ATV Network talks media with the Liberal Democrats' Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Don Foster MP...

The BBC seems to be a hotbed for heated discussions and how the corporation is run is always under scrutiny. What are your plans for the BBC?

The BBC is the best public service broadcaster in the world. It sets the standards for others to follow. But it hasn’t always got things right as the public anger over, for example, the Ross/Brand affair or executive salaries and expenses illustrates. To ensure both probity and value for money, there needs to be transparency. It should be possible to find ways for BBC accounts to be scrutinised by the National Audit Office. Equally, there needs to be tough, independent regulation of the BBC. The current BBC Trust arrangements are inappropriate as the Trust is both a flag waver for the BBC and a regulator. It should be replaced by a totally independent regulator for all public service broadcasting. However, it is also vital that the BBC remains independent of government. Current proposals to “top slice” the Licence Fee to pay for other, albeit worthy, projects must be resisted. If not, the BBC will always be looking over its shoulder to ensure it doesn’t offend the government of the day.

Is it time for Channel 4 to become privatised and join the commercial sector fully?

No. For years, Channel 4 has been tremendously successful in driving innovation across the sector. Hundreds of small independent companies and the public both benefit from its investments in original British content. Privatization would erode its creative edge, even if it kept its public service commitments, because it would be forced to seek short term commercial gains through “safer” investments. Even C4 themselves do not see this as a desirable route. Instead, as a means of helping C4, efforts should be made to re-start talks about the involvement of C4, alongside the BBC, in “Worldwide”; a link which could be of mutual benefit.

We have the news consortia project in which bidders put forward how they can supply local news, is this something you would push forward for all regions?

We support the concept of IFNCs, because  government intervention will be needed if independent local and regional news providers are to survive. The Tories seem content to abandon regional and local news, and are willing to risk the jobs of hundreds of journalists. We oppose their complacency.

However, we’re concerned over the lack of clarity from government about how IFNCs will be funded in the future. While the pilots will be funded from the surplus in the account of the Digital Switchover Help Scheme, the only long term funding option from the government is by “top slicing” the BBC Licence Fee; a move which (see above) threatens the independence of the BBC.  

There should be more serious consideration of other funding options such as spectrum charging, or using the profits from BBC Worldwide. Revenue from adverts shown around the Channel 3 regional news broadcasts might also go to the IFNCs producing the programming.

STV and ITV have had a difficult relationship over the past few years, do you have any comments on how the issue should be resolved?

Any differences between STV and ITV are unfortunate, but it is also a commercial disagreement to be sorted out between them. Politicians should not wade into this argument. However, it isn’t a bad thing that STV wants to produce more Scottish made and Scottish based content, so as long as in doing so they don’t neglect their contractual obligations to others.

As it stands, television has to be impartial to the best of its abilities, would you welcome a change to spice up the TV landscape (Fox News for example)?

Some do complain that impartiality laws restrain the media unfairly. We should reframe the question around our central concern, which is the quality of what’s on the British telly. Is news media of a higher quality where impartiality rules don’t exist? Compare Fox News to any British news broadcaster. There’s your answer.

What is more worrying is the threat of politicians to impartiality. The Tories are already talking about getting more of their people into the BBC, while Labour’s topslicing plans will ensure the government can threaten BBC funding whenever it broadcasts something they don’t like.

The 2012 Olympic Games, are we on track for everything to be completed and will sport development continue in schools and communities afterwards?

The Olympic, and let’s not forget the Paralympic, Games will be fantastic events. I’m convinced the project will be on time and on budget (at least the significantly revised and increased budget). BUT, the major benefit of hosting the Games was meant to be legacy; that there would be a lasting sporting, cultural, tourism and business benefit in all parts of the UK. In terms of legacy planning we should be concerned. Two thirds of all 2012 contracts have gone to London and the South East; so other regions are losing out. Sports participation is hardly rising; in the case of women, it’s falling. Far too many young people drop out of sport when they leave school. And it’s difficult to see how we’ll maximize the tourism benefit when the budget for VisitBritain has been cut.

A really successful 2012 will be one where everyone can see a lasting benefit. Unless more effort is directed to planning legacy, we’re in for a disappointment.

Originally uploaded on Feb 2nd as an exclusive preview for our ATV Insider Members. For further information on the ATV Insider scheme/to become an ATV Insider please click here >>

ATV News would like to thank Don Foster for taking part in the interview.