MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 144

The Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, for the convenience of your Lordships this Motion is grouped with Motions 145A, 264A and 265A. I move the Motion because it was the best way that I could find to give your Lordships' House the chance, before the House rises for the Summer Recess, to express a concern which I know is widely shared about the future of the World Service of the BBC in the face of the radical re-organisation that is presently being undertaken by the BBC. In doing so, I declare an interest in the sense that a member of my family works for the World Service.

These new clauses and new schedules are before your Lordships for the first time. As the Minister said, they carry forward the privatisation of the BBC transmitter system. The World Service's overseas transmitters are an important part of that system. Like the World Service 1078 as a whole, they are funded by the Government. There are at present 11 World Service transmitter sites: four in the UK, and seven overseas, with an annual operating budget of £23 million. There is a twelfth transmitter in Thailand which will come on stream later this year. A vital new transmitter is being planned for Oman, but the finance is still to be found.

The political and regulatory arrangements for privatisation of the overseas sites are particularly complicated, and I do not wish to go into that today. In the past, transmitters have been much at risk at times of international tension. We are entitled, just on the transmitter front, to have an assurance from the Minister that if the Government persist in that aspect of the privatisation the capacity remains to look after the interests of those who are working at those transmitters, and to ensure that the capacity to continue operating will be properly protected.

Those overseas transmitters—privatised or not—will be greatly reduced in value if the quality and distinctive character of the World Service are undermined by the radical reorganisation of the BBC as a whole, which has now been launched, and in which the English language news and current affairs are to be commissioned from a new central news organisation, serving both radio and television for all domestic services as well as for the World Service.

The editorial integrity and independence of the World Service from any sort of political interference are of course vital, but the Government have a special responsibility for the World Service, which is different from their responsibilities towards the rest of the BBC. They have a responsibility, first, to ensure that it is funded adequately—that is a subject for another debate, not for tonight—and, equally, they have a responsibility to both its listeners overseas and to British taxpayers at home to ensure that the Government obtain value for money.

All the evidence is that the FCO, which is the responsible department for the grant for the World Service, was treated in the same cavalier way as were the senior management of the World Service and the BBC more generally, and in the same cavalier way, as far as I can gather, as the general body of governors was treated, and informed after the decisions had been taken and the new appointments determined.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor, the Minister in another place, claimed the other day that these are only proposals from the BBC and not a fait accompli. I hope that the Minister can give us some clarity on this matter. The Guardian newspaper today carries a report that the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, has asked the BBC to come and see him about the matter because he is angry that his department: was only informed of Mr. Birt's plans less than 24 hours before they were published". If in replying the Minister could tell us whether or not that is true, and what steps are being taken if it is true, it would be helpful to those noble Lords who are concerned about these matters.

Along with others, I was glad to hear from Mr. Sam Younger, the managing director of the World Service, in a briefing meeting that he held here yesterday that the 1079 original plan is in the process of some modification, at least until April 1998. What he called a "dedicated World Service news team" would continue to operate from inside Bush House, with its own responsible people with experience of the special needs and nature of the BBC World Service news activities. We were told that that would exist until at least April 1998 when the BBC has longer term building plans to bring all its activities under one roof. In any case, I understand that the Bush House lease comes to an end at the beginning of the next century.

I regard that as a welcome move and a welcome breathing space—I regard it as only a breathing space—for working out in a calmer, more considered and more consultative way how the benefits claimed for the wider BBC in the digital age out of the reorganisation may be achieved without damaging the special quality of the World Service.

That brings me up against the way in which the director-general, Mr. John Birt, has conducted this matter. I do not for a moment argue that the World Service should be immune from change in a world whose broadcasting technology, as we recognise in the Bill, is changing fast, but I question the method of almost total non-consultation adopted. I hope that the new BBC chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, whom I know personally, and who has great experience of broadcasting and business, will feel that there is a lesson to be learned here and will not allow that arrogant exercise to be repeated.

The only defence that I have been able to extract for the way in which the reorganisation has been done is that if there had been consultation, there would have had to be negotiation and that would have been an abdication of leadership. If that is modern McKinsey management philosophy, I hope that it will be abandoned by the BBC in the future.

Of course, the BBC is a peculiarly difficult organisation to manage. When it faces change it is full of leaky prima donnas who reach for a telephone to their favourite journalist every time they have a grievance. But that is the heat of the kind of kitchen in which the BBC's Director-General has to work. If you do not consult and do not try to carry people with you—good, loyal people who are proud of the BBC World Service—you get the present result. Whatever the pros and cons of the wider reorganisation which the BBC is undertaking—and I am sure that there are both pros and cons—it now faces the separate, self-created issue of a widespread crisis of morale.

The culture and ethos of an organisation—especially one as separated from the mainstream BBC as is Bush House—is the delicate achievement of years of people working together. It can be deeply damaged at an administrative stroke. In a situation such as this, what I might call the general body of governors of the BBC have a heavy responsibility. I should like to feel sure that they were ready to carry that out in the present circumstances.

