements—even if they are not following the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, in all his details—they also recognise the bedrock on which it stands, the charter, and its importance in the construction of a public service broadcaster which is responsible to the nation, paid for by licence holders but independent of government interference.

It was clear from our charter review of the past few years that the public wanted the BBC to remain the cornerstone of public service broadcasting. They also wanted the BBC to be independent: separate from government and direct parliamentary interference. The charter is undoubtedly the best way to achieve both these aims. It gives the BBC the independence which it requires. That is why, even though we must expect the BBC to be able to show flexibility in a period of rapid change both in broadcast technology and in the audience’s demands upon it, it is important that it has the independence and security to plan its responses to the challenges that lie ahead.

Granting a charter of fixed duration provides the opportunity for a fundamental, root-and-branch review of the BBC’s future role and purpose at the end of each charter period. It is somewhat premature for noble Lords to be definitive in saying that the trust model has failed when we are only two or three years into its operation. As I have indicated, the BBC has responded to several areas of acute concern over the past couple of years. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, acknowledged, I do not detect a deterioration of the BBC’s performance, responsibility or the general regard in which it is held resulting from its new structure.

It is not just noble Lords here who have reservations and opposition to the trust. Surely the most significant thing is that the Secretary of State himself has said that this is not a sustainable model. That is the point that the Minister must answer.

I was coming to that, my Lords. The Secretary of State has identified aspects of the BBC that he thinks should be looked at in the charter review. He is not advocating significant and important change at this point. He is indicating to the BBC that he has reservations about the present structure which he fully appreciates are about the future of the BBC.

The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, indicates that there are considered solutions to these issues. He certainly has a perspective, but he will also know that a range of possibilities for BBC governance were put before the review. The question of how one regulates the BBC has produced a range of different propositions. All the Secretary of State is doing at this stage is indicating to the BBC that the trust has to look to its laurels with regard to the way that it governs the BBC. Its performance will be under scrutiny, particularly in these times of straitened circumstances in general finances. There is no doubt, though, from the charter review that we carried out, that the trust model was the one that was advocated and became the one that should be chosen. We should give it time to see how it performs. The Secretary of State is indicating areas in which he thinks the trust should pursue areas of reform, and I have indicated one. The trust has been concerned about the extent to which the BBC, in certain of its financial activities and its use of public moneys—the licence fee, of course, is a public money—should recognise that the National Audit Office has a role to play with regard to that matter.

I am defending the BBC Trust against a background where it is showing its recognition of, and willingness to deal with, the challenges to the BBC that are thrown up from time to time, which are inevitable in the role that the BBC plays in broadcasting. Within that framework, the Secretary of State is playing his part in ensuring that the trust is up to the mark.

We have had an interesting debate about the future of the BBC, which is destined—in fact, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has almost ensured this through his committee—to be at least an annual part of the deliberations in the Chamber. In addition, we have the advantage at the moment of the Bill that my noble friend Lord Mandelson introduced yesterday on the digital economy, which inevitably impacts on significant areas in which the BBC has a real interest and on the BBC itself. I have no doubt that many of the issues that have been raised today will be considered in fuller detail in those debates too. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, will feel that he has given the issue a considerable, important and effective airing today against a background whereon it has been clear that, on nearly every side of the Chamber, support in the House for the BBC is very strong.

My Lords, the Minister has done his best to defend the indefensible in the form of the Government’s arrangements. I admired the ingenuity of his argument, but we will come to that some other time.

This has been an extremely good debate, and I thank everyone who has taken part in it. I thank the Front-Benchers, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my noble friend. I thank the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Southwark and the Bishop of Liverpool, who both touched on religious broadcasting and “Thought for the Day”. I always thought that the greatest achievement of my Select Committee on the charter was to get the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, to agree upon a final wording on that issue, and I have no intention whatever of reopening it with the Select Committee.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, who made an outstanding speech with which I agreed entirely. I thank my colleagues on the Select Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Bonham-Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Maxton. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on the 16th anniversary of his maiden speech.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who made a very thoughtful speech. I do not agree with her or the Minister about the charter. It is a straightforward deal between the Government and the BBC; it is totally undemocratic, and it is simply not as it has been described, particularly by the Minister. I have much more sympathy with what the noble Baroness said about the governance of the BBC, about complaints and, above all, about ageism in the BBC organisation.

This has been an exceptional debate, with some extremely good contributions from all around the Back Benches.