The Inquiry welcomes those commitments in today’s White Paper that will provide the BBC with a degree of stability and confidence at a time of huge transformations in the media landscape. We remain, however, vigilant about the threats to its independence and its remit as a universal public service broadcaster.

An eleven-year charter extension will remove the decision-making process about the future of the BBC from the electoral cycle and will create a space in which to debate and discuss how the Corporation can best respond to ongoing changes in distribution and consumption.

We accept that a new system of governance is necessary and believe that, if properly constituted, a unitary board is likely to serve licence fee payers more adequately than the existing setup.

We are particularly pleased to see that the government has chosen to enshrine diversity as a core purpose of the BBC and we look forward to the development of concrete measures, underpinned by dedicated funding, that will transform both the employment prospects and representation of all minority communities. While welcoming the commitments in the White Paper we would also underline that the issue of diversity extends to all those with “protected characteristics” and we would like to see this reflected in the revised Charter.

We also welcome the commitment to investment in the future of the industry through the emphasis on the BBC supporting the development of skills training.

We believe, however, that the white paper represents a missed opportunity to develop a robust framework for ensuring the BBC’s independence. In the light of recent experience in other European countries where governments have put undue pressure on public broadcasters, it is vital that both editorial and operational decision-making are totally insulated from the interests of the government of the day. We believe that the involvement of government in the appointment of up to half of a new and powerful unitary board – including the chair and deputy chair – will not inspire public confidence and is not a sufficient guarantee that the government, in the words of the culture secretary, will “ensure [that] the independence of the BBC is beyond doubt.”

We would like to see an appointments process that is meaningfully independent of government and that is not contaminated by the possibility of political or personal patronage. Licence fee payers need a Board that is both free of government intervention and one that is committed to holding the BBC to account where necessary.

We are also concerned that Ofcom has been tasked with assuming overall regulatory functions. Given its existing duties which include competition issues, it is very well placed to assess the impact of BBC services on the wider media market and it has huge experience in arbitrating complaints. It is vital, however, that Ofcom is now provided with a regulatory remit that protects the BBC’s unique position as a universal public service broadcaster and prevents its rivals from vexatiously calling for sanctions on the basis that the BBC is not ‘distinctive’ enough – a phrase that runs throughout the white paper – or that it is treading on their ‘turf’.

One area in which this may become apparent relates to the BBC’s commitment to innovation and we are especially concerned that this commitment would appear to be under threat with the removal of the sixth public purpose: that of developing new technologies in the public interest. We feel that the BBC has made a huge contribution in the field of innovation – from the development of colour TV to the iPlayer more recently – and we would strongly argue that this purpose should be retained. As framed, the sixth purpose clearly extends beyond Digital Switchover (DSO) and it is therefore somewhat disingenuous to claim that the reason for the removal of this purpose is that DSO has now been “successfully completed.”

The White Paper acknowledges the need to increase accountability to the nations of the UK but there is little detail about how representative voices from across the nations and regions of the UK can more fully participate in the governance and the regulation of the BBC.

Above all, we remain mindful that the BBC still faces serious challenges. Despite the agreement to link the licence fee to inflation, the BBC will still be required to make huge savings over the next few years – savings that will inevitably have a negative impact on its ability to provide high quality content to all its audiences. Let us not forget that these cuts are largely the result of a licence fee settlement in 2015 that required it to pay for over-75s’ TV licences. This settlement was far from transparent – and was not subject to any parliamentary oversight – and it is far from clear how the new process for setting the licence fee will ensure that this is never repeated. The White Paper firmly rejects the proposal that the licence fee should be set by an independent body although it does now provide, at least, for limited parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s funding plans.

We intend to raise many of these points in the discussion of the white paper that will now take place and will produce a full analysis of how best to secure a thriving public service media landscape in the UK when we report on June 29^th.

by CIARA LEEMING, Big Issue North, 2 – 8 May 2016

The chair of an inquiry into public service broadcasting says people should take to the streets if the government attempts to limit BBC independence.