The other day I came across something said by Lord Reith. I once even met John Reith before he died. Noble Lords will know that as Director-General of the BBC he 1080 was not noted for treating governors gladly. He did not defer very much to governors as members of the BBC institution, according to all the biographies we read. But on one occasion a governor had the temerity to ask him for advice on the role of the BBC governors. He said: Whatever governors may be prepared to leave to the executive, they must decide and direct policy, and they must have a lively, comprehensive and continuing care for the product of the organisation they are appointed to govern". I hope that the governors of the BBC will have a continuing care for the very special product that is the BBC World Service. I beg to move.

Baroness James of Holland Park

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the Motion and for giving your Lordships' House a chance to discuss this very important matter. The major restructuring of the World Service and the BBC is as ill-conceived in principle as it was deplorable in the way in which it was promulgated. The senior staff most concerned were not consulted, including the deputy director-general, who is accounting officer for the World Service. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was given very little notice of what was virtually a fait accompli. The requirement under the BBC Agreement that changes to the home services should not take place without consultation was ignored—and that was a change to home radio as well as to the World Service. The governors, so reliable sources inform me, considered those fundamental and far-reaching proposals in 45 minutes, without all the governors being present.

Who is running the BBC? It would appear to be a triumvirate consisting of a chairman, the Director-General and McKinsey's! This is not what many of your Lordships had in mind when it vigorously championed the role of the governors during debates on the Charter and the new Agreement.

The nature of the fiction that I write may have given me an unduly sceptical and suspicious cast of mind, but I cannot help wondering what is behind the reorganisation which was carried out in such deep secrecy. Can it really be to save money? World Service programmes already cost 36 per cent. less than those made by the home services. Is it perhaps a ploy to bring the World Service to heel, as it were, to bring it more in line with current preoccupations and ideologies more popular with the young, more relevant, more accessible? Those fashionable words are usually shorthand for bringing it down market. Or is the reorganisation primarily intended to release resources to enable the BBC to compete world-wide in the brave new multi-channel, multi-media digital age? We are apparently to have as many as 100 TV channels. This prospect brings little joy to those of us who feel that there is insufficient creative talent to provide for the channels which we already have.

But should the BBC be using its resources to compete in this overcrowded, overheated arena? Should it not concentrate on doing superbly well what it does at 1081 present and on consolidating its position as the world's most distinguished and admired provider of public service broadcasting? And who is to make that decision? What voice, what influence are Parliament and the licence payers to have? We return to the question so often asked in recent days: whose BBC is it?

There are many questions to which I should like an answer. How many redundancies are expected as a result of the restructuring and what will be the cost? Managerial revolutions do not come cheaply, particularly when outside management consultants have a hand in them. The BBC accounts for 1995–96 show restructuring costs of £31.3 million in 1994–95 and £35.2 million in 1995–96. What is the expected cost of this new upheaval?

Another consideration arises from the restructuring. The World Service is paid for by Foreign and Commonwealth Office grants in aid and its accounts are subject to regular scrutiny by the National Audit Office. Now that the World Service and the domestic services are to become so closely related, would it not be proper for the BBC accounts also to be subject to National Audit Office scrutiny? I believe that there are many who would welcome this reform and some who feel that it is overdue.

I think that I know what will happen. Senior staff will be propitiated, small concessions will be made and assurances will be given. Parliament will go into Recess and the fuss will die down. Staff who are devoted to the World Service will somehow resolve to try and make the new arrangements work. The restructuring will go ahead. I hope that I am wrong but I am not sanguine. We have seen it all before. But harm will have been done—and not only to the World Service.

To speak today of the ethos of the BBC is to risk being called sentimental, naive or wilfully ignorant of the imperatives of the modern broadcasting age. But the affection, respect and admiration in which the BBC is held both at home and abroad rest on more than the number of listeners and viewers—on more, even, than the quality of its programmes. It rests on trust.

I conclude as I began. This restructuring was not well done. The fact that those responsible are apparently unable or unwilling to recognise that fact is one of the most depressing aspects of a deeply depressing episode in the history of the BBC.

Lord Donoughue

My Lords, first, I wish to praise my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth for raising this important issue in such an ingenious way today. I draw attention to the fact that in another place 264 Members of Parliament have already signed the Early Day Motion.

There are two elements of concern here: one is the actual substance of the management changes; and the other is the handling of those changes. As regards the second, the BBC has clearly handled matters badly. It seems to me a curious feature of the new BBC regime that while it spends millions of pounds on employing consultants, it appears not to believe in consultation.

1082 The art of management in modern services is to nurture the commitment and carry the support of key staff. It is clear that the BBC has not done that here. The Government and the new chairman will need to act quickly to repair damage and to halt demoralisation.

On the substance of the changes, I must say that my personal view is that the internal management of the BBC is a matter for BBC management. But what is happening to the World Service goes, I suspect, beyond those boundaries of internal management and introduces effectively a change of service.

The changes threaten to have radical implications for the future of the World Service, as has already been pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady James. Above all, we fear the erosion of the distinctiveness of the World Service if it is merged into domestic news because it has distinct audiences and a distinct approach to them. They may be swamped by an increase in domestic news.

