From February 11th:
BBC governance needs radical overhaul, Committee report finds
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report on the BBC Charter review says the BBC is an “extraordinary national and global institution” with a “vast amount to contribute as an international standard of excellence in public service broadcasting”, but that in a fast-moving world it needs a radical overhaul of its governance arrangements.
- Report: BBC Charter Review
- Report: BBC Charter Review (PDF 673KB)
- Inquiry: BBC Charter Review
- Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Its Director General is “effectively accountable to no one” but also lacks the support for difficult editorial decisions or to drive change through the organisation.
BBC’s accountability and transparency
Improving the BBC’s accountability and transparency will help it to continue to innovate and create superb programming, while addressing a culture that is still perceived by many as arrogant and introspective.
This was most recently illustrated by the “lobbying letter” episode: the Committee says it was completely unacceptable for the BBC to be secretly using stars to campaign “independently” on its behalf, and particularly disappointing that BBC executives refused either to investigate or disavow the episode and instead defended the BBC’s actions.
Committee findings and recommendations
- The BBC Trust has lost confidence and credibility and should be abolished. However, the problem that the Trust was intended to solve remains
- The BBC’s Board needs to be reformed as a unitary board and strengthened, with the addition of an independent Chair
- It awaits the results of the Clementi review, but in its judgement wider accountability should be the task of a separate section of Ofcom
- A new complaints procedure would see all complaints handled initially by the BBC itself, with both industry and editorial issues subsequently escalated to Ofcom
- The redefined BBC Board should re-examine the business case for BBC Worldwide and, if it decides to retain the wholly-owned subsidiary model, it should be subjected to greater transparency and accountability and kept under kept under review by Ofcom
- There remain concerns about the BBC Studios proposals on four fronts: State Aid rules, transparency and accountability over pay, the relationship between BBC Studios and BBC Commissioners, and the BBC’s regional presence
- The lack of transparency around salaries, and concerns over levels of pay for executives and talent alike, must be addressed
Charter review
In relation to the Charter review, the Committee says:
- The process of Charter renewal should be separated from general elections, to avoid undue political pressures, delay and uncertainty
- It does not believe there is merit in a short Charter of five years or so
- If the White Paper is delayed as expected, there may well be a case for extending the present Charter for a further period
Reformed BBC Board for improved efficiency and public service
A reformed, strengthened BBC Board would:
- Ensure that the BBC keeps to its public service commitments and maintains its distinctiveness between Charter reviews
- Support the Director General in streamlining the organisation and cutting costs
- Make it clearer where responsibilities lie, and cut down some of the confusion of purpose and bureaucracy that have undermined the existing governance arrangements for the BBC
- Provide challenge to the executives from a re-invigorated and properly supported group of non-executive directors
- Combined with audit by the NAO, provide a proper balance between independence from undue influence and public accountability
The Committee says any new Chair of a reformed BBC Board should be a “significant figure, ideally with acknowledged experience in managing large organisations”.
New accountability body to scrutinise strategy and assess value for money
The new accountability body would:
- Act as guardian of the public interest in the BBC
- Assess the value for money of the BBC and its services
- Openly scrutinise the strategy and carry out public value tests
- Have a power to initiate investigations into any activity of the BBC that raises a material concern affecting the public interest
While it should have no power to mandate changes as a result of this scrutiny—this would be the clear final responsibility of the BBC’s Board—the accountability body should have the power to recommend financial and other sanctions if it were dissatisfied with the Board’s response.
Ofcom should continue to be responsible for regulation of competition, economic and spectrum issues, and any other issues facing the whole broadcasting industry.
Chair’s comment
Jesse Norman MP, Chair of the Committee, said:
“We live in an increasingly divided world, and it is more important than ever to preserve an educated public realm, in which civilised debate and the exchange of ideas can flourish.
In this, the BBC has a unique role to play.But, as its own Chair and Director General recognise, it is not well served by its current governance arrangements. Based on more than six months of evidence and testimony, we believe the current structure, including the BBC Trust, needs to be abolished. In or judgement the key functions can and should be absorbed within Ofcom, the industry regulator, with suitable changes.
Within the BBC, the Director General should be made accountable to a new unitary board, with a Chair of the board able to offer guidance and support in driving change, streamlining the organisation and cutting costs. And the new board needs to address a culture within the BBC that has been widely described as bureaucratic, arrogant and introspective.
A key issue for the new Charter is how to balance accountability and independence. As a largely publicly funded, public service broadcaster, the BBC must offer good value for money to taxpayers, and be appropriately accountable for its spending (including on executive pay), for its editorial decisions, and for the conduct of its staff. However, it must also be protected from pressures, from the public and from politicians, which might undermine its ability to broadcast programmes that may be unwelcome to the loud, the powerful or the litigious.
But proper scrutiny and accountability cut both ways. The rushed and secretive process for the licence fee settlement last July was highly regrettable, especially echoing as it did the 2010 licence fee settlement, and the Government should take steps to make sure it cannot happen again. When the present Secretary of State was Chair of this Committee he made this argument very vigorously himself, so we hope we are pushing at an open door in this regard, and with many of our recommendations.
This is an initial report, and there remain many issues which we have not yet been able to address. We will be returning to these in further work.”
