Why does it so often feel as if the party has a lack of ambition for the future of the BBC? It seems that the only time we comment on it is when we’re attacking the Government or their proposals. It’s hard to recall when we last put forward imaginative plans to “secure the BBC’s status as the envy of the world”.

Actually I should probably quote that statement in full: “We can only secure the BBC’s status as the envy of the world by introducing a single, independent regulator for all public service broadcasters.” – Don Foster, 15 March 2006

The problem is the statement makes no sense. It starts from an assumption that the BBC already HAS status as “the envy of the world” under the decades old model of internal regulation but goes on to suggest that such status can only be secured and developed by handing regulatory responsibility to an outside body.

I don’t understand the logic – it’s not even as if independent regulation of the commercial PSBs has a good record in serving the viewer.

Over the last decade regulators have allowed Channel Four (the second publicly owned broadcaster) to enter contracts which prevent anyone outside the Freeview catchment area watching their channels via Digital Satellite unless they pay Sky or the cable companies for the privilege.

Meanwhile ITV has been permitted to all but abandon regional diversity, weaken their commitment to news, banish religious programming from the schedules and plumb to new depths of ‘quality’.

The broadcaster famed for original dramas such as Upstairs, Downstairs, Minder, Morse and A Family at War has become the proud home of Celebrity Love Island, Make Your Play and The Mint. It’s reported that ITV1 is likely to reintroduce bought-in US drama to the main evening schedule.

While the independent regulators ignored and approved these changes the BBC’s internal regulation oversaw the virtual eradication of imported content in prime time, real opportunities for independent producers (witness the success of Kudos which produces hit dramas Spooks, Hustle and Life on Mars) and the successful rescue and revival of the Digital Terrestrial Television platform following the demise of ITV Digital.

I’m genuinely unclear which of these decisions LibDems believe would have been better made or executed under external regulation.

“ITV has been allowed to abandon virtually any attempt at producing original comedy or drama”

Whilst ITV has been allowed to abandon virtually any attempt at producing original comedy or drama (save the soaps which now dominate their weekday schedules) the BBC has heavily invested in hit comedies, for example the BAFTA winning The Smoking Room and The Office, and dramas. From the cerebral Judge John Deed to the crowd pleasing Doctor Who BBC produced and commissioned drama is winning plaudits, awards and audiences at home and abroad.

Which of these shows would we be likely to see if regulation of the BBC was handed to OFCOM? The state of ITV’s schedule suggests very few.

Now some of you might be thinking I’m a tad unfair on ITV and other commercial broadcasters.  After all, the BBC has the guaranteed income of the licence fee whilst commercial broadcasters have to make money from their output and can afford to take less risks.

I’d accept that rebuke if commercial broadcasters – and especially ITV – made any creative effort to make money outside of selling advertising. Note, I said ‘creative effort’ – sticking a couple of educationally challenged bimbos in front of a cardboard set whilst the public pay £1 a time to be told their answer is wrong doesn’t qualify as remotely creative!

No, it’s the BBC which has been taking the most creative risks and then merchandising them to hell.

According to figures in the latest BBC Worldwide annual report “more than half a million copies of the [Doctor Who] series one DVDs and more than 200,000 copies of Doctor Who books across nine titles were sold“.

ABC figures released this summer show the BBC Worldwide produced magazine Doctor Who Adventures shipping 77,000 copies a fortnight.

This represents a lot of cash handed over at the tills, even allowing for the fact that some of the money will go to the retailer that still suggests a healthy return for BBC Worldwide.

Of course it’s not only Doctor Who which the BBC merchandises with such vigour, Little Britain and a host of kids brands are equally well represented on the shelves of Britain’s high streets and every sale helps keep the licence fee down.

Madly there are those who think the activities of BBC Worldwide should be hived off to the private sector allowing companies who have played no part in the production of licence fee funded content to take the lion’s share of funds raised by commercial exploitation.

Despite this commercial activity the Licence Fee will remain the BBC’s most important income for some years yet – the rapid adoption of the Freeview service suggests a growing widespread public unwillingness to pay for subscription TV and the advertising market wouldn’t support the entry of the eight BBC channels.

This being the case why are we claiming the “licence fee level must be fixed for at least five years” (Don Foster, 4 October 2006) despite the corporation having secured a further 10 year Charter?

Given the meddlesome nature of this Government and the hostility towards the BBC shown by the Tories in the past surely at least one party should be arguing for long term funding agreements?

If we really believe the BBC is “the envy of the world” we need to act to free it 

If we really believe the BBC is “the envy of the world” we need to act to free it from short-term political opportunism and the pressures lazy commercial broadcasters can bring to bear on a disinterested and ineffectual regulator.

I believe the best way forward is to support an ongoing basic funding formula with the ability for the BBC to request time limited increases to fund specific projects. 

The time consuming process of periodic Charter renewal should be abandoned  – the last renewal process took three years to complete (http://www.bbc.co.uk/thefuture/charter/charter.shtml) – with a perpetual charter granted.

These important changes would bring the “financial transparency and stability” (http://libdems.org.uk/news/brown-must-end-roadblock-to-fair-bbc-licence-fee-foster.html) the party rightly claims is needed.