|
Issue of the day: BBC reform
Party spokesmen debate their plans for the future of the BBC.
Labour: Culture secretary Tessa Jowell
Perhaps the most predictable thing about the broadcasting industry is its unpredictability. However quickly you think it will evolve, it exceeds expectations. In 1988 Britain had four TV channels. Today there are more than 400. Ten years ago, watching TV on a computer sounded like a futuristic fantasy. Today it’s a reality for many people.
My job is to make future-proof plans for a constantly evolving landscape. This was a major challenge of the recent BBC charter review green paper, which maps out a future for the BBC in a time of unparalleled change.
A fundamental decision was to give the BBC the charter and licence fee for another 10 years. This may seem a bold move at a relatively early stage in the process. But it is also absolutely the right one. The licence fee is not perfect. But it remains the fairest way to fund the BBC and that it is why it retains a surprisingly high degree of public support.
However, there will be change at the BBC. And much of it will be radical - most notably in governance.
There has been much debate over recent months, but what almost everyone agrees is that the existing board of governors' dual role of cheerleader and regulator is unsustainable. In its place we will set up a BBC Trust that will be the custodian of the BBC's public purposes and the licence fee.
A new executive board will be accountable to the Trust for delivery of high quality services that have a strong public service thread running through them.
To justify the licence fee, the BBC must not play copycat, chase ratings for ratings' sake, or aggressively counter-schedule against commercial broadcasters.
It may be that in the future there is a case for public funding for other channels. This question will be revisited during the period of the next charter.
Probably the biggest challenge faced in drafting the green paper was accounting for the switch to digital-only TV in Britain. The green paper puts the BBC where it should be on this: leading from the front. It will be at the forefront of public information campaigns. And it will help to establish and fund schemes that will help the most vulnerable consumers.
Digital switchover is still very much work in progress. We estimate that it will take place between 2008 and 2012 on a region-by-region basis. But before we announce a final timetable, we have to ensure the interests of everyone, particularly the most vulnerable, are protected.
So, while there are many variables and unknowns in the future of broadcasting, one certainty is that the industry will continue to grow and evolve at a prodigious rate. Another certainty is that this government will continue to strive to give the industry stability and to protect the best interests of viewers and listeners everywhere.
Conservatives: Shadow culture secretary John Whittingdale
Since the BBC's charter was last renewed, there has been a revolution in broadcasting. Then, less than a quarter of UK households had access to analogue and satellite services. Today, more than half are multi-channel digital households.
If the justification for a publicly owned and funded BBC is to remain then the BBC needs to adapt to this new world; yet the government’s green paper is essentially a recipe for no change.
As well as an independent regulator, we would also like to see Ofcom take over responsibility for adjudicating complaints about unfair trading practices and about impartiality - as it is already does for the commercial broadcasters.
The intention that the BBC should continue to investigate and adjudicate complaints from its rivals about its own behaviour is wholly unacceptable.
The failure of the BBC to meet the statutory 25 per cent quota for independent productions for three years running demonstrates the BBC's willingness to pay lip service to its obligations until faced with an external regulator with the power to impose real sanctions if it fails to comply.
We will strengthen the requirement by putting a ceiling of 50 per cent on the BBC's in-house production of qualifying programmes, thus giving a real boost to independent production companies across the UK.
There is no doubt that the BBC licence fee is a regressive tax which impacts hardest on those who can least afford to pay. It is also costly to administer and is widely evaded.
For the time being, it is difficult to see a realistic alternative. However, opposition is bound to grow as more and more resent having to pay an ever-increasing fee for programmes they choose not to watch or for channels they cannot receive.
We will also want to look again at all the costs and benefits associated with analogue switch-off. No-one doubts the huge benefits of digital television and more and more are choosing to adopt it.
However, there are some who are quite content with four or five existing analogue channels, and of the 55 per cent who have access to digital services, the vast majority still have one or more analogue sets. Around a fifth of these are portable or have portable aerials and are therefore potentially unsuitable for a Freeview box.
Ofcom's consumer panel has estimated that between £250m and £400m will need to be spent on assisting disadvantaged groups. No wonder that the Expert Consumer Group concluded that the government appear to overestimate the benefit and underestimate the cost of switch-off.
Yet it is proposed to begin the process in two years' time. Before embarking on such a radical and potentially unpopular strategy, these and many other issues need to be addressed. So far, there is little evidence that the government is willing to do so.
Liberal Democrats: Culture spokesman Don Foster
[T]he BBC 'green paper, with white edges', as Tessa Jowell described it, was labelled a 'yellow paper' for cowardly sidestepping key, controversial issues.
It was an unfair attack – no surprise it came from the BBC's commercial rival, the Murdoch stable. Unfair because the green paper broadly got it right - it accepts the crucial importance of the BBC granting a 10 year charter, it supports the continuation of the licence fee, and it recognises the need for a BBC of size and scope.
But the green paper could have gone further, especially in relation to governance. I wanted a new, external and independent regulator proposed to ensure that not just the BBC but all public service broadcasters live up to their obligations to the public.
Instead, the government's proposal for a BBC Trust with strategic oversight of major BBC decisions and oversight of whether or not it meets its public service purposes will perpetuate the conflict of interests that existed under the current governors.
Liberal Democrats would like to see the regulators of the BBC independent from government and so would make Parliament as a whole responsible for appointing candidates with suitable media experience.
[S]witchover has been bedevilled by faint leadership. The original government target of switchover by 2010 was dropped. The lack of a new target is now hugely damaging. The government's own cost-benefit analysis predicts the net value of switchover diminishes by £250-300m for each year of delay.
Like any such project, switchover poses problems and requires many parties working together on issues like protecting the vulnerable.
So, while the government weren't 'yellow' over the BBC, they certainly haven't done much to refute such accusations on digital switchover - in particular, through their failure to announce a date.
The above texts are edited versions of articles which first appeared in The House Magazine.
|
