A “very simple solution” for the BBC Trust

Newsline columnist Raymond Snoddy wonders why the BBC Trust is “probably doomed” – for no good reason at all – when overall it has done exactly what it was set up to do …

All those who stand up for injured puppies, lost causes, John Terry – sorry forget John Terry he has earned his kicking – should now get behind the BBC Trust and its beleaguered chairman Sir Michael Lyons.

It was bad enough when Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw decided it would be a good idea to abolish the Trust, thereby threatening to undo the careful work of his predecessor Tessa Jowell.

Now the Tories have also, according to today’s Times, taken against the Trust, although it is a rather strange front page splash.

Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt made himself perfectly clear on the issue in an interview with the Financial Times as long ago as last October. Hunt promised then that the Conservatives would abolish the “failed” Trust and consider tearing up the BBC’s Royal Charter.

Mercifully wiser counsels have prevailed on the Charter and now it’s only the Trust which is going to get it in the neck.

There is even no sign of symbolic hope for Sir Michael from the Lib Dems. The “T” word doesn’t receive a mention in their Culture, Media and Arts policy document.

Before the tumbrels are formally ordered it might be sensible to pause and reflect for a moment on what the then BBC chairman Michael Grade and Tessa Jowell were trying to achieve by setting up the Trust in place of the BBC Governors.

The problem was that when the Governors sat with top BBC management there was a grave danger that the Governors would be “captured” by the managers or, more likely, bamboozled because the managers held all the most self-serving information and data.

None of this prevented spectacular rows between Governors and management over the years, including two sacked director-generals.

The argument went that the Governors could never be proper regulators of the BBC until they had their own premises, their own staff and above all else the ability to conduct independent research to see what viewers and listeners actually wanted and try to make sure they got it.

It was also decided, in a revolutionary break with the past, that the usual ranks of the “great and good” would be supplemented  by Trust members who actually knew something about broadcasting. This has been carried out splendidly in the shape of Richard Tate, former editor-in-chief of ITN, and David  Liddiment , ITV’s former director of programmes.

Overall the Trust has done exactly what it was set up to do.

So what is the case against the Trust…

Greg Dyke, former Labour supporter and one of the removed director-generals now advising the Tories, has denounced the Trust as slow, bureaucratic, costly and a body that creates inbuilt conflict within the organisation.

Actually, a bit of conflict is no bad thing and is there any evidence that a replacement organisation would be any quicker, less bureaucratic or cheaper?

If you are carrying out adjudications on complex matters such as the market impact of BBC services or deciding appeals on complaints rejected by BBC managements there are time-consuming processes to be gone through.

Dyke, always the most impatient of characters, has suggested the regulation of the BBC could be taken on by Ofcom – a terrible idea on concentration of power grounds – or a new  public service broadcasting watchdog.

Oh how great the temptation to set up new quangos with fancy new names, changing very little.  The Conservatives now, apparently, want a “licence fee payer’s  trust”, whatever that might be.  Fine. Go for it guys.

Meanwhile back in the real world one of the worst accusations against the Trust is that it failed to deal adequately with the Ross-Brand affair.

The BBC was indeed slow off the mark but then the story, and its significance, was slow to build with only a handful of complaints after the original broadcast.

The suspension of Ross and Brand without pay, the resignation of Radio 2 controller Leslie Douglas, the departure of others involved and Trust insistence that nothing like it should ever happen again, can scarcely be written off as total inaction.

Should the vastly overpaid Ross have been sacked immediately? Possibly but that remains a judgment call. There may have been more than 30,000 complaints about the affair but an equal number of, mainly younger, viewers and listeners took up a petition in support of the duo.

The final allegation against the embattled Trust is that it can’t be a regulator and a “cheerleader” for the BBC at the same time.  Actually you can – Sir Michael has been making a decent fist of the dual role.

However, for those politicians whose brains find it difficult to cope with purposeful ambiguity there is a very simple solution, which would not involve tearing everything up by the roots again.

Sir Michael Lyons could give up his largely honorific title of Chairman of the BBC and be content with being chairman of the BBC Trust.

The executive board of the BBC has no less than six heavy-weight non-executive directors. One of them is Marcus Agius, chairman of Barclays.  Appoint him, or someone else, as non-executive chairman of  the BBC board and then they can get on with cheer-leading to their heart’s content and it needn’t cost a penny.

Of course politicians get so much more fun out of closing things down and setting them up again with a new fancy name that alas, the BBC Trust is probably doomed – for no very good reason.

Do you agree with Raymond? Email [email protected]