Culture, Media and Sport Questions House of Commons

was committed, as gone through the same and has directed me to report

it your Lordships without amendment. My Lord's. I am delighted to be

opening this debate on the report BBC Charter Review. Reeth not

revolution, from the Select Committee on communications which I

have the honour to chair. The only interest I must declare is that my

son Will Best is the presenter o after BBC children's programme on

CBBC. I am grateful to my fellow committee

members for their input into this report. They represent different

perspectives within your Lordship's house and I think it is significant

so much unanimity was achieved for our conclusions and recommendations,

our thanks go to our clerk man Murphy, policy analyst and our

specialist adviser, and to all those who made submissions to the

committee, particularly the 43 witnesses who presented oral

evidence. As a trailer for the debate today, Baroness

Bonham-Carter's lunch break session on 10th March attracted 20 speakers

with contributions limited to one minute, today, with even more

speakers, but a sensible timetable I hope we can do more justice to a

subject which affects virtually every single man, woman and child in

the United Kingdom. I thank in advance all those who will be

speaking, in this debate. The Secretary of State has told us

our, told our committee that Government, rather than responding

separately to our report, will take it into account, in preparing the

White Paper on renewal of the BBC's Charter, we now know that the White

Paper will be published in late May. This mean, my Lord's, that our

debate is well timed to feed into the final stages of the White

Paper's content, but once that White Paper has been released it will be

important for this House to be given an opportunity to consider it fully.

Could I ask the noble Baroness the minister, if she might reassure

understand that time will be allocated on the floor of the House,

to debate this proposals which will be set out in this important White

Paper? My Lord's t title of the report on BBC charter renewal, foi

which are indebted to our committee member the noble Lord, Lord heart,

sums up the position we have taken. We put our faith in a BBC which

respects and appreciates its founding principle, established by

the first Director General Lord Reith, and we rejected calls for

radical fundamental change in the underlying purpose of the BBC, or

its scale or scope. Speaking personally, I was aware at the

outset of our inquiry, of a lot of background noise about the

possibilities of dramatic change for the BBC. Of course, there had been

the Jimmy Savile scandal, criticisms of salaries for executives,

accusations of political bias and so on, but as the evidence rolled in,

it became clear to me that mostly the fuss, the call for the BBC to be

cut down to size, opened up to commercial competition and the rest,

was coming from the Westminster village not from the world outside,

broadly we discovered that the public at large were strongly in

favour of their BBC, and would be gratefully opposed to radical

change. My Lord's, we recognise that with a limited timescale we couldn't

cover every aspect of the BBC's future so we deliberately excluded

the topic of governance of the corporation not least because they

were considered by our sister committee, in the other place, and

because in September last year the Government announced that Sir David

Clementy would carry out a review. In the event I do not think the

committee would have any disagreement with the Select

Committee's views or the recommendations of Sir David on the

creation a new unitary board for the BBC, with the abolition of the BBC

Trust, and regulation by Ofcom. The areas we did tackle, in our eight

month inquiry, covered first the underlying purpose of the BBC,

second the BBC's scale and scope, third, the process for setting the

license fee, and finally, the timing of the charity, for how many years

should it run before renewal. In terms of the BBC's purpose, the

charter states that the BBC's main objective is the promotion of

certain public purposes, we decided to examine the six official public

purpose, in some depth, but as we ventured further into the detail of

these, it became increasingly apparent as was voiced most

forcefully by the noble Earl, Lord Aaron that the purpose's framework

come pricing a mission statement, six public purpose, purpose remit,

purpose priority, and very detailed service licenses, was far too

complex. When the director general came before the committee, we were

shown the huge stack of forms and submissions, the BBC must complete

to fulfil these multiple requirement, all this complexity we

concluded makes practical assessment of the BBC's performance more

difficult. We recommended a much simpler and transparent approach. We

liked the distillation of the BBC's objectives the as set out by Lord

Reith to inform, educate and entertain. And we recommend than the

status of these Reethian principles should be reaffirmed at the BBC's

overarching mission. We recommended scrapping the current six public

purposes and felt instead the BBC should adopt the four general public

service broadcaster purposes which apply to all PSP broadcaster, to

ITV, champion four, Channel 5 as well as the BBC but with the BBC

setting the gold standard. Its special status and funding through a

universal license fee gives the BBC, we maintained, unique only

investigations to its audience, it should reflect the different

opinion, lifestyles, beliefs and values, of the UK's nations,

regions, and diverse communities. Indeed we dared to suggest a fourth

dimen should be the Reethian mission, so this might become to

inform, educate, entertain and reflect, dimension. We went on the

propose the abolition of the purpose priorities the and recommended a

full review of the services licenses, with a view to these being

simplified and strengthened. Defining clearly what is expected of

each service, while still encouraging creativity, we were not

letting the BBC off the hook. We felt it should be firmly held to

account, for any noncompliance with the service license, and these

should be reviewed more frequently than the current review held every

five years. To assist this process, we were clear that the independent

regulator should be provided with a comprehensive account of the BBC's

spending by genre, for children's programme, new, drama, current

affairs, etc, this information was made available to the committee, but

because of its commercial sensitivity could not be published

more widely. In looking at this, in other evidence weeks pressed some

concern at the downward trend in the BBC's investment in current affair,

spurred on by the noble Baroness, we understood line the importance the

BBC continuing to fund adequately it output at the leader of in the field

of children's programmes. We noted with concern a decrease in spending

on arts, and we emphasised the important role the BBC in

stimulating creativity in cultural exercise, particularly in the field

of music and drama, and through training, and developing talent. We

noted the criticism that the BBC was too London-centric and we commended

the steps taken to address this by moving production to other city, we

were impressed by the impact of the BBC's investment in Sam forked's'dia

city, which we visited -- Salford. We heard from a number of witness,

particularly a panel of young people, that the BBC did not

sufficiently reflect their lives or the lives of those with disabilities

or those within BA MA communities, we noticed the BBC recognised its

deficiencies an we expect to see marked improvement. We heard

concerns about decline across broads canning in religious programmes

which the Bishop of Chelmsford made today. We say they should may Tain

the quality an content of out put. Noble Lords will not be surprised to

know we welcomed Government funding for it will World Service an we

endorse the crucial role the BBC plays in the UK's culture influence,

and soft power on the world stage. Turning to our second area of

interest, the BBC scale and scope, it is true that the BBC has already

had to cut back and find significant savings. We noted in today's global

economy, the BBC is really quite small, compared in particular to

American players such as Amazon and Netflix. We heard no convincing case

for a significant reduction in the scale or scope of the BBC. Nor did

we accept arguments that the BBC should be restricted to remedying

gaps, for which the commercial market does not provide. We were

clear that its out put should bring benefits to all license fee payer

and don't to be a universal broadcaster. More over in the

changing world of the digital age, we recognise that the BBC had an

important role as an non-commercial contributors to development

innovative technologies like the iPlayer, but also to delivering its

content online. When we came to our third theme, with process for

setting the level of the license fee, strong views were expressed to

us about the deal struck behind closed doors, in July 2015. Most of

the evidence was highly critical of the Government's proposal and the

BBC's acceptance that the cost of funding free television licenses for

the over-75s, should come out of cuts to other spending by the BBC.

We recommended instead, that in future the process should be out in

the open with widespread consultation before any such deals

are done. We spelled out a detailed process, for setting the license

fee, or indeed a household Levy if that was introduced.

The independent regulator would make an evidence based recommendation to

the secretary of state for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of

State would have an op obligation to do this or publish the reasons for

not doing so, the relay for would be allowed to submit an amended

recommendation but not a third one, the Secretary of State would have

the final say, and as now, Parliament would be asked to approve

a statutory instrument. Finally on the time, of the Charter

Review process, we recommended a decoupling from the five yearly

general election cycle. The present timings could lead to overhasty

decision making soon after an election, we also noted that the

impartiality and independence of the BBC could be compromised by a shore

charter period. There would be a Sword of Damocles hanging over the

BBC, with an ever present threat of an imminent new charter. More over

over we recognise the considerable financial management burden of more

frequent Charter Review, we were persuaded therefore, that the

charter period should be no shorter than the current ten years. Which

provides the BBC, and the wider creative industries that depend upon

the BBC, with the necessary stability for longer term planning.

