Nasty dilemma for BBC

pressures on both the commercial and the public systems, but the BBC is

faced with a particularly nasty dilemma. The Murdoch ascendancy, and

Sky's increasingly probable domination of the mass market, pose a

challenge which it cannot ignore. Yet if it responds by moving

down-market it will find it hard to justify the imposition of a licence

fee for a product that is indistinguishable from the commercial brands.

The White Paper recognises the need to retain the licence fee as the

main source of funding for at least seven years. This commitment was

greeted with jeers from right-wing back benchers when Mr Brooke, the

National Heritage Secretary, announced the decision in the Commons

yesterday; but when it came to the point, most members were in favour of

continuing the present system.

A less provisional promise would have been in the interests of

stability, but at least the Government has, for the time being,

acknowledged the undesirability of dismantling the system which

underpins the BBC's unique and invaluable status as a public

broadcasting corporation which has to take account of things other than

just the commercial imperative. As Mr Brooke said, the BBC is a world

leader. He was right to confirm its independent status -- though it was

regrettable that he did so in such a qualified way -- and right to

emphasise that it will be expected to maintain the highest possible

standards. If there is to be any point in the BBC's existence it must

aim at excellence even under the acute commercial pressures that it

faces today. This should not mean elitism or obscurity, but it should

mean the refusal to compromise on standards.

The continuation of the licence fee system of funding will enable this

but will not, of course, ensure it. There seems little doubt that John

Birt's policy of mimicking the market-place has saved the BBC from

privatisation or experiments with advertising at this point -- Mr Brooke

indicated as much yesterday. But there must be worries about where this

policy is leading in broadcasting terms. There is a clear danger that in

the chase for the ratings some of the quality of the BBC's service and

the distinctiveness of its role will be lost. Technologically it faces a

similar dilemma. As was noted in the Commons, the corporation will

shrink into a very restricted public broadcasting role if it ignores

these challenges. It has to go forward and think in international terms

in order not to go backwards, but it must try to do so in a way that

will minimise the erosion of editorial freedom and will not simply push

the corporation towards privatisation.

These trends are of great concern in Scotland, where the thrust of the

Birt regime has been damaging and demoralising. BBC Scotland's role as

the national Scottish station has begun to seem insecure amid the

prevailing economic and technological uncertainties. There has been

concern about the restricted opportunities for programmes originating in

Scotland to be broadcast on the network. While it is generally accepted

that quotas would be a rigid and undesirable way of remedying this, the

need for some form of explicit guarantee is widely recognised. The White

Paper goes some way towards providing this by requiring that a

''reasonable'' proportion and range of output on the UK network must

originate in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland -- and by stipulating

that the BBC's annual report will contain a comparative analysis. This

will provide a useful yardstick, but the categories must be rigorously

defined so that programmes which happen to have been made in Scotland

will not be confused with those of genuinely Scottish origin. The

encroachment of international multi-media enterprises and the advent of

multi-channel digital television make it more than ever necessary for

cultural reasons to have a strong and viable broadcasting base in

Scotland, which must mean one with sufficient autonomy not to be heavily

dependent on external patronage.