I accept that that is not the BBC's intention but many of us have experience of corporate politics. Large central departments tend to absorb new acquisitions and by a remorseless process, like the tide endlessly coming in, wash away all distinctiveness. I saw that personally in the City when I was a stockbroker. The merchant banks paid huge sums to buy us stockbrokers and then slowly crushed the distinctive qualities and assets for which they had paid so much. That is my fear for the BBC World Service: that the process of what might be called Stalinist centralisation and bureaucratic homogenising will erode its distinctive virtues which are the foundation of its great historic success. In particular, I am concerned also about the separation of the World Service news from the foreign language services which have often been a valuable source of the unique view which they bring to overseas news.

Given those worries and uncertainties, we on this side of the House suggest that those changes specific to the World Service should be completely stopped until there has been proper consultation with all relevant parties. I should point out that that is more necessary in a public service company than in a private company. It should be delayed until the implications of the reforms for the World Service are much clearer.

The World Service is a great national asset of international fame. If your Lordships look at the BBC report which came through my door yesterday, it praises the World Service for its reputation, intelligence and integrity. It points out that more people than ever are listening to it and how it won three Sony awards.

Its news production is cheaper than the main domestic news into which it will be absorbed. It is a public institution and not a private fiefdom. It does not belong to the BBC top management. It belongs to the British people, to the taxpayers who fund it, including all BBC staff and listeners. Parliament has a legitimate public interest in what it does. We wish to express our concern today. The BBC must start to listen because, on my observation, it is losing friends by the day.

Lord Runcie

My Lords, I am grateful for an opportunity to use a specific example of the danger 1083 which attends the new plans for the World Service and the centralisation of news and current affairs. It is something on which I shall speak briefly but about which I have some long experience; that is, the subject of religious broadcasting.

Religious broadcasting in this country has never quite rid itself of the image of itself which was dear to Lord Reith; that is, that it should be a kind of chaplain to the nation. Those who approve of that image watch like hawks to see that it is not diluted. We have had some examples of that many times in this House. Those who disapprove of that image see that the only alternative is to make clear that religion is a minority interest or a series of minority interests.

The result is that when the religious correspondent of the BBC appears, it is not so often in the midst of the news of the day, the mainstream events. It is perhaps on some technical matter like the implications of a Royal divorce or a specialist interest, perhaps what the Synod has been up to, or it may be something a little sensational like the ecclesiastical events in Lincoln.

In the World Service, religious broadcasting is something quite different and the interplay of religion and other news and cultural insights is vital. It is a core activity in the political and cultural life of the Middle East, Africa, India and, increasingly, in the Far East.

We have talked earlier today in this House of the Dalai Lama. The information about the activities, speeches and support for the Dalai Lama is gained chiefly by his followers from listening to the World Service of the BBC. In exactly the same way during the Cold War, in the old Soviet Union, believers obtained their Church news from nowhere else but the relevant department of the World Service.

Hence, religious broadcasting has a quite different perspective when it issues from Bush House to the huge variety of audiences that it must address. It may seem less of a chaplaincy to the world, which would be absurd, and it may be less evangelical, but somehow it is more seriously handled as a major ingredient in achieving human understanding.

A Harvard professor, Sam Huntingdon, has written recently a much debated article in which he points out that the fault lines of humanity in the future will lie increasingly not between ideologies or economic interests or nation states, but between civilisations in which religious attitudes will play a major part.

We must recognise the ability of the religious department of the World Service at Bush House, through the interaction that goes on between different forms of broadcasting, to perform with special sensitivity and in a unique way. I believe it is true that there is no other international broadcasting-radio agency like the Voice of America which has a serious and systematic broadcasting department.

Not long ago, with much debate, but not too much opposition, the religious department of the BBC was shifted from London to Manchester. I am not at all happy that people who made managerial decisions of that sort, without very wide consultation, will provide sufficient guarantees in the future for the unique contribution in world understanding that comes from the 1084 religious department of the World Service. I believe that religious broadcasting is just one instance—the principle may apply in other spheres. It is also a very powerful illustration of the danger of thinking that you can make this managerial change without loss.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this most important matter before it goes too far, and indeed, before Parliament goes into Recess. I shall not spend much time, simply because there is no time, on the substance of the proposed changes or their implications. I merely want to ask, perhaps not entirely rhetorically, what has happened to consultation in the conduct of public affairs?

In the past few days we have had three examples of major administrative acts and acts of policy being carried without consultation with those immediately involved. I speak of the restructuring of local government and, with slightly more feeling, of the sale of the married quarters estate. We now have this administrative act, for that is what it seems to be, put forward—unless reports from reliable sources are to be disbelieved—without any consultation of any effective kind with those most directly affected.

If reliable sources are to be believed, the main body of the governors of the BBC was not properly consulted, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was treated with a singular lack of regard and respect and the staff of the BBC, including those most closely associated with the World Service, were not consulted.