But to avoid coinciding with the cycle of general election, we

recommended the next charter should be for 11 years, with a ten year

period thereafter. My Lord's, we did not shirk from recommending an

enhanced framework of accountability for the BBC and I think it sits well

with the recommendations from the review and the DCMS committee for

regulation. We were unanimously opposed to

diminution of the BBC. We will want transparency in the setting of

licence fee and one an 11 year Charter period next time. Lighting

criticism for these some aspects of the BBC behaviour in the past, I

will report was overwhelmingly supportive and appreciative of the

BBC. It is indeed a national treasure, an institution from which

all of us gain so much, and can rightly feel a genuine sense of

national pride. I beg to move. The question is that the motion be

agreed to. Milos, firstly I congratulate the honourable ember

Lord Best and indeed the committee on this report, and I can catch the

noble Lord on the leadership of the communications committee and the way

he is just introduced his report and I must say I found myself in

agreement with virtually everything that he said. It is an important

report, and I hope that the government will follow its

proposals. I particularly in doors what the committee has said on the

principles and guidance of Lord Rees, which is clear and above all,

offensive, that the aim of the BBC should be to inform, educate and

entertain, and even reflect, which has been added to. Each is

important. I have always been most supportive of the aim to inform,

meaning that the BBC should provide the best possible objective news

coverage. A duty which to my mind and in spite of all the sniping, I

think they fulfil excellently. I think the pain also to entertain

must be recognised, there should be no question of that been jettisoned,

so that the commercial sector can fill the gap. We all know what the

result of the next stage of that would be, it would be an assault on

the licence fee, on the basis that the BBC was not reaching the whole

of the nation. My Lords, the report begins by going back to 1927, the

formation of the BBC. But there is actually a staple for that. In 1925,

an all-party broadcasting committee set up by the government proposed

that and I quote eight public corporation should be set up to act

as a trustee for the national interest in broadcasting. And added,

that the corporation should be set up by statute. Ministers didn't like

the idea of them not being in the drivers, didn't like the idea of

being statute, because that meant putting things do both houses, and

they said it would become a preacher of Parliament, to quote their

phrase. So they brought forward the proposal that it should be under a

Royal Charter, and thus it became a creature of government. The Royal

Charter gave the government the ability to evade Parliament, and the

powerful minister to do what they like. That is what the water other

means, it the power to the executive, and that is the position

that we basically have today, the government may make fundamental

changes, but without the inconvenience of getting

Parliamentary approval. And how do they defend this indefensible

position? They say as my noble friend said only on Tuesday, and I

quote, for nearly 90 years, a Royal Charter has been the constitutional

basis of the BBC underlying the independence of the BBC from

political interference. I make absolutely no criticism of my noble

friend who is one of our very best ministers, and I underlined that,

but this is the consistent line of the Department of culture and has

been for the last decade and probably more, even when they say

they are protecting the BBC from political interference, that really

is the greatest nonsense. The political interference comes not

from Parliament, it comes from government. The worst political

interference is the interference of government ministers, and so it has

been over the last few decades. My Lords, I wasn't... It wasn't

Parliament who handed over to the BBC a ?600 million bill for free

television for the 07 divides. It was the government. -- over seven

divides. The government is notorious for interfering politically. Unless

one understand and accept that then I don't think we'll make a great

amount of progress. Let us recognise that quite irrespective of party all

government and prime ministers have their views. I remember the noble

Lady Thatcher, she made no effort to disguise her scepticism. At the

dinner of the government, I remember her saying that if she was ever

detected to say selling nice about the BBC, Dennis soon be persuaded

her out of it. It was just the occasion! Following the last

election, all kinds of threatening noises time from number ten that now

was the time to take on the BBC. And of course, suspicion and antipathy

BBC reporting is not confined to one party. Howard Wilson was not

renowned as a great supporter of the independence of the British board

operation, and even more up-to-date, nor was Tony Blair and Alistair

Campbell. There were beside themselves with rage about the

corporation's coverage of the Iraq war. So, the last charter in review

in 2005, a number of us were on that committee, which looked at the

charter then, they invented the BBC trust, and they deliberately at the

top of the BBC divided responsibility. So, when the GC MS

say they do that the charter has and I quote served us so well for 90

years, I think we are entitled to save just who you kidding? -- the

DCMS. In 1995I was chairman of the committee looking at the renewal of

the BBC, the BBC trust, dividing at the top of the corporation. We

rejected the proposal! That of course had not the slightest impact

on the decision whatsoever. The government, using their charter

powers, imposed it, and now ten years later, can one see what is

happening? What is happening now? It is that it is going to be abolished

at as a bold step by the new government. Goodness knows what the

cost to the taxpayer is of this fruitless adventure, and this is the

direct product of the Royal Charter that has served us so well. My

Lords, the only sensible question to be asked now is what we can do about

it, and it seems to me that there are two possible courses. You could

turn the BBC into a statutory corporation like Channel 4. That

actually has very substantial attractions. It means with Channel

4, for example, fundamental twinges, would have to be approved by

parliament. It means that if you wanted to privatise Channel 4 and

there are rumours of that kind, you have two introduce primary

legislation through both houses of both Parliament. Now I am not a whip

but I wouldn't give too many chances of that surviving all that. It does

mean that if the government had the slightest sense, they wouldn't

attempt such action, so it is a great check upon the power of

governments to act. That is one course. The alternative is to make

the charter changes subject to approval by both Houses of

parliament, in this way, the BBC trust proposal would have had to

come to Parliament and would have had to approach be approved by both

houses. That is an alternative, less elaborate perhaps way of doing it,

and my noble friend Lord Lester, the noble Lord Lord Lester, he is my

friend as well, I will allow him to set that out. The point is the

charter as a noun stands means either fundamental reform or total

abolition. It is utterly undemocratic, makes a nonsense of

parliamentary sovereignty, and hands all power to ministers, and I will

would not have thought that anyone in that -- in this country really

wants. My Lords I will not try to cover the whole of the BBC, but in

conclusion that Lambie just to say this. I am passionately in favour of

an independent BBC, free from government interference will stop a

BBC with a place in the world, and a strong BBC World Service. A BBC

where news reporting is put high, and reporting skills of

correspondence are properly valued. A BBC with a licence fee, and not

some subscription model. A BBC which is subject to check but not the

check of the BBC trust, particularly when we have a perfectly good

regulator in Ofcom. And of course above all, perhaps, a BBC where the

director-general and an independent board to make the decisions

regarding corporation inside the budget that they have and are given.

My Lords, what I do not want is a board for the BBC to be set up and

to include and the consisting of government placements of one kind or

another. But I do not want fully BBC. -- that I do not want for the

BBC. What I think we should have is five-year reviews, also, which would

mean that the BBC is constantly under threat of review and the

threat of change. -- I do not want five-year reviews. Government's

involvement with therefore becomes greater rather than less, and that

is not what the public in this country what you want. My hope is

the government will recognise the importance of the BBC and its

national and its international reputation, and my hope is that the

government see to strengthen the BBC not to weaken it, and my hope is

also that the government would follow the advice of this excellent

report from the Communications committee, and implement their

proposals within it. My Lords, I too welcome this opportunity of this

debate, like Lord Fowler, and I'm grateful to Lord Best of committee

for their sterling work. It is not the first time I have followed a

speech from Lord Fowler on this topic and climate of agreeing with

all of his words. Having shed the joint scrutiny committee from the

2003 communications Beale, I'm keenly aware of the complexities of

any discussion on this issue. I would like to declare an interest. I

am chairing an ongoing enquiry into the future of Public Service

Broadcasting generally, not just the BBC, and we intend to report in

June. This committee bug report we are debating today is extremely

helpful. I was forced -- it was somewhat narrower than the debate

deserves that this rather late stage in the process. I welcome its focus

on public purpose, the support for a far more transparent purpose of

setting up the license bill, and its positions of emotion of the BBC

being any form of market failure broadcaster. I strongly support the

conclusion that there is no need no justification for contestable

funding, let alone further top slicing of the BBC's resources for

other purposes. The reports remit did not allow it to address the

issues of governance, and funding more generally. It suggested

scrapping a good deal of the framework without putting in place

anything substantive beyond supporting Ofcom's definition of

PSP. For me, the crucial issue that anyone seriously interested in the

democracy is to focus on the overriding importance of the

corporation independence. The future cannot be business as

usual, the need is to restore faith in the process and to do so the

Government Mr Mitchell at its support for meaningful independence

in its approach to appointments. As we are currently seeing, governments

of all persuasions can and do use the prospect of charge review and

its associated funding decisions to put pressure on the BBC. For a

democracy such as ours I believe this to be a thoroughly unhealthy

state of affairs, and surely, my Lords, after almost a century of

extraordinary access the time has come for the BBC to be constituted

on a more secure and permanent basis. I will therefore be avidly

supporting Lord Lester in arguing in favour of replacing the present

Charter system by placing the BBC on a statutory footing, if necessary

through the new act of Parliament. The recent review of the BBC's

governance and legislation was right to highlight the problems BBC Trust

has experienced since it replaced the governors as the corporation's

sovereign body. As Sir David noticed the trust has completed governance

with regulation and as a result as often been hard to tell who has been

in charge, the executive or the trust. I'm sure I was not the only

Member of the House who was disappointed to read Sir David's

suggestion that government could appoint six out of the 13 unitary

board members. It is even more disturbing to hear the Conservative

Secretary of State to suggest it is perfectly that it for the Government

to appoint a significant majority of board members. Given that the green

paper claims, and I quote: the independence of the BBC is

absolutely central to its mission, then surely any proposal to increase

government influence of what is intended to be a powerful and

influential body, suggests precisely the opposite. At the very least, the

process should resemble that of Channel 4, nine of who is 13 board

members, I am deputy chairman, nine of who is Boardman Lambert are

appointed by Ofcom, free of any perceptible government influence.

