As the creative industries skills partner, Creative Skillset‘s (CS) submission looks at the key factors that enable relevant skills provision from entry to executive level. While Creative Skillset works across the creative sectors, the submission focuses on the television industry and public service broadcasting more specifically, which, according to CS, has been a driving force for innovative and high quality content across genres. However, with the rapid pace of change in business models, technology and audience behaviour, there is a high demand for a more ‘holistic and collaborative approach across not just PSBs but all screen-based industries’. CS identifies barriers to entry in creating a workforce from a wide range of backgrounds, and a ‘systemic culture of those wishing to gain industry skills having to undertake unpaid ‘work experience’, affecting the current state of diversity in the PSB workforce. According to CS, the Government’s Apprenticeships levy, if implemented properly, could provide ‘a timely and effective opportunity for industry to help diversify and supply a cohort of new entrants to PSB.’ Read Creative Skillset’s submission in full here.

Michael Bailey (Department of Sociology, University of Essex) offers a comprehensive submission in which he critically examines the historical thinking that shaped television’s social purpose and its democratic mission. He reflects on how these ideas can guide and shape current debates of the role of public service television in the context of the medium’s changing production, distribution and consumption practices. Bailey’s submission, amongst others, reminds us of the enduring values of good policy interventions which are enabling rather than prohibitive. He highlights Richard Hoggart’s important distinction between duties and rights for programme makers, legislators and viewers alike. The public’s duty is ‘to respect other people’s tastes’; legislators have a duty ‘to create structures and methods of financing for broadcasting which encourage the production of ‘good programmes’ and ‘to enable disparate voices to be heard’ and the duty of programme makers is to commission programmes that ‘bring before us all the widest range of subject matter, the whole scope and variety of human awareness and experience, the best and the worst, the new and the challenging, the old and familiar, the serious and the light [thus] enriching the lives of every one of us.’ Read Bailey’s submission in full here.

The Inquiry, chaired by Lord Puttnam, 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.

We have a number of concerns:

• 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 believe, however, that the involvement of DCMS 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.”
• Further to the above, we would like to see an appointments process that is meaningfully independent of government and that is not contaminated by the possibility of personal or political 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.
• Regarding the BBC’s commitment to innovation, we are especially concerned that the sixth public purpose – that of developing new technologies in the public interest – has been scrapped. 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.
• While limited parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s funding plan is provided for, the white paper firmly rejects the proposal that the licence fee should be set by an independent body. We note that the 2015 settlement requiring the BBC to pay for over-75’s tv licences was not subject to any parliamentary oversight and it is far from clear in today’s white paper, how the new process for setting the licence fee will ensure that the 2015 settlement process is never repeated.
• 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 the devolved nations can more fully participate in the governance and the regulation of the BBC.

We welcome:

• the eleven-year charter extension which 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 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.
• We are also pleased that a whole series of proposals that would have undermined the ability of the BBC to cater fully to the needs of licence fee payers have been scrapped. We are grateful that government listened to public opinion that showed little appetite for moves to curb the scope of BBC services, to top-slice the BBC’s budget or to prevent the BBC from running popular programmes at times of its own choice.

Further information:

• Janie Ironside Wood, Head of Communications, A Future for Public Service Television Inquiry. E: janieironsidewood@gmail.com | M: +44 7730 047 511

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.”