Only a few days ago Mr. Sam Younger, the managing director of the World Service, said in a speech to a Chatham House audience: The World Service is part of the public service broadcasting network. To many millions of listeners worldwide it is the very essence of public service". In her brief speech this afternoon, the noble Baroness, Lady James, mentioned that point. If that is public service broadcasting in action, I can only say that I tremble for the future. This is not public service broadcasting; it is public disservice broadcasting.

Other people have made this point but I make no apology for repeating it. The World Service is not a personal fiefdom of the BBC or any of its managers. The BBC World Service is a precious, national broadcasting asset in the first place. It has a worldwide reputation for truth, accuracy, impartiality and for a profound knowledge of the customs and cultures of the people to whom it broadcasts.

However, it is more than that. The BBC World Service is one of the most powerful instruments of public diplomacy in the world. It is as important to the Government of this country and to the foreign policy of this country as the Diplomatic Service, which it complements. In my view, this is not something which can be treated as though it were part of some in-house administrative experiment, conducted by fashionable worshippers at the shrine of the bottom line and of cost-effectiveness which seem to be at the root of most 1085 of our public policies nowadays. It is an act which will have profound political implications in this country. I repeat: profound political implications.

If as a result of this change the World Service loses any of its great assets and characteristics of conducting not only a great broadcasting operation but, as I said, a great public diplomatic operation, then, at the very least—although I fear that this will be crying for the moon—it is a matter for government intervention. As other speakers have said, this is not a matter to be left to the management of the BBC; it is a matter for government intervention or, at least, if the Government will not do that, a matter for parliamentary debate and, indeed, for both Houses of Parliament to discuss. It should not be conducted in this cavalier and, one might almost say, arrogant way.

I conclude by saying that those of us who proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Bill when it was before the House were persuaded to withdraw them in the light of assurances given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who has conducted all these proceedings with such great courtesy and patience. He said that we could rely upon the new regime at the BBC, operating under the new charter, to introduce a new kind of BBC with which we would all be happy. However, what is happening now is giving us very little comfort and encouragement.

Lord Habgood

My Lords, I shall be very brief because virtually all that I intended to say has been said very much better by other speakers. However, there is one point that I should like to make. I trust that the Government will not say, as has already been said in answers to both spoken and written Questions, that this is an operational matter and nothing to do with us. That would be an unforgivable "get-out".

At present, we are engaged in the most Byzantine piece of legislation that I have ever tried to wade my way through, which is all about the way in which the Government and public authorities should control broadcasting. If, when we come to a major crisis like this, which is also a matter of deep public concern, the Government then say, "It's nothing to do with us", what on earth is all this legislation about? Indeed, what can we expect from it in the future? That is the first and most important reason why we must have a proper response to the concerns which have been expressed.

The second reason is that, in my view, this is not simply an operational matter; it is about structures. The way in which a broadcasting service is structured expresses its aims and values. Therefore, inevitably, a change of structure will undo precisely what has made the World Service most distinctive. That must be a matter for our concern.

Thirdly, it must be a matter for our concern because, if I understand rightly, one of the things which precipitated the whole change was the reduction by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the grant to the World Service. Therefore, the Government are directly implicated. I hope that the plea for a pause—perhaps a six-month pause, a time for consultation and more 1086 debate—will be heeded and that we shall really see some action as regards the concerns that have been expressed.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford

My Lords, I also welcome the opportunity to speak and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, giving us this opportunity. I have been chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission for the past three years. On the whole, I have been very impressed with my contacts with the BBC and with the way in which it has seen its duty as a public service broadcaster.

I want briefly to concentrate on the body that should take responsibility for what has happened at the BBC; namely, the Governors of the BBC. That body was appointed many years ago to represent the interests of the community as well as the will that is expressed in this House and the other place.

I am surprised—in fact utterly amazed—that a body of men and women appointed to guard the public interest should be prepared to acquiesce in a new policy for which there was no consultation, and which informed the Foreign Office, a major contributor, only days before the plan was implemented. The governors of the BBC have, in this instance, failed in their duty. They may expect support for public service broadcasting in the future, but I am afraid that much of that support has disappeared over the past few weeks.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, I shall be brief because much has been said, and well said, from different quarters of the House. It was ingenious to find a way to debate this. I thought it might be very difficult.

My reflection is that this matter is too secret. I am afraid the body we are discussing has grown a little arrogant. It feels that it is sovereign. It is true that it can actually make governments and defeat governments. Sometimes it is busy trying to do so. The BBC does have a conscience—very much so—as I know from the previous chairman, but it does not like being judge and jury in its own case. When we endeavoured to find an independent body which could monitor and take up transgressions when they occurred, it was frowned on by the BBC and by the officers who advised my noble friend at the heritage department. This seemed to be going one too far. Some £170 million is involved. Finance is meant to be behind this move. This proposal is supposed to save money, as your Lordships will remember. I always doubt those who claim that their proposals will be much cheaper and will save money. When those proposals come into effect, they cost much more. New buildings have to be adapted and adopted, and much money is spent. But this proposal was intended to save money.

Unique opportunities have emerged from Bush House under the present regime. Mr. Tusa and other people have done wonderfully well. Many of us look to the BBC, and to the World Service to be balanced, impartial, and independent. This is a unique opportunity to keep it so. Let us not throw that away, and tear it up.