I'd like to see a majority of board members selected through a more

democratic and imaginative process involving diverse experience from

across the country. My Lords, we should all be conscious of a growing

disquiet and even an anger over the prospect of a Whittingdale

broadcasting Corporation. I prefer, noble Lords to the speech given by

the shadow secretary for DC MS on Tuesday of this week in which she

excoriated the government for what appeared to be its bullying of the

corporation during this current charter reviewing process. For

example by floating proposals that would involve the corporation

selling its stake in UK TV's burqa of channels stripping BBC worldwide

of a third of its profits command also draw the attention of the House

to the person who may well be this country's most trusted public

figure, Sir David Attenborough, that as he put it the government need to

put themselves at arm's-length from the BBC in order to protect its

independence. My Lords, the Government has an opportunity to

demonstrate its support for the BBC through its deeds rather than its

words. Providing the corporation with the security and scale it

requires to continue in its role as the fundamental cornerstone for

public service information landscape as well as the vital engine room of

the UK's ever more successful creative industries. Yes, the BBC

needs to enter into new partnerships but they should not be imposed

through top slicing, or forcing it to become more distinctive when it's

obvious this is simply another way of saying that it should retreat

from popular formats. My Lords, for almost 20 years I had the pleasure

of sitting on the board of Anglia television. As such, I witnessed at

first hand the manner in which ill considered legislation, in this case

the 1990 broadcasting act, led to significant and holy ancestry job

losses, the evisceration of an excellent regionally -based training

structure and general decline in regional pride and identity, and

most regrettable of all, the erosion of democratic accountability. My

Lords, you only have to consider the dramatically reduced level of

visibility of any backbench MP as against the situation 30 years ago,

a time when every MP, along with other significant local political

figures, could expect to get their views aired across their regions and

to their local constituents on at least a quarterly basis. That's what

I'm referring to when I refer to ill thought through legislation creating

a damaging loss of democratic accountability. I'm pleased,

however, my Lords, to report not every senior member of the

government shares a lingering antipathy towards the government.

Here is what the Chancellor had to say on Radio 4 just two days ago.

Britain is a great country, it's the world's fifth-largest economy with

the world's best Armed Forces, best health service and best broadcaster.

We are the first in the world for soft power thanks to our language,

culture and creativity. Unless I'm very much mistaken, my Lords, I

don't think Mr Gove was referring to Sky, but who knows? We have been

assured that the White Paper on the future of the BBC will be with us

shortly. We can only hope it contains measures designed to

strengthen public service broadcasting and not to eviscerate

it at the behest of its commercial rivals. Indeed, I think we should do

more than hope. I'd like to believe that today's debate will be seen as

a shot across the bows of any government from any party wishing to

bring forward measures that could damage one of this country's two

most highly regarded institutions. In a world running short on trust

the BBC remains a significantly more credible organisation than any of

those who for political or commercial reasons seek to undermine

it. Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of chairing an event at Bafta

discussing the future of public service broadcasting. At the end of

what was a lively session, I suggested that there was such public

interest in this area that any attempt by government to undermine

the BBC and its independence would be met by a march down Whitehall

that would make the countryside Alliance look like a tea party. I

sincerely believe that could be the case, I sincerely hope it will be

there and I hope the rest of the country would back it. My Lords, I

too congratulate noble Lord Lord Best and members of this committee

on an excellent and wide-ranging report. I've long been a critical

friend of the BBC, believing it to be the best broadcaster in the

world, and indeed one of the best gifts of this nation to the world.

And the committee's report talks in similar terms, describing the BBC as

one of this nation's most treasured institutions, a keystone of British

rod casting, respected across the world, and it talks of the BBC

playing a central role in the wider creative industries. But, my Lords,

it is vital that as the Government finalises its deliberations on a new

charter, nothing is done which will undermine the BBC's ability to

continue to merit such accolades, and nothing should be done to

undermine the independence and impartiality of the BBC. The noble

Lord Lord Puttnam said that this should be the top priority, and I

entirely agree with him. And the noble Lord Lord Fowler, with a

distinguished track record in these areas, talked powerfully about the

need to develop mechanisms to reduce government interference in the BBC,

and when he speaks later, my noble and learned friend Lord Lester will

talk about how he believes statutory underpinning can help and I look

forward to hearing his contribution. The committee report makes clear,

and I entirely agree with it, that maintaining independence and

impartiality will be aided by a new charter which lasts for at least ten

years. On Tuesday in your lordship's house I noted that the noble lady

the Minister referred to the value of a Royal Charter lasting for what

she described as a good period of time. I hope very much that she will

accept the committee's recommendation for a minimum 10-year

period. Since this will not only help protect the independence and

impartiality, but it will also provide security in terms of

planning and investment for the BBC, and as the report points out,

stability for the wider creative industries that relate to the BBC.

But, of course, that security and stability would be undermined if the

charter period is set for a good period of time but includes a

mid-term review whose scope allows for the unpicking of bits of the

charter itself, and I hope we can receive free assurances that that

will not be the case. And the report makes one other important

recommendation on the length of the charter, suggesting that the next

Charter should be and not ten years, to decouple the Charter review

process from the General Election cycle, and to allow full

consultation and dialogue. I think that is an extremely sensible

proposal and I look forward to hearing the noble lady, the

Minister's thoughts on it. My Lords, the committee, as we have heard,

consciously did not cover the issue of governance of the BBC. Their

decision in the words of the report to eschew governments was well

founded, given the subsequent announcement of the review. Sir

David's review proposed the most radical overhaul of the BBC's

governance in its lifetime, ensuring the regulation of the BBC fully

passes to an external regulator in Ofcom, while governance being

transferred to a new unitary board with executive and nonexecutive

directors. Now, my Lords, I oppose the establishment of the BBC Trust,

a fruitless venture as the noble Lord Lord Fowler called it. I

thought it was entirely wrong to set a better body that sought to be both

a flag waver for the BBC and a regulator of the BBC. These two

roles are incompatible and Sir David's proposal for an external

regulator and a unitary board resolves this conflict and I welcome

them. However, like others who have already spoken, I do not believe the

independence of the BBC will be achieved if the nonexecutive members

of the proposed board our government appointees. The Secretary of State

of the CMS said recently that he didn't think the government

appointment of BBC non-executives to the board would undermine

independence, and pointed out that all 12 of the current members of the

BBC Trust were appointed by government. Us DCMS. I think is

wrong. The current trust is far less powerful than the proposed unitary

board which will set the BBC's editorial direction, make key

decisions on programmes and even have a say on how the BBC manages

news. Given these important powers to government appointees will

understandably lead to accusations that we are creating a state

broadcaster and not a public service broadcaster. And a bizarre situation

could arise where decisions around how the BBC is reporting government

policy, or the action of ministers, is being decided by people appointed

by the same government, by the same minister, that simply cannot be

acceptable. Channel 4 has a similar board to the one proposed to the BBC

and its nonexecutive is our appointed by Ofcom and not by the

government. I believe the BBC non-executives should also be

appointed by an independent body, whether by Ofcom, or some other

independent group. But my Lords, while the report best you'd

governance, it has had a great deal to say about the scale and scope of

the BBC. There has been much talk about the BBC becoming a market

failure only broadcaster, filling the gaps left by other broadcasters.

