11. How should the BBC be governed, regulated and held accountable beyond 2016?

[french frank]

11. How should the BBC be governed, regulated and held accountable beyond 2016?

Two thoughts:

1. The body roughly equivalent to the old Board of Governors/now BBC Trust should not actually be part of the BBC. It was said of the BoG that they could not be cheerleaders and watchdogs, but that seems to be exactly what the Trust is: there seems to be no real scrutiny worth the name of any proposals put to the Trust by the Executive. They don't have the breadth of experience to cover all aspects of BBC activity - witness the mess over DMI. An outside body could recruit ad hoc committees with specialist knowledge to consider specific proposals/business.

2. There should be (as Lord Grade has suggested) a BBC ombudsman. It appears that the management/Executive is accountable to the Trust which stands, as it were, 'in loco publici' (where the public is the licence fee payer). The public may well not be satisfied with the way the responsibility is exercised on their behalf; hence the need for an authority such as an ombudsman to consider appeals.

[french frank]

Well, that was the least interesting question so far, apparently. It is in fact quite vital, but never mind. I shall try to write something based on all the answers but they will have to be from FoR3 rather than "Radio 3 listeners", or even "radio listeners" or "the public" as there hasn't really been a very representative number of replies. 'Twas ever thus, but if anyone wants to add anything in the next week or two , please do.

[Sir Velo]

It strikes me as somewhat ironic that BBC news journalists bang on (albeit with good cause) about the toothlessness of the IPCC (and other watchdog organisations of publicly accountable bodies). "Get your own house in order" is a phrase which springs to mind.

The difficulty with getting a board of governance which has the capabilities to scrutinise, and hold to account the BBC, is the ability to find individuals with the necessary expertise who do not have a conflict of interest with the organisation (i.e. that they understand the sector, but are independent of it). Appointments to any board of governance need to be scrutinised with the same degree of rigour as the BBC itself.

Totally agree that the BBC needs to be scrutinised by a body which is , and is seen to be, entirely independent of the BBC. Give it teeth as well; no point having a toothless watchdog. For example, when BBC management say they are implementing changes in the direction of a radio station as a result of a Trust directive, the board of governance needs to refute publicly any such claims when they are groundless.

[french frank]

For example, when BBC management say they are implementing changes in the direction of a radio station as a result of a Trust directive, the board of governance needs to refute publicly any such claims when they are groundless.

Just uncovered another example - but unfortunately it's difficult to publicise as it was communicated in confidence.

In most cases, the relevant people simply don't know what's going on lower down the hierarchy. And the lowliest people of all ('mere employees') don't know when they're being fed wrong information by those above them.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i think that Blair is right; there is a gene pool problem in UK Public Service .... and the present Trust seems to be a serious casualty of the lack of ability ...

but there is also a cultural dysfunction too ... the getting and understanding of evidence, and the hard work of thinking things through over time seem a lost art .... never mind the character and integrity issues ....

imv we need a National Broadcast Media Board, as free of politics as it can be in the UK, charged with the high purposes of public service media provisions in vision, sound and digital .... this NBMB can then collect the License and spend it on a commissioning basis and dear old Aunt can go hang ...

how members of any such board could be appointed defeats me completely at present, but it must not be in the gift of any current administration ... perhaps , as we need such entities in other fields, we should revive the Crown Appointments Commission and make membership of such important bodies by Royal Appointment, that would give the Prince of Wales something real to do .... and shut the politicians up, what the Royal Hand has Sealed etc ...

but make no mistake the Tories are working themselves into a vicious attack mode on the so called 'la la airy fairies [Cameron and Schapps] [ironic since Cameroon is the most seriously air headed PM and lives entirely in la la land]

it is tragic to suggest the break-up of the BBC but i fear Birt and Thomson [inter alia] have brought it to such low levels of integrity, subjugation to politicians, and self interested greed that it has to go; i am suggesting a version of privatisation, but with the levels of accountability and service we need to develop everywhere across our national board of services and utilities ...

[french frank]

I think the Chair of the BBC is a Royal Appointment (in the way that such things are, like the Archbishop of Canterbury). In the case of the BBC Trust, they have specific duties but appear to have no idea how to carry them out rigorously, even with a support team of 60-70 people. They go through the motions and although they feel they have 'justified' their decisions (usually by repeating the phrase 'we believe' at regular intervals), they appear to be quite incapable of answering criticisms.