It is desperately important that world broadcasting should be flexible. Revolutions take place, new people come into power, amalgamations take place and it is 1087 important that broadcasting should be flexible. It should have its ear to the ground through its well-loved, unique and loyal people serving in different countries of the world. Do not try to centralise it. Let us not forget that this Parliament is sovereign. Action taken by the BBC unilaterally is not dedicated and is not inflexible. There is time now to make a change. Certain changes have already been made under pressure. Over 220 people in the other place have signed the Early Day Motion; so there is a massive movement to try to stop this proposal. I sincerely hope that it will have the necessary effect and bring pressure to bear so that at least we do not jump off this particular tower and wreck what is a very efficient, dedicated and loyal aspect of our country.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, many of your Lordships know that I am the vice chairman of the BBC. I declare that at the start.

The question of consultation is always a balance. It may well be that the balance was not entirely correct in this case. But I do think that the very strong reaction to any possibility that the World Service may be under any sort of threat shows the difficulty of consultation in this case. I believe the number of signatures in another place on the Motion is already up to 280. I wonder how many of my former colleagues have studied the detail of what is proposed? To talk in terms of major crises, without a proper analysis of what is being proposed, does not take us very much further forward.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I heard the speech by Sam Younger at Chatham House. He said that he wanted to study the detail. The detail was spelt out by the chairman a day or two ago in a lecture to the Radio Society. He said that the BBC will still remain a separately managed directorate. It will go on managing the grant-in-aid. It will schedule its own programmes; and its editorial independence will be absolutely inviolate. It can specify what programmes it requires from the BBC News Unit and its authority will not be reduced. Its nature will remain entirely distinctive.

The governors are charged with looking after the public interest. I take this very seriously, as do my colleagues. When I spoke on the Broadcasting Bill—I think at Second Reading—I spoke about the experiences some of us had listening to the World Service during the war and have treasured all these years. Believe me, my Lords, I would be failing in my duty in the post I hold if I thought there was any threat at all to the World Service and its distinctive character and I did not create the most appalling row. But at the moment I think that if the detail is studied, it will be found that the threats are imaginary and that, in fact, it will be just as efficient as it has always been.

Lord Elton

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell your Lordships, because he is in a good position to do so, whether it is intended to merge the news-gathering services of the World Service with the rest of the BBC. If that is the case, I think he will have to say rather more to convince us that the character of the broadcast will not change.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, with the House in its present mood, I do not think that anything I say 1088 will convince your Lordships. However, although there will be a common core, it can commission what it requires and the distinctive nature will stay.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, perhaps I may just say three sentences. First, with great respect, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, can defend a situation in which not even the director of the World Service of the BBC had 24 hours' notice of what was being proposed. That was indefensible by any standards.

Secondly, I believe in the BBC World Service. This country has created, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, so eloquently said, one of the great instruments of diplomacy and one that we should not lightly throw away. I have seen the United States Public Service Broadcasting adopt hours of BBC broadcasting, which it would not do for anything that was not outstandingly excellent. I have seen throughout Russia the BBC World Service producing educational services on the new democracy and on the market system sans pareil, which nobody else has been able to equal. We would be most foolish to throw away one of this country's greatest assets. I very much hope that in another place the Foreign Secretary will do his very best to persuade the BBC management to turn away from this disastrous course.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, everything has already been said brilliantly by everyone else. I wish simply to say yet once more that it is absolutely vital that we insist on delay and that we debate this issue. Like everyone else in this House, I think, I am afraid I am not convinced that this has been properly looked at as an issue of national concern. It has been looked at as a piece of accountancy. Surely we are not going to allow something as important as an extension of our overseas representation—and something which brings the truth to the whole world—to be tidied away by a management cabal which has such contempt for everyone else in the BBC that it does not think it necessary or worthwhile to explain to them what reasons there may be for this proposal. It has not explained whether this is a good case, a good proposal, or a harmless proposal. Why could it not have been explained? It has not been explained. Referring us to public speeches and to public bodies is not enough. We are talking about the management of the BBC. Frankly, I have never seen such appalling man management in my life. I hope that we shall insist, as far as we possibly can, that this matter shall be debated in the House.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for finding this ingenious way to ensure that we have had this interesting and useful debate on the future of the BBC and of the World Service in particular.

I suppose it must be admitted that these matters may be a trifle beyond the scope of the particular amendments we have been considering. Indeed, I think some of them are probably beyond the Government's ability to provide answers to the questions posed. But one thing I am sure of is that the points raised will have 1089 been heard by those who can, should, and no doubt will, be able to provide answers. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, in some respects is better placed than I to be able to respond to a number of the points made. Indeed, it is a kind of paradox that probably your Lordships are better placed to tell the BBC what it should or should not do than myself standing at the Dispatch Box. Nonetheless, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this discussion and to respond to some of the points made about a matter which I believe is quite properly of general concern not only to your Lordships, but to the country as a whole.