And of the BBC becoming significantly more distinctive. Now,

I hope that in their deliberations on this issue the Government will

not be influenced by the recent report on the BBC's report and use

it to justify going down this particular route because I believe

that the report is Ford, framing contrary to all the evidence such as

Ofcom tracking data, that BBC One has become less distinctive. But the

report also ignores wider public values and why the economic -- wider

economic benefits to UK POC. The report looked at what revenue

benefits there would be to commercial broadcasting competitors

of making the BBC less popular. The revenue benefits that they came up

with would be small. ?155 million that they quote which is just one

quarter of last year's increase in TV advertising revenues and just a

of ITV's pre-tax profits following this route, according to research

done by Reuters, PWC and endless analysis, or show that it would have

a negative overall impact on the wider UK media sector, let alone for

UK plc, for a very small benefit to the BBC's direct competitors. I

entirely reject the market failure only approach, and I'm delighted the

committee came to the same conclusion. They say, as we heard

from the noble Lord Lord Best, we have not heard a convincing case for

a significant reduction in the scale or scope of the BBC, and the report

concludes that the BBC should not be restricted to remedying apps which

the market does not provide, the BBC must continue to be a universal

broadcaster providing content which does not simply inform and educate,

but also entertains. And in terms of inform, educate and entertain, I

entirely support the committee's view is that they should be the

basis of the BBC's mission and given greater progress Willey prominence.

If this scale and scope of the BBC is to be maintained it needs to

receive the appropriate income to achieve it, that means there should

be no further top slicing of the BBC's licence fee income and no

additional constraints to the BBC's commercial activities. During the

Coalition Government I strongly oppose the Conservative proposals to

take money from the licence fee to fund free TV licences from the

over-75s. I argued that government policies should be funded by the

government. I was pleased my Right Honourable friend Nick Clegg vetoed

the proposals and it didn't take place. So I'm extremely disappointed

that the current government has now gone ahead to the detriment of the

BBC. And proposals for further top slicing, or new contestable funding,

I believe should be rejected. Such proposals would mean less money for

the BBC to spend on its services, create additional bureaucracy and

transaction costs, it would risk transferring resources away from

advertising free services, and from programmes guaranteed to have high

reach and impact. It would run the risk of poor quality programming. My

Lords, two thirds of BBC content spend is already contested and that

figure is set to increase. There is, therefore, no case for a separate

contestable top slice fund from the licence fee, nor is there any case

for requiring the BBC to sell off either BBC worldwide or the BBC's

stake in UK TV. Both would deprive licence fee payers of the financial

and other benefits they currently receive, including funding for high

quality programming. My Lords, the BBC is undoubtedly the best

broadcaster in the world. And I hope in their Charter negotiations the

Government will do nothing to damage that reputation. Heeding the

recommendations of the excellent Select Committee report should form

an important component of their deliberations, so that we do achieve

Reith and not revolution. I speak as a member of the Select Committee

that produced this report and must declare an interest as co-chair of

the multi-faith standing conference of the BBC on religion and ethics.

But also related to that work I do want to speak about the place of

faith in public service broadcasting, and indeed speak for

all the faith communities in these islands.

It has been said that if a mission statement is more than two or three

words long, it either means the organisation doesn't really know its

purpose or even if it does, no one else will. Let me give you a fewer

examples. Girl power, flower power, new Labour, the Big Society, I won't

go on. Consequently, a mission statement, if it is to work has to

be pithy and memorable. And Lord Reith's inform, educate and

entertain does the job and has done the job effectively for a long time.

Everyone knows it. And when the last charter renewal purpose landed the

BBC with six very wordy and very worth the public purposes, it wasn't

doing them a favour. As we, the committee, took evidence on these

six public purposes, it was clear that people who came to talk about

them didn't really know them very well themselves. I noticed that each

person came with their crib sheet to remind themselves of what these

purposes were about. They had clearly failed the memorability

test. I also noted that these new purposes, while in some senses in

possible to disagree with, the word entertain, which is surely a first

base requirement for someone actually paying the license fee,

didn't appear at all. Hence, the title of our report, Reith Not

Revolution. As we look forward to the forthcoming Charter renewal, it

is our strong view that the BBC should regroup around this historic

vocation. I think we do also want to say that it is good for the BBC to

be entertaining. And we do not want public service broadcasting

relegated to just those bits of the output that free-market won't

deliver. We are, in this country, and rightly proud of the BBC and its

place in our national life. It's wider mission through the world

Service and its key contribution as part of a vibrant, mixed economy of

broadcasting in this country, one that is the envy of many other

countries in the world. But we're not without criticism. To those

three words which so admirably sum up the whole point of public service

broadcasting, we are tentatively adding a fourth. Lord Best has

already mentioned it, reflect. And it is to this recommendation that I

would like to speak and will limit what I say. Just as the BBC is

called to educate, inform and entertain the nation, surely it must

reflect the nation as well. And this reflection must be more than merely

regional. It is not just about sprinkling the airwaves with

Yorkshire, Scouse, Essex or Scottish accents. The UK is still a family of

nations and within that a network of regions each with its own culture

and identity, but 21st-century Britain is also a network of

communities. And many of these communities find their identity in

ethnic origin and religious faith, much more than geographic location.

This is certainly the case in the East End of London where I serve as

a bishop, one of the most multicultural and multi-faith places

in the whole of Europe. And having returned yesterday from the 16th

meeting of the worldwide Anglican consultative Council where we

discussed with Christians from all around the world what it means to be

Christian in a world of greatest diversity and great difference, we

should also remember that multi-faith and multiculturalism in

Britain today also means significant Christian communities from around

the world practising their faith here as well as the presence of

other faith communities. Going forward, the BBC needs to work

harder at being better at reflecting this new multiracial and multi-faith

place of Britain. -- face of Britain. In particular, broadcasting

needs to be given a much higher priority in educating, informing

and, yes, entertaining us with the beauty and challenges of this

diversity. However, across the public service broadcasting sector,

religious broadcasting has been in decline for quite a long while.

Contrary to the assumptions of a largely secular media, religion is

not a Private matter, a sort of add-on to the rest of life for

people who like that sort of thing. Faith is not a leisure activity.

Rather, for those of us who live by faith, religious belief is essential

and formation all. A prime motivator of both individuals and communities

shaping their world view and inspiring and informing their

political, economic, ethical and social behaviour. Our whole nation

needs to wake up to this. And if the BBC is to be the broadcaster of the

nation and reflect our national life, then it must do, too. This

being so, it is hard to comprehend why the BBC has never appointed a

religion editor in the same way that it has an editor, an interpreter for

business, economics, politics, the arts, sports, etc. In July 2015,

Ofcom were voicing similar misgivings, their third review of

public service broadcasting identified religious broadcasting as

an area of immediate concern. Now, the BBC is still the dominant

provider of religious programmes and many of these are excellent and for

this I give thanks, but it remains the case that the BBC downgraded the

post of head of religion in January 2015 so that the post holder no

longer has authority to commission programmes. Commissioning is where

the power really lies. And this now sits with non-subject specialists in

multi-genre commissioning, a team of history, science, business and

religion. This makes strategic decisions about commissioning almost

impossible to make and limit the BBC's ability to fulfil its mission.

