The BBC’s settlement with Government – and a definition of reasonableness

It is more than a little odd to be getting out the bunting to celebrate the fact that the Government has not dismembered the BBC, writes Raymond Snoddy

The problem with the BBC’s settlement with the Government over the Royal Charter boils down to one issue – a matter of definition.

The BBC has called the deal “reasonable.” Reasonable compared to what? And how was that “reasonable” agreement reached?

Is it really right to describe as reasonable a double-dip into the BBC’s finances over two Parliamentary terms that has resulted, in effect, in something like £1.3 billion being removed from the UK creative economy at the cost of around 4,000 jobs.

How reasonable is it to so diminish one of the important pillars of one of the few industries where the UK plays a leading role?

Yes, but you say it could have been so much worse. Indeed it could – but that hardly amounts to a definition of reasonableness.

Was it all a charade – a game of good cop/bad cop with Culture Secretary John Whittingdale playing the force of evil which, according to an elaborate pre-arranged script, could be resolved in the last chapter when the good guys in the form of Chancellor Osborne and Prime Minister Cameron ride to the rescue?

The graceless Whittingdale implied as much in the House of Commons when he criticised some of our most distinguished directors as “left wing luvvies” overacting to hysterical speculation as if the scale of the threat had always been exaggerated.

This thesis is possible but very unlikely. All the signs are that most of the hysterical speculation was whipped up by Whittingdale himself and that he fully intended to inflict more damage on the BBC and its near £4 billion a year intervention in the marketplace than he managed to get away with.

The final settlement was only nudged in the direction of greater reasonableness by last minute trips to Downing Street by BBC director-general Lord Hall.

It is good that the licence fee has survived – and for an 11 year cycle, which partly decouples it from the five-year Parliamentary cycle – but it is more than a little odd to be getting out the bunting to celebrate the fact that the Government has not dismembered the Corporation.

The fundamental problem going forward is that a whole series of changes that individually appear modest and even “reasonable” all flow in a single direction which could have a damaging cumulative effect – that of greater interference and potential political control.

External regulation by Ofcom, which has been made to seem inevitable, seems reasonable but it means a loss of autonomy for the first time in the BBC’s 93-year existence.
[advert position=”left”]
The greater involvement of the National Audit Office in the affairs of the BBC seems reasonable – indeed welcome in the case of BBC technology and computer projects. But it all depends on the definition of its role. Will accountants be able to second-guess the instincts of creative decisions where failure is often a way of life in terms of cost-effectiveness of programmes or editorial initiatives?

It seems entirely reasonable to ask the BBC to “carefully consider” any negative impacts on rivals – although commercial rivals have no such potential constraints on them. But is this code for the BBC getting into trouble if any of its programmes are too successful or too popular?

Indeed the BBC is being told it shouldn’t acquire programmes that any other broadcaster is willing to buy. So in effect the BBC is being banned from acquiring any shows or programmes apart from the dregs that no-one else will touch with a barge-pole.

There is also another £20 million raid on the licence fee by requiring that “unallocated finance” from the present Royal Charter period should go to other programme-makers.

The BBC will also have to put all its programme commissions up for competitive tender, apart from news and current affairs. It is difficult to see this as unreasonable as the BBC virtually surrendered this in advance.

Again a matter of definition. Will the in-house production teams of established and continuing series such as Strictly really have to hand over to external indies if they offer a cheaper deal and what will the NAO say if they don’t?

The fact that there can be a five year review or even break clause is another piece of political pressure given the weak state of the opposition and the likelihood of a new Conservative government able to take yet another bite out of the BBC in five years.

The greatest obvious potential threat of political interference – or at the very least the perception of it – comes from the rules for appointing members to the unitary board of the BBC.

Setting up a unitary board seems a perfectly reasonable thing which will end gaps in responsibility between the BBC Trust and the BBC board.

However, such a unitary board will be all powerful and will be able to oversee editorial and programme decisions. Extreme sensitivity is required over the independent methods of appointment and that has been markedly lacking.

This is the Government which has been criticised by Sir David Normington, out-going commissioner for public appointments, for applying pressure to get political supporters and cronies appointed to public positions.

The appointment of Rona Fairhead, chairman of the BBC Trust to chair the new unitary board until 2018 is a perfectly reasonable decision. The point is to get appropriate structures in place that will guarantee both the independence of the BBC and perception of that independence and that will stand the test of time. The present proposals are seriously lacking.

The Government is “only” appointing six members to the board who might be in a small numerical minority but they are the chairman, vice-chairman and the national members for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

They will form the spine of the board and yield great influence. If they all sing off the same hymn sheet damaging splits between the BBC executive members and the non-execs can be guaranteed and foreign critics will be able to describe the BBC – perfectly reasonably – as a state rather than an independent broadcaster.

You can call the overall settlement “reasonable” if you like but it really is a matter of definition.