Before moving on to the main body of my remarks, I wish at the outset to respond to one of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, who sought assurance that the post-privatisation overseas capacity of transmitters to go on operating would be properly protected. In that respect, nothing should change after privatisation. Indeed, the agreements for sale have been designed to provide that services will be securely available for the BBC both at home and abroad. Clearly, in a foreign country there may be a risk of a revolution, for example, which may result in a transmitter being overwhelmed by force. However, that is beyond the scope of what we are focusing on in this Bill.

I move to the main body of my comments. I begin by emphasising that the debates recently held here and in another place on the future of the BBC and the draft Charter and Agreement have focused on the constitution and obligations of the corporation. These are at the core of those documents which are the corporation's foundations. I hope I may remind your Lordships that how the corporation is organised to meet its obligations is a matter for the governors of the BBC. Indeed, paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement makes it clear that the corporation will be independent in the management of its affairs.

It is only right, of course, that governors who have the responsibilities established by the Agreement also have the authority to organise the corporation's affairs as they believe necessary in order best to meet those responsibilities. Nonetheless, the Government's legitimate concern is the BBC's performance. Our primary interest in the way it functions relates to the extent that its modus operandi affects its output. I believe that was the point that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, made. It is one that we very much accept.

We have sought assurances from the BBC about the general implications of the restructuring for meeting the BBC's objectives as established under the Charter and the Agreement. It seems from what I have heard of the concerns that your Lordships have expressed this afternoon—and other comments I have read in newspapers—that they appear to be based on the premise that organisational changes are bound to have an inevitably adverse effect on the quality of the BBC's services, and in particular that there will be a loss of distinctiveness in radio output and in the World Service. Of course it is right to be vigilant about such matters, 1090 but are we right to believe that there is inevitability about that? Does the evidence indicate that that must occur?

Certainly I do not believe that the governors would wish to pursue changes which they believed threatened the special qualities of each of the BBC's services. After all, that would be a direct breach of their obligations in paragraph 7 of the Charter. The BBC has explained that it is proposing change because in its judgment those changes will put the corporation in a stronger position so that its best qualities and attributes can be preserved and built upon in a future which is increasingly uncertain and challenging.

The Bill establishes the framework for the continuing expansion of broadcasting services and for the coming of the digital broadcasting age. Competition is increasing and will continue to increase further. The resources available to the BBC's successful competitors grow faster than licence fee funding reasonably could. In order to maintain its position as the United Kingdom's main public service broadcaster the BBC must find the money to invest in digital technology and to continue to provide the high quality programming which licence fee payers rightly expect. To do that, it must ensure that it operates as efficiently as possible so that it gives back the most it can to licence payers and to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the money it receives from that department.

In 1993 the BBC put in place Producer Choice as a route to increased efficiency. It divided the functions of channel controllers who commission and schedule programmes, programme production heads who make the programmes, and support services who manage the BBC's facilities. That reflects industry best practice worldwide. In the past three years that focus on efficiency has produced savings of around £100 million a year. It is that which has enabled the corporation to make more original programmes, to reduce the number of repeats, and to launch new services such as Radio 5 Live, which is the "Sony station of the year".

The present reorganisation is based on that logic and carries it forward. The Director-General has made it clear to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of another place this afternoon that the principles of producer/supplier relations are settled. It is how they are to be implemented that is under discussion—

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the comments he has just made to the House imply some lack of understanding of the World Service? Digital systems would not apply to a large part of the world and therefore the pressure for digitalisation does not meet the question about how we address the large numbers of people for whom that is a distant dream.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, the noble Baroness is of course correct in that in the immediate future digital technology will not be directly relevant to their concerns. Simply to drop the guillotine like that does not take account of the interconnectivity of the 1091 corporation and the fact that it has to work as a collective whole. However, I accept the point that the noble Baroness makes.

I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, who referred to redundancies and costs. I understand that the details have yet to be worked out. Therefore the level of redundancies, if any, cannot be explained at this point. That is a proper matter for further consultation which will, of course, take place.

Another fear that has been expressed both implicitly and expressly in the remarks this afternoon is that radio will inevitably be subordinated to television. Is that the case? Certainly in his speech to the Radio Society on Monday—to which reference has been made—Sir Christopher Bland, the chairman of the BBC, reminded his audience that similar fears had been expressed when the bi-media news and current affairs directorate was established nine years ago. But programmes like "Today" have retained their distinctiveness. At this year's Sony Awards the BBC achieved 26 out of the 33 awards that were given, and that is a record achievement.

I should like to turn specifically to the World Service. A number of views have been strongly expressed by noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Runcie, my noble friend Lord Pilkington, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and my noble friend Lady Park. Standing at this Dispatch Box I cannot answer their concerns directly. It is to the BBC, through your Lordships' Chamber, that the concerns are directed.

The output of the World Service is at record levels. This Government recognise the high value and quality of the World Service. Indeed, that is why we pay for it. Neither we nor, I believe, the governors of the BBC have the slightest wish to threaten the very qualities that have led to its success. After all, it is a service which reaches a record audience of at least 140 million people—more than twice the size of its nearest competitor—and provides a trusted source of objective news even in some of the darker corners of the world. It is a great ambassador and advertisement for this country; a great service to the whole world and the ideals we all share in this country and which underpin our democracy.