My Lords, at a time when it is nigh on impossible to understand the

world and understand what is going on in the world, and understand how

best to find solutions for the world so that we can live in peace, it is

impossible to do this without an understanding of religion. Those who

care about our democracy, as well as those who care about faith, need to

press the BBC to answer this question, who has overall

responsibility for the range, quantity and quality of religious

programming? Since our report, also voices concerns about the downward

trend in spending on current affairs, it is not difficult to see

how the BBC needs to strengthen its commitment to these areas of

broadcasting. Hence the expectation in our report that the BBC maintains

its commitment to religious broadcasting, increases its

commitments to current affairs and to the arts, and my personal hope,

that this is improved upon and the following recommendation, that the

BBC as the recipient of the universal licence fee needs its duty

to serve all the diverse communities of the UK and that this obligation

should be incorporated into any future accountability framework. My

Lords, I have the very great pressure to serve on the select them

committee on Communications and the distinguished chairmanship of the

noble lord Lord Best and I also pay tribute to our assistance and clerks

and special adviser to whom he referred. The BBC played a very

important part in my life, my childhood and after that. And so I

must declare that interest straightaway. Each day at 5pm while

I had my tea, I listened to Children's Hour. The Reithian

principles of inform, educate and entertain work, so it turned out, to

be a bedrock of my formative years. My favourite was Toytown, Larry Lamb

and Dennis the- town. I immediately identified with Larry the land,

being a shy, mild-mannered child. I did not realise until later in my

life that there are so many of these in the world, and even as I

discovered, one or two in your Lordships House. I also identified

with Norman Henry Bones the boy detectives. I had cousins who were

very similar who were Norman and Peter who often looked after me

used to let me out of the air raid shelter to see searchlights

illuminate the sky and then to listen out for the drone of German

bombers on their way to raid the docks at Ipswich. With one strayed,

demolishing a House only three or four houses away. I will always

remember my cousins wise advice, do not tell your mother, which came in

handy in the years to come. On another occasion, one afternoon in

the garden I noticed the sky full of planes turning gliders, it seemed

ages before they passed and no one could tell me what they were. Later,

however, we heard on the news that the gliders had landed at an arm as

part of operation market Garden. The BBC's news was an important part of

our day. My father was a soldier overseas in North Africa, Italy and

then Europe, building bridges. We did not hear from him very often but

the BBC will correspondence wove a narrative into which my imagination

inserted my father, Winfred Lord Thomas, and others were household

names with their brilliant word pictures as the wall progressed from

depression to jubilation, and the theme music for plays and serials

remains with me. They introduced each part of Ballet Shoes one of the

superb serialised books. Who can forget the introductory music to

Dick Barton's special agents? The BBC entertained us and at ten past

one on Saturday, we laughed, and on Sunday, we were introduced to

different communities. As they grow older, the importance of the BBC did

not diminish. All children must stare at the night sky and wonder at

its enormity, I certainly did, and the programme Journey Into Space

promoted that wonder and stimulator to my imagination. Laughter has

always been of great importance. I think it brings wisdom and good

health and well-being. Laughter and the absurd is part of the groove

binding us together and the feature of a civilised society. The Goon

show and Hancock 's half hour work related examples of great

performances, and that tradition has continued. The sad death yesterday

of Victoria Wood is a reminder of a tradition which includes the likely

lads, Fawlty Towers and many others. Your Lordships, will have your own

favourites. The sheer brilliance of performers, producers and

programmers at the BBC has brought entertainment, education and

information to me in my lifetime and as we listened to the evidence in

committee, I reflected on how fortunate I had

been to live through times of enormous technological change such

as colour TV, HDE, free view, I and so one. But where the skills of

programming had maintained a very high level. Today, the quality and

creativity have never been higher. The ability to market programmes

such as these are worldwide provides an essential stream of income for

the BBC and North 's not be tossed back must not be harmed or

diminished. Wherever I go around the world I hear accolades of the BBC. I

do not think we appreciate how significant this power is. There

were many criticism, of course, and we met a focus group of young

people, some of whom told us they thought the BBC did not represent

minorities and they did not see their own lives reflected on the

screen. Lord Hall for the BBC replied he was seeking to make a

real difference on the any representation both on screen and

behind it. We expect the BBC to honour its commitment and encourage

regional development. We were impressed by Salford quays, and

Birmingham and Cardiff. The BBC has become less London centric and this

must continue. We did not believe the BBC should be restricted to

remedying gaps for which the market does not provide, and on the

contrary concluded the BBC must continue to be a universal

broadcaster providing content, that also entertains.

We have no evidence to support the claim that the BBC crowded out

commercial competition. On the contrary we received evidence of the

positive benefits of the wider discovering of developing of talent

and the encouragement of training. We were not persuaded the BBC should

reduce the scale or scope of its operations either in the United

Kingdom or overseas. Others have described recommendations on the

licence fee and Charter period with which I totally agree. My Lords, I

end as I began. The BBC has played an important part in my life and it

continues to do so. I was once a part-time sheep farmer and each day

I begin by listening to Farming Today and having Spencer May my time

here today in your lordship's house I end with today in Parliament,

sometimes enraged, sometimes entertained but always a little more

educated and informed. The BBC, one of our greatest assets, nothing

should be done to harm it. I declare an interest as a producer

and director in BBC television and I'm very grateful for the kind words

that have been said about the content that my colleagues produce,

we do indeed try and informed, educate and entertain. And like to

congratulate the report stressing the importance of the BBC as an

independent, well funded public service broadcaster. I'm pleased

with the emphasis given in chapter two to the importance of strong,

independent regulator for the BBC, and I too understand why the report

didn't look at governance. But I like the noble Lords Lord Puttnam,

Lord Foster and Lord Fowler and concerned at about the assumption in

paragraph of the report about the statutory governments of the

Corporation being this place. The White Paper, I understand, is

proposing to set up a unitary board combining the present BBC executive

board and BBC Trust regulated by Ofcom. What seems to be very

important which is what the noble Lord, Lord Foster explained, was

this unitary board will be more powerful than the Trust, so much

more powerful than the Trust, it will control the BBC's strategy, and

editorial guidance, and day-to-day broadcast of the BBC, drafting and

approving editorial guidelines, maintaining editorial standards and

editorial complaints unless they are appealed to Ofcom. The Trust has

nowhere near such editorial influence. As a result the board of

this body has got to be absolutely independent. So it can be accused to

being subjected to political interference or pressure. I fear

that this independence will not be safeguarded. I too was disappointed

by Sir David Clementi's reports suggesting the chairman,

vice-chairman and four nonexecutive directors should be appointed by the

DCMS. And when I read in the Sunday Times the Culture Secretary saying

ten of the 13 members of the unitary board should be appointed by the

Government with only three members from the BBC, my concern about the

adverse affect about the independence of the BBC was

compounded by fears voiced by Sir David Norrington who retired as

Commissioner for Public appointments earlier this month. He told the

Financial Times this month that without the check and balance of the

Liberal Democrats in government, there was a feeling by the present

government that if you want to get things done you need to have people

who supervises in key roles. He followed this up in his evidence to

the public administration committee in he expressed concern following

the Government's response to the report, that there is a threat of

increased ministerial interference in the selection of public

appointments. He said the appointment of the last BBC Trust

chair had been well won and was free of ministerial interference.

However, he warned that having seen the Government's response to the

composer was, such a hands off approach might not be possible in

the future. I support Lord Foster and Lord Puttnam's suggestions that

they should be an independent body that will appoint the board members.

If we fail to do that your Lordships only have to look at the political

interference with the appointments of a sickie tips in public service

broadcasters that takes place in many partner countries in the EU.

Many are appointed director by the government and change when the

government changes, or individual channels are controlled by separate

parties. These have an influence on the political alliance of the

station and means they are not impartial which I'm sure your

Lordships would not want to happen. I've got an e-mail this morning from

the wife of an opposition leader in Poland, who explained what was

happening with the Polish broadcasters. Of course, this is not

relevant to what our government proposes but it is a warning of how

extremely fragile the independence of public service broadcasters is.

The e-mail goes: the Polish government has dismissed the

independent board which are supposed to supervise state TV, fired all of

the heads of radio and TV, appointed new ones, all such appointments will

now be made directly by government ministers and drastically alter the

nature of programming. As a result over 100 journalists have been fired

or resigned. The result, the meanest style pro-ruling party propaganda of

a kind we have not seen in Poland since 1989. Of course, this is not

what is going to happen here, but I would urge your Lordships to be

aware of what a precious thing is the independence of the BBC. As a

former editor at Newsnight I know first-hand what they will do to

ensure that their view of the world is projected on the BBC. In my

experience this relates to all governments of all political

persuasions and I fear that we live in a world in which many people

think if you are not with them you must be against them. The BBC and

other broadcasters are mandated to be impartial but it's crucial that

everything is done to defend that position. This reporter said

impartiality is at the core of the BBC. I hope that the minister in

preparing for the White Paper will listen very hard to the massive

public response to the BBC public trust consultation, in which the

people of this country overwhelmingly said they wanted it

to be independent and free from political interference. I asked the

noble lady what will be done in the White Paper to ensure this happens

with the appointments to the new unitary board.

My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the Select Committee communications

under its excellent share Lord Best, having delivered an exemplary

report, both focused in scope and wise in its conclusions, and I

concur with much of what has already been said in its favour and support

that. It is to be commended to all parliamentarians, especially those

eager to see the BBC sold off, or simply shackled. The public, as a

recent poll indicated, is not with them. The BBC remains are loved and

admired institution by the great majority of those who own it, by

which I mean the licence payers of this country. To act in defiance of

the expressed opinions would be to damaged one of our national

institutions to gratify the self interests of the commercial radio

and television Enterprises. My Lords, when I interviewed Lord Reith

in this house back in 1970 he was very disapproving of television. He

deplored the fact they broadcast Jazz, which he regarded as the music

of the devil. He had a distinct preference for educational

programmes, those that instilled rigorous Christian principles and

behaviour. But of course, he was then a man at the end of his life,

to some extent disappointed with that life and embittered about what

he had seen happen to broadcasting. But I'm still sure that the younger

Reith, that vigorous young man, who pressed ahead with the exploring of

television's possibilities in the 1930s in order to be ahead of the

Americans, as he said, that he was the defy of government interference,

turning away Churchill's emissaries at the time of the national strike.