Really admire those among us who will go through this stuff as Alan does-and did.
Like climate change and the EU, need to worry about labours prospects?…i have no need anymore to even LOOK at what the BBC are saying or doing.
But thanks for trying to hold them to account.
No point in reform…we need the nuclear option on them.
I would make them a 4pm to 11.30 service only-with a BBC-free say on Wednesdays, so we can all detoxify.
I would farm off “news and analysis”…and make Channel 4 and the BBC compete with Sky for the freeview option to broadcast said “news”.
Subscription otherwise.
All money saved to be put into a Big Brainrot Compostbin..and divvied up amongst those who suffered years of abuse under their Ceausescu era.
Those who watched “Citizen Savile” or “Khan`ll Fix It “at the front of the queue.
The current Media and Sport Committee are buffoons. They intend to introduce a new 11 to 12 year Charter. Well to anyone who does not live under a rock (as they seem to) TV in its current form will not exist at that point. Young people do not watch TV. They live in an Internet age where news is derived from multiple sources and entertainment is selective.
Commercial TV exists on advertising. They are already switching to online media and revenue for TV will dwindle to nothing very quickly. This is born out by the birth of Netflix and Amazon ventures in the last 2 years. The young of today will be the average family of tomorrow and probably won’t even own a TV in its current form. TV is dead.
The BBC should be privatised now before various specialist units have no commercial value in the future.
As an example of the arrogantly Race, Gender and Science, Media and Political Censorship obsessed Bonkers Broadcasting Corporation. I noticed two strangely Orwellian programs are due to be broadcast today on Radio 4. So I looked at all the other programs listed today, almost all are of interest to left-wing Feminists or Multiculturalists and also a strange repressive Politically Correct science (Communist Education) Comedy.
9.00am: Multiculturalism
9.45am: Paris, France
10.00am: Woman’s Hour
10.45am: Female Sexuality
11.00am: Black film maker, Michael Jenkins, tackles controversial Cornish Festival “Darkie Day”
12.00pm: Idi Amins Daughter
1.45pm: 50 Indians (No 26)
2.15pm: Feminism
3.30pm: Japanese Saki
4.00pm: Alvin Hall on Gospel Music
4.30pm: The Infinite Monkey Cage: Brian Cox, Robin Ince, Dara O’Briain, Tony Ryan and Gabriella Walker make jokes about those who deny that the Climate Changes?
7.45pm: Female Sexuality
8.00pm: Migration and the nasty Hungarians
8.30pm: Analysis: Sonia Sodha looks at diversity in two Councils
9.00pm: Children fucked up by feminism
9.30pm: Multiculturalism
10.45pm: Book by a female winner of the Guardian Children’s Fiction Prize
11.00pm: Michael Rosen talks to female composer
But what about all those Astronomers, Scientists and Mensa members complaining about the BBC‘s censorship policy for climate science, scientists and scientific debate?
Who are these astronomers and scientists who you claim are complaining, and why should anyone care what Mensa members think?
Interestingly, such questions often get posed of supposed expert claims made by folk the national broadcaster selects to educate and inform… impartially.
And BBC editors or CECUTT then too often retreat behind ‘integrity’ to flat out refuse to answer.
Which anyone who cares about the abusive power of a £4Bpa enforced, unaccountable social engineering PR/media monopoly should care about a lot.
But you seem to have found a niche you are more comfortable in.
Whataboutery, as expected. In the absence of an answer I’m assuming these people don’t exist, except in Richard Pinder’s imagination.
Assume away. It’s a common trait in certain parts you seem happy to wallow in.
I shall continue to be concerned about a force-funded national broadcaster who will run ‘stories’ via the claims of ruthlessly concealed ‘sources’ across all beats, from political to science.
Even more when a supposedly trusted and transparent national broadcaster projects these into naked hit pieces for ideological reasons, based on untruths.
Mr. Pinder has appeared to offer you a fair list to meet your demand, promptly.
In contrast the BBC would take a year to get anything up to the BBC Trust, where the BBC would ‘find’ the BBC gets it about right, based on BBC belief, and shut down further discussion.
Or Hugs and a half a dozen FOI lawyers will be deployed to say the BBC doesn’t have to answer as they are the BBC and the BBC simply are not required to account for anything, Nytime.
I have been told off for revealing too much. But ask the BBC or the GWPF. I have a list of names, half of them well known to Daily Mail readers. But as the complaints are about censorship, those scientists involved with producing the answers are more important than the identities of those who complain.
Therefore the identities of the most important scientist censored by the BBC are Ed Fix, Carlo Tosti, Nicola Scafetta, Paul Vaughan, Tim Channon, Rick Salvador, Ian Wilson, David Archibald, Piers Corbyn, Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Gerhard Gerlich, Ned Nikolov, Karl Zeller and Jasper Kirkby.
These scientists are all causational Climate Scientists, unlike the BBC’s “Best Scientific Experts” who always turn out to be either environmental activists, temperature measurers or computer modellers. All advising the BBC to Censor those causational Climate scientists above.
And another Cartoon below gives you an idea of how the BBC came to produce its Censorship policy.
Also if you Google the names of these scientists, you will see the science censored by the BBC.