Film producer and Labour peer Lord Puttnam says public service broadcasting is vital in a healthy democracy – and a robust and independent BBC is key to this.

He warns the public to be vigilant as the BBC charter discussions get underway over the coming year. Even an attempt by the government to install its own hand-picked board of directors to the corporation would seriously weaken its independence, added Puttnam, perhaps best known as the producer of Chariots of Fire.

He said: “If our public service broadcasting comes under threat, we should hold the biggest march that has ever occurred in London – to show the government we won’t tolerate this kind of interference.

“I’m serious about this. We have to get the general public to understand how vital it is that our broadcast media remain independent in this country. The government wouldn’t even have to dismantle the BBC altogether – even imposing its own directors should bring people out onto the streets. We must fight to protect what we have.”

The peer is heading a probe set up to consider the nature, purpose and future of public service broadcasting, due to report in June. On 4 May a public discussion event will take place in Liverpool as part of this process. Film director Ken Loach and TV producer Phil Redmond are among the speakers who will debate whether television serves people living across all regions of the UK.

“Democratic future’

Puttnam believes independent broadcasting is vital at a time when newspapers are dominated by proprietors whose agendas are often reflected in their reporting.

He warned that countries where broadcasters are controlled and leaned on by governments – Hungary and Poland, for example – also see a weakening of politics.

He said: “Public service broadcasting and parliamentary plural democracy are completely intertwined. It is so vital that we can trust what we are hearing and reading. If all our media was in private hands then I honestly believe we wouldn’t have a secure democractic future.”

The inquiry is timely, since the government will soon begin discussions over the BBC’s charter renewal.

Meanwhile, culture secretary John Whittingdale told a parliamentary committee last week that he believes Channel 4 – a state-owned but commercially-funded station with a public service remit – could be better off in private hands.

Puttnam is also keen to maintain plurality within the media. He said: “If I asked someone in the north how they would feel if Rupert Murdoch, for example, controlled all their media, the likelihood is they probably wouldn’t feel too comfortable.

“Plurality of ownership is so important – we need to know our news is not coming from someone with their own agenda.”

The submission by an independent campaign organisation Save Our BBC focuses on safeguarding the BBC’s public service ethos, including its cultural purpose, social responsibility and the importance of its contribution to UK citizenship. While Channel 4 still fulfils its public service remit, the abandonment of ITV’s regional infrastructure meant that some fundamentals of public service have been lost, specifically regional current affairs and specialist programming. Furthermore, proliferation of television channels means that the overall television output is towards popular programming and shrinking of a range and volume of public service genres, with over-reliance on the BBC alone to provide free to air children’s, natural history and religious original output. While there is a considerable amount of public service content on non-public service platforms, the vast majority of it is not indigenous to the UK and does not necessarily reflect or contribute towards UK citizenship. According to Save Our BBC, while the production, consumption and distribution practices may substantially change, ‘the need for quality PSTV programmes and content will continue undiminished’, and the full range of information, education and entertainment ‘must remain available to be accessed by their audiences.’ Read Save Our BBC’s submission in full here.

According to Ingrid Volkmer (University of Melbourne), our communicative environment is no longer simply separated along the line of ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’ polarities. In order to sustain the public service model for the future, Volkmer argues that we need to consider it in the context of ‘an increasingly dense ‘fluid’ globalized digital environment. Multi-level networks such as Google and Facebook, it could be argued, provide ‘public service’ knowledge in ‘completely new areas from ‘web search’, to virtual libraries, to new areas of public service, such as navigation’, creating new geographies and public spheres in which to cater for the needs of citizens. Australian Media and Communication Authority (ACMA)’s media regulation, for example, proposes a new approach which ‘moves away from the centrality of media towards the centrality of the citizen, embedded in chosen networks of communication.’ Read Volkmer’s submission in full here.