He would be proud of the leading role the BBC plays in sustaining

standards in promoting British interests and influence around the

globe, and in not having commercial breaks. Lord Reith managed to sum up

as we have heard the purpose of the BBC in just one phrase. It can

scarcely be better to inform, educate and entertain. Terse, as my

Lord Bishop has said, and exact. I did not think it could be improved.

However, the suggestion the phrase, and to reflect, by a single word

encompasses and enlarges the remit of the BBC, appropriate to the

Times, is to be commended. The committee's recommendations covered

much but I would just speak to two of them. Having worked within the

BBC throughout numerous licence renewal occasions, I know that the

prospect throws BBC management into a distracted frenzy of concern.

Licence renewal casts a long shadow, distorting the focus and

concentration of its managers, heads of Department, channel controllers,

and even programme makers. It is an ordeal that lasts years, and when

the licence is finally renewed, everyone sits back sighing with

relief that the negotiations have gone away for, well, for how long?

For a good few years. My Lord, this frenzy is even worse around the time

of elections, whether elections are coming up, whether they are just

over. Both leading parties, indeed all parties, blame the BBC for the

supposed broadcasting bias that robbed them of victory, or even

greater success. They can't all be right, but it is a matter of blaming

the messenger. And it makes for a climate of resentment and revenge

that is no mood in which to address serious and thoughtful

considerations over the BBC's future. My Lords, for this reason,

for these reasons, I support the committee's recommendations that the

Charter only come up for renewal every ten years, and that it is on

coupled from that deadly electoral cycle. I think the recommendation is

sound and wise and it would allow for considering long-term planning

which in the global media world means precise marketing knowledge,

and a sense of the rhythm of change to which this industry is subject.

The second concern of the committee which I wish to address is this

matter of scale and scope. There have been suggestions, mainly from

other broadcasting bodies, that the BBC should be limited within its

scope, possibly confining itself to the news and current affairs, Sirius

documentaries, education, all areas of broadcasting which attract low

viewing figures. And therefore they are not prise pickings for

commercial companies. This is clearly a pitched to cut the BBC

down to size. It would be disastrous for the BBC as a global player. It

is essential that its creative heart line is given scope to be inventive

across the whole area of human activity. That's where it's genius

lies. What other company would have backed a modest idea to encourage

people to bake cakes and see it grow into a global format? And once it

was successful would such a format be declared beyond the BBC's scope?

What happens now? The whole concept is flawed and unworkable. My Lords,

the BBC faces change and needs to change. The media landscape is

always shifting and it needs the backing of government and of the

industry to continue as the flagship of broadcasting it is known to be

worldwide. I have only been in your lordship's

has 452 years but are used to do media research and I am only hairy

Lee I think because of my grandfather. -- I am only here,

really. With recommendations as to the

conditions under which such services should be offered. Results, the

Selsdon report. I had never heard of that, because I wasn't sure why I

had a different name from my father. I did do media research quite

thoroughly over a period of time and at home we were only allowed to

listen to the BBC. In fact, everyone else was bound, including in the

early days of television. It was in May 1934 that the government first

appointed a committee under the guidance of my grandfather to begin

enquiries into the viability of setting up a public television

service with recommendations as to the conditions under which the

service should be offered. My Lords, I have a tremendous affection for

the BBC. I cannot help it. In the days when I did media research, we

tended to be influenced ourselves mainly by characters. My Lords, here

in your lordship's House, we have a remarkable depth of knowledge and

experience but we don't necessarily know each other. There was, and

there still is, a BBC advisory Council which goes on and on but the

BBC is a global institution, it is not a British institution. If you

have been in parts of Africa where in order to encourage local

communities to come operate in mind mining or things like that, you hand

out the radio to work or they may listen to the BBC, you realise the

extent of its coverage and the respect in which it is held. What it

does is another matter. With television, it is a fairly fickle

and -- difficult matter. We don't have necessarily the media research

and depth of marketing that one would expect on a global basis. I do

not see why there should not be a special relationship with every

Commonwealth country to be able to broadcast programmes daily and

constantly write a way around the world, the technology is all ready

there and the expertise remains. My Lords, I would like to make a simple

suggestion, we need to have a programme, a business plan that we

will look at the BBC. I know I am hearing entirely because of my

grandfather, I know that I was never allowed to listen to any programme

that was not BBC. They couldn't, however, teach me languages. I was

sent off to various countries. With that type of respect, I find myself

unable to be of much assistance to your Lordships today. However, what

I would like the government to give a little bit more attention

that in developing Britain British relationships, the BBC could play a

more important role than it does today, not least on television and

production and syndication of programmes right the way across the

world including its value in the learning of English. So waste it

down and say thank you to your Lordships will come in here today. I

am so surprised that I find out more about myself than I deemed possible

and wondered why my grandfather had never told me anything about it and

why I was never allowed to watch television until they reached a

certain age. I wish the BBC well, I have a great affection for it and

that will remain with me until I die. First of all, may I

congratulate the noble lord Lord vessel securing this debate at a

particularly timely moment. -- Lord best. There is so much I agree with,

but if I were to talk about it I would just take, take. In this

debate I hope there is room to proceed, to see the BBC not so much

through the prism of the review, though that has been mother sleep

addressed by previous speakers in detail -- marvellously. But from the

general point of view of someone who works with it, as I do, he began his

career there in 1961 as a trainee, who listened to the radio in the 40s

and in a sense was, if I may use the word, suckled by it and I believe it

is a unique force for excellence and cohesion in this country. Currently,

the BBC is on tremendous form. Its recent dramas and art pulling off

hype ratings and high praise. They have got three out of three so far

and it is only April. In the end, the BBC is the sum of its

programmes. Panorama row gram on the Panama set up boldly set up the

context for a continuing debate. Newsnight had the nerve to bite the

hand that feeds all could starve it and has wounded it already with its

pees on Mr Whittingdale. The news struggles with impartiality and

balancing some arguments that it is still walking the tightrope

admirably. Above the noise, there is the even beat of the five national

and many regional radio channels that perhaps more than any

productions, best represent the muscle, pulse and the mind of this

nation. Wherever there are debates on the BBC, as we mentioned, and I

have taken part in many dozen, always, there is a wholly convincing

majority for supporting BBBC. I see no demonstrations about the BBC in

our streets, where in our country there would be demonstrations about

the removal of a bus stop. It encourages a multitude of writers,

actors, producers, directors, talent in radio and television which is the

cornerstone of the cultural power that this country undoubtedly has at

the moment and no other country has it. It is comparatively inexpensive

and works magnificently and delivers for this country and is still

recognisably inside the discipline of Lord Reith. But we seem to exist

in an atmosphere of permanent crisis about the future of the BBC. From

the government and also from parts of the media as if it were a

patient. Most averse to not see what the fuss is about. -- most of us.

Some grievances need to be addressed, such as the Imperial

growth of the BBC disturbs the unsubsidised parts of our economy

and the BBC is right to be much more aware of it more than ever before.

The BBC is so fast in its output that it is not too difficult to pick

up or embellish stories, and ensure in certain knowledge that the

compelling letters BBC will draw readers attention to the content of

that story. It is at once a national treasure and a national dartboard, a

dual role. It is argued by some the BBC's fundamental similarity, or

peculiarity, is an affront to the prevailing capitalism of the day,

and in some ways it does interfere. All, it is a stimulator in

alternative, adding to the variety of this country, it's richness,

oppositional argument. It furthers the roles of others,

tempers and enriches with the competition of the BBC. This country

is and always has been, a place of tribes. Ethnically different,

culturally diverse. In Ireland -- Islands bounded by and bonded by the

seas. Many have tried and failed to reach out to all jostling, sometimes

rival groups, over the centuries and through democracy we have finally

arrived at April double though fragile method of inclusion. BBBC's

democratic inclusiveness is not only a strength, it is its purpose. We

want the best in our society and despite catcalls from the galleries,

several of our institutions try and can succeed in bringing together the

existing and new tribes. The BBC does what it does with style and

consistency and force, bringing together majorities and minorities

watching the same programmes or live events. Most of all, the BBC is a

statement of public service, that phrase has seen its meaning weakened

over the years. Pro bono publico has not gone away,

millions of people in this country is still alive to it, still working

by it, still believing that to work is one thing and to serve the public

is another and they needn't be separate. You could say that

especially today that we see the monarchy under Her Majesty Queen

Elizabeth II as a symbol of public service and the admiration, even

reference, is to do with the palpable sense of service to the

public. The BBC still remains despite its gas, being treated by

the government as it cash cow for social policies, a symbol this

country craves. People want to return to what they think of us

living properly. What Orwell called the decency of these people. Of

course, this includes us. We have to create wealth, make a living and

constructor complexes sired two bit wheels are needed in element of

something else, perhaps the word better might serve.