This Government always have been and are now a strong supporter of the World Service. After all, despite living in an era of stringency in public sector expenditure, in real terms the funding that the World Service receives has increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. Of course, we have a more direct responsibility for the objectives and funding of the World Service than for the Home Service. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was understandably anxious when it was told of the organisational changes for the World Service. It is because of that that we sought assurances from the BBC, as my noble friend Lady Chalker confirmed in this House on 2nd July.

Assurances have been given that the quality and character of the service will not be diminished. The clear separation between the grant-in-aid funded World Service and the BBC's other activities will be 1092 maintained. We shall be fully consulted on the implementation of the reorganisation so that we can be confident, as we are fully entitled to be, that the World Service will go on meeting its obligations under the agreement and continue to maintain that quality which is its distinctive hallmark. I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be meeting Sir Christopher Bland to discuss those matters.

I must emphasise that the Government insist that the unique character of the World Service output must be preserved and that the service will not be subsumed into an homogenous BBC. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, pointed out, it will continue to be a separate entity complete with its own managing director. It will have complete editorial independence, with absolute control over the commissioning and scheduling of programmes from inside or outside the BBC. It will retain responsibility for the production of services in 43 languages.

A dedicated World Service news team within the news directorate—I understand that the World Service news team is to remain at Bush House in the immediate future—will be able to draw on the resources of the whole organisation to provide news tailored to the World Service's specifications. The World Service and the main news operations of the BBC already work closely together. A considerable number of World Service reports come from BBC news and current affairs correspondents. The proposals will produce further economies, not least enabling the World Service to make a greater contribution to the work of the BBC as a whole than it does at present. That in turn will reduce unit costs.

As my noble friend Lady James emphasised, the World Service already has a good record for producing cost-effective programmes. Those economies and the more effective use of staff resources should further benefit the World Service and increase and improve the work it does. In addition, the World Service broadcasts material other than news, and there is considerable scope for avoiding duplication in, to give two examples, sports coverage and drama. At present there is duplication which, by definition, costs money and that is something that could be eliminated.

In short, while your Lordships are right to be cautious about changes in the way the World Service is arranged and to question critically what is happening, are we right in supposing inevitably that the fears expressed are well founded, either on the basis of the facts as they are or upon the inherent logic of what is being proposed? The BBC governors' duty is to ensure that the BBC meets the obligations laid upon it under the Charter and Agreement. They must ensure that programme standards and the distinctiveness of the BBC services are safeguarded and that the way in which the BBC is organised contributes to rather than detracts from those obligations.

I conclude with the World Service. The Chairman and the Governors of the BBC are committed by the Charter to uphold the distinctive quality and characteristics of 1093 the service. The Government pay for the World Service. This Government are adamant that it shall not be transmuted from gold into base metal.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he elaborate upon the point he just made? He said that under the new dispensation the BBC World Service will still have its own managing director. As far as I can see from the table of organisation drawn up by the BBC, there is no managing director shown in the organisation for BBC News. Indeed, the editor of the World Service news programmes reports to Mr. Peter Bell, the head of news programmes, and the controller of BBC World News reports to Jenny Abramski of Continuous News Services. Where does the autonomous managing director fit in?

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asks a difficult question about proposals. It is difficult to answer emphatically. I am confident in what I have explained to your Lordships. I am sure that if the noble Lord makes express inquiries he will find that to be the case.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, we must bring this matter to a conclusion. I am immensely grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of my Motion. Indeed, a short debate of this kind on the eve of a Recess on a Thursday afternoon that attracts two distinguished former Governors of the BBC, two distinguished retired Prelates, a former Chairman of the Radio Authority and a present Chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is a debate to which I hope the Governors and Director-General of the BBC will pay close attention.

I am grateful for what the Minister said by way of giving us information on the questions that some of us asked. I can only say to him, and repeat, that we welcome the change being proposed in terms of maintaining a team at Bush House until April 1998, though—let us be clear—it is still going to be part of a much wider overall organisation, where the final responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief will lie outside Bush House. However, that change would not have taken place if it had not been for the outcry that there has been in both Houses of Parliament and from the public generally. That is ample justification for the belief that the failure of consultation has been monumental. If ever we needed the final evidence of that, it came in the information given to us by the Minister that next week the Secretary of State himself will summon the BBC to him for further discussion. That can only be the clearest possible evidence that the Government are dissatisfied with the degree of consultation that they have had, just as the rest of us are dissatisfied with the consultation that we experienced.

I know that it is a serious matter at this stage to move a Motion of this kind which, if your Lordships are willing to carry it, means that the matter will go back to the House of Commons. But, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State is calling the BBC to meet with him, it would be helpful for there to be an opportunity in 1094 another place next week before the House rises, on the basis of that well-supported Early-Day Motion, to give the Foreign Secretary every possible backing when he conducts that meeting. I commend the Motion to the House.

