Just
how seriously does Labour value the public
realm? There was a time when it would have
seemed odd even to inquire. But that was
before the mania for marketisation took
hold. It is a question that is about to be
answered, at least in part, thanks to an
imminent decision on whether to grant the
BBC's request for an increase in the licence
fee of 1.8% above inflation for the period
to 2013.
The
BBC's original bid a year ago caused a
predictable storm of outrage, with
commercial rivals and the rightwing press
denouncing "greedy auntie"; but the position
of the government has been harder to gauge.
Labour has traditionally shared the view of
Chris Smith, a former culture secretary,
that the BBC is "the UK's most important
cultural institution"; but long before the
Hutton inquiry the New Labour milieu
included people for whom the idea that a
public corporation might be capable of doing
something better than the private sector was
ideologically unacceptable. The strategic
alliance with Rupert Murdoch has been
another crucial source of anti-BBC
influence. Certainly no one at Television
Centre is taking a positive outcome for
granted.
This is a pity because by any reasonable
standards the BBC has a very good story to
tell. In agreeing its current funding
settlement, the government set out a number
of ambitious targets: to improve output,
shift more production outside London,
increase educational content and pioneer the
shift to digital services. Moreover,
three-quarters of this was to be financed
from existing resources. In return, the BBC
has done everything that was asked of it and
more.
In
terms of the quality of its output, it is
hard to recall a time when the BBC has been
creatively stronger. Schedules that used to
groan under the strain of repeats and
imports are now full of popular and original
British programmes. A particularly strong
line-up of new drama, from Spooks and Life
on Mars to Bleak House and Jane Eyre, has
seen the BBC scoop plaudits and awards here
and abroad. The same is true of its comedy.
The
BBC has even managed the impossible by
reviving light entertainment with shows such
as Strictly Come Dancing. Add to this the
fact that it continues to be a world-beater
in factual programming, with Planet Earth
following the success of Blue Planet, and
you have a broadcaster at the top of its
game in the quality and the range of its
programme-making.
It
is doing just as well at meeting its other
priorities. The fact that its most
successful recent show, Dr Who (and now its
spin-off, Torchwood), is produced in Cardiff
shows a real commitment to devolving
programme-making. Its online educational
services, Bitesize and Jam, provide free,
high-quality learning tools that wouldn't
otherwise be available. (Bitesize is now
used by 70% of students revising for GCSEs.)
But
it is probably in driving the shift to
digital broadcasting that the BBC is making
its most important contribution. It's no
exaggeration to say that without the BBC's
willingness to salvage terrestrial digital
broadcasting with the launch of Freeview, it
would be impossible to envisage digital
switchover on any foreseeable timetable, let
alone the government's target of 2012. It is
only through the licence fee that it has
been possible to provide a platform and
content sufficiently attractive and
affordable to reach the necessary levels of
voluntary take-up. It's no use saying that
the market could have done this. The market
tried and failed, and it was left to the BBC
to pick up the pieces.
The
alternative was a digital divide between
those who could afford to access new content
through cable and satellite subscriptions,
and those who could not. In the context of a
knowledge-intensive economy, the
consequences for social justice, employment
and growth would have been deleterious. Only
a public-service broadcaster, committed to
the principle of universality before
commercial return, could have charted the
right path to Britain's digital future.
Since the BBC is often portrayed as a
cash-soaked bureaucratic monster, it is
essential to note that three-quarters of
this improvement and expansion has been paid
for out of efficiency savings and that the
BBC is in the process of shedding around
one-fifth of its staff. In the period of the
current licence fee, it has established an
impressive record of excellence and
efficiency. Ministers talk about using it as
the model for other parts of the public
sector, including the NHS.
It
would be perverse indeed if, despite that
implicit vote of confidence, the government
were to recoil from the funding decisions
needed to ensure the BBC's continued
success. The task of digital switchover is
far from complete and will require
substantial investment by the BBC to upgrade
transmitters and reach its target of 98.5%
coverage - including costs it is shouldering
on behalf of the industry as a whole. Other
developments, like the relocation of
production to Salford and the provision of
on-demand services, require additional
resources. Again, the BBC is committed to
paying through efficiency savings, but it
cannot reasonably be expected to do this all
on its own.
As
the BBC accepts, the existing level of
service could be maintained with a
below-inflation settlement. But the result
would not be a public-service broadcaster
fit for the digital age. BSkyB and other
commercial rivals would like nothing better
than to see the BBC stagnate through
technological and creative obsolescence,
leaving them to dominate the market. That's
why they have lobbied for a licence fee
designed to ensure precisely that.
It
is essential that the government resists
their efforts. Digital broadcasting expands
choice and makes it easier for consumers to
get what they want. But as audiences
fragment and commercial channels compete for
advertising by targeting "key" demographics,
it is more important than ever to have a
public-service broadcaster capable of
producing output with broad appeal.
Nations are often described as "imagined
communities" in which bonds are forged
between large groups of people who never
meet. This requires a popular medium through
which the national story can be told and
understood. At a time when forces of social
and ethnic fragmentation are becoming
stronger, we need institutions capable of
fostering a distinctive and inclusive sense
of Britishness. The BBC still does this far
better than anyone else. The question is
whether Labour really believes that it's
what works that counts.
· David Clark is a former Labour
government adviser.
Dkclark@aol.com