But is it unfettered by the demands of making and getting? Independent

and the name of all of us without which we would be so much poorer and

it would be so much less of a place. If it is chipped away as the BBC is

chipped away, as some people out there want it to be chipped away, we

will be much less and we will have lost what has been so strenuously

built-up, cherished and loved over many decades, that is something

unique something which Lord Best said at the beginning of this

debate, we can be, and are, proud. My Lords, like Olmo bull Lords who

have spoken so far in the debate, I congratulate Lord Best and his

committee -- like all noble Lords. On his excellent report. Continuing

uncertainty about the Government's plans is very harmful to the BBC and

to the public interest. The continual uncertainty at the

Government's dumping of the cost of free licensing for the over-75s on

the BBC rather than taxpayers have undermined morale within the BBC, as

well as public trust and confidence. The Dominant is likely to replace

the BBC Trust with a new unitary board as recommended by Sir David

Clementi. The new board will have executive functions relating to the

content of its broadcasts. That makes it essential that the chair,

deputy chair, and other members of the board are independent and

manifestly seem to be independent. It is essential they are

independently appointed without ministerial influence. Lord Hall has

rightly said that the BBC needs regulation that is effective but not

prescriptive. He's emphasised the importance of protecting the BBC's

independence, recalling that Willie Whitelaw gave the BBC a 15 year

Charter. The Government should follow that example for the next 11

years. What we call a Royal Charter is really a ministerial Charter.

It's a Charter shaped by ministers using the prerogative powers

inherited from the Crown. We speak of Parliamentary sovereignty as the

cornerstone of the British constitution, but it is ministers

and not Parliament that determine the scope and effect of the Charter.

There are no overarching binding principles approved by parliament,

but ministers for the BBC must respect. As Lord Birt, former

director-general and television journalist said during the debate on

the 10th of March, a Royal Charter, far from being a powerful symbol and

safeguard of the BBC's independence, on the contrary, it enables

governments to be less countable van even medieval kings. To amend the

Charter through the Privy Council and to inflict unprincipled and

material change on the BBC. -- accountable than even. It is time to

place the BBC on a statutory footing. My Lords, Lord Fowler, on

whose most powerful speech I congratulate him, Lord Fowler and

Lord Inglewood, another former chair of the communications committee,

have suggested that the Charter is an anomaly that should be replaced

by legislation, much as Channel 4. But it is inconceivable, as the

Minister will confirm, that the present government would agree to

dispense with the Charter. In truth, the choice is not only a binary

choice between legislation and Charter, a statute could and should

set out the governing principles protecting the independence and

effectiveness of the BBC as public service broadcaster, and the core

duties of the BBC and of the Secretary of State. It should make

the Charter and Charter changes subject to approval by both Houses

of Parliament. In that way the BBC's independence would be protected

against political interference. So, as others have indicated, I'm

fashioning a bill to provide a framework of core principles and

duties governing ministers and the BBC, and the Charter and its

renewal, while leaving the detail to be covered in the Charter and the

accompanying agreement. I hope it will have support in Parliament and

Whitehall. Several noble Lords who can't be here today have authorised

me to indicate their support including Lord Inglewood and Lord

Pannick. My Lords, the bill will provide for the BBC to be a

statutory Corporation, established by Royal Charter, but subject to the

bill's criteria. The bill will underpin the BBC's duty as public

service broadcaster to serve the public interest by informing,

educating and entertaining the people of the United Kingdom,

including its nations, regions or communities by means of television,

radio, online services and other similar services. It's important for

the BBC and nobody else to define the scope of public service

broadcasting and its limits. The bill will protect the BBC's

independence as regards the content of its output, The Times and manner

at which the output is supplied and the governance and management of its

affairs. The Secretary of State, other ministers of the Crown, the

BBC and anyone else with a responsibility for the BBC's

governance will have a duty to ensure that the BBC is able to

operate independently from ministers and other public authorities in the

United Kingdom. The Secretary of State will be required to make

available to the BBC sufficient funds to enable the BBC to perform

its functions to promote public purposes as a public service

broadcaster. The licence fee must be for the exclusive use of the BBC in

performing those functions. It will be indexed linked and increased at

least against inflation. The BBC's funding must be protected against

top slicing, as happened for example under the current licence fee deal

with ?115 million per year is diverted from the licence fee to

subsidise BT's broadband roll-out. The Secretary of State will not be

able to transfer public expenditure to the BBC. If ministers and future

ministers want to change this they will have to persuade Parliament to

legislate my Lords, the BBC's use of the licence fee carries

responsibilities but those are matters not for the Government but

for the new board and senior staff and regulator. Under my build there

will be an independent external regulator, whether Ofcom or

otherwise to oversee the performance of the BBC's duties as public

service broadcaster, including any increase above inflation in the

licence fee. The Secretary of State and other ministers will be

forbidden to seek to influence the BBC's decisions will stop the

Secretary of State will be required to have regard to the need to defend

the BBC's independence, the need for the BBC to have the financial and

non-financial support needed to enable it to exercise its functions

and the need for the public interest to be considered in regard to

matters relating to the BBC. An independent board of I suggest not

more than 40 members, including the chair and deputy chair, will govern

the BBC -- 14 members. They should be people with skill, knowledge and

experience needed to perform the functions as public service

broadcaster. Members should be drawn from across the nations and regions

of the United Kingdom, including the BBC licence fee's payers and present

and former members of staff. Crucially, they must not be

political appointments, but must be appointed by an independent

appointments committee established by the Commissioner for Public

appointments. The board will be required to carry out its duties in

an open and transparent manner. The Royal Charter and any amendments to

the Charter will not have effect or be granted, unless the draft or

amendment has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each

house of Parliament. My Lords, for the last six years the BBC has seen

no increase in its funding from the licence fee so it has had to make

millions of pounds of cuts in its services and staff. But reforms are

needed and reforms are being made. The number of managers remains far

too high in spite of commitments to reduce their ranks by 1000. The BBC

must not operate from an ivory tower broadcasting to an intellectual

elite. But the BBC has become overblown and top-heavy, and

involved in commercial projects that could be left to others. Again,

these are matters for the board and the senior staff and the regulator

to address, not for government. My Lords, the public enthusiastically

trust the BBC, as we have said in this debate repeatedly, and

appreciates the public service it provides. The BBC staff do their

best to deliver a first class and balanced public service despite the

worsening financial pressures. This government has dumped more than ?600

million in public spending on to the BBC by transferring the cost of

licence fees for the over-75s. This makes the BBC carry the burden of

fulfilling part of the Government's welfare policy. The BBC is now faced

with serious threat of the new unitary board that is appointed

politically by ministers and may influence content. My Lords, as

several of my Lords have said, the BBC is a national treasure that

could easily be harmed by government interference. We all want to ensure

the independence of the BBC so that it pursues the Reithian principles

that have made it the most respected broadcaster in the world. I hope

that the government will accept the need for a properly funded BBC that

is independent and free from political interference, and is able

with its guaranteed income to produce impartial, high-quality

programming that is envied over the world. That's what my bill will seek

to safeguard. But, my Lords, ultimately it is the public, to coin

a phrase, that must fight and fight and fight again for the BBC they

loaf. -- they love. My Lords, and delighted to take part in this

debate on the report aptly named Reith Not Revolution and I thank

Lord Best for his excellent and diligent chairmanship. As many noble

Lords have already made clear it is essential the BBC remains the

keystone of British broadcasting and continues to play a central role in

the wider creative industries. The BBC must maintain its reputation for

quality and independence throughout the world. This is only possible

with the continued support from government in keeping with the

overwhelming wishes of the British public apparent from the DCMS's

consultation sponsor summary published in March this year.

