±±¾©Èü³µpk10

The private sector in media and publishing will be watching her like a hawk as she decides whether to give the go-ahead for BBC Three, and much more significantly, a digital curriculum for schools funded out of the licence fee.

The culture secretary should give permission for one and send the second back.

It may or may not be wholly sensible to devote around £98m a year to a digital channel aimed at 25- to 34-year-olds, but refusing permission now would be like closing the stable after this particular policy has already bolted.

The money has already been allocated to the BBC and all possible help is needed to boost a rather thin free-to-air digital terrestrial offer as soon as possible. The case from the commercial broadcasters was that they would lose £25m a year, and anyway this section of the audience is already well served.

Analysis by the Independent Television Commission suggests that £25m a year could indeed be lost. If the BBC were held to a strict public service remit, the damage would be much less - around £7m.

There's no chance of going back now. The BBC should have its new digital channel complete with firm conditions to ensure that this is not allowed to be a commercial channel in all but name. The commercial damage should, indeed, be held a lot closer to £7m than £25m.

The decision on the BBC digital curriculum is even more clear-cut. The BBC's plans should not be approved in their present form. Independent research to be published this week from consultants SRU will demonstrate that the UK's educational publishers could lose as much as £400m in potential revenue over five years.

The Digital Learning Alliance notes that the very threat of the BBC spending £150m on a digital curriculum available for 'free' has already pushed a couple of small educational publishers into administration. With the prospect of free educational software, head teachers are holding back on purchasing stuff you have to pay for.

At first sight it is unclear why the BBC should want to have a large presence in online education. Isn't it supposed to be a broadcaster, not an educational publisher?

Cynics see the outlines of another cunning Greg Dyke plan. Start with a licence-fee funded activity. Then when it has established itself turn it over to BBC Worldwide and commercial enterprise. Bingo! You have created another reason for ensuring the survival of the BBC and secured another stream of revenue.

Jowell should have none of it. There is a role for the BBC in online education. But it does not lie in duplicating the work of existing educational publishers. Rather the aim should be to concentrate on what the private sector can't afford to service - everything from English as a Foreign Language to languages and the arts. That really would be a public service.