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Meggido)

My Lords, the Question is that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 144. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". The "Contents" have it.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, perhaps we may have clarification, I am confused about exactly what we have been asked to vote on. Is it correct that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is asking us to disagree with the amendment to which I spoke earlier?

Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, yes.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, the Government cannot accept that we disagree. We are not content.

The Deputy Speaker

Clear the Bar!

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 145.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 146.

This new clause effects the commitment which my honourable friend the Minister of State gave in standing committee in another place to bring forward an amendment to the Bill to safeguard news access to sporting and other events. The new clause provides that any provision in a contract is void in so far as it prevents the use of visual images from another programme for the purposes of news reporting in circumstances where the fair dealing provisions of the copyright Act 1988 would apply. Any decisions on what fair dealing constitutes would remain for the courts to take, based on the specific circumstances of the case in question. I commend the amendment.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 147. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 134.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 148. In speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 148A.

Amendment No. 148 will allow an order to be made in the future to vary the application of a statutory licence. The House examined the background to this amendment when my noble friend Lord Lyell tabled an amendment during consideration of the Bill in Committee. The Government do not feel it is appropriate to proceed with any changes to the statutory 1098 licence at the moment; but the amendment will facilitate changes in the future should they become appropriate. The Government have in mind in particular the possible removal of on-demand services from statutory licensing.

The amendment would also give the copyright tribunal the discretion to add an element of interest to awards, including a backdated payment or repayment to compensate any party who has been financially disadvantaged by the unreasonable behaviour of another. This power to award interest will apply to cases involving the statutory licence and can be used by the tribunal if it feels that a licensee has unacceptably exploited its entitlement to a statutory licence.

By reason of the scope of the Bill, the amendment does not apply to cases where copyright works are used other than in broadcasting or cable programmes. But the Government intend to apply this change to all disputes which can be heard by the tribunal when the opportunity arises. I commend the amendment.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 148A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 148.

There has been a good deal of discussion on the subject of statutory licences. I need not go into the meaning of such licences. As some noble Lords will be aware, an amendment brought forward by the Government in another place gave new powers to the Secretary of State to exclude certain broadcasters from the provisions of the statutory licence. I do not think any reasonable broadcaster, or the House, will have any difficulty in agreeing that such powers should exist.

As the Government have already indicated, clearly at some time in the future we may be faced with circumstances where it is necessary to exclude from statutory licensing some broadcasters with some particular types of broadcasts in mind. There is no problem with that. However, I tabled the amendment for two reasons.

First, I seek from the Minister an assurance, if he is able to give it, that before any broadcaster is excluded, that broadcaster and any other bodies relevant to the type of broadcast involved will be properly consulted. We have already had some discussion about consultation or the lack of it in relation to preceding amendments. But an assurance from the Minister on that point would be extremely helpful.

Secondly, perhaps the Minister at this stage could enlighten the House as to exactly what kind of broadcasts he has in mind for exclusion. Some of us have our own ideas, but perhaps he can guide us in this area.

1099 We are dealing with the prospect of on-demand broadcasting, which is linked with the new technologies which we have discussed at length. It has been suggested, that on-demand broadcasting would be a possible area for exclusion in the future. However, the definition seems extraordinarily wide.

As digital broadcasting becomes more widely adopted, as one might expect more and more programming will be available in an on-demand form. Viewers will be able more and more to select, order and receive an increasing range of broadcasts on an individual basis. One would expect musical content to play a large part, of which a small fraction would be the type of on-demand service that could be expected to affect the interests of rights holders. High-quality music recordings could well affect the sales of records in the shops, and that may well be a reason for introducing a refusal to grant a statutory licence.

It seems at this stage that in a vast number of cases there would be no adverse effect on rights holders. The reason for withholding permission for statutory licences is to protect rights holders. I am sure the House will agree that it is important that proper consultative procedures are put in place to make sure that no broadcaster is unfairly excluded, or that his particular type of broadcast should have been thoroughly examined to see that exclusion was just and fair. My amendment was tabled in a spirit of inquiry. I look forward to the Minister's comments. I beg to move.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I am very grateful to have had from the noble Viscount an explanation of his concerns underlying this amendment. I am very glad to be able to give him an assurance on behalf of my colleagues at the DTI that there will be further consultation and an opportunity for interested parties to express their views before any order changing the application of the statutory licence is made. I should also like to remind the House that no order can be made until it has been debated by both Houses, so your Lordships will have an opportunity in the future to express views on any proposed changes to the statutory licence.

It is also important to be clear that so far as we are concerned now, on demand is all that we have in mind for exclusion; but there may be other categories in future as technology develops, and precise definitions might well be rather tricky to make. Hence we felt it would be appropriate to have an order-making power of this kind. I very much hope that in the light of the assurance and the explanation I have given, the noble Viscount may feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply and for the explanation. Certainly that satisfies my concerns and the concerns of the broadcasters who have been behind my tabling of the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 149. I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 150. These two amendments extend the criminal and civil offences of decoder piracy to include the advertising of unauthorised decoders as well as their sale. Amendment No. 149 also increases the maximum penalties for those found guilty of the offence to an unlimited fine and/or two years' imprisonment.