Findings showed that the public do value the BBC and believe it

produces high and distinctive content and wants it to remain

independent. But as in our report, concern was voiced that the BBC

falls short for some viewers such as reaching black, Asian and ethnic

minority and young audiences and presenting the lives of people in

the UK's nations and regions. Just to highlight how important the BBC

is for the country it's worth stating that BBC services reach 97%

of the UK population every week with an average of around 8.5 hours of TV

and over ten hours of BBC radio per head. For ?145.50 per year audiences

have provided nine national TV channels, ten national radio

channels, 39 local radio stations and a wealth of online and mobile

services including BBC Three, iPlayer and bbc.co.uk. But as our

report says, the committee has high expectations for the BBC than of

other public broadcasters. The BBC must play its part by reaffirming

the Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain, and also to

reflect better the society we live in as other noble Lords have

mentioned. The BBC should make a particular commitment to reflect the

nation's regions and all the diverse communities of the UK. The BBC has

unique obligations to its audiences Aggers it is established by Royal

Charter, no matter how controversial that is today and dispensable source

of funding is universal licence fee. It must set the gold standard

amongst the public service broadcasters and thereby remain one

of the nation's most treasured institutions.

In a paid is that the BBC recognises the attitude be held firmly to

account by licence fee payers, Parliament and by the new regulator,

but it is also imperative that the BBC must retain its creative and

editorial freedom to react to the highly competitive media market and

social conditions. That is why our report wants to see the BBC better

reflect UK society in all its diversity. We were concerned to

hear, and I quote, from a number of witnesses who felt the BBC did not

reflect their lives, particularly from the panel of young people,

those with a disability and those from with in the BAe -- B M A

community. The BBC has recognised this and we expect to see an

improvement in this. The head of diversity and inclusion at the BBC

said, we all want to get the same result. The BBC where all our

audiences can see their lives then took leave portrayed by all our

programmes, where our programmes are made from a diverse group of people

and where your background, what ever it is, is no bearing on your

opportunity to have a career here. The proportion of black, Asian and

female workforce is at an all-time high. I welcome the independent

group, including the noble Baroness, Lady Taney Grey Thompson, who will

continue to hold the BBC to account. Likewise, it is good to see the new

BBC Academy in Birmingham which aims to attract the best talent from all

over the UK. It extended recruitment which tries to recruit people from

the disabled background has reached 628 people in the time it has been

running. Last year, the BBC launched a programme to try to develop young

BMAE talent and those who reached the end of the programme were first

tracked -- fast tracked into a training role. I hope that it will

successfully meet its targets to successfully employed more BME

people by 2017. It is also important to improve on-air portrayal. The BBC

recognises this with its hope to increase portrayal of BMAE by three

extra percent to 17% by 2017. They are also trying to increase the

number of disabled people on screen. I hope that a new documentary,

bringing Juliet into the 21st-century, recasting her for

today's diverse society, which will have lots of disabled actors and

actresses with in it will be a trailblazer for that. The a word is

described as a brilliant description of family life and is also blazing a

trail. Other ground-breaking programmes are also out there. I

hope the BBC will continue to reflect a modern Britain, ensuring

it remains pertinent to the young, as well as the rest of its audience,

and maintains its vital role within our nation. I'm sure the BBC can

have a vital feature and there is no scope for the Government to reduce

its scope. I hope the charter renewal process will prove an

opportunity to refresh but not fracture the BBC. I rise with some

trepidation as the register of interests notes I am a trustee of

the BBC, that much maligned species. You might ask why I joined the BBC

trust. I did so because the BBC has always been important in my life and

my career. Indeed, I worked in that iconic building, Bush house, as a

journalist and editor for the World Service for some eight years from

1984 to 1992. They're after, I left the BBC to work for the United

Nations and served for many years in Cambodia, the Balkans and the Middle

East. During those years, the BBC was vitally important for me. Far

more important than that, I saw that it was so critically important for

the people with whom I worked in those countries. I worked for Kofi

and man, the former Secretary General of the UN, who once famously

described the BBC as Britain's greatest contribution to the world

in the 20th-century. The World Service has been able to make that

enormous contribution because it is part of the wider BBC which has,

over the past 90 years, done so much to inform, educate and entertain, in

the words of the great John Reid, one of the greatest public servants

this country has ever produced. -- Reith. At the outset, I believe

there can be no argument that the BBC is one of the greatest

organisations in the world. This year marks the 400th birthday of one

of our greatest writers, William Shakespeare, and the BBC will be

marking that with a programme which brings together the Royal

Shakespeare Company, say Ian McKellen, Judi Dench and the Royal

Ballet in a televised event to honour the birthday of the national

bard. It is typical of what our great public broadcaster can do at

its best, bringing together our finest cultural institutions and

stars and broadcast, nationwide, as well as internationally, to the

widest possible audience. The very concept of public service

broadcasting was pioneered here in Britain by the BBC. We should be

immensely proud of that. From 1932, the BBC began to broadcast globally,

first in English and then, in 1938, interestingly, in Arabic, on either

of the Second World War. Sadly the need for broadcasting in that

language is as great now as it was then. I believe that the journalism

at the BBC goes from strength to strength under the leadership of

James Harding, the editor of the News Department. Recently, I saw an

extraordinary report on the ten o'clock News, the News at ten, from

Alistair Lee's head in Nigeria, looking at the horrible movement of

Boca Rampe, the mystery of the 200 girls who were kidnapped by that

bile group. I can't think of another broadcaster who would have given

prime-time coverage to that group and its horrible work. My Lords, I

congratulate Lord Best and his committee for producing an excellent

report that has informed this debate on an institution which is national

as well as international. At a time when our international presence is

diminishing, when much of the world watches with amazement at our

pending referendum, we can ill afford to see the BBC retreat. I

commend the Government for the extra funds it has put at the use of the

BBC in 2015, four African languages and for the establishment of the

Korean service, so long championed by the noble lord. Also for the

encouragement and further meant of the Arabic and Farsi wing of the

BBC. This is the year of charter renewal and I hope it is not marred

by the cuts would have been inflicted on public broadcasters in

Canada and Australia in recent years. I would submit that that is

not a path we want to see the BBC go down. The BBC can ill afford to see

any more surprises from Government of the sort meted out by the

Chancellor last year. As a result of that step, as many of the Lords in

this House have noticed, the BBC has had to take responsibility for the

free licenses for the over 75 is introduced by the Labour Government

led by Gordon Brown. There should be no more acts of this order. The BBC

is not a state broadcaster. It is for governments to decide

appropriate levels of social welfare for the elderly and to accept the

cost and not pass them the BBC. Assurance in that respect from the

Minister would be most welcome and that there will be no similar

action. Turning to Lord Best's report, I, like other members of the

trust, welcomed the suggestion that there should be an 11 year charter,

an 11 year charter which I think is vital to detach the process from the

electoral cycle, that should be obvious to us all. The need for an

independent regulator to set the level of the license the and an end

to the top slicing of the license the or any kind of contestable fund

paid for by the license the pages. The importance of the BBC's

independence, financial, editorial and operational, comes through so

strongly in this report. This independence is vital for the future

of the BBC and it matters crucially to the license payers. Following the

publication of the Green paper on the charter review in July 2015, the

trust launched its own consultation for members of the public to have

their say on the future of the BBC. Alongside this, the trust

commissioned qualitative and quantitative research to examine

issues in greater depth. That consultation found that nine in ten,

some 88% of respondents, felt that it was important that the BBC remain

independent and a large majority, 79%, that that it was very

important. Let me make three critical points. The BBC's financial

independence, that is absolutely imperative to the organisation's

feature. Future funding periods should, I believe, be funded for no

less than six years to provide certainty for planning. Licence fee

monies should be dedicated to BBC services and should not ever again

be used to fund wider Government programmes. The crucial new proposal

relates to a process to determine the license fee will stop after

three I'm clear processes for determining this, the trust is

calling for it to be written into the charter, giving a formal and

clear process with a timescale to be established. The regulator, whether

it is Ofcom or someone else, needs to be empowered to bring evidence in

two the debate on the BBC's funding, providing the Government, Parliament

and the public with proper debate before decisions are taken. It is

also my firm opinion that there should be no bit point review, much

speculated upon in the press. It is a firm opinion of the trust... I'm

sorry, that this would create unnecessary operational uncertainty

for the BBC and make long-term planning difficult. Moreover, it

could potentially affect their ability to invest in projects which

benefit both the public and the BBC -- and the UK's creative industries.

The current charter has shown flexibility to enable the BBC to

react effectively, in a shifting technological landscape. For

example, the decision to launch the eye player in 2007. A midpoint

review, we believe, is unnecessary. Thirdly, and finally, my lord, we

support the proposal from the report for the creation of a unitary board,

independent from the Government, but we have significant concerns that

DCM as should be the organisation with the power to appoint the

unitary board. This, we believe, is unacceptable. Instead, it should be

a transparent process for the appointment of the board.

Ministerial involvement should only be to the appointment of the chair.

This is a view which is widely supported by a polling which the

trust has carried out. Earlier today in this House we carried out a